L T>B R J± R Y Theological Seminary, ( to, Shelf Book PRINCETON, N. J. Division Section...; ,S85 v.a CLARK'S FOKEIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. NEW SERIES, VOL. XVIII. Stitv on tijc SKSovos o( tljc UovU $(4u*. VOL. VIII. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. LONDON : J. GLADDING ; JACKSON, WALFORD, AND UODDER. DDBLIN : JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. MDCCCLXIII. THE WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS. KUDOLF STIEE, DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY, AND SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHREUDITZ. VOLUME EIGHTH. TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND REVISED AND ENLARGED GERMAN EDITION, REV. WILLIAM B. POPE, MANCHESTER. THIRD EDITION. EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. -ONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. ; SIMI'KIN, MARSHALL. AND CO. DUBLIN : JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. MDCCCLNIII. MURRAY AND OIB7J. PRTSTERS, KRESBCRGIf. CONTENTS OF VOLUME EIGHTH. THE WORDS OF THE PASSION. Page Fifth Word from the Cross, John xix. 28, .1 Sixth Word from the Cross, John xix. SO, . . 18 Seventh Word from the Cross, Luke xxiii. 46, . . . 27 The Seven Words Together, ...... 38 THE WORDS OF THE RISEN AND ASCENDING LORD. First Appearance of the Risen Lord to Mary Magdalene, John xx. 15-17, 50 Second Greeting, to the Women leaving the Sepulchre, Matt xxviii. 9, 10, 90 On the Way to Emmaus, Luke xxiv. 17-27, .... 100 First Appearance to the Apostles (Mark xvi. 14), Luke xxiv. 36-41 ; John xx. 19-23, . . . . . . .137 Second Appearance to the Apostles, Thomas heing Present, John xx. 26-29, 176 The Early Meal at the Sea-shore, John xxi. 5, 6, 10, 12, . . 204 Restoration of St Peter, John xxi. 15-22, .... 226 The Commission and Promises ; Mission, Baptism, Preaching, Matt. xxviii. 18-20; Mark xvi. 15-18, . ... 275 Further Explanation and Promise, Luke xxiv. 44-49, . 388 Last Words at the Ascension, Acts i. 4-8, . 405 Index, ... . 44] HARMONY Page Page .Matt xxviii. 9, 10, . 90 John XIX 28, 1 '» xxviii. 18-20, . 275 i xix 30. 18 XX. 15-17. . 50 Mark xvi. 14, . . . 137 XX. 19-23, . 137 !1 xvi. 15-18, . 275 XX. 26-29. . 176 « xxi 5, 6, 10, 12. 204 Luke xxiii 46, . . . 27 xxi. 15-22, . 226 11 xxiv 17-27, . 100 ji xxiv 36-41, . 137 »i xxiv 44-19, . 382 A □TS i. 4 -8, 405 THE WORDS OF THE PASSION. FIFTH Y^ORD FROM THE CROSS. (John xix. 28.) We have already seen that " after this" cannot be taken as expressing an immediate sequel to ver. 26. Ver. 30 allows no more room for the Eloi, Eloi; consequently it must, with the three hours' darkness, be interposed before. And it must belong to ver. 28 ; for it is impossible to place the word to Mary and John immediately after the cry of anguish, with which again the I thirst is strictly to be connected in its order. The sequence of the seven words, which is so often misapprehended, has a sound exegetical foundation ; although a spirit of contra- diction which wilfully finds fault may easily suggest doubts. The first has its uncontested place ; the last three are equally obvious in their connection. The second and third may admit of plausible doubt; but the connection in Lu. vers. 35-43 almost decides the place of the second; and, moreover, that place is justified and commended by internal evidence. To the thoughtful apprehension the Lord must deal with sinners (the impenitent and the penitent) before He comes to His own ; and further, the dismissal of His mother forms the fitting transition to the deeper anguish of His soul. It is His fare- well to the earthly relationship of life generally, the final pre- paration and detaching of His spirit for the last conflict. If, as appears to be here implied, John immediately led away the mother of Jesus, his resuming /jLera tovto would manifestly VOL. VIII. A 2 FIFTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. refer directly to ver. 27, and mean — After the disciple had done this, and then returned again. 1 Indeed, we must in our thoughts place the / thirst immediately after the Eli; partly because the victory won hurries the Lord speedily toward the end, and partly on account of the mockery recorded in Matt, and Mark, which is evidently connected with the cry heard by the people. The giving to drink which these two Evangelists relate is assuredly the same which according to St John was preceded by the declaration of thirst ; and that Jesus must in some way have given utterance to His being athirst glimmers (as Ebrard says) through the narratives even of St Matthew and St Mark. But there has been much contention about the special refer- ence, not so much of the elBcos as of the Xva reXeccoOfj. It is at first plain that the " Knowing that all things were accomplished — T€Te\eaTai" must refer pre-eminently and conclusively to the rerekeaTai uttered in ver. 30. This is the general sense of St John's words ; but we cannot on that account admit that this consciousness as to " all things being fulfilled," has nothing at all to do with the " saying, I thirst" which comes between. So Ebrard : " The knowing, etc., is not put by St John between 'when He had received,' and He ' said, It is finished,' simply because he would show that both followed in immediate sequence." For we must ask with what consciousness and for what reason Jesus first declared His thirst, and not till after- wards uttered "It is finished;" that is, we must do justice to the construction of " that the Scripture might be accomplished." To our mind it is altogether inappropriate to refer the ha, pre- ceded by no comma (as in many editions) at once backward to the Terekearai — Jesus knew in Himself that all was now so accomplished, that by this one thing more the whole Scripture would be fulfilled. Bengel, indeed, is in favour of this ; 2 and 1 On the readings rotvroe, and ioav it may be remarked that rccvrce, might be a gloss aiming to make the expression a more general postea, and the specific meaning of rovro (which, however, is quite plain enough to distin- guish it from tccvtx) was not clearly seen ; but that ilav does not express what St John meant, the accompanying, indwelling consciousness, compare ch. xviii. 4, xiii. 3. 2 With the remark, true in itself, but not proving his point, " The verb TiXta is applied to things, reteioa to Holy Scripture." JOHN XIX. 28. 3 so is Tholuck, comparing en. xi. 4. But we assert that in con- nection with the rereXearai this f iva would be superfluous and mere tautology; indeed, it would disturb the meaning of the rekelo-Oai, made here so prominent. 1 Thus " that the Scripture might be fulfilled" belongs here, as in ch. xiv. 31 (let this parallel be marked), to what follows, and first of all to the " I thirst." For, in St John's view, even such external individual circumstances as we find in ver. 24 belonged to the accomplish- ment of Scripture. But now comes the question, finally, whether Iva rekeicodfj is a remark of the Evangelist only (as in ver. 24, where indeed the soldiers did not know that they were accomplishing Scripture), or whether the Evangelist gives it as the conscious design of Christ, and thus connects it with the \eyei, " He saith." There are many important voices raised in favour of the former, and against the latter, as being unworthy. Olshausen says, u St John calls to mind that even this exclama- tion fulfilled a prediction, that of Ps. lxix. 21 ;" but that the iva is not to be referred to Christ, " as if His only object in uttering this exclamation was that this prediction might thereby be fulfilled." (The " only object" is quite another question ! Certainly it was not, but that does not remove the accompany- ing design of the utterance.) Lucke admits that the iva is de- pendent upon the \eyei, " but this iva (he says) is the expression of St John's own typological views, not of the Lord's design." And afterwards, " Had the Lord's design been merely to fulfil the passage in the psalm by this " I thirst," one would not know what to say." We shall, by permission, find something to say presently ; and meanwhile simply remark that a typological thought of St John, that is, of the Holy Ghost in his narrative, and therefore finally of the Lord's own (revived and no longer oppressed) consciousness, is not so altogether unworthy as to be an "offence." Lange, however, puts it most rigorously: " That the Evangelist does not say that Jesus spoke this word with a design only to fulfil the Scripture (again this captious and needless only /) is self-understood to every unperverted mind." Nevertheless, we feel that nothing is less perverted than to take 1 Olshausen regards the reference backward to dlug (though it might rather be regarded as to the rtTiteoroti) as altogether untenable. 4 FIFTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. the words iva and \eyet together, 1 — as would be obvious to every reader who had not been persuaded to take offence at it — and to regard the simple meaning then given as perfectly worthy of our Lord. We protest against the consequence which must be deduced from assuming this alone to have been His design : — it must then be supposed that Jesus, according to the Evangelist's view, did not thirst at all, and that it was not in reality His desire to obtain refreshment for His lips ! We protest also against bringing the soldiers, who ignorantly acted according to the Scriptures, into comparison with the Lord, who by the elBcos is distinguished from them in this mat- ter, and perfectly knew what He said and what He did. But we must not regard this concentrated and summary conscious- ness of all the specialities of the fulfilled Scripture as a con- scious summing up of all their particulars upon the cross, — after the mechanical manner of Richter's Bible (Preface) : " Thus the crucified Redeemer in a brief space thought over the whole Scripture ! He tested Himself whether He had accomplished all that He should suffer ; but He tested Himself by the Scripture." Even we can embrace much in our view without discursive consideration of particulars — how much more Christ ! The matter to our conviction stands simply thus. It is per- fectly self-evident that Jesus actually thirsts, and that He con- fesses this in a real indirect request. But to this we must add, that He declares His thirst, not merely in recollection of Scrip- ture, as knowing (which is plainly stated) that His thirsting and drinking were included among the all things which according to that Scripture were to be accomplished, but also with an express design (shown by the Xvd) to accomplish that Scripture. Van Hengel is also right in saying that Jesus uttered the exclama- tion also with the design that by the moistening of His mouth His weak and almost expiring breath might be invigorated, in order that He might be able to utter aloud His consciousness that He had accomplished all: — or, more concisely, that this 1 Hofmann also (Schriftb. xi. 1, 208), retracting his former assertion, admits that hoc belongs to Agyg/, and even makes this an evidence of the perfect voluntariness and freedom of spirit with which Jesus surrendered His life. But Luthardt cannot accept this grammatical construction. JOHN XIX. 28. 5 refreshment of His lips was necessary to the " It is finished." But this does not exclude the fact that it was necessary in another sense, because otherwise this accomplishment without the predicted " receiving of drink in His thirst " would not have been a full fulfilment of all things. Eieger correctly ex- presses the predominant interpretation of all orthodox expositors (of unperverted mind) : " The invigorating light entered His inmost soul, and He saw that with His final thirst, and the vinegar given Him to drink, all things would be accomplished which belonged to the fulfilment of Scripture." And Arndt preaches similarly the truth : " This exclamation was the ex- clamation of assurance that even the greatest sufferings of the body and of the soul had been predicted in the Old Testa- ment." He knew — "Now is all almost accomplished, down to this one thing" as Surenhusen says, " so that nothing more remains, besides the cup being given to Me in My thirst." And just on that account he further says, it is Xva reXeicodfj and not Xva 7r\wpQ)0f) r\ W actually took place. St John, it is true, attaches this to the mention of the thirst in "WJW — but so far with propriety, as the expression of the thirst, which was responded to by the r?n (and which the psalm presupposes), was the decisive point. It is easy to answer the words of Strauss, whose perverted mind thinks that " no one hanging upon the cross in the agony of death would go off with such typological play." For, first, the wonderful coincidence between the prophetic word and the most specific circumstances of the sacred Passion especially, is no play, but the holy earnest of God, for the conviction of such unbelievers as Strauss and his confederates, whenever they shall come to faith in prophecy and its fulfilment generally. And, further, Christ is no longer in the agony and conflict of death (as Strauss thinks, simply through wilful disbelief of St John), but in the commencing consciousness of fulfilment and the hard-won victory. And it is on that account He beholds so clearly this individual prediction, at the moment when it was to be fulfilled ; there is no playing, but the most sacred earnestness, in His declaring aloud His thirst and asking drink, in order that He, down to the last, might act according to the light and guidance of the fore written word. And in this (to contradict Braune) " He does not make Himself dependent upon fortuitous agreements," for the pro- phesied intimations are not fortuitous to Him — " He lives in the precepts and the will of His God" for this too was written in the Scripture concerning Him, as He had all His life JOHN XIX. 28. 9 testified, and is consistent with it in death. More consistent than such believing expositors, who are continually ascribing to their Lord and Master the half-believing views of the Old Testament which they alas entertain themselves. But it is now time, finally, after these necessary preliminary remarks upon the " / thirst " which Jesus cried, to enter more deeply into its meaning. It is the shortest of the seven words. The parched lips of the Sufferer can scarcely give it utterance, for the loud cry which went before had absorbed all His power of speech ; and yet, as it was appointed, so it was necessary, in order that, being strengthened, He might utter His last two words of victory. It proceeds from the deepest truth and ac- tuality even of His bodily necessity, through which He who called all who were athirst to Himself, the fountain of living waters (Jno. vii. 37) — is now as a languishing sufferer humbled. Since the last Supper He had eaten nothing, and yet had toiled and suffered immeasurably both in body and soul. Think of the exhaustion of the bloody sweat at the very beginning ! His present thirst, which had gone on increasing from that time, is likewise in His humanity the derangement of fever, such as the dying experience generally, and (for which Sepp may be con- sulted) the crucified especially. Thus it is the corporeal analagon and substratum for the exhausting abandonment of His soul; and this belongs as its continuation to the preceding, from which it is nevertheless to be distinguished by the return which it ex- hibits of His repose and confidence. Thirst, it is well known, is keener anguish than hunger, having been sometimes used in the application of torture; and so far the last temptation on the cross is greater than the first in the wilderness. But this parallel leads us to something further. As then it was not till the end of the concentration of His prayer in fasting that His bodily need came back to His feeling and consciousness — He was afterwards an hungered — so here. In the wrestling of His soul with His withdrawing God He had not felt the body, or, more strictly speaking, had felt it only as soul ; even in the Eloi Eloi the bodily consciousness had been absorbed in its co-opera- tion with the soul's feeling. But now the case is, as it were, inverted ; because the soul's distress is removed, and the bodv so strongly claims its rights, that all His combined pains are 10 FIFTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. compressed into and uttered in this thirst. And thus " this word expresses no new heightening of His agony, but is rather an evidence that His festal rest is already beginning in His soul. It is like the word of a hero, to whose consciousness it now first comes that his wounds bleed and that he needs some invigora- tion, after the heat of the conflict has been sustained ; like the word of a hero who begins in the consciousness of his victory to think of his refreshment (we add now — his promised refresh- ment) ; — and so far it is a most favourable token of good." (Lange.) Compare the far-distant type of Samson, which may slightly admit of comparison, Judg. xv. 18. Verily a greater than Samson is here ! This thirst is the Lord's last suffering — " the consummation drew rapidly near," as Rieger says ; and so in Ps. lxix. the word concerning it occurs at the end of the suf- ferings, and goes off at once into the prediction of vengeance upon the table of those who, in their first and last, their only act of compassion, were still unmerciful enemies. Christ feels now " the bitter remainder of His woes, the last drops condensed into one" (as Hiller says) ; and just so it makes the transition to the " Finished," being the only thing now wanting " that the Scrip- ture might be fulfilled." " Pain relinquishes Him not, until He has finally struggled through," says Draseke. The word by which He acknowledges and complains of this pang — the first complaint which He had uttered in His agonies 1 — is the most apparently inconsiderable of the Seven Words ; it is seemingly the most simply external, human, and instantaneous expression of bodily feeling: — how innumerable are the times that it has been and will be spoken after Him by dying mortals ! Indeed, this of itself gives it a great significance : — as an humble avowal, in the obedience of Scripture, and as His placing Himself per- fectly on a level with other sufferers, immediately before those most sublime utterances which were peculiar to Himself. It is literally true in that most obvious meaning which alone would occur to those who heard it first ; nevertheless, there must be 1 After a description of all His preceding sufferings, Eengel goes on : " Amid all these He had never said — I suffer. For the fact itself spoke of the sorrows predicted in Scripture : He does express the thirst, which was the confluence and end of them all, and asks for drink, for the Scripture had predicted both the thirst and the drink." JOHN XIX. 28. 11 something much deeper contained in it. It is not recorded simply because all that He said upon the cross must be recorded ; but all that He spoke was in its humanity Divine-human, and the most external element in it could be no other than a type of an internal and spiritual truth. Shall we in this word spoken upon the cross, in its place among the Seven Words, — the rest of which are simply words of the Redeemer, — hetiveen "My God, My God" and " It is finished," discern nothing more than the testimony that He experienced physical thirst % Even Langer, who holds simply to the " avowal of physical need," feels himself " standing before a text in regard to which we can hardly say how far the sensitive is the symbol of the super-sensitive." Yes, verily, we cannot and will not presume to say whether and how far the Lord Himself con- nected in His own consciousness a spiritual meaning with this " I thirst ;" what we said just now points rather to this, that even the thirst of His soul goes out in and is felt as physical need. But it was nevertheless His soul suffering the imngs of redemp- tion which experienced this bodily thirst ; and therefore to us it is not merely permitted but commanded that we should carry our meditation upon this word further, quite independently of the instant consciousness of our Lord when He spoke it. And so the Holy Spirit in the Church has from the beginning typically expounded to us this new Scripture, which records our Redeemer's appealing and supplicating thirst upon the cross. Let us then, finally, contemplate this word in the new com- mencing light, of which it is the first ray ! The fulfilment of Scripture down to this last potion was here concerned ; and even in this connection of the word with the fulfilment of Scrip- ture we have the beginning of its spiritual meaning. Arndt : " Hence though Jesus primarily meant by His fifth word His physical thirst, yet there lay in the background — since He now first uttered it, and uttered it that the Scripture might be ful- filled — a spiritual thirst of His soul likewise; He longed for the final consummation, the consciousness of the feeling of His eter- nal union with God, the perfecting of His sacrificial offering." l Thus, if we ask in devout contemplation (and this is the fulfil- 1 In the Breslau sermons : " The nearer a traveller approaches his goal, the greater is his longing to reach it." 12 FIFTH WOKD FROM THE CROSS. ment of all true exposition !) for what He thirsted, in the ground of His soul, under and in the physical thirst, 1 we must first of all say in the language of Ps. xlii. — for God, for the Living God ! But to tarry there is not enough, for He was emptied even to abandonment only for us, only as entering into humanity for its redemption, as the prophetic psalms testify. Thus He thirsted for the accomplishment of the redeeming work ; as, in order to that, that He might be able to say " It is finished" — for saying and doing are here one. 2 This is the substance and soul, as of all His bodily suffering, so also of this corporeally expressed word of His soul. This connects itself again, as the general spirit of this most concrete crisis, with the thought that in this suppli- cating appeal He whose right it was to be refreshed by all crea- tion, and especially to be gladdened by all humanity, but who had so awfully renounced all this, now turns again to this hu- manity. As Lange says, after giving prominence to that reflec- tion : " As He thus thirsted for the refreshment of this drink, so He thirsted to drink of the refreshment of love (we add — for the requital of His infinite loving!) — for a final human greet- ing, for human blessing. And if we pursue this to its deepest meaning, we may say that He with a special depth of feeling thirsted for the souls of men." This is the harmony of the traditional exposition of the Spirit in the Church with the simple historical apprehension of the first meaning of the word : as the genuine new theology and exposi- tion is called everywhere to trace it. But we cannot content ourselves with crying — How didst Thou thirst,Thou great Prince of glory, for the poor sinner, and for God on my behalf, that He in Thee might be mine ! For that transposition of thought into the past loses sight of the continuous influence and everlasting presentation of His suffering and death by the Spirit, as it is sealed in the Lord's Supper. Still in His glory He thirsts for the consummation, His heart thirsts for the full possession of His 1 Because, indeed, as Lange says, " in His life the corporeity and the life of the soul are not sundered, and go not separate ways." 2 He now hastens to the full accomplishment by fulfilling this last remain- ing prediction. As Nonnus says (here once more bringing out, in the midst of his pomposity, the true thought) : Qoarspov Metev eheci rep^uros iarotr- utvoto to 'hetyotft/ov. JOHN XIX. 28. lb redeemed. As He said, Jno. iv. 7, to the woman of Samaria — Give Me to drink! and meant thereby in reality — Give Me thyself ! (comp. ver. 34 in that chapter, and our exposition of ver. 7) so does His whole passion cry the same to us in the be- seeching of the word of reconciliation, 2 Cor. v. 19, 20. " I thirst /" — that is, too, a heart-seeking, all-comprehending super- scription on the cross. "He thirsted that we might thirst" — was the saying of Gregory of Nazianzum, and it goes to the full depth of the word ; for, in fact, His thirsting for our sake and consequently for us tells us that ice, whose souls are in need of the living God, should thirst for Him and His salvation, and aims to excite that thirst in us. Similarly John Arndt : " When the Lord said upon the cross, I thirst ! He thirsted that He might awaken and find in us a sacred, spiritual, and heavenly thirst. For as He Himself satisfies and quenches our spiritual hunger and thirst, so must we also satisfy and quench His hunger and thirst — as He says in Jno. iv. 34." Ask thyself, O hearer, as His word asks thy soul — For what am i" thirsting ? If I have forsaken the living fountain, and the hewn out cisterns, all the seeming living fountains of nature and the creature be- come dried up, and God in righteousness forsakes me — what and whither then? The answer is — Give thyself to Him, and He will give Himself to thee ; then, as a believing Christian, thou shalt not in distress and the dying hour lament in the language of the psalm of lamentation, because He hath fulfilled its mean- ing for thee ! This preaching interpretation is infinitely beyond the application which is so current, and which, though in itself quite right, so often stops short at mere moral application : — to wit, that we may, and that we must still refresh our Lord Jesus in the persons of His poor and suffering members upon earth. A few remarks must be made, finally, upon the giving to drink which followed our Lord's word. St John records it simply ; St Matthew and St Mark mention the accompanying mockery. Neither the drinking nor the mocking can be supposed to have taken place during the darkness ; and this is an exegetical proof that immediately after the Eloi it became light ; that the I thirst followed the Eloi, and was the occasion for the giving to drink, 14 FIFTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. which would otherwise have no reason to explain it. That which our Lord received and drank is called by them all ol;o<;, for pjn in the psalm, that is, vinegar, which was a very poor, but thirst- quenching drink used by the common people : see Ruth ii. 14. But the older translators by their o/ifal;, 1 and the learned dis- quisitions of recent critics, have only introduced needless confu- sion. This vinegar (which is not necessarily to be considered as only poor or sour icine), mixed with water, was a drink in common use especially among soldiers, and as such is called posca by Plaut., Sueton., Ulpian, and pusca by Vegetius. In Spartian (Life of Pescennius Niger) we read : " He ordered that no wine should be drunk in the expedition, but that all should be content with vinegar (aceto)" with which we may compare Lipsius, de militia Bomand, lib. v. dial. 16. Thus the Lord's word in Matt. xxvi. 29 remains true, and He drank no wine here. That which we read of in Lu. xxiii. 36 is either (which is possible) a particular mocking offer which St Luke alone relates, or the same with the first offer of that stupifying draught which St Mark calls icrfjLvpvLafjLevov olvov, and St Matthew (for 6'fo9 might also be wine) ot;os fiera %oX^? fie/iiy- lievovj with express allusion to Ps. lxix. 2 The passage in the psalm, which is in itself very pregnant, had consequently a two- fold external fulfilment, in which the rejected stupifying wine is to be carefully distinguished from the vinegar which was taken. It was fore-provided that all things should be ready for this last refreshment — the vessel with vinegar according to Job, the sponge and the reed. The sponge was, it may be, used by the soldiers to wipe away the blood which was sprinkled upon them, or for any other purpose. The reed was, according to St John, a hyssop ; 3 and this need occasion no difficulty ; for the crosses were not so high as is generally supposed, and there were several kinds of hyssop (Maimonides names four, Kimchi seven), one 1 Which Michaeli's Suppl. ad Lex. would justify. 2 Winer thinks that " Lu. generally is remiss and confused (!) in his narrative of the Passion ; but, as far as regards the offered and accepted drink, the remissness and confusion rest upon those who will not make the proper distinction." 3 About which he who will may read Bochart Hieroz. torn. i. lib. 2, cap. 50, de agnopaschali: but he will find the passage in St John badly treated of. JOHN XIX. 28. 1& of them with a long and stout stem, out of which they even constructed tents. (See in Sepp.) That St John has given this specific term not without allusion to the use of hyssop in the Levitical ritual, especially in connection with the passover, is thought not improbable even by B.-Crusius. But the opinion of some of the ancients (adopted by Bochart and Surenhusius) * is quite forced and incorrect, according to which the hyssop was an ingredient in the drink — " to make it more disagreeable." And so also is the opposite view of Salmasius, that the smell of the hyssop would be slightly invigorating ! Enough of these things; let us look more closely at the mat- ter before us. Who gave the Lord to drink ? The plural in St John may very well indicate the one spoken of by the other Evangelists, together with those who were around and assisted ; or it may be an indefinite nves. Yet in this B.-Crus. is right : the ol Be (which is the better reading) must be the crucifying soldiers of ver. 23 (thus Gentiles) — it cannot be supposed that any others would be permitted to offer Him anything upon the cross. Thus it was not one of those who stood around; the mention of Elias does not make it necessary to assume that he was a Jew, for Roman soldiers in Judea might very well have heard and retained as much as this, and would be more ready to think of this Forerunner or Helper, than have any regard for the true My God. Thus the most fearful cry of amazement ever echoed upon earth, the most sacred word of lamentation, with its deep mystery of consolation for a sinful world — is at once mockingly perverted by malignant wit ! And it was only a prophecy of ten thousand such instances, the same in principle, which Christendom has since witnessed. With as much open confidence has Jesus called upon His God — " as if He had been summoning a man near him to His help." Acknowledging this even in their mockery, they pervert it altogether, and mean : He says nothing more now about His God, Him He has given up (in heathen daring, He meets not His case now !) — He turns now to man again and cries for help. Or more definitely : He cries as the Messiah for his Elias ; for even a heathen would know that the two pertained to each other, and in the lips of a 1 The former changing the text into vaaaxov. 16 FIFTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. heathen this mockery has its full intelligibility and bitterness. 1 It is probable also that the name of Elias was already in vogue as the patron and guardian of the Jews, appearing in time of need: on this consult Eisenmenger (ii.S. 402 ff.). Or, was the speaking about Elias no mockery at all 1 Matt, and Mark do not expressly say that it was, though the former plainly enough gives the impression, by his outo?, of a half pitiful scorn. Olshausen (whom Krummacher follows in this) denies the mockery, and thinks that a secret dread seized upon their rude minds, and that they may have thought there might be some truth in the Messiahship of this crucified one, and that — Elias might appear in a tempest ! Thus, they would have really misunderstood the word, and said what they said in earnest, — this being " psychologically more probable." We certainly think not : just at the crisis of our Lord's abandonment, this amaze- ment of awe appears to us altogether unpsychological, in spite too of the wonderfully returning light (which would tend rather to remove their anxiety and inspire them with fresh courage). Moreover, the mocking meaning in the a^e? and acpere (of which more anon) is not to be got rid of. Lange improves upon the matter by suggesting that the great horror of apparitions from the other world — for they would regard an appearance of Elias as possible — came upon them in all its force; yet they at once tried to turn the suggestion to mockery, in order to defend them- selves against their fears. He says it was " as men in a dark wood striving to rid themselves of fear of spirits ; they call out the names of the beings they dread as if in mockery. They appear to scorn them ; but if narrowly watched and listened to, it will be found that they tremble." It may be so in ordinary cases ; but this scene at Golgotha, alone in its land, is raised far beyond all such analogies. If there had been horror here, it would have been too profound to admit of mockery. It was no other than persevering malignity, kindled afresh of hell ; and so mighty, that nothing like real compassion could stand against it. If we think of a holy shuddering as the result of the Lord's cry 1 A Jew would have thought : His Elias (John the Baptist) has been long dead — and now the false Messiah, who also must yield, calls upon him in vain ! And the Jews might have thus added their mockery, even though that was not first meant. JOHN XIX. 28. 17 of anguish, it is a deception by which we transfer our sense and feeling to those who were then present ; there was assuredly no other tone in it than that of the profoundest lamentation, no other influence could flow from it than the excitement of sud- den compassion, in conflict, however, with the return of keener mockery, comparing His present distress with His former lofty pretensions. During the darkness they might have felt amaze- ment, and expected some marvellous Divine intervention ; but when nothing resulted but this cry, and the return of the light, all their anxiety vanished and the mockery remained. And just so do the first two Evangelists, in historical and psychological truth, exhibit its immediate influence ; after the second cry, almost in immediate continuation, had strengthened the move- ment of pity. Some of the guard round the cross, 1 and probably others with them, began at first to steel themselves against pity (not fright) by mocking — This man, poor wretched Messiah, calls in vain for His Elias ! But there is one who thinks that the refreshment which His lips crave should not and must not be denied to Him ; and hastens (probably with the help of another or of more) to make preparation to give it. The others then speak, as it were mocking him for doing what might be now a needless thing — Let be, wait, let us see whether Elias will come and save Him ! So St Matthew ; and with this is quite consistent the characteristically more exact account in St Mark, according to which he who gave the drink also said — Yea, verily, wait and let us see whether Elias will come and take Him down ! The stronger KaOeXelv after the crooacov, the afere given back after the ae?, has very much the sound of a designed echo of their words on his part. "Acpes and afare are not merely age, but maintain their proper meaning. The first words meant in mockery — Do it not ! " Thou needest not to give Him any re- freshment, He has called upon Elias, who will do it instead." (v. Gerlach.) He who gave the drink, without being interrupted, mocks witfh them. Be it so, we will wait ! Either with such a turn in the thought as Pfenninger gives : " Indeed if Elias should come, that would be better to Him than a drink of vinegar (which, meanwhile, we may give Him) ; or, which seems more 1 For the following tig Ig xvrZv plainly refers to those who were alone authorised to give help. These were the ix.u koruTtg, the watch. VOL. VIII. B 18 SIXTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. in harmony with the spirit of his words — Let me, however, do this ; while we wait for Elias, let me support Him that Elias may come !" This poor man, that is, " thinks he must conceal his pity for Christ's thirst under a disguise of mockery like theirs" — " mockery in the lips, yet under the impulse of a good human feeling." Thus he is a type of all those who have the begin- nings of a good feeling toward Christ ; but, weak and double- tongued, join nevertheless with the world in order to excuse and hide their feeling I 1 But this admixture of mockery with pity is that bitterness and gall of sin which, according to the ideal, proverbial sense of the phrase in Ps. lxix. 21 (for ver. 20 denies the existence of any pure compassion), made the last refreshment of the Lord an additional suffering. (Hamann : God desired wine from His vine ; the vinedressers brought Him vinegar mingled with gall — this was what His Son drank upon the cross.) On this, and on no other view of the whole, does this prophecy appear to us to have been fulfilled, as well externally as inter- nally, that is, in the fullest meaning of the word fulfilled. On any other granting of His request than that which should expose Him to new indignity, Jesus, whose cry probably was uttered during the Elias-mockery, had by no means reckoned. SIXTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. (John xix. 30.) Terekearai. — It is finished. — " This word was in the heart of Jesus in ver. 28, and now is uttered by His lips." Uttered with more vigour, and with louder voice, in the consciousness that the last of the predictions concerning His suffering was satisfied. For the " Spirit of Christ," who was of old in the prophets, and who had now become Jesus in person, must have brought out to light the prophetic word with a precision and assurance of which our exposition (only then not " spiritless") can but ask in prayer some slight degree. Especially in Him was the dis- tinction clear, in their typical domain, between what was figure 1 More will come out in the prophetic interpretation of the whole. JOHN XIX. 30. 19 and what was reality ; and what traits in the shadowy typical figure were appointed to be reproduced for incorporation in the uew type, replenished with reality, of the great eternal history ! Not one of those who waited, in this passover at Jerusalem, upon the Lord of Hosts to see how He would show Himself in His servant and Son (Ps. lxix. 6), had faith enough, even after the word to the malefactor, to say confidently, in the words of Naomi, concerning this ?*n itoa t^K whose name was Tyh (in him is strength)—" Sit still, my soul, until thou know how the matter will fall : for the man will not be in rest, until He have finished the thing this day." But in the midst of their mockery — " This man began to build and was not able to finish !" He did finish His work, and swiftly ! Every work of God delays at first, and hastens at the end. The last three words of Jesus after His abandonment follow in quick succession of victory ; the last two especially are almost uttered together. It is remarkable and deeply significant, that this most compre- hensive and immeasurable of the seven words, this rereXeo-rai,, is found in most concrete connection with the last speciality which remained to be fulfilled, the embittered drink offered to His final thirst ! For no prophetic word in the lips of the prophets, certainly no fulfilment-word in the lips of the great Fulfiller, is ever dissevered from the most definite and most actual life, in which it has its root and grows : — altogether different, in this, from our mere forms of speech, so often abstract, vague, and unreal. With all its similarity to such a human phrase, this " Finished" of the consummating and consummated Christ includes in itself all the glories which should follow, with all the sufferings that should go before (1 Pet. i. 11) — and is infinitely more than any E.xegi or Consummation est which mortal might utter. Infinitely more than any reXos e^ei ra iravra poi of a dying man — which Grotius quotes from the comic poet to illus- trate this " proverbial phrase !" Least of all is it merely — Now have I surmounted all ! the end is come ! But connected with this, and making it a new beginning for the ages of eternity — ■ It is done and established ! It is perfected,, It is finished ! But what ? This marvellous word both speaks much and con- ceals much. The mysterious " It" — the subject of the predicate 20 SIXTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. is wanting : history from that time onward was to supply and utter it in its Divine language through humanity, even as history before Christ had pointed forward to it. Taith was to dis- cover it — every seeker of God, whose heart should live for ever (Ps. xxii. 26, lxix. 6), will seek and find it in his own heart, as in the Scriptures, the old and the new, which now agree together as " prophecy and fulfilment" with an infinitely closer concert, more fully and literally — and yet in the spirit — than in the books which we write with these titles. St John, who, as also an elBax;, looked into the heart of Jesus, and out of His heart into the Scripture, has said already in ver. 28, all things, all things — all things, too, wherein and through which the Scripture must be fulfilled. It is without ground and in vain that Liicke opposes this first and most obvious reference of the rekelv to the reXec- ovv of Scripture : " His Messianic work upon earth He knew to be accomplished — not prophecy" — as if these were contrasted or as if there was a distinction between them ! ! Again he asks, " How could the work of Christ be represented by St John as pre-eminently only the fulfilment of Old-Testament prophecy?" and answers that it is " far more an eWoTuj of God, a work anew revealed to Him by God" — as if both were not, according to the uniform testimony of the New Testament, one ; the new revela- tion in Christ being itself pre-eminently only an unveiling of the old Scripture, which already contained all things written in it ! When will our orthodox theology truly apprehend this, and cease to break the Scripture ! * Thus, in truth, it is All things which were written (Lu. xviii. 31), predicted, foreshadowed, decreed, with the sacred Ael and "E Sec on that account, in which Christ everywhere contemplated the ivToXr), the commandment, of His God. All things to which the Old Testament pointed as its end, and hastened toward in word, in type, in work, in his- tory. All things were done which the law required, all things established which prophecy predicted, all things abolished which were to be abrogated, all things obtained in order to be bestowed 1 Liicke even asks : " If St John meant by the nrihs&rmt, the fulfilment of the Old-Testament predictions, why does he not say in ver. 30, rmAsar** jj ypuQv)'} He could not say that, etc." As if we had here a word of the Evangelist John ! ! Thus Liicke, if he were a preacher, would be obliged on Good Friday to preach sincerely of the It is finished which the fourth Evangelist has so profoundly placed in the lips of Jesus. JOHN XIX. 30. 21 which had been the subject of promise. All things — down to the last drops of scornful compassion and compassionate scorn, after receiving which Christ's lips uttered this great word — were suffered which were to be suffered : but therein, at the same time, all things were done and accomplished, nothing was left wanting. The theology of ages has striven to embrace this " All" and to develop it ; and strives to this day in vain to ex- press it perfectly. Hase says well—" Suffering, Life, Work, All"— only that he has forgotten Scripture again, and yet according to this those great words remain to be expounded. Perfected and accomplished is — the great work of His life, foreappointed and given Him of the Father to do, concerning the finishing of which He had many times spoken, the last time in Jno. xvii. 4; — His testimony to the truth beforehand; — all His miracles and works as one work together ; and, in it, that which took place on Him and in Him as a Sufferer, the greatest and most essential act, which was the heart of all His acts. His conflict is fully gone through even to the final victory, in that last "baptism" for the accomplishment of which He had been so long straitened. (Luke xii. 50.) Fulfilled is that for which in all His human hunger and thirst He had Divine-humanly hungered and thirsted, that which brought Him into the world, and urged Him to His death — the atonement for the sins of the world. 1 It may be said, and it has been said (with most incorrect restriction of this rereXearai !), that there were many things in arrears of fulfilment at this moment — the crisis of death itself (whereof more afterwards), then the resurrection, ascension, and all things to the end of time, which were signified by another iravTa in Acts iii. 21. Assuredly, all this is to be added and accomplished, 2 but only upon the foundation thus 1 " He had come into the form of a servant and the hour of suffering, not because He could not do otherwise, nor that He might simply pass through and be able to say — Now it is past ! but in order to accomplish — not merely by bringing to its end, but by bringing into act and reality — the counsel of God, as it had been exhibited in the Holy Scriptures. This ful- filment of Scripture was, also, in His thoughts, when He cried — It is finished ! " Beck, Christl. Leben i. 417, 418. 2 So that it is a great error to deduce, with Kinkel, from this rsri-hiarxt, 22 SIXTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. already laid ; there remains nothing more to be procured and so far to be fulfilled I Moreover, all is already accomplished and fulfilled in the one offering, and flows only from its strength and victory. A new and a long process does, indeed, now open up again ; but to Christ it is only a course of fruit and reward, as before it had been seedtime and labour. The finished work upon earth is itself already the finishing of all that which is further to be done upon this earth as also in heaven, since He opened and received the heavens. Thus the word is by no means merely, although it is primarily, a "glance backward" — but it looks down from the central height, its view being as well forward as backward in its range. What a vast survey in the soul of Christ — if not viewed as being at that moment the Divine consciousness of omniscience, embracing the minutest particular, yet — as a human contemplation, closely bordering upon it, the vast extent of which baffles our thoughts ! It is much too little to say that " the whole history of the Passion, the entire scope of the life of Jesus Christ, yea, even the whole Bible " is included in it ; we must add all the whole history of the world and of the kingdom of God. Till the last day ? Oh no, it stretches farther than that! There is nothing lying beyond the reach of this word, not even in eternity, for it speaks of a real reA-o?. Here is the centre of the history of the world and the kingdom; this is the expressed idea and sub- stance of time and eternity. All that mankind, forsaken and yet not forsaken of God, had striven after in its search for Him, is present here. All that the world had struggled for — especially the Gentile world ; all that the world had waited for — especially the Jewish world, — is here secured and won. Again, in this Finished is already wrapped up all that Chris- tianity was from that time to receive, and all that it was to become ; all that is offered to entire humanity, which should and might become Christendom, in the new and Christ-pervaded history of mankind. Thus, to return to the most obvious meaning, the death of Christ, which followed immediately or was almost simultaneous, is assuredly included. But this must first be rightly under- that there was no ascension — and no real resurrection, since the body of Christ must " be conceived of as already glorified in the sepulchre." JOHN XIX. 30. 23 stood ! For, on the other hand, it is right to say that there is an undeniable significance and truth in the fact that this "Finished" which comprises at once and seals all the past, comes here before the "giving up of His spirit" to the Father. Thus we must conclude that not the last breathing forth and yielding up of His spirit in its precise and critical moment was the essential redeeming death or suffering of death, but that which took place before the " It is finished ! " Daub. (Jud. Isch. ii. 83) says correctly: "The Divine work of redemption was declared to be accomplished in the word It is finished ! and not first in the death which immediately followed." But he commits a well-meaning error which, slight at the outset, might lead to a sad divergence in the end, when he continues (as did Alting formerly) : " The Redeemer suffered and died (how then comes in the suffering as now first after the Finished ?) not in order that He might be (or become) the Redeemer of men, but because He ivas their Redeemer." This is well in- tended, as we have said, and has some truth in it ; but we are right only in saying that the suffering of death, that which was now fulfilled, as the essence of the atoning dying, is itself the consummation, as of the atoning work, so also of the Redeemer. For person and work are here one ; Christ has truly been made our Saviour and High Priest in the great conflict of His life, which here celebrates its victory. He is Himself in Himself made perfect, consummated (Heb. ii. 10, v. 9). — His rereXearao has latent in it a Terekec-fiai, through His own act of suffering — I am perfected and have perfected Myself! But in Him also His people ; for this Servant of God, who is at the same time the Son of God in the voluntarily assumed form of a servant, has more than done what it was His duty to do, and therefore His merit is of infinite avail before God for man. (Lu. xvii. 10.) Consequently all is now finished for the re- demption of the world — " even as in Adam's fall all was lost," adds Olshausen. That which was profoundly intimated in Ps. lxix. 4, under the veil of an expression which seems (though not literally) to refer simply to the personal innocence of the sufferer, yvfr* TK t6t:t&6 1^'k — "then I restored that which I 7 • T t • :-t v -: took not away" — is now fulfilled and sealed in its truth: He restored and made good that which not He, but Adam the man 24 SIXTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. — thought to make His own by robbery, and even thereby for- feited. (Phil. ii. 6.) Accomplished is all that which we could never have accomplished, but must have left for ever undone. All was restored which man had lacked ; and all was already secured and laid up for us that might still be wanting, so far as we are not yet fulfilled in Christ. The " Let there be ! " of the new creation (which is really the redemption after the fall, and not merely a fulfilling of the already begun creation) cost an infinitely greater work of the Divine power, indeed the only proper work it had to do; but now also the rest of God in Christ, of Christ in God, is greater and more glorious than that first rest, which therefore may be taken as its type I (Heb. iv.) Three times does this rest occur : In the beginning, Gen. i. 31 — in the final Tiyove, It is done. Rev. xxi. 6 — and here in the middle, where the foundation is laid for that last. The central point, finally, of this middle is the obtaining and restoration of the righteousness of God for sinners — of which Ps. xxii. speaks in its final verse. Most expositors of the psalm pass over this word; only few discern that the Lord is here using a word of Scripture, and (with supreme propriety, in order thus victoriously to include the glorious end of His anguish), referring to the same psalm the commencing words of which formed His lamentation. The words nby *$ 9 at any rate most emphatic, refer to God, but to that which God in this Sufferer performed, prepared, and accomplished for us, and which may now be preached to all ; and thus to God in Christ. Hengstenberg admits that "the last word of our Lord upon the cross, the rereKearai, refers to this nby" — and finds in it a plain direction for the meaning of this much perverted word of Christ. But now let us think upon ver. 26, and in connection with this the ifii?]? in ver. 31 ! The finished work is the "work of God," through which His righteousness becomes our right- eousness, is given to us. Compare the first official word of Christ, Matt. iii. 15, at the baptism in common with sinners, typical of the crucifixion. Look carefully at Dan. ix. 24, where there is a guiding exposition of the subject of the rerekearat. By what means and how did He accomplish all this ? On this subject there is silence ; the cross, on which Pie still speaks, JOHN XIX. 30. 25 itself tells us that. There is much concealed mystery in the All : one thing, however, is plain and certain, and it is enough for us — the announcement in and from this word that all is now ready ! All is yours ! Now there is room for all to come and receive! The subsequent fulfilment of all in us is not, indeed, independent of ourselves ; it requires our faith as the condition, but all is through His power, and out of the fulness of the riches of His merit and grace. All that may be called our accomplishing is to be received by our faith out of His. 1 u It is finished ! One alone could say this in the fullest sense of truth!" He might with perfect right have uttered, instead of this mysteriously indefinite TerekeaTcu (which leaves the question WJw had fulfilled vibrating between God and Christ), as a TereXecFfiai, so also a rereXe/ca, a majestic and absolute Exegi of the Divine power in Himself — I have accomplished, I alone , what I alone could accomplish. But, humble in His exaltation, He does not say this (although it would have cor- responded more closely with the nb>N of the Psalm) ; He does not make a TPbw, but a nb'JO, out of the nfe* of God in Him. • • t 7 v v: •:' 7 7 He says not, I have conquered and overcome all; nor, I have fulfilled all My sufferings. And yet all this is in His meaning. To whom, finally, does He speak this word ? The first utter- ance upon the cross was spoken to God, but for men. The second to a man, to comfort him with the salvation of God ; the third to mortals, who in the love of God and His love are commended to each other. The fourth is the first which He speaks for Himself alone with His God : — and yet most impres- sively for us all. In the fifth, though still almost alone with His own need, He yet indirectly turned to men. And the sixth — It is finished ? It embraces all the references of the others in one : He speaks it for Himself, for the world, and for the Father. He proclaims it for Himself in contrast with the preceding complaint, as a cry of victory and joy, 2 the faint echo of which 1 " Assuredly, the disciples became Apostles of Christ only in the faith that the Scripture was fulfilled through the shameful death of their Master, and that the work of atonement and redemption was thereby accomplished — not that it must first be accomplished in any sense through them." Beck. 2 Which Arndt in his Predigten S. 83 seems to have forgotten ; but see S. 86. 26 SIXTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. we hear from His disciple, 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8. It is not " trium- phantly'' that He proclaims His victory (as we often read and hear), but in the subli 'nest repose which has scarcely emerged from the conflict; yet this is indeed the most internal com- mencement of His exaltation. Thus out of the final thirst springs at once the beginning of the foretaste of eternal joy, the satisfaction in the fulness of gladness of which Isa. liii. 11 and Ps, xvi. 11 nin^ ; J* JD5P) speak. But this is in the secret of His heart as yet, because He is yet in the body upon the cross : His spirit is yet for a moment longer in the flesh. He speaks more generally, and in indefinite announcement, because He would speak it at the same time to the world, and be the herald of His own victory for its salvation, at that great crisis when the last of suffering and the first of glory met together. He here at the first, not deferring it one moment, preached the whole gospel in its entireness to His brethren, for the great congregation. (Ps. xxii. 22.) " The gospel which is now preached throughout the world, as based upon the sufferings and death of Jesus, is the unfolding of His word — It is finished!" (Rieger). This word was also in a certain sense " His last unto men" (as Lange says) — that is, as spoken^ among the words from the cross, in the body of death, during His humiliation. That which in the institution of the Supper and in the High- priestly Prayer He had anticipated in His disciples' hearing, is now 'sealed in ite reality by this final and most proper testament — Now have ye My fulfilment, My perfect work, your salvation and glory ! For this is not a departure from the world, in which He takes with Him and reserves for Himself the fruit of His fulfilment : — to show this He now openly 'proclaims it. Finally, He speaks this word out of the depth of His praying, thankful heart to the Father, as the ground and reason of what follows — Into Thine hands I commend now, because all is ful- filled, My spirit ! The thanksgiving is there as the last tribute due from humanity to God ; yet it is connected with the per- sonal rejoicing of the perfected Son before the Father, glory- ing in His own triumph. Therefore it is not — Thou hast re- deemed Me, '±uou faithful Fathex-Thou hast fulfilled all! but He brings and presents Himself in His consummated sacrifice — Behold it, O Fathc ! The Father alone fully understands LUKE XXIII. 46. 27 His Son; and, most profoundly considered, the unmentioned subject of the predicate is this — That is fulfilled which Thou knowest, O Father, that which Thou ( 'dst appoint, and which Thou seest now accomplished. This is the sealing and ratifica- tion of the work between the Father and the Son for all eternity. Hell from that moment hears the cry of victorious defiance, as if sounding already from heaven against all enemies ; while upon earth it might seem as if the death of Christ would give His enemies room to cry out — " Our work is now accomplished, and His is ruined : we remain conquerors and masters l" 1 The heavens hear the cry of exultation in the first pure tones which begin " the songs of deliverance." 2 And yet this great trium- phant word of consummation, which is now but an anticipation of faith, is followed finally by another word which is the last utterance of victorious faith — The perfecting self-surrender of the Son to the Father, as the world's Redeemer made perfect in the spirit. SEVENTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. (Luke xxiii. 46.) Although spoken before His Father and as a cry toward Heaven, yet the It is finished! was especially. directed to men upon earth — as the farewell with which He goes and yet re- mains, as the testament, the bestowment and participation of which then immediately began. And now first comes His own last word, which stretching on to eternity announces His en- trance into the presence of God — that is, as the Forerunner, taking us with Him and fetching us after Him ! For all that is His is ours ; ours are all His words and His whole and per- fect self, all His accomplishment and w.ork down to the end. And thus we may accept Draseke's remark, which springs from a right feeling of the whole : " Finished — that is His farewell 1 So Beck, Reden, i. 420. He follows this furthl | •fend says that if Christ's kingdom had been of urns world He must now have confessed — " Nothing is accomplished, but all is lost, My life and kingdom at once." 2 Ps. xxxii. 7, already for the saints : "Wat . -).l '}.'■ 2& SEVENTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. greeting to earth; Father, into Thine hands — that is His en- trance-greeting to heaven." Low and languishing was the " I thirst" sighed forth ; heard only by those who stood near, and the ready ear of John. After this invigoration the sublime word of victory was uttered with more strength. But more loudlystill, with a marvellously mighty sound ((pcovf) fieydXy), and with unexpected quickness, He proclaimed His voluntary death as the delivering up of His spirit to the Father. To our mind, it was uttered with as loud a cry as the Eloi (jcpa^as, Mark xv. 39) — partly to make the word of victory the counterpoise of the word of lamentation ; and partly to indicate, in the midst of the repose of victory, the critical violence of His death, the rending of His flesh by His own voluntary will, in order to the setting free of His spirit. St Matthew by " when He had cried with a loud voice," St Mark by " cried with a loud voice " — since He did actually cry something — mean most probably this last word of all, of which St Luke decisively records, " and when He had said this, He gave up the ghost." But St John, who had heard and reports the previous " It is finished," indicates the dying word as well known by a brief paraphrase — 7rapiScoKe to irvevjia, He gave up the ghost, in which irapeSwKe Cyril found the 7rapa0rjao/jLat reproduced. 1 And Nonnus renders it as an expression of vo- luntary dying (of which more hereafter) — OeXrjfiovi S' eUaOe TTOTfiq), and He departed by a voluntary death. His last like His first word on the cross calls upon and ac- I knowledges His Father. Indeed this last word concerning the Father corresponds as well with the first public word, John ii. 16, as with the first word which we have generally, the child- word of Luke ii. 49. He does not yield Himself up in death to the blind power of nature, He does not commit Himself to unknown darkness, or to " the womb of the general life of the universe," or to the pantheist universal Divinity ; but He yields up His personal spirit independently to the living, personal God as His Father 2 1 The transposition of Sepp, who makes the " It is finished" the seventh word, needs no refutation. 2 " He who can imagine that Jesus in these words breathed out for ever His spirit into the air, knows nothing of the truly living spirit, and cer- LUKE XXIII. 46. 29 f Because this separation of the spirit from the body is the destiny of man, into which He has, even after the " Finished," to enter, in order that the fruit and power of His Fulfilment might be exhibited in the domain of hitherto unconquered death — therefore He utters this naturally and appropriately in the language of Scripture. " He dies with the word of God in His mouth. His whole earthly existence had been lived out in this word of God — a saying of that word is the last companion of His departing soul through the dark valley (to Him no longer dark) of the shadow of death." (Arndt.)^) But there is some- thing more to be observed here than this final use of scriptural language. Ps. xxxi. is properly not a prophecy of Christ, nor do we find in it even distinctive typical references ; we read in vers. 4, 8, 15 of a hope of deliverance from the danger of death, and of the preservation of earthly life, and other things purely - pertaining to humanity, such as in ver. 10 the mention of iniquity. 1 Nevertheless, on the other hand, the psalm does not proceed (as the alphabetical order of itself shows) from any defined situation of personal suffering ; but it is a generally pro- phetic psalm of instruction, the fundamental tone of which is not so much distress as the firm and clear confidence in salva- tion : see the very beginning of it, ver. 1, and especially vers. 7, 14, 15, 17, 19-24. He whom the harassed righteous man calls his God, is the faithful God who will be, as He has pro- mised, a sure deliverer — fiftK ?K rtfn\ Hence Hengstenberg, with Cocceius, rightly acknowledges this universal significance of the psalm. But this is again, at the same time, no other than a most general form of typical reference to Christ; and Christ finally spoke in the language of this psalm, in order that taken in connection with Ps. xxii. and lxix. it might show that He walked generally the human way of faith, that He appro- priated to Himself throughout and to the end all that was said of human confidence in distress and human appeal to God, as most profoundly applicable to Himself: — He spoke this lan- tainly nothing of the living God and the living power of the Crucified/' So Ullmann, S. u. K. 1847, S. 167. 1 Unless vwa is to be interpreted (with Symmach. Itsi rqv *,*nwb pov) of sufferings, as many so understand (though doubtfully) "ft?, in 2 Sam. xvi. 12 ; 1 Sam. xxviii. 10, etc. : — or to be read as •&%* 30 SEVENTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. guage to the very end, where the Son of God, consummate in the flesh, dies in His own Divine independent power, and yet as truly dies the death of man. That which David magnifies as the confidence of the righteous man in life 1 — to commend or dedicate his soul or his spirit to God — He now, in the sim- plest and yet sublimest manner, binding together firmly the Divine anu the human, makes into an expression of His ceasing to live or dying, an expression used by Him in an unapproach- able sense, and yet at the same time symbolical for us. And the use in the psalm of Wl instead of B>SJ, as well as the signifi- cant word ma (comp. Ps. xlix. 16, lxxi. 23) points profoundly to an eternal redemption out of and beyond this life ; but this came first distinctly out in the lips of Christ. For — let it be carefully marked ! — He changes this Scrip- ture, which did not refer personally to Himself ; and in two ways, adding something and omitting something. He adds to it His new word Father, hitherto appropriate to Him alone, but now given to mankind for the encouragement of their confi- dence : Tldrep here takes the place of T\W> 7X PrtiT. Again, He /gives up the words — For Thou hast redeemed me 2 — for that was scarcely now befitting on the lips of Him, who had already cried in " It is finished," I have redeemed mankind ! Yea, His God, in whom He trusted even in the midst of His most dis- tressed lamentations, redeems Him now, and takes pleasure in the consummation of His sufferings for men ; and thus He goes as a redeemed Redeemer, a delivered Deliverer, after His con- summation, into His rest and joy with God. Yet even here, in the restrained emotion which pervades His passion, there is no expression of exultation in the prospect of bliss and glory : it is not from Ps. xvi. 9-11 or the like that His last words in the flesh are taken. Nor, after the " Finished," is this " Father into Thy hands !" anything like " the battle-cry of a conqueror who is fighting his way through to victory ; the death-cry of one who is sore oppressed and whose spirit is struggling its way 1 And so St Peter counsels sufferers (1 Pet. iv. 19) who have time left for good works. 2 Or, more exactly, Thou redeemest me ! Expression of confidence for ever, consequently for everything pertaining to time (v. 16) — by no means a mere Preterite, Thou hast so often and in such manifold ways saved me ! LUKE XXIII. 46. 31 into a place of eternal security, — the arms of the Almighty Father." 1 Oh no, all struggling and fearful oppression was sealed and closed in the previous word. The profoundest and most blessed repose after toil is expressed in this surrender of the spirit to God, to the Father ! It is, moreover, a human declaration of faith, in which the spirit avows its assurance of continuance apart from the body, because God will receive and preserve it ; 2 but it is withal (so perfectly consummate is the God-man !) a majestic word of Divine authority, which should never be termed " His death-sigh." That which in Jno. x. 18 He had spoken concerning His own independent power to lay down and take up His life, is approved and confirmed here in the majestic and sublime TrapaO^ao/xac. Luke the Greek has given the whole saying strictly according to the Septuagint ; therefore ek %et)oa? gov for T]£ (which, however, Christ probably spoke in the sing.), and so the future TrapaOrjao/jLctL. But in the psalm T'ipSK is certainly used with a present meaning, as the interchangeable continuations in vers. 7-9 show ; and here the word at this great crisis has the force of a TrapariOefjiai, irapaTtO^ixi ; Beza and Casaubon noted these as various readings of a correct gloss ; and Lachmann actually adopts the former into the text. But it does not mean in the superficial sense " I commend," as the Yulg. commendo might mislead one to think ; but an actual trader 'e, yielding up y Joh. 7rapeS(DK6v. Thus all those views are incorrect and opposed to the text, which liken this dying to the passive dying of any other man. 3 Albertini missed his way very much when he preached : " Death mercifully drew nearer, to allay the bitter- ness of His anguish : as the energies of life sank, His pains relaxed." And Ebrard is equally unhappy when he describes the crisis u when the sudden horror of death came near." To Him who now voluntarily died, after the great " It is finished," death had no longer power to draw near at all ; but He who 1 As Krummacher inadvertently expresses himself. Similarly Lange, who further speaks of a flying before the terrific form of death into the Father's arms. Assuredly there is no longer any terrific form now. 2 " Above the poor question of mortals, To be or not to be? He is infi- nitely elevated ! " This is the beautiful remark of Krummacher. 3 As Weiss introduces the " Finished" — " Yet there is a limit set to mor- tal power ; Jesus felt the near approach of death." 32 SEVENTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. had now suffered and accomplished all in the dying of His soul, does not die His bodily death as a sufferer, but as in spirit already the Lord and Ruler of death. A sinful man, though an Elijah, can at best but utter the supplicatory *B>B3 np_, take my life (1 Kings xix. 4) : — even Stephen, when by the counsel of God death actually came, can only utter the appealing "receive my spirit:" — the Son of God alone, the Lord of death, said to the Father in the highest truth of the word, I render up to Thee now My spirit ! This was already intimated by St John in the " knowing that all things were accomplished ;" and Hofmann's remark is very correct : " He received (we add, desired) the refreshing drink; not, however, to protract His life, but because it was His Father's will that He should not assume the appearance of languishing, and thus of involuntarily giving up His life." That which Elijah, in the infirmity of his sinfulness, arrogated to himself the liberty of saying, though without result — Now it is enough (pny :n) the Lord here speaks with supreme propriety — Because all things are accomplished, and there remains nothing more to fulfil, I now die, not sooner nor later than now ! His death is thus His last act ; and there- fore not death as in our case, but simply the giving up of the spirit to the Father. No Evangelist uses the apostolical word, which comprehends all in one — And He died. His death is at the same time miraculously alone in its kind, like His birth ; it was not possible to be otherwise. The utmost that may be said is this, that in Christ the physical process (of dying here) coin- cided entirely with the energy of His Spirit and will. But not through any "harmonia prsestabilita :" the spirit is ever in Him the ground and strength of the bodily life. Thus the energies of life do not relax, as takes place in us ; but in the power of the spirit there would have been present sufficient energy of bodily fife to begin a new life. He dies as the act of His will in full vigour of life ; and it was this which caused the Cen- turion's wonder at the crying. There can be no agony sup- posed, at this crisis after the " Finished ;" far from us be every notion of obscuration, gradual weakening, convulsion, and everything of the kind. 1 Eambach, confused by his theology, 1 Sepp's perversion of the truth deserves to be put into his " Catalogue of the sins of learned Protestantism :" "In proportion as His anxiety (?) LUKE XXIII. 46. 33 speaks without any understanding when he represents this last "cry" of our Lord as a cry of anguish in the bitterness of death. Jesus bowed His head, when He uttered His ^i?EK to the Father; bending — not under the pressure of nature, and not in the sense in which it is the appointment of God for all, but under the decree of God concerning His Son, yet with His own will and as His own act, consummating His perfect obedience in this transition to His power. He enters into rest, that His work may begin again without suffering. He closes the eyes of weary flesh, that they may be soon opened again in a very different way. He loses His consciousness for one single vanishing in- stant ; for that, as the abiding realitv of His death in the like- ness of men, is intimated by the expression that He, no longer master of Himself, gave up His spirit to the Father. But im- mediately after this critical moment begins His being quickened according to the Spirit (1 Pet. iii. 18), and His mighty work in the underworld. He bowed His head, that He might lift it up again ! (Ps. ex. 7). He cam e forth, from ill e Father, and He goeth to the Father. -* Jno. xvi. 28. It is His last avowal — I am the Son of God ! Uttering this, He dies. An " obscure but great presentiment of consolation" was poured by this "Father!" into the hearts of all the troubled believers who heard it. Into Thine hand or/ hands — as His body had been delivered to the hands of men and sinners, and His soul into the hand and power of the tempt- ing enemy. But He does not mention the body or the flesh — it is self-understood that the hands of sinners have no more power over it. in fulfilment of Ps. xvi. 8, 9 — He does not think specifically of that now : even as dying sinners, strong in the blessed confidence of faith, are often released hr their conscious- ness from the body. Nor does He name the soul, but the spirit in which it lives, and which carries it with it ; for now this spirit reigns most absolutely in His human nature. Not that His humanity is, in the sense, of Rothe, converted into mere spirit ; His human personal spirit, in the mention of which He commits His / into the Father's hands, is the perfect Son still increases, His eyes are darkened and His last death-rattle begins, the sun became more and more dark, and Jesus cried (words which were neither dark nor anxious) — Father, into Thine hands," etc. VOL. Till. C 34 SEVENTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. and ever, and by no means becomes identical with the Holy- Spirit. The receiving of the Holy Spirit from the Father is still in the future of His resurrection and glorification, in order that in this distinction the unity of the Spirit and the Son might finally be accomplished and realised in humanity, even as the unity of the Son with the Father. / (into the Father's hands, that is, into His protection, power, keeping (Wisd. iii. 1), He gives up His spirit ; that is, first, for 4 ' the mean time, for the intermediate space till He should return V^to the body, and then with the body ascend above all heavensp Geier has very well interpreted the T'ipBK in the psalm — tan- quam ji*i|9S depositum — and the commendo of the Vulg., rightly understood, means nothing else. But this traditio ad depositum must not be regarded as meaning, contrary to all anthropology and christology, that in death the spirit was separated from the soul. 1 Assuredly not, for without the human spirit the soul would be only animal, and, therefore, not continue to live. 2 We may conceive of a certain obscuration, a certain slumbering of the spirit in the dreaming soul, as existing among the dead in Sheol in various degrees, even among the happy dead in the slightest degree ; but that One, who dies this great death, can enter into the kingdom of the dead only as the Living One, %(oo7roir)0eU irvevyuari, as the Apostle says. Thus the irvev^d fiov, My spirit, means the entire I, passing over and leaving the body, spirit and soul undivided, just as the soul now has uttered the jjlov ; the delivery into the Father's preserving hands ex- presses only His confidence against all the power of Sheol ; it is a testimony that now for Christ, and from that time forward through Him for all His people, the might of the Father's life J 1 Rambach : " He deposits His spirit as a jewel of inestimable value in the bands of God, with the hope to receive it again on the third day, and to unite it again with His glorified body." Olshausen : " While the soul of Christ went to the dead in Sheol (but 1 Pet. iii. 18 testifies against that !) and His body rested in the sepulchre, His spirit returned to the \ Father. In the resurrection all was reunited into a harmonious unity." 2 The dead who appear without a body are called in Scripture Trusvfcurx (Lu. xxiv. 37, 39; Acts xxiii. 8, 9)— yea, even the tormented in the prison, 1 Pet. iii. 19, as also the saints made perfect before the resurrec- tion, Heb. xii. 23. "With this, in another reference of the expression, Jude ver. 19 well agrees ; compare my exposition of his Epistle, S. 101. LUKE XXIII. 46. 35 and love pervades and rules all regions of this kingdom of the dead. " We know but little of our state after death ; but what Jesus said when dying is enough for us." There is also in His words a glance forward, beyond the intermediate state, to the final coming to the Father, with a deeper fulness of meaning than when the Preacher, Eccles. xii. 7, mentions the return of the spirit of man generally to God who gave it. Nevertheless, Christ's spirit did not at once go up to heaven (the word to the malefactor would contradict this), thither where the eternal Son was before ; that did not take place until the glorified flesh could go there too. But all this as our Forerunner. The Forerunner brings us thither afterwards; but He now carries His whole Church with Him in His spirit, proleptically in this "It i3 finished" embracing all in whom He will live. On the one hand He first defined His own personality by 7rvedfid fiov, as that which would " not simply continue to live in the general spirit of humanity ;" but, on the other hand, in a prophetic mediatorial sense He already commits, after the " Finished," all the spirits of the sanctified, the entire Church as one with Him, to the Father. Here is a sta viator for the pondering of all the living, who shall die. The dying word of the Conqueror and Forerunner becomes a word of test for every man. Whither in thy case, when it comes to this ? No man hath power over the spirit, to retain or release it on the day of death. (Eccles. viii. 8 ; 1 Chron. xxx. 15 ; 2 Sam. xiv. 14.) What kind of finished wilt thou bring before God ? Seek, while there is yet time, that which will be alone acceptable, through the finished work of thy Redeemer ! Then wilt thou also, with conscious, voluntary submission in death, cry with Stephen — Lor d Jesus, receive my spirit, Thou hast redeemed me ; l and, thus coming to the Son, come through Him to the Father. 1 As Huss on his way to the pile repeatedly said : first, when they gave his soul over to devils with the paper crown, " But I commit my spirit into Thine hands, Lord Jesus Christ ; I commend my soul to Thee, who hast redeemed it" — and, again, " Thou hast redeemed me, my Lord Jesus, God of truth." The " I commend" has been by multitudes after him inno- cently used ; although Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, more properly re- mains within the limits of what becomes us. 36 SEVENTH WORD FROM THE CROSS. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent. This is the first thing which St Matthew mentions at the moment of the death of Jesus, before the earthquake which accompanied and caused it ; St Mark mentions this alone ; St Luke only seems to place it before the death. Schleiermacher cannot understand how this could be known, since the priests would certainly not be- tray it, and asks further, " Why is there not the faintest trace of a reference to it in the Epistle to the Hebrews?" But he did not rightly read Heb. x. 19, 20, where the most perfect in- terpretation of the sign is given. He who sleeps in Jesus will experience the truth of this, even though he did not believe or understand it before ; but it is better and more blessed previously to be taught by the Scripture. The Old Testament is done away, but in its very abolition it is once more confirmed. This world-embracing death of Jesus has a more internal connection with this external, theocratical sanctuary of Israel, than the theology or philosophy of history which places the Old Testa- ment on the same level as heathenism will understand. The entrance hitherto closed is now laid open ; humanity, like Israel, has free access to the sanctuary of communion with God. Where hangs this veil, which Christ alone rends? Even in the symbol and shadow it was below and not above — not so much before God, as before man. It is, according to Isa. xxv. 7, the veil which is spread over all nations ; and the covering cast over all' the peoples (Di^rpJD, the face or the form of the covering) — the great pall of death, and the power of death through sin separating from God ; that is (as the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches) the flesh of sin and death which the Saviour Himself received from us, in order that dying He might rend the veil first in His own flesh, and the Spirit and life of God might burst through upon man in a stream never more to be restrained. The earth did quake — while He in the profoundest repose bowed His head ! Jerusalem's temple and towers totter — " and the Cross of Christ alone is unshaken I" 1 The rocks rent — and should not thine heart quake, and the veil of thy flesh be rent, thou redeemed sinner? No man takes harm from these signs, for they are signs of salvation. And a third sign 1 As Pape in his Christus, S. 220, sings. LUKE XXIII. 46. 37 completes the testimony of this day, of these hours, of this mo- ment. Above in the heaven, from the light of the sun, began the first sign for the mystery of the counsel of redemption; — upon the earth, the old, preliminary, mutable dispensation which predicted a new, immovable kingdom, recedes and gives place ; — and in the depths of the world beneath there is movement and convulsion, which also must become manifest. The graves open! For the life-creating power of this death begins even there its energy of salvation. All humanity dead before Christ had waited for Him — even the saints can now first rise again. Before they, after His resurrection, appear as the first-fruits of the " first resurrection," 1 there is a quickening toward the resurrection even now at the crucifixion ; for in the kingdom of death begins the power of life, the grave is first opened by the Death in order to the subsequent resurrection. The Centurion presiding over the crucifixion lifts his voice — the voice which afterwards burst forth more loudly from the heathen world against Israel's denial 2 — and confesses : This man was what He said, that which Pilate declared Him — a righteous man — that which He had answered to their " Art Thou ?" — the Son of God ! The twofold view of his testimony is true and significant in the spirit of the history. Whether thou renderest Him at first the Ebionite acknowledgment of His being a righteous man, or the indefinite and Gentile honour of being a Son of God, is of no moment at the first : thy faith avails, thou already glorifiest God, and God will assuredly glorify His Son in thee. But in order to that, it must be the faith of repentance ! For the two immediate influences of the signs which took place around the Cross, as Lu. vers. 47, 48 combines them, are in most internal unity, and reciprocal in their operation : — first, the giving God honour in sincere acknowledgment of the impres- sion produced by what has taken place ; and then the smiting upon the breast unto repentance, the preparation for Pentecost, and change from a mere idle beholding. Thus the voice of reason and the voice of conscience give their testimony in answer to the question — Who was this Jesus who died upon Calvary? 1 Not merely, as Lange makes them, "spirit-appearances!" 2 The honourable spirit among the rude soldiers, in opposition to the hypocritical priests THE SEVEN WORDS TOGETHER. THE SEVEN WORDS TOGETHER. We cannot leave these words, though we have entered at large upon each, before regarding them once more as a whole. The sacred seven-number would of itself demand this. Bengel writes : " The words are seven, according to the four Evange- lists : no one of them has written down all. From which it ap- pears that their four books are as it were four voices which to- gether make full symphony." And certainly he is right. Not that Christ Himself thought of this, or designed that His words should be just seven more ; nor did the Evangelist intend it or order it so, for no one of the Synoptics knew all that had been spoken. St John might have comprised them all ; but he has not done so, only supplying what was wanting and leaving us to connect the whole. But the seven words approve themselves in their connected harmony, after a wonderful manner ; thus giving us one more testimony and example that, as in the history of Jesus first, so also in the Scriptures concerning Him, there is a most mysterious rule and order to be discerned. Such re- sults of the combination of the whole, though they were not aimed at by the writers themselves, throw back a confirming and glorifying light upon the truth and significance of the history of the Son of God in the flesh, and especially of the history of His Passion. " The suffering Christ speaks, as the symbol of a fulness of most profound truths and references the most significant, a language to the world which could scarcely have been uttered in the tones of His living word" — says Olshausen truly i 1 yet, however true this is of the impressive voice of the history in all its circumstances and details, which to our thought- ful contemplation become more and more invested with the character of symbols and speaking acts — it could not fail to be still more profoundly time of these final and most essential words of the Word. The suffering Lord, hanging upon the cross, broke the silence and opened His lips seven times: — these words are to us as the bright lights of heaven shining at intervals through 1 And adds that " the most unbounded imagination could not produce a poem which should equal this reality." LUKE XXIII. 34, ETC. 39 the darkness, or as the loud thundertones from above and within, which interpret the cross, and in which it receives, so to speak, another collective superscription. Braune says beautifully : " The poet is right ; the cross is a plant which bears fruit with- out blossoms. But yet the last words of Jesus may be regarded as the most glorious blossoms" — of the cross, of the dry tree planted to bring forth fruit. For thus we would prefer to close his sentence, instead of saying (in the spirit of Schleiermacher), u the most glorious blossoms of pious elevation and communion with the Father.' And what significance is tnere in the individual words ; how sharply definite is each single tone in the seventoned symphony ! The first word is most gracious in its invitation for the com- mencement of all faith, universally embracing the entire guilty world of His enemies. The second to the malefactor then fol- lows as the most specifically encouraging to all individual souls, in all ages, who believingly turn in their distress to their sympa- thising King. The third to Mary and John may be termed the most pregnant in its meaning, 1 inasmuch as this most personal discharge of His obligation and most specific care of these dis- ciples is at the same time the pledge of His equal care of all whom He leaves behind Him upon earth. The fourth is with- out' doubt in its central darkness the most mysteriously deep, although it contains in itself the kernel of all .the consolation of redemption : — "'When my heart is sunk in deepest anguish, pluck me out of my distress by the virtue of Thy anguish and pain !" The fifth, I thirst ! we have already termed the least seemingly significant ; but its inmost meaning, as the expression of the thirst of Jesus after our souls, makes it the most touch- ing and affecting of all in its appeal. We may regard It is finished! as the most sublime, the widest, and most boundless of the series ; while the seventh and last is the most blessed word of faith ; t he sealing moreover, of the end of faith f or all Christ's disciples. ^Smother thing observable is this, that almost all the seven words here, where all things tend to final fulfilment, point back to prophecy, and are spoken more or less in the words of Scrip- 1 Or, which is the same thing, the most symbolical, the meaning of which as referring to us all is most hidden in the form of type. 40 THE SEVEN WOEDS TOGETHER. ture. 1 Properly speaking, the fourth in its central fulfilment is spoken in the most literal words of Scripture ; and with it the seventh, as a glorifying application of a general human word (which here alone finds its true TrXrfpwcris). The first rests upon the Messianic prophecy of Isa. liii. 12 ; the fifth and sixth point to Messianic psalms (that one which passes from lamentation into victory). Only the second and third were originated by specific circumstances, and have, so far as we can yet see, no typical-prophetical basis in the Old Testament ; though light may yet be shed upon this. 2 And even these will be found all the more plainly to approve their place as belonging to the wonderfully arranged completeness and unity of the whole. We must make some further observations, in connection with this, upon the completeness of the whole, and then upon the significant order of the individual words of the series. These, seven words perfectly embrace the fulness of those truths and relations which the cross was to reveal. Bengel : " This sum- ming up of all doctrine regards His enemies, the converted sin- ner, His mother and the disciple (that is, we may add, the communion of His own), and His heavenly Father." Which teaches us not to forget that the Lord in all these words, and not pre-eminently from the fourth to the sixth, bears witness concern- ing Himself. Thus He lets us contemplate (to use Draseke's words, which, however, we correct) the object of the redeeming work in the first ; its fruit and power in the second and third ; 3 its price (how much it cost) in the fourth ; its extent (how far His suffering went, and the longing of His soul still reaches) in the fifth ; its consummation in the sixth ; finally its perfect end in the self-surrender to the Father. Thus, at least, has the 1 Rambach applied "Wisd. ii. 20 to this : Then shall a man be known by his words ! But this is not faithful to the original of that passage. 2 That what Karrer (Luth. Zeits. 1849. 2, S. 323) adduces, is not satis- factory ; for what reference can be found in Ps. xxii. 9, 10, to the word spoken to Mary, or in Ps. xxii. 29, 30, to that spoken to the malefactor ? So also the reference of the u Finished" to Isa. liii. 11 is incorrect. 3 This is better than Draseke's view. He changes the order of these two, and sees in the fellowship of love symbolised in Mary and John, the fruit, and in the obtaining of Paradise the power, of redemption. (Comp. his Predigten, Magdeburg 1839.) Is not the winning and the saving of this sinner, as a first- fruit, its fruit; and the cementing love, its power? LUKE XXIII. 34, ETC. 41 preaching of the Holy Spirit in the Church from the beginning summed up all doctrine in these words, thus giving their most living and most profound exposition : — an " anakephaleosis doc- trine," as Bengel says, u nobis profuturse in nostris horis ex- tremis" — all profitable truth for our last hour. The quotation we introduced from Richter's- Family Bible is not strictly exact ; to wit, " that the first three words before the darkness were spoken to others, the last four referring to Christ Himself alone." Assuredly, the first word begins in the most absolute self-forgetfulness, sinks with all-embracing love into the need of others. Forgive them — what they do ; without adding — to Me. The last, on the contrary, appears to be the most perfect retreat into His own personality, which He gives up to the Father. But the process and gradation between these two extremes must be more carefully looked at. To the second word of especial grace, which actually effects the forgiveness of sins in one pattern and first-fruit of sinners, He is excited and called by the malefactor himself ; but that word Paradise, which was the encouragement of that sinner, reminds the Lord, as of the anguish to be passed through before, so also of those whom He would leave behind in the world ; hence, therefore, the testa- ment of love for them and for us all. Then, indeed, in the middle of the conflict, where He has to do with His God alone, the Eloi, Eloi, is uttered in the most perfect forgetfulness of all others, from the depths of the utter loneliness of His soul. But the consciousness immediately returns to Him that He must accomplish for the world's redemption what had been decreed and written ; consequently He turns, as we saw, in His thirst, once more to men ; He cries out to the world, as well as to His Father, and Himself, the great " Fulfilled ;" and finally (yet not without secret conjunction with Himself of those made perfect in Him) He yields up Himself as perfected to the Father. All this has already indicated the significance of the specific order in which we find them. This may be meditated upon still further — for the subject is inexhaustible to meditation — and the more we meditate upon it, the more will our exegetical arrange- ment approve itself. With what could the Lord begin but the great intercession at the commencement of His crucifixion, which embraces first His crucifiers, and in them all other sinners'? 42 THE SEVEN WORDS TOGETHER. " Love first of all stoops to the most wretched." (Draseke.) Therefore we hear first this testimony to the love which brought Him to death and the cross, in unison with His conscious expe- rience of the love of the Father whom He invokes, which not only suffered this awful act to take place, but suffered it to take place in order to forgiveness. With what could He close but the — Father into Thine hands ? * Further, where could the Lord have spoken those two words, the promise of salvation in another world and the provision for this world's happiness, but, in the all-embracing conscious activity of His love, before His own personal anguish of soul. And, again, He who was dying for sinners, and interceding for impenitent sinners, has a sinner made penitent to encourage and save, before He turns to those who were already His own. And where, if all these things were placed fragmentary in our hands, should we place the two other words — the avowal of distress and need, in order to receive from His enemies the last, albeit bitter portion, and the blessed retrospect upon all the suffering by which all was now fulfilled and the world delivered — but after the soul-anguish, and before the immediate dying words? 2 Thus the middle icord of the seven in its order, is in reality the central and middle word in its meaning ; before which we behold, as it were, a descent of comprehensive and conscious love to the first departure from this earthly life, and after which an ascent again to consummating elevation and serenity. What Rieger says is true, that Christ is in the first triad of words " so little moved by all the mockery around from His heavenly composure and kingly spirit, that we may well glory in this cross ourselves, against all the world's scorn now." As High Priest He supplicates for all ; as King He dispenses grace and salvation to the suppliant ; 3 as the Master 1 So that the transposition of this word into a place before " It is finished" (which we have met with) appears altogether contrary to the spirit of both words, when viewed as spoken in such circumstances by Christ. It is in- telligible enough in the low view which Weiss takes of it: Not only at first the " resignation and confidence of the devout God-loving man" — but still more joyful, " The vocation was accomplished, the end of life was attained." 2 We cannot conceive how the "I thirst" could be placed before the great arguish, as many maintain. 8 For 'to refer this word concerning kingdom and paradise (with Lange 43 of the household, or, so to speak, the Father of the house, He makes provision for His family. This is the triumph of His love, which blesses enemies ; of His grace, which receives such as come to Him ; of His fidelity, which forgets no needful care. All this is quite true ; and yet is there not manifest, in the men- tion of Paradise (longed for by the sufferer Himself) instead of kingdom, and still more in the appointment of a deputy to repre- sent His earthly life and care, a certain humiliation and dejec- tion of tone which anticipates and waits for the great anguish ? But afterwards, again, what an ascending process of feeling from the satisfied thirst through the Finished to the majestic Ilapa- 6rj(TOfiai, I commend My spirit ! But all this has not yet pointed out even the several direc- tions which meditation may take. How much lies in the depths of each word in its concrete connection with the history out of which it sprang, and how much for general application and deep reflection, which our exposition has as yet but slightly in- dicated ! Let us look once more at this pregnant fulness, that we may be on our guard against all superficial treatment of them. Thus the Jlrst word contains in it the whole doctrine concerning forgiveness, and the difference between sin pardonable and un- pardonable ; giving the profoundest disclosure of the condition and procedure of sin, as ignorantly crucifying or knowingly scorning the Lord, and also of that repentance by which a salu- tary knowledge of sin is attained, and which is the necessary con- dition of forgiveness. The second throws its enlightening beams into the darkness of the Underworld, and speaks of the restora- tion of that which was lost in Adam. The third obviates a mis- understanding concerning His relations to His mother, which has filled ages with its sad results ; and in the abolition of His sonship according to the flesh points to new and spiritual rela- tionships by a figure which is to be understood as applicable to all. The fourth penetrates the depths of humanity struggling toward Him when future, and backward to Him in the past; — and so forth. Draseke's rhetorical words are to be taken with much modification : " These Seven Words are not to be expounded — they expound themselves. They are deeper than the sea, and in the Christoterpe) merely to the "penitent" and the "Priest," by no means comes up to its meaning. 44 THE SEVEN WORDS TOGETHER. higher than heaven ; but they are at the same time bright as the sun, and need not the lamplight of our explanations." Most certainly, the lamplight of our so-called exposition is of no avail here ; but if that Holy Spirit, through whom Jesus spoke words which even His human consciousness did not embrace at the moment in all that was involved in them, sheds His light upon those words, we may surely investigate them with humble prayer for His enlightenment. A new method of observation presents itself when we regard all, as we certainly have a right to do, as symbolical for the fol- lowers of the Forerunner, the members of the Head. In them we learn, as before, to live in the fellowship of the death of Christ, so also and especially to die bodily in that fellowship ; we can appropriate every word in our degree to ourselves. We can pray for our enemies, comfort with our own consolation every tempted soul, receive all true penitence as valid to the last, for- get no offices of loving care through life and in death, cry even in our most distressed abandonment in faith to our God, shrink from and be ashamed of no infirmity, work in suffering and in suffering labour, until there is for us also a final Fulfilment, and the commendation of our spirits to our Father. Finally, the character of the Seven Words as the budding blossoms of the cross is justified in this, that they, like blossoms, prophesy, and bear in themselves the future of their consum- mation. Bengel says, with reference primarily to the individual Christian : " Even in the very order of the •words there lie mysteries ; and they may be made to declare the gradations of the persecution, affliction, and conflict of the Christian." We would not only apply this to the process of every Christian's life, but regard the order of the words as a prophetic type for the entire course of the church as a whole. 1 That the life of our 1 This may at least be better carried through than Bengel's parallel with the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer. For even if the first and the last petitions may suggest such an accordance, the series between cannot be paralleled without violence ; and indeed the fourth and the sixth words defy it altogether. — For the rest, when my critic Munchmeyer declares my exposition also to be arbitrary trifling, and offers to trace in the same manner the process of the Church's history in the Ten Commandments — I can only challenge him with all submission to the test. LUKE XXITI. 31, ETC. 45 Lord generally contains in itself a typical prophecy for the church called to follow in His steps, has been ever involuntarily acknowledged by believers; the conviction, however, that in the way of the Head there is also a specific preformation of the history of His body, is not so generally received : but it is so nevertheless. But this symbolical character of His history, which is at the same time prophecy (for all the symbols of Scripture and Christ's kingdom are prophetic, because they all point forward to the end, while anything remains to be accom- plished) is found in its more absolute concentration in the history of tlve Passion. And again the cycle of the seven words represents a specific cycle in that. We cannot suppress our own presentiment of this ; for by so doing we should be denying the full truth to many of our readers. The preaching of forgiveness to a world not knowing what it did, the first form of the word on the cross, specifically opens the church's history. The Jews did what they did; that is, crucified and rejected Jesus, without knowing whom they crucified, and what they did thereby : therefore this was dis- closed to them for their repentance, and mercy was ready to follow. The Gentiles did not know that they had done it, that their sinful deeds were the cause of His sufferings — but after the times of ignorance which were winked at, grace, obtained now by the death of Christ, is offered likewise to them. Out of the first "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," as its key-note, flows the first apostolical preaching to the world as a whole, all preaching of the Gospel now where it enters for the first time. The two following words from the cross then represent in prophetic type the two results : the first-fruits (that is, of the Gentile world also, as added to the little confessing company of Jews) are collected together ; and they are then, as belonging to Christ, preserved, cared for, and united in one. The one malefactor is the prophetic example of the many (comp. Matt. viii. 10, 11) who, in the deepest and most internal fear of God, break through the mockery and offence of the cross, recognise in the Crucified their King and their Saviour, and commend their souls to Him ; especially of all those who, themselves enduring the sufferings and judg- ments of an evil time, recognise in those the just award of their 46 THE SEVEN WORDS TOGETHER. deeds, and receive from Christ the glorious hope of a Paradise be} r ond. And is not this the predominant character of the church's extension and its missionary history during the first centuries of calamity and persecution of Christians ? But these thus won ever increase the little company of Christ's people, so small in the beginning of the Gospel, and which is exhibited in the persons of Mary and John. Such are all who endure in love beneath the cross, whose fidelity will never forsake their suffering Lord : He therefore shows His fidelity to them in caring for their earthly life before they are received to Paradise. Here behold the testamentary provision for the church upon earth — and that in and by its union in love ! Still more : as Mary is here the type of believing humanity in the old covenant, in and out of which Christ was born by the Holy Ghost, so further she is the type of the church, which beareth Him continually in successive spiritual births. This is His mother, who travailed and brought forth the mystical Christ (Rev. xii. 5) — and yet at the same time not His mother, as He is her exalted Lord. This Mary is left in the care of John, the disciple of love, who through love penetrated most deeply the heart of Jesus and the mysteries of His word, — rather than to the preacher and confessor, Peter. Preaching may gather, instruction may regulate, and confession may in a certain sense hold it together ; but it is only love, at once inward and contemplative (not so much dialectic and dog- matical) which nourishes and takes care of the true church. The beginning of the church's life bore pre-eminently this Johannsean character — See how these Christians love one another ! and so at the end of its historv St John, the fourth Evangelist, the writer of the Epistles of love, and at the same time the apocalyptic Apostle, will again take to himself the church bearing the anguish of the cross in her heart, and be her refuge and consolation from the final woes. This Johan- naean love, and in it the blessed communion of secret traditions and experiences of Jesus, founds the new spiritual fellowship. While peoples and nations come and go in history, empires rise and fall, and the bonds of society are more and more relaxed — within the hidden church there is the continual realisation of that first truth, Behold thy son ; behold thy mother ; behold LUKE XXIII. 34, ETC. 47 your brethren and your sisters ! Was not this the predominant character of church history during those wanderings of the nations which prepared for the crisis of the middle ages in the world's history? But in these middle ages, rightly so called as in the midst of time, the central word from the cross is most especially realised : — the power and light of Christ are hidden, darkness breaks in, the mystically repeated crucifixion of Christ begins for the struggle and victory of the Faith hardly beset. Then comes a time (although a more exact fulfilment is before us still, in the last hour, Rev. iii. 10) when the people of Jesus must raise to heaven the lamentation of abandonment. Then begins the crisis of the second part of history. Christ in His people once more holds firmly to His God ; the Scripture, which must have its fulfilment likewise in these sufferings of the church, is unsealed in victorious clearness. (The first Refor- mation — followed by a continually enlarging view of the prophecies which predicted anti-Christendom and its transitory power.) The Lord's thirst in His abandonment after the con- summation is renewed in all its force as a thirst for human souls which must be satisfied — in the midst of the never-ceasing mockery and scorn which is now once more heard. This is the revived preaching of the Gospel, proceeding from the Spirit's strong impulse to save the souls of men ; the preaching of reformation first, — then, when this alas became cold and frigid, bringing over into our own age the Brethren's and the Pietists' words from the heart to the heart. In all this the voice of the Lord, forsaken and yet no longer forsaken, is heard — I thirst ! Those whom He thus wins are, however, not such thoroughly sound, and earnest, and strong confessors as the first-fruits of apostolic preaching were before the church was forsaken, and who were represented by the malefactor with his bold glance onward to the kingdom of Christ. Ah no, they more resemble as a whole the soldier who gives the potion, who, half-heartedly, still clings to the world which mocks the kingly sway of Jesus, and wonders at the long delay of the restorer Elias. This is the historical and predominant character of the conversions within the church during the continued Refor- mation (hence Luther, with more truth thaD the Reformed, 48 THE SEVEN WORDS TOGETHER. laments that he could not find St John's constitution of the church ; and even among the " Brethren," Mary and John do not truly meet) — and it is also the same now, in the second Reformation, with our Missions which proceed so feebly in the midst of scorn. This little flock of heathens, which comes to allay the thirst for consummation in humanity, only excites it the more ; and itself utters the great cry, wavering between unbelief and faith, — Why does Elias yet tarry? 1 And here that miserable perversion of Christ's sacred word marvellously approves itself in prophetic truth, such as all mockery around the cross will fundamentally prove to have been. He who called upon His God, did thereby at the same time call upon His Forerunner and the Preparer of the way for the true accomplishment of all that has been promised. And it will not cease till the great day, according to Mai. vi. 5,' 6 at the end of prophecy. The Elias-preaching in the power of John — not only the Baptist's to repentance, but the Evangelist's also to faith and love — will be different from that which has gone before. For the Lord will bring in a speedy end with His church and humanity, even as in the last three words from the cross. It was just then, when the potion was scornfully given to His thirst, that the " It is finished !" was near. Then will Israel hear it, and the " Crucify !" will be changed to a true Hosanna, when He is seen coming in His poor congregations and feeble hearts throughout all nations, in the loud witness which the history of His church will give to the fulfilment of Scripture. 2 Then will Israel recognise the suffering Messiah as glorious in the Spirit; a second time will the veil be rent, the veil which now covers their hearts ; the cloud upon the law and the Prophets will disappear before the light of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Apocalypse, of St Paul and St John. Then will all nations come, the 1 In which the impatience of waiting is affectingly blended with the doubt of half -belief and the scorn of unbelief . 2 The true, perfect, and clear " prophetic theology " we shall not have till the end draws nigh. (Dan. xii. 4.) But its centre, viewed from which all becomes clear, is the knowledge of the sufferings (1 Peter i. 11) before the glory, and that also for Christ in His people. This last will be made plain only in the historical fulfilment, just as it was in relation to Christ's own personal sufferings. LUKE XXIII. 34, ETC. 49 con summation break forth in humanity, and the counterpart of the TerekeoTcu will be seen in the kingdom set up. But that will be a kingdom of His Spirit, of His own per- sonality now consummated in His people. All trust of huma- nity, which can commend itself to God (as it is expressed by PS. xxxi., therefore chosen), is concentrated, elevated, fulfilled in Him. His enemies are beneath His feet ; the last enemy death is abolished ; and for eternity the Son delivers up Himself with His redeemed ones to the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24-26). There is no more Sheol, no intermediate place or condition ; only the depth of hell remains for those who are now decisively separated from Him and the Father, because the hand of God must con- demn all whom it cannot receive and bless. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God without atonement mid forgiveness (Heb. x. 31) — a blessed thing it is, to be given into the hands of the Father at last with Christ Himself. VOL. VIII D THE WOKDS OF THE EISEN AND ASCENDING LOED. FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE RISEN LORD TO MARY MAGDALENE. (Jno. XX. 15-17.) The first earthquake upon and around Golgotha, extending indeed over all Jerusalem to the temple and the graves, had been public and general ; the second only moves the stone in Joseph's garden and scares the guards away. The proper resur- rection itself had been secret, altogether secret, to man ; the eye of no earthly watcher had seen the actual resumption of the body, the rising, and the going forth. Before the sun of this lower world had risen upon the third day, the Sun of Bighteous- ness has already risen, the Bridegroom has gone forth from His chamber. And how did it take place ? By the Divine power of the Father in the Son. That might indeed have passed through the stone, as afterwards through the doors, yea through all the heavens ;* but the stone rolled away was to be the first sign — explaining all — for the children of men, whether enemies or friends ; and here was something for the ministry of the ever- ready angels too. They speak first to the troubled ones, and at once announce, by shining manifestation and by their words yet brighter, what had taken place. But the Lord Himself rejoices in silence before His Father and His God ; solemnising His great victory in the human foretaste of His full joy. His Hence many of the Fathers actually say that the opening of the se- pulchre took place after the Lord's departure from it, as a witness. Lbs- sel writes against this, though too boldly : " Was not the Son of God able to come forth from His grave without the ministration of an angel to take away the stone : — and yet will the children of men think to do all by their own ingenuity ? " Alas, who will roll away the stone for us ? JOHN XX. 15-17. 51 spirit comes back from the lower world to His body, leaving His commencing conquests there : there is no awaking in His case, as those imagine who wholly misunderstand the descensus ad inferos ; and yet is His resurrection the consummation of His great victory, and He celebrates it as such. And although the impulse of His love urged Him at once to the company of His own upon earth, who are still in the sorrow of death, yet He does not overwhelm them with sudden surprise at His glorious reappearance, but restrains Himself, yields Himself to then- view by degrees regulated in the highest wisdom of love. Their minds are gradually prepared, each one according to its tem- perament and need. Lampe expresses it : placuit ei, non uno ictu, sed gradatim tanti gaudii amicos suos participes reddere. There is confusion at the sepulchre, and afterwards in the little room, in the thoughts and acts of the disciples, like the clouds around the rising sun : until it shone forth in all its glory — The Lord is risen indeed ! It has taken place — and yet they know it, they believe it, not ! There is joy — and yet they are en- veloped in deep distress ; these Apostles are doubting, thinking, and waiting longest of all. Yet there is a latent impulse in their minds which drives them to the sepulchre; a heavenly guidance leads some among them at least, as representing the rest, whose thoughts and feelings are still at the grave of their Lord, They come not singly : neither Magdalene (although it might seem so at first from St John) nor the disciples whom she called : — a bond of love has been already established which should ripen into a fellowship of blessedness. The true and deep love of the women has here also its pre-eminence. Novam hse mulieres viris palmam praeripiunt, says Lampe ; but adds, not quite so pertinently, et sic quoque fas erat in regno Christi ultimos evadere primos — for in the sense of this saying the women were not, properly speaking, the last. They know of the stone which Joseph had rolled to the sepulchre ; but they do not think of it until they have ap- proached it : of guards and a seal they know nothing ; of the resurrection they have no distant presentiment : they only desire to finish the anointing of the body which had been abruptly in- terrupted by the Sabbath. And yet a most secret hope, con- cealed even from themselves in their sorrowful love, seemed to 52 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. lead them out, as it were, to meet the resurrection. 1 " Their running was in the meanwhile an actual going forth towards the resurrection of the dead, and the faith and experience of the life of Jesus." (Rieger.) Christ already lives in them ; their sorrowing, seeking, dependence upon Him, and going after Him, is actually of itself the pledge of the resurrection : as the angels' word, Matt, xxviii. 5, 6, will intimate that, always and everywhere, those who seek the Crucified, shall find the Risen Lord. 2 Thus these women and disciples, especially Mary Mag- dalene (who not only, as Fikenscher says, takes the place here of James, in company with Peter and John, but is still more highly favoured by the first Appearance), are a type of all penitent souls, who go out in sorrow to meet their Easter con- solation. The narratives of the several visits, which have been deemed inextricably contradictory by the ignorant and wilful, have been easily reconciled by believing exposition, one way or another, from the beginning. St John mentions at first only Mary Magdalene, because he purposes only to speak concerning her ; but we think, in harmony with St Matthew and St Mark, that she went out with the other women. 3 And consistently with this it is quite possible, rather quite probable from the passionate temperament of the Magdalene, that she hastening forward reached the place earlier ; and to this the difference between St Mark's avarelXavTO*; rov r)\lov and St John's o-fcorlas en ovarj^ seems to lead. Just so she runs back again (rpe^et, Jno. xx. 2) from the others after the first glimpse of the open grave ; without having approached or entered it, without seeing the angel upon the stone (her profound grief rendering her unsus- ceptible to this), and without having heard his words, and those of the two angels within. Then come the others to the sepulchre ; the angel, he who sat upon the stone which bore the 1 As Krummacher has very beautifully depicted it in his sermon on Easter morning and Mary Magdalene. We shall make many allusions to this sermon. 2 Or : " No man can sink into the death of Christ without rising in His resurrection." 3 Not, with Ebrard, that *' St Matthew couples the going out of Magda- lene with that of the other women, quite after his manner." JOHN XX. 15-17. 53 seal of the council, speaks to them (Matt. ver. 6 A eyre, t&ere tov tottov), and they depart in haste, as he commanded them. Yet not all. They are probably some who came after, or who now remain, who according to St Luke see the two angels in the sepulchre, who receive the tl fyrelre (for the rest, however, with the same message as before, a similar allusion to Christ's words), and according to Lu. ver. 22-24, merely report the vision of the angels. 1 We must assume that St Luke's information was not exact when in ver. 10 he speaks too generally of the collective women ; but St Matthew designs, by self-restriction, or was appointed by the Holy Ghost, not to record the appear- ance to Mary Magdalene, but only the circumstance that a part of the women saw the Lord in the way. Generally speaking, the Sun of the true resurrection dispersed by His brightness the clouds which accompanied His rising, and threw them in some sense into oblivion. The details of the individual Appearances before the great revelation in the apostolical circle, fell so na- turally into the background, that subsequent reflection alone attempted to arrange them ; and that not with such elaborate exactness as was left to our later criticism. 2 Unless we prefer to take the narratives and the words in their simplicity (apart from the polemical necessity of refuting the investigations of infidelity), just as the Holy Spirit has recorded them : — as announcements which on such a subject transcend all the petty details of lower history, in which every utterance breathes the spirit and life of the great event. Thus Magdalene runs back, according to John, ver. 2, and seeks or finds those two of the Apostles first, whose province it was to go and inspect the sepulchre. Peter, who had gained courage enough to join himself to the others, 3 had united him- 1 Thus do ve solve, in the way most harmonious with the text (although other methods are possible), the seeming contradiction — brought forward by Celsus — between one or two angels. Not, as Liicke thinks, that one of the Evangelists is mistaken. 2 Comp. what Martensen (Dogmatik S. 361) says upon this : As we should expect only such records of the great and absorbing fact of the resur- rection, as would leave the cotemporaneous details uncared for in its first great impression. 3 For we may not say, with Sepp, that " the remaining Apostles were all dispersed, and no one knew rightly concerning any other." 54 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. self, since his fall, yet more strictly to John. They both come to the sepulchre, without meeting the returning women. (St Luke mentions only Peter in ver. 12, but in ver. 24 knows of certain other.) They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him ! Thus ran the communication to them. This otSafiev of Magdalene (for which Pol. Leyser read olBa fxev, and the Syr. and other old vers, translate it in the sing.) cannot be interpreted impersonally, when connected with fjpav : — He has been taken away, it is not known where ! This would be frigid indeed. Rather, as her sorrow forecasts the worst, and as her unbelief thinks more of the hands of men than of the power of God, she shudder- ingly refers to the enemies of Jesus : — They have persecuted Him to the grave, and have now denied Him the resting-place which had been granted to our supplications. 1 With this would harmonise the general "We," as contradistinguishing His friends and disciples, 2 were it not that this " We" must belong to the announcement to these disciples, and therefore distinguish the speakers from them. Consequently we must regard the com- pany of attendant women as glimmering through this " we;" and therefore that St John thereby intimates the presence of others with Mary Magdalene. 3 For although the others after- wards encountered the angels and heard otherwise from them, Mary Magdalene speaks by anticipation in their name, as if they also would find, like herself, nothing else. St John, reporting concerning himself in a purely objective manner, records the difference between the two disciples in their running and inspection ; and that not merely as personally cha- 1 It was far from her mind to think of robbers (as Grotius). Still less are we satisfied with Klee : Friends might have removed Him to another place, to secure Him against further ill treatment. Ver. 15 is adduced in corroboration of this, but we understand that passage differently. 2 Bengel : discipulorum nomine, quos scribat eadem de re laborare. So Ebrard. 3 Bengel in the Harmony : " Yet was it in fact one united company, as is presupposed by John, ver. 2." So Michaelis and others ; Doedes, also, de Jesu in vitam reditu, whom Ebrard opposes without reason. Luthardt rightly refers to this circumstance, as an example of the manner in which the Evangelist throughout this chapter presupposes the historical contents of the other gospels. JOHN XX. 15-17. 55 racteristic of either, but as a profound symbol of spiritual dis- tinction in the circle of disciples, even in connection with their closest union. 1 Luther, finally, has in our judgment rightly translated the iirlarevaev of ver. 8 — " He believed it;" adding in the margin, " that He had been taken away, as Mary Magda- lene had said." So Bengel : vidit et credidit : vidit, non adesse corpus Jesu, et credidit, id fuisse translatum, ut dixerat Maria. Stolz and Seiler : " and convinced himself." Erasmus, Grotius, Gerhard, not to mention others, hold the same view. The pre- dominant opinion of older and later times, however confidently maintained, that this iriaTeveiv must necessarily indicate a faith, though only dawning or germinant, in the resurrection? appears to us altogether untenable. The next verse does not agree with this ; the emphasis falls there upon the avaarfjvaL, as the opposite to that which they did believe. For certainly it is altogether wrong to regard this verse as giving the reason why Peter only did not believe — though this has been done, in spite of " they knew" and the entire connection ! Hezel even rendered it, " but the others did not understand the Scripture, and therefore did not believe ! !" Fikenscher says, " They should have had more than faith, they should have known it" — so that the emphasis would fall upon the must, as taught by the Scripture. 3 But such a distinction between believing and knowing is foreign to 1 Peter's slowness proceeded not from age, or depression of conscience ; but deeper internal love here as ever goes faster than swiftness. Then again John is satisfied with looking into the grave, and a deeper feeling of holy awe restrains him from going in like Peter. (TTetstein, with as much folly as possible : ne pollueretur ! Grotius, much too tamely : juvenili quadam ct'7rpoas%tot.') 2 So Cyril and Chrysostom : then Calvin, Beza, Lampe. (Nonnus sought to save the connection with ver. 9 by the strange modification : 7riarsvsu on yjoviav oLnro koKkuv ovpxviYiv iicl Tri^au v7TYius t u,iog vSKvg sVr>7.) So very decisively Lange, in the 3 Edit., though by arguments easily refuted. Neander rests upon this necessary meaning of marsvuv in St John's phrase- ology, which also decides Alford. So also Lange, Klee, B.-Crusius, Richter, von Gerlach, and Luthardt. Hess, feeling the historical difficulty of this believing, strangely interpreted — He began to conceive some hope : though he admits that one might find in the words confirmation, as well as refuta- tion, of Mary's suspicions. 3 This is at least better than with Tholuck to take the fihiaxv in a forced pluperfect sense — They had not until now understood the Scripture. 56 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. St John ; and it cannot be evaded that the specific and definite passages, Lu. xxiv. 11, 12, 41, and Mark xvi. 14, are inconsis- tent with the idea that any one of the disciples, even John him- self, had any faith in the resurrection at this time. 1 Euthym. says on ver. 9 : "He explains the reason why they did not before believe the women ;" but the announcement of the women which was not believed did not come till afterwards. That none of the Apostles believed at first, notwithstanding the earlier appear- ances to the women which might have stimulated their faith, is as historically certain as it is profoundly significant ; and we cannot regard John as the exceptional first believer — before Mary Magdalene. Indeed, there was a Divine design in suffer- ing them to see the empty sepulchre, with all its ordered arrange- ments, "to bring them by these specialities to faith" — (as the Berl. Bible says) — but that design was not attained. The clothing laid by said symbolically, " that the form of sinful flesh hitherto borne was now laid aside ; and that the Lord Jesus had entered a life of glory, in which no garments or other covering would ever more be needful" — but even that they understood not ! " They might indeed have perceived from this fact that neither friends nor enemies had taken Him away ; for friends w r ould not have taken off His garments, and enemies would not so carefully have arranged them." (Schmieder.) But they merely marvelled ; they thought no further ; this was all they believed — no more than they saw, that the body was actually not in the sepulchre ! This is the simple meaning of " and he saw and believed" a phrase which St John designedly uses : employing the word iriaTeveuv, elsewhere and afterwards used with so lofty a meaning, as an inexpressibly beautiful irony — which has confused the expositors. Augustine has given this view in his own clear manner : " Some, not carefully reading, think that St John here believed in the resurrection of Jesus ; but that which follows intimates otherwise. What did he mean when he added that they did not yet understand the Scripture that He must rise from the dead ? That he therefore did not believe Him to have risen, because he did not know that He must rise. What was it he saw, and believed ? He saw the empty 1 For it is mere arbitrary presumption to insert, as Klee does, " John and Peter excepted." JOHN XX. 15-17. 57 sepulchre, and believed what the woman had said, that He was taken away from the sepulchre." " The grave is empty I The Lord's body is no longer therein !" This, and only this, was the first Easter tidings, disguised in sorrow. The women had seen nothing more at the beginning, at least Magdalene had seen nothing more; for the traces of the earthquake, the careful arrangement of the inside of the sepulchre, and so forth, they had neither eyes nor thought. The two disciples, therefore, wanted to be convinced only of that which had been testified to them. John had gone in doubt whether this was possible ; but now that he sees it with his own eyes, he must believe. He does believe it fully, but believes nothing more than he sees. But let us come back to Mary Magdalene, whose proper re- lation to the occurrences of the Resurrection-morning it was necessary for us thus to determine. It speaks much in favour of the view which we have taken, that the disciples return home again — not waiting for His promised return at the sepulchre, in the garden of manifestation. But Mary, who had returned again with the Two, goes not back again ; for she clings more closely than John himself, and is of all the troubled ones the most troubled. Her Lord, who had saved her from the power of the seven devils, is alone in her mind ; nothing that occurs has any influence, either to make her wonder or make her think. She cannot leave the sepulchre ; she remains standing there a while — and then finally looks again within. 1 And now there must be a great revulsion ! At first, it was as Pf enninger paints : " All things were as beautiful as they could be around the sleeping- room of the king's son, which he had left. 2 The odoriferous air, the bright morning sun, the pure blue heaven, the jubilant songs of birds, the blooming garden — but all was of no account to 1 " When they found Him not, they went back again together. How loftily does Mary's love rise above theirs ! She thought not of going back ; rather would she have breathed her life away, than leave the place where she had seen Him the last time." This hyperbole of the preacher Albertini is better, however, than Bengel's cold remark in the Harmony — H She was weary." It is better in the Gnomon — " with greater perseverance." 2 And His attendants have gracefully arranged all things after Him. 58 FIKST APPEAKANCE TO MAEY MAGDALENE. Mary. She is not thinking of the king's son as gone out of His chambers, but as murdered, and His sepulchre desecrated, His body stolen ; she thinks only of Him, and her last consolation gone, her purpose is to take no comfort, but to weep her soul away." When she opens her eyes, not involuntarily, but to be- hold once more and more closely the sad reality ; when she looks directly into the sepulchre, 1 — she beholds two angels ! Peter and John saw none, for they could not, and it was not appointed that they should, see any ; Mary Magdalene, on the contrary, was to be aroused to attention, and thus elevated step by step from her deep prostration. The appearance and vanishing of an angel is not a u most alarming circumstance to begin with," and cer- tainly no "marvellous capricious hiding and seeking;" but all is simply voluntary and appointed. In this we may confidently adopt Ebrard's words, as well as those of Olshausen, who de- duces from this history that "angels have the power to make themselves visible and invisible" — if that is not self-understood in relation to angels ! Yet with this objective truth we may in some sense connect the subjective susceptibility for a higher seeing. Not as Lange makes the angels altogether internal ; but that the visibility of the angels is dependent upon the exist- ing wakefulness, or susceptibility of that eye which can alone behold angels. 2 The application of this to the narrative of the resurrection-morning we must discover in our own thoughtful reflection. The same Magdalene, who at first saw not, sees after- wards in her heightened longing ; but the investigating Apostles have no eyes for angels, and these, therefore, await the eyes of the women alone. — Further, we may say with Bengel : " There may have been two other angels which Mary Magdalene after- wards saw. The angels in St John had another ministry than those of the other three Evangelists." They sit, one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain ; as it were to show " that Jesus was from His head to His feet in the protection of His Father and His angels ; so that no human might could disturb, or could have invaded Him in the rest of the sepulchre" — as Fikenscher most suggestively says. 1 For Kcc.pa.KVKTiiv is certainly not — cursim velut atque obiter inspicere ! — to behold in passing. 2 This is our canon. Compare something similar in Liicke, 3d Auf . S. 781. JOHN XX. 15-17. 59 Woman, why weepest thou ? The affectionate commencement of sympathising words, which, in order to console, would open the hearer's heart by expression of sympathy : comp. Lu. xxiv. 17. This is the first obvious, external aspect of the angel-word, which, however, in the thoughts of these heavenly spirits, concealed much more: — Why weepest thou so altogether without cause? Behold the place where He lay — He is no longer dead ! Ij thou hadst found His body, thou mightest weep indeed. 1 The angels would proceed to give her consolation, and tell her what the other women had heard. But Mary will hear nothing more ; she interrupts them at the first word about her weeping — Should I not iveep? and pours out the same lamentation in touching simplicity to the angels now which the Apostles had heard before. Does she not know the angels whom she sees sitting in white — and is she not terrified at them % Ah, she is so altogether swal- lowed up of the sorrow which forgot everything else, that all who live and speak, whether angels or men, are alike, and alike indifferent to her ! She has only her Lord, and His body taken away, in her thoughts ; her absorbed soul has no room for astonishment even at an appearance of angels. 2 There is only one touch which intensifies this repetition of her sorrowful cry. To the Apostles, ver. 2, she had spoken of " the Lord" — our Lord, in common — but now, before these strangers, although they are angels, she appropriates to herself the beloved Dead, and speaks with a sensibility which the interval had rendered more keen — My Lord ! Should not I, a poor woman, weep for that % Fikenscher incorrectly assumes that she betrayed there- by her feeling that the men in white were neither angels nor 1 Draseke prosecutes further, and in a very beautiful way, the allegorical ■words : She wept without, before the sepulchre. And naturally so ! What can we do other than weep, as long as we stand before a grave ? But look into it fixedly, look death steadily in the face, and its terror is gone. The grave is empty to the hand (the investigating hand, of course, like that of Peter) — but to the longing of love, angels are within, messengers of peace." 2 Bengel : Non attendit, quis quid in sepulchro loqueretur. Jesum quserit. Krummacher : "Id the persons of these two angels two bright beams of the Resurrection-sun shine full into her face ; and yet she does not know that it is Easter. She leaves the angels sitting, and goes forth to weep ; and might not these heavenly beings have smiled at the neglect, and thought that they had never before been so little regarded as by this sobbing Mary ? " 60 FIEST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. friends of Jesus. No, she has no thought as to who had spoken and interrupted her weeping ; she speaks simply from the pro- found depth of her emotion. And is it not a deep grief that one who, like Magdalene, had been forgiven and saved by the Lord, had learned to know Him, and enjoy His communion, should now be left with the feeling of Magdalene in the world without Him, standing before His grave, desecrated by His enemies — not knowing concerning His body what had become of it ? So may many in after times have wept for a while, when the unbe- lief of the opposer has taken away his Easter consolation and therefore his Lord, leaving him nothing more of his kingdom of heaven than the empty sepulchre and an " I know not where !" Yet such sorrow and distress endures not long; and one day of such waiting before the sepulchre, as the outer court of the glory of God, is better than a thousand spent in the secure tents of the ungodly. (Ps. lxxxiv. 10.) My Lord — that is spoken by the hidden faith of love. " Deep within her soul sits another blessed angel, who, without her knowledge, gives her more comfort than the angels without ; and to that angel's ministry must we ascribe it that she despaired not. It was the angel of a slender, but real and inward, hope." (Krummacher.) Yes, verily, love believes even in the midst of unbelief, hopes even the greatest things even in the midst of prof oundest sorrow : all this we see in the Magdalene. The place where the Lord lay — so said the angels. They have taken away the Lord — My Lord — so says Magdalene. The word " Lord" comes out gradually into all its Easter clearness. And the Lord Himself appears ! St Mark's assurance must be vindicated, that He first appeared to Mary Magdalene ; for his statement shows us that this first manifestation was held without doubt by the body of the disciples. 1 But St John alone was capa- ble of recording, and he alone was honoured to record, in their incomparably beautiful conciseness and depth, the particulars of this scene. We have already remarked that Mary most natur- ally interrupts the angels ; with this alone seems to accord the expression : ravra elirovcra, iarpdcpr] et? to- oTriaa). We are 1 Neander's " first to the woman who had gone away before, then to Mary who remained behind" is one of his arbitrary suppositions. The time may very well be adjusted with St Mark. JOHN XX. 15-17. 61 not licensed, with Chrys. and Theoph., to assume that the angels, suddenly beholding the Lord Himself, broke off and pointed out to her what made Mary herself turn round. (Theoph. artificially appends : rols jjuev ayyekocs Tvyov iv eKirXrjTTOvn G-^rjfjbari icpdvw, rfj Se Mapla ov/cert, aW' iv evreXel koX kolvS.) Nor may we say with Fikenscher, " that the Lord spiritually attracts her to turn round" — or, in contrast, with B.-Crus., that she turned round " upon hearing a movement." l But the ravra elirovaa tells us that Mary herself had turned away from the coming word of comfort — in order that she might turn toward and seek the Beloved One whom she would find. Ebrard well states it: "And therewith she turns round, that she might uninterruptedly weep. But there stands another man before her, and asks, Why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?" And now she should no longer weep, but find Him to her joy. Yet she knows not this Man, and does not discern the Lord for whom she weeps ! How then was that ? May we say with Tholuck, that " His death of agony had made His features unrecognisable ? " or, still more harshly with Hasse, " that He was disfigured by the deeply engraven marks of pain ? " We think that such thoughts are altogether unworthy of a correct view of the resurrection : — not to mention the intimations given elsewhere in the Evangelists of the glory of His manifestations. Or did Jesus stand before her (as Herder thinks) " in a disguise ?" Or did He at first show Himself to Mary iv eripa jjiopcpfj, as St Mark says concerning the manifestation at Emmaus, but not concerning this one ? Scarcely so ; the simple and right solution seems to us to be that Mary only partially looks up and does not in her grief steadily look ; she sees Jesus standing before her as a man, but does not see that it is Jesus. That which is so infinitely far from our thoughts, as the resurrection of her Lord was from hers, we should not see or discern, even if standing before our eyes. " Her tears weave a veil which conceals Him who stands before her from her view. The seeking for the dead hinders our find- ing the living." Drliseke is right here, though not in referring the same to the disciples on the way to Emmaus. Woman, Why weepest thou ? This first word of the Risen 1 Hezel made this turning no less than a return to the city, so reconcil- ing the scene with the other appearance in St Matthew, of which more anon. 62 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. Lord to a mortal is an inexhaustible text for the resurrection — to unfold which is the province of the preacher. He has risen again to comfort those who mourn ! Even the " wo?nan" has its deep significance in many ways. He first in His sacred dignity addresses this Mary, as He had addressed His mother from the cross, by the general and common appellation, before the indivi- dualising and affectionately appealing " Mary" follows : — thus intimating how highly He is exalted above every particular per- sonal relationship. But the dignity of the female sex restored in the regeneration of humanity is reflected, and not fortuitously, in this first word of the Conqueror of pain and death ; and there is in it, further, a condescending reference to the appointed deeper grief to woman's nature.' He seems to speak just as the angel had spoken, in simple and insignificant words ; but the simple word, when uttered by Him, involves a more lofty mean- ing at this significant moment. Thus this second time the " Why weepest thou?" penetrates the weeping heart with in- tenser keenness ; and the new word which follows — Whom seek- est thou ? — touches the inmost secret of this sorrowful heart. This is different from the more concealed " What seek ye I " in the beginning of the gospel (chap. i. 38). For His person is now plainly referred to, that which had been already manifested to Mary, and was to be yet more gloriously manifested. Thus, weeping and seeking bring Jesus to us. He is risen to dry up the tears of all who weep, if they will receive this blessing at His hand; — how much more all those tears which are shed in the disconsolate seeking for Himself ! Thus in this first word of the resurrection we have the reason given why the Magdalene re- ceived the honour of the Lord's first manifestation : — she was the most troubled, the most inconsolable of all. His love draws Him to all who weep for Him in love : that is the sole law which reigns here, and breaks through every other gradation in rank. For this reason and not on account of His rank (since his name comes last) was the angel commissioned to say— Tell His dis- ciples and Peter ! 1 1 Much that has been written about the arrangement of the Appear- ances may be regarded as mere trifling, which might better be omitted. For instance (to quote only one instance) Geiler of Keisersberg thus alle- gorises : " There are three sorts of men to whom our Lord Christ appears JOHN XX. 15-17. 63 The angels probably designed to continue, when Mary inter- rupted them. But the Lord restrains Himself, and seeks her answer. Yet Mary is not roused from her sorrow ; she does not look closely at Him, but replies to Him as believing that she was speaking to the gardener. " The body, the beloved body, fills and pervades all her feeling ; there is no place for her Friend, even the Living" (Albertini). That is, she was still sunk in thoughts of death, having died with the Beloved One ! Yet there is, at the same time, in her awakening supposition as to wlw it was that spoke to her again, a returning consciousness of external things which was excited by the secret influence of the so gracious voice; and this transition was necessary in order that she might be able to bear the sudden revelation which awaited her. Therefore she at first thinks of the overseer of the garden, who might be thus early at the place : nothing further is to be sought in this circumstance. 1 Her words to the sup- posed gardener are in the highest degree artless, and produce in our minds, knowing as we do that she was speaking to the Lord, a strange impression. First, it is observable, as a further transi- tion from her state of deep and dark sorrow, that, softened as it in this day with His gifts of grace. To some He appears in early morning gardener-wise : — these are the men who have long continued in sin, but are beginning to repent. To others He appears in pilgrim-fashion at mid- day : — these are those who are progressing well. To the rest He appears in His own person late : — these are the perfect." 1 Natural as this is, it does not content many who have all kinds of notions about our Saviour's garments. Paulus discovered that the amazed family of the gardener hastened to the sepulchre (the children in white clothing, being taken for angels !) and provided garments. And this we find reproduced in a celebrated commentary : ;t Probably He had put on gardener's clothing, the family of the owner of the garden (to whom He first showed Himself !) having given them to Him." Hug's thought (as- sented to by Liicke and Tholuck), though it seems more reverent, is not much better : " The Lord was crucified with an apron about His loins, subligaculum, lumbare, and probably buried with it ; this being similar to that worn by gardeners and labourers in the field, occasioned His being taken for the gardener." "We prefer to say concerning the clothing of the Risen Lord (on which Carpzov wrote a treatise) with Olshausen : " The question must be answered as we would answer that concerning the cloth- ing of the angels." And with Fikenscher : " His glorified form needed earthly garments no longer, and assumed a different vesture, like the angels, whenever He appeared to the disciples." 64 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MART MAGDALENE. were by the reiterated expression of sympathy, she gives up her former gloomy supposition, and expresses the new idea — that " probably not enemies but people with no evil design had re- moved the body." (As B.-Crus. rightly urges, against the argu- ment, which Klee deduces, that she had not from the beginning thought of enemies.) Then let it be observed that she thrice says only avrov — Him — without mentioning whom she means ; for it is to her as if every one must know that ! As the Shula- mite, Cant. iii. 3, cries to the watchman : " Saw ye him whom my soul loveth?" Hence the Franciscan brother Berth oldt: " See how warm and earnest was her true love to our Lord for whom she was weeping ; she thought that all must know what her feelings toward Him were." Further, how innocent in its fidelity, how confident in her address to the man — Tell me where thou hast borne Him ! Lange thinks she " hoped that the gar- dener, a faithful disciple, might have carried the body to a place of security from the crafty and unscrupulous plots of His ene- mies ;" but this is not very probable, for it argues too much re- flection in the midst of the storm of her passion. 1 Still less can we agree with Ebrard that she " speaks as it were impatiently, because thus again interrupted ;" for that would have been a very inappropriate tone of mind to prepare for the blessedness which immediately follows, and, moreover, is contradicted by the Kvpte with which she addresses the unknown person in the ex- treme of respect, as well as by the confidential ah' of her whole saying. A certain confusion which seizes her, in connection with the secret consolation, and the constrained turn given to her feelings, best explains the question which holds fast the one object of her sorrow and longing — Hast thou taken Him away ? Thus she characteristically confounds the living person of Him whom she loved -and the body taken away ; and would have Him again — that she might bury Him again, bear Him again to His place. (She, the weak woman, says — And I will take Him away, very different from the anxious — Who will roll us away the stone? This is her last and most artless confusion.) And all this she says to Himself, the Eisen One, who had raised Himself from 1 Else, indeed, his word of comfort might have sounded to her as if, knowing or supposing that she sought the body, he would conceal from her the removal of which he had taken care. JOHN XX. 15-17. 65 the sepulchre by Divine power ! O Mary, they could not have taken Him away ; no other had removed Him from His rest ! So may we cry, and peradventure forget how like her we should be in our despondency, sin, and unbelief ; and how easily we our- selves fail to discern His form and voice when He stands before us, thinking it the gardener, the preacher, the man, belonging to the place. It was necessary that we should thus think upon and feel the force of her interjection, in order to understand in all its depth the emphatic word, Mary! by which the Lord breaks in upon this marvellous confusion of her softened sorrow and dawning hope. His voice had been restrained (though not disguised) in the former questioning, but now when He calls her by name, and effectually awakens her, it resumes its former tone of perfect gentleness — " as if He was continuing one of His former con- versations with her" fas Pfenninger expresses it: — not in the majesty of His new life, for this would have oppressed instead of comforting, her weak soul). This voice she knows — by this she was to recognise Him, thus and not otherwise was she to receive Him back again at this moment. 1 We perceive that the ador- able Prince of victory, returning from the* sepulchre, has human sensibility, and speaks to human sensibility, as far as it is expe- dient to do so. How profoundly affecting is it that such a word of sensibility, so humanly spoken to humanity, should first fall from His lips, before the sublime words follow which speak of His return to His Father ! One word, the calling her by name, as an expression of intimate confidence, in all His ma- nifestation of Himself to Mary. And in one corresponding word she utters naturally her bewildered astonishment. 2rpa- (pelcra — she turned herself — says St John, once more. Not that she had turned again to the sepulchre when she said, " I will take Him away" 2 — but now first does she entirely turn to Him 1 The affectionate tone, accompanied by a glance of His eye (comp. Lu. xxii. 61), in both which His perfect love manifested itself to the eye and ear." So Hasse (Das Leben des verklarten Erlosers, Leipz. 1854) — but the glance came afterwards, when she hearing the voice turned towards Him. It is surprising that Hasse seems to identify Magdalene with the sinner of Lu. vii. 2 As some one preached, and. adds : " She seeks Jesus with hot tears, and yet turns away from Him, because she knows Him not." How should VOL. VIII. E 6G FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. who spoke and called her ; she sees as she had heard — It is He! and falls before Him clinging to His feet. (B.-Crus. says cor- rectly : " 'EcTTpdxpT) ver. 14 denoted a half turning ; then in ver. 16 follows o-TpafeLaa") In this Rabboni! 1 is breathed her whole soul ; the conscious and inexpressibly comforting return to her earlier fellowship with the Teacher and Master, on whose lips her ear and her heart had hung. Here for the last time is Jesus addressed by that expression which had been earlier used —as if in perfect contrast with the words of Thomas, My Lord and my God ! But this full and decisive Rabboni has no " half- questioning" tone in it, as if followed by a note of interrogation, After such a call as this, there could follow nothing but a full recognition ; there was no room for the doubtful — Art Thou then truly He ? It is no matter of wonder that St John could depict the scene as he does, without adding one sentimental word, even while he adds his quiet " which is to say, Master ;" but we might wonder that Mary could find strength for only this Rab- bonL if we did not remember that the call of the Lord had in- spired her with this strength. The cry of her rapture is a most beautiful symbol of all similar finding of Him whom the soul spiritually seeks ; and it is a prophecy, too, of the recognition of Him in the last great day* Thus will every one hear himself called by name, by a voice so well known and yet so new ; then will sorrow and death be for ever done away ; — and happy he who will be able to cry Rabboni, learned in the school in which alone it is taught. 2 she then wish to speak again to the angels, from whom she had already turned away ? How should she wish to turn away from Him to whom she had said — Tell me where thou hast laid Him ? We cannot regard Mary (with Luthardt) as being so restless that, even after questioning the man in the garden, her glance must again turn to the sepulchre. Better is Meyer's note, that crpecipslaoe. means at the same time, She came to a different mind — though this only as the secret meaning of the external act. 1 The ifipct'ioTi preceding is needless; nor would it show that she was in the habit of speaking Greek, but now in her deep feeling used the nearer tongue. It is well known that "^ was higher than at], and *^ts^ a cus- tomary appellation. Probably also ^^ (as Mark x. 51), as the Jewish pronunciation of ^s*^ and the yet more obscure (Galilaean) "^s^. The Cod. Cant, has here also pxfificovei. a Draseke has taken John xx. 1-18 as the basis of an exhibition of the JOHN XX 15-17. 67 What now would be expected by the reader — not yet in- structed in this school — who should pause at this soul-absorbing call and response ? Would it be, on the part of Mary, further outpourings of delight, ecstatic exultation at having found Him again, thanksgivings, leaping for joy — or all this mingled with the reaction of fear, the return of doubt, unbelief through glad- ness — or, between the two, her progress to the worshipping " My Lord and my God." And, on the part of our Lord, was there after this affectionate beginning a further condescension of love, words expressing the sweetness even to Himself of this restored fellowship, the enjoyment of this gracious hour, the first fruits of His victory in making another happy, revelation of the mysteries of this victory, and new instruction of the Teacher returned from the dead % But there is nothing of all this. The dignity of the Risen Lord desires now, even more than before His death, brief words and acts, and less even than then tolerates tarrying in sen- timent and feeling. His lips do not overflow with mysteries of the other world ; and only at the right time, afterwards, that is, when He opens the Scripture given for the preaching of sal- vation, does He pour out His words concerning the kingdom to be established upon earth; — otherwise, all His manifestations and revelations bear a character of reserve and hasty transitoriness. The scene with Peter, of which we know nothing more, had been brief, no more than an to^>6rj — He appeared ; this scene with Mary, which St John describes doubtless in full, exhibits even after the most confidential approximation a marvellous Noli me tangere. It is strange, indeed ; but, if we have compared Scripture with Scripture, and noted all the other accounts of His Appearances, not unexpected or incomprehensible. We have already hinted at the right view to be taken of it. Interpreters of this Life make themselves here much needless trouble : the influence of the resurrection of our Lord upon the male and the female mind. In man, or the male element as it were of the inner man, thought rules ; in this region of the testing spirit the resurrection changed unbelief into faith. In woman sensibility is predominant, and in this region the resurrection changed sorrow into joy. — Beautiful, if the text admitted it, and if this interpretation of iKiarevasv ver. 8 could be justified. If we might enter into such matters, we should prefer to say that this is the feminine portion of man's nature which is susceptible of the first conviction and the strongest consolation. 68 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. crux extends into the forty days, and the bright ascension itself becomes a dark and mysterious riddle. We will do our best, mindful of our own infirmity, to exhibit the history of the exegesis of this much-confused conclusion of the saying, in such a manner as to arrive at the truth which we have recognised already in the beginning of it. Many have resorted to doubts and conjectures as to the text. Gersdorff struck out the fir) ; Schulthess made it av fiov cltttov ; Yogel, even, fjurj ov tttoov. But the text is absolutely firm (save that fiov is sometimes wanting, sometimes transposed) ; and we leave the easy refutation of these artifices to those who have abundantly refuted them. The worst instance was that of the Utrecht Professor Bauldri, who altered the punctuation into Mr}- fjbov airrov — that is, No, I am not the gardener ; only touch Me to convince thyself, for I do not yet ascend, am no heavenly, impalpable essence ! Did she then cry Rabboni as to the gar- dener % And how could fir} be used in so strange a sense as this ? Others, rejecting all these refinements, have despaired of the word and pronounced it simply " unintelligible." But we shall see. The difficulty lies in the rigorously literal idea of the airTea- Qai, which we must certainly hold fast ; and in the obscure con- nection of the reason given in the yap. All expositions which sacrifice the one or the other are to be rejected. Thus the prohibition to touch must first be literally taken. Wetstein's grievous perversion is : — Make thyself not unclean by touching one who has been buried ! ! Schleiermacher reproduced a rationalist notion, which here and there finds unaccountable acceptance, that the new life of the newly-risen Lord was as yet too tenderly susceptible to be touched ! It was Paulus who first conceived that the Lord went into the garden with His wounds as yet unsoothed, etc. According to Brennecke He said : " My body unprotected, everything yet pains Me ; I have not yet died, but shall die." According to Venturini : " Touch Me not yet ! This afflicted body remains yet susceptible to pain ; the wounds which the reckless inflicted upon Me torment me still." One can hardly believe that Schleiermacher could have fallen into or adopted such errors ; yet in a festival sermon, which Olshausen thinks " incomparably beautiful," we find this reproduced, JOHN XX. 15-17. 69 though with more delicate expression : " The Lord said this, as it were, with a fearful and susceptible feeling in His new life ; eight days afterwards He suffered Himself freely to be touched by Thomas." (As if at the beginning He had shrunk from the opening again of His newly-healed wounds !) This view, some- what spiritualised, is accepted even by Olshausen, and the words are supposed to infer a prevention of any interruption or hin- drance to the gradual process of the resurrection and glorifica- tion. Whatever slight element of truth there may be in this " gradual process," the whole view has been rightly rejected by most ; * and even Kinkel 2 concisely asks, " Is not the miracle of the resurrection degraded by it?" Most assuredly it is. Either it was a seeming death, as the first inventors of this in- terpretation supposed ; or there was an actual resurrection, which defies all such natural explanations as are inconsistent with the literal journey to Emmaus on the same day. Admitting that the Risen Lord was not yet fully glorified, and that there was until the ascension a continual process towards glorification, yet certainly the resurrection itself put Him beyond all suscep- tibility of pain, 3 which as a concomitant of death had been over- come and abolished for ever. It is a contradictory and utterly incomprehensible thought that one raised from the dead should be capable of suffering in the body, or of being kept back from a perfect resurrection by the operation of any human hand ! Thus we must reject this, and all that similarly outrages our true " consciousness of faith." 4 What then? Michaelis laid down this dilemma : Mary Magdalene wished to touch the Lord either out of curiosity or out of deep reverence. Instead of the former, which however womanly is inappropriate here, 1 All the more marvellous is the- idea of an interruption or restraint through the hands of Mary ! 2 In his treatise, Stud. u. Krit. 1841. 3, the general result of which we shall refer to again. 3 "It is not the painless body of glorification which I now bear!" Draseke. 4 According to Weisse, Jesus (that is, again, in the opinion of the narrator) meant that He was spiritual as yet, incorporeal and impalpable, and that He would receive His corporeity again from the Father ! 70 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. we should substitute doubt whether He whose voice she heard really stood before her in His bodily person. Was she then desirous of convincing herself by touching Him ? x But the intrusion of such a doubt — Art Thou really He? into the blessed emotion of happiness which cries Rabboni ! is altogether inconsistent, as we have intimated before. Olshausen remarks very rightly : " It does not by any means appear how the sub- sequent 1 1 am not yet ascended ' is applicable to the supposed unbelief of Mary." And in that case, finally, the Lord would not have been able to say, Touch Me not, for I am He, and thy touching is not necessary ; but rather must, as in Lu. xxiv. 39, have challenged her to the tyrpuKpav, in order to invigorate her confidence. 2 For it could do Him no offence ; and where- fore then might she not touch Him? According to St Matthew He does not deter the women presently afterwards from " holding Him by the feet," but uttered an encouraging "Be not afraid;" and He Himself requires the apostles in the evening, and Thomas afterwards, actually to touch Him. How then is this contradiction to be solved? Kinkel's solu- tion will be referred to afterwards ; but there is no method of reconciliation which does not ascribe to the touching of Mary a peculiar significance and design. The dilemma above-men- tioned brings forward " deep reverence " as the other side of the alternative ; but this also has two aspects. Either it is an actual amazement and fear, as is seen in Matt, xxviii. 9 ; but there the Lord rebukes not the taking hold of Himself, He says on the contrary — Be not afraid ! And how can we un- derstand in firj fiov a7nov — touch Me not — such a meaning as this, " Be not terrified, or pray for mercy, because ye have seen Me ?" Or Mary's design is to pay Him the Divine honour 1 As Teschendorf? makes her say : " But presently doubt returns and seizes my breast. The eyes would see, the hands would feel. I cannot resist the impulse to approach and touch His hands and feet, etc." And He then answers : " Embrace Me not so anxiously and violently, / am still as thou art!" Thus this view is connected with the previous one, of His susceptibility to feeling. 2 Thus Lampe goes not far enough against B. Lamy : " This hypothesis would be ingenious enough if there were any signs of doubt in Mary." But even allowing this, it would not agree with the words of Jesus. JOHN XX. 15-17. 71 of worship. But this is not to be reconciled with the Rabboni ; she certainly would not give her Lord and God the title of Rabbi, as the Talmudists did afterwards. And, moreover, we cannot suppose that the perception of her faith would make in one sudden moment so great an advance. But, even if we admitted this, how strange and unintelligible would be the expression "Touch Me not" — without any mention of "feet" or "knees" — in such a meaning ! And would He, could He, have forbidden the worship, because He had not yet ascended ? Could He mean — I am not yet clothed with heavenly honour, My glorification is yet before Me ? But He had received that worship from Thomas before His ascension (as we shall make clearly evident) ; and in that case, as Olshausen remarks, He must have gone on to speak, not of His abiding brotherhood and nearness to His own (My Father their Father, My God their God), but rather of the Divine and adorable dignity which should be revealed after His ascension. 1 We say, with von Gerlach, " If we regard her as having reverentially em- braced His knees, yet Christ lays no stress upon this meaning of her act, but makes prominent another." What then is this ? We look more closely, and remark that all depends upon what Mary meant by her touching. But St John has given us no record of that ; we are left to draw our conclusion from the word of Jesus. 2 It may be regarded now as certain that she sank to His feet in reverence (which might be without paying Divine honour), because at this moment of deep emotion to stand longer was impossible ; but her ac- companying thought and feeling may admit of interpretations quite independent of the dilemma just referred to. Is it her purpose to hold Him fast — not in doubt, but in her natural 1 And yet this view is taken by Kypke, Herder, Less, Kiilmbl (earlier also Liicke), Tholuck, Meyer, etc. Hasse adheres to it, because all other explanations seem " forced ;" but we regard this one as simply impossible. Sepp completes it : Touch Me not, scil. wpwKvvovo* — Worship Me not ! But he forgets his own exposition in the sixth volume of his work, where he rejects the same interpretation, as a specimen of Protestant unbelief, when given by Pfaff : Honour Me not in a Divine manner, for I do not yet come down from heaven, I have yet to ascend thither. 2 Only one MS. has the addition — And they ran to embrace Him. 72 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. anxiety lest the wonderful appearance should vanish again, and in the immediate outpouring of her full love ? In the parallel usually cited, 2 Kings iv. 27, there is something like this more than has been noticed in the VWT3 P.Tnni — the petitioner will not let the man of God go until he has granted her will. But the word of the Canticles (ch. iii. 4) best suits Mary Magdalene — " I held him and would not let him go !" Entering into this sense, anrTeaQai has been regarded as signifying " to hold fast;" and Meyer's note (on this point indistinct and indefinite) mingles this feeling with that of doubt, and interprets — "Thou needest not touch Me thus, or anxiously to detain Me ; I am He, I am still here, I am not yet gone up." There is some truth in this, at least in the detaining. But in order to reach the true meaning, we must bring clearly before our minds the inmost meaning of this holding Him fast, the disposition and feeling of Mary's mind in so doing. 1 The truth has been more or less acknowledged from the beginning. The earliest explanation is found in a writing attributed to Justin, and found among his works — Qusestiones et responsa ad orthodoxos (qu. 48) : Moderate thy desire to-^ ward Me, and retain Me not with thy demonstrations of love ; the time is not yet come for confidential and permanent in- tercourse — this earth is not the place of perfect union and fellowship. Somewhat similar, though developed with more or less indistinctness, are the views of Chrysost., Theod. Mopsu., Theophyl., Euthym. ; who, however, refer it rather to the past, that after the resurrection such intercourse was no longer befitting. 2 Cyril seems to add the remarkable thought, that Mary, being not yet capable of receiving the Holy Ghost, was not worthy thus already to touch and hold the Holy One ; but this must be rightly understood. Indistinct and wavering as 1 Meyer in the last letter which I received from him acknowledges the justice of my remark, and substitutes in his new edition, " Probably, etc., Interrupt Me not with womanly passion." 2 Euthymius : " He said this for no other purpose, as Chrys. remarks, than to teach her that He was now raised to a higher position, and must be more profoundly reverenced. In that He was hastening with His body to ascend to His Father and God, it was manifest that He had laid aside the mortality of the body." JOHN XX. 15-17. 73 all this may be, we are persuaded that it is upon the right track. Even Grotius is not altogether in error when he in- terprets : " Thou wouldst touch Me, Mary, that is, thou wishest altogether to enjoy My friendship ; that is not lawful now, for I present Myself to your view only oltcovofjuucm, for the strengthening of your faith. But when I shall have ascended to the Father, thou wilt be able most perfectly to enjoy My friendship and fellowship, not by a terrestrial contact, but by spiritual — such as is appropriate to that place, that is, to heaven." This last is Cyril's meaning more plainly ex- pressed, and is in a certain sense right ; but he makes the thought repulsive by the mechanical observation that the fruitio might be very fittingly expressed by the aiTTeo-Oai. This is not so very obvious ; airTeaOai cannot, as many have supposed 1 (Aug., Calv., Beza, not Grotius), even metaphorically stand for mente contrectare vel adhcerere ; it must retain its literal significance. But this view of the meaning generally appears to us the only right one, when it is fundamentally developed ; we shall find the reason afterwards why it is expressed by fitf fJLOV airrov. That our conclusion may not appear to be novel, we are glad to let others speak. The Berlenberg Bible — which we have done something, we trust, to redeem from its undeserved neglect — says : " We cannot now continue our former method of inter- course ; all must be now quite different. This must thou now learn. Ye cannot now act toward Me as ye did before My death." Kichter's Family Bible : " There was in her prostra- tion before His appearance something human and savouring of passion, which was not yet removed by any contemplation of the Divine fulness in Christ, and which therefore was not to be encouraged. Thus it was — Hang not upon Me in thy former humanly weak confidence. Another relation now begins, a higher relation, and one both for Me and thee more glorious." V. Gerlach is especially good : " She should not touch Him now because He stood again before her visible and tangible ; but was to wait with her touch, until she could no longer touch Him in 1 Lampe after Cocceius : " Cleave not in thy mind and thoughts to Me, as in that state in which thou now beholdest Me." 74 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. the body. The true seeing again, and the true touching, would then first begin when He was withdrawn from her sight and from her hands. The touching signifies generally that altogether intimate and confidential intercourse which Mary, full of joy at seeing Him again, would have at once recommenced." Neander: " Not in the form in which He now appeared should men ad- here to Him ; for He had not yet been exalted to His Father in heaven. Then when He should as the Glorified manifest Him- self again, should they cleave to Him, touch Him, and embrace Him, not in a sensible manner but in a spiritual. For the pre- sent His tarrying among the disciples was only transitory ." De Wette almost comes to the same point, when he speaks of em- bracing Him with the feeling of contentment, which as yet was unseasonable. According to Krummacher the Lord intimates to Mary " that she must no longer reckon upon any such inter- course with Him as had hitherto been accorded ; that she must now exchange the life and touch of sight for the higher and more spiritual relation of faith, that which no longer knows Christ after the flesh." All these are the expressions of simple truths, which supple- ment each other and make a perfect whole ; especially as they bring out the necessary union of the " no longer" and the " not yet" in this intermediate season. More might be quoted, but these are enough. Thus the Lord's repelling word is a sublime and profound declaration — "No, thus it was not designed!" enforced from Him by the opposition between the heavenly feel- ing of His own mind and the earthly feeling of Mary's spirit. Sensible experience and apprehension will avail no more from this time. Thou wilt not possess and hold and enjoy My pre- sence as thou didst before My death. Did not Mary betray that thought and feeling by the Rabboni, a word entirely derived from their former relation, but which, as spoken to Him, and addressing Him by His title as a Teacher, is in strange contrast with the Kvpte addressed to the gardener, and the top tcvptov fiov to men and angels ? We would not turn this to Mary's blame or disparagement, but rather regard it as having a beautiful internal propriety ; yet it brings out strongly the propriety of the LoroVs word — Thou shalt possess Me again, but not as before, it shall be from this time and for ever in the Spirit ! Photius JOHN XX. 15-17. 75 in Lampe : " She would converse with the Lord, and enjoy His communion, in a human manner, and as she had been wont during the course of His incarnate dispensation. But Christ leads her away from this tone of mind, and says — The time of exalted and Divine relationships is come." And thus we have at the first Appearance of our Lord (and this is no slight con- firmation of our view) a word of profound general application, the force of which must apply to the whole period of the forty days, down to the ascension which is here proleptically men- tioned. So Pfenninger makes Nathanael observe, in relation to the Lord's brief manifestations and sudden vanishings : " I un- derstand it, my brethren ; He deals with us just as He said to Mary at the beginning. We are not to enjoy His society as if His presence were to be with us always." And Kniewel has equally well expressed it : " The forbidding word of Jesus to Mary has this deep meaning : Eefrain from this corporeal and sensible touching, else wilt thou never apprehend and embrace Me. When I shall have ascended to heaven, thou wilt be able, in common with all My disciples (to whom thou must announce this), through the Spirit to apprehend and possess and enjoy Me as the Saviour who will unite you all into one brotherly fellow- ship in God, your true Father." And now, having reached this point, let us remark the signi- ficant contrast, that it may help us to understand the concrete and strong expression. It is just after that most internal and most living approximation to her in the " Mary !" that the Lord thinks fit to retreat from her again. For, she interprets it humanly, but He Divinely; she in an earthly sense, but He already in a heavenly. Hess had some apprehension of this : " With all His confidential condescension there was always (especially now ! we would add) united dignity. Leave Me un touched. Though I am not at once translated into the super- terrestrial, yet is this immediately at hand." The Berl. Bible brings out more definitely the passionate and sensuous character of the act which the Lord would repel : " Her externality of mind was altogether too vivacious, and the Lord would moderate it." And Krummacher : " We may suppose that it was the Lord's purpose to suppress a storm of emotion in Mary's soul, the undue admixture of human sensibility being unworthy of that higher 76 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. relation in which His people would thenceforward stand to Himself. Many traits in our Lord's former life have prepared us for a certain repulsion on His part of that which we are accustomed to term sentimentality P 1 Consequently, it is quite right to say that the Lord is aggrieved by Mary's laying hold on Him. , The injury, however, is not corporeal, but in the pure spirit of heavenly-mindedness with which He has risen ; in the feeling of His dignity, which resents all too human and sensible approximation and touch, as bearing in it too much of the re- mains of earthly passion. This f eeling has at the first moment its full vigour : and therefore He uses this strong expression, opposing as it were to this too human passion the sacred passion of His own supreme repose, repelling her first eagerness and preventing the continuance of such a method of exhibiting it. Hence it is a rigorous and concrete noli me tangere ; and there- fore the airTeaOm is used, the propriety of which has caused much needless trouble to the expositors. For in itself dirreadai cannot be made to mean (as Neander asserts) the seizing or grasping of an object which one intends to retain hold of ; but it literally signifies a " momentary touching," though with a specific distinction from Oiyydvew. We very much doubt whether it can mean (as Hofmann thinks), at least in this place, " the having to do with, or adhering to, any one." " The relation between us is somewhat changed ; My former life with you will return no more ; but after a brief time of tran- sition My elevation to the Father will come : — all this thou must from the beginning know and ponder well." This is the Lord's meaning, which Mary's ignorance causes Him thus plainly to express ; and therefore the thought which is occasionally given both as exposition and translation is really contained in it — Detain Me not ! But this lies in the matter itself, not in the word a,7rTov, where some have thought to find it. On the other hand, Silberschlag, e.g., gives it a quite different turn : — Detain not thyself with expressions of reverence, for I shall tarry yet longer upon earth. (Hezel goes so far as to say : " Spare now all ceremony!!") We consider both to be involved: Detain not Me and thyself — as a subordinate thought which a com- 1 Yes, verily, and in so wide a sense of the word, that Krummacher him- self may well ponder it ! JOHN XX. 15-17. 77 plete view of the whole position of the case will discern in the following clause. But this is not to be taken as if His ascen- sion was matter of instantaneous haste — such an unintelligent exaggeration of our Lord's affectionate and profound expression would fairly lay itself open to objection and mockery. But' this much is true, that not only are the Lord's own thoughts and desires (as we shall afterwards more clearly perceive) turned with all their force towards His own ascension ; but He also on account of it urges Mary to a certain haste in communicating; to His disciples the intelligence at once of His resurrection and of His ascension. Whether it may be intimated, in the mys- terious background of our Lord's words, that He Himself had something more to do (in the superterrestrial world of spirits) than only to show and yield Himself up to the women and the disciples, our perfect ignorance must leave undecided. 1 But there is no doubt as to the other point, since Mary immediately receives a commission to go to the others. 2 Thus, that is denied to her which she might have deceived herself into regarding as intended personally and expressly for herself : " This is not My design ! To thee I give only a rapid greeting, because thou mournest overmuch ; but My manifestation is not so much for thee, as for thee in common with My brethren. Thus the ap- parent pre-eminence given to the female sex is neutralised ; and the word brethren points rather a parte -potiori again to the men. Thus Mary's honour consists not so much in her first enjoying the Lord's manifestation, as in this, that she was first to an- nounce the Eisen Lord, to herald the resmTection to its future heralds. The touching which He permitted, nay commanded, to the unbelieving Thomas, He denies to this believer. " But that was not to the honour of Thomas," says the Berlen. Bible ; and we add : so much higher is Mary honoured in being re- quired to delay her touch, since the Lord knew that, notwith- standing the first outburst of her feeling, she was capable of intelligently obeying His repelling command. To this require- 1 Yet this may be in that " depth of meaning which has never yet been explored by man," which Krummacher attributes to this saying. 2 Instead of stopping to touch Me, carry to My brethren the assurarce of My being alive, aid of My speedy departure to the Father. (Hauff.) But not this alone ! 78 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. ment Lange (on this difficult saying for once too brief) refers : " she must comprehend the time and place of this manifesta- tion, and not externally limit its intention, and make the crisis eternal." The same thing does the Lord require of us all, when we have become ripe for it ; that we should not find our rest in the sensuous sentiment of moments of sweet communion with Him, not seek, as it were, to touch Him in love too much mingled with selfish ingredients, but go forth with our commission into life, to do the work for which He sends us. 1 And now we proceed to the next clause, connected by the for which has caused so much trouble and perplexity to expositors. (Kinkel thinks all the difficulty lies in this yap, and in this he is right.) After what has been said the matter will become presently plain. It would appear, indeed, at first that only the i" have not yet ascended belongs to the for ; the common method of interpreting being then as Ebrard expresses it : 2 Thou needest not to hold me so firmly, because My appearance is not a mo- mentary one ; I shall yet remain a while upon the earth. But if this is made the sole sense of the for, then all that deeper meaning which we have found in the Touch Me not is confused and weakened away. Better than this is the already quoted view of v. Gerlach, who acknowledges and gives prominence to the seeming contradiction according to which Mary was not to touch and hold Him because He was present, and would con- tinue present. He explains this yet further : " We find here the same pregnant expression of a higher meaning by words which, understood in their lower sense, would involve a contra- diction, as we have found in the being made blind through see- ing, the finding life through dying, and so forth. He who enters thoroughly into this profound character of our Lord's manner of speaking, will find no difficulty here." But we think, notwith- standing, that this does not satisfy the whole saying. We think 1 Lainpe : "He denies the touching to Mary alone, to show, on the one hand, that she surpassed all the rest, even the men, in faith, and was so fully assured of the resurrection that she needed no further confirmation ; and, on the other hand, to teach how those who surpass others in faith shall find it necessary to demonstrate and approve its strength in the absence of nearer communion with their Lord." 2 Das Ev. Joh. und die neueste Hypothese u. s. w. JOHN XX. 15-17. 79 that the / ascend, as its counterpart, strictly belongs to the I am not yet ascended; and, consequently, that the connecting for must be referred to it, or rather to the but go. " But go" does not begin anything altogether new, as if it were preceded by a full stop ; consequently the for refers to the whole sentence to- gether : I am (indeed) not yet ascended, but thou must go and announce My coming ascension ! The accent lies indeed rather on this latter but. It is only subordinately that the consolation 1 comes in — I still remain, although not for such touching as this — interposed on account of the repulsion, that it might not grieve her too much, or be misunderstood to mean that the Lord's pre- sence was a mere vanishing manifestation. But the special, decisive, and conclusive meaning was : Go thou, rather, to My brethren, and tell them ! — The chief thing is for thee the going, and for Me the ascending. Understand then My manifestation aright, and repair thy first sad tidings of an empty sepulchre. Thus viewed, how wonderful is this first word of the Risen Lord, in its suggestive and emphatic contrast with the word which afterwards offered the touch to Thomas ! How deep is its significance for all His Appearances before the ascension ! What a marvellous blending of human condescension and sym- pathy with the mourning woman, and Divine dignity which withdraws sublimely from a too human touch ! Divine-human, rather ; for even in this earnest and rigorous noli me tang ere there appears, with all its supreme repose, a certain glorified human passion in His risen consciousness, a yearning toward the heavenly which cannot readily endure the touch of the earthly ; and which therefore, after the Mary I so full of con- descending feeling, denies itself again to the Rabboni ! which would assume too much ! "We now advance to the remainder of these wonderful words. It is His Father of whom He speaks first — how could it be otherwise? His Father He calls Him, first only Father, first only His own. His way goes up to Him ; to Him His heart is drawn more than to any Mary or any brethren upon earth, that the honour of this Father may abide untarnished, equally with 1 Photius : When the woman was forbidden to touch, lest the rejection of ner earnest desire should overmuch sadden her (woman's nature being inclined to pusillanimity), the Saviour interposed His consolation. 80 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGPALEXE. the honour of the Son. 1 He has risen again as the perfected Son of God in humanity ; that is the first thing, and from it follows that He becomes the forerunner of our salvation, of our glorification. But by what means ? Even by His final ascension to the Father ; and as long as this is unaccomplished, it must occupy His thoughts ; " I have not yet ascended" must be the fundamental feeling of His heart during the intermediate period. He does not suffer this to be disturbed (to speak once more in a very insufficient human manner) by the return of that entire surrender of Himself to His disciples which they had enjoyed before His death. 2 If it were right to speak of this period as of the period past we might say that the touch, the embrace, of the Magdalene might have tempted His soul to incline to renew His former intercourse, and to remain, in His personal triumph, loving and blessing upon earth ; and that He meets this temptation by saying to Himself — I am not yet ascended ! But we are no longer permitted to use such language. There is no more overcoming of temptation ; but all is absolute rest and assurance. All things are behind Him and beneath Him ; His head already in heaven, His feet alone rest for a few days longer upon earth. So sublime is the first, " I have not yet ascended." But He immediately condescends from this height of dignity and majesty to His weak and troubled disciples, for whose sake He yet tarries according to the counsel and commission of the Father. He knows His own way, and tells Mary hers — Go to My brethren ! He has indeed brethren after the flesh, but relation- ship after the flesh has no more import with Him now ; though the word may remind Him with joy that these brethren, hitherto unbelieving, had now been won to the true brotherhood. 3 Mary 1 This clause, "although not for such touching as this," and the " sub- ordinately " before, sufficiently obviate the contradiction -with which Miinch- meyer charges my exposition. The chief matter of the saying was given before, that the true touching would be in the future ; subordinately to this, however, there is included the consolation that He would remain, and be seen again by her. 2 The Risen Lord takes no specific notice of His mother, — as we have remarked before. 3 Hess gives us a remarkable example how egregiously great men may err : "It appears to me past all doubt that Mary was commissioned to tell JOHN XX. 15-17. 81 well understood His meaning after ver. 18, and announces her message to the disciples. Those whom He had finally termed children and friends He now, on the way to His own highest exaltation, dignifies with the highest name, which has in it a loftier sound and a richer pledge even than " children of God" — His brethren ! It is here used as at least an indirect address to them, and with all its unbounded fulness of meaning ; conse- quently, it is something very different from His former distant announcement that all who should believe would be to Him brethren. To address them directly with the brother-name would not have become His dignity, or suited their weakness ;* He therefore goes just as far as He may go, in order now at the beginning to testify — I am not ashamed to call you brethren. (Heb. ii. 11.) The Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, having this saying in his mind, refers as in ver. 12 to its fulfil- ment of Scripture. The word of lamentation, and the word of victory upon the cross, were taken from Ps. xxii. ; and ver. 22 in the centre of the same psalm, the first word which com- mences the transition to victory in it, is here consciously and purposely employed by our Lord. And we learn from the psalm, combined with the Epistle to the Hebrews, that He meant primarily the Apostles, but in them the whole future Church, which would from henceforth preach, and in which He Himself would preach on to the end ; — and thus, all who are sanctified in Him. And at the same time we may observe how significantly this message assumes that the flock, scattered by the death of the Shepherd, has remained nevertheless united in love ; and that it is still to be found gathered together, at least in its representatives, in one place (which abiding " friendship and bond of union among the disciples" had been already shown in the several journeys to the sepulchre). His first and highest thought is — To My Father ! But the second, belonging to the first, and involved in it — For the saKe of My brethren, that this not to His disciples, but to His literal brethren or half -brethren, the sons of Joseph. The expression brethren is to be understood in its literal meaning. He needed not to send messages to the disciples, whom He would see during the day ; nor was it His wont to call the disciples brethren ! ! " 1 It is only in the apocryphal narrative that He says to James — My brother. VOL. VIII. F 82 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. they may now have one Father, and one God with Me. He is drawn by the last attraction which holds Him to earth, to make Himself known to His brethren, like Joseph. Had all Israel repented, like Joseph's brethren ! How would it then have been said — Come ye all nnto Me ! Bengel observes that Jesus never called God His Lord, 1 and only three times His God: — on the cross by the vK quite alone ; in Rev. ii. 7, with the mention of Paradise to be won by vic- tory ; and here in conjunction His Father and His God. Com- pare 1 Cor. xi. 3, and mark that the Risen Lord, who is about to go up to heaven, bears witness now to His abiding humanity, which He will take with Him to heaven, and according to which His Father is also at the same time His God. 2 And this is an anticipatory protest against a false interpretation of the subse- quent word to Thomas. This whole manifestation to Mary, generally, is to be regarded as the counterpart of the manifesta- tion to Thomas, confirming, qualifying, and explaining it. He says Brethren immediately after speaking of the Father ; but He does not say — for that would have been not merely un- beseeming, but untrue and impossible — To our Father and our God. At this point such an expression was most obvious, if admissible ; and its admission is most decisive. A Rationalistic Christ must have said our — tj/jlcov — in order to give honour to truth, and to avoid exalting himself unduly in the presence of the common God and Father ; but the God-man cannot pos- sibly use such an expression. Cyril of Jerus. observes : " Mine in one sense, by nature ; yours in another, by privilege." Chrys. : " In different senses My Father and yours. If He is the God of just men in a sense in which He is not God of others, how much more does this hold good of the Son and you." Augustine : " He does not say our Father : He is My Father by nature, and in another sense your Father, by grace. 1 Compare Vol. i. p. 374 the note. 2 " Since the ascending belongs to the flesh." Chrys. Thus God is actually and truly the God of Christ ; not, as we read in a sermon : " The Almighty is to Him a Father, to them He is God ; but in order to place Himself on a level with them, He calls His Father their Father, their God His God likewise." Would He not then have ordered His words accord- ingly ? JOHN XX. 15-17. 83 And He says, My God and your God ; not our God — in one sense, therefore, Mine, and in another sense, yours. My God, under whom I also am man : your God, between whom and you I am mediator." Ambrose : " Because, although He and the Father are one, and the Father His Father by propriety of nature, to us God became a Father through the Son, not by right of nature, but of grace." Your God — means here infi- nitely more than your Creator, Lawgiver, Judge ; it includes and pledges the fulfilment of Old-Testament promise down to Rev. xxi. 3. Your reconciled God, as the ordinary language of theology runs ; according to the right sense of Scripture, your God because ye are now reconciled to Him. God was from the beginning even according to His humanity the God of the Righteous One, of Christ. But our God and Father (these belong ever together !) He becomes only through this, that He was the Father and God of Christ. (Hence the apostolical word, thus to be construed — The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.) This My is the ground and source of the your ; and therefore the Lord thus speaks. Father stands first, for His Divinity is and must ever be the ground of His sacred humanity: — not conversely, as it would have been if His be- coming God, and having God for His Father, had proceeded upward from His humanity. (On the other hand, the Apostle might well, with his meaning, ascend from the #eo? to the 7rar7]p.) The whole, finally, is a most decisive declaration of the spiritual meaning of the brother-name, and the disclosure, finally, of our present right to its possession. So high is the honour put now upon us men ! All His redeemed, and all who were to be sanctified, are here embraced by the Lord in one, as looking down upon them from above: — anticipating their union in one, as in the High-priestly prayer. The Lord on the morning of His resurrection speaks at once of the ascension, which took place forty days afterwards. What are now forty days to Him 1 and how natural, how ne- cessary to His thought, His death being now survived, was this presentiating / ascend with its quick prolepsis ! For His dis- ciples it was as true as it was important ; intimating to them that He had not risen in order to remain upon earth, and bring- ing all to their remembrance that He had comprehensively 84 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. spoken concerning His departure to the Father! 1 To tiie angels it was given in commission to announce the resurrection in itself ; but the Lord assumes a loftier tone, in harmony with His risen dignity, and does not say only — Tell them that I am risen; for that would be too little for the elevated state in which, for a few days, He tarries between the sepulchre and heaven. He Himself is impelled upward; the clearest con- sciousness and the most urgent impulse of His being is toward heaven : how could He otherwise than utter in His first word His deepest thought ? Wesley : " He anticipates it in His thoughts, and so speaks of it as a thing already present." Therefore we have not the indirect sentence, but most emphati- cally His own word is to be repeated : not — Tell them that I ascend ! but say what I say — / ascend ! (as according to ver. 18 she does). Bengel's note condenses into few words what we mean : " More still ! He does not say, I have risen ; nor, I will ascend ; but, / ascend." He refers to Lu. ix. 51, where even St Luke, in the spirit of St John, speaks in anticipation of the death as of the avaXrjyjns, the being received up. Neander here rightly perceives why " the Lord did not commission Mary to announce His sensible coming, but that He would fulfil His promise, ascend to His Father, and then first (fully) reveal Himself to them ; making no mention of the intermediate and transitional manifestation, which should only prepare the way for the higher and more permanent." (Neander says, " here also ;" and there is some slight incorrectness in this, for we have found in Jno. xiv. 18, 19, xvi. 16, 22, and generally, that the Lord had there intimated to the disciples His bodily and visible return.) On the one hand, the present words make it plain that our Lord did not in death leave the world and go to the Father, but remained intermediately in the under world ; but, on the other hand, it does not follow that He literally and properly went up to heaven on the morning of the resurrection. We trust that our readers, after what has been said, will not be accessible to any doubt upon this point, or so narrowly interpret the words, in 1 Tholuck compares Jno. xiv. 28. They should less rejoice that His bodily presence was again with them, than that He would be soon alto- gether exalted. JOHX XX, 15-17. 85 opposition to all the rest of the account, and the universal tradi- tion of the church. But we must spend a few words upon Kinkel, who 1 argues from this word to Mary, with which he makes all the rest harmonise, that our Lord went immediately to heaven ; and reduces to an equality all further manifestations before and after the hitherto assumed day of ascension, or rather establishes a successive series of ascensions. He thinks that he has demonstrated this ; but it would have been better if he had learned the lesson of caution which has been so often given, and had hesitated to give forth an imaginary discovery of his own, contrary to the universal belief of Christendom. Many things have hitherto been but dimly understood ; but the general sense of Christian men has apprehended the truth far more correctly than those speculatists have done, whose perverted learning has so confidently assumed to know. Just so is it with this ava- fiaivco. Kinkel (S. 612) proceeds from the incorrect presup- position, that in the last discourses of St John the Lord looks forward proleptically altogether beyond His death and resur- rection. As if He had not literally, both before and intermedi- ately, spoken of His entombment, dying, leaving His life, the lamentation over His death — as ch. xii. 7, 24, xv. 13, xvi. 20 ! But when he asserts that such prolepsis of the ascension which was to take place after forty days cannot possibly be imagined in our Lord's consciousness now, he refutes himself in the most striking manner by his own subsequent artless words : " Oc- currences which are separated by an interval of a month and a half from my present existence would scarcely lift my soul to such a flight." This we readily believe, and merely add — But what were forty days now to the soul of Christ ! — His first axiom, u that the reports of Christ's ascension which the New 1 In the treatise already mentioned, S. u. K. 1811. 3. So also Baur ; and before him TThiston in his Sermons and Essays, to whom Joh. Schmid replied by a specific dissertation against the multiplex Christi in ccelos as- censio. It is a necessity of Rothe's whole system that he should find in Jno. xx. 17 the immediately identical resurrection and exaltation of the second Adam. (Ethik. ii. 294.) But how the merely visionary kind of intercourse, the transitory assumption of an already abandoned and for- merly material body, which he asserts, can be reconciled with, we say not the rest of Scripture, but his own system, it would be well if he would con sider. 80 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. Testament gives are altogether irreconcileable in respect to time, place, and circumstances !" is nothing more than the thousand- times refuted assertion of pseudo-criticism — as we shall here- after more fully see. When he decrees that " the ascension of the Acts of the Apostles cannot possibly be identical with that of St Luke's gospel," St Luke, who wrote both, will amply vin- dicate himself. It is further assumed in the most arbitrary manner that the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 1-8, makes no dis- tinction between the appearances before, and the appearance after the fortieth day ; and that he therefore knew nothing of, or allowed no validity to, the synoptical narrative. But there is a great difference between the truth (denied by Kinkel in his false assumption), which was always acknowledged by the early church, that the manifestations of Christ after the ascension were not on that account " visionary," but real corporeal mani- festations 1 — and the unscriptural error which stumbles at and rejects the interval and intervening state of the forty days. The assurance given afterwards (S. 617) is fearfully bold: " the words of Jno. xx. 17 have been and still are crux inter- pretum only because expositors, resolutely bent upon holding fast the term of the forty days, have refused to yield the plain and simple force of expression its rights." After our inter- pretation of the " touch Me not" and the " I ascend," and the " for" which links them especially, we are quite justified in declaring that the force of the words, not superficially but thoroughly studied, contains no reference whatever to an ascen- sion on the morning of the resurrection. It is most foolish, therefore, and proves the blinding consequences of headlong devotion to a hypothesis, when he says, S. 619 : " One sends a messenger only when one cannot go in person. It would seem very strange that Jesus did not at once in person assure His disciples of His life, unless we assume that He had previously another object to attain. What that object was, is so plainly expressed in the message to the disciples, that no doubt can 1 Thus Schenkel in 1839 (Die Wissenschaft und die Kirche, S. 122), in direct opposition to Scripture, termed the appearances to Paul " only a sudden outbeaming of Christ to the spiritual eye of the Apostle ! " How can he reconcile with this the emphatic declaration in Rev. i. 17, 18, of the personal identity of Him who had been dead and was alive again. JOHN XX. 15-17. 87 remain upon the question." Thus the Lord is supposed to have meant by that message : I cannot come to you immediately, for I must previously and at once go to the Father. If that is so entirely past doubt now, why has all Christendom until this time understood it otherwise ? Our exposition of the " touch Me not" has, further, perfectly refuted the conclusion which has been drawn from a most wilful and superficial perversion of the letter, and which runs thus, S. 620 : "In the morning Christ forbids to touch, because He has not yet ascended ; in the after- noon He permits and commands it (Lu. xxiv. 39, tyrjkafyrjo-aTe fie). The reference is very simple : between morning and after- noon every reason for not touching Him has been removed — the ascension to heaven has taken place." Apart from the fact that during the morning, and very soon after, the Lord permitted Himself to be touched by other women, and blamed them not because they touched Him with a different spirit and meaning (showing that consequently the reason of the prohibition was something specific in the aTrreaOai of Mary) — we simply ask, What had the Lord to do in the garden during the interval while they went from the sepulchre to the city and back again, if His exaltation to the Father belonged essentially and imme- diately to His resurrection ? Was it necessary that He should collect His thoughts, and prepare Himself in any sense for the avaftaLvco — % Or, did the Lord's conscious course and way from the opened sepulchre to heaven proceed so slowly upon earth, in the garden, that after a considerable space of time He had not yet ascended — and still stands not far from the sepul- chre % Wherefore then and to what end was Mary Magdalene the only favoured one who witnessed and enjoyed this brief intermediate glance of the Lord before His ascension? He who adheres so very tenaciously to the letter, must necessarily thus give account of the not yet ; the critic who finds it " per- fectly aimless" that Jesus " at this crisis should have nothing more speedy to speak of to His disciples than that He should ascend after forty days" (because, in fact, he has no feeling of the spiritual significance of this crisis itself, and of the Lord's re- ference to the intervening, transitory character of the forty days) — may very reasonably be asked to account for the " aim" of our Lord's delay for the sake of Magdalene alone. Could He 88 FIRST APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE. not in the meantime have sent His messengers to her ? Would it not have been more consistent that He should at once go up to the Father, that He might then be able to show Himself all the sooner to all of them with an 77877 avaj3ej3r)Ka — I have already ascended ? Hauff says well, " But why does he not at once ascend, if He is in such haste to do so ? " It is certain that ver. 17 must have another meaning ; not so much because, as Liicke says, there is no " now" connected with the " I ascend," as because it is plain, to all who read ver. 17 with simplicity, that Jesus on the evening of that day was still upon earth. That other meaning is found in the words of ver. 17 itself : "lam not yet ascended" cannot signify, I hasten to ascend ; but, " I tarry yet a while longer among you." For it is at least as true here, as it was asserted of 1 Cor. xv. : St John makes " no dis- tinction" between the appearances which took place after the " I ascend" announced to Magdalene, and this first appearance before it. The argument for this immediate ascension which has been drawn from a supposed impartation of the Spirit in Jno. xx. 22, will be refuted on that passage by the maintenance of a meaning other than simply literal in the Aaftere. As to the endeavour which has been made to establish Kinkel's view by patristic authorities as the tradition of the first three centuries, we shall leave that question to others, ourselves adhering simply to exegesis. While we would recommend the Theosophists to reserve their speculations as to the mystery of the forty-number, instead of obtruding them inopportunely to the offence of theology, it remains evident to every untheosophical yet believing appre- hension, that " the time from the resurrection to the ascension, which was the connecting link between the weakness of the Lord's former life and the high dignity of His glorified life, and the transition from His obedience to the supreme rule of all creation, was a necessary, essential^ and most important por- tion of the circle of the life of Jesus. Necessary, and so far essential, not merely economically for the transitional discipline of His disciples, but most certainly indispensable to the humanity t)f Jesus Himself, which was to be exalted and glorified. An immediate ascension of the Risen Lord, an unmediated transi- JOHN XX. 15-17. 89 tion or rather leap from obedience into dominion is to us, as Kleuker says, an unimaginable thing as to Jesus Himself ; although the lack of revealed instruction upon the subject, and moreover the incapacity of our minds for such instruction, keeps us in ignorance of the internal process of this transitional state of our Lord. The descent into hell was not this transition in itself, for the resurrection from the sepulchre connects Him at once with the earth again. Here are mysteries, and it is better to acknowledge these in silent reverence, than over- curiously to speculate upon them. A process of gradation al glorification in the person and body of Christ Himself is an idea by no means self-contradictory ; indeed a thorough inves- tigation of the subject drives us necessarily to assume it. And we may confidently assert, to bring back these observations upon the text which we are expounding to the point from which they set out, that the Lord uttered this presentiating " I ascend" to Mary because His present intermediate state was a continual advance towards His ascending, and preparation for it. Tholuck : " Thus the Lord declares His resurrection to be already a glorification, although not yet His full glorification." Neither Magdalene nor the brethren understood at the first announcement the depth of the Lord's word ; but it was not spoken simply for that purpose. Enough that in loving obedi- ence, desiring no further touch, the same woman who in ver. 15 had bewailed to the Lord Himself the taking away of her Lord, departs and joyfully declares His message : ioopafca — ravra elirev. 1 The note of Grotius — dubitabat iterum, annon fuisset visio incorporea — has not the slightest ground for its folly ; certainly not in the emphatic words, " that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her." For it is plain that she needed not to relate specifically her own aTrreaOai in addition to the Lord's Mr/ julov cltttov. The dis- ciples on the way to Emmaus (according to Luke xxiv. 22, 23) 1 Lange says: " This Mary, who thus leaves His face to celebrate her Easter, and can find her Easter joy in this form of announcement of His new life, shows an obedience ripened into the character of that of angels ; hers is the blessedness of heaven, for she can leave the glorious manifestation of heaven in order to carry the message of consolation to the comfortless circle of her fellows upon eaHh." This is beautifully said, though somewhat extravagant* 90 SECOND GREETING TO THE WOMEN. had certainly not yet received this message of Magdalene ; but the " disciples" were not all assembled together in one company on this day. SECOND GREETING, TO THE WOMEN LEAVING THE SEPULCHRE. (Matt, xxviii. 9, 10.) St Matthew is to be reconciled with St Mark and St John, without having recourse to all kinds of artifices — the strangest of which is the supposition that there were two Magdalenes. We have said already that the same one Magdalene (f) Mcuyha- Xrjvrj) went and came with the others to the sepulchre ; but she hastened before, and went away again earlier. We know not whether St Matthew was acquainted with this ; we do not affirm it as a dogma that each Evangelist knew eveiy particular. The first mentions, ver. 1, in addition to Mary Magdalene, only the other Mary ; yet we must suppose other women to have been present, as otherwise there would be left for vers. 9, 10, only the second Mary, — Mary Magdalene having, according to St John and St Mark, seen the Lord at first alone. In this Ebrard is right, but not in the strange supposition that vers. 9, 10, refers to the manifestation which had been made to the Magdalene alone, but merely continues in the indefinite plural, because that had been already adopted — the Magdalene, how- ever, being solely intended. If we yield to Ebrard, and those who think with him, 1 this section of our exposition must fall to the ground ;< — because our present narrative would then be only St Matthew's " depic- turing" of the simple occurrence which took place with Mary Magdalene. But such an apparent extension of the manifesta- 1 Grotius, Olshcausen, Tholuck, v. Gerlach. We find the same view de- veloping its consequences where we should not have expected it. For instance, Albertini preaches that "Magdalene had, as Matthew expressly relates, embraced the Lord's feet." Similarly, Sepp's "scientific evangelical criticism " perceives in Matthew two events blended into one narrative. We hope, however, in spite of Weizsacker's protest, that our book will have some influence in helping to abolish such a method of dealing with the 1 MATTHEW XXVIII. 9, 10. 91 tion granted to Mary to all the women would be much more than what Olshausen terms " inexactness" in St Matthew ! Of such inexactness we admit no " possibility." Have those who adopt this theory considered it in all its bearings ? Is it pos- sible that the ^alpeTe of St Matthew is the same as the apos- trophe — Mary I? 1 Is this "Be not afraid," no other than the " Touch Me not ! ?" Can the announcement that the disciples should see Him in Galilee be only another form of the " I ascend" in St John ? The sending to His brethren is the only particular which remains common to both ; all the rest is totally distinct. We confess that we cannot account on any other ground than that of inadvertence for Meyer's admission in his note that all this may possibly refer to Mary Magdalene alone — pointing (with v. Gerlach) to Matt, xxvii. 44. O no ! This notion, which the Wolfenbiittel Fragmentist broached, is alto- gether impracticable. We cannot even admit the view which Lange propounds : " St Matthew makes the second appearance of the angels to Magdalene coincide with the first to the other women ; and blends the first manifestation of Christ which was granted to the Magdalene with His second appearance, which the women reported." There is no such blending or making to coincide in his account; but what St Matthew relates is a characteristic and independent record, just as is that of St John, who records what he had omitted. The inexactness com- plained of springs from this, that without the other Evangelists we misunderstand St Matthew ; making him mean in ver. 1 that only these two women were present, and consequently including Mary Magdalene in vers. 9, 10. But how much slighter is this difficulty than that which makes Matt, xxviii. 9, 10, historically the same as John xx. 14, 17 ! This does not invalidate v. Gerlach's excellent remarks upon the climax of the several manifestations of Christ on the day of His resurrection : — it rather adds new features to it. Mary Magdalene is initiated into the mystery after an anxious testing by the angels and by Christ Himself ; some of the other women see an angel and presently the Lord also ; but some (Lu. xxiv.) 1 Grotius actually adds: "Addressing Mary also by name, as is usual with those who salute." But where is the "Woman, why weepest thou — ? " And what of the meeting them as they i ttodsvovto — ? 92 SECOND GREETING TO THE WOMEN. have only a view of the angels who said that He lived ; to the dismayed disciples on the road to Emmaus the Lord Himself as unknown first opens the Scriptures, and when they believe gives them a momentary sight of Himself; between Peter and John, who were not convinced even by the view of the sepul- chre, there is a distinction made on account of Peter's penitence ; finally, the rest of the -Apostles who did not believe, even those who had seen Him after He had risen (Mark xvi. 14), are in the evening humbled, reproved, and blessed. But now let us turn to the matter itself ! The Lord connects His words with those which an angel had spoken, though some- what differently. The angel had said, " Fear ye not, and be not ye terrified like the guard, and His enemies — I have good tidings for you who seek Jesus the crucified." The angel terms Him indeed afterwards "the Lord" (as Lu. ii. 11) — but the first name is the name of reproach and death glorified into a title of honour. According to St Mark it is expressly Jesus of Nazareth (comp. Acts xxii. 8) — and in addition, the Crucified! This is the first high name of the Eisen Lord, as it was given and sanctified at first by the mouth of an angel ; thus was the lowly One called now in the world, thus would He be ever named both in heaven and upon earth ; of this cross it would be pro- claimed, in the glorious preaching of salvation, that all things were obtained in it. Ye seek Him, even in disgrace and death ; yea, it is this cross which has attracted you, and makes you still no other than those who were with Jesus of Nazareth. Ye seek Him, although in the wrong place ; but ye shall, nevertheless, find Him. This is the message, He is not here, He is risen ! and that as He told you ! The Lord had pointed to the Scrip- ture, but now the angels point back to His words ; for every testimony to truth which ever fell from His lips is confirmed and sealed by the sign of the resurrection : the First-born from the dead is the faithful Witness (Eev. i. 5). The power of God hereby impresses the seal upon all that He had spoken; the Father Himself utters His Amen to the Finished upon the cross. Come and see — not indeed Himself, but the place where the Lord — as dead — lay ! Tarry not, however, in the place, go on further — is the meaning of the word " He is risen !" to the disciples. Do ye believe 1 Will they believe it 1 Behold, MATTHEW XXVIII. 9, 10. 93 ye shall all see Him, even as He said, in Galilee : and now let it suffice ; for behold I, His and His Father's messenger, have told you. Most mighty words I 1 Nothing but peace, joy, and life, Yea and Amen. But the women are affrighted at Him — this is the combined spes et horror mortalium — they shrink from the world beyond the grave ; fear contends (as often in the case of us all) in their hearts with their great joy. And they said no- thing to any man, as St Mark adds, ver. 8 ; that is, they said nothing in the way, before they came to the disciples. 2 Their fear itself helps them rightly to understand the commission to tell it only to the disciples. They go in the way of simple obe- dience ; their own dawning faith overcoming the temptation to ask — Shall we find credence? or to say — Let us wait until we have ourselves seen the Lord! Therefore they receive their recompense, that of being able to say with Mary Magdalene — I have seen the Lord. To them also He makes Himself pre- sent, as they walk in the way : for the Living One is no more restricted by limitations of space, as we are to observe at once by the succession of the first two Appearances. It is not in the neighbourhood of the sepulchre (as Hess thinks) that He appears to them ; but, as St Matthew relates, He met them as they went in the way. Bengel says, " He came not, therefore, from the 1 Still more mighty, to excite faith without sight, is that word to the others — Why seek ye the living among the dead? (Isa. viii. 19). In the question lies its answer ! The Crucified is nevertheless the Living. He was among the dead, as He lay in death. He was intermediately below among the dead, but nevertheless as the living — and now He liveth for evermore (Rev. i. 18). He is the Lord and God not of the dead but of the living. We children of men are the dead, but He the Living who maketh alive ! Thus He is not to be sought among ourselves, in the world, in any par- ticular place. (This answer of the angel's was once more given, as Hezel says, at the sepulchre of our Lord to the crusading world.) "Not among dead " Christians" — not in the dead letter of Scripture, dogma, .preaching — for He Himself, the Living, is to be sought. The angel could not then say — Seek Him among the living; but there are living now, among and in whom He lives, and is to be found. Yea, those who seek Him as the Living, are to Him as living, and will surely find Him. Thus the seeking is with the seekers, but not among them, for — seeking is not yet finding. 2 Not, as v. Gerlach thinks, that they did not at first tell even the Apostles, for this would not a^ree with St Matthew. 94 SECOND GREETING TO THE WOMEN. sepulchre, but from the city;" and we add, as always going before us, according to the angel's word. But we are not to suppose that Mary Magdalene was already again with them, nor is it probable that the mother of the Lord was in this group of women (as Lange supposes, in order at all events to introduce her somewhere) ; she would in that case have been mentioned The Berl. Bible tells us that the holy mother, in her more silent and deeper mind, did not seek the Living among the dead, but waited for Him m perfect composure. Xaipere — Hail — is His first greeting now : apparently an unpretending word of human confidence, but in His lips retain- ing its fullest truth and essential reality. It is more than a mere Avete, as translated by the Vulg. ; certainly not a mere translation of an Israelite D3? DW : both kinds of greeting, that of the Jews and that of the Greeks, the Lord had Himself from the beginning sanctified (comp. Acts xv. 23, and Jas. i. 1) ; hence the Hebraizing Matthew records %aLpere, and the Greek Luke Elprjvr) vplv. But joy must now overcome the fear! That is its meaning as closely connected with the immediately following " Be not afraid," for which Matt. ver. 8 had prepared. Because it had been already announced to them, the Lord can begin with His gracious encouragement. These women are less " beside themselves" through sorrow, or rather less sunk into themselves, than Mary Magdalene ; they at once know their Lord, they boldly approach nearer, come close to Him, fall down and grasp His knees, and worship Him without a word. (Bengel : Jesum ante passionem alii potius alieniores adorarunt, quam discipuli.) And He does not reject it, because there was nothing in it to be repelled ; He encourages still more those who were again affrighted even while they embraced His feet, and gives them from His own lips their commission. His words, like those to Mary Magdalene, are generally only a repetition of the words of the angel ; in the case of these weaker women He does not go beyond that repetition, for to them the higher declaration concerning the " ascending" would have been too high. He therefore in His condescension simply confirms them in their mission. He repeats not only His ser- vant's "fear not," but also the command to go, and the promise that the disciples should see Him in Galilee : — all the angel's MATTHEW XXVIII. 9, 10. 95 message being thus confirmed. These are the three branches of our Lord's saying. All fear must at once subside ; for the Comforter and Conqueror is there, to silence all agitation, to dispel all anxiety, to overcome all weakness and sin. Nothing now remains but the " great joy," now more clearly revealed and more abundantly won, than when it was announced by the angels at the birth of this Lord. 1 The angel had said — Tell His disciples ; the Lord now says, in a stronger and more dignified expression — Announce to them ! The angel's word was — That He is risen : the Lord does not first say — I am risen ! The angel had said only — tell His disciples : the Lord says the second time, as before to Magdalene — My brethren ! that the compari- son and concert of these two messages might produce all the greater joy and assurance. The disciples are His brethren : new demonstration, if any more were needed, of the true meaning of this word. Nevertheless, He does not say even to those — Announce to all the world, tell every man who will hear it ! but, as to Magdalene, and confirming the angel's word — Only to My brethren. The first message, indeed, even to the disciples, was committed to women ; but not on that account (as Gossner says) must the women exalt themselves into Apostles. Not to them was afterwards said, " Go ye forth into all the world and preach." That the Apostles do not first see the Lord Himself, nor even the angel, but were required to believe the women without seeing, was not only ordained for their greater honour, but arranged in wisdom with regard to their office. They were not made to wait, as many say, because they had been offended and fled ; for how would that agree with the grace shown to Peter, and the Lord's unpunishing benignity generally? The reason lay in their specific office. Their slowness to believe — grounded upon men's more deep and inquiring thought 2 — their unbelief, mixed with it and yet overcome, would afterwards, when related, itself strengthen their certain testimony : as Leo the Great says, " They had doubted, that we might not doubt, but be all the more urged to believe." The remembrance of their own un- 1 Although Nitzsch rightly preaches : " How instructive it is, that the revivification of the disciples begins in the feeling of fear ! — most assuredly, in the fear thus excited was a germ of joy and salvation." 2 For a flower is more easily planted than a tree — is Bengel's remark. 96 SECOND GREETING TO THE WOMEN, belief would teach them to bear patiently with the unbelief of their hearers; and we may suppose, with Bengel, that the Apostles would afterwards in their humility think more highly than of themselves of many who believed at once without seeing. They regarded, indeed, as Xrjpos, an idle tale, not merely (accord- ing to Lu. xxiv. 11) the report of the appearance of the angels, but also the announcement that the Lord Himself had been seen. " On the one hand, at the bottom of all this unbelief there lay a certain confidence in His love — If He had actually risen, He would himself have appeared even to me. But, on the other hand, If He were alive, would He not first appear to the chosen ambassadors of His kingdom !" (Pfenninger.) They could not understand the preference given to insignificant " women :" "If the law of His kingdom did not require His first and most im- mediate appearance to themselves, would not His heart move Him to show Himself to John, and to His mother !" Peter especially could not believe that he was mentioned by the angel, and John passed by ! Suffice, that the Lord would thus test them, and reveal to them their hearts, and give them full experience of the true nature of unbelief in its fairest form. He well knew that at this great beginning of fulfilment all His disciples and brethren, even the Apostles, would urgently need and desire to see Him ; therefore He gave to them by these women (as the supplement to the word to Magdalene concerning His ascension) the pro- mise of that sight. But must they go away to Galilee (from Jerusalem), and there see Him first ? This has been a great difficulty to many ; and even Sepp regards this as evidence that St Matthew intends here only an inexact account of the appear- ance to Mary Magdalene ; yea more, that this word concerning Galilee is placed in the angel's mouth by an incorrect anticipa- tion, and therefore in our Lord's is only a pleonasm ! For " we cannot suppose (he says) that any one who would meet others to-day, and again repeatedly afterwards in the same place, would refer them by a third person to a more distant time and place." So indeed it would appear ; but, when we closely examine, the angel's and the Lord's words are perfectly consistent and right. It was not without reason that the angel (see in Mark) referred back to our Lord's own former words upon this subject (Matt. MATTHEW XXVIII. 9, 10. 97 xxvi. 32 ; Mark xiv. 28) : this designation of Galilee as the general place of reunion for the scattered flock we have already enlarged upon. The reference here is to be understood in pre- cisely the same sense as that in which our Lord first gave the command. And that is referred to here at the outset, be- cause, as Storr remarks, " this was the last prediction of the resurrection which Jesus gave to His disciples, when they were going forth to the place of His capture, immediately before their dispersion." Thus He brings His own words to their minds, which they should ponder for the assistance of their faith, — words which must be fulfilled ; but He does not by any means contradict thereby His own purpose to show Himself previously to His Apostles. Lange has well said that this losung, this text of the resurrection-day — To Galilee ! applied not so much to the Apostles exclusively as to the Apostles in union with the whole greater company of His disciples and brethren. 1 Not all of these were fit and prepared to see Him at once, at least in Jerusalem, where a premature and unsanctified triumph might have easily broken out. The Apostles were themselves, indeed, surprised on the same day by an appearance of the Lord : this was seasonable and necessary, in order that they might be the leaders of the flock. But that this might appear to be a surprise of His free grace, and not interfere with the test of their faith and obedience, He did not appear to them at once, but directed their thoughts to that future general meeting promised to the whole flock by their Shepherd going before them. It may be asked why the Apostles remained in Jerusalem instead of at once obeying the order received from their Lord ; and the answer is, not only (as Ambrose remarks) that their unbelief prevented them, but that the Lord's orders were not, when rightly understood, intended in that sense. The Lord's com- mand presupposed their tarrying through the eight days, accord- ing to the rule of the feast ; for the intimation (as it more plainly appears in the angel's words) meant no more and no less for the 1 Hofmann (Schriftbeweis II. i. 364) : " Because Galilee was the land of His believing people — there, where He had found faith among the poor and ignorant, and not in Jerusalem, where the rulers had crucified Him in their enmity, it was that He should assemble together the flock which His death had scattered." VOL. VIII. G 98 SECOND GREETING TO THE WOMEN. collective disciples than this : — that they should without fear or dismay, in the joyful assurance of His resurrection, 1 after the feast journey back again in all sobriety to their own Galilee, and that there He would more perfectly reveal Himself to them all at once. Paulus asserts that the Lord here once more " altered His plan," and turned back from His way to Galilee through Em- maus, having been induced to do so by the unexpected exhibition of the wilfulness of His disciples' unbelief. But our reverence recoils from all such thoughts. 2 The Risen Lord " journeyed" no longer from place to place as He had been wont to do ; He no longer could thus change His mind, or turn back, for all that He would do, and all that should happen, was perfectly well known to Him. Moreover, the direction to go to Galilee, understood as we have explained it, is by no means in contra- diction with the command to tarry in Jerusalem, Lu. xxiv. 49 : the investigation of this, however, must be reserved for that passage. Suffice it that we mark here that the " going to Galilee" is a general, diffusive, intimation for all ; just as in ver. 16 we find that a particular mountain in Galilee was ap- pointed for the great assembly of His disciples. There shall they see Me — o-^rovrai — all shall see Me as ye have already seen Me ; it is not oijreade, as the angel had said. The Lord promises the seeing — that is, once more before the ascending — not therefore His visible continuance. There shall they see Me — are His significant words, intimating that His coming to this or that place was not a journey on His part, but simply His making Himself visible there. 3 The angel's irpod'yet — go before you, ver. 7 — was only taken from the Lord's own words, in which He figuratively represented Himself as the Shepherd, collecting and leading His flock. The Evangelists never use concerning 1 Without expecting any revelation of His kingdom in Jerusalem — as Ebrard (against Strauss) finds in the words. 2 Olshausen, alas, assents to this : " Probably the Lord would, according to His promise, have shown Himself to the disciples only in quiet Galilee, if these had attained to a living faith in the resurrection at once." This sentence would be quite true without the clause — "according to His promise." 3 Origen rightly maintained that "the body of Christ was seen during the forty days when He would, and by whom He would." 3£ATTHEW XXVIII. 9, 10. 99 the appearance of the Eisen Lord the expressions epxeaOai, iro- pevecrdai, or the like ; but the a7rrjvT7)crev here in ver. 9 is the strongest expression at the outset, meaning only that He (sud- denly) came against them, stood in their way. His vanishing is not expressed according to ver. 10, but all the more plainly, therefore, presupposed. So in ver. 17 there is the sudden koX ISovres, before the nearer approach in Trpoo-ekOelv follows. In Mark xvi. 9 it is i(f)dv7j — ver. 12 i^avepcody, He appeared — in strict contrast with the iropevofxevois of the disciples. And in ver. 14 icpavepcoOrj, He appeared, without any subsequent de- parture. It is true that in Lu. xxiv. 15 we read crweiropevero clvtoZs — went with them — but not till after the iyylaas — drew near — which is thus an icfravepooOr), and that in another form, as ver. 16 shows in a different expression. Consequently in ver. 28 the " going further" is shown by the " made as though" to be an appearance regulated by His own will. In ver. 31 acpavros iyevero, He vanished — in ver. 36, He stood in the midst. Finally in John xx. 14, Oecopel iarcbra — in ver. 19 the rj\6ev (and in ver. 24) is shown to be a miraculous " coming " by the koI eo-TTj, through the closed doors. Thus the " coming and standing" ver. 26 must be similarly understood, since in vers. 17, 23, 29 there is no airep-^eaOaL, no departure, spoken of; and in ver. 30 His Appearances are reckoned among the signs, the crrjfjieia. So again in chap. xxi. 1 U Jesus showed Himself" — and in ver. 4 the miraculous " stood" without any rj\6ev. No one ever says — He came to me, or was with me; but — I have seen, we have seen, He had been seen, Mark xvi. 11. Even in Lu. xxiv. 35, concerning His walking with them, it is only ra iv rfj 68o), what things were (mysteriously) done in the way. All this exhibits the commencing glorification of His body, which was not completed till the ascension. 100 ON THE WAY TO EMMAUS. ON THE WAY TO EMMAUS. (Luke xxiv. 17-27.) The notion which was formerly urged, that Mark xvi. 12 refers to two other persons than those mentioned by St Luke, has been for some time exploded. The two disciples journeying out of the city over the country, to whom the Lord appeared as they walked, are as fully described as the Lord's appearance iv erepa fiop^fj, in another form. This cannot mean "in a disguise," if clothing is supposed to be the foundation of it; but it might well be the same vestment which had hindered His being re- cognised in the garden. Certainly it was not " in the form of a traveller;" if by that is meant that they took Him for a fel- low-traveller, as Mary had taken Him for a gardener. But fJ*op(f>f) added to icf>avepcb07] points to something objective, pro- ceeding from Christ Himself, and present in Him. But it is not a general notice, applicable to the collective Appearances of the Risen Lord — " that the form of Christ had been changed since His death !" For such a change, as the beginning of His glorification, would have enabled them to recognise Him, rather than otherwise ; but it is their not recognising Him which St Mark, compared with St Luke, describes in this first manifesta- tion. And it is certain too that he points out the cause of their not knowing Him, and not merely the not knowing itself ; for /Aop7rd<; for 'AXcpalos, ''Spn. And who was the other? We find in Braune the confident assumption that the two men were father and son, together in Christian friendship and communion : Alphaeus and his son James the Apostle, to whom then the apocryphal account of the known manifestation is referred, as a variation of our report. Li this all is confused and misap- prehended. An old tradition in Epiphanius named the other Xathanael (not in that case an Apostle), and Griesbach has received this among his various readings. Origen contra C el- sum quotes it as a yer/pa^rac in St Luke, that the Lord gave the bread to Simon and Cleopas ; whence (as Grotius rightly remarks) it must be concluded that he read in ver. 34 Xeyovre? instead of \eyovras. But the text remains firm ; and this whole 1 Xot the capital of a Toparchy, 22 miles distant, afterwards called Nicopolis (1 Mace. iii. 40. 57) ; but the village mentioned by Josephus, 60 stadia from Jerusalem, that is, a journey of two to three hours. (The read- ings 30 or 160 stadia are manifestly errors.) There was a third place named tttih or rtah from its warm springs ; and so probably was this. See Winer's Realworterb. ; and Lange's excellent remarks in reply to Rohr, who in his geography marks the place on the foolish supposition that the Risen Lord intended to travel to Upper Galilee through Emmaus, Bethhoron, and the mountains of Ephraim — in order to avoid meeting the caravans con- nected with the feast ! 104 ON THE WAY TO EMMAUS. view is most forced, making " the Eleven" in ver. 33 merely nine, and just here when the tenth comes to them! 1 We pre- fer to agree with Valer. Herberger, who preached to his people : " The learned cannot come to any agreement who the other was, and I will give you this good counsel — Let each of you take his place." This is better than the hypothesis which Lange once more brings forward — that the unnamed companion was the Evange- list himself. He meets the objection of Grotius 2 by saying that in ch. i. 2 the emphasis must fall upon the air apyfl^ — St Luke was not indeed an eyewitness at the beginning, but he was at the end. This appears to us to be very arbitrary ; as is also all that has been said about the Hellenist derivation of both : to wit, that the Lord appeared first to the great Apostle of the Jews, and then to the Hellenists, who with Hellenist freedom wandered so far from the place of the feast, and who as such were furthest from apprehending the cross, etc., etc. 3 We would carefully abstain from all that the text itself does not contain, or that may not be developed from it ; and thus shall we find the rich fulness of true significance which is contained in this discourse of the Lord, their fellow-traveller, who thus turns His hand upon the little ones. (Zech. xiii. 7.) In connection with the 6fu\elv, which stood comprehensively alone at first, the av^nrelv expresses no unfriendly contention, and yet an avriftaXkeLV X070U?, a friendly interchange of oppo- site and differing thoughts and feelings concerning all the dark mysteries which had just been enacted. Here again we observe, as we have seen at the sepulchre, the difference between man's thinking and investigating, and woman's emotional temper. But the deep sorrow remains the same in both, sorrow because of no longer having and no longer seeing Him ; but here there 1 Neither of these disciples could have been an Apostle, either James, or Simon, or Nathanael. The attempt of Lightfoot and others to esta- blish that it was Peter, leaving the Xiyourot; of ver. 34 undisturbed, but understanding the words as a question — Has the Lord indeed risen, and appeared to Simon ? we leave to those "who may be inclined to consider it. 2 " Many have thought that the other was St Luke, but he himself re- futes them in his Preface, where he distinguishes himself from the eye- witnesses." 3 As Hellenists were they to be convinced by opening the Scripture ? LUKE XXIV. 17-27. 105 is the additional sorrow that they as thinking men know not in what light they must regard this Prophet, and for what they must hold Him. To this grievous uncertainty the Lord reveals Himself in consolation ; but leading them onward preparatorily by instruction in this consummating continuation of His pro- phetic office, testifying concerning His own person and guiding them to the knowledge of Himself. St Luke does not record that He came behind the travellers, so that we must ask — From whence ? but by a mysterious iyyl rfj fckdcrei,, ver. 35, may as well mean " in con- nection with, at the time of" the breaking, as " by the breaking," in the sense of Luther's translation. Here in ver. 31 St Luke does not say rore or iv tovtw ; but the somewhat opposite Be. Thus it is not, as commonly said, that they knew Him by His customary manner of taking food, and " breaking bread ;" although, as a consequence of the opening of their eyes, they might immediately observe this also. Certainly these two dis- ciples could not have been immediately reminded of the Lord's Supper, at which they had not been present, or of any manner of breaking bread peculiar to that sacrament. 1 Least of all can we allow, or reconcile it with our theory as developed on the sacrament, that Christ here celebrated His Supper with them, or gave to them His body (now visible before them, and not yet glorified and perfectly capable of impartation) in the bread. Pfenninger makes the Lord speak first of a " pledge of that food which should endure unto eternal life, which the Son of man will give unto you," and then adds the solemn form — Take, eat, this is My body, which was given for you, etc. This is 1 Nitzsch : "We are not clear that Jesus broke the bread in any peculiar manner (as if suiting the symbolism of His violent death), and was thus known by the two disciples in Lu. xxiv. 30, 35. For it is not said that He was recognised in the breaking of bread, but at or during the breaking of bread ; that is, in the confidential meal, when His gestures or words would remind them of His former intercourse just before He died, or of the last Supper." While we agree with the former part, we must contend against their being reminded of the last Supper, and against the Lord's "words" reminding them. TOL. VIII. I 130 ON THE WAY TO EMMAUS. most questionable, under two aspects. He could really and essentially no more give His body now than He could at the first institution (for Jno. vi. 62 still holds good) : — such a supposition would lead us, if not into the error of a mere symbolism in the Sacrament, yet into that magical notion of a body apart from the body which we for our own part must protest against. And then, secondly, the Lord's Supper would be here partaken of under one form, the body without the blood ; as it is well known that the Romanists press this instance into a scriptural demonstra- tion for their perversion. 1 Thus we have here no celebration of the Sacrament in the historical and actual sense. But it is a different thing, and quite consistent with this, to assume a typical significance as designed by our Lord throughout the whole scene, and especially now at its impressive conclusion. The opening of their eyes in immediate connection with the breaking of bread was intended by the Lord to say — In that will I be ever known ; in that I will make Myself felt to be living and near. This also still more plainly appears in the expressions of the disciples, ver. 35, or of the Evangelist under the guidance of the Spirit ; (and in Jno. xxi. the early meal on the shore will be found to bear a similar application). Grotius quotes it as a " mystical interpretation of the ancients" which he is not dis- pleased with ; and even Neander admits, though he weakens away the force of it, that " His manifestation in this manner might have reference to the promise given at the last meal, and thus remind His disciples that He in their common meal (it should be — in the celebration of the Supper) would be always as certainly in their midst." The renewed promise which is con- tained in this revelation in the breaking of bread, points to the future Sacrament which should bring His invisible but corporeal presence ; but there is not a repeated celebration, for that would be inconsistent with the plain record that the Lord, known by 1 In the so-called " Refutation of the Augsburg Confession," after refer- ring to Acts ii. 42,'xx. 7, we read : " Certainly Christ, the Instituter of this most sacred Sacrament, when He rose from the dead, administered the Eucharist to the disciples at Emmaus under one species only ; for He took the bread, brake, and gave it to them. But they knew Him in the break- ing of the bread. SS. Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Beza affirm that this meal was the Sacrament." LUKE XXIV. 27, ETC 131 His countenance and form, 1 immediately vanished without further speaking or act : — thus there was no eating and drinking with Him, and therefore no common meal. 2 Their knowing Him and His vanishing are in swift succession. To these disciples He has nothing further to say ; and nothing more to give than the longed for "seeing of Himself :" — for this suffices one great critical moment, which refers them back to the enlightenment given to their understanding in and in order to their believing. The very beginning of faith is greater assur- ance, a stronger internal persuasion rather than direct know- ledge ; but afterwards reflection will go back and collect all. Thus these disciples themselves subsequently wonder that they had not sooner discerned the stranger who exerted so mighty an influence upon them. He had touched their hearts, and opened them to trust Him, even in the first question ; and in and after the rebuke of ver. 25 He had set them on fire. " The expres- sion — a burning heart — was not coined in the school of human wisdom ; these disciples had not found it in the treasure-house of the Divine word. 3 It is a new word, which was given them in connection with a new and hitherto unfelt experience. How surely and swiftly does internal experience find the right word for its emotions !" (Leipoldt.) Yes, verily, what this word means we must experience to know. It is far more than Zinzen- dorf s too superficial paraphrase : " Ah, how did our hearts beat with emotion!" This burning speaks not only of new life in the joy and hope of faith, but especially of a most internal im- pulse of love to the Lord, and to this marvellous stranger for the Lord's sake. Not only did He kindle the light of their un- 1 Possibly — and there is something touching in this — by the print of the nails in the hands which broke the bread, and which were beheld by their opened eyes. 2 Nitzsch says : " The Lord made Himself cognisable at once after His resurrection by the repetition of this festival." But this is inexactly ex- pressed, and seems to retain the opinion which he formerly expressed, that Sacraments were held with the disciples after the resurrection. This view itself we cannot adopt ; but there it is even stated that in these subsequent celebrations the properly instituting commandment was given. 3 Ps. xxxix. 4 is different ; but Gen. xliii. 30 ; 1 Kings iii. 26, are ana- logous. Thus the expression is not exact, but it is true that the disciples spoke only from their own impulse, and did not think of scriptural words. 1 32 ON THE WAY TO EMMAU3. derstanding in opposition to their folly, this light of life became a fire in opposition to their slowness of heart ; but this fire was most internally the drawing and the energy of love. The cold moonlight of illuminism is dead, and leaves us in death ; but when Christ, after His ascension, begins only to teach, the sin- cere and receiving hearts begin at once to burn. Did not our hearts (more and more) burn within us, when He spoke with us, or rather to us, — spoke so mightily to our hearts? (Bengel : iXaXec r)/j,lv ; to us, which is more than with us.) And when He opened to us the Scripture : — both are here viewed as one. The first rebuking word to their slow hearts was continued in exposition ; the exposition which opened and won their hearts began already in the rebuke and declaration of vers. 25, 26. But the Scripture is opened to us, when in us the i/oO? and Kaphia, the eye of faith and the eye of the heart, are opened, ver. 45. This was to them a foretaste and anticipatory beginning of the Pentecostal fire, of which also Lu. xii. 49 speaks. Oh that it would descend now upon our expositors, to melt away all their previous unworthy thoughts ! Oh that the frightful cold- ness of many were exchanged for a warm heart toward the Scripture, which speaks of Christ, and through which Christ speaks ! The living demonstration of faith is found only in this way of the Emmaus-disciples ; but Christ is always ready thus to draw near and go with us. Leipoldt, the excellent preacher on Emmaus, is exegetically incorrect when he lays the emphasis on the past tense — " Burned not our heart within us ? Thereby they declare that it was not the same with them then, while He was yet speaking, and now, when He had vanished from their eyes. Even the still life of faith and love is not the less on that account a burning of the heart." What he means is true, and may find its proper appli- cation to their subsequent remembrance of the whole ; but it is quite foreign to the historical reality. Did not our hearts burn within us already in the way? — that is their meaning here, just after the crisis of the manifestation; and, although He had vanished, the zeal of their faith and love burns still more fer- vently and joyfully within them. Proof of this is their hasten- ing back to Jerusalem, after they had tasted but a little of the bread blessed by Him. " They now fear not the journey in the LUKE XXIV. 27, ETC. 133 night, who had before dissuaded from it their unknown com- panion." Kal avaaravTes — as themselves risen again ! They find tlie Eleven together with the others 1 — these open at their knocking, and the doors are then prudently and securely shut. But the message of joy which they bring is anticipated by the intonation of the antiphony of the Easter Hymn — The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon ! 2 It is not meant that they all said this in concert ; nor does ver. 35 intimate that all of them fully and firmly believed the new report. For Mark xvi. 13 must retain its force, and in ver. 14 the rebuke of the unbelief and hardness of heart even of the Eleven. 3 Such is the Emmaus-history, in which Jesus speaks from be- ginning to end, even in the bread-breaking, the manifestation, the vanishing, in the witness of His power which the narrative gives. The event was ordered by Him thus, and thus recorded to us, in order that it, and He in it, might speak to us still more. The first aim of His u being seen" in these exhibitions of Him- self was that He might show Himself to be alive ; the second was that He might speak and teach. (Acts i. 3.) But the ap- pearances as TefCfJLrfpia and signs speak to us a symbolical lan- guage of promise for the future ; and we may now in a final glance at the whole ask what is the significance of our history. 1 Now a general term, referring to the chasm in the number of the apostles ; it does not follow necessarily, that St Luke did not know of the absence of Thomas. 2 Peter, certainly, according to Mar. xvi. 7 and 1 Cor. xv. 5. But even after such a favour the fallen one is not yet mentioned by his name of honour! Did he see the Lord before and after the Emmaus-disciples ? Chrys. thinks, " to him first among the men, as most deeply desiring to see Him — or most deeply needing." Possibly, but who knows that? It was a private mystery between the Lord and His disciple. 3 On the one hand, according to Bengel : " They believed, but suspicion and even incredulity recurred. Their rising faith, when the first joy was removed, which had in it an admixture of something unwonted and ecstatic, was not faith, when compared with that purged, and satisfied, and apos- tolical faith which followed afterwards." On the other hand, according to v. Gerlach, " the rebuke of Jesus fell upon all together on account of some individuals. And it appears that the SuTug here is directed against some known unbelief." 134 ON THE WAY TO EMMAUS. He who had been previously visible will henceforth invisibly draw near to His people (ver. 15, iyyiaas), be their fellow- traveller upon earth, yea, enter and abide with them : to give them a pledge of this, to detach them from dependence on visible intercourse and accustom them to this, was certainly the design and meaning of all the Appearances of the Risen Lord in the transition to the day of Pentecost — but here it was most plainly shown. Thus it was the beginning of the fulfilment of the promise given long before, Matt, xviii. 20, and finally in Matt, xxviii. 20. He was not yet properly omnipresent through the Holy Spirit during the forty days ; but He gave a final typical example thereof, which was the germ of its full accom- plishment. This narrative is to be interpreted in that light ; but this being perceived, the natural, historical meaning of the incidents is to be distinguished by sober exposition from the typical meaning which was shadowed forth in it : — the unskil- ful blending of the two tends much to the disparagement of God's word. Thus at the very outset : the eyes of the disciples were holden by Christ ; but now alas they are closed by our own fault, so that we know Him not. 1 The narrative teaches us in the details and in the whole what the Lord, approaching and going with us, will do : this needs no further development. But the answer is not dlways quite so clear which we must give to the question — When may and should we believe that the Lord is near to us and will reveal Himself? First of all, when we mourn the Comforter draws nigh with His — Why weep ye, and are sad? Specially, how- ever, when our sorrow concerns Him; but such sorrow is in principle every doubt which troubles the God-seeking heart, all inability to believe, all abandonment of faith and hope. For all sincere doubters and seekers, Ps. xxii. 26 holds good — in which word of prophecy the Emmaus-history itself seems to be marvellously pretypified ; and then, as the consequence of this at the same time that it is the condition of it, when we, forsaking Jerusalem's pernicious uproar, betake ourselves into seclusion with our sorrow. Again, thirdly, when we do not selfishly and with self-will shun the fellowship of those like-minded ; but go 1 To intimate this, is the reason why St Luke here expresses the matter in this particular way. LUKE XXIV. 27, ETC. 135 on our way together in mutual communion and opening of heart. 1 O how gladly does He make the third or the fourth of such little companies of two and three ! Fourthly, we must, when He incites us to it in the form of another, mourn to Him and tell Him out all that concerns us ; this we can do, even in the beginning of faith, immediately by prayer. And thus it proceeds : He, fifthly, points us to Scripture and Scripture- inquiry. When we, with seeking and susceptible hearts, read ourselves, or yield ourselves up to be preached unto, expounded to, and exhorted, 2 He Himself is near: — and then shall we, sixthly, soon begin to mark that our hearts burn within us — until, seventhly and finally, while we are holding Him fast in our presentiment, He breaks to us the bread, seals the word in the sacrament, and gives us more without seeing and touching, yet by the taste of inmost experience, than all the understanding previously given. These are the seven steps of our Lord's drawing nigh. Or they may be condensed into three : He draws nigh to us and teaches us, when we turn and open our hearts to Him ; He abides, when we ask Him to do so (w should now know that it is He!); He gives Himself to b,e known by us, if and when we, entering into ourselves, take Him with us. But most important in the whole recital is His con- descension to the weak, a condescension which our rigorous dogmatists are slow to learn : He does not at once demand firm faith from the slow hearts, which He nevertheless penetrates, probes, and blesses ; still less does He expect clear perception from the fools, whom He is ready with equal grace to rebuke and to convince. 3 He who thinks that he has from the begin- ning known and understood all without failure, is not sincere and not the man for Christ's school, who gives in His instruc- tion all that is found wanting. 1 They might have gone sadly and silently one to the right and the other to the left ! 2 For He comes now to men by the medium of other men, whom He sends in His own name. 3 But He reproves and convinces even now only by Scripture. "We have no right even in His name to use the rebuke — fools and slow of heart to believe all that "the church" has established and taught! Become mighty in the Scripture thyself through Him — and what avails it ? No man shall rebuke thee then as a fool. 136 ON THE WAY TO EMMAUS. Let him to whom error still adheres, be humble and patient ! We see the divisions and sore weakness even of believers (the worse their guilt) — and should we so rigorously condemn those who are without ? If so few of us stand, yea all of us so sel- dom, in the full power of the word, because not in perfect con- secration ; if with us alas there is dulness, and it may be such impurity of vision, as the Lord must rebuke — should we de- mean ourselves so rigorously, so exactingly, towards unbelievers 1 Alas, that in many instances the spiritually striving life is on the side of those who still err ; and opposed to them is — we will not say what. 1 Further, in as far as the first preliminary and then perfect revelation of Himself by the Lord is the type of our present internal, yet still more living, experience of His power and fel- lowship, so the narrative symbolises to us — how the internal word and the internal experience are related to each other. It repels all enthusiastic seeking and enjoying of the latter alone, and also all self-sufficient dealing with the former. For we see here that the beginning of faith comes from the word and proceeds through the word — but in and after the word comes also the Lord Himself, giving life, and in it assurance. Desire not at once and prematurely to enjoy and possess only Himself ; it is He Himself who (with some exceptions) leads to the life of faith through the Scripture and preaching. Here learn with docility, for here is the living transition ! Yes indeed, already in and under the word He Himself seizes thine heart — but He comes Himself more properly after it, as not only draw- ing nigh but clearly disclosed. Therefore be thou never satis- fied with any mere understanding ! The word testifies con- cerning the Living One, breathes as it were His breath, but it is not Himself. He who has the word concerning Christ merely in the external understanding (without the urgent seeking of the heart) — has essentially nothing, and although most orthodox has no sound faith. He who believes the word from the heart — is in the way with the Lord, already His com- 1 This is the meaning of the 173d of my Unlutheran Theses, which must not be retracted, whatever offence they may have given. Sincere seeking avails more in the Lord's sight than an imaginary having found, which with- out love and without wisdom puts difficulties in the way of the seeker. LUKE XXIY. 36-41, ETC. 137 panion. Then will the day dawn, and the day-star arise in his heart (2 Pet. i. 19) ; but it will be evening again, and the Lord will testingly seem to be going farther : — then pray and hold Him fast, constrain Him ! He who possesses Him as Him that liveth, has reached the goal. But, again, it is not as if the external word must be rejected, as the mere staff by the way. The history is ever being renewed. The word also as the medium of His Spirit abides ; and we need it for continual test whether our internal experience, possession, and enjoyment is genuine — and in order to our increasing enlightenment and assurance. Let us well observe how through the word and sacrament the fellowship of the Spirit is attained. With these we should be content, since the ascension has withdrawn from us the " seeing of Himself," and He holds our eyes ; until one day our eyes and our hearts will be finally and fully opened. For, finally, this way to Emmaus is a figure of our life-pilgrim- age : He who now in the beginning is often for a long time, in a certain sense down to the end, an unknown Guide, Teacher, and Comforter, will in the eventide be perfectly adored — then will He visibly break to us the bread of eternal life, without vanishing again out of our sight. FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. ([Mark xvi. 14] Lu. xxiv. 36-41 ; Jno. xx. 19-23.) Few words are needful to establish our conviction that the section, Mark xvi. 9-20, is genuine. Reuss decides (appealing to Tischendorf), on the evidence of a pure diplomatic criticism of 'manuscripts, that this is an "addition of a very late period;" and Hof mann adheres to this view ; but we perfectly agree with Guericke, who has fully settled the question. We appeal to his demonstration, that the external arguments against it are not un- conditionally valid, and that much internal evidence is strongly in its favour. The conclusion of a gospel with merely the words of the angel, with the report that the women said nothing to any man, with "they were afraid" — appears to us never to have been the original design of the Evangelist, and Hofmann him- self admits the same. Against Greg. Nyss., Euseb., and 138 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. Jerome, stand Irenseus, who mentions ver. 19 as " the end of the Gospel of St Mark," the Peschito, and all the old versions. The alleged difference of style is partly not true, and partly to be explained by the recapitulating conciseness of such a con- clusion. Its omission might have proceeded from the Evange- list's having for a time allowed his writing to be divulged in a state of incompleteness — while he hesitated how to sum up all the rest in few words. This at any rate is imaginable; but not so Hofmann's theory of a definitely imperfect gospel. The Evangelist Mark (we therefore confidently maintain) gives us in ver. 14 a very rapid report of the first Appearance of the Lord in the circle of the Apostles, on the evening of the day of His resurrection. For " it is clear that we here have the colloquy on Easter evening;" this much we concede to Kinkel, but not that vers. 15-18 also belongs to the same col- loquy, thus making the ascension coincide with the same day. (But more of this in due time.) The varepov — afterwards — is by no means at last (Vulg. novissime), in the sense that this (as we find in Allioli) "was the last Appearance of Jesus Christ, shortly before the ascension !" Nor, as Bengel (who in his Germ. N. T. translates "finally") interprets in the Gnomon: " not absolutely the last of the Appearances, but of those which St Mark records." For the following koI eVrrev evidently be- longs, if we compare the others, to a later Appearance (it is indeed parallel with Matt, xxviii. 18-20) ; and St Mark em- braces, as ver. 19 teaches, all the \akr\o~ai avrols, before the ascension, in a few leading traits. Thus, as Grotius decided for the obvious chronological sense — non est postremo, sed deinde. What he concedes afterwards, that it may be taken for avOis, is less appropriate, for it corresponds in the series with the irpwrov of ver. 9, and fiera he ravra of ver. 12. It is a repeated postea (comp. Matt. iv. 2), and will, before the brief summing up of the \a\e2v is introduced, arrange the three remarkable Appearances of the first day of the week (ver. 9), and intimate by the expression which seems to pass over into postremo — that not till late, and as the last, the Eleven (sitting at the evening meal) received their manifestation. 1 1 " At last, that is, on His departure and as His farewell before His ascension, the Lord administered rebuke ! " (Helferich.) There is a cer- LUKE XXIV. 36-41, ETC. 139 Once more " He appeared," ifavepcodv, but not now in another form — this is emphatically contrasted in St Mark's words, and perfectly agrees with the record of the others, which represents the Lord as most perfectly and certainly revealing Himself to them. When this Evangelist gives pro- minence only to the rebuke of their unbelief, he shows us generally that it was his purpose only to hasten over this as a connecting link for his concluding words ; no thoughtful reader can suppose that the mission of ver. 15 was thus immediately connected with the sharp bvei§i£,eiv. Further, St Mark pre- supposes that the more precise tradition of that which he briefly hinted was known to most of his readers ; and hence we under- stand the cric\7)poKaphia (Lu. xxiv. 25) which would say : He rebuked the Apostles not less than the disciples from Emmaus. How this rebuke is reconciled with the peace and the showing Himself which the others record, we shall see in the end. St Mark calls the company of the Apostles without Thomas the Eleven?- just as in Lu. ver. 33 ; and as 1 Cor. xv. 5 the two Appearances on this and the following Sunday are embraced together as — to the Twelve. Here in St Mark Thomas is not included among the avaKu\ikvou$ ; but the Evangelist has this reason for speaking so generally, that one of these Eleven re- mained long and firmly in unbelief, and then received the most gracious rebuke. Mary Magdalene had announced, the other women had related; — to one of the Apostles, though not as an Apostle, but as the troubled Simon, the Lord had appeared for His abundant consolation ; — but the others, most of them at least, find their hearts quite unprepared to believe those who had seen the Lord as Risen. 2 Then come the two joyful messen- gers from Emmaus, with their burning, melting hearts, and shame them by the artless account of their own faith, in the tain truth in this as far as it regards St Mark's summary ; but it is not true that after the intercourse of the forty days, and the faith of Thomas, etc., the Lord left as His testament and farewell rebukes of faults which were altogether past and over ! Every unprejudiced feeling must contradict this. 1 The conjecture of Michaelis avrols net I rolg hfo>cx might do very well, but cannot be defended, nor is it necessary. 2 Lachmann's text adds with emphatic U ui»pa>u I 140 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. word brought home to their understanding before tney had seen : — but neither believed they them, says St Mark, that he may connect with this his immediately following afterwards. Consequently we are not to suppose in the converse which Lu. ver. 36 records by " as they thus spake" any general and perfect unbelief — after vers. 34, 35; but certainly there was no unanimous and joyful faith, which would not be men- tioned with a mere Tavra XaXecv — talking of these things — and Lu. vers. 37 and 41 decisively confirms this. So far all agrees very well. We cannot, however, • adopt the con- cise words of Richter's Bible : " But as they were speaking thereof, disputing away their faith" 1 — though there is, on the one hand, some general truth in this. On the other hand, it is not altogether as Tholuck says : " Full of joy and of that in- ternal life which increasing assurance must create, the disciples are talking together about it" — though there is also some truth in this. Suffice that they waver and doubt even yet whether they might dare to believe the great fact ; this is estimated by the Lord as amiaTia, and therefore is recorded by St Mark as ovSe eiriarevaav. In His deep wisdom the Lord, although His love to His chosen Apostles and witnesses must have drawn Him mightily, had withheld Himself from them down to this varepov ; He administered to the future preachers of the faith the severest test, as it was fit. But He had at the same time by degrees prepared them, attracted them more and more powerfully to- wards faith, by varying evidence, from the empty sepulchre to the tidings of the Emmaus-disciples ; for this was needful to their disposition of mind, which as it more deeply pondered all things, so was more slow in decision. They did not, as He foreknew, altogether stand when they were tried; but they were so far prepared that He anticipated the promised meeting in Galilee, and entered among them now with His graciously rebuking peace. Divided between faith and unbelief, they are nevertheless gathered together into one place (crvvwOpoia/jLevovs;) 1 Most assuredly not as Teschendorf exaggerates : They sought to bring all into suspicion, the declaration of Mary, of Peter, and of Cleophas — that Mary had only seen the gardener, Peter probably a wilful Sadducee who deceived him (!), the two disciples a learned scribe who, becoming aware of their error, made that a handle ! LUKE XXIV. 36-41, ETC. 141 as His disciples, who can speak and think only about Himself ; thus He finds them desiring most earnestly to believe the truth of His resurrection. And probably they were in the same sacred paschal room where He had last sat in the midst, spoken with them, established His testament, and prayed in their hearing. Farewell and welcome tenderly join their hands over this sad interval. We must not too far press the " toward evening" and " the day is far spent" of the Emmaus-disciples ; we must assume a very rapid hastening back on the part of these happy men ; and the o^la, John ver. 19 (still the first day of the week), is not already dark night, as Nonnus describes it. We may understand it of the first evening of the Jews, as Matt, xxvii. 57. This is now the sanctuary and church of the Lord, not where the evening sacrifice is brought ; the High Priest comes here to His people with His benediction and peace ! Inasmuch as St John has already mentioned the eventide, he cannot mean by the " doors being shut" to indicate the time, but the actually shutting of the doors of the houses where the disciples were. He gives also the decisive reason — for fear of the Jews. For ha rbv ? i%rj\6ev etc fiiJTpas" Better, Augustine : " It had been already in His power to walk upon the water." 1 Quite right, but to what end is such a mere miracle of omnipotence here, as he views it 1 Christ must have designed to point out something to His dis- ciples by the manner of His coming ; and nothing remains but that we say — He will teach them two things : that He lives bodily (as will presently be seen to follow) ; and that this bodili- ness — to obviate all misunderstanding — is at the same time dif- ferent, and already less bound than before. Hence Epiphanius most correctly ascribes to the body of the Risen Lord a \e7r- tot»7? TrvevfjLdTLfCT], a " spiritual subtilty ;" Euthymius says, " His body being now subtile, thin, and unmixed." 2 The question has been lately confused by the Lutheran champions of the so- called ubiquitas corporis Christi. This is not to be held in any such sense as they teach it, certainly not before the ascension ; and this passage cannot be made evidence, since it says nothing about penetrating or coming in any way, indeed penetration opposes the notion of ubiquity. (Lampe : Why should He penetrate and approach, if He was there already by His omni- presence ?) Calvin, therefore, termed this penetrating through the door, and so forth, puerile conceits. But when he assumed that the Lord's rjkOev was connected with a display of His power — " on the Lord's coming the closed doors opened at the nod of His Divine Majesty" 3 — we can only say that this opening is not 1 Through want of insight into the power of the spirit ruling the body, he regards this as " contrary to the nature of the body," which it abso- lutely is not. 2 Poetically in Nonnus : ag nrspou qe vortex, piTocpciog sis ptoov hry. The afterwards handled corporeity by no means " contradicts" this " spiritual entering through an unopened door" — but both in their union attests only the power of the Spirit in the body of the Lord. 3 Jerome : Creatura cedente Creatori 144 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. in the text, the Ke/cXeLo-fAevcov of which sounds rather as if they remained closed. Suffice it that we must leave all exact defini- tion, and confine ourselves, on a subject of which we know no- thing, to the simple truth that the Lord, as He could be either visible or invisible, so could come into a closed room ; that this was a miracle connected with the relatively miraculous nature of His present body ; and that St John records it, as and be- cause the Lord did it, to indicate this characteristic of His risen body. We agree, further, with Tholuck, in regarding the otherwise unrequired repetition of this circumstance in ver. 26 as decisive for this meaning in his account. But we say finally : More important than the instruction which the Lord here gives concerning the Xeirrorr}? of the body of His resurrection, is the symbolical-prophetical significance of this sign, in the analogy of all the similar appearances of the Forty Days. To this the Evangelist points our attention by the mention of the fear, and we should understand — Thus does the Bringer of peace penetrate all the bolts of fear and weakness in the hearts of His disciples, and comes with His blessing when they are assembled as a company of His own ! Doors hinder Him not, like closed hearts. Thus we arrive at the word of entrance — Peace be unto you — testified alike by Luke and John. The Apostles receive the Kesurrection-greeting at the latest, but it is, therefore, all the more emphatic and sure : the Lord enters with this greeting only to them; and for their sake to those who were assembled with them. His word connects itself with the peace which He had at His farewell both left and promised to give : the first word on His return reminds them of that, and points to the ful- filment of the promise. See John xiv. 27, xvi. 33, and what we have already said in Vol. vi. upon the profound meaning of this ordinary greeting as used by the Lord Himself. The whole fulness of accomplished and attained salvation lies in this one word, which the Apostles afterwards so often gave to the Church for inexhaustible experience ; here, however, it was first obviously intended to take from them not merely all fear of the Jews, but all that fear which His appearance excited in their hearts. The Lord gives His peace first, before He renews the rebuke of His love. This "Peace be with you!" was, as Dietz preaches, " a LUKE XXIV. 38-41, ETC. 145 mighty heartquickening assurance that all the past, its sin, and perversions, was forgiven and forgotten. Be not afraid, would Jesus say. I come not as a wrathful judge, to reckon with you thus for your unbelief and unfaithfulness ; I do* not enter among you as one who has been injured, to reproach you for your blameworthy conduct. I bring to you (and all the world) from My sepulchre something very different from upbraidings." These indeed followed afterwards ; how could the Apostles escape, who deserved them more than those two disciples in the way ? Yet it is love that rebukes, in peace and unto peace. With all the weakness, and even obduracy of their unbelief, they are never- theless children of peace, worthy and susceptible of receiving it. (Luke x. 5, 6.) But as to the Jews, for fear of whom they have shut themselves in, whether they were enemies or only indifferent — how could Jesus bring and offer peace to them ? There is a very plausible reading 1 which follows St Luke's " Peace be to you" by the reassuring comfort eyco el/xc, yJr) <£o- ftelade. But we prefer to adhere to St John ; this addition to the sublime and all-comprehending word at His entrance seems premature, and scarcely in harmony with the fear and terror which follows in Lu. ver. 37. They are terrified at the peace, they are afraid of the Lord and Master whom they had so painfully longed for — for they suppose they see a spirit ! Klee say*: " His coming so marvellously into their midst was the rea- son why they took Him for a spirit." Almost right, in as far as this bodily penetration of the Lord through a closed door must have at once excited doubt as to His real corporeity ; and so this circumstance would be a new argument for our previous exposition. It was not, however, this alone, but generally the novelty of the appearance of the form of Him who had been dead, that made such an impression upon them. Mark here, as in its highest exposition, the fear of spirits which belongs to the natural man, and which could only be overcome by the Peace of the Kisen Lord ! We may even say, penetrating deeper into its most general meaning (and to this end irvevfia is here chosen) — Thus fears the flesh before the spirit! Before the spirit only improperly regarded as utterly without body ! Meanwhile, 1 So the Pesch. fiVlTW sV si:s s:x — Vulg. ego sum, nolite timere ! Ambrose thus quotes it, and the Arab. vers, so translates. BeDgel too*" accepts it. VOL. VII I. K 146 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. TTvevfia here signifies something specific ; it is not altogether the same as (^avraafxa in the similar want of recognition upon the sea, Matt. xiv. 26. Nor is it " an appearance without essence" (for see afterwards, ver. 39, the recognition of the existence of such 7rvev/jbara) ; nor " a higher superhuman being," as v. Gerlach says on this passage ; nor a Saifioviov acrcofjLaTov, as we find in Ignat. ad Smyrn. c. 3 j 1 but, as in Acts xxiii. 8 with ayyeXos, correlative of ava\ov from the king- dom of the dead — thus rather a being in another manifestation than that with which we are familiar. The disciples do not think, as " a spirit" might mislead us to suppose, of an evil spirit ; but their So/celv, in connection with the perfectly cognisable form of Jesus, indicates only that this Jesus who had certainly been dead appeared to them without a body, that is as irvev^a : they cannot yet apprehend the resurrection of the body. The whole scene shows us " superstition, unbelief, and true faith in refer- ence to the kingdom of spirits" (Heubner) — concerning which much might be said in more precise development. Perverted man, until he has come to sound faith, vibrates contradictorily between too much and too little faith, between superstition and unbelief. The " thing incredible" is altogether too great and wonderful for him — he may maintain it in his system and as a dogma ; but if God actually reawakens in the body such as kave been bodily dead, he cannot believe it. (Acts xxvi. 8.) He has a superstition as to the mere spirit, that there may be and is such alone; he has nevertheless (in testimony of the error and unnaturalness in his too much faith) " a secret horror of all pure spirit, unclothed of bodily investiture." He has an unbelief in the continuance and restoration of corporeity beyond death ; the very (supposed) appearance of such corporeity amazes him, as if it could only be a lie of the abominated spirit ; nevertheless, he is pacified, and brought to true and cer- tain faith, to peace even as it respects the world beyond, only by 1 This being, as by Grotius, understood of a bad spirit or of the devil ; though the word was at a later time used of departed men. Moreover, the passage in Ignatius (concerning which Eusebius iii. 86, says that he knows not whence it was derived) is referred by Hieron. Catal. to the gospel of the Nazarenes^ by Origen, irtpl up^'ay, to the doctrina Petri. LUKE XXIV. 36-41, ETC. 147 the convincing demonstration of a bodily human life which has gone through and survived death. This last is the surest proof that the body and the soul of man belong inseparably together, and that the resurrection is the only complete victory over death. Whence else the horror of an unclothed spirit, and of being unclothed generally (found even in the Apostle, 2 Cor. v. 4) — even among those who hope to be such spirits % Here there is co-existing with a germ of faith superstition and infidelity still, the indistinctness and baselessness of which brings its own fear ; but which at the same time rests upon unbelief in the reality of our corporeity, as triumphing even over death. As unbelief in the disciples now degenerates thus into super- stition, and confounds them with fear, the Lord graciously goes on to encourage them. 1 Lu. vers. 38-40 is evidently parallel with Joh. ver. 20. Because St John will report the following and more important words, he passes over those which are men- tioned by St Luke as accompanying the showing. As He had formerly spoken in Mark iv. 40 ; Matt. viii. 26, the Lord must still continue to speak to His disciples — even down to this time, when He comes to them to abide with them for ever in the Spirit, He must bear with their unbelieving and perverted thoughts ! (Matt. xvii. 17.) Were He yet capable of suffering, His passion would now begin again. But the consummate power of His High- priestly patience and long forbearance now elevates His bearing our weakness above everything like suffering it ; and He knows that such weakness will be of perpetual recurrence, and, more over, that His peace penetrating through the doors of their fear will soon most perfectly enter their hearts. If an anticipatory " Be not afraid, it is I !" was not before suitable to the occa- sion, it is appropriate now and is most emphatically spoken. Before there was the expression of one humbling question — Wherefore do ye still fear ? in which the word " fear" is de- signedly omitted; their follows an incontrovertible iyco ei/u, evident both to their sense and to their understanding. He 1 His word of peace was scarcely heard by them before the sudden be- holding of His form. This in a measure justifies Luther's application (in the Table-talk) as to the virtue of the human word against fanaticism : " They thought, before He spoke to them, that He was a spirit or apparition ; but when He spoke to them, their fears were stilled." 148 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. convinces them by the very tone and substance of the well-known and gracious appeal, ver. 38, before in ver. 39 He directs them to the visible and palpable corporeity of His manifested presence. It is as if (opposing the mildest repose to their excitement) He should begin — Children, do ye not then know Me again? (at the same time, as if the death which had intervened came not into consideration ! As if He had entered and was speaking to them, just as in earlier times !) He terms their amazement and fear merely a disquietude, a confusion of the heart ; and applies His instructing conviction at once to their erroneous thoughts. I know well what ye now think — What follows shows us this meaning in His question, for He goes on to refute their delusion about "jspirit." AtaXo^Lafioi are not here simply cogitationes, as the Vulg. translates, but critical questionings, doubting and contradictory thoughts, as in ch. ix. 46 ; Phil. ii. 14 ; 1 Tim. ii. 8. These arise out of the hidden ground of nature, contem- plated by the Lord in its depths, in the hearts of the disciples — a most distinctive expression I 1 Not eh t — but He admits, He undeniably confirms their existence and visibility, when He thus makes " spirit" the subject of His sentence, and speaks of what it " has not." * For to assume here anything like the silent reservation — " as ye falsely suppose" — would be to attribute to our Lord an accommodation to a prevalent error, when a single word would have sufficed to root it out for all future time. If we now turn to St John, he says in ver. 20 merely that He showed them His hands and His side — while St Luke says, ver. 40, His hands and His feet ; and with the (probably genuine) addition of the stronger eire^ei^ev. Instead of deducing from a comparison of St John's words with his ch. xix. 34, that the wounds of Jesus on the cross were here in question, and that therefore St Luke's additional reference to the feet establishes the wounds on His feet, some have set aside St Luke's words altogether, and pressed St John's into an argument that the feet were not nailed to the cross. Herder, referring to the Memora- the flesh and blood? That would be unscriptural and untrue. Even in Ezek. xxxvii., there is no mention of blood. On the other hand, in Christ there is a resurrection of the flesh and the blood, as a mysterium singulare. 1 Just as the line of Homer, quoted by Grotius : Ov yocp hi oupxag n seal oartu he; e%ovciv. ETC. 151 bilia of Paulus, thought that the plain intimation of St John made it a matter beyond question that the feet remained un- wounded ; for he spoke of the hands and the feet " to point out distinctly the effects of His crucifixion." But how can we be so certain of that ? Might he not have omitted the mention of the feet because they were presupposed in connection with the hands, and because it was his purpose to refer expressly to the side ? And how shall we, without breaking the Scripture, despatch the equally plain declaration of St Luke ? The omis- sion in the former is certainly more easily to be accounted for than the addition in the latter. The showing of the feet, if St Luke also (vers. 39 and 40) reports the truth, can have had no other than the same reason ; especially as according to St John the side also was shown. Stolz and Paulus explain ridiculously that " He showed merely the parts of His body which were not covered with clothing, to show that He had actually flesh and bone." This might apply to the hands, the arms, the breast or side, but certainly not to the feet ! 1 The controversy which has been carried on concerning the independent question of the feet has been abundantly decided ; 2 we will not enter into antiquarian researches upon it, but maintain as the duty of the expositor the authority of St Luke's testimony. Here the Lord incontro- vertibly shows also upon His feet " signs of His crucifixion," as Lange simply says ; we see further from ver. 39, that it was in evidence that it was avrbs iya) ; that is, that it was Himself, the same who died upon the cross, and therefore, according to their thoughts, could come back again only as a " spirit." What- ever may be thought of v. Gerlach's remark, u there was in the feet something more convincing and touching than in the hands, on account of the wonder that one who had been so grievously wounded could move" — it is presupposed thereby that the plants of the nails were what the Lord presented to their 1 Notwithstanding Luthardt's objection, I must hold that the exhibition of the feet would be altogether superfluous and unsuitable for the assurance of the reality of His body. As if the Lord might not rather in His dignity have removed the clothing which concealed His limbs ! When He showed His feet to the disciples, it was to show something visible upon them, as well as upon the hands. 2 See Friedlieb's Archaeol. der Leidensgeschichte, S. 144. 152 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. touch. To the mere feeling that He " had flesh and bones," the hands and " easily uncovered arms" would have been enough, But there is one thing more ! The Lord showed His wounds not merely as the tokens of His crucifixion for the identity of His body ; but evidently also as the tokens of victory, the proofs of His triumph over death, and therefore also — and this is its deepest meaning, as pertaining to His introductory greeting ! — as the peace-tokens of His sacrificial death, of His accomplished atonement. This had reference, indeed, rather to the future understanding of the disciples (which soon followed in the open- ing of Scripture), in the symbolical meaning of this His revela- tion for His whole future Church ; yet we may, as Diez says, expound it as historically true, that " they began to have a pre- sentiment of the mysterious connection between this peace and the wounds of Jesus." And Luther also preaches, how Christ presents to us, when He reveals Himself to us, His death of crucifixion through the word. He adds, " this is the true token, by which He comforts the terrified conscience and heart." Yes, verily ! The Lord Himself here justifies the Church's celebra- tion of His sacred wounds, though not its unworthy trifling with them. That He retained in the resurrection these marks of His wounds on the body which was to be exalted to heaven (marks which otherwise as the concomitant of death might or should have been abolished), and that He retains them till now and for eternity, as the glorious tokens of His victory and atone- ment, is of great and blessed significance for our faith. 1 It is assuredly the Lord's will, as we see, to appear Himself to His disciples as " the Crucified," as the angels in the empty sepulchre termed Him ; and thereby to manifest His glory, thereby to seal His peace. To this referred that suggestive legend of Satan's appearance in the form of the glorified Saviour, when St Martin repelled him by asking for the prints of the wounds. No dv- rao-fjua could counterfeit these wounds, for these were chosen and 1 Augustine de Civ. lib. 22. cap. 19 deduces from this with a " perhaps we shall see" the same with respect to the wounds of the martyrs. ' Be it as it may, we hold with the " current view" against Delitzsch, who (Proph. Theol. S. 222) would give up, with Hunnius and Kriiger, the marks of the wounds of the glorified Lord. This matter has more significance and weight than is often thought ! LUKE XXIV. 36-41, ETC. 153 sanctified by the Lord of Glory as the tokens and marks by which He would be known. 1 Did the disciples actually touch? As it regards Thomas afterwards, we shall see that it is not to be assumed ; and here, too, v. Gerlach thinks that the disciples declined it, and that this was the basis of Thomas' doubting. We think on the contrary that Thomas wanted also himself to touch, as they had reported themselves to have done ; 1 Jno. i. 1 leads us also to this conclusion. " If He patiently allowed Himself to be handled by His murderers, why not by them who loved Him ? " This thought, according to Pfenninger, gave them courage to do so. 2 And in, during, and after such palpable conviction, we must suppose the rebuke of their previous unbelief men- tioned by St Mark — Are ye now convinced ? Thus — Not be- fore ? Wheref ore were your hearts so hard as not to believe ? We might be almost tempted to say — Herein, in the circum- stances mentioned Lu. vers. 38-40, consisted this rebuke ; as B.-Crusius remarks, " the matter is thus explained by St Mark." But the expression is too specific for that — they had not believed those who had seen Him after His rising from the dead. This seems to us to be equal to an indirect, though not verbal, inti- mation of another word of Jesus, in which the external testi- mony for faith of the second degree is established in its place and prerogative. Thus it was fit in respect to those who were to be sent into the world to demand everywhere faith in their own having seen. He says nothing about their fleeing, being offended, and falling ; He speaks only of their unbelief in the message of peace and of joy ! But it was scarcely the first thing, before Lu. ver. 38 (as Lange supposes) ; we think that since it is love which rebukes them with most gracious earnest- ness, that rebuke was not administered until after the abundant evidence was given for their conviction. Else it remains true that the reproof of unbelief is an indispensable preparative for 1 Meyer (Bl. fur hbh. "Wahrh. iv. 475) writes : " It is obvious that the Risen Lord might have appeared in another form than with the wounds of the cross." That is not stated with precision, at furthest it is only ab- stractly true ; for He would not, then or ever, appear otherwise, and there- fore that was actually His form. 2 But he makes the touching follow immediately upon the challenge, so that the " as ye see Me" refers directly to that which is contrary to ver. 40. 154 FIEST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. the enjoyment of the peace of faith ; and we may interpret this rebuke, at the first appearance of the Risen Lord in the greater circle of His disciples, which represents His Church, as the Berl. Bible does : " We must not suppose that our Lord's dealing was so complacent and gentle that no sin was regarded by Him. When Christ came to their hearts, and searched out their thoughts with His light, as a glorified, pure, and mighty Being, His reproof could not spare anything evil. Let us therefore prepare for, and rightly understand the rebuke of our Lord." 1 But the ground of all evil is the unbelief of the hard heart, and that is always best seized and condemned in its last manifestation. There is, however, a distinction between the unbelief which the Lord can reprove and take away, and the unbelief which hastens to utter condemnation ; yet even the former goes never unreproved in any man, so long as it exists in his soul. Thus the Lord during the Forty Days begins the convincing function .of the Holy Ghost, predicted in Jno. xvi. 9 ; and begins it first in His Apostles ! With every advance to a higher degree of the* life of faith, the reproof of previous unbelief recurs ; only at the end in its final established maturity do we hear the pure and perfect praise of God. Then were the disciples glad that they saw the Lord, ^%apr)- aav ovv^lSovTes. By this St John notes the fulfilment of His promise in ch. xvi. 22 ; and how must the remembrance of that hour have stirred in his heart when in old age he thus wrote of it ! He hastens away, in his pure and deep remembrance of the peace and joy, from the other individual circumstances ; but St Luke, on the other hand, records them all with exact minuteness. The disciples had beheld, touched, and gladly re- ceived their rebuke — but there is again a "wondering" among them, before the final, clear, and tranquil assurance fills their hearts. As before through fear, so now through astonished joy, they cannot altogether and fully believe ! 2 A record this 1 Beck derives from this a very excellent word against the delusion and demand of the world, that the preachers of the gospel of peace should not chide : Christ here on the glad festival of His resurrection rebuked even His Apostles with purifying and sanctifying love. 2 Lachmann's text very appropriately puts x,u\ Sxv^x^ovrtau before «xo tvs xocoxs — as also the Vulg. LUKE XXIV. 36-11, ETC. 155 which approves its own profound psychological truth. Ps. cxxvi. 1 has been unsuitably compared — for it has a different meaning. In this joy at having the Lord again there is an actual faith — and yet it does not reach to peace and joy com- bined in their fulness. And wherefore so ? Because their joy itself has in its first vehemence and disquietude too little peace. Assuredly, there is a violent joy in which, notwithstanding its semblance of overpowering feeling, a deep and firm faith can scarcely fix its roots. Therefore the wise and patient Master gradually brings them to the peace of faith : the first sign of His wounds had been a rather exciting appeal ; He now follows it by a second, and one more composing. He takes them back, at least for a short space, into the peaceful communion of their former relation restored ; and puts an end to all mere ecstasy by the indescribably confidential, though perfectly unexpected question — Have ye here anything to eat? Their evening meal might have been over, and yet they sat according to St Mark still at the table. What condescension ! Like so much else in these manifestations, this eating was an expression of the love which entered into and would satisfy the need of their weakness. As in the case of the daughter of Jairus, the eating was at once the surest sign of perfectly restored life ; so here there is an apparent resemblance, though with a very great dif- ference. Assuredly, need of nourishment had nothing to do with this act of our Lord. But that He could eat, if He would, is proved here by the fact : He did eat, though certainly with- out "organic necessity" of His body — a supposition which, with all its consequences, must be earnestly repelled. 1 But yet there is no So/070-i?, no mere docetic semblance (as Liicke sup- poses in this case) ; no " deception " as Hasse says. If we must assume that in Gen. xviii. 8, xix. 3, there was a reality in the miraculous eating of the angels, and of the appearing Lord Himself, how much more was the eating of the same 1 Alas, Hasse speaks in the same tone, that " the receptive and digestive organs of bodily life were not abolished, the resurrection body assimilated matter — precisely as our present body, and the human-earthly body of Jesus before ! " This is one of the individual blemishes of an excellent book. Assuredly there was great difference between His present and His former condition. 156 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. Lord, in His present actual body, a reality — however distin- guished from our own. That He asks them to eat, and eats before them " in order the more fully to assure them that He had not merely the appearance and form, but the inioard reality of the human body" (as Schmieder says), we would scarcely affirm, at least in such easily misunderstood words ; but He did assuredly intend to give proof of His actual bodiliness against every docetic conceit. Let 'the reader refer back to what we have said upon Luke xxii. 16, 18^ Matt. xxvi. 29, con- cerning eating and drinking in the kingdom of glory. Let not the words of C. Kappliuger be despised : u The tangibility of His members was no longer an attribute of His earthily body, but the result of the Divine energy of His supreme will, exerted upon His heavenly body. So, that which He partook of after His resurrection was a sacrifice of His heart's love to His dis- ciples ; but the nourishment of the system of the body could no longer be created within the body. He consumed that which He received in the fire-energy of His life, as a holy sacrifice in love, to the honour of the Father I" 1 In ver. 42 koI airo fjbe\iao-iov fcrjpiov is wanting in many MSS. ; if it is genuine, we must supplement teal rl airo or icai /ze/30?, and understand the exact description with the redundant fjueXicrcriov (for fcwpiov itself points to no other than the honey of bees) as intimating that the wonderful incident was to be described with precision — and this would be in favour of its genuineness. And taking it, He did eat (it) before them. 2 Thus after the greeting He gave them advancing demonstra- tion of His life : by His gracious word, by their seeing and feeling, by the rebuke of their unbelief, and finally by His taking and partaking this fipaxrifiov, which would reduce to peace the yet half-unbelieving joy of faith. He did not desire to drink; we nowhere read that He drank. 3 Bengel on this 1 Schmieder speaks of the spirituality of the body consisting in this, that it had no matter in it foreign to the spirit and the soul ; that the predomi- nance of the power which appropriates all to itself transubstantiated all matter, like burning fire. (Hohepr. Gebet, S. 40.) 2 Vulg. : Et cum manducasset coram eis, sumens reliquias dedit eis. This clause, found also in the Arab, and Armen. versions, may be apocry- phal, having probably originated in a false view of Acts x. 41. 3 Although we find in Liicke (as in many others) the unscrupulous LUKE XXTV. 36-41, ETC. 157 passage says : — He eats spontaneously, without any need, and therefore He does not also drink. If this is not enough, may we not connect it with hidden propriety of His now bloodlesa body? But about this we will contend with no man. Only this much we assert, that according to the account of Lu. and Joh. the Lord by no means sat down with His disciples to speak with them still further ; nor did the Apostles eat with Him any more. The little morsel of fish and honey was enough for the design of His eating. That He did not terminate this revela- tion by thus eating, but continued to speak, though not the words which now follow in Lu., is established by Stein, in his commentary. We know from Joh. xx. 21-23 what He went on to say ; but for this, any sitting as at a meal seems to be inappropriate ; and further it appears contrary to the propriety of this first revelation to His Apostles to separate Joh. xx. 20, 21, from Lu. xxiv. 37-43 by any intervening sitting conversa- tion. That which St Luke further records belonged, as we shall see, not to the same evening ; he lets it follow in his own order of t"he whole, in order to show that the sensible demon- stration which they had had, required to be followed by instruc- tion out of the Scripture. For the preaching of the Apostles concerning the Risen Lord had for its foundation their assured conviction first, by no means the external experience of their sense ; secondly, their insight into the counsel of God through the opening of the Scripture ; and, finally, the power from on high experienced within themselves: it is % this which St Luke would teach at the end of his Gospel, in the summary account which is his transition to the Acts of the Apostles. But St John brings forward this necessary supplement to the expe- rience of sense in a more precise historical manner; for He records the mission which was accompanied by the breathing on the very first evening. words: "Jesus comes and goes like other men, and eats and drinks." But Acts. x. 41 does not prove this, as we have already said. Not after His resurrection, but before, they were His companions, eating and drink- ing, and therefore perfectly knowing Him. This alone correct construction is established too by Knapp's text. Hasse is here wrong once more ; the weak side of his theologically important work is in its special exegesis. 158 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. This evening manifestation had reference to the Apostles especially, though, according to Lu., ver. 43, others were pre- sent and enjoyed it with them. The same St Luke in his con- tinuous avrois, avroiVy vers. 44-46, and lyxet?, ver. 48, does not go beyond the before-chosen witnesses. St John has used the word " disciples" according to his prevalent phraseology (only once, chap. xiii. 16, has he mentioned the name airovTokos in the general sense) ; yet we observe even in his account also, as in vers. 24, 25, so already in vers. 21-23, that there is a special reference to the Twelve. Thus the strongest conviction which we have yet considered was especially for them ; and for them the solemn confirmation and sealing of the mission, to which we now come. At once on this day of the resurrection, the great day of the Lord, we meet with the first, preliminary institution of the New-Testament preaching office which the Spirit records. (The second and perfect one follows in the Synoptics.) % Nothing could be more appropriate than that, as the Berlenb. Bible says : " By virtue of the resurrection is the office of preaching living with the life of Christ. ^Preaching is a benefaction of the resurrection, for it is nothing else but awakening." Once more must the Lord say — Peace be with you ! it is repeated until it thoroughly enters and is established. 1 There is literal and actual truth in this observation, in as far as the first greeting of our Lord was scarcely heard or received by the affrighted disciples. t But the repetition has a deeper signifi- cance than this. Certainly it was not (as Tholuck says) at the close of a meal, and as the conclusion of a long colloquy, that the Lord repeated His greeting ; 2 and yet we say that its repe- tition is rather a farewell in relation to the first, which was an 1 This should satisfy Olshausen's scruple, who would prefer to place this repeated consecration and renewal of the Apostles' commission (which it was not, however, exclusively) at the end of the Forty Days, as a matter of final import : and therefore was almost inclined to assume that St John abbreviated and anticipated here. But this last is opposed by the ttu^iu, ver. 21, and the definite statement of vers. 24, 26. 2 To repeat once more : He did not sit down again to eat and drink with them, nor did He thus at the table expound the Scripture (Lu. ver. 44) — nor did He, after the meal and discourse, breathe upon them for their mission. The solemnity of this breathing of the Risen Lord permits to our LUKE XXIV. 36-41, 159 introductory greeting. For the sending them, through the Spirit in His name, with authority in His stead over sin into the world, is itself another farewell-word of His departure. Yea, still more ! All the Lord's enterings and comings during these Forty Days were but one great farewell before the ascen- sion ; they leave behind His final words and farewell blessing on His going back to the Father. Hence Schmieder rightly preaches : " The greeting here (on this first occasion) is, as it respects the present appearance of Jesus, a welcome of en- trance ; as it respects His whole presence with the disciples, a word of farewell. For all the appearances of the Eisen Lord collectively are to be regarded as the return of one who had been absent, who looks round for those whom He is about to leave behind, saying repeatedly Farewell ! Farewell ! adding to each farewell yet a few words of love and exhortation." 1 (Comp. ch. xvi. 33.) As it regards this evening Appearance itself with its redoubled "peace," the distinction- between the entrance and the departure may justify Draseke's arrangement for his sermon : " The Lord had the twofold design, to make the disciples glad in what had taken place, and to consecrate them for what was to come." Thus the first greeting, with the showing which accompanied it, spoke of the past : I have over- come the world, have brought life to light — I was dead, and behold I live ! But the second greeting, with the accompany- ing breathing, speaks for the future : And I so send you ! So that we may finally say that the first Peace was rather for the disciples themselves, to assure them and gladden their hearts ; while the second was through them to pass on to all others : — although the second was obviously only the establishing confir- mation of the first. To the sending of the ambassadors of Jesus belongs the peace, in which they have their own preparation, and on which their own feet stand firm. (Eph. vi. 15, erot/jbao-la, fatt.) The feeling no such representation ; but we think generally that He no more in any such confidential way continued sitting long with them. 1 Luthardt does not seem to have understood this excellent representa- tion of the matter, in its large comprehension of the forty days, when he confines it to this single Appearance, and speaks of " an intolerably quick interchange" of greeting and farewell. 160 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. sons of peace are not to retain it for themselves ; its possession makes them also messengers of peace. This is the deepest ground, the inmost might and power of the evangelical office and preaching ; the mission and equipment has this universal meaning here, and although it refers preeminently to the Apostles properly so called, yet it holds good not of them alone, bat all others participate in it: — as we find the words spoken, Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, Mark xvi. 15, to a larger assembly of the disciples in common. On this point it is remarkable and should be carefully noted, that throughout the gospels the strongest authorisation and promises, which afterwards are referred in their fullest prerogative and degree, and in a certain sense ex- clusively, to the apostolical office, are uttered in their most comprehensive universality, and leave it open to every disciple, as it were, to press into an apostolical position. According to St John the Lord had spoken, ch. xiii. 16, 20, and specially ch. xvii. 18, with the same comprehensiveness ; and He seems to refer back to these sayings when fulfilling them. The Apostles, indeed, had been specifically sent already, and had more than once been pointed out as those who were to be sent preeminently and beyond all others ; but the proper mission, now once more confirmed, was yet in the future, and thus 7re/jL7rco in ver. 21 is no other than a promissory future, pointing onwards to another time, as we intimated when ex- plaining the breathing of ver. 22} " Ue/A7ro) is in the Pres., like the avafialvco to Magdalene. But He does not send them at once, any more than He then at once ascended." (Luthardt.) The Son of the Father, indeed, Himself the first and highest Apostle (Heb. hi. 1), stands as Mediator between the Father and all sub-delegated Apostles : the Father sent Him alone by a mission which is sole and incomparable ; thence and there- 1 Bengal's note seems plausible at the first glance, seeking to establish a subtle distinction between the d'z-iOTx'Axe pi and ^ifi7ra vp&g : "in drroo- rsAAa is regarded the will of the sender and the sent ; in ni^na the will of the sender,' apart, from that of the sent." If it had only grammatical ground ! But nt^a is used by St John of the Father and the Son (ch. iv. 34, v. 23, 24, 30, vi. 38, 44, vii. 16, etc.); x7roartAAnv is used, Matt. ii. 16, of Herod's servants, Acts v. 21, x. 8, xiii. 15, of official servants, and Matt. x. 16 of the Apostles themselves. In Jno. xvii. 18, u.KwvtKKu'j is both times used. LUKE XXIV. 3G-41, ETC. 161 fore He sends all others. But He sends them as the Father had sent Him : in this naQm (which we already had in Lu. xxii. 29 and Jno. xvii. 18) very much is involved. First of all, it shows that the Son is a Sender in equal authority with the Father. Then, as to the commission : I send you to bear witness, and that concerning Me, through the manifestation that I am and that I live in you, as the Father sent Me to testify and make manifest that He is in Me. See, further, Jno. xiv. 24, viii. 26, 28, 29, and all similar passages. Yea, it contains a reference to the entire example and type of His own life — that they were to live, to teach, to act, and to suffer even as He had in this world. Thus, as Luther says : " He first takes away the carnal notion which the disciples still retained, after His resurrection, that He would rule like a worldly king with external and physical authority. Therefore He says — Ye have now seen what kind of office I have sus- tained upon earth, that it was a spiritual kingdom which I should establish. I send . you in the same manner ', to be My messengers ; not encompassed with earthly trappings, but exer- cising the same office which I have hitherto executed, that of preaching the word which ye have heard and received of Me — an office by which those are to be saved from their sins and from death, who feel their sin and death and desire to be saved." Christ was sent to preach glad tidings to the miserable, to heal broken hearts, and to comfort all who mourn. But as He was anointed thereunto with the Spirit (Isa. lxi. 1, 2), so the disciples need the same anointing for the performance of their functions ; only in the power of the Holy Ghost received from the Lord can they go forth with success. Thus ver. 22 belongs necessarily to ver. 21, to obviate the anomaly of His saying — You poor sinners, ignorant Galileans, insignificant fishermen etc., I send into the world ! Have they for themselves and in themselves peace, it is the Spirit who seals, preserves, defends it, and distributes it with power. Braune : " So far as we are sinful, Christ is sent from the Father unto us ; but so far as we are redeemed, we are sent as His witnesses to others." I would say more plainly — So far, that is, as we are partakers of His Spirit and of His life. VOL. VIII. L 162 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. But now for the much contested question — How is this Receive the Holy Spirit from the lips of Jesus on the day of resurrection related to the outpouring which did not take place until the day of Pentecost ? We must not proceed recklessly and say that Jesus here already communicated the Holy Ghost: — thus opposing the rest of Scripture, throwing doubt upon the miracle of the Pentecost, and deducing with Kinkel an ascension already accomplished. All this is plain enough for thoughtful people at the outset. It is the Gospel of St John which makes the coming of the Comforter dependent upon the going to the Father, and the outpouring of the Spirit upon the ascension and glorification; but since, as we have earlier seen, an ascension cannot be regarded as having taken place, what St John here records must have another reference. When we take the rest of Scripture into account, we find that in Lu. xxiv. 49, Acts i. 5, 8, the Lord even at the ascension promises the Holy Spirit to His disciples as a gift not to be received until some days had passed. This must be taken in its simple truth. But it is not necessary, on that account, to make this Present Adj3er€ simply equivalent to a Future \rj"^rea6e — as many are content to do, e.g. Liicke in the first edition, and Tholuck, following Chyrs., Theod. Mopsu., and other Fathers. For even if there be no " exegetical arbi- trariness" (as Kinkel complains) in making this Imperative a promising Future, there must yet be some adequate reason for it. And can we not find that reason in the entire connection ? The mission itself, which was then the subject of discourse, was as yet in the future : that is one reason. The ascension to the Father, to which the Lord had before so plainly pointed as the condition of the sending of the Spirit (see only ch. xvi. 7), was after the message by Magdalene likewise still in the future : l that is a second reason. Finally, the circumstance that Jesus connects an external sign, His breathing, with this Receive ye ! — a circumstance which Kinkel strangely assumes to be un- deniably in favour of his view — permits us to regard the whole 1 Still future even now, according to the plain meaning of St John. For should lie not then have recorded something more concerning it than this civuficctua, which had been spoken in connection with an ovttu CCVCtft£fiy]KX ? JOHN XX. 22. 163 as prophetical and symbolical, and therefore as making the future present, and giving in this form a most absolute promise. Why should not the Lord, who had spoken so often and so much in the sanctified style of the prophets, not continue now at the last to act in this manner ? AVhy should He not present His promise to His disciples in a form so appropriate to the occasion as that of a symbolical action % We are firmly con- vinced, and believe that every one may soon convince himself, that here, first of all, " the promise of the Paraclete is sym- bolically renewed." (As B.-Crus. without much argument decidedly expresses it.) Let the reader receive with unbiassed mind, that according to St John's own representation of this act of Christ, it could be no other than symbolical ; and that no Christian reader, who was acquainted with the event of Pentecost, could have understood it otherwise from the be- ginning. The propriety and proof of the realising in the present what was to take place a few days afterwards, rests upon that hasting unto the ascension which we have discerned in the Lord's spirit from the day of resurrection, and which expressed itself in the avafiaivto of ver. 17 : in the same disposition of mind which thus looks forward, 1 He now speaks this " Keceive ye," and would thereby elevate the disciples preparatorily into the same sentiment and feeling. Finally, we have — to our apprehension at least — in the " Take, eat" of the sacramental institution a most perfect parallel of this mystical-symbolical anticipation. As the body of our Lord given to death, and His poured-out blood, could not then have been actually received, and yet were promised in such terms as if they were actually received, — so here. Both events mutually explain and confirm each other. And what a significant, pregnant sign, which accompanies the promise as a prenminary pledge, as for symbolical interpreta- tion ! That in the Gentile world also spiritual communication of energy and influence was regarded as afflatus numinis, hrlirvoia, etc., is only a most general and distant illustration of the matter. Spirit, breath, wind, breathes or blows — Ezek. xxxvii. 9. The 1 We may be permitted still humanly to speak of our Lord's disposition of mind, but not that He " felt Himself excited toward anything"— as some one expresses it. 164 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. quickening, energizing Spirit of God (whether in natural or spiritual things) is called in the Old Scripture *^hTDB&bj Job. xxxiii. 4— VB-nvi, Ps. xxxiii. 7 — ITisp nn, Isa. xi. ±. Thus when the Son of God with the breath of His mouth breathes out the Holy Spirit, this is in its Divine majesty altogether parallel with that first record concerning the creation, when the Lord God breathed into man the breath of life (Gen. ii. 7) — after which passage, let it be well observed, such a breathing, as imparting spirit or life, never again occurs in Scripture as the act of man. 1 (Ezek. xxxvii. 9 is the one only parallel be- tween the Creator and the Eedeemer ; comp. in Isa. xl. 7, the counterpart, and in Ecclus. vii. 25, clt/jlU tt)? tov 6eov Swd/jLews.) That which at the original creation is recorded of God, with all its profound reality yet in anthropomorphic style, that He in- breathed life with His breath, 2 has in the case of the incarnate Son of God, as it respects His glorified humanity, penetrated with Divine life (not consummately so yet, but soon to be so) — its literal, perfect, historical reality. To testify this, the Lord performs this act now preliminarily, in symbolical truth as by a true symbol. Hence Cyrill. Jerus. (Catech. xvii. 12), finds the restoration of the Divine life after the Fall in this " hevrepov ififyvarifLa" second inbreathing of Jesus ; and so Augustine de Civ. xiii. 24 combines profoundly both. Hence St John has used the same expression evefyvariae with the Sept. in Gen. ii. 7. It is not merely that in the former (as 1 Cor. xv. 45 might be incorrectly interpreted) the natural, animal life was inbreathed, while here it was the spiritual and pneumatic. There it was also the immortal breath of the Almighty, the communion of the human spirit with the Spirit of God ; here the restoration, and more than the restoration, of that which was lost in the Fall. 3 The Lord in His majesty does not bestow the kiss ; but His 1 For in 1 Kings xvii. 21 "rtfew is arbitrarily translated by the Sept. x.xi 2 Philo : " The heQwwtv is equivalent to ijwflWfwm, or the informing the soulless with a soul. But we must not think so unbecomingly of God as that He used the mouth or physical organs in this breathing, etc. 3 Although, according to Augustine's remark, there is a reason for ttkojj and not wiv/na, being used in Gen. ii., because in the Hebrew it is ' n ^?- JOHN XX. 22. 165 sacred breath, mightily felt far off as well as near, is more than that would have been. But with all the majesty of this breath- ing there is a certain cordial familiarity in the symbol of this secret influence passing from His inmost life into their inmost life. " Like the breath of a friend on the cheek, so graciously and confidentially should the Spirit of God come upon the spirit of man" — says Braune, probably following Draseke, in whom we read somewhat differently, " Gently like the breath of a friend, would He signify that the fulness of the Spirit would follow." Assuredly, as Lange has observed, this breathing is vrimarily " the last, and most loving sign of the corporeity of His new life" — as proof that there dwell sensible and energetic power in this body which they had seen and felt. 1 But He im- mediately goes on to term this breath of His mouth the Holy Spirit, in prophetic promise to typify and show that now when He was exalted power would go forth from Him otherwise than ever before. The breath of His mouth refers also to the word, the medium of the Spirit : " It is a pure and holy Spirit who will henceforth speak through your lips, as hitherto through Mine." (Hess.) So Weiss : " The same Spirit by whom I have always spoken to you, and proclaimed to you the glad tidings of the kingdom of God." But this is far from being all its meaning ; for the breath of Christ promised much more than even the words of Jesus could give before the ascension. It was not merely a " symbolical description of the breathing from heaven" (Neander), but intimated that the Spirit would thenceforward actually and essentially come from the inmost life of the glorified Son of God and Son of man ; and so far as proceeding from the Son. He breathed upon them — " in order to impart unto them with His breath His life and His love, His inmost, His all." (G. K. Bieger.) Yea, that which had at this time its initial truth, was perfect reality after the ascension : — the heavenly-bodily breath of the Lord's life is itself Spirit and Divine energy. It is in vain that Munchmeyer contradicts our 1 Lange : " He gives them to feel the warm breath of His new life," but we should take exception to such a representation, as coming too near the breath of a mortal. Pfenninger says, " it came upon them like a strongly invigorating air." — But he erroneously regards the ten Apostles as alone breathed on. He certainly breathed on them altogether and at once. 166 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. exposition of Jno. vi. and vii. 37, 38, denying altogether that the KoCkia of Jesus is the hydros of the irvevfia, that is, that the Spirit comes from His inmost corporeity to us ; for, not to mention other passages, this very breathing, whether viewed as symbolically prophetic for the future, or as actually influential at the time, affords the proof which has been found wanting for this scriptural doctrine. C. H. Eieger touches the point when he says : " Jesus establishes here the true meaning of His humanity. Not only was it during His life upon earth His appropriate pilgrim-garment ; not only the flesh in which He should suffer ; but it was after His resurrection (more correctly, from His resurrection onwards, but perfectly in His ascension) so pervaded by His life-giving Spirit, that it should be for all eternity our way to God, and the medium through which GooVs gracious communications should be made to usT Having gone so far toward the understanding of the profound symbol, we must now attempt to define the medium between the two extremes ; one of which attributes to it the impartation of all power and truth, while the other empties it of them alto- gether. Jesus was not yet fully glorified, but He had begun His glorification : this is the simple foundation of our middle view. It is certain that the disciples did not receive the whole full Pentecostal Spirit ; but " they had a preparatory pledge of the Holy Ghost," x before its richer outpouring, as in a wider sense (2 Cor. i. 22). Then- weakness and ignorance yet re- mained in part ; and when Kinkel alleges " the mighty word and act of Peter at the choice of an Apostle before the day of Pentecost," he overlooks (with most others) that this uncalled for and unratified choice was a final example of his presumption and misunderstanding. 2 On the other hand, it is equally cer- tain, as Meyer says : " Jesus stood now in the Spirit, 1 Tim. 1 Meyer. This probably was intended to be meant by Trvevpx uyiov with- out the article. Hofmann (Schriftb. II. i. 376) lays emphasis upon the fact that breathing upon is not breathing into ; and in general he is right, while he maintains that they received something. But when he intimates that the breath did not enter into them, we know not how he can really mean that they received aught. What they received was a breathing upon their inner man. 2 See what is said upon this in my Reden der Apostel i. S. 18-21, a view which I am unable to retract. JOHN XX. 22. 167 iii. 16," that is in a sense which harmonizes with Acts ii. 23 ; consequently His breathing was not altogether empty or in- efficient, it was no mere token of a promise, but carried with it as the pledge of a future fumess the beginnings and the first- fruits of the gift. l " Christ completes the assurance of the re- surrection in their hearts, when He breathed upon them. But this consummation is the fulfilment of the preparation of their inner life for the reception of the Spirit, and the beginning itself of the communication of that Spirit. As soon as the fife of the Christ stands consummate before their souls, it begins as Spirit to come upon themselves." So far we accord with Lange ; but when Olshausen would teach us that the communication of the Spirit to the disciples must generally be " viewed as in progressive increase" we cannot appropriate this unhappy expression, but must leave the great fact of Pentecost all its full significance, and say more cautiously with Neander that the Divine influence connected with this breathing is " an important mediating member between the first promise and its fulfilment." This also is Lange's meaning, when he speaks of a "previous condition and point of connection for the coming miracle of Pentecost." Thus we have in this partly prophetic, partly already influential ifupvarj/ia, recorded by the esoteric gospel, which includes all the more mysterious beginnings, nothing but a concentrated expression for the whole influence of the Forty Days, as it was a necessary middle term before the Pentecost, assuring, com- forting, and preparing their hearts. If this was what Hofmann meant by his somewhat inadequate expression, that " this pre- liminary impartation served for the strengthening of their per- sonal faith, and the Pentecostal gift made them capable of their great testimony" — we agree with him. But Braune has most appropriately spoken of this : " If the day of Pentecost was the birthday of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the disciples, this 1 Meanwhile we cannot scripturally speak of earlier first-fruits of the New-Testament wivpoi, ccyiov, not even at the mission of Matt. x. ; for the power of miracles is not the power of the Spirit, and so vice versa. Glassius was wrong when he said : " This is to be received of the in- crease of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, for they had already received the first-fruits. When He used a new symbol, He speaks as if they then first received it." 168 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. was the time of His conception within them." 1 For, although in fact the power from on high came upon them at once, the susceptibility for it must have been gradually prepared in the depths of their hearts ; and in this sense Braune is right : " That which suddenly comes is always gradually prepared for." But this is not one and the same with progressive advancement ; as according to 2 Cor. i. 22, the consummate gift of the Spirit after the day of Pentecost was itself only a pledge of future fulness, so analogously the quickening which the disciples ex- perienced from the Eisen Lord, was only the pledge of the Pentecostal gift. We have said that the inbreathing Receive must be viewed first of all only as symbolical, this being intended with refer- ence to the perfect Pentecostal reception ; that being the case it is no contradiction when we now, on the other hand, main- tain that it bestowed a preparatory power and experience. The disciples received in the breath of Jesus the " Holy Ghost," not, however, the promised Spirit, the Paraclete, but something me- diating between the word of Jesus upon earth and the Spirit of Pentecost, an airapyr) and so far an anticipation of the promise. In this view Luthardt is sound. On the other hand, inasmuch as the Apostles were not as- sembled alone, and consequently were not alone breathed upon and further addressed, the exclusive reference of this gift to the Apostles alone which has been common from the earliest times, is altogether inappropriate. Von Gerlach very positively advo- cates that view, however : " This first impartation of the Holy Spirit has regard to the apostolical office, to the founding and government of the Church immediately; and the Lord here communicates the apostolical official gift" Here again a dis- tinction has been made, as by Chrys., Cyrill. and others : to wit, that now at first the power and gift was bestowed for the for- giveness of sins with reference to the internal, spiritual govern- ment of the church ; while the day of Pentecost added the spi- 1 This is more accurate than the two loose expressions of Steinmeyer's otherwise beautiful sermon (ii. 114) : " Supposing that the receivers them- selves did not use the treasure, that they scarcely felt it as a living gift, and that it lay unsealed in their hearts — yet had they received it in fact and truth. JOHN XX. 23. 169 ritual endowments which worked outwardly ,the power of miracles, the gift of tongues, etc. But we are not permitted to under- stand by the " Holy Spirit" here solely the former, nor at the day of Pentecost solely the latter ; and such a division is gene- rally untenable (as Liicke rightly says) ; nor does it at all appear why that one portion of the gift should have been bestowed upon the Apostles before the foundation of the Church. We think that our exposition has left no room for these erroneous thoughts. The Holy Spirit, by which He living before their eyes, not a " spirit" appearing as they had thought, who had been dead and was alive again, whose body and wounds they had touched, now breathes sensibly upon them — is no spirit of deception, no doubtful matter for future BiaKoyLa/xov^, but the most assured experience ! This also is typified by the symbol for the future, as it is also sealed to them already in the present. And so also it is typified, that the influence of the Holy Ghost must be re- ceived by an independent receptivity, going out to meet it. But this last less in the symbol of the breath which came upon them, than in the explanatory and accompanying word — Receive, which is to be understood just as we understood the same word at the Lord's Supper as pointing to that truth. 1 Yea in this Receive ye we may perceive the true interpretation of the whole once more confirmed, as if it should say — Be ye, become ye, from this time forward, through this demonstration of My living before you, susceptible for the promised Holy Spirit ! This brings us to ver. 23, the words of which describe the future demonstration of the power of the Spirit in themselves : — not, however, by the detailed exhibition of prerogatives, but by showing their kernel and centre, around which a periphery of various, and otherwise evident, demonstrations would revolve. For if the true peace, winch He utters and gives to them, is in its ground the same with the grace of God, the forgiveness of sins, so the really highest authority of the messengers and bringers of this peace is no other than the impartation of this forgive- ness. This was to be the Spirit's authority in them over hearts, the gift of higher power for the gathering, the consolidation, the 1 " The Spirit is a gift, My gift. Ye can only receive ; I alone impart. But receive, and neglect not ; for ye need it ! " Draseke. 170 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. furthering of the Church ; but since in the world, and not only so but also in the Church, the power of sin would continue its opposition, and all would not be capable of or prepared for for- giveness, the correlative authority to deny grace and retain sin must necessarily be added. Thus Christ Himself had in the world, as also in the apostolical company, done both ; and thus henceforward His disciples were to act in His place. (The av coming first, like rjv, contracted of iav, which is Lachmann's reading.) It might appear that acfricovTcu (Pret. instead of afalvrai, as in Acts acpeco/ca, see Winer § xiv. 3) should be pre- ferred, according to Lachmann, because then it would run parallel with K€Kpdr7]vrat. Lucke thinks that the Perfects are abso- lutely necessary, because the meaning was to be — What ye remit or retain, remains thereby remitted or retained before God. But there may be involved a 'progress in the strength of the expres- sion : first, What ye retain is retained; then, stronger still, What ye remit is already remitted. The sense, however, is clear, and the same in both. 1 Kparelv, to hold fast or hold back, cor- responds to the Heb. "ttj?, which the Sept. expresses now by Kpa^- relv, now by Seelv ; and as the opposite is perfectly plain. Thus much for the words ; and now for the matter itself, in which two all-comprehending questions arise : To whom is this authority committed ? and, How is it exercised ? As to the first, there is not the slightest intimation in the text that this authority was to be an exclusive prerogative of the Apostles ; the reference back to Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18 (where according to the connection the forgiving or the retaining of sins must be included), shows very plainly that those who were here present received it as the representatives of the whole, and also as the representatives of the future Church of Christ. That afterwards, in fact, the specific gift of the discernment of spirits (which however, according to 1 Cor. xii. 10, was not their exclusive prerogative), placed the Apostles especially in a condition to act, as it respects the retaining of the sins of indi- viduals more particularly, with self-evidencing authority in the government of the Church, is a matter apart, and not lying in these words, any more than they speak of the Apostles' miracu- 1 Only the remittentur of the Vulg. is incorrect, as if the remittere of the disciples was the preceding cause of the Divine remission ! JOHN XX. 23. 171 lous authority to decree punishment and doom. Consequently the passage knows nothing of a priesthood of successors of the Apostles elevated above the Church, such as the Romanist ex- position finds in it, 1 and also too many Lutherans are fast coming to find. It is easy enough to confute the consequence drawn from it (see in Sepp) that the institution of ecclesiastical confession and penance must be presupposed, since " without this the authority imparted by Christ would be incapable of realisation." For, first, how is it said by this eav and tlvcov that to any individual member of the Church either remission or re- tention of sin must be declared ? The authority, indeed, rather extends beyond the limits of the Church into the world without also. He who has received the Spirit will assuredly remit or retain the sin in each individual case only according to the truth of God's Spirit, only when he is rendered capable of doing so either by confession received by word or witnessed in the life, or, as in the case of the Apostles, through a supernatural insight into hearts ; but when he has no such certainty the Holy Spirit will teach him to withhold himself from any individual appli- cation. 2 We must not rend the passage from its essential con- nection with ver. 22, which makes ver. 23 mean — If ye, after ye have received the Spirit, through My Spirit and in My place forgive the sins of any, etc. It is not, therefore, the office or position which acts, but the possession of the Spirit. That which had never before been ascribed to any prophet through- out the Scripture is now given to every disciple of Jesus accord- ing to the measure of his participation in the Spirit of Jesus. " The Eedeemer commits the forgiveness of sins to sanctified personalities." This excellent word of Braune strikes at the root 1 In the Cone. Trident. Sess. xiv. cap. 3, the institution of the sacrament of penance is established by the passage, " as declaring in plain words that this authority was given to the Apostles and their legitimate successors." The appeal made to the universorum consensus Patrum has no force for us, and moreover it is baseless. 2 Oetinger (in the Wbrterb. S. 251) appropriates the binding and loosing to the Church, and says : " The chief thing here is a sure judgment ; that we know, without swelling words of vanity (Jude 16), without youthful pre- cipitance, that as we judge here it is judged in heaven. But to this essen- tially belongs deep experience in the fear of God and the gravity of age. Children and youths should not dare to hazard such judgments." 172 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. of the unscriptural and most irrelevant assertion of Klee : u It cannot be said that this authority is in any sense conditioned by the life of the successors of the Apostles, or by the manifes- tation of the Spirit in themselves ; for the Spirit works by them and lives in their dispensation of the mysteries, though He may not be in their general life. As this holds good of baptism, so must it hold good of the sacrament of absolution ! !" There is absolutely no evidence whatever for any such " sacrament" as committed to any such " successors." 1 As every Christian should look upon himself as sent by Christ into the world to bear witness to His truth, and carry His message of peace, if and as far as he is a partaker of His Spirit, so he has likewise his portion in the prerogative attached to that privilege, of uttering the forgiveness of sins or pronouncing his repelling testimony. Where there is forgiveness of sins there is also the breathing of the Holy Spirit ; and where He is there is always, though in diverse degrees, the authority, power, insight, and experience which are requisite in order to deelare forgiveness of sins to others in the name of the Lord. The sure knowledge of men and of the human heart, derived from deep inward experience of our own heart, and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, alone qualifies us for this priesthood. He who has that is as much a " spiritual" man as any other, and when he assumes the prerogative which is here bestowed upon him, the Lord will confirm it, however much it may appear to be a nudum minis- terium, as opposed to the hierarchy. Any of the least of those who believe on Jesus might apply to me the consolation of grace with more spiritual power than one of the greatest of unbeliev- 1 In this way Lutz (Bibl. Dogm. S. 448) speaks well on this matter : " The Apostles are conceived of as filled with the Holy Spirit, under which condition it is quite true. All these representations have on the one side the actual in view, the sin of individual persons ; on the other side, they regard the ideal (a condition which should be) in the Church and the bearers of the declaration of the word, the Apostles. The idea of the Church is throughout kept before our eyes, and it cannot therefore be rightly regarded as an external ordinance. We shall not enter more largely into the con- flicting theories of our new Lutherans touching the ministry and its prero- gatives ; but simply refer for all essentials to the treatises of Krahner in the ' Deutsch. Zeitsch. ;' — that concerning the office generally (1852 and 1854), that concerning absolution in particular (1851. Nr. 49-51)." ,TOKtf XX. 23. 173 ing priests in his official garments. For so-called spiritual men, who are puffed out with the spirit of the world, can breathe out only the spirit of the world again — as Gossner says. Most evil it is that the authority of the keys should be com- mitted with their ordination to such men ; and far better than such usurpation, that those who are personally incapable of it, because unsanctified, should go even to the opposite ex- treme, and," renouncing the solemn commission of Christ, leave whatever power it may involve to the Apostles themselves — thinking it with Hezel " most unbecoming that this passage should be referred to our present ministers." All this has led us slightly to anticipate the answer to the second of the questions before mentioned, and to show that we certainly acknowledge the special application of the judgment concerning forgiven or retained sins to individual and definite persons. The Council of Trent has, indeed, imposed its ana- thema upon any man who shall say that these words are not to be understood of the " sacrament of penance" — " but shall per- vert them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, into the mere authority to preach the gospel" But this does not terrify us, and we say, with exegetical conscientiousness, in Calvin's words : " nor is this power of remitting sins to be separated from that office of teaching with which it is united in the context" — that is in the sending of ver. 21, which primarily meant their testimony. Further, does not its application to the person pre- suppose the general testimony of preaching, according to the norm of which this prerogative is now used ? Do not this gene- ral testimony which precedes, and this specific declaration which follows, coincide and become one in the office of the Spirit ? To take away the preaching, and assert the office of the keys, can lead only to unspiritual and blind caprice. And what is absolution now but " the Gospel, spoken to an individual man V 91 Thus we may and we must certainly at first understand 1 As Luther says, W. xvi. S. 2174. This single kernel- word disposes of all the attempts made by " Lutherans" to elevate absolution into a specific prerogative of office. Miinchmeyer holds to such a prerogative, and laments that I deny it to the sacred office. He may charge me with being un-Lu- theran if he will, but " unscriptural" I must decline to admit : 2 Cor. v. 18, and Eph. iv. 11, speak of the ministry of the word generally, but no- 174 FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. it as if it ran : Qualibus — to whomsoever in general we an- nounce the remission of sins, etc. For the testimony in the preaching — Those who thus and thus believe and live have for- giveness, but none else — is the necessary first exercise of the spiritual authority here intrusted, without any application as yet to individuals, for they must appropriate it for themselves to their own consciences. 1 But then it is not right to go no fur- ther than this ; he who only thus understands the word of Christ does not yield it its full rights. The direct appeal — Thou art the man ! must not be wanting ; it is that which completes the power of preaching to the individual heart. Thus it is also : Quibus, to those to whom ye remit, or retain, etc., in the speci- fically so termed power of the keys. That the application to individuals which follows upon the universal preaching is plainly involved in the tlvojv, and indeed made prominent, we have already acknowledged in Matt. xvi. But let this be well under- stood ! The Divine forgiveness or retaining of sins is not made so altogether dependent upon human mediation and witness, that it might be said — Only those whom ye forgive are forgiven, etc. But if one who is truly authorised in the Spirit testifies to any man his forgiveness, that word shall be valid though ten thousand liars condemn him ; if such an one retains his sin, it shall be retained, though ten thousand liars should acquit him. And this is a prerogative of the spirit of Truth which our Lord has imparted to His disciples — a prerogative as ele- vated as it is self -approving through all ages of time. But that which belongs to the whole discipleship and Church together, and to every believer and possessor of the Spirit, is indeed to be exercised, as a rule, in the ministry of an office. But whatever may be said of that, the authority is so earnestly and solemnly intended that the Lord calls the testimony of the disciples themselves an actual forgiving and retaining, the validity of which is thus as it were self-understood : iav atyrjre, afyievrai thing of any sacrament of absolution resting upon a specific prerogative of office. 1 " The office is instituted that it may announce by Divine commission ■what brings salvation, and delivers and makes the soul happy ; what also leads to perdition, and retains the soul in bondage and misery." Bunsen, Church of the Future. JOHN XX. 23. 175 (or with the reading acpecovrcu which makes the full parallel) — iav Kparrjre, Ke/cpdTrjvTcu. 1 For it is indeed Himself who by the Spirit in and from them testifies and effects this. Finally, in this is included as a final consequence that which many have strangely made the sole exposition : — the right and authority of the Apostles first, and then of all rulers and officials, in the Church's name and the Lord's, to receive into the Church by the declaration of God's grace ; or, by the denial of it (never of course unconditionally absolute) to exclude from the fellow- ship of the Communion, and to refuse that fellowship in bap- tism. 2 But it appears further from this that the words do not speak of any one-sided government with its excommunications, and without the assembling of the Church ; as also that for such a case as is recorded in 1 Cor. xi. 29 the distributor himself is not to be always regarded as responsible. Thus we trust that we have, with as much conciseness as possible, done enough in the exposition of this most important word of our Lord for the further development of His meaning by His devout people. It was a Spirit-word, speaking of the authority and power of the Holy Spirit to be received in the future ; and as it were a continuous breathing forth of aspira- tion toward the future spiritual dominion of the Holy Ghost over the sin which opposes the kingdom of God in the world. And with this word concerning the Spirit — He vanishes, He withdraws His bodily appearance into invisibility again. It is thus that we understand and interpret the sudden breaking off of St John, for that which follows in St Mark and St Luke was not spoken at the first Appearance ; we shall find that it is only their summary report of what was spoken afterwards. 1 There is no ground for Lampe's attempt to soften the words by distin- guishing between "remissio prseparatoria" and "remissio peremtoria." Hollaz more correctly spoke of " potestas ccvroxpetropix^ and hxzouixq, so that even the latter really forgives sins opyxutxZs. 2 For without the sanctions of the power of the keys the Sacrament could not be administered — as Nitzsch says in his Practical Theology. 176 SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES, THOMAS BELNC PRESENT. (John xx. 26-29.) Thomas, one of the Twelve, to whom the mission in the con- secration of the Spirit assuredly pertained, received it not yet, and appears to be excluded ! For he was not with them when Jesus came. This is St John's simple statement ; he leaves to our own thoughts the investigation of the reason. But may we at once say (with many) that he was " accidentally" absent, or (with Grotius) that he was " occupied with some imaginable business ? " That would tempt us to speak further in the spirit of the Berlen. Bibel of " the misfortune for him that he was not present," and by thus lamenting the unhappy accident de- range the proper point of view for the whole narrative. But it is by no means imaginable that on this day, when the dis- ciples were driven together by all events in the intensest sus- pense and expectation, any kind of business would detain one of the Twelve from this most important assembly ; or, if we can suppose this to have been the case for a few moments, that the Lord would strangely come at that very time when one was wanting. On the other hand it is highly natural, and St John's concise words seem to regard it as self-evident, that the cause of this absence, which deserved this exclusion, should be sought in the personal disposition and lone of feeling of Thomas him- self. Even the repetition of o Xeyofievcx; AiBvfio? (which was otherwise needless) seems to point back to the first characterisa- tion of this one among the Twelve in ch. xi. 16. The three passages in which Thomas appears (ch. xi. 16, xiv. 5, and this one) exhibit to us, in connection with the most internal love to Jesus, a certain specific tendency to morbid feeling which takes thought for the worst contingency, and (as the ground or con- comitant of this) a harsh and critical zeal of investigation and doubt in things which concern the faith of the feeling. His inward feeling was not a filial one, we must say ; his desire to know was too rationalising ; his profound emotion of love was mingled with melancholy doubt ; and with all this combination JOHN XX. 26-29. 177 Thomas was a highly energetic character, holding fast his pecu- liarities, whose way in all things was the hard and troubled way. Accordingly it is probable almost to certainty that on the day of resurrection he least of all believed the intelligence ; that he isolated himself in the sorrow of death with strong and wilful decision of woe; and consequently that by his own fault he lost the first word of Peace and the breathing which followed it. 1 Thus it was that the same man who once would die with Jesus continues resolutely in the same mind, and, as much as in him lies, will not rise again with Jesus. Thus the spirit of doubt, of dismay, and of despondency had isolated and dis- tracted this soul so far that Thomas went comfortless his own way — as Lange says, and as the Berl. Bible hints — "Distrac- tion of mind and wilful separation finds little blessing." But, finally, this caprice and self-will of the disciple was subject to that higher guidance which subordinates every individual thing to the good of each and of all ; we must say also (with Gregory the Great) that all this both in its beginning and issue was not fortuitous, but took place according to a Divine and overruling Providence : " Supreme mercy so wonderfully ordered it, that that doubting disciple, when he touched the wounds of his Master's body, healed in us the wounds of unbelief ; for the incredulity of Thomas has been more profitable to our faith than the faith of the believing disciples." 2 That his unbelief, which he holds fast against the unanimous 1 But not as Augustin, Bede, and others assumed, wrongly pressing the Eleven of Lu. xxiv. 33, that after the Emmaus-intelligence he went away almost in scorn because of these deceptions : this is not conceivable in itself, nor is it to be reconciled with the connection in Luke. Nor does the evpov of Luke relate, as Lampe supposes, that Thomas had been earlier with them, but was no longer there when the disciples came from Emmaus ! But least of all can we tolerate the notion of B.-Crusius that the isolating incredulity of the morbid doubter amounted to an absolute abandonment of the cause of Christ : " He regarded himself after the death of Jesus as sundered from the company of the disciples: their society had no longer any meaning for him //" 2 As Draseke points in his beautiful sermon to "the traces of this over- ruling guidance." But he can at the same time excellently paint the other side of the question ; that Thomas, whose happiness was now a heap of ashes, because he could not apprehend the idea of a suffering Messiah, fled from men — how foreign to his feeling was the rumour of the resurrection VOL. VIII. ^ 178 SECOND APPEAKANCE TO THE APOSTLES. testimony of all, was not a malignant and damnable unbelief, is proved by all that is elsewhere recorded of him ; and espe- cially by the immediate sequel, in which the Lord graciously shames him, and yet shows him compassion. His was, as Tholuck says, " a critical nature — one of those prudent and incredulous spirits which must always feel the ground upon which they are called to walk, and who dare to make no spring over the pit which they have not first exactly measured." Yet we must not, with Olshausen, find this critical nature merely in a " preponderance of the reflecting reason," but also and equally in the strong and deep feeling which bursts forth in the apos- trophe of the convinced doubter. Draseke : " Thomas was a man of power, with a decision bordering on self-will ; just as much heart as head." How may we suppose him to have been surrounded by all the disciples, who pierced him with the joy of their faith ! St John simply expresses it by his " they said unto him ;" but we must expand this, and by no means limit ourselves to the single, once-uttered, "we have seen." Whether (as Bengel thinks with less probability) he had come to them not long after- wards, or whether they had sought him out (as Hess represents it) in order to tell him, is not settled in the text ; but we pre- fer to assume the latter, which is slightly intimated by the con- trast of eXeyov with ov/c r)v fier avrcov. They say again merely "we have seen" — as corresponding with the higher character of the Appearance or revelation, but they include in St John's meaning every report of His words, and their own handling which had not been declined. Thomas, therefore, could not have doubtfully asked (as in Pf enninger) : " Have ye seen aright in the evening and the uncertain lamplight ? Did ye touch Him and handle Him % His side, too, pierced so cer- tainly with deadly wounds?" For to all this they have given the most confident answer (see John ver. 20). Nevertheless Thomas cannot and will not believe ; he has questionings and doubts in abundance remaining. "Why did He not come before, and longer remain % How long did the manifestation continue % Where then is He now ? And above all, the great — how that, having had enough of scorn, he would separate himself from the company of men who were so fearfully deceived. JOHN XX. 26-29. 179 doubt of his heart, conscious of love and fidelity, was this : — AVhy did He not show Himself to me f Should I alone of the Eleven have been excluded from the mission with the Holy Ghost ? Should he who denied 1 receive the authority to remit sins from Him — and His faithful Thomas, whose heart He knows, not receive the same, not receive a special consolation, like Peter % Wherefore should this be ! I do not discern the Lord, my Lord, in what ye relate?" This last gives proof and illustration, that the contradiction of his understanding, as it were, sought and found its reason in the adherence of his heart to the Lord. Thus while the other disciples were glad because they had seen the Lord, Thomas remained sorrowful ; and was still more sorrowful, because he already in anticipation would feel in his soul the impending disenchantment of his credulous brethren. St John gives us only the strongest and most decisive expres- sion of his contradiction and unbelieving asseveration ; probably also the last, cutting short all further remark. We see that the sight of the Lord's death had sunk too deep into Thomas' heart for anything to remove it but a perfectly corresponding testimony of his sense ; the fixed idea and image had fastened too securely upon his doubting reason and his morbid feeling : if Jesus, though the raiser of Lazarus, was — and it was but too certain — put to death, then all that had gone before went for nothing, all was a dark riddle, the powers of the world and death and hell had conquered Him ! Out of this morbid sadness — a feeling to which we are too apt to attribute now-a- days much rejection of plain testimonies for Jesus — out of this gloomy grief, which has swallowed up all his other feelings, he utters his intense and exaggerated word. He says nothing about seeing Jesus Himself, but must see in His hand the print of the nails. But then seeing is no longer enough ; he must touch with his fingers, and be as certain as that he feels this his finger! Finally, he goes on to surpass even this : — " And I must put my whole hand into the broad and deep wound in His side, which I too plainly saw : Have ye all done this ? 1 That Peter was partaker of this consecration before his re-establishment in ch. xxi. 15-17, appears further to prove that it was not the apostolical vocation merely which was here involved. 180 SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. Ye may have been deceived in your touching." ! That he does not expressly say this is to be explained by the tenderness of his love to them ; and, moreover, this silence, this pausing at the mere assertion — " I must also myself touch, like yourselves at least, and more certainly" — seems an involuntary admission after all of the possibility of this. Yet he consciously and designedly abstains from saying it, again, as Bengel has finely and truly remarked : " Nor does he say — If I shall see, I will believe ; but only — Unless I shall see, I will not believe. Nor does he think that he will see, though others said that they kad seen." He closes all by an absolutely expressed ov fjurj 7ria-T€V(rco. 2 This is a " professed incredulity," infinitely more, b'ut at the same time also less than if he had shared the resurrection-feast of the Church, and yet had entertained in silence these perverse thoughts. For this asserted and strongly confronting avowal of his unbelief approves the integrity of his character. May it then be said that it appears at last to have been an almost praiseworthy and beautiful unbelief of a sincere cha- racter, driven by the excess of love, conjoined with a keen and anxious reason, to fly with impetuosity from the most dismal of all possible deceptions ? O no, it is not this ! With all his 1 It is foolish to demand that Thomas should have here mentioned the feet also. The Hands lead his feeling at once to the Side ; but that feeling would not permit the painful detail to go down to the very Feet. Another question is suggested by the reading which has rivou instead of tvkov in the second instance ; as the Vulg. translates first Jixuram (jiguram) then locum. Grotius thought this probably correct : " Tv^og is seen, tokos is occupied." The expression would then advance : to look at the form of the wound — to place the finger in the place where the nails passed through. But rvTirog is also " occupied ; " and the variation in the expression is not so natural as the repetition would be. We therefore with Lueke regard the roirop as an error of transcription, notwithstanding Teschendorf 's Palimpest. As to the latter's " internal reasons," we should like to hear them, before we accept the reading. 2 Not believe what ? Certainly that the Lord had risen indeed ! (Mark xvi. 11, 14 ; Lu. xxiv. 11.) This seems so perfectly plain that we cannot, understand how the shortsighted Hasse can maintain : " Thomas did not doubt of the resurrection of Jesus, but could not reconcile his idea of a resurrection-life with an appearance of the Risen One ! " On the contrary, his conclusion was: If He is risen, He will and He must appear also to me. JOHN XX. 26-29. 181 earnestness and zeal there is united a self-will, sinful and to be rejected ; there is the exaggerated assertion of the individual and persona] against the united testimony of the whole believing brotherhood, when he looks upon them and says — Unless I myself see and feel — ! This is and must ever be a great error and wrong — to will to touch all with the hands of self, and even, for it comes to this, to determine to understand all by his own self-sufficient understanding, and to receive no testimony apart from that. Even the Spirit, to the investigation of which the report of the Emmaus-disciples had so expressly pointed, avails now nothing with Thomas. And just as little the unani- mous assurance of all who had seen the Lord. His ten fingers shall be more decisive to him than the ten other Apostles. 1 " He does not distrust their honesty, but he distrusts their understanding. He will be more wise than they, more prudent, and more unprejudiced." So says Draseke, and terms this conduct, in which he " sets all the outgoings of his feeling agains f faith as against an enemy," very properly his " pre- judice, which he thought candour." Bengel similarly : " With- out doubt he thought he was thinking and speaking very judiciously; but incredulity, while it is imputing defect of judgment to others, itself often nourishes and betrays hardness and slowness of mind." And Lavater, with all his tolerant mildness, says : " Nathanael and Thomas were two extremes among the good and believing. He who said, Unless I put my hand into the print, etc., may indeed have been a very sincere soul, but he cannot have been an absolutely simple, artless, collected, innocent, and Nathanaelite soul as such ; for he had before him many unimpeachable witnesses whom he could not hold to be deceivers, and to whom he could not deny the possession of sound senses and some spiritual sense of truth." 2 Nor can we regard the unbelief of Thomas as a denial or doubt springing merely from love to Jesus : the humble love of such as John would not have thought of making such a demand of 1 As with ingenious simplicity Valerius Herberger says, whose incom- parably profound sermon on Thomas, uniting the most searching application with the simplest expression, we would recommend to all readers who can get access to his Herzpostille. 2 Nathanael, S. 27. 182 SECOND APPEAKANCE TO THE APOSTLES. the Master for itself. It is true that there is a certain soften ing of his requirement in the fact, generally unconsidered, thai he demanded to see and to handle, only like the rest ; but even this demand was too much, and we must say with Lange that " the worst was his venturing to impose specific conditions on the Lord Himself !" And we behold in this a warning type of aij such making conditions as preachers constantly denounce. Thus it was not as a " lover" of the Lord that he demanded this evidence, but with the a wilfulness and self-will of a sad lover" (as Braune says) who will have this evidence in the death-signs upon the Risen One. " They gave him his anguish, they alone can take it away." As the other disciples for joy, so Thomas for grief could not and would not believe : but we cannot proceed with Braune — " Love to the Lord was the sole ground of that joy and of this grief." For the holding fasx his grief, in spite of the testimonies which appealed so strongly to his love, was in his case, as in the case of many others, self-will. Luther's Germ, translation gives this its more than full em- phasis : If I see not — I will not believe ! But something of this " will" was certainly expressed in the ov fir) iriarevaa). 1 On the other hand, the ground of his hfcart is better than what he thinks and says. Many say plainly — I will not believe ! whose words are estimated by the Lord's grace as meaning in many instances that they cannot. Thousands of others, alas, lyingly say that they cannot — but the Searcher of hearts knows that they will not. Eight long days is the unhappy Thomas punished by himself, and punished by his Lord. The others may have been obliged to give up appealing to him ; but still they pray for him. And for what does he himself pray % Possibly, in his blindness — " O God, help these unhappy men out of their blind decep- tion !" as Pfenninger imagines. And the unbelief of their fellow would be a test even to the Ten ; for they might think — W*H our testimony in the world be no better treated than this ? At the same time it is a requital of their own unbelief, 1 Niemeyer has no foundation for making Thomas cry, " full of joyful uncertainty" — "Ah, I see Him not, so can I not believe ! " This opposes the inmost meaning of the narrative. JOHN XX. 26-29. 183 as Lampe says : " By that in which the Apostles sinned they are punished." The wisdom and the love of the Lord waits with superabounding grace until the right hour has come for Thomas, broken down in his grief, perhaps also slightly repent- ing of his self-will, and certainly foreprepared by the internal work of the Spirit. Then he who was still unclean by reason of the dead body of Jesus, and afar off by reason of his sadness, kept his joyful after-passover unto the Lord ! (Deut. ix. 10, 11.) Olshausen would translate this Appearance into Galilee, as did Eupert before him ; but we agree with Liicke that there is no trace of a Galilaean locality, and that the eaco indicates the accustomed place of meeting, the same place therefore as that in which they had met eight days before. If this word else- where stands for iv oi/c

kpeiv is at first somewhat more gentle than the too confident fiaWeiv, the repetition of which, however, in the second clause is not spared to him who had dared to say it.) " And behold My hands :" — 1 Bengel : " They had not yet ceased to fear." But we doubt this, and would rather assume that the motive for shutting the doors was now the exclusion of every unpleasant interruption. 186 SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. this is in part like Lu. xxiv. 39, spoken in the general sense ac- cording to which seeing is equivalent to investigating, and making oneself sensibly sure of anything ; while in part it rests npon the supposition that Thomas will nevertheless be satisfied with look- ing. What humiliation to Thomas ! First of all, in the neces- sary, solemn requital before the face of all : " in the presence of the disciples he had spoken the words, in their presence he must blush for them, and solemnly retract them" (Draseke). Yet, how gentle too ; for this demand that he should do according to the word of his unbelief, in order to his believing, says at the same time : I know thy heart, I punish thee no otherwise, I reject thee not ! Bengel : " If a Pharisee had demanded this, he would have obtained nothing ; but to a disciple already tested nothing is de- nied." Even the side with the deep death-wound therein the Lord vouchsafes once more expressly — Himself to show and to mention ; for this mysterious sign is hallowed in the word of pro- phecy ; see Zech. xii. 10 ; Jno. xix. 37 ; Eev. i. 7. Not merely — " to the prints of the nails, to the side" — in the words of Thomas and the Lord. The tvttoc referred to much more than "scars" or " cicatrized wounds," as we often hear them called ; and the eZ?, concerning the hand in the side, indicates awide and deep opening. But the whole, with all the corporeal reality of the narrative itself, is at the same time a symbol for future doubters, who are pointed to the right contemplation of the Crucified in the proof of His resurrection. And so far Thomas unconsciously pro- phesied in his arbitrary words of the true sign which Christ would give to the world, and which He continues still to give. Moll writes upon this with significant force, that there are so many unprofitable investigations, so many criticisms on the life of Jesus, and recensions of the scriptural canon, which are driven away by the winds — " because they will not set out with Thomas' criticism on the identity of the Bisen and the Crucified Lord." Yes, indeed, if there is to be a criticism which shall lead to the true end : Ah that there were among our doubters men with the heart of Thomas, who would sink in low sorrow into the death of Jesus in order to be convinced by grace and be- come lovingly conscious of the identity of Him who liveth in the spirit with Him who thus died : — that so they might even (as Lange further says) in the body of the Church, which is the JOHN XX. 26-29. 187 body of Christ, feel the heavenly life in its marks of suffering and great heart-wounds I 1 And be not unbelieving, but believing ! " Thus the Lord (to quote Lange once more) changes the hard and presumptuous demand of Thomas into a confession of his poverty and helpless- ness" — since He permits him to use his finger and hand that he may attain to the peace of faith. For this unbeliever has experienced for eight days, among the believing disciples, all the disquietude and pain of unbelief ; and so bitter has been the ex- perience that he heartily welcomes deliverance from it. "Attmj- to$ and ttmjtqs do not define merely the not believing and the believing as it regards the resurrection; but here as always refer to the condition of mind generally, the habit of faith or unbelief (according to Nonnus : ical reov rjdos olitkjtov avalveo). Gal. iii. 9 may be adduced as further proof. The Lord's words fully contradict the foolish defence of Thomas, which some, after the manner of Niemeyer, 2 have set up; for there is as much rebuke as encouragement in His requiring him to remain no longer unbelieving, and not to become more so. Picker has fallen into the same strange aberration from the word of Christ : " The occurrence here narrated has given needless occasion for the name of unbelieving Thomas" He even so far forgets him- self in his apologetical zeal, as to preach : u The other disciples had seen the Lord ; why should he not also desire to convince himself in the same way of the truth of His resurrection ? Why might he not long for such a handle for faith to lay hold of ! His whole bearing before and after his doubting testifies that he already believed with half his heart, and that the grace and faithfulness of the Redeemer was shown to one well able to profit by it." 3 This is evidently dealing too tenderly with Thomas. Why then did the grace and faithfulness of the Redeemer leave him longing (as his wilful demand is called) for eight long days, and then at the end call him one who had been hitherto un- 1 Conversely, the Lord also knows His disciples by the marks of suffering : — a saying of Pascal, if we remember rightly. 2 In the Charakteristik S. 74, we read : " We shall lose nothing if, after ages have been preaching about unbelieving Thomas, we begin now to preach about the faithful and inwardly believing Thomas ! " 3 Ficker, " The Doubters of the New Testament " 188 SECOND APPEAKANCE TO THE APOSTLES. believing ? We must interpret the saying much more rigorously, and say that one who was believing with half his heart would, through persistent unbelief in the resurrection of the Lord, the great essential point (1 Cor. xv. 14), either prove himself an unbeliever, or be in very great danger of becoming one. Let us diminish nothing of Thomas' sin, that we may do full honour to the grace of Christ. "Attlgtos has in the Saviour's lips its full rebuking and hortatory significance ; ytvov means for " un- believing" and "believing" rather the becoming than the being. Be or become believing ! would be a precious Imperative indeed, if it brought with it its own fulfilment, as a word of Christ's absolute authority, like His " Woman, be loosed from thine in- firmity," and the like. Then would unbelievers be easily won ; then, indeed, since Jesus would not fail to have compassion upon all, there could be unbelievers no more. But it is not so ; and G. K. Eieger, who at first spoke in that style, afterwards restricted thus the word of authority : Be believing, thou canst if thou wilt ! Therefore we may say, in better terms, that the becoming not faithless but believing is matter of command. Grotius : "Incredulity has in it something voluntary" — nay, is altogether matter of the will. But, on the other hand, as the Lord's word here shows : One may even see and touch Christ, have the most convincing demonstration and experiences, and yet not become believing ! On which point we may compare Acts xxvi. 19 with Gal. i. 16 — and ponder it. Did Thomas actually thrust his finger into the print of the nails, and his hand into His side ? If the Lord commanded it, he must of course have obeyed. Pfenninger (in this agreeing with Nonnus) represents the matter as if the Lord, while He was speaking, took the finger and hand of the amazed Thomas, and placed them upon the wounds. But the simple Xcjetv $epe — /3d\€ — records nothing of the sort, but rather excludes it ; and in ver. 28 we read nothing of it. We confidently maintain that the word of Jesus was not properly a command ; for that would have been far too harsh a condemnation, pressing to its utmost consequences his foolish word. In its tone and meaning it was merely a permission : Thou may est do so — if thou still wilt — see I am ready! Augustine : Although it may be said that the disciple dared not touch Him, when He presented Him- JOHN XX 26-29. 189 self to be touched ; for it is not written — And Thomas touched Him. 1 For our own part, we regard an actual touching and handling as altogether irreconcilable with the feeling which changed the unbeliever into a believer, and cried My Lord and My God. We say with Tholuck : " At this point, when the test was in his power, all test and proof is forgotten, and the might of faith maintains its right. What needs he to lay hold with his hands ? His heart feels it all !" And with Draseke : " What does he now % Nothing of all that which he had him- self specified as a condition. He believes ; his faith came to his aid on the spot. His heart overcomes his reasoning ; therefore he uses not his hand and his fingers." It is to be observed that partly the seeing, as our Lord says, ver. 29, yet not this alone (for then all Israel would have needed only to see, in order to be able or to be obliged to believe), transformed Thomas into a believer; it was especially the heart-reproving, heart-winning love of Jesus, in which Thomas finds Him again and spiritually sees Him, which overcame his unbelief. This is the truth of his faith, which our Lord acknowledges ; and this, as Lange says, " was made manifest in his not taking the last step, and making the manual experiment upon the body of Jesus." His responding exclamation in ver. 28 has been in all ages perverted, in spite of its clear self -evidencing truth, so as to evade his calling Jesus his Lord and his God. Theod. Mops, referred his words to the Father, whom Thomas glorified for the resurrection of Christ — vfivrjaas rbv Oebv iyelpavra. This is at least more imaginable than the subsequent artifice of the So- cinians, of Crellius (under the name Artemonius) and others, who either refer the double exclamation to Jesus and the Father (who was now altogether in Jesus !), or make it the cry of ut- most amazement — Ah, my Lord and my God, can this be pos- sible ! But Socinus himself confuted this easily refutable shift, which therefore does not appear in the Catech. Eacov. Could Thomas at this momentous crisis have turned away from the person of Jesus in an exclamation to God above, as one distinct 1 After having explained the word, ver. 29 — Because thou hast seen — after ver. 27, as referring to sensible experience through other senses than the sight. But we think that " seen Me" is not the same as ver. 27, and plainly excludes all touching. 190 SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. from this Jesus ? Further, it cannot be proved, yea it is false rather, that the Jews had our wicked habit of crying out in amazement — My God! Therefore we must at least under- stand it as Theodore does above. But neither will that endure examination : for the /cupto? in connection with the #eo?, as in ver. 25 and always in the gospels, meant in the disciples' lips Jesus ; and the elirev avrw — said unto Him — is most absolute evidence, for which reason Socinian writers have always been anxious, in spite of the fullest authority of manuscripts, to ex- punge it. — Thus Thomas utters his exclamation in adoring reverence (probably sinking before the Lord), with the most profound and mighty feeling, which was also at the same time the victorious outburst of the clearest perception, when he addressed Jesus and said — My Lord and My God ! 1 He calls Him not merely Kvpuos, like Magdalene, and as the disciples at last spoke of Him, but he calls Him God, in perfect harmony with the transcendent influence of the overpowering crisis. It is not so much the omniscience discerned in the echoing of his own words that moves him to this (for comp. Jno. i. 49), as the awful and at the same time vivid impression which the open, blood- less wounds 2 make upon him, showing him One who was as it were Dead and yet Living — instantaneously confounding the unbelief which had clung to the certainty of His death, and consequently exhibiting instantaneously to His faith the death- destroying Divine power and Godhead which livingly dwelt in this person of Jesus. Thus he is, as Zinzendorf said, " the first divine who ever concluded from the wounds of Jesus that He was God." This is the immediate link in the interpreta- 1 Lampe, indeed, regarded the Vocative as doubtful, and preferred arti- ficially to supply — Thou art my Lord and my God ! But such a phraseo- logy was common among the Greeks, and also in the New Testament, as may be seen in Winer. In particular we have xvpiog and kog thus in the Sept., e. g. Ps. xxxv. 24, Ps. xxii. 3, comp. Mark xv. 34. It is of no signi- ficance to the contrary that Jesus is elsewhere in the New Testament ad- dressed by xvpis, for here in connection with the kog the Old-Testament and solemn formula is used. 2 According to the natural course of things the blood again circulating would have issued anew from the wounds, as G. Miiller observes. Thus these open wounds are at the same time testimony to the bloodlessness of the resurrection-body. JOHN XX. 26-29. 191 tion; but more must appear in it when we consider that he can utter such a word (contrasting and yet harmonious with Jesus' own word to Mary, ver. 17) : all those earlier sayings and testimonies of Jesus which pointed to the unity of the Son with the Father, which such a deep-thinking spirit as his had apprehended and revolved from the first, now all seem to combine into clearness, and he beholds at once externally and internally their perfect truth. 1 The doubter overcome now believes, as is often the case, all the more swiftly, readily, deeply, because of his having long doubted. What no Apostle had hitherto said, what the Lord Himself had never said directly, he utters as the first witness of the last truth ; and St John can close his gospel with his confession of faith, going back as it does to the Prologue in the beginning ! Whether in the excitement of the moment, he " uttered prematurely more than his calm, dispassionate re- flection would have dictated" (as Tholuck thinks), we very much doubt ; for at such moments the might of the Spirit goes far beyond all mere human passion and excitement, affording the clearest and the surest perceptions of truth. We must rather observe that the " Lord" here connected with the " God" means more than all the disciples had ever intended when they so termed Jesus ; it here really takes the place, as laying the foundation of the permanent New-Testament phrase, of Jehovah or Adonai ; the combination of the two words is essentially parallel with the exclamation of the people, when the fire fell from heaven — The Lord He is God ! (1 Kings xviii. 39), only so to speak, in an inverted deduction of reasoning from below upward, as there it was from above downward. But inasmuch as no man without the Holy Ghost can call Jesus in such a sense Lord, and know 1 This is infinitely more than Hofmanns assumption that QiU here is only to be understood as it might have applied to a man — The Lord had now become God to him, and therefore he gave Him this predicate ! By no means, but he seeks and recognises God in Christ in the unity of nature, in conformity with Jno. xiv. 7-10. "We lament to have Schmieder also (Hohepriesterl. Gebet S. 14) to contradict, who finds in the exclamation of Thomas " no avowal of the Divinity of Christ," and degrades 6s6;, by the side of x,vpiog, into a mere "relative term" — instead, conversely, of giving xvptog, by the side of &tbg, a higher meaning than before. The Old-Testa- ment phrase, which is said to apply here, was no longer current among the Jews, as we plainly see in Jno. x. 33. 192 SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. Him to be God the Lord, Adonai-Elohim (1 Cor. xii. 3) — we see that Thomas in the same great crisis has abundantly re- ceived the Spirit, opening his eyes. Hence it is foolish to assume that the Lord at the close of this manifestation breathed also upon Thomas supplementarily, and said — All that I have spoken to the Ten applies also to the Eleven ! There needed no repe- tition of the breathing, no repeated "I send thee also!" All this was internally and really accomplished in Thomas without symbol and word. But, finally, the most gracious and touching thing in his word, which the power of the Lord's love put into his heart and upon his lips, is the twofold internal "My Lord ! My God!" This was wanting to the cry of the people upon Carmel ; this is wanting to many who sound with the trumpet — The Lord is God. This discloses the kernel of his appro- priating and self-consecrating faith. He would cry in the ful- ness of his heart — "How have I sinned against Thee, be mer- ciful to me" — but grace has anticipated him. He would testify — " Yea, I believe, love, adore, am Thine henceforth for ever;" — but all this is merged in one, and is poured forth in the only address of which his feeling is capable. The Lord accepts the God added to the Lord from the mouth of Thomas : this gives the saying its dogmatic demonstrative force, for it shows that the Spirit of Truth had spoken by Thomas. 1 " Christ termed this exclamation of Thomas, who in amazement and ecstasy (rather in adoration !) had called Him Lord and God, faith simply, the first thing and the last which He required from man ; and pronounced His benediction upon those who should possess this faith, though they saw Him not with their eyes." (Kleuker.) Yes, verily, as we have already seen in the faithless and believing of ver. 27, it is now — Thou hast believed, thou hast become believing, thou believest from this time. Not merely — Thou doubtest My resurrection no more ! but it has the great all-comprising meaning which the Evangelist connects with it in ver. 31. Thomas did not simply say — Thou hast verily risen again ! but at once deduces everything from it 1 B.-Crusius seems confident that it ought to be very plain that it is only a historical passage, or word of Thomas reproduced by the Evangelist ; that this word was not used in any dogmatical sense, but only as it occurs in the 0. T. concerning angels, etc., regarding Christ as a Theophany. JOHN XX. 26-29. 193 to which it must lead. The Lord also embraces in the confirma- tion and sanction which He gave to this avowal all that was included in it : — Thou believest that I am the Son of God, and Myself God; yea more — Thou dost altogether yield Thyself up to Me in this adoring and loving faith, thou becomest Mine, while thou callest Me thine ; — thus all is included that itigtzvuv involves in its fullest meaning when used by Jesus, by His Evangelist John, and in the Scripture thenceforward. To put a note of interrogation here (with Lachmann and others, and the Vulg. also) is as perverse as to put it in ch. i. 50 (in the Greek ver. 51) or xvi. 31 ; see what was said especially upon the latter passage. If the faith of Thomas was in any sense made matter of question, the TrLcrrevaavre^ in the subsequent parallel clause would altogether fail to correspond ; and Thomas, whom we may suppose happy in his faith though not expresslv pronounced blessed by the Lord, would after all, contrary to the gracious character of the whole manifestation, and as if that manifestation had altogether failed of its gracious object, be sharply rebuked and rigidly condemned to the last. Such doubt thrown by our Lord upon the genuineness and purity of the faith which uttered its exclamation in ver. 28, must so to speak have plunged him again into new and deeper doubt — and the Lord's immeasurable grace would have been utterly in vain ! Who that thinks it out can conceive this to have been so ? O no, but, as Lange says, " Jesus acknowledged the truth of his faith, and thereby the blessedness of his believing is also expressed." Thou believest — that remains true and firm, although with it there is blended a gentle reproof still — because thou hast seen Me i 1 The seeing, the seeing Himself, is all that the Lord refers to ; He says nothing further about the touching with finger and hand, as Thomas himself wanted nothing more of that kind. One might be wellnigh tempted to receive this as a keen and almost reproachful oxymoron: — Is it actually believing, if one is convinced by seeing f But such severity of allusion would pass beyond the truth ; the Lord knew better, and testifies even 1 The personal address with 0a,«« (which is wanting also in ver. 27, when it would have been more in place) is hardly genuine, and Griesbach rejected it. It would in this passage mark too emphatically his being one example, whereas he represented a class. VOL. VIII. N 194 SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLE&. by this that seeing still leaves room for believing. We have only to remember that even the other ten Apostles (as they themselves admitted by their " we have seen," ver. 25) believed after they had seen, thus taking no higher place than Thomas, 1 in order to understand that the Lord certainly does not hereby deny to them all the reality of their believing. There are here gradations of feeling and position, which, while they are referred to by like expressions, must be carefully distinguished. When the daring mockers under the cross, Mark xv. 32, would see in order to believe, their case is quite different ; for they are alto- gether ignorant what believing is, while they thus speak, and no seeing would have brought them to faith. When the Lord, John iv. 48, condemns the Galilaeans who must see signs and wonders before they would believe, He nevertheless recognises by this word the faith itself which would follow and which would receive those miracles as signs : moreover our Evangelist tells us presently afterwards in ver. 31 that the signs are designed to assist the faith of all, even as merely recorded. Finally, in the first creation and establishment of the faith in the Divine- human miraculous person of the Lord Jesus, which was itself the wonder of all wonders, in the resurrection and exaltation of Him who had been crucified in disgrace, the seeing was indis- pensable to all, especially to the Apostles whose testimony con- cerning their having seen Him was in future to be believed by others: — first, the seeing of His glory in His previous life full of the works of God (hence John vi. 40) ; and then the bodily seeing of the Risen Jesus. The Lord is consequently very far from singling out Thomas for blame in the first clause of ver. 29 (the addition of " Thomas" has sprung from such a misconception) ; He includes him with the rest, with all those who hitherto had been able to believe only in consequence of seeing ; the special hardness of his character is merged into the common attributes of that class in opposition to which our Lord now places an entirely different class, composed of those who in future would believe through the word and the Spirit (ch.xvii. 20). And it will appear significant that He does not praise and bless this believing confessor, and all the others with him, as He had 1 They were superior to Thomas in nothing but that they believed earlier, because they earlier saw the Lord. Nienieyer. JOHN XX. 26-29. 195 once pronounced Simon, the son of Jona, blessed, whose faith in a lower stage had attained the word of his confession — Thou art the Son of God ! from the word and life of Jesus. For the Lord now looks much higher, and looks far beyond ! For the present, all those who still needed the evidence of sight must be reminded of their own weakness and hardness of heart, in order that they might all the more humbly look forward to the future faith of many in the word of their mission. But now there is an altogether new pronunciation of blessing for the new and great f uturity ! A final benediction, sealing the first with which the Sermon on the Mount had commenced ; one that embraces all that was there set forth as the individual conditions of blessing, in that one principle, which was even there presupposed in them all — Blessed are those who believe ! A sentence this which remarkably returns to that first testimony of the Spirit at the commencement of the New Testament, that word of Elizabeth to Mary, through whose faith alone, as pre- pared from the Old Testament, Christ could be born — Ma/capla 7] TTLGTevcrcMTa ! But what then is the spirit and substance of the faith here pronounced blessed and magnified at the close of St John's gospel ? What but the person of the Lord, our Lord and our God, in whom all revelations of God addressed to our faith are blended and consummated into one? And that too His manifestation in the flesh, in the flesh of true humanity, which, even in the resurrection and glorification of this personal life, is and abides a real and tangible body. It is consequently by nothing but the most wilful and blind perver- sion of this passage, in which the historical corporeal person of Jesus is so distinctively presented to faith, that Baur can make St John testify here, u that a faith resting simply upon exter- nals must bring its own confusion after it, for all this seeing and touching demonstrated nothing ; and therefore that St John quotes the Lord's word concerning not seeing in order to bring back his readers' thoughts to the faith in the X070? acrap- /co? with which he began his gospel!" This miserable folly has been already amply refuted by others. As if the former clause had not established the seeing as firmly as the faith which was to spring from it alone, in order thereby to proceed to faith in the Eisen Lord who had been seen ! 196 SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. It is well known that other and still more malicious mockers in Christendom have in another way perverted this sublime saying — Blessed are they who not seeing will believe ! com- mending in their ridicule all unreasonable credulity in earthly things, and placing on the same level a supposed irrational faith in the word of God. But it may be remarked that this saying was by no means given as a rule for earthly things, in which there may be every prudent inquiry before faith ; but for the kingdom of God, and Divine things, and the way of salvation. There is indeed a certain undeniable truth in its application even to the lower domain of earthly life ; for how would a man fare on the principle that he would believe nothing which he saw not with his eyes ? But its essential meaning refers to the supersensible world. And in this the saying is so universally true, that it actually includes (as we shall see on a nearer contemplation of its meaning) in some degree those also who are believers through seeing, and speaks of the universal and most internal nature of all true faith. Therefore the Lord does not speak of " those who see not Me and yet believe in Me ;" but He continues the general TreTricrTevicas in a yet more general form. Hence the Aorist form (signifying " wont") of both these verbs, as Liicke rightly mentions, in order to em- brace the past under the comprehending rule : Blessed are all who have not seen and yet have been believing. 1 But these are not at first opposed merely to Thomas, but to all who have seen Jesus in order to faith ; then again those who see are themselves, in as far as they actually at last believe, embraced under the same rule. For, according to Heb. xi. 1, a not seeing belongs to the nature of all true faith, where the seeing stands for the testimony of sensible experience generally 2 (as above, ver. 27). If this has always held good, it has its fullest truth in the New-Testament economy, which begins with the 1 Luthardt thinks it needless to resort to this "improved meaning of habit and wont," and says that they are viewed as such as have not seen and yet have believed ! There is no essential difference : but my view, which is grammatically defensible, lays more stress upon the universal rule (even before Christ). 2 In the Scripture ira* 1 stands, e.g., concerning hearing, Ex. xx. 18 ; Jer. ii. 31 ; concerning smelling, Gen. xxvii. 27 — tasting, Ps. xxxiv. 9, etc. JOHN XX. 26-29. 197 withdrawal of the visible appearance of Jesus in the ascension, and continues to commit to the faith 1 which overcometh the world the contest with the whole mighty power of a world lying under God's patience in wickedness, yea, finally, clothed in antichristian strength. And during this period the believing have to cry more and more loudly — But now we see not yet that all things are put under our exalted Lord — though they themselves are subject to Him in the Thomas- word of faith ! They even see too in the mirror of the word, and in history which accords with it, that it is Jesus, who through the suffer- ing of death was crowned with glory and honour. (Heb. ii. 8,9.) And what is the promise connected with this last Benediction, beyond which nothing further is given even in Mar. xvi. 16 ? There is no specific expression of promise connected with it ; for as believing includes everything, so all is already said in the Blessed. They go onward and believe towards eternal blessed- ness, when all will be fulfilled that has been spoken of by the Lord. But they have already in faith, and as far as they be- lieve, the pledged and uttered peace of victory over the world ; and this they retain and approve through the continuance of faith. The believer says : I know in whom I believe — whom and what I possess in my faith ! Even his Lord Himself can- not declare to him in terms how and wherein he is so blessed ; but he knows it by experience and utters it in the adoring, responding cry — Yea, Thou art My Lord and God, Thou makest me blessed I This deeper view of the transcendent saying will help us to understand, and reply to, the questions which various exposition has endeavoured to solve — Whether they who believe because they have seen are not blessed, and how far those who have not seen are more blessed. It is faith which brings blessedness always and everywhere : that is most certain at the outset. In as far as those who saw retained not their privilege of seeing in continuance (as these Apostles only saw the Lord a short time, and then permanently believed) this seeing had only led them to faith, and thus they were happy: thus the second clause 1 1 John v. 4. It is a most profound selection which has made this peri- cope the Epistle for Quasimodo Sunday. 198 SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. removes the contradiction which seems to be in the first, ascrib- ing as it does a believing to him who sees. He again who would believe only where, because, and as long as he sees, — would never have thus attained faith ; but the Lord speaks of a ireirlarevKa^ — having believed — which is no other than the having become believing after the having seen. Moreover, as Lange says very truly on this question, even in the moment of external seeing every man must (like Thomas here, hence yivov ttkito^) " at last come to the leap of faith," inasmuch as no man can ever behold the essential glory of Christ with the eyes, or handle it with hands. Is it there- fore altogether without significance that the Lord pronounces His Blessed upon those alone who see not, thus as it were strongly contrasting them in this, almost as if with "but?" Fikenscher gives it this turn — They shall be equally happy with thyself in thy present faith ; but that is manifestly against the feeling which must apprehend here at least a relative con- trast. Niemeyer, on the other hand, makes a comparative out of the solemn /jLa/caploi, — "It is still more blessed, not to see and yet to believe" — as Grotius : They are to be preferred I 1 for which he groundlessly compares Lu. xi. 27. But this, so nakedly stated, does not correspond with the specific and deli- cate intimations of the whole. Certainly, an earlier and rela- tively greater blessedness was enjoyed by those Emmaus-dis- ciples (the only men at that time who already, even beyond the Apostles, could now look beyond into the economy of the future) while their hearts were burning through only hearing the words of Scripture which were spoken to them. On the other hand, those who will see beforehand (like Thomas, and that is the warning of the first clause !) have no promise, and are not really yet before us as a type. It is grace superabounding, and having special regard to human infirmity, which leads these through seeing to faith, and makes them blessed : so Draseke preaches, " was not Thomas very near forfeiting the blessedness of faith altogether?" Thus our Lord's word declares the rule and order. " Thou, Thomas, with all who like thee will require first to see Me, art an exception to the rule which has ever held 1 So Nonnus : xelvoi ^.ccTChou 'iuai fixzotprepot, o? ^jj ihovrsg f&zi^ovoi k'hjtiv JOHN XX. 26-29. 199 good, and will be now more fully established : yea, so much as ye all become blessed in faith, it is not the result of your seeing, but of your believing." This prerogative of faith, as the law, is confirmed by the exception, which is partly a real exception, but partly only an apparent one. 1 Through faith alone is the salvation, peace, and blessedness of man restored. 2 But, on the other side, nothing is wanting to the blessedness of those believers who first required to see, if they hold fast and reach perfection in faith. "Not that those who first see and then believe are less blessed ; St Paul came thus to faith, but who was ever more blest in faith than he ?" (Lange.) Eichter's Family Bible suggestively requires us on these words to distinguish those who, 1, see and believe ; 2, who see net and yet believe ; 3, who see not and believe not ; 4, who see and do not believe. Let this be well pondered ! Not only is condemnation denounced upon those who even see and still do not believe (and on the contrary, exceptional grace provided for those whose seeing is alone wanting in order to their be- lieving), but as a hidden contrast, 5, the unblessed are all those who at last will be obliged to see the Lord with terror, without being able for ever to believe in Him as a Saviour ! Further, a future seeing is not by any means denied to those who believe now without seeing ; rather (as St Peter has said, with plain allusion to this word, 1 Pet. i. 8) that seeing is held out as the goal and recompense of believing, and as consummate blessedness. Through faith to sight — is the scriptural law of progression. Therefore the desire to see, which is inseparable from the love and longing of faith, is neither forbidden nor in any degree blamed — provided only it remains within the limits of faith, and becomes not a condition of that faith. We may lawfully, with Augustine, wish to have seen Christ m the flesh. We may adopt the strain of the song with which Draseke closes 1 " Here one might say : How gladly would I believe and adore my Lord and my God if He showed me such love as He showed Thomas, and would appear to me in His own person ! The Lord sees this from afar, and there- fore provides for such a suggestion, by saying — Because thou, etc." So Val. Herberger. 2 According to the well-known simile of Hess : If we are to be trained on the Island of Test, it must have no bridge. 200 SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. his sermon, and envy Thomas' happiness which we would go a thousand miles to share ; provided only we leave faith its high prerogative, and say with the same hymn, " If mine earthly eyes Thou bind, Thee my unbound heart shall find !" Yea, the heart can feel after and find Jesus (Acts xvii. 27) ; it can hear His voice in His word and Spirit, even taste His love and His life, when He invisibly comes in His ordinances, or breaks the bread to us in His supper. " Ah, Lord Jesus, Thy being near filleth my soul witli joy ; Thou canst make Thyself most surely felt, though Thou be not seen !" Nevertheless, our Lord's normal word concerning the pre-eminence of faith alone has an important meaning as a protest against all such Mo- ravian feeling as too vehemently longs for the revelation of the " Prince with the bloody side" to the feelings of His people ; for its meaning is as if it had further said — Blessed are they who feel not and yet believe ! i Hence we do best to adopt the more temperate strains which hold fast the word of Christ in the Spirit of Christ, and say with Speratus : " Thus let the devout Christian study well the true lineaments of faith ! Nothing more than — My blessed Lord, Thy death shall be my life !" This is the true experience of the salvation which has come to us through the wounds of Jesus. Thus also we under- stand that the word to Thomas — a word for the commencement of the establishment of His kingdom — expresses, in connection with this specific example of the Lord's condescension to the demand to see and handle, nothing but the general truth that -all the manifestations of the Forty Days were designed to form a transition to the believing without seeing at all. This was said in express opposition to the notions of all the Apostles (John alone, it may be, excepted), who might have expected and hoped for a new form of seeing the glorified Lord abiding in His established kingdom. It pointed once more to the as- cension and the descent of the Spirit, but gave also to Thomas with them, and to them all with Thomas, the promise : — Ye 1 So Zinzendorf writes with reference to the seeing wished for : " Would we then see Him as John saw Him, when he fell down as a dead man ? What would be the result, if every man who would hold communion with Christ every day fell as dead ! We should have convulsionaries and no Church, a nest of enthusiasts." JOHN XX. 26 T 29. 201 shall find faith, the faith which bringeth salvation, in the world, when I send you into it ! The Evangelist himself expounds to us most fully in his concluding saying, vers. 30, 31, 1 the last great word with which as a word of our Lord's own he would include — the word believe: 2 for he testifies of the ground, the substance, and the power of the Christian's faith. On what basis is it grounded, or why do we believe 1 Not, because we have seen the Lord ourselves ; that would not be pure faith ; and although the first witnesses must see Him in order to the establishment of faith in them, it was not so meant as if that must necessarily continue. We receive the testimony of men, of these sincere though slowly believing Apostles, and receive therein the testi- mony of God. The history has become a word, even a written word. But all is not written; and that which is written is designedly, in order to leave room for faith, written " in such a form as to give occasion for manifold doubts to the under- standing which inquires independently of the religious con- sciousness and sense of need" (Neander). In and in addition to this word the Living Lord Himself comes, though now unseen, in the water and in the blood of the Sacraments, but in all these with the testimony of His Spirit. Thus what is the substance of our faith, or what do we believe ? Not anything in doctrine, dogma, or formula of truth, but Himself personally, to whom all the signs which go forth from Him point back — is the object and great matter of faith : thus Jesus — in His humanity the Christ who was the promised of the Old Testa- ment and whose coming is its fulfilment, anointed by the Holy Ghost — in His Divinity the Son of God, who Himself is called and is God. Here again St John does not say 0eo?, as he has just recorded from Thomas' lips, but wo? rod Oeov : for he well knew that the former ascription was appropriate only to the very highest moments of adoration, and that the giving absolute 1 Where, according to our conviction, he includes the rsx^ptet of the Risen Lord among the mfteix generally ; and thus makes the miraculous facts the basis of his whole gospel. 2 u The last word of Christ, like the last word of the Evangelist, speaks not of yiuaaxetu, but of ic tarsvs t»." So Luthardt against the overvaluation of yuaats, and against the progression of irians into yvuaig as the supposed tendency of St John's Gospel. 202 SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES. prominence to this word would lead to the jeopardising and the partial forgetfulness of the true humanity of Jesus. But we understand from ver. 28 how ver. 31 is to be interpreted. We must, like the Apostles, believe ourselves up to that knowledge ; as it here, by a wonderful exception, breaks upon Thomas instantaneously with his new faith. He came down and be- came man that we going up might find the Godhead in His humanity. Even the Apostles did not find this until the last ; the whole Church long struggled towards it, and our knowledge is still spelling out the word of Thomas — My Lord and My God! After a long period of onesided, partial, and unin- telligent marvelling merely at the Divinity, it is now the great question rightly to understand the humanity of the Son of God, which has gone up to heaven glorified with the marks of His wounds. But now comes the great question — For what do we believe ? what is the power and fruit of faith 1 That we may have life — in His name ! The mere name indeed avails not before Him, and saves us not ; but this name alone secures our life, when apprehended and invoked in faith. Many so-called believers are unbelieving, because their hearts say not in living truth — My Lord and My God! He who can in all earnestness say, Thou art mine with all Thy life and all Thy love ! says also in the same word — I am Thine ! He loveth Christ and liveth to Him. This is to live, and to have this life is to have Himself. We have it thenceforward in proportion as we believe ; but the faith and the life are far from being at once perfect. It still remains written for testi- mony and exhortation — in order that ye may believe ! Who is he that overcometh the world but he who believeth that Jesus is the Son of God ? So conversely : Who fully believeth this but he who perfectly overcometh the world, within and with- out himself ? But in connection with the history of Thomas, this demand of faith becomes at the same time an exhortation to patience with those who believe not. See to it that ye believe ! But know as it regards others that there are two kinds of unbelief, having the same ground indeed in the sinful nature of man, but only one of which has damnation for its issue. They whose office was to preach — He that believeth not shall be JOHN XX. 26-29. 203 damned! had been themselves again and again rebnked for their unbelief. And how many among the enemies of our Lord, to whom He showed not Himself, afterwards believed the preaching without having seen — some earlier, some later ! Yea, a Saul persecutes the church of God ; yet he is dealt with in the greatest compassion, so that he himself can term his unbelief an ignorance which was in some sense excused. Assuredly, when the Lord appears and speaks, no man can be guiltless who rejects Him. When He says : " Be not faith- less, but believing! — and does He not say this in His word loud enough to us all? — we learn that unbelief is essentially and internally a matter of the will at last. But there is a " not able" which in the estimate of mercy is clearly distinguished from that wicked " not willing" — though the line of distinction is not easily discerned by man. Our own experience teaches us how subtle is the intermingling of the two, and bids us confidently leave to the Searcher of hearts the final abandon- ment of the sinner — Thou wouldst not I 1 We must do the duty of our office, that for which He sends us : testify urgently, rebuke with authority, and threaten faithfully — but all with the prudence and patience of love, waiting to know what the Lord may finally do. Every Thomas within the Church, and every soul without it, has his hour — after eight days or years — and the last may be first. It is nowhere written that if Thomas or Saul should die before that hour, and pass into the other world as Thomas and Saul, the living Lord is not there the Lord of the dead even as He is here the Lord of the living. 1 " Is Jesus and is His doctrine tolerant ? Can the word, He that belie veth not shall be damned — be reconciled with perfect patience? Passing by a thousand things which might be said upon this subject, Lu. x. 30, Jno. xiv. 1, and so on, let us dwell upon that which we have just read. One of the elected disciples of Jesus had heard His predictions, and had heard from ten to thirteen eye-witnesses declaring His resurrection, and yet swears — Except I shall put my finger, etc. This man eight days after- wards is met by his merciful Master with the words, Reach hither, etc. Now let any man say whether the question about our Lord's tolerance is not quite superfluous. Is not Thomas a pledge to all who like him are slow to believe that every severe word spoken to unbelief refers only to those who will not believe. As to this not able and not willing, God must judge." Pfenninger. Whence we may further see that the " retaini n g of sin" is not at once a damnation of the unbelieving and impenitent. 204 THE EARLY MEAL AT THE SEA-SHORE. But as to thee, whom the Lords words through the Spirit of testimony should penetrate and convince more effectually than any palpable evidence, whose rebuking appeal should touch your heart with more than the Emmaus-burning — Be not faithless ! consult not with flesh and blood, make no tarrying to obey. For be assured that no man abides long in his present state : the unbelieving becomes ever more unbelieving even down to utter hardening. For him there is no throne of grace, where Thomas' benediction or Saul's conversion may be obtained. THE EARLY MEAL AT THE SEA-SHORE. (Jno. xxi. 5, 6, 10, 12.) Among the ten Appearances of the Eisen Lord which are cer- tainly recorded in Scripture, 1 the seventh in itself, the third to the collective disciples, is now recorded by the same Evangelist John who has recorded three miracles of the Lord in Galilee and three in Judaea. For although we perceive in Jno. xx. 30, 31, an evident first conclusion of the Gospel, this does not prevent our holding the following chapter to be genuine, and most firmly regarding it as a necessary supplement to the whole. We know the objections of the critics, but we know also the refutations of these objections ; and hope to increase and strengthen the latter by our exposition of the. profound and self-asserting words of this final section. Its opponents and its defenders are, at least the most important of them, mentioned in Liicke and Guericke : the former have been recently reinforced by Schweizer, Wieseler, and Reuss, though with no new arguments of any force. All the manuscripts and versions have the chapter ; Clemens and Origen refer to it ; the accidental silence of Irenseus, in the writings which we possess, is no argument against it, as even Liicke, its most decided rejector, admits. No one in the whole 1 That to James in part, 1 Cor. xv. 7, included. Whether there were two distinct appearances in Lu. xxiv. we must leave undecided, as we shall JOHN XXI. 205 Church doubted of its genuineness until Grotius ; ver. 25 alone is sometimes wanting, or marked as an addition. Even Credner admits that there is not the slightest external evidence against this chapter, and that it exhibits almost all the peculiarities of St John's style — a point which Guericke has lately established most fully. Indeed, its contents, as well as the manner of present- ing them, have been appreciated in all their pathos by all modern preachers with one consent ; and the narrative of the former part of the chapter, with the discourses of the Lord which followed it, have been in a thousand forms applied, reproduced, and elaborated even into legends and poems. But, on the other hand, there have been opposite views as to the integrity of the chapter which we feel ourselves bound to allude to briefly, in order that every reader may be put in possession of the certain ground on which our faith in it rests. Grotius with his first arbitror gave little other reason for his rejection than the superficial and premature argument from the conclusion with which ch. xx. ends. As in the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, so here after St Johris death the postscript was added by the Ephesian church, and for the exclusive reason that it might refute the saying referred to in ver. 23 by the authentic word of the Lord concerning this disciple's remaining till He came. All else he violently explains as " added to show the time, place, and occasion of this oracular saying ;" save that he draws a similar hasty conclusion from the olSafxev of ver. 24 that the whole chapter was drawn up by those who thus say " we know." This first attack was of no great moment ; but G. Voss soon trode in his steps, and referred first to the Presbyter John, supposing that he in the name of the Church added the supplement which he had heard from the Apostle, or which had been privately written by him. Clericus followed, then Pfaff, and the long series of critical opponents, seeking with more and more boldness their arguments in the contents of the chapter, which they would not apprehend in the spirit of faith, but subjected to the licentious criticism of unhallowed minds. Paulus was the most notorious example of these : and his notion was that some well-meaning personage intended the postscript to show that the death of the Apostle before the coming of Christ ought not to occasion any doubt or unbelief. Liicke, finally, 206 THE EARLY MEAL AT THE SEA-SHORE. who is the highest authority with many, entered the lists with his wonted confidence against this "strange composition" which sets forth "the strangest of all manifestations of the Lord," and declares with those who went before (though we see not why) that the authenticity of the whole chapter stands or falls with the genuineness and authority of the two last verses. But we are sorry to be obliged to say of a man so renowned and esteemed as this commentator, that with all his excellencies he was utterly deficient in perception of that which is specifically Johannaean in St John, — we mean the symbolical-mystical element of his gospel. He plainly reveals this want throughout the present chapter, and then much more glaringly throughout the entire Apocalypse. From one who can find here a " debased John," and a plain bias toward apocryphal hyperbole and adventure, we must turn away, and with a very different spirit and taste unite ourselves with the greatest part of Christendom. The subscription, ver. 24, is a powerful argument against any invention of the narrative : — whether the Apostle himself speaks in the olha^ev (as he uses the plural in the Epistles, see especially 3 John 12), in the name of the apostolical company, as in chap, i. 14 — or , as we ourselves prefer to interpret, the Church speaks. For, such a solemn attestation would not have been so early and so firmly attached to an invented or even a disfigured account ; and the Divine providence which watched over the canon could never have permitted such a deception to be appended to the greatest of all the gospels, or the whole early Church to remain in blindness concerning it ! And where are those plain reasons which are said absolutely to demand an assumption which would be based upon a far greater wonder than any attributed to the narrative ? To us, all appears perfectly consistent with the phraseology of St John ; the specific objections are easily re- futable, as many very great names admit. Such defenders of the genuineness of the chapter as R. Simon, Michaelis, Eichhorn, and Wegscheider were not biassed by any dogmatic prejudice : but on this point were perfectly sincere. The specialissima of the most minute circumstantials are so plainly and simply ex- hibited, that even Lucke is once or twice constrained to say — This has the semblance of authenticity. Why might not then St John have, after ch. xx. 30, written johx xxi. 207 in his book yet one more of the many signs f 1 We will not assume, because a conclusion now stands between, that "by accident certain things were moved out of their place, or that St John himself must be thought not to have accurately pre- served the order of his gospel," — but reject both suppositions, with Lampe. R, Simon spoke with confidence of St John's slender adherence to order — but I think that we may with equal confidence assert the contrary. Lucke says, indeed, that if St John had himself written the supplement, he would have more intelligently retracted the conclusion already written ; but we have a very different notion of the intelligence of St John, and think that there may have been many reasons not lying on the surface which might induce him to add this chap- ter as a supplement, after the profound colloquy between Thomas and our Lord which presented itself to him as a glorious con- clusion. We cannot agree with Hug, who ascribes the whole of ver. 24 to the Apostle, and makes it prove the prudence of St John, who took this method of obviating scruple concerning this appendage ; for if the Evangelist wrote down what the Holy Spirit had suggested to him, we must suppose him to have been elevated above any such anxiety to repel, in any such manner at least, the attacks of future lying criticism upon his details. He knew well that his testimony would be received ; but the Church, in its somewhat lower position and relations, appended this assurance of its own knowledge and faith. We cannot bring ourselves to think that St John took up his pen again at a later time only on account of his own and Peter's personality, to obviate a false depreciation of the denier and a false exaltation of the disciple who it was thought was not to die ; for any such relative appreciation of the apostolical person- alities 2 as it is the fashion to ascribe to this earliest period of the Church's history, was altogether beneath the sublime stand- ing-point of St John's gospel, in which Christ's person, word, 1 The reckoning, chap. xxi. 14, with the undoubted toy, is very plainly Johannaean (comp. chap. iv. 54), whether the little word means— this present miracle, or as better suiting chap. xx. 30— now already tie third time. (Understand — Afterwards still oftener !) 2 Quite otherwise than our Lord speaks in this same chapter of the persons of His witnesses and followers ! 208 THE EARLY MEAL AT THE SEA-SHORE. and life are all in all. The last chapter is in no sense, as B.-Crusius thinks, " a personal supplement, which would record something specific concerning John the Apostle, after the author had hitherto so studiously kept his own personality in the back- ground ;" for this author writes, down to the last, neither from nor concerning his own personality. Nor can we on this point agree with Weitzel, who thinks that the Apostle is brought by this glance over the histories of the Twelve to speak finally of himself as the last, and to give his final reference to himself as the reporter in this gospel. If his last word concerning John was the main point in this postscript, why is the whole preced- ing narrative so diffusely introduced ? 1 Nor can we adopt the suggestion of Lampe, that this final chapter was added "that the authority of the Evangelist himself might be demonstrated." God did, indeed, order it so that this supplement evoked the witness of the Church in the subscription, ver. 24 ; but St John had not that in view, nor did the Spirit in him make that the main design ! As he had begun with the Aoyos, so he cannot, either the first or the second time, conclude with himself ; during the course of it he had more and more openly and plainly re- ferred to himself as the writer. That was enough for him ; this final conclusion cannot possibly refer to his person alone, for Peter has rather the prominent part in it, while he introduces himself modestly, ver. 2, only as one of the sons of Zebedee. After all this, we are prepared to assent to the clear view of Lange, and proceed with it to the further development of our exposition. The chapter does not now record another manifes- tation which, in the same sense as those which had preceded, should evoke faith : hence the previous conclusion, which was not so much introduced by St John according to any particular plan of his own, as marked by the Lord Himself in His word to Thomas. The appearances after this first consummation of faith in the Apostles, even the most slow to believe, have in 1 Or was Peter the chief personage in it ? The Catholic Allioli asks, " How could the record of Christ's work upon earth better end than by the institution of His representative ? — St Matthew ended with the institution of the church!" Bellarmin finds even in the first — I go a fishing! the pre-eminence of this ruler of the church. The sincere and unblinded eyes of Protestants need no argument against this. JOHN XXI. 209 themselves another meaning : St John has no designed plan according to which he introduces this explanatory supplement, but he only discloses by what he writes that which the history itself furnished in conformity with a higher plan and purpose than his own — as we have often had to maintain throughout his entire gospel. The first six Appearances of the Lord (two especially to the Apostles, two to the women, one in preparatory grace to Peter personally, and one pointing to faith in the word) had a predominant backward reference, and would say — I icas dead and am alive ; must I not have thus suffered, and thus enter into My glory? Enough was now done for this; and now comes more clearly forward another significance in them (a significance, indeed, which to us appears already involved in the former, and the background of all of them), to wit, as point- ing forward to the future, to pledge and foreshadow the future spiritual presence and working of the Lord from the time of His ascension onwards to give directions and promises for the preach- ing of His disciples in order that men might believe. It is true that there is interpolated in the penultimate place the gracious conviction of James, as it were a second Thomas ; 1 yet that which St John in chap, xxi., and the Synoptics at the close (Matt. ver. 18-20; Mark ver. 15-18; Lu. ver. 44-49) still record, points most assuredly (though in Luke with one more glance backwards) to the future of the called and consecrated witnesses. All declare unanimously — i" send you ; go ye forth (when the Spirit shall have come) ; I am with you ; and co- operate with you ! Thus we establish from the history itself that which Lange prefers to regard as St John's plan, and with reference to which he terms this supposed supplementary chap- ter an Epilogue corresponding to the Prologue : u The Prologue intended to exhibit the eternal life of Christ as it preceded His manifestation in the world ; the Epilogue appears to have this for its scope, to exhibit His spiritual sway in the world, as it would continue after His return to the Father." 2 This is indeed 1 At least if we allow any truth to the displaced apocryphal narrative. St Paul distinguishes, 1 Cor. xv. 7, this brother of the Lord from all the Apostles ; but, on the other hand, in ver. 5, he opposes to Cephas only the Twelve. 2 In the third book Lange grows bolder, and terms the Prologue and VOL. VIII. O 210 THE EARLY MEAL AT THE SEA-SHORE. the great antithesis to that "institution of His representatives" which the Papists force upon the text, expounded assuredly in conformity with the Johannsean mind of Christ. 1 This of itself gives us the foundation for the figurative interpretation of the early meal on the shore ; and this amply satisfies Liicke's de- mand at the close of his rejecting decision, showing us in reality the "peculiar transition of St John's representation into the region of universal ideas." Would that Liicke's eye had been capable of beholding this under the veil of the externalities of this chapter ! Even in the colloquy with Peter we shall contem- plate " the entering into individual relations as at the same time a prophetical-symbolical setting forth of such universal ideas." And now for the details. But we cannot at once begin with the first word of Jesus, ver. 5. He showed Himself — this is at the outset a very significant description of the whole fol- lowing narrative as pre-eminently testifying concerning the Lord Himself. First, in as far as the icfravepcoaev eavrov has the same meaning as i(j)dv7j, icpavepcoOrj, there is involved in it — not, indeed, the now habitual, natural invisibility of the aw pa advrj :" that is, the eavrov — He showed Himself — points to His inmost personality and operation ; and thus the (pavepovv eavrov (certainly a Johannsean phrase, though not occurring literally, comp. also Mark xvi. 12, 14) is the comple- ment and consummation of the (pavepovv rrjv S6%av avrov, ch. Epilogue the two wings of the eagle. He tells all who would take away the twenty-first chapter that they will in the end find that it is easier to wrench off a wing from a dead lark than from a living eagle. 1 So also Rudelbach : " John recorded the last and the first miracle of our Lord, and in both of them, with apparent insignificance of detail, there is the profoundest significance. In this manifestation there is the reflection of a higher world ; no individual, isolated sign, but a figure and symbol of the almighty and gracious government of Jesus Christ in His Church to the end." So Luthardt speaks of the glance here opened into the future of the vocation and work of the church, etc. 211 ii. 11, concerning the signs given before the resurrection. The ifyavepwcrev he outgo? emphatically points, as Luthardt observes, to the significance of all that is to follow. The locality was on the sea, for certainly eirl is thus to be understood. What a contrast appears in this record, that they who had received the mission of ch. xx. 21-23 are now once more occupied with their nets ! But it is perfectly natural ; could it well be otherwise, as soon as they returned back to Galilee, according to the Lord's appointment? In fact this time must be spent, as Draseke says, " in arranging their earthly affairs, and closing with the world; 1 but to do that they must for a short time return to it." Let us try to set plainly before our minds their position and state. It was certain to them that they must not as yet preach openly ; though in perfect seclusion they might carry the resurrection tidings to many of the Galilsean disciples. Then they must wait upon events which would bring about the final development. 2 Christ had promised a manifestation in Galilee, He leaves them long waiting for this, as was neces- sary and salutary for them ; and in this deep silence they had enough to do to arrange and firmly to establish the revolution which the resurrection had as it were effected in all their notions, feelings, and hopes. We can hardly think that after the lapse of another eight days the Lord appeared : if so St John would have stated it, as in ch. xx. 26, instead of saying only " after these things." The sacred narrative gives reason to assume an interval of more than eight days ; although it would be most probably on another Sunday. He seeks them again in the scene of His acts and discourses, in the place of His most dear resort : " on that sea where everything reminded them immediately of Jesus ; the smiling bank of which, and even its dark waves, had borne His holy footsteps." (Jakobi.) In confidential fellowship together ; 3 that is, probably in a house 1 For it is not true — at least with regard to Peter — that tkeyhad given up their property and occupation on their first calling. 2 For if nothing further had occurred, they might nave gone back to their nets for ever. 3 'Ofiov — which St John only of the Evangelists uses (see ch. iv. 36, xx. 4) ; it occurs again through the entire N. T. only in Acts ii. 1, xx. 18, among various readings. 212 THE EARLY MEAL AT THE SEA-SHORE. at Capernaum, Bethsaida, or wherever else there might be seven disciples. It might have been on the bank itself, "half by concert, half accidentally" (as Pfenninger says) they were together ; certainly they were habitually as much together as circumstances would allow. We cannot tell whether (as Light- foot thinks) the two unnamed disciples were Andrew and Philip (who indeed seem necessarily connected with Peter and Natha- nael), or two of the Seventy, belonging to the number of the Sralilsean disciples. That St John does not mention their names is no proof that they were not Apostles ; there may have been other reasons for the silence ; and it certainly shows that the persons of the disciples themselves were not especially con- cerned in the history. The absent ones were, it may be, arranging their affairs elsewhere. But the manner in which the five names are introduced is remarkable. The highly favoured doubter Thomas comes forward by the side of Peter (now and ever the first) ; thus the two who had had severally such peculiar experiences are united lovingly together. To them is added Nathanael, who had been from the beginning without guile; whose home in Cana would suggest the first miracle. Finally, here and here only John mentions himself with his brother as sons of Zebedee ; and, instead of condemning this by a very external criticism as un-Johannasan, we should observe that he thereby marks out the fishers, and reminds the reader of the already known synoptical account of Lu. v. 10. We suppose that on the Sabbath they had been assembled till evening for pious conversation ; and therefore that the morning of this manifestation was a Sunday morning. Peter would go a fishing ; and the others are ready to go with him. Certainly not to pass the time away ; as Klee, too readily fol- lowing the Fathers, says, after Chrys. and Euthym. ; — * and even still stronger, " out of weariness." 2 They have to provide for their sustenance ; they must eat, and sell for their neces- sities ; and Euthym. needed not to be anxious about the i\o- K€pS(o<;. But the main point is this : the narrative exhibits them 1 The latter : " Having nothing to do, they would fish." 2 According to Gossner Peter had thought and said: "The Lord has been so long without showing Himself, who knows what will come? I will betake myself to my calling." But such unbelief has no longer place. JOHN XXI. 5, 6. 213 to us as actively engaged, thoughtful, and without any fanati- cism or enthusiasm (as, in a sense, afterwards when they gazed into heaven, Acts. i. 11), applying to the business of their earthly relations. And in this is symbolically reflected the future ; for this going to fish, as Eieger remarks, " comes under that farewell word of Jesus — Now, let him who has a purse take it." Peter — u the beginner of the great Fishing" — only announces what was his own purpose, and the others are ready in their fellowship : kcu r/fMec^ crvv — theYulg., on the contrary, the quite cor- responding pulmentarium (like pulmentum). Whether vpoaCpoiytov meant fish specially in ordinary speech, is a question. 2 It is very questionable whether the Lord spoke this in Greek ; in such delicacies of expression the great point is to catch the exact meaning of the Apostle, who gives the authentic sense. 216 THE EARLY MEAL AT THE SEA-SHORE. much brevity as possible, an abrupt and bare No. Now probably they felt somewhat of a sense of vexation and weariness, in the awakened consciousness of their absolute poverty. And that the Lord would elicit, in order to the full significance of the whole scene. It was not, as Lange thinks, looking back only to the past, that they were once more to experience the night side of their employment and " find out that they were ruined for the fishermen's craft ;" but the Lord who so ordered it will extract from all, especially from the fishers of men, the confession of their need before He gives His abundant blessing. This No (we have nothing, notwithstanding all our pains !) must first be confessed and declared. The second word, almost like Lu. v. 4 (only they are not now to go out to the deep, but to cast the net at once, and that specifically, according to their direction, on the right side) — brings more strongly to their remembrance that former sign, of which they must certainly have thought during the night. Will the disciples observe or suspect now Who the man upon the shore is ? It is easy enough for us who know to speak ; but we should hardly perhaps have apprehended at once the unwonted and so condescending form which His manifestation assumed. It was praiseworthy in them that they could without delay or contradiction follow the counsel of a good adviser, or more skil- ful fisherman, and — although they had already thrown their nets both to the right and the left with all industry — yet be ready to throw them once more on the moment. Such is the true character of Christ's disciples, as He seeks to find them. The old man is almost dead within them already. Even if we say with Lampe, concerning this docility, " the power of the Lord was bending their minds," the matter remains the same. Their susceptibility for such influence exerted by the Lord under another form is the good thing in them. " Does not the Lord often use a voice which we do not at once know f " (Draseke.) Scarcely is it thrown out, when they cannot draw it in again through the multitude of the fishes ; and the simple " ye shall find" has its superabundant accomplishment. Then finally does John mark — It is the Lord ! The tenderest love has the first and surest instinct of the object beloved. It is not that he sees JOHN XXI. 5-8. 217 with younger and keener eyes, or anything of that kind; 1 he already had a presentiment when the fiakere " cast ye" was uttered, but now the wonderful blessing makes him sure, and he keeps silence no longer. Let him whose privilege it is to be first conscious of the Lord's so near neighbourhood, tell it to others in the true ministry of love ! But let him tell it in the wisdom and tenderness of love to the right person, to him that is nearest. This was on the present occasion Peter, who is standing here once more in confidential nearness to John ; to whom the beloved disciple still leaves his place of pre-eminence, after the denial has been forgiven ; who as the first of the Apostles and the head ^f this fishing company ought to have been the first to observe ; and who was most concerned in this remembrancer of the former vocation to be fishers of men, preparatory to his own restoration. This Peter is once more the first to act, as John had been the first to discern and know, the same as ever ; yet not the same as when he cried — Depart from me, for I am a sinful man ! He is not u precipitate," as if his act was blameworthy ; but his fervent love to Him who had already forgiven his denial cannot wait until the ship can take them to the Lord ; it is not over the waves, nor wading through them, but, as " casting himself into" can alone mean, he swam first toward the shore. Nevertheless, we must observe (with Draseke) " the reverence which observes, even at such a moment of excited feeling, the petty proprieties of clothing." 2 And the collectedness of his excitement is ob- servable — as proof of advancement in the spirit of Simon Peter. Still as in Matt. xiv. 28 he will and must be the first to reach the Lord ; but all superfluity of curiosity is gone. Among the other disciples (although John may have spoken softly to Peter) no man any longer doubts who the giver of 1 Weitzel refers this to the general typical meaning of the whole : John is the thoughtful and penetrating eye, the light of the circle of disciples — Peter, the working and strong arm. 2 'EtsvMtyi;, in the Sept. twice for Vwa (where Symm. and Aquila have Wvjlvpu., and which passed into the Heb. i'l'UfKWj, is according to Suidas to vTTipocva i/x,d.Tio>j, as the word shows, possibly a fishing-frock (Nonnus : kovtiov &IAQipKmpeb), such as was seen by Niebuhr (Reisebeschr. i. S. 254 and Tafel 56). He was naked ; that is, without an over-garment, and the girding of the garment, to be let down again on the land, was for the sake of swimming. 218 THE EARLY MEAL AT THE SEA-SHORE. die great draught of fishes is. 1 But they can wait with John ; they are not all like Peter. That they are all so calm and col- lected in the matter is proof of their advancement also, as Braune observes (though doing injustice to Peter). The net of bene- diction, which Peter had altogether forgotten in his zeal for the Giver, must however be preserved and brought to land ; it was not far, and they came soon, which the parenthesis, ver. 8, with its yap means to intimate. There is a avpeiv of their united power now, the iXfcvecv of ver. 6 was no longer enough. " It is the Lord I" That fills all with joy and peace — had they been able to say the same at the sepulchre and under the cross ! Let it be noted that it is the Lord from now forwards ; no longer Master, which Magdalene the first and last time uttered. The Lord — not my Lord, not our Lord — thus alone was it fit to say after the word of Thomas. Well were it if the expositors would answer the question, who placed there the coals and the fish thereon and the bread, by the simple word of John — It is the Lord! But Chrysos. and Euthym. began by speaking definitely of a creation out of nothing — which Olshausen too sharply calls "adventurous;" on the other hand, we are told now-a-days that the fire had been made by other fishermen, the food left on it, and Jesus and His dis- ciples came just at the right time to the place ! Our excellent Lange (this time prosaically enough) says that it was easy enough for our Lord to make such provision on the banks of this sea, where a thousand fishers' hearts glowed at the sound of His name. Let those who can content themselves with thinking that Jesus revealed Himself first to some other of His fisher- dependents that they might prepare this fire and this food, and then depart again. Or did Peter at the Lord's request swiftly prepare it all, before the others (two hundred cubits off) came to land — or even the Lord Himself in the ordinary manner 1 Had Peter been so employed, the narrative otherwise so exact would have mentioned it ; but whence without a miracle could 1 Not as Jakobi preaches : " The other disciples, cool and slow, seem yet to doubt ; they regard the draught as the result of following good counsel. Even when they saw the coals, with fish and bread, they might still doubt whether John was right. But when He said — Come and dine ! they knew Him and asked no more." We shall otherwise understand ver. 12. JOHN XXI. 5-9. 219 the Lord have so early procured fish and bread ? If we must add anything to the simplicity of John's " they see," we would confidently say that the ministering angels provided the coal fire and its appendages — for they must be regarded as always ready for the service of Jesus. (So Nicephorus Hist. Eccl. i. 35.) Lampe's protest is both needless and incorrect, when he says — No, it was provided miraculously by the Lord Himself ! As if it were not more decorous to introduce the service of the ever-ready angels ! Whether and to what extent creation from nothing enters into the question, thus viewed, we know not, and must refrain from all idle curiosity. Better is it to fall back upon practical exposition, and say that the Lord cares not only for the great but also for the little things. To spread a table for His children after the toil of the night, according to the wont of His former Galilean benevolence ; to testify to them, by anticipating as of old their wants, that He can and that He will provide for their earthly necessities ; and thus to symbolise, by a little circumstance, a very great one — all this is not beneath the thought of Jesus ! For, certainly, it was not Himself, who needed food no longer, whom the angels had thus provided for (as it may be formerly in the desert) ; His eating is not mentioned throughout the narrative. 'Oyjrdpiov was explained by Grotius to be a "word of a singular form with a plural signification ;" and most take it collectively. That may indeed be right, and Luther so translates it ; yet we find in ver. 13 rbv dprov and to oyjrdpiov together, and in ver. 10 the Plural airo tcov wfrapmv, and moreover in ch. vi. 9 hvo 6-tyapia. 1 Consequently, it must not be said that in ver. 13 the 1 "O\poy, originally prepared food, cain^ to be used especially of fishes, according to Athenaeus (Deipnos. vii. p. 276. sect. 4) : i^evUmev 6 lyfiiis Ztoc t'/i'j k^xipsTov £(k)B>jz/ {/,6'jog ovrug xcc'hehdcii. Hence Numb. xi. 22, Sept. troiv to o-tyog rij? QxhuacYig. And 6ipo(£ccys'iv or oipotpoLyog "was applied to lovers of fish. Athen. ix. 385, 386 plainly admits that the sing, and the plur. were differently applied. Phavor. is very decisive : "They afterwards limited the word (p-J/ou) to fish alone — whence also 6-^/xptoif." Suidas : 6-J/a.pio'j, ixdvltoy. (Nonnus gives on our passage only lyfivv, although incor- rectly afterwards, ver. 13, 7rspipcvixzT0!/.) This makes it plain that according to St John's phraseology our Lord terms even the great fishes o^uptot, like that which lay upon the dvQpctKioL, just as in Matt. xv. 34 (comp. Mar. viii. 7) the disciples said only i^dvh*. 220 THE EAELY MEAL AT THE SEA- SHORE. article simply serves to refer back. (Lutliardt.) The fishes taken by the disciples were nothing but great ones ; not so that which was already there, since b^dptov is first used concerning it. We doubt whether the disciples were required to bring forward their fishes in order that by comparison they might assure them- selves of the equal reality of the miraculous provision ; l for such an inquiry would never enter their thoughts, or both pro- visions would be to them equally miraculous. The Lord's word in ver. 10 has in the symbolism of the whole no other meaning than to typify the fellowship with Him in work and enjoyment upon which they were now to enter. When He now (for so may we almost think !) requites to them their recent entertainment, He speaks condescendingly of the gift which had come from His own hand as if it was their own — which ye have taken — and permits them to add their part. But, again, inasmuch as that word would suffice to show His meaning, and it would have been contrary to propriety that they should prepare the food in the Lord's presence in order that they might eat, He does not wait for that, but (as Gerhard, Bengel, and others rightly maintain) He satisfies His guests as their Host with the one loaf and the little fish. This is plainly intimated by the to 6\jrdptov ver. 13 as in ver. 9. Thus they do not partake of this feast of love with " their combined provisions" (as Eoos says) ; nor does the Lord eat with them this double-meal (His own and theirs ?), as Lutharclt strangely says, assuming that their fishes were prepared also on the fire. That Peter should vigorously obey the Lord's "bring hither," is as characteristic as his previous conduct. As the master of the ship, and the leader of the little company, he now brings, of course with the assistance of all the rest, the draught of benediction to land. And the graciously condescending Host invites them at once — Come, and dine, dpiarrjaare. 2 Bengel translates this of the 1 Bengel : " Thus the disciples perceived that that fish was as really such as those which they brought." 2 Athenseus (Deipnos. I. p. 11. Sect. 19) points out in Homer two pas- sages which mention the diptarou as oLxpctTiapoe, : t the former (erroneously quoted in Grotius), survvovro dipiarov a.pc? vol, x.sixpcii/a ttvo (Odyss. xvi. ver. 2), and the other in the Iliad. He goes on to establish the meaning as to 7rpaivou spfipufta (as Appollonius also explains it), by quotations in which cixpuTifadxi is parallel with dpiarxu. JOIEV XXI. 5-14. 221 " mid-day meal," and in the Gnomon deduces from it that the manifestation had continued many hours since ver. 1 : but that is not in the record. For although the phraseology had become indefinite (hence Sept. apiarav simply for eating, strengthening one's self "tyD 1 Kings xiii. 7) — yet Lucke is right in insisting upon the original signification of apiarav and apLo-Tov as the early meal, and the whole historical connection is in favour of that interpretation. V. Gerlach supposes that there was " something mysterious" in the form and appearance of the Lord in the eyes of those who are thus suddenly with Him ;* but here in ver. 12 the Evangelist speaks of no doubting uncertainty, 2 he rather says decidedly "knowing that it was the Lord." Either it was reverence which prevented them all from putting the question which in the joy of their supreme confi- dence sprang to their lips — Is it then actually Thyself? or iroXfia may signify that no man was able to ask, being so fully convinced. Comp. Rom. v. 7. The question itself, which though it was presented to their minds was nevertheless suppressed, is reverently conceived — Who art Thou ? instead of the urgent — Is it Thou, O Lord, who dost so condescendingly come to us this day 1 Wherefore and to what end did the Lord thus act toward them ? Without doubt there is a special significance in this, as in all the o-rjfiela, and not only those which St John records ; but especially, as we have already found, in the appearances of the Risen Lord. Maldonatus observes that the o{/to>9 ver. 1 — after this manner — points at once to the mystery of the external procedure. First of all the Lord manifests His conde- scending love to His own in the most gracious aspect, by thus once more most affectionately entering into the reality of His former life with His disciples. Here is much more than the visit which Abraham received in Mamre ! He abstains indeed — which might 1 Hess speaks (though inappropriately) of a designed change in the voice or in the countenance during the several Appearances, as preparing for His invisible state ; though this is strangely at variance with his general repre- sentation of the Risen Lord. 2 Although Chrysos., Theoph., and others so understood it. Hence the Berl. Bible says, " We see how far the tendency to doubt may follow and molest men." 222 THE EAELY MEAL AT THE SEA-SHOKE. be needful to obviate misunderstanding — from Himself eating, 1 but He comes nevertheless at the last to place Himself by their side, to give them their sustenance, to afford them His society, just as of old. Hess carries this too far, however, when he imagines what is not in the text : " A joyous tone reigns over the whole, though not much is spoken during the meal." So Reiger also is inexact : " There was no lack of profitable dis- course at this repast." And Draseke : " How many precious words may have flowed from the lips of their Eisen Master !" We think that nothing at all was spoken ; ver. 12 implies that no man ventured to hazard a word ; and the Lord kept silence also, that this feast might speak rightly for itself to all futurity. 2 In solemn silence, as vers. 12 and 13 describe, they eat what He gives them, though not for many minutes ; they taste and see how gracious the Lord is, now altogether without amazement and terror ; they might at last have forgotten that death and the resurrection lay betwixt Him and them, if in ver. 15 solemn earnest had not followed the grace of His dealing. Even if nothing more had been recorded than the fact of such a repast of the disciples in the presence of their condescending Lord, we could by no means put the dry question — Is there nothing more t Olshausen's zeal carries him too far when he says that the narra- tive clown to this point, if only externally considered, would have been " poor and meaningless ;" for certainly the chief thing which it records is not a successful draught of fishes, but the most heart-touching and confidential approximation of the Risen Lord : and that is in itself nothing external. But it is most certain that this postscript of the evar/ye\iov irvevyuariKov has a yet deeper significance. The second object of it, springing im- mediately from the first purely historical view, was the present- 1 Many regard it as certain that He ate with them, but we must differ. He said only to them — "Dine;" and in ver. 13 "He gave to them," does not mean that He shared with them ! Hiller after Bengel says : "He serves even though glorified ; yet shows the great difference there was between them, for He has no need to eat." 2 "We may doubt, even, whether the thanksgiving for the benediction of the food (which Theod. Herac. forgets not to mention) is to be self-evident. The expression and solemn formula was not always and essentially requisite, when the spirit of the act was necessarily understood. Yet there may have been a prophetic reason for the omission. jokst xxi. 5-14. 223 ing a type of that nearness and fellowship to which the Lord would in future times condescend, in His invisible relations with His people. We must involuntarily ascribe such a signi- ficance to the Emmaus-narrative in St Luke ; and can we not go so far with St John ? But, thirdly, we hear in the narrative a specific promise to the disciples, and to us all, which has this force — Nothing shall ever be wanting to you in the service of the Lord ! Specifically for then- earthly need — I myself will and shall feed you, and take care of you ! From the tender regard which at first, so to speak, provided at once for their morning refreshment after the labour of the night, before He said anything more to them, down to the abundant draught of fishes the produce of which would supply their need till they reached Jerusalem — what speaking prophecy and promise of care ! Thus, as was appropriate and to be expected — though without this narrative it would be lacking — among the last mani- festations of the grace of the "Redeemer the whole kingdom of nature is embraced in, and made one with, the kingdom of grace. Or was not this necessary for these first disciples % Scarcely, indeed, were they at this time concerned about their temporal sustentation ; but there came other and sterner times both for them and for believers following them, who are still comforted and encouraged by this meal at Tiberias. " Love to Jesus must arm us with contempt for all temporal things ; but we must not press this truth so far as to think that neither good nor evil can accrue from the abundance or the withdrawal of earthly goods ; else we should not feel the goodness of the liberality of God's supply of our wants, and the lesson which the closing of His hand should teach would be lost." Nevertheless, when all this is admitted, we must as expositors ask — Is there nothing more ? If this draught of fishes points back, and no one with a sound mind can deny it, to that of Lu. v., reminding them at the close of the beginning of their calling, the promise also to the fishers of men must be meant concerning another net than that which they used in their earthly calling, The u singularis consensus," therefore, of the Fathers, as to this symbolical-prophetic meaning of the transaction, rests upon a good foundation. 1 If there have been many fanciful errors 1 Weitzel's remark is a good one, that, as the second half of this final 224 THE EARLY MEAL AT THE SEA-SHORE. developed from the details, that does not impeach the correct- ness of our view of the whole. For instance, when Augustine refers the right side, on which the disciples were to cast the net, to the elect; 1 gives his strange interpretation of the number seven of the disciples ; and even finds in the broiled fish a symbol of Christ (piscis assus Christus est passus) : we may leave all this to him. But we are willing to agree with him, not because he says it, but because it approves itself to our own mind, when he makes this draught of fishes, similar to the first, yet with so many differences, refer to the final future of the kingdom. That in the former the good and bad were taken together, while in this the good only, is not to be rejected, if it be profoundly interpreted ; but that the Lord is not now in the ship but on the shore, that He expressly commands that the net be brought to land, that the net does not now break, and, finally, that the revelation of the Risen Lord of itself points to something beyond the former — all this is significant and most evidently true. 2 The number of the fishes, recorded with such striking precision, and which may be regarded as the reason of their counting, 3 appears to us to shadow out some mystery. Apart from the marvellous interpretations which carry their own confutation with them, 4 we cannot but think that it signifies the number which will be chapter deals directly and specially with the destiny of the two chief dis- ciples, so the first half points generally and indirectly to the discipleship as a whole, to the result of apostolical labour. 1 Grotius, on the other hand, found in the abundant draught near the shore, where it was not to be expected, the blessing of the Apostles' preach- ing among the heathen. Weitzel sees in the fruitless toil of the night the first want of success among the Jews, in the casting the net on the other side the entering upon the mission to the Gentiles. All this we may leave undecided, though it is much more rational than de "Wette's notion that the right side was mentioned as the fortunate one — according to popu- lar superstition. 2 See the passage in Olshausen, from Augustine. 3 Without the ag or aasi, which is usual in the reckoning of Scripture — even the three above the round sum not forgotten ! Liicke speaks of the hyperbolical tone of this — but we have nothing to say to that. 4 The first and most celebrated was that of Jerome ad Ezech. cap. 47, that these were just so many species of fishes, as in Matt. xiii. 47, ex kuvto? yivovg (compared also by Bengel). The typical number of strangers in Israel, 2 Chron. ii. 17, has been referred to — and much else ! JOHN XXI. 5-14. 225 gathered in by the preaching of the Gospel, the ifkripcoixa rwv iOvoov, Rom. xi. 25 — a number known to the Lord, but not to be counted by us till the end. The net not breaking — a most evident note of distinction from the previous draught at their initiatory call (should not St John on this account record it ?) — appears less a " presage of wonderful unity" for the whole Church's history generally (Grotius), than as a prophecy, stretching forward to the future, of the last glorious manifes- tation of the net nevertheless not broken. Gossner : " That which men call the Lord's net is alas much broken, but the Lord has His own net, which is not rent." The former actual rending in its external manifestation was foreshadowed in Lu. v. 6 ; and it took place not because " men arbitrarily and by then' own despotic will pull on the net, some to the right, some to the left" — it was so even in " apostolical hands," according to 1 Cor. i. 11, xi. 19. But, u when Christ will be glorified in His glorious net, then at the second conversion of the Gentiles the net of the Church will be no longer broken." Then, when the net will be drawn to the shore out of the sea of nations (Matt. xiii. 48) — the great Shepherd and Lord will be on that shore, waiting, receiving, entertaining ; and the end will be a feast of most gracious fellowship with Him — but it will be the antitype of the Lord's supper (Abendmahl), an early-meal (Frixhmahl) of the great resurrection-morning which will be followed by a permanent eternal day of joy. (Rom. xi. 15.) 1 Not then the bread and wine as the body and blood of the Lord, but the bread of the renewed creation, prepared without seed- time, harvest, and making, will be the sanctified food of the righteous, no longer needing any special benediction for its sanctification ; and in the bringing in of the great draught, the first fruits of which the Lord Himself had prepared as repre- senting the whole, all the fishermen together and individually will spiritually enjoy the result of their toils with the joy of eternal life. If this is regarded as too venturesome and farfetched, we will 1 We do not mean this (as Luthardt's objection misunderstands it) of the " time after death" — but of the historical concluding period of all prophe- tical perspective of the kingdom of God, the reference to which is surely appropriate here. VOT,. VTTT. p 226 RESTORATION OF PETER. return back with the objector to the dawning and indistinct pre- sentiment with which he would prefer to invest this typical meal on the shore of the preaching-sea. He must not, however, reject the history itself while dwelling on what it dimly shadows ; he must not view it as a " little idyllic figure ;" but must at least say with St John : It is the Lord — He must assuredly have intended something in this. Thus much, however, is clear to our view, that the Lord begins anew, in His ancient manner (Matt. xiii. 35) to speak in parable, to turn events into similitudes, and propheti- cally to pretypify the far-distant future. By this He not only demonstrated His abiding humanity, and its paternal, condescend- ing power and love to bless ; — but He points the first of His fishermen, in order that it might be recorded and transmitted to us, through this earthly type, to the great joy of His kingdom reserved for the end, 1 when all nature appears renewed around the pure produce of His great fishing, while He says — Come ye and feast ! RESTORATION OF PETER. Jno. xxi. 15-22. The immediate purport of this manifestation of our Lord — which in connection with its prophetic symbol pointed also far into the future — was a confirmation of the calling of the fishers of men, and a re-establishment of them all, in the persons of those who were present in their office — a more direct exhibition of ch. xx. 21. With this it is naturally connected that — according to the Lord's purpose from the beginning in this manifestation — He turns especially to Peter. 2 He receives after the figurative blessing the word of its interpretation, being still as heretofore the representative of all, and this involves in 1 This draught of fishes was " not a special preparation" for any still remaining Jewish and impatient ideas about His kingdom. 2 Although we may not say that all before ver. 13 (wherein the Evan- gelist sees the real manifestation itself) was related merely on account of what follows. It was no more related, than it happened^ on that account. JOHN XXI. 15-22. 227 itself the re-establishment of him who had fallen. But, in the next place, the words are spoken to him in a manner which points them directly to himself. The Lord had appeared to him in mercy already on the day of His resurrection; had recognised him in the two following appearances to the Apostles, including him in the general blessing; we cannot therefore suppose him to have been the subject of such profound sorrow as is sometimes attributed to him. Nevertheless, the deep impression made by the peculiar circumstances of his denial had not been effaced. We must, on the other hand, regard Peter therefore — for such deep heart-wounds are not soon healed — as retaining enough of that smitten feeling to pre- vent his experiencing his former joy in the Lord ; and, on the other, we must remember that the offence which was given to all, and which corresponded with the public warning given before all, could be properly and fully forgiven only by a public word of reconciliation. Certainly it must have been Peter's necessity and wish that the Lord should refer to the matter before all and pronounce His forgiving peace — quite in opposition to that most unworthy notion which Niemeyer thus expressed : " He probably was fearing every moment that Jesus would speak to him about his fall, before the rest of the disciples !" Such a fear as that would have effectually pre- vented his receiving the consolation of grace, as it would have been inconsistent with true penitence in his soul. Thus it is the Lord's love, as we shall soon observe, which now turns thus to Peter, to do him favour; but the solemn earnestness of truth, ever inseparable from such love, completes in the pre- sence of the most important of the disciples, who represented the whole, his perfect re-establishment; thus giving him oppor- tunity to assume and exhibit a becoming humiliation, and to utter the amending confession. There was no proper rebuke uttered, for the matter was already forgiven; this asking about his love was at furthest a most gentle and affectionate reproof. But it was certainly a re-establishment of Peter after the fall which it thus touchingly brought to his remembrance ; and was as solemn and formal as the denial had been. It might be concluded, from vers. 19, 20 afterwards, that Jesus, leaving the others, walked along the shore in special 228 RESTORATION OF PETER. conversation with the two, Peter and John ; but this is rather connected with the improbable supposition of certain omitted converse generally, and is almost excluded by the definite words of ver. 15 — " When they had dined, He said." It is certain that Jesus after rising from the meal did not walk alone with these two along the bank ; all must and ought to hear this conversation, for the reason just assigned. The matter had been already spoken of with Peter in secret ; nor is the ifkelov or irXeov tovtcov 1 — " than tJiose" — in our Lord's question a reference to the rest of the disciples at a distance. If we try to throw ourselves into the circumstances of the case, nothing was more natural, after the manifestation of such con- fidential and condescending love on the part of Jesus, than that the general question should have been prepared for in the minds of all, as the opening of the conversation — Do ye not all truly love Me f Although this was not expressed, it is involved in the ifKelov tovtcov ; and here we think we see the point of connection for the direct address to one of the number — Lovest thou Me ? As Hess paraphrases : " Simon, son of Jona, thou seest that all love Me. Can I rely with equal — with more — confidence upon thy fidelity and love?" But that the Lord asks three times, as a remembrancer of the threefold denial which he had been so solemnly warned of, we shall not need to demonstrate ; though there are not wanting expositors who strangely resist the clearest evidence of what lies before their eyes, and interpret it otherwise. De Wette's " etwas spielend" as if it were a mere passing allusion, is repugnant to every sound and heartfelt realisation of the whole. Simon Jona 1 — as the Lord says " to Simon Peter (mark well!) — was in no case " the usual manner in which the Lord addressed Peter" (Lucke). It was a return to that first word at the bestowment of his name of honour (ch. i. 43) which is not now indeed taken away from the forgiven disciple, but yet is placed intentionally in seeming question ; so that, when he 1 On the genuineness of which there is no contention, although it is wanting in a few manuscripts. 2 The readings 'Ly«j/ov, 'luuvvov — according to Erasmus also "'lauvvu — ch. i. 43, and here (where Vulg. Joannis, yet also with the var. Jona) is of no significance for the matter in hand. JOHN XXI. 15-22. 229 was thus addressed the second and the third time, he might naturally think — Is the name Peter, then, gone entirely? Comp. however, not merely Matt. xvi. 17 (where the "son of Jona" was named in suggestive parallel with " flesh and blood"), but in Lu. xxii. 31 especially the warning Simon! Simon ! in order to perceive and understand the manifold re- membrancers which this address would involve. 1 He would remind him of his entire past from birth upwards, of his natural humanity (just as afterwards in ver. 18), but especially of the lamentable fall which had originated in the Simon and not in the Peter. Nevertheless, in the gentlest tenderness there is no express mention of what was past and forgiven — only a hint of his earlier self-exaltation, as we shall presently hear. The first ayairas fie — lovest thou Me — expresses only the tender- ness of love which desires only to be loved, which prizes the return of love, and is satisfied with it, yea, asks for it not in doubt but with complacency. This gracious demand of his love, which honours Peter by the untroubled expression of the perfect love of his Lord, is not retracted, nor is that love with- drawn, when in the solemnity of earnest truth it is blended with the reproof of reconciling grace in the addition — Lovest thou Me more than these ? UXeiov tovtcov (Vulg. plus his) is grammatically, and with- out the context, an ambiguous expression, inasmuch as tovtcov may be referred either to the objects which are loved or the subjects which love ; but the entire context, and especially that point of connection which has been referred to already, makes it evident that it must be understood as almost all Christendom has agreed to understand it (with the Pesh.) : — more than these, all My disciples and" thy brethren, love Me. 2 From the 1 The address with Peter occurs indeed as if in irony, Lu. xxii. 34 ; but even as such presupposing the ordinary use of it. In the two passages in which, besides Lu. xxii. 31, Simon alone occurs, it is very significant (Matt, xvii. 25; Mark xiv. 37) — and not meaning the same as the full Simon Barjona. 2 Lampe quotes from Bernard : Amas me plus quam tua, plus quam tuos, plus quam te ? Whitby and Bolton after him have much worse interpreted — Lovest thou Me more than these things f (What a collocation !) That is, more than the fishes, and the fishing-apparatus, the nets, etc. : assuming that the disciples might have wished to go back to their fishing. This is 230 RESTORATION OF PETER. beginning, most expositors have seen in these words the gentle but sufficiently plain remembrancer of that self-exalting word of the disciple — And if all men should be offended, yet will not I ! (Matt. xxvi. 33 ; Mark xiv. 29). Olshausen strangely follows a very few in denying this, and supposes the Lord here actually to admit that Peter in consequence of his spiritual pre-eminence in relation to power working externally — as if love consisted in that! — loved Him more strongly than all the others (more also than John 1) ; and that this was the result or the cause of the Lord's making him the shep- herd, although he may not be supposed to have said — No, I love Thee far less, for I was capable of denying Thee ! If any of our readers think such an idea deserving of refutation, he will have found it already in what has been said as to the necessity for our Lord's once more publicly returning to the fact of the denial, and he will find it still further in the succeeding exposition. Liicke disputes this reference back to something unrecorded in St John's Gospel, and asks — Had the author of this chapter St Matthew's Gospel before him? We think that Jesus who thus spoke, according to the genuine record of the fourth Evangelist, very well knew the earlier words of Jesus ; but the Spirit in the Evangelists reckons in many things, and in a sense everywhere, upon our own collating the several records. The thought, further, is not to be absolutely rejected, that this question as to a greater love than that of the others refers to the immediately preceding fact of Peter's springing first into the water, to come to Jesus. The distinct meaning of tovtcdv, as limited to those present, is in favour of this ; as also the fact that afterwards in ver. 18 there is a similar allusion to what had just transpired, in the girding, etc. 1 Yet this is certainly only a concomitant meaning, and not (as Clericus supposed) the only one. Peter's swimming toward the Lord had just shown not merely " improbable," as Hegel says coldly — or " almost ridiculous," as Liicke says more warmly — but is utterly irrational. 1 Grotius, a little too strong : u All things which our Lord here says have allusion (that is at the same time) to the facts which preceded ; " for in addition to the two things mentioned above he finds a reference of the mandatum eximium apostolici muneris to the circumstance quod rete pertraxerat. JOHN XXI. 15-22. 231 that he now as formerly would anticipate the rest in his fervid zeal — after the most profound love of another had discerned the Lord. But there was nothing, on the present occasion, pre- sumptuous or blameworthy in his act ; and therefore the gentle reference to it, which might have been discerned in our Lord's words, was rather a mild softening of his vehemence ; it was a recognition of the pure and the true in Peter's character, and in his " loving more," — even at the same time that the expression of it is reproved and repelled, to such extent, that is, as this was merited. Then alone, when Peter would make himself faithful beyond the rest, in opposition to the warning of His Master, there lay in his comparison — I love thee more ! a false strength, and something of taint in his love, such as Albertini thus preaches of : " Our many-formed and evil self-love is the alloy which debases the silver of our love." Thus the Lord would awaken the purer thought of Peter's mind, and fan within him the name of his love, a love no longer now unreflecting and carnally measuring itself with others ; 1 and therefore He asks him the well-understood question, gives him graciously the wel- come opportunity to retract in pure simplicity his improper com- parison, and to utter anew with purer confidence and joy his real and inward love. We heartily agree with Grotius here : " Wonderful is the wisdom of Christ, whose words are so ordered that Peter is satisfied after his threefold denial, and his col- leagues are satisfied, over whom he had exalted himself : and this example He gives for the discipline of His Church" An example this which has been too often neglected by the stern and unrelenting disciplinary enactments of the Church, which, making no difference, have often kept penitent Peters far too long waiting for the absolution of love. The answer of the Apostle is in its kind as noteworthy as the Lord's question, and exhibits him to us now, as it exhibited him to the disciples then, in the most beautiful light of his new nature created by grace. It is impossible for any man to object any- thing to his perfect re-establishment, or to regard it for an instant as opposed by the strictest laws of the kingdom of grace. We may almost adopt Albertini' s words : " Doubtless Peter 1 Theodor. Heracl. well expresses it : "To raise him out of the dejection resulting from his denial, and inflame his love by the same means." 232 RESTORATION OF PETER. now loved the Lord more than all the rest, for he had more, much more, forgiven" — although the rule of Luke vii. 47 (like every rule, not without its exceptions) might be regarded as holding good rather on the side of the less loving, and moreover must not be applied merely according to the measure of actual and visible sins. Cyril, Bucer, and others, whom Lampe quotes approvingly, and Olshausen follows, take away all rebuking allusion to his former assertion that he loved more ; but they think, however, that the more love which the Lord demanded pointed to the sin which had been forgiven to him beyond all the others. What shall we say to this ? Assuredly, that the Lord rather presupposes than demands that internal love, in a sense surpassing that of all the rest ; He knows and recognises in the heart of the forgiven man that greater love which it was befitting that he should feel : — this seems evidently implied in his being singled out and questioned in these express terms. But the more as spoken in the presence of the others, could not be meant by Him as demanding from Peter that he should testify his own consciousness of a love beyond that of the others : that would be contrary to the truth and sincerity of love ; as we must feel ourselves, when we think of our own comparing or magnifying beyond that of others the love of which we are conscious. 1 How sad to the rest, how dangerous to himself, would it have been for Peter to say — Yes, verily, O Lord, I love Thee more ! The question demanded anything rather than this; his answer beautifully shows that he understood it as humbling him by reference to his former elevation of himself — and can we otherwise understand the Lord? He had de- signedly uttered no word which should make prominent the great change between formerly and now, that which had inter- vened ; it is not — "Lovest thou Me now more than others?" 2 1 Olshausen goes too far, and uses very doubtful language when he says : True humility, poverty, and release from self does not consist in our saying that we have no love when we have it, but in regarding the operations of grace " as transitory gifts which the Lord who gave them may at any time withdraw if He will." But certainly in loving there is the personal de- cision on our own part, and a possession certainly not to be taken from us, of which we are surely conscious. 2 And indeed not merely positive, as Gossner paraphrases : " Thou lovest Me still ? I know well that thou hast some great evil — but thou lovest Me JOHN XXI. 15-22. 233 although the whole question in itself, after the restoration of the fallen man, was no other than such an appeal — "Now, beloved Simon ? How stands the love between us 1 " But Peter rightly understood all that the Lord had omitted to say ; and himself likewise omitting it, gives assurance of his love without any side- glance, without any pre-eminent /. His humbled remembrance does not enter upon the question of the more ; and his answer is thus at the same time an affecting deprecation to the other dis- ciples, whom his former proud words had injured. It is remarkable here that he does not answer the ar/cnra? with ayairco, but with i\€Lv" That might be the more internal Dm, which the Syr. after all ? And are we still then friends together?" But the question as to the T^slov was a test whether and how Peter would now understand and answer this. 1 We shall find with regard to these, as also the ecpvtee. and npofictra., that St John did not thus merely vary the expression, but historically reported the words with accuracy. 234 RESTORATION OF PETER. used also in chap. v. 20. But as we are in ignorance about the synonymous relations of the language then used, we are referred rather to the Greek again, which the Evangelist undoubtedly used precisely in harmony with the distinction. We quite agree with Bengel that Peter's feeling could not have intended to answer the Lord's question by a word of strengthened emphasis : that would have been altogether alien to his humbled feeling. But when Bengel maintains that " ayanrav, amare, est necessitudinis et affectus ; (j)i\eiv, diligere, judicii" — we must, according to our conviction, just invert his sentence. For it may be established, though we do not feel ourselves called upon to enter minutely upon the philological discussion, that <$>Ck.e2v, amare, more nearly related to e/30)?, issues rather from the natural human feeling (the love of kinship, and then of friendship) ; while wyairav, diligere, points to the love of the will, exhibiting at once the loftiest valua- tion and the profoundest subjection. It is not altogether, as Tholuck (on Jno. xii. 25) lays down the distinction too sharply — "the natural bias and the intelligent affection towards" — his meaning is fundamentally right, though it should be added that wydirr] may become interchangeably the natural- personal (piXelv, and the (piXla also be ennobled as it were into the aydTrr), and yet retain its own character. Consequently, the Lord does not here ask simply for the honouring, adoring love, but in that for the love of personal affection - also, which now would be added to it in Peter's soul ; and Peter does not testify only the personal love of friendship 1 — though there is some truth in that. Assuredly, it was Peter's desire to descend from the perfect, ethico-religious meaning of the ayairav, the full weight of which he feels in the great question, to the per- sonal (j)iX.la of which at least his heart was certainly conscious. 2 As if he would say — Yes, verily, just as a man may humanly love his brother, or his friend, or his gracious Lord ! (For cuycLTrav and (ptkecv might almost be distinguished in German as lieben and liebhaben.) But in this we proceed at once to observe a new element which qualifies the delicate relation of the two expressions. It is true that i\elv, as the personal 1 So briefly de "Wette : " Jesus asks first for the love of reverence, Peter attests his personal love." 3 The Berl. Bible : He uses a word of less emphasis. JOHN XXI. 15-22. 235 affection of the natural inclination, is so far less than that love of the knowledge of the will with which God is to be loved, who is Himself love ; — and yet, on the other hand, it is in a certain sense more, as being more inward. (Hence in Jno. v. 20 the Lord gives intensity to His saying by the cptkel, for He will speak anthropomorphically concerning the Father and the Son ; while the Baptist, not venturing on such an expression, adheres to the more becoming dyajra in ch. iii. 35.) And now first shall we thoroughly understand our text ! The anti-climax, in which Peter's modesty speaks, is turned involuntarily into an intenser and more elevated affirmation : for what could a man who loves his Lord testify more than that the di\co ere, but also declines to testify even this as matter of his own knowledge, leaving it entirely to the Searcher of hearts ! This " Thou knowest" immediately attached to the " Lord" * is incomparably tender, beautiful, and true. According to Liicke, " it appears as if the echo was — Is there then still question of this V' Notwithstand- ing, Peter rejoiced in his heart that the Lord did put the ques- tion, and give him both opportunity and permission to utter this long suppressed Yea. It has not therefore certainly any such stronger meaning as — " Wherefore then askest Thou of that about which Thou knoivest best V For Peter perfectly understands why and with what secret design the Lord put the question to him — else indeed he would have remarked nothing in it, which however is inconceivable, considering that he could not have approached the Lord without a profound sense of his late fall. Thus, " Thou knowest it" springs from the deep ex- perience which he now had of the facility with which his own heart might deceive him, and of how little value is testimony concerning self, and the resolution or promise which springs from self. " Man himself cannot sound the depths of his own breast. Had not Peter found this out to his inexpressible shame?" (Draseke.) Nevertheless — for thus must we turn round the diamond word, to see its brilliance — he could not possibly mean, with any uncertainty, " Thou knowest whether I love Thee !" He knows the Lord's knowledge of his love, and on that alone he rests : — what modesty and what confidence united, in this perfect solution of the apparent contradiction ! As if he should say — "Thou hast known Me throughout and from the beginning as the son of Jona, hast called me Peter ; hast drawn me toward Thee in patience, hast kindled love in my soul, hast warned my blindness, forgiven my foreseen fall, looked both before and since Thy death into my heart with eyes of grace — and how shouldst Thou not know all?" And thus 1 So that we can hardly say whether Kvpie belongs rather to NW or to av. JOHN XXI. 15-22. 237 we say (better than Olshausen's words, before quoted), the true humility and modesty consists in this, that we should be more anxious to receive testimony to the reality of that deep love which we feel from the Lord Himself, than to bring it to Him. " What / know concerning my love is this, that I am far from loving Thee so much as I ought and Thou art worthy : but Thou, O Lord, knowest that with all my weakness and defi- ciencies I nevertheless love Thee. If I were left to the know- ledge and testimony of my own feeling concerning it, I must for ever (mindful of my fall) doubt of my love ; but Thou, who hast had mercy upon me, and received me into Thy favour, and counted me worthy of Thy manifestation — knowest that I love!" (Wagner.) This is the great, symbolical, best answer for ever to the earnest and deep question of our Lord, as Theremin prays in the spirit of this reply : " Am I to turn away from Thee to myself, from the Infinite to the finite, from the Lord of heaven to a poor, sinful man ? Wherefore dost Thou ask this ? Why is it for me to give answer for myself? Why may not the question be left undecided ? Lord, Thou knowest all things, and this is my answer, like Thy servant Peter s. Thou askest what I should ask. Thou knowest whether Thou lovest Thyself in me. I cannot know myself." But this last goes too specu- latively beyond the simple yea of Peter. The Lord is perfectly contented with the answer, so perfectly that He admits the appeal without reply, not even confirming it by a word — Verily, I do know it; but the strongest confirma- tion follows by the commission given to the accepted love. It is the commission of the apostolical office generally ; not how- ever given alone to Peter and the Apostles absolutely, for every disciple in every age may in his degree take his part in it. But it has a particular significance for Peter ; it solemnly reinstates him in his full honour as first of the Apostles. It was said before — Upon thee, on this man of rock, I will build My Church ; but in this deeper crisis, and at this time of pro- founder feeling, that gentle and more penetrating figure is employed which the Lord's discourses had long ago taught the disciples to understand. Be thou henceforth, in thy first and most important place, the shepherd of My flock, as lam Myself! " He Himself is about to go from the world ; and therefore 238 RESTORATION OF PETER. needs under-shepherds :" thus much is true as to the deputyship upon earth, which the Lord hastening to His ascension once again appoints. After He had already confirmed and blessed the office under the figure of the taking of fish, He significantly changes the figure, and makes the pastoral follow the fishing employment. Thus must it be : for it is not enough that souls be caught in the net ; the kingdom will require that those who are won for Christ be pastured, taken care of, and defended, as sheep and lambs. What then is their pasture % Nothing else but the personal love of the great Shepherd Himself ; yet as it respects the under-shepherds it is the preaching and teaching of that grace and love of the great Shepherd which they have themselves experienced, and which has entered into their lives ; concerning that return of love in us which that makes us capable of offering, and constrains us to offer, from which everything else follows. Thus, altogether as in Lu. xxii. 32 (and referring to that) the Lord speaks : " Lead them back from their fall, as I have led thee ; strengthen their weakness, as I have strengthened thine ; so prove thy love to Me, to whom thou canst give nothing ; and repair through My grace the evil which thou hast done." Boa/ce ra apvia fiov — the Lord says the first time, changing it afterwards ; and there is the same relation between the two words as between wyairav and (f>i\elv. Certainly they are not used promiscuously ; and the literal repetition would have been more emphatic, if some distinction had not been here intended. 1 If only 7rp6j3ara is St John's word elsewhere, here apvia also is used, because there was something in our Lord' sown expressions with which St John would make his own word correspond. We cannot admit that it is merely " a more affectionate expression" (de Wette and Meyer) in these sayings of the Risen Lord, which, while they are pervaded with deep feeling, are most profound and significant in every word. In Lu. x. 3 we found some meaning in the interchange of apves and irpofBara. Even 1 Liicke says that they are self-evidently synonymous, and that the view which would distinguish them carries with it its own refutation. But such dogmatic assertions have no terror for us ; and the uncertainty of the read- ings proves only that, as the words are not understood by all now, sc was it in early times. JOHN XXI. 15-22. 239 the conjectural reading of Bellarmine for ver. 16, irpo^aria, (which is actually found in ver. 17, though probably inserted) deserves remark as also that the Vulg. has twice agnos, and finally oves. It may be that the 7rp6{3ara, having become the usual expression, was thrust into the place of the irpo^aria of the second : while this again was incorrectly restored to the third place. And so we should hold fast the plainest progression of the three diverse words, apvia, it po ft aria, TrpoftaTa; in favour of which (with Bellarmine against Ben gel, if that be permitted!) not only the literal Pesch. declares in its threefold *UpK — *3"ljr — "^li^, but also and very remarkably the passage of Ambrose on Lu. xxiv., who has agnos, oviculas, and oves, as well as that of Maximus, who distinguishes oviculas and oves (probably after TrpoftaTia had been lost). Did Liicke wilfully omit all this ? Has Luthardt nothing more to say against the reading than his mere appeal (by no means decisive) to the Codd. Alexandrinus and Ephraemi % Finally, 1 Jno. ii. 13 gives us a not unim- portant parallel, after we have found the beginning of such trichotomy in the gospel. 1 With this distinction further corre- sponds the interchange of fioaice and irotfiaive, 2 concerning which therefore something must be said at once. Bengel is here too concise and indefinite: " Boafceiv is part of the iroipLaiveiv '" for it may be asked at once — how ? Bocr/coo, related to irdopua^ is certainly the proper pasco in the sense of rpecpco, and hence is thus metaphorically used; comp. also fiocncecrOai, to be nourished, to live. On the other hand, ttoi/jlcilvcd, belonging definitely to 7roLfii]v, is rather parallel with vefico, and used metaphorically of governing. And that is a distinction most appropriate to our passage, which the revised German Bible now gives by the terms weiden and hilten. Thus, first, the care of the lambs is intrusted to the Apostle ; afterwards he is appointed to be the proper shepherd and guide of the sheep : thus not only for the care, but also for the guidance, of the flock. But that, in the third instance, (So cries ra 7rpoftara recurs, is capable of a very valid reason, if we are content to give up the idea of a vague 1 For the co-ordinate reference, at least, of this passage to spiritual age we will not surrender. The words of Jesus and John's profound reference mutually illustrate each other. 2 Which the Vulg. could not well express in the Latin. 240 RESTORATION OF PETER. general repetition, and seek for that deeper reason. The apvia in the beginnings of the spiritual life (comp. Isa. xl. 11 the pro- phetic parallel, which makes the distinguishing expression more probable) need pre-eminently nourishment, that they may grow and prosper; the growing up 7rpoj3aTia, on the other hand, 1 doubtless most need care and guidance ; finally, the adults need to be nourished with strong meat (as becoming as necessary), and this may be regarded as the last stage, and the most im- portant, in the shepherd's office (see 2 Pet. i. 12, 13, how solicitous the Apostle was in this). Yet it must be always borne in mind that they are not so much individual classes which are here designated in a threefold manner, as each Christian according to his threefold age : in each therefore the whole flock and church in this stage of its development. This justifies Draseke's render- ing of the first, " My little flock :" — comp. what was said upon Matt. xxvi. 31, 32 concerning the D^V)? in Zechariah. Again, with Lange : First, only the office of caring for the juvenile church ; then the office of leading the adult (more properly, the becoming adult) ; lastly, that of nourishing with spiritual food the whole bulk of the mature Church. Thus it is not, as Light- foot interprets, that the lambs are the Church from out of the Jews, still in its youth ; 2 although (according to Bengel) there may be reference on a large scale to three ecclesiastical periods, which were already represented during the life of Peter down to his martyr-death, and were then reproduced in wider history : in this, further, being included the three stages or classes of spiritual age co-existing in every period. There is no reference, as Gregory the Great and Bernard thought, to three stages of love corresponding to the former : there is but one uniform love which qualifies the shepherd to pasture, defend, and guide the lambs, or the mothers of the flock. That the Lord, looking at the commencement and first state 1 Or with Bengel, the dpuloc given over to the Kotpuiveiu. The sense would be the same, only that on account of 1 Jno. ii. 13 we prefer three nouns. 2 Or, with Sepp, who says : Both lambs and sheep, i.e., young and old, high and low, believers, with their rulers and bishops, are all alike to be ruled by thy staff ; and then (forgetting himself, as is very common with him) : the lambs being the proselytes, as it were the lambs of the Jews! JOHN XXI. 15-22. 241 of His flock, should first commit His tender lambs to be cared for, is very natural. They still are liable to fall, like Peter ; and need first to be fed with love by him whom love had cared for and lifted up. He who had so much reason to humble him- self should even on that account condescend to the little ones and the feeble : this is obviously the first point of connection. Although, again, spiritual age and the beginning of the Church is obviously first meant, yet we are justified in applying this text to children (for baptized children are really beginners in grace and the spiritual life), and in regarding it as showing that the school is a Church, trie teacher an under-shepherd appointed by Christ and responsible to Him, and the office of catechist the first step toward the apostolical ; and, moreover, as hinting that practice and exercise in the spiritual instruction of little ones is the best path to the pastoral office. For, with the same far- reaching glance onward to the conversion of the nations which we shall find in the words of Christ, Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, the pcedeutic and pcedagogic function of the pastor takes the place of the fishing for souls. Finally, it is not to be overlooked, for it has its manifold importance, that the Lord says definitely My lambs, My young sheep, My sheep. Thereby He testifies first His own authority and right as giving the vocation, when He appoints the shepherd over His own possession ; then, " as He commits to Peter the most precious thing which cost His blood, He gives him and challenges from him at once the greatest ex- pression of lover (v. Gerlach.) He sets before him, also (as in Acts xx. 28) that most weighty argument and impulse which must animate all pastors : — to love all that are His out of love to Himself ; and to regard them with reverence as the Lord's inheritance. My sheep, not thine 7 1 Yer. 16. Hahiv Sevrepov is genuinely Johannaean, as in ch. iv. 54 ; but here with emphasis, like ttoXlv i/c Sevrepov, Matt, xxvi. 42. Olshausen has well refuted the supposition of Tholuck that there had been other discourses which are unrecorded: "This certainly rests upon a misunderstanding ; for the immediate re- petition of the questions one after another produced that deep impression which it was the Lord's purpose to produce." We 1 How much better sounds in the Pulpit " Congregation of Christ !" than "My dear flock! 1 ' VOL. VIII. Q 242 RESTORATION OF PETER. think it in harmony neither with the text nor the nature of the case that more than one short pause should have intervened. The repetition was most impressive ; its expression at once affectionate and piercing ; de Wette's " spieland" however, is utterly repug- nant to our feeling in this sublime colloquy. Assuredly, Peter was surprised at the unexpected repetition of the question, before he could rightly appropriate to himself the commission given to him ; but he was not terrified or disturbed, because such a repetition might have a very gracious intention. In the omission of the "more than these" on our Lord's part we do not perceive, with Lange, a tone of increased doubt thrown into the question, as if the Lord would ask " whether he loved Him at all generally" (for such doubt thrown upon Peter's answer would have required the Lord to use His i\ei<;) ; we regard it rather as an accepting confirmation of that answer. " Thou hast understood Me ; thou hast abstained from any comparison of thyself with others, and this is well!" But yet it is the same fundamental, central question asked once more : and this, before we perceive in the third repetition the reference to the denial, has its inexhaustible meaning and importance. " All that the Saviour has for ever to ask of His own, all His dealings with their souls, come back at last to this word : this is the root-question, from which all others grow" (Albertini). Therefore also the Lord, as Draseke says, " deferred this con- versation until the meal was over, that it might form the concluding point of their intercourse; 1 and every disciple, deeply convinced that it is the Lord who gives the blessing, must come to the personal question, Is His love in my heart V Whatever may have passed between thee and thy Lord, it must issue in this result ; whatever dealings He may leave in store with thee, He sums all up in this one thing. Peter, with all his surprise, can rejoice that the Lord thus affectionately pauses upon his love ; but a third time somewhat alters the case ! Draseke says again quite rightly, " that the Lord in the second question, seizing the answer which Peter had given, points to the fulness of that which the answer affirmed — Dost thou indeed love Me?" He would say — 1 For ver. 18 is immediately connected ; but vers. 19-22 is somewhat further removed from the preceding, and spoken in specific confidence. JOHN XXI. 15-22. 243 Understandest thou truly all that this means? But when Draseke explains the meaning of the third question, " as asking whether his being was certainly and fully pervaded by that love, in the essential meaning of that great word — Hast thou such love to Me ? " he seems to trifle simply with the German translation. But it only seems so ; for, the thought is quite in harmony with the original, in which the personal internal affection of Peter is given back in the question by the use of his own (j)i\elv. The tenderly piercing word of our Lord could not have been intended to throw doubt upon his love, and thus trouble his soul; for it was designed rather to confirm his confidence and reinstate him fully in his office : — the Boaice and IIoLfjLacve are sufficient witnesses for this. Consequently Lange also is not correct : u He makes questionable the love of the disciple even in that more qualified sense, in which Peter had assured Him of it ; as if He would ask him — Dost thou even generally regard Me so highly, as thou say est?" But, although Peter had designed to qualify his expression the first and the second time (he could do no more than repeat the words the second time, for the Lord had done so) — yet the Lord intimates by His final <£t\et? fjue that He would receive this internal (j>i\elv as an intenser assurance : Art thou indeed so en- tirely Mine, and depending on Me as the branches on the vine ? A first question with epetv (certainly stronger than ayecv) must involve something specific in connection with the whither thou wouldst not, which mysteriously hints at, but leaves 1 Which historical sequence Luthardt also urges against the specific re- ference to the cross : he regards the prediction as that of " a violent death" generally. JOHN XXI. 15-22. 25? unspoken, the last word of the dark saying ; that is, this leading is to be finally fulfilled as a bearing or lifting up to or with the cross. 1 For it is not "opposed to the whole archaeology of crucifixion," that the victim bound to the recumbent cross should be Hf ted up with it, no bearing forth to another place being implied. But the three predictions of the stretching, the girding, and the leading may describe, as being merely generally combined, both the crucifixion and the imprisonment (and even also the internal, spiritual binding or crucifixion). 2 This would now be enough, were there not an ambiguity to be set right whioh has been wrongly understood. Who is that other, to whom Peter would stretch out his hands, who would gird him and lead him, bind him and carry him ? Lange, after having spoken of the " Apostle's devotion to his Lord" con- tinues : " And then will He gird him, determine his will ; He will decide his fate, and lead him whither he would not, to an exit from lif e which the will of his former being had most abso- lutely resisted, Matt. xvi. 22." This reference to Peter's former recoil from the cross of his Lord we cordially receive as a very suggestive combination ; but we cannot agree with this inter- pretation of the aXkos. Bleek also has independently come to the same exegesis : " Peter was told to expect that in his latter years another and a higher authority would direct his activity, and his preparation for it, by such energies as should be neces- sary" — strange inteq)retation of the £a) of Jno. xvii. 24 ; and even in Matt. viiL 3. it has already its full authority » 268 [RESTORATION OF PETER. itself was an explanation to Peter — The words refer to thy future dying or living ! Or, we prefer to think, it implies a presupposition, in Jesus' saying, that Peter had already under- stood what He had said concerning his death. Thus he is not to die until the Lord comes ! There is a very widely extended interpretation which understands — Until He should come to call him, to take him to Himself by death. 1 Augustine, Rupert, Beda, Maldonatus, support this view. Grotius : " As if the commander should say — What if I will that he remain on watch until I call him away?" and he then refers the whole to a death which should not be violent, like that of Peter, but without any human intervention " when Christ should decree the right time to have come." Klee, also : " Until I come to take him away by a gentle death." J. v. Muller : " By a natural death, like that of Moses, through the Lord's kiss of love." Olshausen and Lange are of the same opinion ; our Wiirtemberg Christiane Kapplinger also decides : " This is to be understood — If I will that this man should reach the term of life through My own will alone, and not according to the will of your enemies, what is there in this to hinder thine obe- dience?" But we adhere to the difficulty already referred to, and regard this exposition (which Hasse also has lately vin- dicated) to be altogether incorrect. First, does it bring out any actual contrast ? Did not the Lord in this sense come also to Peter, to take him away ? (For all that is said about violent and gentle death has nothing to do with the ep^ecrdai.) Indeed, another was the agent in his death, but certainly only according to the presupposed will of the Lord — can we suppose an ov Oekod of Christ in this case ? 2 Here we are at one with Liicke that it is " a meaningless thought, that the disciple should live until he died." But, secondly, what right have we to give such a meaning to ep^ecQai ? Reference has been made to Jno. xiv. 3, where we have acknowledged " the coming of Christ at the 1 According to Theophylact the pkvuy referred to a tarrying in Galilee — and " until I call him from this station, from this land !" 2 The same Lange S. 1719 strongly understands by the aAXo? the Lord Himself ; and in S. 1721 again — " Until I Myself come to fetch him home, in the providential arrangement of his natural death." Is not violent death a similar providential arrangement ? JOHN XXI. 15-22. 269 death of the faithful" as included in the meaning ; but that was only a part of the full meaning of the word, which goes onward to the great final return ; and here in the lips of the Risen Lord, who ever thinks and speaks as one about to ascend to heaven, the meaning is direct and obvious. He can mean nothing but the promised return of Him who had gone to heaven, the coming back again which is always expressed by this absolute word. This so definite expression also prevents us from explaining, with Meyer, the " more direct meaning of the mystery" — " I can call him to follow and remain /" For, as we have said, the fievetv is not so much opposed to the symbolically expressed a/coXovOelv, as to the dying which was intimated to Peter. How then ? John has long been dead by the sure testimony of history, and the last day is not yet come. Or are we to believe what Lavater is said not only to have believed, but to have learned like G. Muller by a visitation, and what many now believe, that the Apostle is really still alive ? * Then the final coming of Jesus is not meant. Is there then any other coming? Assuredly, according to the Synoptics, the Lord speaks of a first coming in the preliminary victory of His kingdom and judgment upon His enemies, of a typical mani- festation in the destruction of Jerusalem ; and in Matt. xvi. 28 we find a remarkable parallel, in which it is promised to some, as it is promised here, that they should not die until they had seen the Son of man coming in His kingdom. (Comp. Mark ix. 1.) Let it not be said that this is not the JoJianncean ep^eadav — St John's coming of Christ. As if this Evangelist had his own peculiar Christ ; as if we ought not to look in him for a perfect agreement with the words of the same Christ, which the Synoptics record ! Moreover, and as far as I know this has never been sufficiently noticed, it is very observable that that promise was given at the very time when Peter was 1 The legend about his breathing in the grave, susceptible of a beautiful application, is this "hoyog which St John refutes, reproduced in another form. See J. v. Muller's Lebensgeschichte (Werke vi. S. 34, 74, 106) for his appearances and the expectation that he would come again at the end of the days. So Banga (Wiederaufrichtung des Reichs Israel, S. 83) reckons him one of the Two Witnesses, Rev. xi. 3 ! 270 EESTOKATION OF PETER. rebuked, and pointed to the following of the cross ! This ex- pressed and repeated reminder makes in fact this exposition very probable. Thus it was understood in antiquity, as may be seen in Theophylact ; Draseke rests on it (whose keenly exe- getical sermons we have so often cited), and so also does Jakobi, with many others among the practical expositors. We may also underlay, if so disposed, a more Johannaean and general meaning still-; with v. Gerlach : " even to the consum- mation of the Church." But this exposition is altogether too in- definite for such a meaning, so that we must ask — How comes it here % We must understand and establish the chronological element in this ep%ecr0cuy to which the eiw? points special attention, 1 only by the parallel phraseology of the Synoptics. And we find here, finally, a very plain testimony that (to adopt the old canon of Muratori) St John, with the other Evangelists, wrote uno ac principali spiritu de gemino adventu — even re- ferring also to the twofold character of the second advent. 2 Finally, although we willingly acknowledge, on account of the parallel in Matt. xvi. 28, the reference to the catastrophe of Jerusalem, which John survived, and therefore saw the Lord's kingdom come with power, yet the matter does not seem ex- hausted or definitely settled by that reference. For — taking this very parallel into account — should not the Apostle John, as here contradistinguished from Peter, receive a promise which referred peculiarly to himself ? Can we suppose the Lord to have simply numbered him with those certain ones to whom the promise had already been given ? Thus the seeing of the Lord 1 B.-Crusius makes all too indefinite — " He was to see the victory of Christ's cause;" and again — " To him, the contemplative Apostle, an insight into the development of that cause is promised ! " And Liicke, admitting the manifest reference to His future coming to judgment, would understand the answer of Christ in the light of the notions which were then prevalent as to its near approach! If this is an actual answer of Christ Himself, such a thought is absolutely out of the question. 2 W. Hoffmann (Missionsfragen, i. 215) says : " There is but one word in the Gospel of St John (this one) which speaks of Christ's return, meaning neither the final judgment nor the spiritual coming through the Holy Ghost." In this we agree, but not with his further remark, that all the discourses of the Lord taken together give us no clear view of the dis- tinction between a second or intermediate coming and the final one. The distinction is in this passage clear enough. JOHN XXI. 15-22. 271 coming in His judgment (for to this end he was so long to re- main) seems still to indicate something exceptional for himself : — and who that holds the Apocalypse to be St John's (as it truly is !) would not think of that ? In this Apocalypse St John " beheld in these events the Lord's coming" — and can we think that " it was not meant directly or subordinately ? " (Luthardt.) We think that that in which a prediction is proved to be so perfectly fulfilled, must have been itself from the beginning in- tended. Shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, almost contemporaneously, but anticipating it, "came" the Lord for John, inasmuch as He manifested to him His coming, and made him the witness of the sublime Behold I come ! which pervades this entire Revelation. We will not extract the profound and exhaustive note of Bengel upon the e&)? ep^ofiat ; but we will refer to it, and without hesitation avow that we perfectly agree with it. Nothing but this last reference seems to us to corre- spond perfectly with the word of the Lord concerning John, because it alone altogether marks out his personality in relation to that of Peter. For the two personalities of Peter and John in this history and discourse are a type of universal significance : this sets the seal upon our understanding of the whole. Everything special in relation to these two disciples " becomes to us a universal, when we come to Christ, and thereby enter the circle of the disciples" — as Eudelbach excellently says. The historical per- sons of these Two — in this narrative and everywhere to the end — how sharply defined do they stand before us ! The common saying — in part justifiable, especially in relation to Jno. xix. 26, 27 — which makes John the disciple of love, does not hold good in any sense of contrast to Peter. — Here Peter is the loving, John the beloved, disciple ; although the former could love only as being loved, and the latter be loved only as loving. Peter is the acting, John the contemplative disciple — as is seen in ver. 7 of this narrative. Peter is energetic externally, John internally profound — therefore the former is restlessly moved, the latter inwardly still. The longer Peter lives, the more conflict and trouble is there in his work (as to Paul, also, who stands with him in this) — and finally the cross ! But to John is the wait- ing promised ; that is, assuredly, a still abiding and holding out 272 RESTORATION OF PETER. in the bloodless martyrdom of renunciation of the world ; less affected by the conflicts and tribulations of the age, he wanders calmly through all toward eternity. Peter is the beginning, John the end, of the Church and of the apostolical office ; to the former is the cross, to the latter the revelation, promised by the Lord. And that which Peter founds is maintained and consummated in its deepest meaning by John. And according to this are developed, as Lange says, a the two most essential fundamental characteristics of. Christ's government of His Church in this world, in the contrast of the Petrine and the Johanncean type of the Church." 1 The Johannsean type, that is, " exhibits the Church in her calm depth, in her eagle-like hovering above the world, in her spiritual, angelic concealment ; as she suffers indeed the deepest sufferings of Christ in her in- most life, but withdraws from the external persecutions of a rude world, not through unfaithfulness or avoidance of suffering, but through the heavenly purity and elevation of her nature." We may in a certain sense say that John is the " invisible Church" (as the doubtful word now runs) concealed still in the bosom of her Lord, abiding in her Patmos while the storms rage around. 2 But we must not, like Fikenscher, give up entirely the historical- personal reference of the word to John himself, and give it a merely my stical interpretation: — "This John, that is, the in- visible Church must remain until the Lord comes, that is, never die because it cannot die ! 3 Against all such hasty and super- ficial interpretation ver. 23 is directed, with its plain and direct reference to the word spoken for this disciple. That, on the other hand, is true in itself which Lange (S. u. k. 1839. i. S. 59, 60) intimates concerning the Johanncean Church which will 1 In this there is something much more deeply and essentially true than in our modern exaggerated notion of the Petrine and the Pauline in the history of the Church. 2 For the Seer testifies and will be seen and known ; the waiting for the future is present. The Johannsean element in the Church is — in opposition to Lange's view of an ideal, free, and eternal community — manifest and self -approving from the beginning. 3 In S. 208 Fikenscher makes the misunderstanding consist expressly in the assumption that Jesus spoke of a bodily death ! St John left it for the spiritual mind to perceive the spiritual and mystical interpretation. But the type would then be baseless, without historical foundation. JOHN XXI. 15 22. 273 become prominent at the end of the days, before the Lord properly comes. But this is nothing more than what many have from the beginning perceived, that the mystically deep doctrine and words of St John belong to a period of consummation ; that his Gospel, and still more his Apocalypse, was written for full un- derstanding in the future. This finally justifies the typical truth of the significant word of Jesus for the continued life of St John in the spirit, and for his breathing in his seeming grave. Yea, verily, our St John is never to be buried, or put to death, or bound; he continues to live — though it might appear in our time, only in a few poor books and minds — and testifies for the Church of the future, silently preparing herself for her revela- tion and work. Let every man think this out ! We only say further — re- turning to the practical details — Let every man take to himself the word which suits him ; either that which was given to Peter concerning the crucifixion of self-will which must be perfect — or the other promise to John, who was as willing to follow as Peter was, and silently prepared to do so, but for whom the Lord appointed another way. 1 And if any Peter — as often is re- peated — is tempted, in sympathising love to the soul of his brother John, blended with curiosity, to ask, Lord what for this man ? let him learn from the Lord's reply to meet his own cross in labour and suffering obedience, while others by his side go calmly to meet their revelation. — Whatever the Lord may have said during this manifestation after the word to Peter, is passed over by St John, who thus ends the apocalyptical supplement, and the gospel itself. There could scarcely have been much n ore said, for the " until I come" seems to be spoken just before another vanishing, which typified the final disappearance at the ascension. Yet we admit the probability of that which Ebrard crnfidently concludes, that the direction to meet Him on the 1 "John was earlier than the other disciples prepared for the death of martyrdom, as the most perfect sacrifice of obedience to God, and of love to God and man ; but that was the very reason why he was not to taste of a martyr's death. John consummated in his life and natural death what the martyrs sealed in their final sacrifice, namely, the victorious manifesta- tion of the love of God and man." So Christ. Kapplinger, who makes this also the reason why all endeavours to put him to a violent end were in vain. VOL. VIII. S 274 RESTORATION OF PETER. mountain, of which we hear nothing elsewhere, was given here at the sea of Tiberias. 1 The Gospel of St John ends, as we are convinced, with the subscription, ver. 24 down to ypdtyas ravra. — The ical olha^iev with all that follows we do not ascribe to the Evangelist himself, but to the, as it were, countersigning Church. The seal of her testimony to the historical truth is first impressed in a dignified and weighty manner by the fiapTvpla avrov, and in the aXrjOrjs €gtlv the seal of her higher internal assurance of truth as matter of faith. But then (to show the distinction) the artless olfiac of supposition (an expression impossible to St John !) reproduces the first conclusion of ch. xx. 30, in an intensification of a much lower character, though not without its depth of meaning. 2 " This conclusion does not speak in a manner so altogether un- intelligently exaggerated" — in this Luthardtis right ; neverthe- less the authentic conclusion of the Evangelist himself is in much purer style, and in a higher sense pregnant in meaning. Lange brings out only the lesser and negative side of it when he says how characteristic it is " that St John should close his gospel with a word which removes the taint of the dishonouring legend from his own person and life, in order to exhibit his own image in that simple glorification which the light of the word of Christ prepares for him." " The disciple who wrote these things" stands, rather, in the shade by the side of the prominent Peter, in order that this retirement into the background may become, through the interpreting word of Christ, a sacred obscurity out of which the voice of love and fellowship may resound into the ears of all such souls as John's, and of the whole Johannsean Church : — So let us bear witness, faithfully hold fast the word 1 There are other suppositions possible, but not what Pfenninger imagines, that the Lord several times appeared to various disciples expressly to give them this invitation. 2 Not in monstrous hyperbole — as Grimm speaks in unholy hyperbole himself ! According to Hamann St John here spoke the truth of his heart — If he had written only as a man, he might never have left off writing! And, according to Weitzel — Enough now ! for absolute completeness is a thing humanly impossible to be achieved ; '* with something like an in- disposedness to much writing, as being not a man of letters, but of Christian deeds." This is a matter of feeling ; such a turn as this is most offensive to our feeling as the closing word of an Evangelist. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 275 and history of the Lord, tarrying and waiting for His coming ! Compare the same conclusion as the seal of the whole of Scrip- ture, Rev. xxii. 20, 21. St John knew full well that and in what way the word of the Lord had been fulfilled in His own person. He leaves it, however, in sacred obscurity, that he may not speak more concerning himself, but point onward by this word of further application to its own progressive and continual fulfil- ment. The final tl 7rpo? ae is written also for all Petrine one- sided misunderstanding of the Johannaean spirit and life. THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES : MISSION, BAPTISM, PEEACHING. (Matt, xxviii. 18-20 ; Mark xvi. 15-18.) Here we have two more gospel-conclusions, and the end draws near. We shall afterwards see that St Mark sums up the final XaXelv of the Lord in a manner historically indefinite ; but St Matthew, giving only a hint of the intervening appearances of Jesus, hastens according to his design to the great manifesta- tion upon the mountain in Galilee ; which, although not the last at His ascension, was the most solemn and the most decisive of all, inasmuch as it included the final commission and promises for the foundation of His kingdom, and the establishment of His Church. Though Mark xvi. 15-18 is most probably the historical parallel, we shall for the sake of clearness and cer- tainty expound the text of St Matthew, and then supplement if by reference to that of St Mark. In vers. 7 and 10 "the mountain" was not specified, as it is in ver. 16 ; consequently the " appointed" refers to an interme- diately received and more definite commandment, which could scarcely have been a mere mediate appointment through others. Thus here we have St Matthew's hint that he does not record all the Appearances. What mountain this was we know not. Whether the probably false tradition, which appropriates the earlier transfiguration to Tabor, was derived, as Lange thinks, from this present event and this mountain being confounded with that former one, we will not pause to inquire ; nothing can be 276 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. established as to the name of the mountain, nor can any specific connection with the history of the Transfiguration, as Hess en- deavours to trace it, 1 be determined. More important is the question whether, as St Matthew seems to say, only the Eleven were present : and we are fully persuaded that it was not so, but that the Appearance here recorded was that which took place before five hundred brethren at once, 1 Cor. xv. 6. With- out any artifices 2 of exposition, it is plain at the outset that according to ver. 7 a manifestation of Jesus to a large number at once (as again in ver. 10 quite generally to the Lord's bre- thren, see on John xx. 17), and even for the women, was expressly promised. As by the mention of the mountain in Galilee the Evangelist himself refers us now to these directions of our Lord, the prominence given to the Eleven — ol Be ev8e/ca — loses in its connection all appearance of exclusiveness ; and we must at least supplement it thus — They went to the place which Jesus had appointed to them in common with all the rest. Thus we find this highest and central manifestation foreprepared in St Mat- thew : by the promise of Jesus before His death, ch. xxvi. 32 — by the direction of the angel, ch. xxviii. 7 — by the Lord's confirmation, ch. xxviii. 10. Now follows at length the fulfil- ment. St Paul most expressly attests the fact of such a general assembly ; and can we suppose that the Evangelists collectively would have kept silence about such an Appearance ? Not with- out purpose was the Lord's specification of a mountain, as a scene befitting so large a number. Further, the evident so- lemnity of the discourse, vers. 18-20 (yea, ver. 17 itself, as we shall see) was appropriate, as our feeling must admit, only to such a larger assembly as would represent the entire disciple- ship. It is for this reason that St Matthew gives such promi- nence to this manifestation, which actually possessed that cha- racter of finality and farewell with which it is here at the close of all invested. That he gave such prominence to the Eleven 1 He thinks that both occurrences were certainly on the same mountain ; for there it is wwruu fori ttjooVw^-ov, here xpoaKvuiiv ; there fear, here doubt ; irpoa&dav parallel in both. So Matt. xvii. 9 is interpreted in such a way as to make it probable that the disciples would say — We saw Him here thus transfigured before ! 2 As the conjecture of Michaelis : 0/ ds hhxcc ko.1 oi pccfaroii. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 277 as the u leaders of the discipleship," as the Apostles, whose com- mission and promises were now chiefly concerned, was perfectly natural ; for he apprehended no misunderstanding of his account, as standing in such connection, and being the matter of such living tradition. We agree with Olshausen, that this great assembly of those who were gathered together by the Eisen Shepherd from their dispersion, this solemn assembly announced so long beforehand, promised in such various ways, and at last appointed by the definition of the precise place, " included, it may be supposed, all who were at that time believers in the Lord." That is to say, so far as it was possible to gather them together in one place. And that He should show Himself to this little existing Church as Risen, was a grace which was to be expected from the Lord. We do not indeed say with Hess, as if He was still subject, as before, to the conditions of time and space, " He could not visit them all individually !" But we regard this meeting with all in one assembly, instead of such individual visitations, alone worthy of our Lord's dignity, and suitable to the nature of the case. Kinkel, the denier of our Lord's ascension after an interval of forty days, regards the meeting mentioned by St Paul to have been composed of too large a number for times preceding the Pentecost, and would therefore place it as far forward as pos- sible. This of course is consistent with his preconceived views, but is utterly destitute of all grounds. In tins view the doubting of ver. 17 (comp. ch. xiv. 31) will cause us no difficulty. We need neither assume, with Beza, ovSe instead of ol Be ; nor, according to a later theory (St. u. Kr. 1843. i. 124) read hearaaav or Stearrjaav, as if the saying re- ferred to an amazed separation of some from the rest, instead of joining in the irpoo-fcvvelv. It does, indeed, appear unima- ginable that any of the Eleven Apostles should have doubted, especially after all that St Luke and St John have so expressly recorded. But St Matthew is not thus to be understood ; he gives us, as Ebrard rightly says, an intimation in this circum- stance that many others were present with the Eleven. The irdgaro avroU itself, after all the antecedents, was much more general, and meant not of the Eleven only; connecting his words with this he continues by ol 8e without any previous flip, 278 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. instead of rivh Be, as we confidently assume, with Fritzsche and Winer — quite similar to Matt. xxvi. 67. The argument which has been brought against this is baseless ; particularly is that one baseless which is derived from the fact that " irpoaicvvelv is to be understood only of bodily prostration," and that that alone was matter of scruple ! It is simply thus : The Eleven espe- cially (and many with them), when they saw Him, worshipped (irpoo-e/cvvrjo-av, the avrco may be spurious), that is, they fell down in adoration (since it certainly includes more than ver. 9 pre- viously) ; but some, who are marked as relatively few by the ol Be, doubted. Doubted what ? We say with Ebrard, " not whether Christ was risen, but only whether this was the Christ, manifesting Himself." For although they had followed the summons to the mountain, and had been in the company of the Apostles and brethren who had already seen the Lord, they might when they themselves saw Him first, especially if stand- ing at a distance, a distrust their eyes" in astonishment ; or fail to believe at once, simply through wonder and joy. 1 This is in the highest degree natural, and a trait of great significance in the very short account of St Matthew : he does not by any means " leave a sting in the minds of his readers at the close of his Gospel;" but testifies the glory of this manifestation of our Lord, and the benignity with which He condescended to glorify Himself in blessing before the weaker, nay the weakest of His disciples. 2 Jesus came down, that is, nearer to them, more close to the 1 Hasse : " For the moment (Aor.) they vibrated between assurance and doubt whether it was He." But he makes this the result of the glorified form in which the Risen Lord appeared. 2 Grotius violates the text when he translates — They had (earlier, hitherto) doubted; and even Jul. v. Muller says — They doubted until He came, not afterwards. But if they had come as doubters, where would be the anti- thesis to " worshipped ; " why did not these convinced doubters at once fall down before Him like Thomas ? To think of any scruple as to the measure of honour due to Christ, and understand the o«t«^;j» as meaning a doubt whether He should be the object of wpooxvvuv (as Lange does, finding here " the first elements of the Ebionite mind"), and further to regard the Lord as answering that doubt in ver. 18, assuring them that they were right in worshipping Him — all this is altogether alien to the spirit of the passage. Thus much is true, that the sublime words which followed would be sufficient without further evidence to take away all doubt as to the identity of this MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 279 circle or half-circle which gathered around Him : this and His great words were sufficient to remove all doubt. Pfenninger (whose general delicacy of feeling is not without its exceptions) very improperly imagines that "He walked graciously around among the multitude, addressed many special words to individuals, approached this man and that with hints and words of love which suppressed the risings of involuntary doubt." Such too confiden- tial demeanour towards them is not in harmony with His Appear- ances generally, and certainly not with this one in particular ; we must entirely refrain therefore from all such details. UpoaekOtov — ikaXrjaev — Xeycov are inseparably connected in the majesty of this appearance ; and this decisive TrpoaekOav forbids us to find here in the following words of St Matthew (as in St Mark) anything like a compendious summary of the Lord's discourses, previously and subsequently spoken. This confuses the whole scene, takes away from the word which was delivered its im- mediate historical truth, and is contrary to the express testi- mony of the Evangelist. Even St Mark, who does thus compendiously unite ch. xvi. 15 with ver. 14, only gives us what was spoken upon the mountain in Galilee, at this great manifes- tation ; we must not so misunderstand ver. 19 in his account as to make it a confusion of this mountain with the Mount o c Olives! 1 All power is given unto Me in heaven and upon earth. What a word is this ! What a greeting! What a founda- tion for all that follows ! This is far more than a government of teaching, which heaven needs not. Upon earth He is King, Lord, Saviour ; hath power over all flesh to give life (Jno. xvii. 2) — over all sinners to save them — over nature, that all its powers may serve Him and His people (see Mark) — that this earth, upon which He stands, may thus become heaven. In heaven, whither He will shortly go, all things are similarly subject to Him for the manifestation with the Risen Lord ; as Bengel in his Germ. N. T. remarks, " Those were set right by what follows" — better than in his Gnomon, " the Pentecost took away whatever doubt might remain." 1 As in the Gr. Evang. Nicod. the ascension takes place on this Galilaean mountain. 280 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. service of His kingdom upon earth ; especially has He power te send down from above His Spirit in holy influence and govern- ment : — hence iv ovpavw, as the origin, ground, and seat of His dominion, must come first. As to His government over all the nations upon earth (which are presently mentioned) the word refers back to Dan. vii. 13, 14, where it is |tj?'f, Sept. dpxn — here, more comprehensively, as including heaven, igovala. (Otherwise the commencement there 3rp rb\ — koX avrS iSodrj perfectly corresponds with iBoOrj fioi.) All power even in heaven : that goes still further and higher, contains literally in the briefest and sublimest words what apostolical teaching after- wards developed from them, Eph. i. 20-22, Col. ii. 10, 1 Pet. iii. 22, etc., concerning the exaltation of the Son of Man, grounded upon the resurrection, but completed in the ascension which necessarily belonged to it. All the angels worship Him, even as man upon earth ; the Father alone is excepted, who hath given to the Son this power, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. So also in hell, in the kingdom of death under the earth, whence the Eisen Lord hath come, He hath all power ; but He includes this latently in the eVt 777? (speaking according to Gen. i. 1), because He is going on to speak of the founding of His kingdom upon earth ; because He leaves out hell as, although still existent, yet to be destroyed in His victory : and because He is about to pro- claim the way of salvation and grace only for those upon the earth. This is the meek and lowly Son of Man, who attributes to this His own human person, as it stands humanly before the eyes of the disciples, Divine power over all the world, and there- fore Divinity. 1 "The mightiest Prince of earth knows well that he only for a short space has a piece of the earth's surface under his sway: — and this Jesus of Nazareth, who had not where to lay His head, says — To Me is given all power in heaven and upon earth !" (Schonaich.) For the time, after having bowed His head upon the cross and lifted it up again, He only walks with His feet upon earth, His head is already on high. Yet He qualifies, as it was fit, the greatness of this word in a 1 In connection with ver. 17, as Zinzendorf paraphrases : " It must be so ; with all My lowliness I must declare it, that all creatures in heaven and earth may fall down before Me, that ye may bow your knees : It must be so — I am He!" MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 281 human mouth by the 'EBodrj — is given — which in the humility of His majesty is necessarily placed first. He might indeed, according to John x. 18 and xvii. 5, have said — I now take back My Divine power over heaven and earth : but He speaks otherwise in order to express, as Draseke says, that " it had not been assumed, enforced, or wrongly obtained" — the Father as the real Giver hath given it to Me. He gave it already from eternity to the eternal Son, as we have read also in Matt. xi. 27. But now also in His humanity, as the God-man, which scholastic term, though it was beyond Scripture, is nevertheless almost literally contained in this saying (as well as in Col. ii. 9). This iSodr) regards the ascension as already come, as if it was spoken on His departure ; but we must not, with Kinkel, press the word too far, and assume that it must already have taken place. Nor must we, like von Gerlach, contradict the Scripture and say that " the resurrection of Jesus, and not His ascension, was His en- trance into the new, eternal, Divine, and heavenly life, as in it all power in heaven and upon earth was already given to Him." Luther's translation has well expressed the sense by the there- fore ; the ovv 1 is not genuine, but an excellent gloss, as express- ing the real connection between ver. 18 and ver. 19. Yes, verily, therefore — because I am the Lord, all power is Mine ; go forth and bring all into subjection to Me ! It cannot be other- wise, this must in the end take place. (Meyer's note : " I am the Ruler of the world ; therefore faith in Me must conquer.") Pfenninger's words are very restrained, " Thus He would be the Teacher and Master of all peoples," and he derives this from the Lord's words being not virord^are — subject — but fiadrjrev- aare — teach ; but we understand from St Mark's plainer words that He is more than a Teacher and Master, that He is also the King and the Judge. Now, indeed, it is His will that the word of faith should offer all men salvation. 2 Therefore this supreme Potentate, who will not as yet otherwise exert His power, sends such messengers among the nations — " He attaches the exercise of His saving authority to the ministry of their word." (As 1 Instead of which we must not put uvu. 2 To offer repentance and remission of sins (Lu. xxiv. 47) — which Lange calls the " calm, gentle, Divine-human, and spiritual character of His power." 282 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. some one has said, but we would add : He does not altogether attach the exercise of His power to that alone.) Uopevdevres, Go ye ! This has here in its wide glance over all nations a mighty emphasis, and says to the Apostles in person especially, but also to those who should continue their uncom- pleted mission with the same office and commission, and to the whole missionary Church as such, that there must be no pause or restriction, no rest or satisfaction with anything that is won, until the word of the kingdom is carried over all the earth. See what has been already said upon the preliminary and similar Go ye and preach, Matt. x. 7 ; this holds good now in a much more comprehensive sense of the progressing, penetrating, unresting, unlimited character of the Christian Church and its messengers, ministers, representatives, who must extend it everywhere, and everywhere establish its new foundations. 1 Israel never in the Old Testament received such a commandment to go forth ; not till its last dispersion before Christ was a hind of mission among the Gentiles pretypified and foreprepared. (But see, on the other hand, what was said upon Matt, xxiii. 15, of self-originating, arbitrary, and premature mission-work.) Make disciples (concerning which significant fiaOr^Tevetv we must speak presently at length) — as ye now are My disciples, in order that many, many may become what ye have become (Acts xxvi. 29). By this it is proleptically presupposed that these disciples themselves are to be made perfectly such through the Spirit after the ascension ; it is not, as is sometimes said, that they are ideally considered to be so already. And now this word implies that every one who assumes this commission to himself, is imperatively required to become such a perfect disciple. — And whom are they to make disciples — whom are they called and com- missioned to endeavour at least, with all their might, to convert, if so be they may succeed ? All peoples ! What a word is this from His mouth, upon this Galilsean mountain, and spoken to this little company surrounding the Lord of heaven and earth ! What a task ! We cannot say at once with Neander, that the Lord here " reminded them anew of their calling to proclaim the Gospel among all nations, and incorporate men of all races into 1 Travelling Preachers — means more than preaching Travellers, as Lange excellently remarks. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 283 His fellowship and community by baptism ;" for where had He said this so plainly and decisively 1 By hints and in presupposi- tions this had been many times spoken of ; it was intended in the mission of Jno. xx. 21 ; but now first does He openly declare it as the commission of all who belong to Him and are His depen- dents. Mark — not merely the Apostles! But we say once more : Even if ten thousand surrounded Him, reckoning among them the best of the world's wise and great — What a task ! The wisdom and power of the whole combined world is far too weak to win one man to the discipleship of our Lord Christ ; and this whole world is itself first to be won. Without ver. 18 preceding, ver. 19 would be an inconceivable thing ; therefore He placed it first — To Me is the power given, and in tins power I send you not in vain ! To Me, not to those who are called the apxpvres rod Koa/jLov in any sense, who pervert their physical or spiritual power against My kingdom, who, alas, will in future time refuse to learn of Me what is the true i^ovata, and what its proper use. Nevertheless to Me is the power for ever given over and against them, but on behalf of all who will learn and submit. Satan, the highest Koo-fjLOfcpdTcop with his spirits, tongues, serpents, poisons, diseases, shall not hurt or hinder you, because ye go forth in the power which I promise and give over to you. How are we then more strictly to understand wdvra to, edvrj — all nations ? Certainly all the Gentiles are first meant, so that the limitation of ch. x. 5, 6 is now expressly withdrawn. This contains, therefore, a strong and absolute protest against that philosophy of nature and history which represents that the races of mankind must struggle through ages of progression into the " development of a perfect religion," to the out-birth of the " God-man." The measure of truth which is in all these specu- lations (and which we do not deny) found its realisation when the fulness of time was come, after heathenism had run through its pedagogic course before the appearance of Christ ; and the same may hold good in the dispensation of the Gospel as a peda- gogic and long-forbearing dispensation, during which the mis- sion among the heathen only by degrees reaches its consumma- tion. But we must maintain and hold fast that all nations were essentially ripe for the Gospel when the Lord uttered His " dis- ciple all nations ;" and the Missionary Church has never since 284 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. had authority to say concerning any people of the earth that it must wait, or, without the Lord's own prevention (as in Acts xvi. 6), to deny to it the Gospel. This great and decisive word impels us rather to perpetual new endeavours ; it commands us to announce a manifested and present salvation in places and among people where the abominations of fetish superstition have assumed developments removed to the very utmost from the spirit of the Gospel. Our lofty confidence that nations may, by our preaching, make the one leap from the lowest to the highest, may appear in the eyes of that speculation sheer folly j 1 but our faith knows that the Lord of heaven and earth has the right, and that the true God-man, come down from above, knows the races of men which are prepared for Him and are His possession. There has been an echo to the truth ready to respond in every human heart since the Fall ; a power against Satan, who holds the nations in fetters, a grace and gift of redemption, which can outrun all natural processes of develop- ment, has never been wanting since the Redeemer has gone up and obtained His gifts even for the rebellious. He is now Himself the way, and the end of the way, in one. So much concerning the Gentiles, of whom the eOvrj leads us of course first to think. But as to Israel ? We find a very in- correct interpretation of the word current, which Helferich has reproduced : " The loss of the Jews was to be the good of the Gentiles ; the unbelief of the Jews was to result in the faith of the Gentiles. Israel had rejected the Saviour altogether. Jesus had said to the house of Jacob — My peace be with you ! but the children of the house had proved unworthy of that peace; His disciples were to cast the dust off their feet, and preach the Gospel to all the Gentiles instead!" As if this commandment of the Lord was already and at once similar to that afterwards given in Acts xxii. 18, 21, which itself is to be interpreted only in harmony with Rom. xi. 13, 14. Although many from the beginning have thus strangely understood the 1 Comp. my Keryktik, 2te Aufl. S. 100. Let such books as Wuttke's History of Heathenism be studied, that we may understand how the Divine power which appoints that the Gospel should be offered at once to all nations is opposed to this theory of a self-developing organism of human seeking and striving in error. MATTHEW XXVIH. 18-20. 285 word €0vr], it is nevertheless absolutely false. As if here already, before the Pentecost, before their judgment, the Lord had un- conditionally given up Israel ! In fact, Israel is now and for all the future included among the nations, as St Mark's parallel " into all the world" shows, and here also the preceding " and in earth." According to Lu. xxiv. 47, the preaching among all nations was to begin at Jerusalem ; according to Acts i. 8 they were to be His witnesses to Jerusalem, and throughout Judasa and Samaria, and thence to the ends of the earth. And with similar comprehensiveness Simeon had spoken in the beginning of the New Testament, Lu. ii. 31, 32. But it is in the highest degree significant that in this wide glance Israel, unclothed of his prerogative, is no longer specifically named, is merged in the new and universal edvo? which is the election of God (Acts xv. 14), and included among all the edvrj of the earth. There is nothing here of the law of Moses, in the place of which is now all that Jesus had commanded, ver. 20 ; nothing of the covenant and circumcision as its sign, the place of which (let us mark it well beforehand, we shall find it needful !) baptism takes. 1 The disciples did not indeed enter into the calling of the Gentiles ; but the argument deduced therefrom by the recent enemies of the faith, that Jesus never could have laid such a command upon His Apostles, is a wilful perversion. For (as Ebrard briefly replies) " they did not doubt whether Gentiles generally were to be received into the Church, but only whether this was possible without previous circumcision. What their thoughts were as regards the Gentiles generally, see Acts viii. 26, etc., and xi. 20, etc." As it respects the Jewish mission, the great Apostle of the Gentiles has most expressly witnessed by word and deed that it must go on parallel with that to the Gentiles to the end of the age, inasmuch as God has not rejected His people ; and not only so, but that the great goal exhibited in prophecy, and so ardently longed for, is after all the work among the Gentiles, finally to be expected. (Eom. xi. 13, 14.) And baptize them! This brings us to the institution of the other sacrament, which will detain us long ; but before we go 1 The first Gospel, written expressly for Jews, declares in wisdom only this word ; St Luke, on the other hand, presents to the Gentiles the abid- ing honour of Jerusalem, the kingdom of Israel yet to be expected. 286 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. further, a sound exegesis demands that we rightly translate ^laOrj- r ever are, and establish its true connection with ficnrTl&VTes. The old rendering of the Vulg. by docete, which has held its place in our popular translation, has created for the most part only misunderstanding and obscurity ; although nothing can be more plain than that in the original itself the fiaOvreveov cannot pos- sibly be one and the same with the subsequent StBdaKeLv ; and that fiaTrTityvTes equally with Si&ao-fcovres must be an element in the previous comprehensive /laO^revaare. MaOrjrevo) means first, discipulus sum alicui, as in Matt, xxvii. 57 ; and then, as here, I make another a disciple, see Acts xiv. 21, and Matt. xiii. 52. If in the latter passage the co-ordinate idea of instruction, of the receiving and possession of knowledge, is prominent ;* and if in Acts xiv. 21 also a evayyeXio-d/nevoi ttjv ttoKlv Ikuvj)v pre- cedes the fAaOrjTevo-avres Uavovs ; all this makes the two things clear — that one who has become a fia07]Trj<; in its perfection has learned from the Master ; and that a general KTjpvacreLv must precede as a condition the making all nations into disciples. But this K7]pvcr(T€cv is by no means on that account the subse- quent hthdartceiv for those who are received as beginning and actual fiaOrjral ; least of all are we to seek merely in instruction for the /jLa07)T€veiv which is preliminary and introductory, and so translate — Teach the people, all the individuals of all nations, each one for himself, that and in what manner they must be- come My disciples ! The English Bible has retained " teach," but says more accurately in the margin — Make disciples or Christians of all nations ; and Wesley in his New Testament boldly forms the new word — Disciple all nations — as it has been similarly expressed by our old expositors, " quasi discipu- late. ,y Suffice it that the word must retain its full and compre- hensive meaning, and not be confounded with mere preaching or mere teaching ; that exegesis is alone right which construes the word with what follows, and makes the two following par- ticiples subordinate to the one Imperative. Nitzsch (Prakt. Theolog. i. S. 214) says far too little of this exposition — "it may indeed be defended" — for, in fact, every other may be surely refuted. Olshausen says with good reason that the con- 1 And /ux0y}T£vsiu does indeed occur with this specific meaning, e.g. Igna- tius ad Rom. a, [Aocd'/irtvourig hriKhttQi. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18 287 struction admits nothing else than that the two participles are the constituents of the fMaOrjreveiv. So Lange : " Make all nations into disciples ! And how is this to be accomplished ? First, by baptizing all who are to be taught in infancy — and then by teaching the same. 1 The first general direction em- braces the whole ; it declares their whole vocation." This exposition, although (it may be, by accident) we do not find it in antiquity, is not properly speaking new, for it is perfectly obvious. It has long been urged, as we shall see, in favour of infant baptism. Bengel : fjLadrjreveiv is to make disciples, and embraces baptism and teaching in this place. Olshausen, consequently, is right when he says : " The pas- sage has been evidently misunderstood by those who have re- garded the fjLadr)T€va6r)rrj^, who may and will learn more. So Bengel compares Jno. iv. 1, p.aQ^rd^ ttoiu koli fiairri^eL. The "teaching to observe all things" brings first the consummation of the discipleship, and it is made a subordi- nate member of the sentence as parallel with the baptizing : thus the great and comprehensive iiaOyreveiv — disciple — em- braces the whole up to that consummation of discipleship. We MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 289 may say preparatorily (before we come to infant-baptism), and with exegetical propriety, that it must depend upon the closer relations and necessity of the case whether the baptizing or the teaching should rather take the precedence ; the ivord here de- cides nothing on that question. 1 All this will come in order, but now first for the word Baptize ! None of our readers will be disposed to hold with the Quakers and Socinians, who either give an internal, spiri- tual meaning to this baptize, 2 or refuse to perceive in it any ordinance for future times. 3 For what the well-known word meant from the time of John the Baptist, the Apostles must have understood also ; and in that sense alone could they have received it. If the general commandment in Matt, was not sufficient to establish the permanent obligation of this baptism by water, indubitable testimony is borne by Mark xvi 10. God had from the times of the Gentile and Jewish washings pre- pared the way gradually for the expressive symbol ; the baptism of proselytes (a custom existing most certainly, as Schnecken- burger shows, at that time, and essential to the consideration of the question) was the point of connection for the first express commandment of God to John, to do with the Jews as they were 1 Not therefore so decisively on the other side as many old defenders of infant-baptism used to assert, e.g. J. Winkler : " The Lord prescribes two means for the (tctfaTivuv, the fix^rri^siv in respect to the little ones, the oihxuKnu in respect to the adults ! " Where then would be the institution of the first mission-baptism for adults ? 2 Only the one baptism of Christ, Eph. iv. 5, remaining as being valid, but not being a baptism with water, 1 Pet. iii. 21. The water was done away with the symbolical baptism of John ; and that Matt, xxviii. 19 must be understood of water-baptism is the petitio principii which has caused the universal error of the Church ! 3 The Lord appointed, to wit, such ordinances for the sake of those who first passed from heathenism to Christianity, because " at that period some external rite was necessary for their initiation," as now in our missions. Accordingly, it is made a question whether Christ did not mean by bap- tism a dipping into instruction, a mere teaching. So Socinus de Bapt. Hence, in the Racov. Catech. Qu. 333 : " What is thy faith touching the water of baptism ? That it is the external rite by which men coming from Judaism or heathenism to Christianity publicly professed that they ac- knowledged Christ as Lord." And Qu. 546 : " Are infants capable of this rite ? By no means. For there is no command or example in Scripture, etc., etc." VOL. Till. T 290 BAPTISM. accustomed to do with the Gentiles} And this commandment of God, as we may thus establish, did not belong to the transi- tory ordinances of the Old Testament ; but it was a type and commencement of the New-Testament sacrament. The Lord Himself had submitted to baptism, and had further baptized by His disciples. When, therefore, He, to whom was given all power in heaven and earth, appointed in Divine authority a baptism for the future Church to be gathered from all nations — who can otherwise understand it than as we find it imme- diately afterwards in the apostolical history ? As He had for- merly prophesied in Jno. vi. concerning the Supper, so also He had prophesied to Nicodemus, ch. iii. 5, and with evident refer- ence to the baptism of John, concerning the water which He would retain, establish, and consecrate as the medium of entrance into His kingdom : — see what was said upon that passage. 2 Thus here at His departure, when He (as even Lutz is obliged to admit) " certainly introduced only the most essential ordinances," He appoints thereby once more an exter- nal "Do this;" but infuses into it a power and a promise, spiritual, divine, and proceeding from His glorified life. Let it be observed in all simplicity that the Supper and Baptism are the only two commandments and ordinances connected at the same time with an external thing, which He leaves behind to His Church ! As those who already belong to Him, being His disciples, and who are already purified by a first washing away of sin, remember Him and partake of Him in the sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper, and at the same time in confession are thereby to show forth Him and His death — so was it neces- sary that the young discipleship should have an external mark of their acceptance into it. Although this baptism must of course, according to the power and reality of the New Testa- 1 Only thus can we understand the baptism of John according to its point of connection and significance. A later introduced baptism of proselytes, which would have been partly a protest against John, partly a mockery of the Christians, is therefore quite inconceivable ! 2 Socinus asserts : " No man, though the most bitter defender of water- baptism, can doubt that such baptism must be excluded here, where water is required as essentially necessary to salvation." He then explained Ig vlctrog of repentance, though inconsistently admitting the validity of the external rite in the two Evangelists, notwithstanding their aa^atrctt. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 291 ment, bring much more than a mere nota professions or sign of profession. And it is more than and different from the baptism of John, which indeed, like the Baptist and preacher of repentance him- self, stood in the middle transition between the two Testaments, demanded not merely a symbolical but a real repentance, prepa- ratorily communicated a forgiveness of sins through the Coming One to the penitent, though by no means the Holy Spirit unto the full new birth. 1 Thus that was no Sacrament ; but the baptism which Christ now appoints, is. Calvin zealously de- fended, though by specious arguments easily refuted, the perfect similarity between the Christian baptism and that of John the Baptist ; 2 the old Lutheran divines, also, from Gerhard down- wards, were of the same opinion. But this will not mislead those who on other and sufficient grounds understand the ques- tion differently, and who cannot reconcile themselves to such an unjustifiable blending of the preparatory, prophetic, commencing usage, to which repentance and the first forgiveness of sins be- longed, with the Sacrament of the new birth for full incorpora- tion into the Church of Christ, which brings with it the Holy Ghost. For, as v. Meyer writes on this subject : " The kingdom of heaven, for which the Baptist dedicated the people, lay yet in the obscure future. This much only took place, that the sinner longing for grace obtained a more definite and spiritual conviction of that for which his heart longed. The consolation was as yet always prophetic ; 3 the person baptized might assure 1 Thus the distinction is certainly not as represented in Melancth. Loc Com. — not rectissime but contrary to Scripture : " The baptism of John was termed a baptism of repentance ; Christ's baptism — a baptism for the re- mission of sins ! " 2 Institt. lib. iv. cap. xv. § 7, 8. He very easily despatches Matt. iii. 11, for the servants of the Lord even now only present the water. "What beyond that could the Apostles do ? and those who baptize now ? They are, forsooth, the ministers of the external sign, Christ the author of the in- terior grace." For he knows nothing of the sacramental connection between the now first given Spirit of regeneration and the water. Oetinger also strikingly errs, when he (Theol. ex idea vitee, p. 328) only makes a distinc- tion according to " the degree " though " the grace is alike," and even says • u John baptized into the Father and into the Spirit, as well as into Christ : because he baptized into the remission of sins." 3 Assuredly so, rightly understood ! For even that forgiveness of sins to 292 BAPTISM. himself of a participation in the coming kingdom of the Messiah ; bnt the true purging of the conscience and pacification of the soul was not yet come. We are not baptized with the baptism of John ; for that into which John baptized as future, we are baptized into as come." The passage most decisive for the essential difference of the two baptisms, notwithstanding the real transition from one to the other, is the account in Acts xix. 1-7. For here it is assuredly recorded, as the Vulg., Syr., and all the old versions understood, that the twelve men were again baptized by St Paul with water ; that is, they were now baptized with the true, sacramental water. The usual method of defend- ing this text against the doctrine of re-baptism 1 (the advocates of which, according to Olshausen, have always, from Cyprian down to our Anabaptists and Mennonites, made this passage very prominent) is rightly pronounced artificial and forced. It makes ver. 5 the continuous saying of the Apostle Paul, 2 and not the narrative of the Evangelist ! In favour of this, much emphasis has been laid upon the connection of the fiev and Be, in vers. 4 and 5 ; but (apart from the fact that later criticism of the text has removed the fiev) this assigns to ver. 5 a meaning which is as utterably inconceivable. A fiev broken off without Be is by no means without precedent (see e.g. Acts iii. 21) ; but, on the other hand, the Apostle cannot be regarded as having said that those who had obeyed the Baptist, afcovcravTes, had been already baptized into the uttered and announced name »)f the Lord Jesus — just as the Christian baptism is spoken of jtfter Pentecost ! Bengel : " For John at the end of his baptism pointed to Jesus, chap. xiii. 25 ; wherefore it cannot be said that he baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, unless it is asserted that he baptized the people twice, the first time unto repentance, the second time in the name of Jesus." Either the pev is spurious, and introduced on account of the Be ; or this those who confessed in sincere repentance, which we may not deny accord- ing to Lu. iii. 3, was, as during the 0. T. times, not such a jierfect forgive- ness as that which the Lamb of God who afterwards took away sin could give. 1 Unnecessary, since there is nothing here said about such re-baptism. 2 Thus did Calvin Institt. iv. 15, 18, establish his rebaptizatos nego. Beza, Calixtus, Lightfoot, even Budde, Rambach, and others, agreed with him in this MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 293 latter makes a profound connection with the former in the Apostles' teaching and act : in any case aKovo-avres refers back to elire re wpbs avrovs, ver. 3, and ipaiTTiaO^crav stands in parallel with koX liziQkvTO^ avrofc k.t.\. Those who had been baptized by the Baptist were not at the beginning of the evan- gelical preaching ordinarily baptized again with water (on which Acts i. 5 will occasion further remark) ; but here, in the case of those who were already removed and estranged from the pro- clamation of John, it was needful that the law of the kingdom should be maintained and attested by their new baptism. The baptism appointed by Christ manifestly refers back to the symbolical baptism which Christ Himself received in the Jordan ; for, as then Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were first fully revealed in their sacred trinity, so now disciples were to be baptized unto or into the name, not merely of the Father who then bore witness, not merely of the Son who then received the witness that He was the Son, but also most perfectly into the name of that Holy Spirit whom the Son had in Himself, with Him (as John foreannounced the distinction) to baptize. " This is (as Olshausen says) the only passage in the gospels in which the Lord Himself named the Three Persons together " — that is, in so simple, direct, and express conjunction ; for, otherwise, the readers of our earlier exposition have been suffi- ciently prepared by Jno. xiv.-xvi. for this conjunction, and find nothing unexpected or new in this summary, after so many plain trinitarian testimonies. Name, ovofia is never in the New Testament construed with a Genitive rei, non persona? ; it is in other passages (as Acts i. 15 ; Rev. iii. 4, xi. 13) where that might seem the case, equivalent to person. Thus both in anthropomorphic, and, at the same time, most metaphysical essen- tial truth, the three "persons" of the one Divine nature stand here together ; their unity is held fast and witnessed by the to ovofia, not ra ovofiara — name, not names. All that would rob this equal juxtaposition of God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, is arbitrary and forced in opposition to the plain and in- controvertible word. Thus, the triunity of the Divine nature must be a most important and fundamental mystery, both for the knowledge and ^he practice of faith : — why otherwise should the revelation of it be placed here in so prominent a position at 5:94 BAPTISM. the outset, just where the Church is to begin to exist, and so firmly bound up with the baptism which brings grace and eternal life ? Braune : u Here is the mission commanded, baptism ap- pointed, trinity taught." Here have we the most primitive, the most simple foundation of the Church's confession of faith, given by the highest authority ! Here the central point, from which all the doctrines of our faith issue, into which they all converge, and in which they all must end ! " He who is called a Christian and denys the triune God, does dishonour to the word in which he was baptized" — so writes v. Meyer ; and in another place : a Nothing can be more simple than this utterance of our Lord ; but an humble mind will perceive at once that it cannot understand this by its own resources. The unhumble reason has recourse to dialectic subtilties, which rationalise His word, that is, undeify it. In harmony, therefore, with the entire theology of the Gospel, we regard it as saying — Into the name of the Three, who are One, into the Three-One God." Thus the ixad^revOevre^ were to be called and consecrated — and this is the general and sure meaning without any reference to the special meaning of €t? to ovofia — to the knowledge and confession of the one living God, whose nature ever remains a mystery for the apprehension of faith ; the profound darkness of its incomprehensibility being brought to light in the place where it is first clearly revealed to faith. Nevertheless, the triune God, whose name of Father, Son, and Spirit is applied to the Father, the Son, the Spirit, is as such fully revealed. The Father is now made manifest in the sending of the Son ; the Son in His resurrection, on His way to the supreme power in heaven and earth (ver. 18) ; the Holy Ghost was soon to be poured out, and thus to manifest Himself also: — thus in the mention of Him now there is once again a prolepsis. This baptism into the Spirit, come also like the Son, and offering Himself, could not of course take place until and after the Pentecost. But all who receive baptism in conformity with this anticipatory institution, require to be baptized into each of the three Names ; here there is no distinction and no division. Even the great Bengel erred, misled by his keen inquisition into special references, when he regarded baptism into the name of Jesus as alone necessary to the Jews, who were already MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 295 in God's covenant, in order to their reception of the Holy Spirit's gift ; while the Gentiles (whom he supposes to be here especially and only meant by the eQvrj) required baptism into the complete name, as here. For even to the Jews God was revealed as a Father only through the Son ; and as it respects the apparent deficiency of the baptismal formula in the later New Testament, we shall explain it in due course. What means then ixto or in the name ? It is obvious, at the outset, that eh to ovofia cannot be simply equivalent to iv tg3 ovo/jlciti,, as the Vulg. translated in nomine, and Luther im Namen. 1 This would then only have reference to the baptizer ; and nothing (contrary to Mark xvi. 16) would be promised or specified for the baptized; the sublime ^airri^ovre^ to which such new and great promises are attached, would stand as it were enigmatically alone ; and we should receive here at least (where it might be expected) no proper answer to the question — How and to what end are they baptized ? We may indeed say in the words of Luther, generally : " To be baptized in the name of God, is not to be baptized by men but by God Him self ! Wherefore, although it is administered by the hand of man, yet it is to be regarded as the proper work of God alone." 2 But this is not the true and full exposition of this e*s to ovo/xa, which certainly corresponds to £Mjh and not DfcO, and in its deep meaning points by the ek only forwards to the now-established communion of the baptized with the triune God. 3 The current and superficial interpretations of a different kind have some- thing true in them ; but they are not its direct exposition, and 1 And we, alas, as Hasse complains, have retained to our own day this easily perverted expression. 2 Ed. Rechenb. p. 536. Similarly Luther elsewhere : " This is what the words show where the minister says — I baptize thee, etc. He does not say — I baptize thee in my name." — Previously : " Therefore we must -receive baptism from the hands of a man as if from the hands of no other than Christ, yea God Himself: — baptized with His own hands." A way of speaking which we find frequently occurring in the theologians from Melancthon's Loc. Com. downwards. 3 Acts x. 48 is the only instance in which we find h ra ovopart (for ch. ii. 38 knl is equiv. to auf, zu) ; but either it is in that passage instead of g, which in Matt, xviii. 20 follows from the eh rb i/mbv ovofia. As even Lange unfolds and paraphrases in its fulness of meaning the ek to ovofxa : a They must be baptized in His presence, by His authority, into fellow- ship with Him, and blessed knowledge of His nature. They must be plunged into the name of the Three-One." And in 1 Luther says in one place : " We are not only baptized as to the soul, but the body also is baptized" — and utters in these words more than he himself understood. 2 Comp. what Jul. Miiller (Die ev. Union S. 302) says about the materia ccelestis connected with baptism. 3 In the last verse of Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam. Gerhard in- deed says : " The best theologians determine that the blood of Christ cannot appropriately be regarded as the second material part of baptism." VOL. VIII. U 306 INFANT-BAPTISM. this Sacrament of initiation, which the living God makes the be- ginning alone of life, the man who is to be baptized has strictly speaking nothing to bring ; he has simply to receive from God. Heim, the Wiirtemberg pastor, writes truly though boldly : ! " The Reformers, with all their deep convictions of the internal character of Christianity, were yet, in respect to their under- standing of truth, too much bound up in externality of thought, and in discursive reasoning. Hence they always required, in order to the participation of the blessings of salvation, faith as something the existence of which must necessarily be presup- posed. However near they approached it, they never reached and firmly held the truth that faith itself, the internal appro- priation, which is essentially in itself, and in its origin, the work of God, might be given at the same time with the objective salvation, and wrought by God in the hearts of men. 2 Hence it came to pass that the question was agitated with so much asperity whether children could have faith ; for while this con- tradicts the natural reason of man, it yet could not be denied, according to the notions of the old theologians, without making baptism a mere empty formality, or a merely conditional assur- ance as to the future. The simple answer would have been that by baptism itself the germ, from which the tree of faith would grow, was placed in the soul as the seed of life from God." The preparatory faith in the name announced, which is required in the case of the adult — in order that nothing of which he is unconscious may be effected without his will and conscious- ness — is not in his case, if we rightly distinguish, such a living faith as is regenerating (for we are not regenerated by our faith !) — but a longing desire for it, in the Spirit and power of God. In one who is adult and conscious of what he does, un- consciousness as to the mystery of this water would be in itself positive unbelief, and therefore the putting a bar to the work of God ; but whether in every case a positive and conscious faith is the absolute condition of baptism is the question here involved ; 1 In his small, but important treatise, Ue her Taufe und Konfirmation. 2 Mark — In its origin ! For the decisive free appropriation of man is not excluded. God comes in condescension and works preveniently (Col. ii. 12) — but all is developed and realised in our ^/or/?, to which the hipyuot rov feov solicits, and of which it makes us capable. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 307 and the more fully we appreciate the free gift in the Sacrament, the more 'confidently shall we deny it. The defence of infant-baptism by no means involves the neces- sity that we should deny this giving and positive energy and influence in the fundamental Sacrament of initiation. Stein- meyer's attempt to meet the case by a wonderful new theory of a merely negative power and significance in baptism needs not our refutation here : it has been already condemned by the Kirchentag (the seventh, in Frankfort, which his theory very much embarrassed). Sander and Hoffmann have well exposed the inconceivableness of a mere passive suffering of the death of the old man, without a planting of the new man after, or rather in order to effect, that death. And Dorner has vigor- ously shown the baptism with the Holy Ghost to be the specific characteristic of the sacramental baptism of Christ : comp. Acts ii. 38. In truth, the u>a, Eom. vi. 4, belongs, in insepar- able connection, immediately to the exposition of baptism itself. That our Lutheran theology has failed to exhibit clearly and establish fundamentally this positive effect of baptism in regard to children, is a thing that cannot be denied. Luther himself, firm as he was in his conviction as to infant-baptism, wavered in setting forth its grounds. Sometimes he speaks with perfect correctness about it. So in the sermon concerning holy baptism (Walch x. S. 2518) : " There are who say that there must be (in addition to water and word, besides the Divine name, and the ordinance of God) something over and above, that is, faith ; they rest this upon the saying in Mark xvi. 16, and bring forward the sentence of St Augustine, which stands hard by that other 1 — non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur. They think, incorrectly understanding these sayings, that the word and water are a Sacrament as far as those who receive them have faith ; thus they ground baptism not upon God's ordinance but upon men's, as if the word with the water was not effectual to baptism before our faith is added (at once, in the administration) ; and thus God's word and work must receive their efficacy first of all from us." But he does not hold this fast in its true mean- ing ; he often contradicts himself ; so that all his writings to- 1 Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. 308 INFANT-BAPTISM. gether, and indeed all the writings of the first witnesses of the Reformation, fail to give us the elements of a sound doctrine concerning baptism and infant-baptism. But what we have quoted will help us to understand rightly the true meaning of the paradoxical questions in the Cat, Maj. (p. 545) : " We say that the virtue of the Sacrament does not rest upon whether the baptized has faith or not : baptism itself is not affected by that. The baptism is to be held valid, though there should not be (im- mediately — we would add) faith in the baptized. My faith does not make the baptism, but it apprehends and understands the Sacrament." But when this is referred to adults, and pushed so far as to say that if " a Judas fraudulently and maliciously procured baptism," it would be true baptism — just as unbelievers may receive the Sacrament 1 — it is an assertion which we have already refuted, and must still denounce. But the application to infants, who have no unbelief, is well-grounded : their faith quickened by God from baptism onwards may gradually appre- hend the truth, being developed from the germ of God's free gift implanted first. As strong as is our protest, in the Sacra- ment of eating and drinking for adults, against any reception on the part of unbelievers, must be our assertion — the relations of the matter being changed — of the bestowment of the baptismal grace upon children who are not capable of conscious faith, as the beginning and foundation of their spiritual birth. As it respects all further blessings received from God we hold, with Jas. i. 7, the indispensable necessity of faith as a condition ; but the first beginning of grace in us, without which faith could never be by us exercised, must be matter of pure prevenient gift and influence. It is this which baptism testifies, symbolises, and is the medium of imparting — thus, in this standing opposed, as to the word, so also to the other Sacrament. 2 According to Heb. xi. 6, no man 1 This improper analogy occurs again in the exposition of Jno. i. 32, and also in the dogmatic treatises. Hafenreffer's distinction between the sub- stantia baptismi, which is present, and the salutaris fructus et effectus which is wanting, is on a par with the unintelligible Lutheran assertions concern- ing the sacramental participation of unbelievers. 2 Hence W. Hoffmann is perfectly right in saying : " The Baptists deal with baptism as some are said to deal with the Lord's Supper : they make as it were out of the two Sacraments only one." Many of our hyper- Lutherans fall into the same error : they exaggerate baptism in such a man- MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 309 draws nigh to God without conscious faith, but God Himself draws near to little children just that they may be able to be- lieve; and we may well ask, in the analogy of Isa. lxvi. 9, Shall we parents infuse into the souls of our children, through education, and even in their conception, spiritual seed which springs up, and shall not He througli whom and for whom they were born ? Can it be that (as Eibbeck says) before the " con- sciousness of the personal I" the child is not susceptible of any operation of the Holy Spirit ? Thus we have reached the second question, as to what the Scripture more or less expressly declares concerning infant- baptism. But we shall limit ourselves now to two points, which we may thus express : Is infant-baptism intended in the text, in the words of institution ? and how did the Apostles understand them? We protest at the outset against Aug. Hahn's representation : " Baptism was in the appointment of Christ to be administered to all those who penitently confessed their sin, and believed in the Gospel of Jesus. According to its original character and design it could be administered only to adults, who alone were capable of the knowledge of sin, and repentance, and faith. Neither in the Scripture, nor in the history of the first century and a half, is there a certain example of infant-baptism to be found," etc., whereupon the baptizing of unconscious children, which (strangely enough !) the growth of the external Church demanded, is vindicated and apologised for by the practice of confirmation, which (mark it well !) took really the place of proper Christian baptism. Finally, at the close : " But if we would hold fast to evangelical apostolical principles, children should, according to the institution of Christ and His Apostles, be consecrated by blessing (hut what half-thing is this? and when did the Apostles thus bless children?), while the adult alone should be baptized, when they (and there lies the diffi- culty !) have come to a knowledge of their need and of the wan- ner that it ceases to be a sacramentum initii, and carrying this exaggeration into infant-baptism they provoke the opposition of the Baptists. "We read in the Evang. Kirchenz. (1846. S. 187) the perilous assertion : " As there is only one Church ; so there is only one Sacrament, in its two stages and divisions — the Supper is already contained in baptism 310 INFANT-BAPTISM. of salvation, and to a true faith in the Gospel." — To all these positions we are perfectly opposed, on exegetical and historical grounds which cannot be reasoned away. Lutz again sets out by saying : " Infant-baptism is essentially excluded by the words of institution, Matt, xxviii. 19 and Mark xvi. 16 ; for the words fiaOrjrevetv and 7nar6vetv preceding the ftainiCpiv shut them out as incapable of both" — but our exposition has given reason, at least in St Matthew, for thinking otherwise ; and we shall see the same in our consideration of St Mark. His bold conclusion is ground- less, resting upon a very superficial exposition : " Therefore it must be admitted that the baptism of children has no ground in Scripture." It is admitted afterwards that " it was not only (most kind admission !) a superstitious notion of the magical effect of baptism which introduced 1 the practice, but along with it a commendable Christian feeling." And so again : " On account of its long continuance the universal Christian feeling would be most grievously wounded if the baptism of infants was abolished. The zeal of re-baptists is without maturity and propriety, a zeal about the mere word, for the letter without the spirit !" But here we must answer : Is there then on this point a contradiction between the normal letter and its afterwards de- veloped spirit ? Thus what according to Hahn ought to be done must not be done, because of a mere feeling which finds it hard to shake off a practice which, though contrary to the word of Scripture, has enlisted for many ages the sympathies of the Church ! For ourselves, we cannot understand how any man with such views and convictions can be a member and a mini- ster of a psedobaptist community. The re-baptists indeed con- tend for the falsely understood letter ; but the letter understood in the spirit is itself the rightly expounded word, and with that alone are they to be vanquished. Scriptural ground must be given for every usage of the Church — either in the germ or in express appointment — and this is all the more necessary for one which seems to oppose the word of Scripture : — in such a case no custom and no feeling must have any force. But there is no want of scriptural ground. The word which W. Hoffmann 1 Which is so certainly known without any historical proof ! Scheinert says that " false ideas about original sin, and a superstitious notion of the mar- vellous effect of the opus operatum produced the practice of infant-baptism." MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 311 once spoke to a Baptist was very true, and touches the heart of the matter : — Your position to the word of God is the narrow and bound one of English Christians mine, on the other hand, is the freer and deeper one of German theology. We must understand the letter of Scripture in connection with all that it presupposes and all its consequences; so understanding it, there will be no difficulty about the baptism of infants. We must not hold to the " written word of God" in such a mecha- nical and foolishly literal spirit as that of Bibbeck, to whom historical proof that the Apostles baptized children, and decrees of general Councils, would avail nothing, if there were no lite- ral command in the New Testament ! We have already given our preparatory explanation upon the Lord's symbolical bless- ing of the children (Vol. iii.) ; but we shall endeavour to show that, in the actual institution of baptism, the gathering of adults to the Church was not (as Spangenberg says) the only thing referred to. Calvin urges first against the Baptists, that if they appeal so stiffly to the first " discipling" coming before the " baptizing," we also, on the other hand (si tergiversari libeat, non latebra, sed latissimus campus ad effugiendum se aperit !), may appeal, with equal positiveness, to the second arrangement of the words : first " baptize," then " teach." 1 But he gives up the sound ex- position of the words : and suggests as the right answer the false question, " Is there a single syllable about infants in all this discourse V 9 To turn these discourses of Christ against infant- baptism is as foolish as it would be to deny bread to the children because they do not work, according to 2 Thess. iii. 10 ! " What everybody must see to refer to adults, they apply to children." This comes at last to Spangenberg' s dictum, that " infant-bap- tism is neither expressly commanded nor expressly forbidden in Scripture." But after all, at the solemn consecration of a Sacra- ment the not mentioning would be equivalent to a prohibition ! Let us think carefully of this ! Is it a thing in itself probable, 1 The Lord spoke of being born again of water and Spirit, not of Spirit and of water : a remark that must be carefully noted ! We would not however press it with W. Hoffmann in favour of the priority of baptism ; but, against, such exaggerations as represent a perfect regeneration in bap- tism itself, the sequence of the words in this co-ordination is emphatic. 312 INFANT-BAPTISM. nay, is it a thing conceivable, that at the time when He is con- templating the ground, procedure, and economy of His whole Church down to the end of the world, and giving for that purpose His final and decisive commissions and promises, Christ should not think of the difficult question — What must be done with the children of the converted nations % Is it possible that those children whom He sometime blessed should be now so entirely forgotten as to be neither excluded from nor included in the arrangements of that great Benediction which He is now estab- lishing? There is great difference, moreover, between the baptism of children and the sacrament of the women, which has been brought into comparison. Proceeding from the first manifestation of baptism, argument has been found for the ex- clusion of infants : proceeding from the typical parallel of the Old Testament, argument has been found for their inclusion. Which, then, is right, and how are they reconciled ? We say with the Apology : " It is necessary to baptize infants, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to the commandment of Christ : Baptize all nations, where, as salva- tion is offered to all, so . baptism is offered to all, men, women, children, infants ; it therefore clearly follows that infants are to be baptized because salvation is offered with baptism." But this requires the aid of exposition. 1 Olshausen remarks quite correctly that in apostolical practice instruction never preceded baptism. Lange misunderstands this in his reply : u Was not the announcement of the name of Christ, which was the means of bringing men to confess that name, an instruction 1 " But Olshausen only means that this first announce- ment was not essential instruction. See Acts ii. 42. But, it will be asked, was not this Krjpvcra-eiv, which is commanded previously in St Mark, before baptism 1 Certainly, for how should salva- tion be brought otherwise to the nations than Tby the word of preaching at the very beginning 1 But, notwithstanding, it was to be carried to the nations ; the beginning with adults was to go on until the nations as nations were to be received into the discipleship of Christ : let the meaning of this be remembered 1 Nitzsch : There are here genuine elements of apology, but the main question is evaded. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 313 and deeply pondered I 1 Here lies the testing point for the right understanding of the whole, the connection of its development with the letter to be expounded. As already in Matt. x. 12, 13 (see our exposition) the Lord had multitudes and families in His eye, and not merely individual persons ; as in Lu. xix. 9 the intimation about the house of Zacchseus pointed the same way; so now He contemplates and embraces the peoples upon earth in the widest sense as under God's appointment extended families, each in its several integrity. 2 For this totality the baptizing is then distributed ; the children are not expressly men- tioned, but the words are handed down to future understanding. Wesley : " Baptizing and teaching are the two great branches of that general design, and these were to be determined by the circumstances of things, which made it necessary, in baptizing adult Jews or Heathens, to teach them before they were bap- tized ; in discipling their children, to baptize them before they were taught." This is in perfect harmony with the truth, but it is not correct exegesis, inasmuch as the teaching does not express this preliminary instruction ; but Wesley has used preaching and teaching interchangeably. Indeed, we do not, in strict exegesis, obviate the difficulty by saying with Rambach : " Christ ordains that iravTa tcl Wvrj should be baptized. But as there is no people under the sun which is composed of adults alone, it cannot be contrary to the commandment of Christ that little children should be baptized." For the accus. Wvn is not strictly connected with fiairTifev, and this admits of a good reason; the inclusion of the children rests, partly, upon the indefinite avrovs, which, specifying no condition or limitation whatever, is put immediately in the place of edvrj ; and, partly, in the parallel ideas of fiaO^revetv and ^airriC^w. Hence Bud- deus is more precise and correct : " The word fiaO^retxrare is to be translated — Make disciples ; and this, if infants are regarded, could be done by baptism alone." And he afterwards says, with 1 " The commandment of the Lord to the Apostles, to bring the peoples as nations to God, sounds precisely like the promise given to Abraham in the beginning." Baumgarten, die Nachtgesichte Sacharias ii. S. 484. (Most true ! It is a question how far our modern Missions forget this !) 2 Being " the individuals and higher personalities of the world's history " — as Bunsen terms them. 314 INFANT-BAPTISM. reference to the Knpva-aeiv : "in the word /cvpv^are there is included the preaching concerning baptism, which exerts its influence in a different manner upon adults and upon infants." This is seen in Acts viii. 35, 36. After the Lord had thus strikingly spoken, in a great pro- phetic contemplation of the history of the world and of the Church, concerning the " discipling of all nations," — assuredly with the meaning that the household and family bonds should not continue to be rent as at the beginning, but that Christian peoples should be won, and translated into the state of disciple- ship as peoples; — after He had thus connected the discipling, which might seem to refer only to individual persons, with the term nations (eOvw) ; — He then introduces, but not till then, in connection with the baptizing, the element of the personal them (avrovs). For, indeed, it must be always necessary that the baptism to be personally appropriated should be administered to individuals ; although in process of time what may be termed a " baptism" of the whole national life and spirit was to follow, and the baptized were to grow up into a united national Church. This we do not mean altogether in the sense of Draseke, who, placing suspiciously in abeyance the personal element in rege- neration, preaches about " the great ^opfe-baptism by Jesus : " — for it is only the discipling which belongs to the word nations. But still there is some truth in it, and he goes on with perfect correctness : " Christianity was not designed to be a thing limited to individuals; — the consecration of peoples proceeds from the families, the consecration of families from individuals, and the consecration of individuals (again) springs from the Church." And so also he speaks very sound words in favour of the pre- servation of the characteristic differences of peoples in Chris- tendom, in opposition to a perverted cosmopolite view of Chris- tianity: — for that is maintained most evidently in our text. Nitzsch points in a very impressive manner to the original natural foundations of life in the family, with which the Church must ever be in harmony ; this of itself, without a single word said about it in Scripture, being the profoundest warranty of infant-baptism. 1 As certainly as Christ would never pluck up 1 For which I may refer to my exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, ii. S. 319 ff., especially S. 327. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 315 and outrage these roots ot human development and the forma- tion of character and society; — as certainly as it was His will that there should be such Churches of peoples as were aimed at in the earliest times, 1 and have existed through the greater part of two thousand years ; and that there should be the concomi- tant (but carefully defined) connection between the Church and the State ; and that entire races should be pervaded with the elements of His renewing Spirit (for otherwise the result as seen in history must be regarded as altogether a failure and perversion of His will) — so really and assuredly must His will have been the baptism of children. The one stands or falls in reality with the other ; both must therefore have concurred in the design and ordinance of our Lord, whose will must, if any- where, have been uttered here in Matt, xxviii. The controversy is not merely whether infants should be baptized or not ; but the inevitable consequence or antecedent of the denial of bap- tism to children is separatism, and the reduction of the Church back to its beginnings, to the collection together of individual converts from several unrelated families. Can we suppose the Lord to have purposed that the community of the baptized should continue for ever that which it must necessarily have been in the beginning, an outwardly-separated status in statu, a confederation altogether distinct from the life of the nation % Assuredly not : For He has Himself declared that such a com- munity would never, under any circumstances, escape the in- trusion of members merely in form ; and consequently would never in the end be essentially better in principle than the na- tional Church. 2 And, moreover, it was altogether in the family r , 1 Comp. my Reden der Apostel ii. S. 115. It is remarkable that just at the transition of the Gospel into Europe, the saving and baptizing of house- holds comes into prominence in the narrative ! 2 Comp. the picture drawn by Hoffmann of a church of late-baptized people. The Steinthal treatise before-mentioned (the author of which we are not alloAved publicly to announce), one of the best exponents of that class, lays down the following : " Through the testimony of the Church (but what Church ?) there is ever going on a great division in the world ; some believe and enter voluntarily into the fellowship of the Church ; others refuse to believe, and absolutely reject that fellowship." But we protest against the application of this to the baptizing or not baptizing of the indi- viduals of a Christianised people, an tfoos potfarivdh. See also Ribbeck 316 INFANT-BAPTISM. the foundation of the nation, that humanity was ever to be ap- prehended and laid hold of by the Spirit of Christ. Children are certainly not baptized merely for the reason that the Geneva Catechism assigns, " thereby to declare that they are the heirs of the promise given to the children of the faithful ; and that they, when grown to mature age, and capable of understanding the real design of their baptism, may attain to and increase in its benefit." Or, as the words which precede : " Since it is sufficiently shown that the substantial virtue of baptism is the portion of the children, it would be doing them an injustice to refuse them the sign, which is less than the reality itself" x For the sign and its reality are essen- tially connected together even in the baptism of infants. And therefore we may adopt the better expression of the first Hel- vetic Confession : " We dip our infants too into this holy bath of regeneration, because it would be unrighteous in us, who are the people of God, to exclude those who are born of us, as such, from the fellowship of the people of God." He who signifi- cantly said, concerning the children who were brought unto Him by others, that they had come themselves, imputing it to them as their own coming, will admit them also to the blessing of baptism ; for He did not then in the days of His flesh let them go away empty, without an essential and efficacious bless- ing. It is true, as my Catechism says (Fr. 346), that the gift and grace of the Holy Ghost is symbolised by water, is pro- mised by the word, and is received by faith ; but this faith, as it regards children in the actual reception of the first-fruits, may be the representative, imputed faith of parents, sponsors, and of the whole Church — which will go on to be imparted more and more. 2 Thus it is at the first in aliend fide (accord- (S. 121) ; but, with regard to his remarks, how can we fundamentally test whether those who have witnessed their confession are all sincere, and the children of God ? We would ask, moreover, how the Baptist community, as such, can be organised, and retain an absolute purity. 1 So that baptism would be only the act in which an actual existing con- nection with Christ is expressly declared, shown forth, and confirmed. (Hoffmann S. 85.) 2 It is not absolutely wrong, as Hoffmann thinks, to regard the sponsors, which represent the Church, as also representing the child; for this last fol- lows from the first, and in that lies actually the justification of baptism MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 317 ing to Chemnitz nequaquam concedendum !) — but in this, as to children, there is nothing to be disputed against ; in fact the alienum ceases to be such. They are supposed to grow up in the grace of the Church given to the whole "people of God," and which is now anew given as the grace of baptism ; in that faith which flows to them from the beginning as a spiritual mother's milk : — thus they are already /za^reufleWe?, already disciples in the most real sense of the word. For " the children of Christians begin, as soon as ever they are capable, to learn and receive impressions in Christianity." (Hoffmann.) That there should be a Church which receives and educates them ; that there should be a baptizer (with more or less of personal sincerity and earnestness — that is not the essential point), acknowledging and representing the faith of the mother-church, who should invoke for them the triune God — is necessary, but it is also enough. Thus the grace of Him that calleth (that the fulfilment may not come behind the type, Eom. ix. 11), the germ out of which the tree of their Christian life is developed under spiritual culture, is the necessary foundation of Christian education, of the 7rai&ar/(oyia iv XpLo-rq), and not merely et? Xpto-Tov, — their nurture in Christ, and not merely into Christ. 1 As a Christian father I could never regard one of my children as still standing without the grace of regeneration, and as not yet taken into the covenant and promise through the Sacra- ment appointed to that end. The higher my estimation of this, the more deeply do I feel its need for my children, as for myself ; and, moreover, have no notion of any such education as should, apart from the Divine foundation, prepare them for and lead them to baptism. The more stress we are in fact obliged to lay upon the blessing, the sanctifi cation, and the union with the Church, of a child growing up in strict Chris- tian culture, the more must his subsequent baptism lose of its importance : it must in fact appear to be a mere supplementary ceremony of water. But the " pedagogic influence upon the nations" which Christ ordains and promises, and which He in fact afterwards approved, is not merely " represented by bap- tism," as Lange, too externally looking at it, says — but the 1 In Ephes. vi. 4, the original speaks of the nurture and discipline of the Lord, which Luther has incorrectly translated " zum Herrn" — to the Lord. 318 INFANT-BAPTISM. internal-spiritual discipling of the nations with their progeny 1 is essentially attached to the baptism of children, and will be mediated by it. This has not merely furthered the growth of the external Church, which would be in itself no blessing, but has in reality in this way continued and enlarged the internal Church. Against all perverting desecration and abuse of infant- baptism stands the commandment that follows — which, indeed, like all the ordinances and words of Christ, has not been uni- versally obeyed — Teach them to observe, etc. This first of all applies to the parents, but then, as we shall see, to the officers of the Church. It is true that the Lord did not here " expressly" (as they say) appoint infant-baptism ; and this may be explained, partly by the largeness and extent of the Lord's contemplation, and partly by reasons of special wisdom, to which we shall presently refer. But He so spoke that in the inmost understanding of the word through the Spirit it must appear to have been fore- seen and included. Have we not already found, apart alto- gether from the present controversy, that baptism in its present connection took the precise place of circumcision ? 2 And is not this analogy an important argument for the baptism of chil- dren ? The analogy was so direct and obvious, that our Lord, if His will had not been the baptism of infants, must have ex- pressly interdicted it. Or, His words must have been thus expressed : " Disciple those who repent in all nations, baptizing all who believe your preaching," or the like. For the prose- lytes of Judaism were baptized in families, with their wives and children. 3 We cannot but perceive in Acts ii. 39, " and to your children" an offer of the new covenant of grace which refers 1 " It is clear that the great idea (of the universal priesthood in Chris- tianity) requires, in order to its full, natural, and healthy development, a Christian people, although in its germ it needs only the Christian family" Bunsen, Church of the Future. 2 Heidelb. Katechism. Frage 74, and so most of the Confessions. Theo- logians bring forward this as evidence ; sometimes, however, in a one-sided manner, and without seeing that deep connection of the whole which gives its chief force to the argument. 3 The rigorous question, " Where is it written that children are to be baptized? 1 ' is best answered by the counter-question, " Where is it written that we should not baptize them ? " MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 319 not merely to their descendants in the future, but, under the Spirit's inspiration, to their then existing children: — this inter- pretation is rendered obvious by the analogy of the old cove- nant, and St Peter's words may therefore be regarded as "paving the way for infant-baptism." Comp. Acts. iii. 25. And if the children of the people of Israel were thus referred to, surely the same would hold good of the children of those afar off. What then was the Apostles' practice with regard to the children of believers ? Even if Peter did not himself at once understand the words which the Spirit on the first day put into his lips concerning the children near (as also concerning all who were far), the true understanding of them could not possibly have been long wanting when the faith was spread abroad. Although Luther himself at first conceded to the Anabaptists that the Church had authority not to baptize chil- dren, because no passage of Scripture imperatively enjoins it (and in a certain sense he was right) — yet it may be argued back with the greatest confidence from the nature of the case that the children, as soon as perfect communities were con- solidated, had been for the most part baptized; and in this way we have a foundation for the exposition of many other- wise doubtful passages. Three questions must be answered by those who would maintain the invalidity of infant-baptism, and their full importance must always have been felt by those who duly reflected upon their consequences. First: — With what age or year does the susceptibility to receive the Holy Ghost begin? 1 or — to put the same question in another way — Who that honours the word of Scripture can unconditionally deny to childhood this susceptibility, after Lu. i. 15? Or, — still otherwise — Did not the sacred youth of Jesus, holy from the beginning in the Spirit, obtain a sanctification for human nature in its earliest age ? But, if all this is repelled, we would ask, secondly: — Who could decide the question, not only at what age, but under what circumstances generally, the children grown up should be baptized, as penitent and believing? 2 For, to 1 Or, with Hoffmann : " Who can say how early the first dawning rays, which precede the morning light of the spiritual day, enter the infant soul? " 2 " It is evident that by this there would be introduced into the existing 320 INFANT-BAPTISM. baptize all indiscriminately afterwards, just as .we confirm all — as Baptist churches are very much tempted to do — is that pro- stitution of the Sacrament which they so much complain of. But to baptize children in dependence upon prevenient grace must appear to be most expressly in harmony with the idea and design of this prevenient Sacrament of the electing grace of God ; and it seldom or never happens that a baptized adult can perfectly " receive the kingdom of God as a little child." * Finally, if all this could be disposed of, and we could in some way or other distinguish those who are unworthy of baptism, we would ask, thirdly: — How and in what way are we to organise and deal with this sundered portion, the unbaptized of a Chris- tian people ? Will not the rejected appear to be rejected of God, to their embittering % And who gave to man such an authority as this? — The fact that in all these things, w T hich must of course have come into question in the beginnings of the establishment of the Church, there is no ordinance, no direction, no record, no single word, is a most mighty argumen- tum a silentio in favour of a designed and always existing baptism of infants. 2 Can we suppose the Lord, and after Him the Spirit in the Apostles, to have left His people for all future time so utterly without guidance as to the question how communities a distinction between internal and external members, and a judicial authority, consequently, to be exercised by the rulers of the church, which would not become Christ's servants, and be unprofitable for both classes in the community," Heim, S. 23. And it also entirely forgets the secret and gradual character of our early religious growth, concerning which Hoffmann rightly asks — " Where is the point of express decision at which the place of baptism may be determined ? " 1 In the excellent account of the ecclesiastical state of North America which Prof. Schaff published in the Deutsc. Zeitschr. 1854, we have, S. 223, his authentic testimony that the Baptists, having no sure defence against the profanation of the Sacrament, baptize many hypocrites and unworthy persons ; and that they no more succeed in erecting pure churches than did the Donatists and other similar sects. 2 Ribbeck asks the strange question, "Why we do not find a single word about sponsorship — this suppletorium of family obligation, which the later circumstances of the family and the Church rendered necessary ! But our counter-question has much more reason and force — Why is there not a single word about the position and treatment of the children of Christians, which do not, however, belong yet to the church ? MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 321 they should deal with Christian children, which are evidently no longer heathens, and cannot be regarded as brought up like heathens? How would that harmonise with the canonical completeness and the prototypic sufficiency of Scripture ? It is not our " magical notion of inspiration," not a relapse on our part into mechanical dependence on the mere letter of Scripture, when we insist upon finding in the Scripture, in the word of the Lord Himself, not indeed the entire ecclesiastical development of every practice, but its prototype and authorisation, as pro- vided beforehand for eveiy question of importance by the Spirit of the Lord. Thus was our Lord understood from the beginning, and children, when it was sought, 1 were baptized : this to us is the true solution of the enigma. The traces of this, indeed, in the New Testament are not literally demonstrative ; but all that has been already said will shed a light quite sufficient for that purpose upon those passages especially which record the baptizing of whole houses or families. We would not go so far in concession as W. Hoffmann, and speak lightly of the appeal to these passages : they are essentially enough. It is true that we read in Acts xvi. 32 of the word having been de- clared to all in his house (that is, to all who could, and as far as they could, receive it) ; but why is it said in ver. 34 that he had believed, the Singular TreTno-Tevfccos being alone used ? And moreover in connection with the strikingly impersonal iravoLKi. Ver. 32 may show that there were no " sucklings " present ; yet ver. 34 again proves that they were not all adults and indepen- dent persons, who decided in their own personal faith to undergo baptism. (Comp. Jno. iv. 53 with the iraiSiov ver. 49.) Not, indeed, babes, yet Tra&ia, children, might rejoice with their parents after their manner, and in their degree ; and a baptism of such children in the family would be a demonstrative argu- ment for the analogy of infant-baptism, resting upon the same principle with it. It is true that the house of Lydia, ver. 15, could not contain any children 2 — but why do we find the refer- 1 When parents brought their children to be baptized, as they fondly brought them for Christ's blessing, who that remembered His words could reject them ? 2 " Workmen," in her commerce, have been mentioned ! Ribbeck, again, introduces his " journey of business" which brought the dealer in purple, VOL. VIII. X 322 INFANT-BAPTISM. ence once more to her having believed alone ? (in which the elvcu is not altogether in favour of Hoffmann's " becoming a believer" through the baptism). St Paul, according to 1 Cor. i. 16, baptized the house of Stephanas ; but it does not follow from ch. xvi. 15 of the same Epistle — as Neander prematurely deduces — "that the whole family, which received baptism, con- sisted of none but adult members." The former passage appears to us, rather, when placed in comparison with the history in the Acts, to bear testimony generally to the baptizing of houses and families, which the Apostles adopted as expressly in harmony with the Lord's words concerning the " nations " and the " houses." Neander regards it as highly improbable that St Paul, the opponent of all opus operatum without personal faith, "would have introduced, or permitted to be introduced, a practice which might be so easily perverted into a sanction for the delusion of a justification to be obtained by external things, and which would transfer the external righteousness of circumcision to Christian baptism." But all that we have already said will be more than a counterpoise to any such imagined anxiety on the Apostle's part. We much more clearly see to what the leaving children of Christian parents unbaptized would be per- verted, and to what that would give occasion ; moreover it would then have been in the highest degree probable that the Apostles would have given some direction as to the position and relations of these numberless catechumen-classes, as to the time and the duty of their baptism, and everything connected with it. 1 But we have a most remarkable and direct utterance of the Apostle concerning children, in 1 Cor. vii. 14. This passage has been strangely used both for and against infant-baptism ; its de- fenders certainly make it too directly valid on their side, but its opponents go much further than they in their one-sided arbitrari- and of course -without her family ! Pity that the brief and distinct narrative knows nothing of this ; it mentions rather a house in the place, to which she could invite others. 1 Kibbeck finds in the oaoi, Gal. iii. 27, a proof that there were among the readers unbaptized persons, because they had not yet reached a state of faith ! This would be the class of catechumens. But why is there no refer- ence to them elsewhere, and no direct address to them? Why, in ver. 26, is there a ttxi/tss without restriction, as in all the Epistles ? MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20 323 ness. Lutz, for instance, following Olshausen, but in stronger terms, says : "If Paul had only thought of infant-baptism, he could not possibly have spoken thus ! " (Whereas Olshausen had merely argued, " that Paul would not have chosen this kind of demonstration, if infant-baptism had been already the practice.") The truth of this passage seems to us to lie, as it were, betweer. the two, but certainly in favour of infant-baptism. What is il that is presupposed as not to be doubted in the eVet? That the children of a marriage in which only one of the parties was a believer, were no longer afcdOapra, unclean, — but ayia, holy. 1 To make this a direct proof that these children were not yet baptized, and consequently that in the time of the Apostles children generally were not yet baptized, is a strange view of the strong expressions of St Paul. A " certain external and eccle- siastical sanctity," parallel with Rom. xi. 16 (as some one has said), the Apostle can scarcely be regarded as recognising in the New-Testament Church ; especially when this aKaOapra (in which, as it respects children, who cannot sin, we must necessarily think of natural sinfulness, the original sin of birth) seems to be almost taken away by this ay ver. 14 belongs already to this address. — But Hoffmann's translation — "Even if your children are still uncleansed, that is, unbaptized, not the less on that account are they holy " — we cannot reconcile with the literal words. 'Etts/ means here certainly alias, alioguin ; and the asserted olytoc, necessarily denies the uKxdxprx. Hoffmann (Schriftb. i. 453) interprets it also of the children of Christians generally, but only of a sanctification of these children for the parents, that is, of the moral character of the living relation between parents and children, by which analogy the relation between the married parties is illustrated. But v/nZu here means only the mixed married pairs ; and, moreover, it would be highly improper to convert it — otherwise would your children be for you unholy : — not to mention the strange use of ccxxQuproe in this sense. 324 INFANT-BAPTISM. higher ayid Igtiv of the children, thus taken for granted, he deduces a bolder analogous ^ylaarac. If nurture in the Lord, though on the part of the father or the mother alone, availed to sanctify the child, should not the unbelieving parent, who did nothing to oppose — (being susceptible of being pleased, ver. 12, 13, which then had much significance) — be capable also of similarly being won ? That is the thought of the Apostle. The wyia ia-TLV, from which he proceeds, is therefore to be taken in a much more real and deep sense than that which is given in the paraphrase of Nitzsch, — "they have a historical vocation to the kingdom of God, like Israel." 1 De Wette makes it no less than — "they are members of the Christian community." But such were generally, and as the rule, none who were un- baptized. If we compare, as we are justified in doing, the ter- minology of the Apostle in Eph. v. 26, yea, 1 Cor. vi. 11, this ayca must appear closely to border on their baptism, and means at least as much as this, — that they were either baptized or. counted worthy of heaven, prepared for it, to be baptized if baptism be desired, and consequently (this desire being presup- posed as a rule) as good as baptized. If St Paul had " even only thought" of the postponement of baptism, then he could not have called them " holy," then must they have been still " unclean." For otherwise it would support that Anabaptist and unscriptural position which the Formula Concordia? (p. 623) rightly condemns : " that the children of Christians, because they have sprung from Christian and believing parents, and inde- pendently of or before the reception of baptism, are truly holy and to be numbered among the children of God." 2 However much the inherited and family blessing of grace in the Church may signify — and we shall hereafter lay sufficient stress upon it ; however certainly the Spirit may bless the children with prevenient grace, where the baptism with water is unrighteously denied, in order thus to direct them to be baptized; — yet we 1 For all the world has this, according to the express words of Matt, xxviii. and Mar. xvi. In that sense no man is any longer unclean, Acts x. 28. 2 Which is a quite different thin^ from the general conclusion drawn from Lutheran doctrine by J. Muller: — that to all the children of Christians there pertains a peculiar relation to the grace of God and the kingdom of heaven set up in Christ. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 325 cannot suppose the Apostle to declare in holy writ, without any thought of baptism whatever, that this hereditary blessing alone would (in Christian phraseology) cleanse and sanctify the chil- dren, just as he elsewhere says of baptism ! For this is some- thing different from, and very much more than, that " being nearer the kingdom of God," which even Eibbeck allows to the children of believing parents. If the Apostle's thought was that their participation, in virtue of their birth, in the fellow- ship and blessing of the Church, stood to them in the place of baptism, — even then we cannot understand why they were, and were to be left, unbaptized. Thus not merely does the idea which justifies and requires infant-baptism lie in this passage (as Olshausen, de Wette, and many others agree) — but much more than that. It takes for granted that the children of Chris- tians were worthy of baptism, and were consequently (wherefore not, on that supposition % ) actually baptized, as the recognised and well-known rule and fact of Christianity. But then it speaks indistinctly, and indeed somewhat undogmatically (as Scripture with propriety often does) concerning the indistinct question. For this much on the one hand is true : — if infant- baptism had been at that time already a universal practice, St Paul would not have spoken thus paraphrastically concerning it. He does not indeed say, — Else would your children not be bap- tized ; nor is there a word which intimates, Therefore we baptize our children, and such as yours are ; — and for this there was a very good reason. It was a difficult point, and the question depended upon the faith and the convictions of the parents, which of course would regulate the propriety of such a step, in families which in such numbers exhibited mixed parentage. An absolute and universal legal prescription would have been out of harmony with the character which ruled the apostolical for- mation of churches. The Apostles did not introduce the early baptism of infants in any such manner ; but waited, as it was fit, for the desire expressed by the parents. In such cases bap- tism might be sometimes long delayed (as adults often deferred it) ; the whole matter assumed its proper relations, and obtained its rights, only by degrees; — just as to this day it is not ex- pedient that state-churches should legislate absolutely on the question. This is the reason why the Apostle spoke as he did : 326 INFANT-BAPTISM. his word recognises and takes for granted the existence of in- fant-baptism, and indeed involves a gentle exhortation to it ; but he had good reason for not speaking of it directly. On the same principle the Lord did not institute Kara to prjrov the baptizing of children coming to Him in the arms of others, but " left it to the free development of the Christian spirit," that is, to the feel- ing and desire of converted parents. Understanding this, we must however propose to ourselves an exposition of the words of institution Kara rrjv Sidvotav, as we have endeavoured to give it ; and assume the baptism of many children, at least, by the hands of the Apostles themselves. For when we observe that St Paul, Eph. vi. 1, in the proper CAwrcA-Epistle, places the children on a parity with every other class in the Church, speaks to them as belonging to the community, and requires of them that they obey in the Lord (comp. Col. iii. 18-22), we are not permitted to regard these children 1 as collectively unbaptized, and as consequently without the " Church" to which the Epistle is sent. And as to the Church after the Apostles ? Its history says not a word of an introduction of the practice contrary to apos- tolical usage : — how would that have been possible in a matter so important and so strange, and at a time when such strife and contradiction must necessarily have been excited 1 In the pas- sage of Irenseus adv. Hser. ii. 22, 4, which asserts a sanctifica- tion, through the Redeemer, of infantes, even of those who were not yet capable as parvuli of receiving an example, every un- biassed mind must confess that there is a testimony, not only to the idea of infant-baptism, but also to its practice : for we can- not understand the existence of such views of the question among the ancients without the corresponding observance of the usage. 2 1 Certainly not yet grown up ; indeed so far infant that in the Epistle to the Colossians it is required of them that they "obey xocroc Troti/roc, — in all things." 2 " He cannot have looked much into the ancient Church who can sup- pose that it would have held a reception into the kingdom of heaven possible without baptism. And this makes it very certain that the sacred observance of baptizing the children of Christians was complied with even in the apostolic age. It was the original conviction of the Church that children were not translated into the kingdom of heaven by their natural birth, but that their regeneration was necessary. From this the custom and necessity MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 327 Tertullian's contradiction, on which so much stress has been laid, never, as is well known, says expressly in any one place that infant-baptism was certainly and confessedly of new and recent introduction, and therefore unapostolical : — he finds it, rather, already existing as a custom. Consequently, no man had " in- troduced" it, as the custom is to speak. Origen, not only in Horn. 14 in Luc, and 8 in Levit., speaks of the baptizing of children according to the custom of the Church, but in Rom. vi. says in plain hard terms — The Church received the custom of baptizing children from the Apostles. One step further takes us to Augustine : " The custom of mother-Church in baptizing little ones is not to be made light of, or thought a superfluous thing ; but it is to be regarded as an apostolical tradition only." (Be Genes, ad lit. x. 23 ; comp. Serm. x. de Verbis apostol.) AH this is enough, with our presuppositions. We cannot agree with Neander that these explanations are of little significance; 1 but conclude with the evidence of fact given by the Lortfs con- firmation of infant-baptism down to the present day. As we have said elsewhere — God does not reject and repel the children which are brought unto Him ; He blesses them from the be- ginning with the first-fruits of His Spirit of grace. Else would He withhold that Spirit. But the entire Church testifies, by its accepted members, to the Baptists, that its infant-baptism is not without the sanction and blessing of the Spirit. 2 Countless children and men of God rise up from this baptism as witnesses. Have all these been, in continuous opposition to the institution of of infant-baptism necessarily followed. Both the practice and the doctrine of Christian antiquity speak strongly, and with equal strength, for its apostolical origin." Thiersch. 1 Hulfsbiichlein zum Katechismus, 2te Aufl. S. 188, where nothing is said but what Luther had said before : " That the baptism of infants is well- pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved by His own act ; for God has made many of them holy, and given them the Spirit, who have been thus baptized ; and there are many to be found in whom, both as to their doctrine and their life, the works of the Spirit are to be discerned." 2 Xitzsch speaks of the " fearful undertaking to argue all Christendom out of the fact of its baptism." Ribbeck, on the other side, speaks of " the many thousands of God's children, unbaptized as men say, who are saved." (S. 71.) But when he speaks of an unbroken succession of blessed Baptist communities from the times of the Apostles, we must ask in astonishment for his new revelation of Church History. 328 INFANT-BAPTISM. the Sacrament, either not baptized at all, or erroneously bap- tized ? Has God given to so many of them His Holy Spirit in early youth, and should man have refused the water 1 — The same argument is pursued in the Apology p. 157, the Great Cat. p. 544. We entirely agree with the tolerably complete view of the matter — embracing almost all its points — which Guericke gives in his Kirchengesch. i. S. 99, 100 (First edition : we do not know what may have been added in the second.) Not that " infant-baptism became necessary when the mighty influx of the Spirit's power was lost" — we see no logical ground for such a deduction of the "necessity" of a decline from the original institution of the Sacrament. But conversely, as we think, — when the profound view of Irenseus (and that of the Apostles) began to be lost, the practice retreated for a while : it yielded to the spirit of Tertullian's doctrine, before his time ; to an opposition which, however on some grounds relatively justified, recognised the principle neither of the idea nor of the tradition. This retrocession of the principle of infant-baptism went hand in hand with the unapostolical perversion and length- ening out of the period of catechumenship : — in the apostolical time we find only churches of the baptized ; even in 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 23 the ISicorai must not be interpreted, in contradistinction to cnrivToi, as a middle-class of a later kind. Thus we are at one with Hoffmann in our fundamental ideas, and in the results of our inquiry ; though we differ from him considerably in isolated aspects and points of view. We agree with him in this, — that only in infant-baptism the nature of baptism is exhibited in its purity and integrity, as it is the first receiving of the gift of grace unto a new life ; while an adult must necessarily bring to it something of the old, inrooted, personal character, which affects, though it may be in a very small degree, the reception of the grace. But we deny that the Church " went beyond the point attained by the Apostles" in this consummating de- velopment (albeit in thesi we allow the right to this as it respects things other than the Sacrament) : first, because the demand to go forward in this development existed in the apostolical age ; and, then, because the time which immediately followed the Apostles cannot be supposed to have been bold and free enough MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 329 to go beyond apostolical practice in relation to one of the Sacra- ments. Hoffmann seems, moreover, to reduce baptism to too low a point, and to separate it too entirely from the beginning of regeneration. That even in the case of adults baptism has its place before " faith," that is, before living, justifying, and progressively sanctifying faith, has been by us maintained already in its right meaning. But it is carrying this too far, when he says that only a mighty excitement through the testi- mony of the word would have challenged the Apostles to confer baptism, and that the becoming-believing would be opposed to such an excitement, and scarcely possible during the continuance of it. Though Acts viii. 37 may not be genuine, it expresses only the genuine truth ; indeed, after the deception practised by Simon, " with all thine heart" seems exceedingly appro- priate, and thus speaks for its genuineness. Vers. 12, 13, in the same chapter, and chap, xviii. 8, give us the scriptural phrase- ology so plainly, that we are not in a position to deny the " believing" and the " becoming-believing " before baptism, and assume the very reverse. In Acts xi. 17 the rj/uv TnaTevaaaiv must certainly not be expounded as in contrast: this we are decisively taught by chap. xv. 7-11. To make by baptism such superficial, merely excited, so-called " disciples" as the Lord Himself (John vi. 60-64) in the preparatory beginnings had tolerated, was never His command and intention ! The too hasty procedure of Philip in Samaria, which overlooked this, was rectified again by apostolical authority ; but the rule holds good in general that such subsequent rectification should not be necessary. The question is asked, respecting those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost, — " who had time to test the faith of so many multitudes % " But this seems to forget the mighty influence of the Spirit, who on that day suffered no evil admixture, as well as the Apostle's subsequent discernment of spirits. It is also urged that even these baptized people are " commanded first to repent!" but we have given, as we hope, the right exposition of the answer of Acts. ii. 38, in our " Dis- courses of the Apostles:" — Thus ye do well, continue and persevere in this change of mind, as your question exhibits it — for in ver. 37 there is a genuine repentance expressed. We think that in the baptism of adults, the children have come 330 INFANT-BAPTISM. to the birth, and in it strength is given for the bringing forth. (Is. xxxvii. 3.) While we admit all this, we perceive that the administration of baptism in our missions by the hands of men, and the pure realisation of the baptismal idea in adults, has its difficulties and its imperfection ; while, on the other hand, in infant-baptism the " chasm is filled up between the natural and the spiritual," and only in this application of it is the doctrine and practice of baptism seen in its consummation and perfect character. 1 And having the whole course of the history of Christianity before us, we must not overlook or fail to appreciate the counsel of God for the conversion of the peoples of the earth, which was to take its beginning in the family life, as being the root of the life of the people. As the renewing grace of the gospel recognises and leaves in its integrity the ground of nature in the first ordinances of creation, pervading them like leaven, so also the profoundly laid connection of nations (Acts xvii. 26 ; Deut. xxxii. 8) must not be broken by a perpetual selecting out and isolation in the baptizing : it must, rather, be taken up into and confirmed in the discipling. The state- Church which began with Constantine is something altogether different from the Church of the people ; however difficult it may be to make the distinction between them, it is not impossible; 2 as far as it is absolutely necessary, it has been done, at least approximately, by the systems of the Reformed Churches. No good, indeed, can come from arbitrary enforcement, and prescription of periods for the baptism of children ; the permission of delay to those within the psedo-baptist Church would itself lead through experience to a right decision of the question. 3 The Church in Geneva has done well to recognise by its recent decisions the baptism of adults by the side of its infant- baptism. 1 " I hold that the surest of all baptism is infant-baptism." Luther. 2 So that Lange ought not so firmly to maintain that the separation of the Church from the state must at the same time involve a separation from the family, from the people. There are other ways of escape which he altogether neglects. 3 Hoffmann remarks very truly that guiltless lack of baptism would not condemn ; but that parents constrained by the Church would be bad educators for the Church. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 331 We feel and bewail, as much as any secret or open opponent of infant-baptism can do, the lowering and perversion of the Sacrament in the present state of things (with which the dese- cration of the Lord's Supper is quite parallel) — the unnurtured growing up of baptized children — the groundless reliance upon baptism on the part of some, the undervaluation of the mere ceremony on the part of others — in short, the deplorable con- dition generally into which the Church in these matters has fallen. But all this mischief is not, as its opponents assert, to be imputed to infant-baptism since its introduction ; it has rather been produced, in spite of it, by other circumstances which we cannot now stay to set forth. We express the as- surance of our firmest conviction, that the remedy for these evils is not to be found in the removal of the foundation of grace upon which this fallen Church still rests, and the aboli- tion of that baptism which is the real channel for the communi- cation to children of the life of grace. This would be still more to confuse and divide and break up communities and peoples called of God to be Christian, by introducing a system of elective and uncertain later baptism, encumbered with all those inevitable difficulties of which we have already spoken. In every reformation we must take care to carry our reform into the entire heart of the people, already called and elected, making it pervade all, — as Luther gives us a universal sym- bolical example. What kind of baptisms were, according to all appearance, those out of which nevertheless he called out his priests and champions of God's cause ! Ribbeck's allega- tion, that the Reformers did not break away from the notion ot the Romish Church in this matter (S. 49) — may be changed into a commendation, that they held fast in faith the principle of an ecclesiastical grace of Christ within the Church. We must accommodate our minds to the desecration and crucifixion of the body of Christ, the true Church, by its permanent con- nection and confusion with the masses of those who have been baptized in vain, and all but finally dead: — the glorious resur- rection will not tarry long. Meanwhile, let us never forget or dishonour the patience and long-suffering of the Lord, the sin- ners' and the children's Friend, the unweariable grace which begins anew with every new-born child, while His baptism 332 INFANT-BAPTISM. is accepted. If the evangelical Church would begin diligently to point the baptized to the privileges and obligations of their baptism, and to take all pains with the fundamental religious education of those who are growing up ; if institutions were to be established which should seek and strive to save those who are grovelling in sin and ignorance; — then the original stamp would shine out again distinctively in many who hardly exhibit it at all — then would it appear, far beyond expectation, how much of the germ of regeneration is still present among the people, derived from their baptism, and only waiting for dis- cipline and nurture. This would be infinitely better and more correct, than to blind ourselves, on account of flagrant and general perversion, to the actual grace of the Divine In- stitute. In the Christian family, pure and entire according to the full meaning of that word, children do grow up in that " blessing ;" so that, at least in the case of those who do not oppose it, the whole beginning of the life of grace, which alone baptism brings, may be seen in its exhibition from the beginning. Would that be the case also without baptism? Assuredly, in the most favourable cases, where yet the children would be counted common, the Spirit would impel, as in the house of Cornelius, to the reception of baptism. If some of those who scruple so much about it could contemplate such a Christendom as their scruples would make, they would ?peedily give up all their doubts about the propriety of infant-baptism. The fact that grievous abuse exists, such as permits Eibbeck, for instance, to draw such pictures as he does of our baptismal feasts and con- firmations, does not at all affect the question ; for it is not God's will utterly to withdraw His perverted benefits. More- over, it is not true that those who are confirmed among us are ever " as thoroughly children of heathens as the children of Hottentots and Caff res !" We think that the ruin of those who ruin themselves would be still more fearful, if baptism was only held out to them and that in vain as a future goal. 1 And 1 Hoffmann : " Because faith does not arise from being referred to a grace to be hoped for, but from being pointed back to that which has been received ; because the Divine compassion can find entrance only where it has already approved itself present. The Baptist himself cannot do with- MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 333 to surrender up the masses — who dares do that but the Lord alone, plainly declaring His own will by judgment and repro- bation ? — The spirit of these sects, a spirit that rejects so much, which so presumptuously abandons all Churches of the people, all state-Churches, and so many nations in which Christ assur- edly has a deep foundation, shows of itself that it has not the mind of Christ, and that it fundamentally misunderstands and perverts His institutions, laws, and government. Indeed, full " regeneration" — a term which has been very erroneously used in relation to this subject, as if Tit. iii. 5, 6, referred directly to baptism, 1 and the words spoken there must hold good of every baptism of every child — cannot by any means be predicated of infant-baptism ; not, indeed, to any such extent as it may coincide in the case of adults with the reception of the water. But a living principle, and a com- mencement tending to that full regeneration, it does involve, in spite of all contradiction and confusion of opinion ; for the name of the Three-One in the faith of the believing Church, which thus believing still baptizes, cannot be an empty word. We are quite willing to admit, with Nitzsch, a certain " imper- fection and need of consummation" in infant-baptism; but not so as to lose the " Divine fact in and upon the life of the child, by which and in which he is to believe," which Nitzsch so beauti- fully attributes to genuine baptism ; and so as to make that de- pendent upon the subsequent knowledge introduced by the word. We certainly will not degrade infant-baptism by estimating it as analogous to the baptism of John, and therefore as no Sacra- ment at all. This simple juxtaposition of the two is uncon- ditionally incorrect. 2 They who adopt it forget that John out this method of teaching ; he speaks of the grace of vocation, and seeks by this means to excite the catechumen to faith, or the reception of faith." — But how much more influential is this method of appeal in the preach- ing to such as have been baptized! 1 But which a true exegesis finds not to be the case here, any more than in Eph. v. 26. 2 Although there is some truth in this, that, with respect to children, the water and the full gift of the Spirit are to be viewed as more distinct ; their baptism has a more prophetic character ; and in the case of a later, rela- tively absolute, renunciation of the baptismal grace, we may in some sense say that only the baptism of water remained. This, and nothing more, is 334 INFANT-BAPTISM. demanded repentance of adults, and, consequently, that the application of John's baptism to infants (which Ribbeck in his folly requires as according to analogy necessary) is a thing impossible. On the other hand, children are as much capable, as they are in need, of being baptized with the baptism of Christ, imparting the Spirit's grace of a regenerating life. Further, we would not bind the consummation, or better de- velopment, or evolution into the consciousness, of the benefit of infant-baptism, to any definite ceremony such as confirmation ; and declare this to be " necessary" as the internal and consum- mating complement or second part of baptism, or, so to speak, as the essential baptism of the Spirit without water. He briefly but surely confutes the superficial and very prevalent view which lays all the stress in baptism upon the Divine promise and assurance : — this could be given only in word, and there- fore presupposes the understanding of the word and conscious faith. Baptism would then cease to be a work of God in the child ; and the promise for the future would still require a later, additional, and renewing vow of its acceptance on the part of the receiver. It may seem that in these expressions he presses the word too far : — " The current notion that the man, the person confirmed renews his covenant with God, is a notion which deeply degrades the essence of baptism." But his view of con- firmation as a whole, as it " is much less connected with the baptism past than with the first communion to come ;" his testi- mony for the gift of God in baptism ; his refutation of the false idea of a " baptismal covenant," which sprang from a misunder- standing of 1 Pet. iii. 21 — are all essentially sound. We may be allowed a brief excursus on the fore-mentioned saying, 1 Peter iii. 21. In this passage (which gives so much other matter of consideration concerning the water, the flood, flesh, conscience, resurrection, etc.), the word eirepcarnfia, con- fusedly translated by the Yulg. interrogatio in Deum, is the main question. By no means is it, as Luther renders, and the jurist Grotius supports by evidence of juristical phrases, a covenant, obligation, stipulation, or legally binding confirmation of a pro- what the 346th and 347th questions of my Catechism mean ; but I confess that that treatise, in its accommodation to catechetical instruction, does not deal with baptism in a style of dogmatic precision. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 335 mise per solennem inter rogationem et responsionem, like stipulatio: — as in this sense Tertullian spoke of the sponsio salutis, and Cyprian of the interrogatio baptismi. The word may occur elsewhere (as, it is affirmed, in Herod, and Thucyd.) " non de simplici interrogatione, sed de forensi, h.e. de pacto, foedere, sponsione ;" and even in the Sept., Dan. iv. 14, iTrepcoTrj/jia is used, as a air. Xey. for Nr6^, as synon. with Kijjns (according to Schultens qucestio, res de quei agitur ; according to Haver- nick more correctly, the requirement involved, the thing de- sired), and with the supposed meaning of deeretum : — but we cannot possibly understand anything of this kind here in St Peter. Meyer prefers, " the pledge (or stipulation), by means of the question and response of renunciation and consecration con- nected with baptism" — but we must ask, How did the Apostle come to use here this juristical term of federal compact ? How can we suppose him to make an essential part of baptism that question and response of renunciation and consecration which was not till afterwards introduced into its celebration? The word does not appear to have been at all rightly understood by the ancients ; and the Pesh. unliterally and paraphrastically gives to it something of the notion of a confessio (pirotf P3)t?) — by this, however, pointing at least towards the more correct meaning. Two things are plain at the outset : — that mention is here made of the internal essence of baptism in contrast with its external element, and therefore that it cannot be any exter- nal form or formula which is intended ; and that the Apostle means the result and influence upon the inner man of the water which does not kill but saves, and does more than merely wash away, like " the putting away of the filth of the flesh." It is perfectly in opposition to his meaning to understand it of a pro- mise ; man having already a good conscience towards God, that is, the joyful persuasion that he is forgiven ! Winer on purely philological grounds protests against this, showing that only iTrepcordcrOac could have the meaning of promittere. But what he substitutes is also essentially wrong — " the inquiry after God of a good conscience (that is, of a conscience determined to good!), the turning to God, and seeking Him." De Wette translates it in the same way — Nachfrage an Gott — and many agree with him, laying the emphasis upon this that " in bap- 336 INFANT-BAPTISM. tism a man cannot come forward as one who may enter into a stipulation with God, but must come to God as desiring and seeking a grace which is altogether gratuitous." V. Gerlach, admitting this, says : " the words then indicate that which saved Noah in the flood, and Christians in baptism." But that which saves is certainly the gift and grace of God ; not our asking for it, our turning to Him, and seeking ! Can we suppose the Apostle here to have so entirely lost the objective in the sub- jective ? Neander rejects this altogether ; but he unhappily falls back upon the " question proposed in baptism." " This spiritual character might be pointed out by the question proposed at baptism, which referred to the spiritual religious object of the rite ; and the question is referred to instead of the answer (allud- ing to Winer's objection), because it precedes and is that which gives occasion to the answer." But what has just been said will hold good against this. Buddeus (Theol. mor. cap. v. § 18) saw quite rightly that it must be an effect of baptism which is here referred to, instead of a previously-desired good conscience ; but his interpretation is altogether too artificial — " that we may sustain God's question concerning a good conscience, and may be able readily to make answer to Him ; for it is the character- istic of a regenerate man that he can bear to have his conscience examined by God." Without referring to other confused in- terpretations, our opinion is this : The good conscience, which certainly comes first from baptism, from the resurrection of Him who died for us (see ver. 16 previously), does not merely suffer to be questioned, but speaks of itself to God ; and this opened access of confidence (Rom. v. 1, 2), is that which the Apostle here means. We hold with Bengel, who translates Ansprache — an appealing to God in good conscience ; and says in the Gnomon, " it is the privilege of the pious to address, and appeal to God with confidence," comparing also Heb. x. 22. Brandt, following this : " because baptism inwardly puri- fies, so that we call upon God with good conscience." Lutz, on the contrary, will have it that there is in the baptism a sup- plication for a good conscience, in order to an acceptance into the position of a pardoned sinner; — but how strange is it to conceive of this antecedens alone ! Hofmann (Schriftb. ii. 234) similarly finds in iTrepdorrj^a the thing required (as ahrj/xa is MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-22. 33V the thing asked), and makes the Apostle say : — The water of baptism helps to salvation, inasmuch as by it the blessedness of a good conscience, demanded by God, is given. But this, to our apprehension, nevertheless, is too little ; we think, rather, that the approach to God now opened to us, the address to Him which always meets with an answer, this right of supplication, in which we ever " ask from Him a good conscience, and have a good conscience in His sight" — is actually a claim or title founded upon a prerogative of grace (as the Scholia explain iTrepcorn/na by appaficov, ive^vpov, a7roSe^?), and, in a certain sense, our rightful prerogative, as the Berlenb. Bible translates it. (Only translates it, however ; for the passage is unexpectedly explained as the question about conscience in baptism — He who would be truly and effectually baptized must previously have a good con- science ! In perfect opposition to Heb. x. 22.) Finally, there is in this free approach to God and claim of the cleansed con- science, which appropriates everything to itself through the blessing received in baptism, something of the nature of a cove- nant relation. Heim admits that Luther might have used his translation " Bund" in the sense of a sound exposition ; and, for ourselves, we would not only leave it standing (the literal word can scarcely be popularly reproduced), but also admit that the idea, connected with it, of a baptismal covenant is permissible and useful in popular catechetical instruction. But, withal, we must not surrender the prerogative of the promise and institution on God's part, in the sense of the New Testament huaOrjfcn : we must take care to avoid all Pelagian ideas of our own " promising and vowing." — This will help us to correct what Nagelsbach says concerning this passage, referring the eVepajT^/m, according to the predominant tradition, to the " required baptismal vow." But in this he is right, that, with all the objectivity of baptism, " its conscious acceptance on the part of man introduces a mutual relation ; it is his assumption of all obligations, and the relation may therefore be named a covenant." As far as this goes, Hasse is right with his consistent translation — the conse- cration of a good conscience to God. Finally, this saying of the Apostle may serve to establish the true significance and rela- tive necessity of an ecclesiastical ordinance following after in- fant-baptism, and connected with it, like our confirmation. It VOL. VIII Y 338 INFANT-BAPTISM. is the supplemental coming to God with conscious decision of purpose, the self-consecrating appeal, which now uses its privi- lege of access — Behold, I present myself before Thee, my God, who hast entered into a covenant with Thy servant : let it now "be confirmed in me and by me ! So much for infant-baptism, together with confirmation. But all this does not exhaust the meaning of this unique ver. 19 ; there remains the not unimportant question — Did Christ intend by eh to ovofia to give a form of words wdiich must necessarily be used, as a formula, in the administration of baptism? No one, it might be supposed, would deny that certainly the reference of baptism to the Three-One God, in some manner expressed, testi- fied, and intended, in the avowal of faith, and therefore in the words which accompany the rite, must be essential to its celebra- tion ; for it is in this threefold name that the Lord comprehends the whole of revelation now made perfect, in it He wraps up all the grace of the gospel, all salvation as well as all the confession of faith in it. But it is far otherwise : there are many among the really orthodox believers in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, who understand this ordinance of the Lord very differently, and assert that it was never intended that every person to be baptized should be expressly baptized into this threefold name. Bengel was led by the misunderstanding which we have mentioned — to wit, that edvrj referred only to the Gentiles — to the opinion, which we have also already quoted and rejected, that the Jews especially were to be, and were, baptized into the name of Jesus alone. We find a modern writer attempting, as " a new ex- planation of the baptismal formula," to prove that the one bap- tism must be distinguished into three kinds of baptism for three kinds of persons to be baptized : viz., that the Apostles baptized the Gentiles into the Father, the Jews into the Son, and John's disciples (which, however, badly agrees with Acts xix.) into the Holy Spirit ! All these delusions most earnestly drive us back to the original ordinance, for every baptism — generally ex- pressed, but simply and solemnly. But how can this be, when we find in the New Testament, from Acts ii. 38 onwards, only a baptizing in or into the name of Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus ; the perfect Trinitarian formula never being once men- tioned? See the further passages Acts viii. 16, x. 48 ; xix. 5, MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 339 (In Eom. vi. 3, and indeed in Gal. iii. 27, another and a didac- tic meaning is involved.) We will not, at the outset, conclude that the Apostles never and nowhere baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit ; and infer, therefore, the impro- bability that Christ ever uttered the words attributed to Him — words to which His own disciples never paid any attention ! But just as little are we satisfied with Zinzendorf's marvel- lous device (thus to bring the extremes together), who, falling back into the identity of the formula with ev tg3 ovo/ian, un- derstands it to mean that they were to baptize in the authority of the Triune God ; and further asserts that, because the reve- lation of the Trinity and the mystery of the Holy Spirit be- longed to the disciplina arcani among the Gentiles, it never entered the Apostles' minds to utter the three names at once in their baptizing. He supposes that they baptized merely in the name of Jesus and into Jesus ; and that the outpouring of the Spirit upon those who were baptized was the test which decided whether they were to be informed about the Holy Ghost. But in Acts x. 48 the form is still used, even immediately after their reception of the Spirit. The Samaritans in ch. viii. 16 were not heathens ; the disciples of John in ch. xix. 5 were certainly Jews ; and in ch. ii. 38 the baptism announced to all Israel was only into the name of Jesus Christ ! Thus may even enlightened men go astray, and their wanderings it is profitable sometimes to remember. As it regards the difficulty of which we are speaking, we may say in the general with Lange, against Strauss, that the expression in the Acts of the Apostles is not properly speaking the description of the apostolical act in baptism, but " only the most concise historical definition of the Christian baptism, in contradistinction to the Jewish baptizing." Or, with Thiersch, that " the sacred administration might be more dogmatically or more liturgically referred to in the several cases, with reference rather to its influence, or rather to its rite " (which, however, would hold good only for the passage Eom. vi. 3). Or, as Neander expresses himself: "It cannot at least be proved from these passages that the perfect formula was not in use ; for there is no literal baptismal formula described, prominence being given only to the characteristic aim of baptism." Just so does Olshausen explain his view, and refers 340 INFANT-BAPTISM. further to Acts xix. 2, 5 ; Tit. iii. 4 seq., as " passages in which the Son and the Holy Ghost are placed in such connection with baptism, that a reference to the formula which was used in baptizing remains in the highest degree probable." Thus, the expression used in the Acts of the Apostles might be, as Storr says, no other than a mere abbreviation, as we perceive still more obviously in the mention of " baptizing " without any addition at all. But, he says, for such an abbreviation the first word of the formula would not have been so appropriate as the second, as not sufficiently distinguishing Christian baptism from that of the Jews (but where had the Jews a God the Father ?) ; while, on the other hand, no man could have baptized into the name of Jesus who did not strictly adhere to His own command- ment, and consequently use the formula which He had pre- scribed. All this, however, despatches the matter rather too mechanically, and inserts as a matter taken for granted what ought to be proved. More closely examined, this will be found to be unsatisfactory. It is remarkable that in the four collective historical passages there is a close connection with, and reference to, the Holy Spirit ; while in the description of the baptism He is not Himself directly named. As to Acts ii. 38, the deficiency is at once repaired by the promise which immediately follows ; and it is evident that the entire formula on Peter's lips at this time would have been inappropriate and stiff, putting the letter harshly first. But the confession that the crucified Jesus was actually the Christ was rightly made prominent as being the decisive point ; this being established, the baptism would be afterwards scripturally completed. And so in Acts x. 48, where the Holy Ghost had already fallen upon the persons to be baptized, the iv rep ovo/juan, rod /cvplov admits at the same time (as we remarked before) of another meaning, denoting the obligation and commission of the Apostle. In the historical style of narrating the event it would include — He commanded them to be baptized precisely as the Lord had commanded. But in ch. xix. 5 the connection would seem to demand the most exact specification of the true baptism — of that baptism in which the Holy Spirit was named and offered as present and immediately operating ; it is strange that this should be want- ing? if the full formula was always and essentially introduced. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 341 Finally, it is not appropriate to interpret ch. viii. 16 as meaning that they were expressly baptized into the name of the Holy Ghost, whom, nevertheless, they had not received. The /aovov fiefiaTrTccrfievoi does appear actually to define at the same time the formula which was used, as not mentioning the Holy Ghost. After all, Yoss seems to us to be in a great measure right, who (Disput. ii. de bapt. Thes. 5) sought to demonstrate by the authority of many of the fathers, and of most of the schoolmen, that the meaning of Christ was very far from unconditionally binding the power and validity of baptism to the express utter- ance of these three names. The Lord does not say — and upon this Voss lays emphasis — dicentes, baptizo te; but merely /Sowr- TiCpvTe^: His word is not — Saying, I baptize thee ; but — bap- tizing them. We found in the Lord's Supper that, according to the spiritual interpretation which alone is right in expounding New-Testament ordinances, the blessing of the elements with the actual words of the institution — that is, the witnessing and proffering repetition of His own This is — was the most becoming, and therefore had been rightly continued in the practice of the Church ; while, nevertheless, the Lord had not absolutely con- fined the blessing of His Sacrament to such a literal formula. And the same view may be the only correct one in relation to baptism also. On the one hand, nothing is more natural and, indeed, in certain circumstances, more necessary for the defence of the Sacrament from all unbelieving corruption, than the use of the very words which the Lord uttered when He instituted it with His promise. On the other hand, we must assume the freedom of the Spirit, in relation to which the miraculous energy and gift in the water, sanctified to that end, should not be bound to the name of the Three-One, as an external and orally pro- nounced form (in the manner of a tshtosn £%} [ n Jewish or V t : - Gentile incantation). Thus it appears to us best to explain the significant change of the expression in the Scripture : it diverts us from any merely superstitious or in any sense unevangelical, Old-Testament clinging to the mere letter of the formula. That which seems strange if not harsh becomes a testimony for a new and weighty truth. There is, assuredly — and this remains abso- lutely fixed — no other real and essential baptism of Christ than that which is, according to its meaning, design, and power, into 342 INFANT-BAPTISM. the name of the Three-One : this is the sure signification of the word of institution, and this word we must all the more rigidly maintain, when heretics would cunningly change it ; and gene- rally in times and places when the full meaning of the faith is not of itself understood. Otherwise, here as everywhere the essential point is not the letter, but the spirit. Hence we prefer to say with Calvin : " We see that the complement of baptism is in Christ, whom therefore we may rightly call the proper object of baptism. It is not to be wondered at that the Apostles are said to have baptized those in His name, who had been ap- pointed to be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost likewise. Whatever benefits and gifts may be the result of baptism are all found in the name of Christ alone. Nor could one who baptized into the name of Christ fail to invoke also the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit." And, as Calvin still leaves it uncertain whether he meant this of an internal unity only of the names, or of the utterance of those names, we agree with the still plainer declaration of Neander : " It is nevertheless probable that in the original apostolical formula only this one reference was made pro- minent." That is to say, sometimes, or at first predominantly ; for we cannot hold it probable that the Apostles did not also use the solemn and perfect formula of the institution, at least in the course of the further development of the ecclesiastical ceremony. Thus, by the process of a free spirit the subsequent settlement of the form was introduced, though that freedom continued long in the Church. We find, indeed, in Justin's Apology a plain description of baptism : " We bring them afterwards where there is water, and they are regenerated with the re- generation which we received. For in the name of the Father of all, the Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing in the water." 1 And it was very early acknowledged, as Lange expresses it, " that the precision of the form in baptism was to be traced back to the 1 As, according to the Const. Clem. (vii. 23) baptism is into the name " of the Father who sent, of the Christ who had come, of the Paraclete who beareth witness." — As to the suspicion of Hilgenfeld and others, that the Trinitarian formula was interpolated by Justin, it admits of easy refu- tation. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 343 word of Jesus Himself ; this also being obvious from the essen- tial nature of baptism." But there was a certain freedom, nevertheless, as to the formula in the act of baptizing, which continued long in the Church concurrently with a firm adherence to the essence of the baptism into the Three-One ; until at length we find, as may be seen in Tertullian, that it became a rule to sprinkle or immerse not once only, but three times, in connection with the name of each of the Persons. That it was afterwards matter of faith " that the actual words of Christ must be used as a baptismal formula" (as Neander says in his Life of Christ) may be explained on other grounds which are not to be despised; 1 and this we would assert against our modern " free communities," in the name of the Church which acknowledges the Three-One. But not unconditionally in the name of Christy who certainly did not ordain — When ye baptize, Say, etc. So Luther rebukes the adherents of the letter, " who with furious zeal pour out their condemnation upon those who should say — / baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ (the form of the Apostles, however, as we read in the Acts) ; and would allow no validity to any other form than this — I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." 2 We would let the Greeks say as they do — "Let this servant of Christ be baptized ;" we would not dishonour the holy sacrament, with all fidelity of faith and confession, and with all commendable adherence to ecclesiastical appointment, by super- stitious adherence to words and names. 3 Baptizing is followed by teaching, which is parallel with it. That is, as we have seen, both are together included in the discipling ; while, strictly speaking, baptizing is the beginning of making the disciple, and not teaching. Even adults stand in 1 Gerhard 'speaks of the obligation of Christ's disciples " with pious sim- plicity to adhere to the words of Christ," but adds," not that we ascribe any magical and occult property to the sound of the words." 2 Otherwise, therefore, than the later Lutheran dogmatics, which reckon "the recitation of the words of institution" as part of the "form of baptism." 3 Even Pope Zachary confirmed the baptism of an ignorant priest, who baptized in nomine patria etjilia, et spiritua sancta, because an error in the syllables did not affect the baptism. See in J. L. Hartmann Pastorale p. 683, very different examples of the conduct of the Leipzic divines in 1614. As to the baptizing with anything besides water, the question is needless. 344 TEACHING. need after their baptism of this teaching, which was distinguished by its specific purpose from the preaching which preceded it. According to the mind of the Lord it may indeed be said — Preach first, then baptize ; but never — Teach first, that is, those whom ye may then baptize. The introduction, the right, and the susceptibility for the ScSa^rj, Acts ii., was the baptism which had been already administered. The first " them" in our text singled out the individuals of the nations, whether adults or children, for baptizing; the second "them," therefore repeated, means plainly the fiad^revOevra 1 ;, those who had become disciples, and were baptized. Because they are now disciples like your- selves, therefore all that I have commanded you is incumbent upon them. But ye must teach them : this is, again, according to the New-Testatment freedom in the Spirit, a government and direction by the exhorting word, which does indeed command, but always in such a manner that it appeals to the judgment and tends to knowledge, thereby alone laying claim to the free faith and the will of the taught. " By means of a free influence of the Spirit using the instrumentality of doctrine" (as Lange says), ye shall guide them onwards into perfect discipleship. No heathen constitution of religion ever had an institute of doctrine ; the Old Testament knew only of its symbolical germ and be- ginning. The TTjpelv, keep, an expression used here at the close in St John's sense, though it occurs elsewhere in St Matthew — is neither a mere performance in act, nor a mere maintenance in faith, but both together in their living unity ; for the irdvra gives of itself its most comprehensive meaning to the iv6T6i\d/j,r)v. Certainly, and this it is most important to hold fast, it is not a mere maintenance of these things as articles to be believed, as if the teaching was only the communication of ideas, the stamping upon the mind of dogmas, etc. The ivreKkeaOav is too strong for such a meaning ; it defines here, where the great characteristics of the new Church are traced in contradistinction to the old constitution (Israel receding into the edvrj), the new law of life in Christ Jesus. This, as we think, comes here into express prominence — Instruct them in and unto the keeping of My commandments, as My perfect and true disciples! (Matt. vii. 21 [Luke vi. 46]; Matt, xxiii. 3; John xiv. 15). Not, as Greg. Nyss. distinguished the words, MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 345 that the fcnpixraeiv or Karrj^elv, included in the fiaOnreveiv, re- ferred to that which was now to be specifically the " doctrine" concerning the truths of the faith. Nor, as Hoffmann incor- rectly defines them, that the former had reference to facts, the latter to precepts. For, the continuous teaching, like the keeping which it demands, embraces announcements and promises ad- dressed to faith in the preached facts or revelations delivered — in short, all that the first disciples had received through the life and words of Jesus as the great ivro\rj, or commandment, to be handed down. (Comp. in the Old Testament Lev. x. 11.) But yet the goal and final aim of all is — as proposed here in the conclusion — the obedience and patience of faith in doing as well as in suffering, the consummation of discipleship in the life sanctified to Christ. As the Apostles themselves were not in their short life to con- vert and baptize all nations, so was the following teaching not committed to them alone. They receive the commission as the first, in the name of their successors. But who are these suc- cessors ? The Lord obviously does not institute a specific order in the Church (although the later ecclesiastical orders naturally enough introduce this) — but an office He does institute, to be executed in His Spirit, according to His own choice and calling. Those who are to be taught are taken for granted, and there fore unmentioned, while those who teach are made specially prominent in the mass of the people. To this perpetually self- renewing and self-extending Church as a whole the Lord leaves all the rest ; l He allows room for free development and modifi- cations of institute, and asserts the Church's right in the Spirit to regulate all ordinances. He sums up the Church's position under its two aspects : He will have it ever learning, as well as ever teaching to that end. Thus we may adopt the correct words of Nitzsch : " The Church has not only been established by means of a relation of teaching and hearing, but has been established in order to that relation — that it by its own instruc- tions might ever continue to build itself up. Every congregation must be a disciple of that office of teaching which was sent forth 1 Not, indeed, according to the bold pseudo- Catholicism which says upon this passage (Allioli) : " Remark how Jesus here commits the teaching of His Church to the shepherds gathered together under Peter ! " 346 TEACHING. to instruct the nations ; and those who are born into it by baptism are baptized to this end, that they may be scholars under this preaching office" (Prakt. Theol. i. S. 213). Thus we have, in this " teaching them," the institution of the office of teaching or preaching for the baptized, as essentially belonging to the institu- tion of baptism, which cannot consummate of itself the grace of God in the adult, and can only begin it in little children j 1 it is the perfectly sufficient, while it is the necessary, " complement" of all that needs complementing in every fiaTrrlQiv or first fjLaOrjTeveLv — that all may be led upwards and onwards, to grow up into perfect disciples. 2 " When, through missionaiy preach- ing, part of a nation, or by degrees a whole nation, become disciples, and are dedicated to the Lord by holy baptism, the members of this Church or community are, according to the command of Jesus, pointed to the observance of all that which He had commanded to His first disciples. This word of our Lord establishes the ecclesiastical office of preaching, as the former had ordained the missionary preaching." Thus it is written in my Keryktyk (§ 61), and I do not feel myself authorised to re- tract the words, although the strangely paradoxical thesis of the excellent Harms refuses to acknowledge any Divine institution of preaching ; although my critics are very severe upon my principles, the most friendly of them declaring that they cannot stand before the bar of criticism ; and although Palmer deems my exposition more ingenious than demonstrable. 3 I cannot see what can be soundly urged against our regarding this Si&da- K€iv — which manifestly still refers to those who are baptized, on account of the great end set before them — as establishing by 1 As to the children, we must certainly regard their parents or sponsors as the first who are appointed to teach them. He who performs the bap- tism, or he who brings the child to it, is expected by the Lord's ordinance to instruct it. 2 Compare Rudelbach in the Luth. Zeitsch. 1848. i. S. 26, who says in- definitely : " fAccdYiTsvsiu includes the making disciples, and preserving as such." But this " mpwtx.6v " is not, properly speaking, included in the word. 3 Similarly Harnack deems my argument against Harms, drawn from Matt, xxviii. 20, equally paradoxical with Harms' own assertion. But let the matter be viewed with an unbiassed mind. Is not the uufartvetv con- tinuously carried on and consummated in the hluazeiu ? And is not this, therefore, preaching ? MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 347 our Lord's authority, for the Church, such a necessary medium of self -edification for the individual, and of enlargement for the Church. It might not, indeed, have needed such an express command, but it was given as a " provident and wise precept" for the future ; and we see its operation in apostolical practice afterwards, as in Acts ii. 42. Indeed, this teaching is something more than and different from the preaching which founds the Church, and is the previous condition of the baptizing. The requirement to keep all the commandments of Jesus presupposes, and this must be carefully observed, the grace of baptism which has imparted the power to keep them. 1 I may be permitted to speak further in the language of my Keryktyk: "Missions lay the foundation, and their end is introduction into the fellowship of grace ; but, as it respects the ecclesiastical office of preaching, this end becomes again a beginning, which issues in a continuous edification unto the consummate obedience of living faith. As long as — to in- troduce Mark xvi. 15 in addition — there is an old creation pre- sent, the command is Preach. So far, therefore, the second is shown to be already included in the first ; for the constant in- struction which never ceases to preach until the disciples actually keep and fulfil all the full commandment delivered to their obe- dience, is the continuous fulfilment of the discipling, as the bap- tism was the beginning of it. — This is the reason why the Lord expressly commands the further teaching as a second work ; just as He instituted the Supper in addition to Baptism. The two Sacraments correspond to mission-preaching and church-preach- ing ; the mission prepares for baptism, and the word within the Church prepares the baptized for the Supper of the Lord, and prepares the communicants at the table more and more fully for the perfect kolvcdvicl." Thus we distinguish and separate the two, as far as it is right to do so ; and yet they are so mutually blended that as soon as we speak of a Church which is founded, the mission-preaching says — Now teach those who are baptized ! ^ 1 "Yet this keeping is not a matter of our own strength: baptism estab- lishes the covenant, faith gives the strength. He who will not keep His commandments, as He has ordained, is regarded by Christ as unbaptized and without faith." So Hiller, after BengeTs note : ut baptizatus convenit, fidei virtute, non legaliter. 348 TEACHING. And does not this interpenetration of the two continue in the Church until its final consummation % The ecclesiastical preach- ing within the community we have included in the /cwpvaaeiv, on good grounds and for a good purpose : thus we defend the " kultus-predigt," as it is called, from the prevalent and fatal notion of a u self- exhibition and self -development of the com- munity/' and the Schleiermacherian error which has in that its root. And thus we assert the right and authority of that ele- ment in the SiBdc/ceLv which brings out its continual exhorta- tion, and its progressive mission-preaching to the Church, which according to Acts ix. 31 is progressively self-edified. The ac- cordance of apostolical phraseology with this, has been shown in the Keryhtyk, S. 5. That which the Lord Himself commanded and committed to His disciples, is further to be taught and handed down, that men may hold it fast and act according to it — Nothing more, and nothing different ! He therefore refuses His sanction and pro- mise to all ordinances of men which depart from His precepts ; although all those adminicula docendi et cedifcandi ecclesiam which might be pointed out by His Spirit and developed from His word, are included in this ivro\rj. But, again, all that was committed to the first disciples, and in a certain sense all that was given even to the Apostles, applies at the same time to all disciples — Nothing less ! " Whatever we may think of certain prerogatives and specific teaching for His then present disciples — can we suppose Him to regard only these, when He said at His solemn departure, Go ye forth into all the world, and make disciples of all nations ? (Disciples are disciples : He never spoke in His Gospel of two kinds of disciples.) Whoever in all nations will be, let him be, My disciple, like yourselves ! Every commission from My Father to you is also for them ; ye shall not keep back from them any one of My sayings and blessings. Give them to keep, to understand, to believe, to do all that I have given to you!" (Pfenninger.) Here, therefore, is, as we have everywhere found — an apostolate, and yet no privilege, only the church ; an office of teaching, and yet the equal call of all to like knowledge and like performance. 1 1 A Theocracy, indeed the first true theocracy. But, on that very account, as Nitzsch says, "The theocracy of the Spirit is mediated by a theodidaskalia." MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 349 Further, it remains to be observed and made prominent that to this all belongs especially the Lord's Supper. Baptism, as imparting the principle of grace in order to the keeping of the commandments, is already presupposed ; and so also is the per- petual invigoration of the Supper, strengthening in that obe- dience — even as it is afterwards included and referred to in the great promise, lam with you. Finally, it was obviously intended that they should impose the commission which they had just now received, as also binding : they were to say to all who followed, and these to continue the word, in His name — Go ye forth, con- vert the peoples, baptize and teach ! Every man must in his degree enter into the great work, when and as far as he feels his own interest in it. (Hence in Mark xvi. 17, we read — Those who believe; not, by any means — Those who preach or teach.) This alone enables us to understand how the Lord could say to these first, that is, through them to all in the future — I am with you, as long as the world's generations continue! Grotius : " For since this promise extends to the end of the world, but the Apostles were not to live so long, Christ must be regarded as having addressed the successors of their office in their persons." Or, will any man feel inclined to attribute to our Lord Himself the " expectation of a speedy return ?" His power preceded as the ground and authority of all ; the promised aid of His mighty presence closes the whole. Would He .send them forth into all the world, and not Himself be with and in all His messengers, in all places ? (Mar. xvi. 20.) Thus they were no more in the future to expect His bodily visible presence upon any mountain, or any single place upon earth ; but, wherever those who go forth, those who baptize, and those who are baptized, are found in all the earth, there is He at the same time and in every place. This word, consequently, an- nounces and includes the ascension ; hence St Matthew, instead of giving the external narrative of the ascension, which from this declaration must have been self-understood to all, closes with this word. 1 He says more to our faith in this manner, than 1 " This seems so evident, that St Matthew always appears to me more vividly and impressively to have recorded the ascent into heaven than St Luke himself. This was evidently in the mind of the Evangelist himself who recorded it, and therefore he added not another word." (Fogtmann.) 350 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. if he had recorded the circumstances of a departure, which as a departure might have been misunderstood. He says fundamen- tally the same which St John had said in the word to Thomas, and which St Luke, Acts i. 9, had said by his significant words - — And a cloud received Him from their eyes. Only from the sight of their eyes ! And for this the Forty Days, with their intervals of the invisibility of Him who was nevertheless near, had paved the way. As before Divine power, so now Divine omnipresence is im- puted by the Lord to Himself. But Meyer's note, well-mean- ing though not prudently expressed, does not satisfy us here : " Christ according to His humanity is gone up to heaven, but according to His Divinity is everywhere present." For the glorified humanity, as entirely assumed into the Divinity, pene- trated by it, and inseparable from it, participates in the same omnipresence. When the Lord says, Behold, I — He means His person indivisibly, as they see it now standing before them. When He continues lam with you — He speaks now as man the language of God from all antiquity. Grotius : " For it is to be noted that to be with any one — cum aliquo esse — is spoken pe- culiarly of God." 1 How highly exalted is this above that first Nicodemus-view of His person, as of a man with whom God was ! But He is with His disciples — for their strength, their defence, their assistance, their light, and their life — in various ways, and by the medium of manifold instrumentalities; yet in all these, and everywhere, as the personal /. He is present in His word ; not only in that which He had Himself spoken, but also in that which is spoken and recorded concerning Him ; in the whole totality of His life and testimony in the flesh, as it became the matter of preaching, and Scripture, and preaching again, down to the time of His ascension. In addition to that word, and in that word, He is present by His Spirit, whom He had promised and given ; who is one with Himself, and who, in all that He continued to show and to impart to believers, took only of that which was already present in the Son. (Jno. xvi. 14 — which must hold good, as we have said before, of infant-baptism 1 Alford says here : " So that the mystery of His name ipfAetuovfa is ful- filled — God is with «s." I would add — the name with which St Matthew set out in his gospel. MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 351 also.) By His word and Spirit He makes the collective dis- cipleship of His true disciples, standing in the true faith, and even every individual among them so far as he is such, infallible. This infallibility of the Church, teaching and handing down His will, is here most incontrovertibly assumed ; though we do well to be on our guard against boasting of or relying upon this truth in any fleshly limitation of the Spirit's power. 1 As to the empirical church of this or that age or place, we may say with Nitzsch — its greatest error is the opinion that it is infallible ; but this does not abolish the promise of the Lord — He is pre- sent with His truth. He is present with His mighty defence and aid against the gates of Hell which would oppose and hinder His Church in the execution of His commands. But, finally, He is present in His invisible corporeity, according to His promise and institution ; present in His body and blood in the Supper for all His disciples. I am with you ! Thus does He speak distinctively ; although He will be also in the midst of His enemies by His effectual presence. For His presence, the source of blessing and the bond of union with Himself, is of a special and distinctive kind to His disciples. This holds good of every believer, in his own individual person. It is more strongly guaranteed, as it respects the perception of faith, and more mightily testified, in respect to the operation and influence, to every united little company (as He had said already, ch. xviii. 20). But it is most strongly, certainly, and mightily assured to His whole Church, to His entire people among the nations, as essentially fulfilling the Old-Testament promise of Lev. xxvi. 11, 12 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16. The sublime I at the close corresponds with the to Me of the beginning: the Almighty and All-present needs no repre- sentative or deputy. Only those among whom and with whom He is in truth, convert and teach others again, that they may 1 As Allioli perverts the sublime truth : " The bishops assembled under their head (instead of — the Church gathered in the name of Christ) are thus infallible, whether assembled in one place, or dispersed over all the earth. St Matthew closes his gospel with the teaching and infallible Church (he means — clergy); for in her the teaching and sanctifying Christ continues to live upon earth ; her doctrine is His doctrine, her spirit is His spirit, her defence is His defence. Blessed are all who dwell under her protection ! " What a salto mortale ! 352 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. become such like themselves. And thus should it continue — with an eifii which to Him was equal to eternity, the simple eternal presence of time — through all the days which are yet to be, as long as the days of heaven continue upon earth (Deut. xi. 21) ; as long as heaven and earth, over which He has all authority, continue separate, and the earth has still its days and nights ; until His own great day. He was not visibly present with them during all the Forty Days ; and yet it was plain in His visits that He had been meanwhile always with them : — this was now to be consummated and finally illustrated. Thus various days and times of great and awful things, good and evil days, were yet to come ; for all alike He promises — I am with you ! To the end of the woMs course ! (Ch. xxiv. 3, the same expression.) This means, first : He will be with them keeping, defending, perfecting, so long as they shall need this, and the assurance of it, in the present evil world ; for He is speaking especially of this being with them. " But after the consum- mation of this age also," says Glassius, " there can be no doubt that Christ will be with His Church." We prefer, however, to say, with Bengel and others, according to the word of Christ and His Apostles, — that after the end of the world — we shall be with Him for ever, where He is ! By this " until the end of the age" it is further assured to every individual believer that Christ will be and will abide with him, not only in death, but beyond death, through all intermediate times, which still may be called days, and through all intermediate circumstances, down to the last day. There is an end, when this course of the world and of time will pass over into eternity. As certainly as the Lord is speak- ing of historical days, so certainly does He testify that a his- torically impending end, a last day, will come. Till then avails His — / am with you I Thus does St Matthew close. St Mark gives us some more precise words concerning it, which may be regarded as running parallel in their meaning with those which St Matthew records, or to have been spoken possibly between the two clauses in Matt. ver. 20. For the " Go ye, therefore, and preach," beginning anew in St Mark with a stronger emphasis, might well have followed the " I have commanded you" in St Matthew. And the promise of the accompanying signs into 1 But the nights were to become, in the light of the promise, days I MATTHEW XXVIII. 18-20. 353 which St Mark's discourse flows, can scarcely be separated from the u I am with you" which followed it : — so that the word con- cerning the end may well have been still the end of the whole discourse. But this will require more specific consideration. The words of St Matthew, which we have expounded, are only a compendious statement, in a summary which did not re- cord all the words which our Lord may have spoken. But we must not suppose that another place, and another locality, than that upon the mountain, is here to be understood. St Mark now combines the whole still more compendiously, from ver. 9 downwards — the genuineness of which, and its character, we have already examined and settled. It might appear from his account that vers. 15-18 was spoken on the evening of the first day, recorded in ver. 14. ^Compare in Acts xxvi. 16 a similar combination of a later manifestation and commission with the first oTTTcuria.) But the double narrative of this evening's pro- ceedings in St Luke and St John will not allow any room for such an anticipatory discourse ; and then Mar. vers. 15-18 is too plainly parallel with the conclusion of St Matthew to allow any doubt as to its having been spoken in the same mountain- Appearance. We must therefore intelligently notice the scarcely hinting hint which St Mark himself gives us in ver. 19 by his ficra to \dkrjcrai avrols — by which the koX elirev clvtoIs ver. 15 loses (as most expositors see) all specific chronological connection with ver. 14. After he has, in vers. 9-14, given prominence to three special and first Appearances, St Mark gives us con- tinuously, from ver. 14 to the end of the aveXrj^Or], the main substance of the discourses of Jesus to the disciples between the resurrection and the ascension ; and that according to a view of them peculiar to himself, and with a specific meaning in such a peculiar combination. The preachers upon this section, the gospel of ascension-day, are continually required to trace and appreciate this unity in his design. The simplest view is to divide this XaXrjaai, clvtoIs in a threefold way. At first, He still rebukes His disciples' unbelief; secondly, He institutes the office of preaching and baptism, which is to be exercised by them notwithstanding their weakness of faith, in order to the creation VOL. VIII. z 354 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. of the faith which bringeth salvation. Or, this may be other- wise stated ; He points us to the word and Sacrament which lead to faith, because faith or unbelief will finally decide the matter of salvation. Thirdly, He promises to all believers His aid, exhibited in mighty signs. And does He not thus continue to speak from age to age ? He must ever begin again with that rebuke ; He continues the same direction ; but He ceases to bestow the same kind of consolation. The upbraiding belongs still to the Lord's departure; but not to the "testament" left unto us, as Helferich very inappropriately says. What specific kind of connection there is between the two accounts of what our Lord spoke on the Galilsean mountain — how little or how much that connection extends to the words — what was the precise order of the utterances — are questions which it would not be prudent to answer positively. Though for ourselves we understand St Mark's words to have followed the others, we cannot prove that it was so. Through the Holy Ghost, who has thus reproduced and delivered to us His word, the Lord speaks to us now both the one and the other — and both are immediately authentic. But the Divine Spirit rather points our attention away from the mere historical and external connection of the individual words. The great object with us should be to appreciate the one design of the whole discourse, and to grasp it in all its completeness of dogmatic import. The discourses of the Risen Lord permit, and indeed demand of us, beyond all that preceded, such an elevation above the petty consideration of the historical and exact words — such a mani- fold, and yet not altering glorification} We have, when we collate Matt, and Mark, and supplement the one by the other, three critical points: the authority of Jesus Christ ; the commission following from it ; the sealing of the commission, or the promise attached to it, through the same authority. The first stands in Matt. ver. 18. The second, as 1 Yet not altering : there was no addition of tradition on the part of the Evangelists ! It may be safely affirmed that the texts of St Matthew and St Mark may be so collated as to show that the Lord verbally spoke the words of both. We cannot approve of Lange's opinion, that St Mark gives us the same in a more developed form ; for much of what he records must be presupposed in St Matthew, in order to understand him well. MARK XVI. 15-18. 355 the middle part of the whole, may be thus subdivided and com- pleted : 1. The general declaration : their office (Go out — /juaOi]. revaare, make disciples through the preaching, and in order to the preaching, of the Gospel) ; the range of their office (all peoples — all the world — every creature). 2. The specific state- ment of the two means by which this is to be accomplished — Baptism and teaching, as in Matt. Finally, the sealing pro- mise for the commission is again twofold. 1. In relation to those to whom it is sent, there is the connection, in Mar. ver. 16, of their eternal salvation with faith and baptism. 2. In relation to those who are sent (but including all who should believe, and therefore would themselves also be sent), there is the general promise of being with them, as found in St Matthew, and also the specific declaration concerning the signs of that presence. Go ye therefore is the same in both. All the world in St Mark is plainly synonymous with all nations in St Matthew. But now the Lord expressly commands the fcrjpvjjare — Preach — which must also be included of course, though unexpressed, in St Matthew: — preach, that is, the Gospel; see the same expression without any further addition in St Mark as early as ch. i. 15, and then ch, xiii. 10, xiv. 9. The Gospel, the original Gospel, with all its exclusiveness and all its universal compre- hensiveness combined ; announcing to the hearts of all sinners, without long delay of teaching — which must follow in due course — the comforting tidings of salvation in the comfortable message of the grace of God. Not teaching instead of preach- ing; like many who lay too much and too premature stress upon the " knowledge of the truth." The Gospel contains and brings with it a fulness of truth which has never yet been ex- hausted by the entire Church, much less by any individual churches ; the living and vivifying essence of the whole, the condensed sum of all this fulness, must ever be declared first in the form of a joyful message. Preach therefore, whenever the call and conversion of sinners is concerned — and when is this to cease even in the Church? — not dogmatics, and least of all your own ! Further, as Braune very reasonably urges, act not as if the Lord had said — Preach the confession of faith! " Confessions are distinctions of importance in the Church of Christ and its truth, which have and must have their funda- 356 TO EVERY CREATURE. mental point of unity in the Gospel." Even the Eoman Catholics, as such, with all their manifold errors, may preach the Gospel of Him who has all power and love to save souls , but in so doing they must cease to be rigid and zealous Papists, mass-priests, and servants of Mary. Even the "Lutheran" Church which so loudly boasts — though not in her purest an 6 most genuine representatives — and among whose errors even her name may be sometimes included, should preach the Gospel within her borders, and not Lutheranism ; and should laboui to found, without her borders, free and new churches through the free word, formed according to the genius and spirit of the people, and not mere affiliated children of a mother-church. Such preaching of the Gospel — in the spirit of our Lord's command — must emphatically begin the great work in every place to which His sent and commissioned servants come ; wherever, and among whatever people, the salvation of the Triune God has not been preached, to whom this message of grace has not been openly announced — neither adults nor chil dren are to be baptized. Mark, further, that the Lord's com- mand is not — Write down and record My words and My history, but — Preach ! All that comes in supplementally, as we shall presently see in Lu. xxiv. 46, 47 ; and by His new Scriptures the Lord has — as was indispensably necessary — given the cer- tain and all-sufficient text for all Gospel preaching. Yet it is a profound truth, which we should ponder well, that He did not at first and preparatorily speak of or ordain the writing of the Scripture — but connect all with the oral word. Only in the preaching Church, which possesses the Spirit, does the letter of the Scripture live as a living word, and the Sacraments have their influence and efficiency. In the Church which possesses the preaching and teaching in addition — and that for little children too in connection with essential family-life — infant-baptism has its validity and power. Thus much is true ; but it is harsh and incorrect, to reckon baptism itself as part of the preaching, and as being a testimony in act : — this gives the Baptists an advantage in their opposition to the rite. The preaching concerning baptism belongs to it, but not baptism itself. We can preach and bear witness only to those who can hear and accept the preached word. MARK XVI. 15-18. 357 Preach the Gospel to every creature ! What does this nean? The expression seems at the first glance, however striking the sound of universality in it may be, only parallel with " into all the world " (where the world of mankind is of course meant), and thus similar to the "all nations" of St Matthew. Most expositors have been content to despatch the matter thus, in the style of Grotius' observation : " the Hebrew calls men ntfnn — the creation — pre-eminently, because they are the most excellent work of God." In the Rabbinical writers «lJia-?3 may be found as a designation of the whole world of mankind ; but this we believe on the authority of others. De Wette translates accordingly, here as often following his prede- cessors Stolz and Seiler, — all men; van Ess, still more de- cisively, all nations. Whatever truth there may be in this, we must utterly reject (as most unsuitable to St Matthew's text, and to the matter generally) Lightfoot's restriction to the Gentiles, whom the Rabbinical writings sometimes denominate specifically ^^ — as being men in the state of nature simply. — But, we would ask, why and to what end is this unusual word used, which in itself suggests something beyond, when Koc/jLos, €0vt], dvOpcoTToo offered themselves abundantly, as the customary and legitimate expressions ? If the contrast of the natural and actual condition of all mankind, as thus standing in need of the Gospel and salvation, was to be strongly brought out, why was not the well-known expression used, which would best express this — all flesh ? (as the London Heb. N. T. scruples not to translate, lb3"?3?.) And if we compare the similar pas- sage, Col. i. 23 (which seems almost a reminiscence of the Lord's word), we may, if so bent, interpret it merely according to Rom. x. 18 ; but it is even more striking than here that in that passage iracra Krlcnq had preceded in ver. 15, in its common and comprehensive meaning. Finally, we have in Rom. viii. 19-23 a passage which so indubitably declares the connection of human salvation, of the redemption of mankind, with a renewal also of the extra-human earthly " creature," that it may be re garded as shedding a very remarkable light upon the Lord's word lying now before us, as well as upon Col. i. 23. We shall not enter afresh upon the exposition of Rom. viii., and prove that a redemption and restoration is promised to the extra- 358 TO EVERY CREATURE. human, earthly creature corresponding to the freedom and glory of the children of God. This helps us to understand why the Lord will have the Gospel of salvation for men preached at the same time iraari rfj /cricrec. Not, indeed, as in the fish- preaching of St Antony, that the word itself is to be carried to the unheeding creature — the K^pvaaeiv presupposes that men are the only hearers. Xor is it merely, as Luther's presenti- ment expressed the matter in his peculiar way : " And in this commandment He looks very widely around. His preaching is to be as public as heaven, that the blessed sun, every tree and stone might hear it, if they had ears." 1 But, though the rest of the creation have no ears to hear with for themselves, man is their ear ; and by means of its connection with man, creation becomes actually partaker of a redemption springing out of man's redemption, after having been through man's fall sub- jected to vanity and sin : — just as Rom. viii. teaches. Bengel's profound glance had slightly perceived the meaning of Rom. viii., and he remarks here upon the Lord's word : " To men, primarily, ver. 16; to the rest of the creatures, secondarily: As the curse, so the blessing." In Christ the earth and all that is in it is again blessed ; as all was laid under the curse in the fall through the sin of Adam. By reason of the internal and everlasting connection of man, and his old or new creation, with nature which surrounds him, serves him, and with him has become wretched and been again restored, this same Gospel applies through him and his mediation to this irrational and lifeless nature — just as the Lord in His promise to Noah and his sons included also the lower animals. Gen. ix. 9, 10. If the old saying — The righteous man is merciful to his beast — attains in the economy of Christ, and under the influence of His Spirit, its full and pregnant meaning; — does not the beast also share in some way the blessing, and partake of a deliver- ance through the grace that renews all things? 2 The civilisa- tion which follows in the track of our Missions makes the wil- 1 This co-ordinate idea of the greatest publicity lies already in the kt^-Jg- aiiu of itself. 2 Compare the remarks of Steffens (von d. falsch. Theol. u. d. wahr. Gl. S. 101, and often elsewhere) about the deep-seated feeling of a union with the whole animal world. MARK XVI. 15-18. 359 derness blossom, and does not the whole earth thus share in the blessings of the Gospel? And, still more, there is a certain confirmation of this meaning in the following word of our Lord, ver. 18 ; in the same discourse which speaks of the supremacy of His healing power over those noisome and deadly elements of nature, as it now is, which certainly did not have their origin in paradise. Or, are we imposing the meaning here ! Is it a beautiful and true thought, imported from elsewhere, that we unhappily affix to the /crlcrcs in this passage ? TTe admit what Bengel establishes from ver. 16, that the Lord also in ver. 15 thought especially of the human world and the human creation. 1 We will without controversy allow every one to interpret iraaa ktLgis according to the analogy of n p2"?2 ; 2 because this is in fact the point of connection for that deeper intimation which not every- one has ears to hear. Nevertheless, to us this latter significance seems tolerably certain ; and for this plain reason, that the use of the phrase /cricris, in the sense of avOpcoiros, cannot by any means be established. 3 It does not occur in the Hebrew ; in the later phraseology there is no evidence that it was used hi such a general sense, or in any such manner limited to humanity ; and consequently, it cannot be assumed that such a use of it was usual or intelligible in the Lord's time. The learned and exact Buxtorf has not a syllable about it in the article of his Lexicon which embraces this subject. But it is in vain to seek in the Xew Testament a single passage in which /crlcrcs is used for men ; for Bom. viii. must be rescued from a similar arbitrary exposition. Heb. iv. 13 cannot be made an argument to the contrary ; for that passage speaks of man as a ruined creation, which its Creator and Restorer must know in its inmost charac- teristics and impulses. Col. i. 23 must be strictly connected 1 Here, again, enters Hoffmann's correct remark, that noLoa, ktigi; includes of course the children, like kclvto. rx efoy. Only not so immediately for the KwiGGuv, as in the former case for the pccfarsvitv. 2 For, in the Old Testament ~^-2 is found once only, Xumb. xvi. 30, construed quite differently with s-=. ' 3 In 1 Pet. ii. 13 xvQpuTrivn terms certainly means arrangement or eco- nomy, or office : if not, it plainly proves that ktigi; alone does not signify man 360 TO EVERY CREATURE. with our Lord's words here in St Mark. Finally, in Bev. v. 13 (let it be carefully noted !) — which brings all previous hints, as it were, to a definite conclusion — it is promised that everything created, irav Krlafjua (not merely /CTtcrt?) — upon and in the sea also — will give honour to Him that sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb. Much might be further said with reference to the four fwa. Thus of the earthly creation or nature generally the Lord speaks — of every creature under heaven, as the Epistle to the Colossians adds. 1 " If nature is mentioned simply," says Meyer, " it must be, of course, the present, the old, unrestored, iraXata KTiai^r And again : " To the new creature, to man as partaker of the regeneration, the Gospel or the message of salvation needs not to be preached ; for they have already received it, and are partakers of its blessings, at least spiritually and in hope. Thus that creature is, first of all, the summary of all unregenerated men ; but, by means of the context, etc." And, as the word of St Matthew is intensified in its repetition by St Mark, it may teach us something supplementarily about the meaning of irdvra ra eCvr). It certainly includes the Jewish world ; but, spiritu- ally adopting and enlarging the phraseology which usually thus denominated the Gentiles alone, it means pre-eminently all that which was yet the ktir Christian knowledge and piety, has revealed to me the ex- istence of so much confusion, and let me say superstition, in the minds of the people on this question (connected, albeit, with much deep anxiety to comply with the precepts of Christ), that I could not consent to further the views of those who would revive the discipline of private baptism for times of danger. It rather appears to me more and more clearly the duty of the minister to defend his people from superstition, and even under certain circumstances to deny the rite which is demanded with an unworthy motive ; at least to perform no so-called baptism of need without a plain protest against the notion of its necessity. I think we may better, and with more blessed result, uphold the true appreciation of the Sacrament, than by furthering an improper and erroneous value for it. When the ceremony is performed upon a child to all appearance dying, according to the formulary which is the only one in most of our service books, that is with all the obligations of the sponsors, etc., just as if the child were destined to live — what is this but trifling with holy things ? In infant-baptism the germ is implanted for life upon earth, from which the tree should spring up in the present economy of things ; this is alone its peculiar significance and justification. But the little children whom the Lord calls to die, He calls by their death (as we are in the habit of say- ing) most surely and effectually to come unto Himself. John the Baptist said merely — He that believeth (Jno. iii. 36) ; Christ, on the other hand, says — He that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved. That we may set this former half of the verse in a clear light, we may apply to it two questions : Where- fore is faith required in order to baptism ! Wherefore is bap- tism required as following the faith? The former question — Wlierefore is faith in order to baptism? is of course easily understood and answered. For, first — Water has nothing to 368 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. do with the matter, but regeneration. And that little children, baptized or unbaptized, will have in the other world — as, so to term it, in a limbus infantum — a way of faith opened to their dawning consciousness, is most certain. Whether a harder or an easier way than here, — may be met with the appropriate reply, Who can penetrate into these hidden mysteries ? But the Sacraments were instituted for the way of salvation upon earth, and not for Hades. 1 Secondly — Even the Holy Ghost, the internal and real laver of regeneration, doth not effect it absolutely and alone, that is, with unresisted power; conse- quently, an accepting, retaining and confirming will must con- cur and abide to the end — and this is faith. The other question — Why baptism with water after the faith ? is a harder one, but the answer may be easily and scripturally given. First, generally, it is for great and small alike, it has been ordained by God in His Church, as the appointed way in which the Spirit puts his effect in the word, as the body and blood of Christ in the Supper. (Quite subordinately to this, and apart from it, — an external sign of those who belong to the Church.) Those who are born in Christendom and for Christianity are appointed to this ordinance at once. Thus, secondly, baptism is in the case of children : 1. the prevenient, essential commencement of their regeneration, the implanted germ of the new life ; 2. a firm ground and anchor for their subsequent faith : — I have been baptized, the grace of redemption pertains to me; 2 3. to 1 Munchmeyer's protest does not affect this plain position ; we would ask him how he knows the contrary. We do not deny that the inserted germ may be developed in Hades ; but we declare it to be a duty to implant it as soon as possible, though so many children die afterwards. As to the absolute necessity of baptism for death, we deny it. 2 Hoffmann has laid great stress upon the fact that infant-baptism alone corresponds perfectly to this design — that of giving absolute and immove- able assurance, to be retained through all the future, that God has regarded and accepted me in mercy. He, further, insists that in the case of adults who are baptized, their genuine baptism may be matter of doubt, even with their faith and conversion. But we should shrink from a view which would tend to lower the character of adult-baptism. Moreover, in the first place, the tempted soul may certainly be led to doubt about the prerogative of his own baptism in childhood. And, secondly, it is not the finis primarius, the great point, in baptism, to afford the sure ground of future faith ; its first and most essential character is to be the means of regeneration. A vain MARK XVI. 15-18. 369 their parents or other educators a similar ground of assurance of grace, so that they may with confidence endeavour to train up the tender plant, the seed of which is sown. Thirdly and finally, in the case of adults, who believe through the word and are baptized, it is : 1. The means of grace, in which God will give Himself to their desiring faith, to make it living and fruitful through the spirit of regeneration and renewal, to esta- blish their fellowship with Himself as the Triune God ;* 2. the confirmation at the same time of this initiatory faith, coming thus to baptism, as the confession of the Crucified, the Risen, and the Ascended Lord, who will thus be openly avowed by His disciples before the world, even as He was and still is openly rejected in the world by others. And it was perfectly in har- mony with this, that the early Church allowed validity to the death of unbaptized martyrs, as a baptismus sanguinis, a baptism of blood. 2 But after these many words of our weakness, let us turn to a new utterance of our Lord, in which He promises in few but most mighty words — vers. 17, 18 — the signs that should follow believers. The ko\ ripara (wonders) which is usually connected with bvo- fiarl /iov is placed in conjunction with the eh to ovo/jlo, in St Matthew, the reader will observe all that we cannot now pause to develop. Among the miracles which our Lord Himself per- formed, the casting out of devils was the first, the most mighty, and the most convincing sign (Matt. xii. 25 seq.) : the Lord therefore places it now first, and says by His " in My name" no less than this — Ye shall perform the same works which I Myself have performed. Satan's power confronts and opposes the coming kingdom of God : how then could anything but this promise stand in the forefront — this prominent sign of the Stronger than he ? It is well known to the learned that from the time of Justin and Irenseus onward, and down to the fourth century (not to go further), the Fathers, and especially the Apologists, referred with the utmost confidence of challenge to the actual fact that the demons were constrained to retire before the name of Christ. But something of the same time continues throughout the whole course of history down to the present day. The speaking in new yXwao-ais, new tongues, languages, expressions, in such a manner as to evidence a higher power and inspiration, began with the day of Pentecost, continued for a while in Christian baptism, and now takes various and other forms. We take it for granted as proved that the Corinthian. glossolaly was not of the same kind as the Pentecostal miracle ; and that generally the speaking with tongues, or in a tongue (ykcoaaai? and e£? apovai : that is, they should take up serpents (the connection explains this of poisonous, life-destroying serpents) ; they should lay hold of them, and, as the combination with the following clause shows, without hurt. This is expressed more strongly than if the mean- ing referred to their not biting, or to the unhurtfulness of their bite : the promise is that they should not merely suffer such Onpia to come near them, but that they should in cases of necessity be able to lay hold on them, cast them away, destroy them. Thus much is true from the connection, and it is confirmed by the remarkable narrative of Acts xxviii. 3-5. But the simplicity of the customary expression (in which the laying hold demonstrates of itself that the creature is overcome, and can do no injury), leads us to doubt whether the apovcn, is intended to mean a u casting out," or throwing away, which should correspond with the eKJBaXovcri before. The passive ov jjltj pXd^rrj appears here to be enough ; the casting away would enter too expressly into the externality of the sign, and (in opposition to the parallel, Lu. x. 19, 20) involve a too bold antagonism to the demonic and hurtful elements of nature itself — in the manner of the contest which the religion of Parsism exhibits with the powers of evil in nature. The Qavaai\xov — deadly thing — reminds the reader of Scripture of 2 Kings iv. 40, 41 ; but that drinking and not eating is spoken of (though the latter is not excluded), is accounted for by the circumstance that poison is more easily, and therefore is more generally, intermixed with the drink which conceals it so well. And, accordingly, we cannot but think of poisons designedly used by enemies in stealth ; (or, as some have supposed) of the so-called "philtres" and deadly potions of antiquity. This last is applicable enough to the first ages ; but such special interpretations must not be allowed to interfere with the general meaning and validity of the sign. Eusebius (iii. 39) gives us a pertinent example of the innoxious drinking of a deadly liquid; and such doubtless often occurred (and still occurs), or the Lord would not have made it so prominent. (St John's caldron of oil in the so-called " legend " is something MARK XVI, 15-18. 377 very different from this !) But it is self -understood in all this, that believers should experience the fulfilment of the promise only where their testimony for God might render it imperative that they should claim that promise ; they must never, without the express call of God, venture thus to take up the serpent, or drink the potion. (Wesley : But not by their own choice. God never calls us to try any such experiments.) Finally, the series closes with healing of diseases, not by medicine, but by the name of the Lord, accompanied by the usual imposition of hands — which our Lord Jesus Himself employed — as the conductor of the miraculous power. 1 This last sign was to all appearance the least. At the same time it was that one which, according to Jas. v. 14-16, was to be most ordinarily realised in the Church itself ; and thus it was the most permanent sign even for literal fulfilment. Thus it is in contrast with the casting out of devils which began the series ; nevertheless, the circle returns into itself ; for possession and sickness are strictly connected, and the hea{ing unites them in one. To the rightly understanding mind it will need no proof that all sickness is in its inmost principle connected with sin and the power of evil ; and how many forms of bodily unsoundness point us involuntarily, by their tormenting appearance and character, to their affinity with the demonic power over man. St James associates with the mighty power of prayer the symbol of oil, which the weaker faith of the disciples had once employed unbidden, Mark vi. 13 ; but the same St Mark, who recorded that circumstance, has not added the word here — he simply records now what the Lord actually said. His disciples were to lay on their hands, as He had done. Their hands also should have a miraculous power of blessing ; even as their mouths should speak a new language. Such would be the signs, which the Lord mentions and pro- mises as examples of much else similar ; yea, the fulfilment overpassed the promise, as Bengel remarks, in their raising the dead. 2 Yet, the selection and the order is here, as everywhere, 1 See Numb. viii. 10, xxvii. 23 ; Deut. xxxiv. 9 ; and in connection with the sacrifices, Lev. viii. 14, etc. ; with which we may compare, in Heb. vi. 2, the laying on of hands by the side of baptizing. 2 For this addition in Matt. x. 8 is spurious. 378 THE COMMISSION AND PROMISES. significant. If we take, as before observed, the unhnrtfulness of the two hurtful elements in one, we have at the beginning and the end two signs of helping power, as exerted upon others. Between them come the two signs which should have their demonstration in themselves — the active sign of their miraculous speaking, the more passive sign of their not coming to any harm. As it respects others, all should be pure benevolence and doing good — as in Acts x. 38 it is said concerning the Lord's works — no miracles of condemnation and judgment are referred to. In certain exceptional cases we find the Apostles acting as it pleased not the Lord Himself to act. St Peter, in spite of his own will, doomed by his word of power to a fearful death the liars against the Holy Ghost ; and St Paul designedly blinded Elymas, and imposed sicknesses as the discipline of the Church ; — but those actions have nothing to do with these words of universal application. The Church, Acts iv. 30, in their suppli- cations to God against the threatening of all their enemies, asked only for the Divine signs of healing. To many of our modern critics this whole discourse of our Lord appears very suspicious ; and some with absolute confidence declare it to be a later interpolation of a miracle-loving age. 1 But we adhere to the testimony that He did thus speak, though we would endeavour to understand Him better than if He had said merely repara. His arj^ela refer us necessarily to their interpretation and meaning. It is the power of the Spirit of God which should, and which did, approve itself as the power of signs and wonders (Pom. xv. 19) ; and in these signs the Holy Ghost symbolically showed forth His spiritual energy and operations (as was the case with our Lord's miracles) — those spiritual influences and operations which should be for ever the best demonstrations of His presence. When St Paul appealed to the signs of an Apostle, he placed patience first, and not till after that the signs and wonders and mighty deeds (2 Cor. xii. 12). That which Christ had spoken in Jno. iv. 48 concerning the 1 See, for instance, the remarks of the author of " A6$ poi irou oru" etc. (Berlin 1841), to the effect that St Mark here gives a "harsh, apocryphal, and most unhappy supplement to his gospel." But the present writer looks at it with very different eyes ; and sees that in it which tests whether a man has any spiritual sight or understanding at all. MARK XVI. 15-18. 379 only relative value of external miracles, He could not have for- gotten, or retracted, in these His final words. It is not possible — however it may seem — that He meant only, and nothing more than, those wonders which, while under some circumstances they might lead to true faith, in many cases might be used only to bewitch the people, or cause the performer himself only to be wondered at (Acts viii. 9, 13), and which certainly were not in- tended to be of permanent necessity to the Church. Even an Iscariot might cast out devils, and heal the sick ; that is, through a certain faith in Jesus which he had not altogether lost. But this (not isolated) example modifies still differently our observa- tion concerning the unity of the saving and the wonder-working faith. And the faith which, with all power and patience of waiting, preaches in order to the salvation of others, needs not necessarily any external performance of miracles. Thus, we admit that the Lord named the external miracles, of which He literally speaks, as miracles in external nature which should actually take place, and continue to recur according to the need of the kingdom of God — for how can we suppose Him to have made an unreal thing the type of a reality ? But a deeper un- derstanding of His words, and that which alone is correct, must regard Him as having meant and promised, under this figure, those mighty influences of the Spirit especially which correspond to these signs, and should ever abide in the Church, as being much more important and essential than they. Or, can we sup- pose that the lack of miracles would be an essential deficiency ? Were His believers to look for such miracles as were performed in the beginning, as being essential to their preaching and ex- tending everywhere the Gospel of grace ? Would such miracles have absolutely helped on that Gospel, in such times and circum- stances as ours? 1 Is it not, rather, true — as it has been dis- cerned by many from the beginning — that the withdrawal of the external working of miracles has been connected with a progression of the Church and her missions into the domain of the Spirit alone ? We may refer to what was said upon Jno. 1 " Even while the assistance of miracles remained, most (rather all ! ) still rested upon faith in the word. Believe thou the word confirmed by the miracles, and thou wilt have the blessing of previous and latter times in one." (Rieger.) 380 THE COMMISSION AND PKOMISES. xiv. 12 (and with specific reference to this parallel passage), and deduce once more from the fact that the Lord derives His expression from these outward demonstrations of power, the great truth — " Whatsoever believers shall in all ages do in My name will be as wonderful as these things are, and will be the esential realisation of these signs." Thus it was understood in very early times. St Bernard on this passage encounters the doubt whether true faith can be present where these signs are wanting ; and he introduces the spiritual interpretation with good effect. We have already made some quotations from antiquity, in our remarks upon Jno. xiv. Helferich has taken pains to show how " these notes of the working and influence of Jesus, divested of their mira- culous (that is, their external) character, are valid for the Church of all ages ;" but he does not develop the details with sufficient precision. Lange's view of the "more general symboli- cal meaning of those promised miraculous signs" is much more excellent ; though with that we cannot altogether agree. Let us now look at the whole in this light. The casting out of devils, — which, as irveviiarLKa rrj<; irovnpla^ (Eph. vi. 12), are everywhere present in the world, where sin and death reigns, — is and must be the first thing. Satan's power, exerted through the agency of many spirits belonging to him (all the more mighty, because bodily possession has receded), must be broken, and his powers must retire before the Spirit of God. Even the exorcism, which was in early times connected with baptism, contained a deep truth in its fundamental idea. But the devil, as St James teaches us (ch. iii. 6-8), has especially the tongue, man's words, in his service — by this those possessed by him show themselves ! Then the great point is, that those who believe should drive first out of themselves all evil, and all the devilish nature. Satan must be overcome by the word, by a new and mighty Spirit-word ; this explains the conjunction of the second with the first sign. And here comes in the expres- sion " new tongues," 1 the true understanding of which required to be deferred till this point was reached. It is not merely other tongues, which would correspond rather to the first and external 1 For it is of no weight that it is wanting in a few MSS., which introduce instead the inappropriate h roiis ytpah oQug dpovoi. MAEK XVI. 15-18. 381 demonstration given by the sign. The profound expression is used only here ; and we may compare with it Ecclus. li. 29, where the addition new belongs to our translation, though added in strict conformity with the Greek text. Olshausen is certainly in great error : " the yXwcrcrrj XaXelv had been sometimes under- stood as a language of angels ; therefore it is here called a new tongue ;" for, apart from the strangeness of this latter expres- sion, are we to interpret the word of Christ according to the notions which were afterwards in vogue among the people? The Lord sets His new tongues in opposition, first, to the tongues with which sinners had spoken ; and, then, to human tongues generally; — but as the new Spirit-word, full of self- demonstrating Divine power, such as was miraculously impressed upon it, though only at the first, in the glossolaly or " speaking with tongues." The taking hold of serpents He means also in the same profound and comprehensive sense which we have already, on Luke x. 19, found in this symbolical word, which Old-Testament use had already sanctified. 1 We do not agree with Lange in thinking that in the drinking of deadly things the more general symbolical character of this promise comes into most emphatic prominence. That character shows itself in them all ; each individual sign connects the internal meaning with the external, as is plain enough even with regard to the devils and the serpents. If any one of them points more evidently than the rest to a spiritual interpretation, it is the speaking with new tongues. All the hurtful elements of nature, as all the hurtful elements in the spiritual kingdom, are derived from the fall ; and the power of Christ arms us against them all alike. He preserves our real life still from the philtres and poisonous potions of the spirit of the age and its literature, as certainly and as miraculously as preservation from bodily harm is here attributed to His power. Finally, how much sickness, and how many hurts, of the souls of men are still healed by the blessed and blessing agency of the hand and power of Christian men ! True it is (as Lange says) that the saving and restoring might of the Spirit of Christ exerts His power instrumentally — generally 1 Helferich understands here also a casting out of all barbarity and wildness of nature, etc. — the true cultivation which the Gospel introduces. But this is far below the meaning of the saying. 382 FURTHER EXPLANATION AND PROMISE. and in specific cases — " in the sphere of human bodily life ;" but how much greater and more gloriously miraculous are His influences in the abolition of sin and its sicknesses ! Kal fcakws e^ovcriv — they shall be healed — all to whom the hands of believers may bring the bendiction of cure ! Thus St Mark closes his Gospel : — in a manner seemingly strange, and yet quite in harmony with the original character of his composi- tion, which concisely notes individualities everywhere ; and, moreover, quite consistently with the brief style of his final compendious conclusion. With this termination of his gospel he connects the Ascension. It is indeed in sharp contrast with the sublimely comprehensive final word of St Matthew ; but if we receive the one and the other with all becoming simplicity, we shall understand both according to the meaning of the Spirit, — the Spirit through whom Jesus spoke, and St Mark thus closed his gospel. And then shall we cry to the Lord — Ah, strengthen and bless Thou the hands of Thy believing messengers, that they may rightly lay them upon men; and that, before Thy coming again, Thy promise may be abun- dantly fulfilled : They shall be healed I it shall be well with them! 1 FURTHER EXPLANATION AND PROMISE. (Lu. xxiv. 44-49.) St Luke also gives us a compendious selection of our Lord's words before the ascension ; a summary suitable to the funda- 1 The significance of this concluding word, -which with all its specific character includes a universal and profound meaning, is quite sufficient reason for rejecting the customary parallelising of these clauses. There is no need for resorting to Lange's strange expedient, who refers the Kc&kag 't^ovaiu to the disciples themselves, as a promise that they should always enjoy • perfect soundness ! The promise, regarded as spoken to the healers them- selves, was never fully fulfilled. Timothy was often sick ; St Paul, whose hands were so mighty in healing, himself suffered from infirmity and the thorn in the flesh. And in the lower analogy the physician is not always himself sound in health. LUKE XXIV. 44-49. 383 mental design of his Gospel, before lie speaks further of it in the Acts of the Apostles (see Acts i. 3). Writing in the Spirit it impressed itself obviously upon his mind, or was a direct sug- gestion of the Holy Ghost, that in the brief and epitomising reference to these discourses of our Lord — which, as His resurrection and ascension sayings, already anticipated His pentecostal promises — the when and the where should be lost sight of, as comparatively unimportant. Thus the Risen Lord appears throughout as already ascending before our eyes ; and the Ascended Lord appears to be already speaking to us from heaven. We find this characteristic of the first construction of the Gos- pels common to all the three Synoptics, differing as they do in other respects. St Matthew has given us only the beginning and end, as it were, of Christ's manifestation after the resurrec- tion ; the proper conclusion of the history, the visible and actual ascension, — which the Evangelists who were not Apostles speci- fically record in their lower standing-point, — he presents, in the genuine apostolical style, only in such words of our Lord as make it self-understood ; and the " mountain" itself on which those words were spoken he leaves altogether indefinite. In this (that the ascension is not recorded) St John is one with him. He also closes with the following or remaining until the ascended Lord should return; although he was directed to report with strict historical accuracy the place and time of many other signs, appearances, and revelations. The relation of the whole matter which we have thus exhibited is not understood by our diplo- matic critics ; it is but too little apprehended by our orthodox expositors, and hence their misarrangement of many of these particulars. Although ver. 44 in St Luke's narrative appears to be a strict continuation of ver. 43, ver. 50 presently afterwards shows us the impossibility of so reading it. For, apart from the too anticipa- tory character of this whole discourse as located in the first even- ing (including, to wit, not only the glance backwards, and the enlightenment of their understandings, vers. 44-46, which might be suitable ; but also such instructions and promises as befitted only the close of this intermediate period, vers. 47-49) — it in- volves too great a hiatus, and a too violent leap in the record, amounting even to historical untruthfulness, if we make the 384 FURTHER EXPLANATION AND PROMISE. " led them out" follow immediately on the first evening. More- over, the same St Luke elsewhere manifests his acquaintance with the Lord's manifold discourses concerning the kingdom of God during these Forty Days ! We must, therefore, decline to read the Elire Be avroh of ver. 44 in strict historical connection ; St Luke's customary use of the Be imposes no necessity of doing so. We cannot — as we have already shown — make the other account of the Appearance of this evening, in Jno. xx., agree with that which St Luke here adds. Others, e.g. Lange, would connect only ver. 44 with what precedes, and introduce the division at ver. 45 ; thus mak- ing the tot e Baqvoi^ev refer to the " then of a continuous presence of Christ, who began to speak to them on that evening, but continued throughout the whole of the Forty Days." But the introductory words of ver. 44 equally well suit this idea, and it is therefore needless to separate it from ver. 45 ; while, on the other hand, ver. 46 seems to be connected in the strictest manner with ver. 44. Finally, the supposition, found most frequently in practical and uncritical exposition, which makes the division at ver. 49, — placing all that precedes in the first evening, and making ver. 49, on account of ver. 50, a final appearance before the ascension — is altogether forced; for, the kol IBov — and, behold — of ver. 49 evidently continues the discourse, and inti- mates, as we shall see, a strict connection. Schleiermacher : " Ver. 44 begins a later and more summary postscript, which is independent of time and place, and reports only that which was essential in the conversations of the Re- deemer with His disciples. And thus it appends a very sum- mary notice of the departure and ascension of Christ." In the fundamental idea he is right, but only in that. We cannot see any reason for a supplement here. Whether St Luke, — who, according to Acts i. 3, knew much more than he reported, — was not accurately acquainted with time and place in these things, or whether it was merely his design as a writer to leave all un- determined, is a question which may very reasonably be enter- tained. And, finally, the summary notice is again resumed and completed in the Acts of the Apostles as historically exact. Grotius perceived the truth clearly enough to say upon ver. 44 : " The sum of the discourses follows, which during the forty LUKE XXIV. 44-49. 385 days," etc. Ebrard decides also for such a resume', understands the Tore as u then," adding to it ver. 44, and asks with much force whether on this evening, which began before the Two returned from Emmaus to Jerusalem, there had been time to expound the Scriptures, and — to go to Bethany. This last, that is, is directed against the criticism which first arbitrarily under- stands the Evangelist in this way, and then quarrels with him for it. — Yon Gerlach comes to the right conclusion, that there is here a combination of our Lord's discourses ; he thinks it quite natural (though not for the deeper reason which we have given) that all the manifestations and words of the risen Lord should be combined together " in their tradition :" — but our views of this tradition are different from his. We would rather adhere to the expression — in the first construction of the Gospels — for we assume that in the three collective gospels, which do not fol- low any fixed plan of tradition, each of the writers had a specific knowledge of all particulars, and made his selection according to a conscious and designed plan. This last is established, as it respects St Luke, the most removed reporter, by his own state- ment in the Acts of the Apostles. Consequently, he did not so much mark prominently the " essential matter" generally, as that which he proposed to give according to the plan and sphere of his own particular Gospel. But the Lord did actually speak, with more or less laterality, that which is recorded with the express elire ; St Luke does not hand down a merely fabricated or " developed" discourse of the Lord Jesus. When, then, and where did He thus speak ? Bengel, followed by many, supposes that the whole, including ver. 44, was spoken on the day of the ascension, and therefore at Jerusalem (vers. 47, 49), from which He led them out, ver. 50. But this would assign too late a period for the opening of the Scriptures to the disciples. Moreover, it is questionable whether the i^yaye, ver. 50, is in direct historical connection ; indeed, we may un- derstand this hardly conceivable leading out as merely intimat- ing His fixed appointment that they should go thither. 1 Lange 1 Even Rieger, who is generally so tenacious of the letter, says : " The leading out to Bethany meant some such appointment as that which had lately taken place in respect to the mountain in Galilee." — That He led them out, as Lange says, " in the manner of former times, to the Mount VOL. VIII. 2 B 386 FURTHER EXPLANATION AND PROMISE. refers vers. 45 seq. to the Appearance on the mountain in Galilee ; and regards the words as spoken explanatorily between vers. 18 and 19 of Matt, xxviii. Certainly, Lu. ver. 49 does very appropriately prepare the way for the " Go ye forth ;" but, on the other hand, we must not consent to separate vers. 18 and 19 in Matt. ; and, finally, the e£o> (which there is no sound reason for omitting) appears, even if the leading forth was not meant literally, to indicate that the place of our Lord's last dis- course was not Galilee, not a mountain, but the city of Jerusa- lem and a house within it. 1 Suffice it, that we cannot and must not arrange with confidence the external When and Where of this matter ; we must receive the word in faith which the Spirit has preserved for us in its indisputable truth. Only on account of the emphatic fareivell-character of the whole have we placed it by the side of the record of St Matthew and St Mark, as a repeated explanation and promise before the ascension, given in another gospel. The entire section combines in its first and second portions the two fundamental characteristics of the earlier and later Appearances, as they are seen in their distinction in the case of Thomas' faith (compare the remarks made on Jno. xxi.). It points backwards first, and then forwards, both references being strictly connected in the middle, vers. 46, 47. This is the difficulty which leads to the supposition of St Luke's account being a summary ; though it might, on the other hand, be assumed that there was an especial Appearance (over and above the ten), in which the Lord Himself thus summed up the whole. However that may be, we have only to receive and expound with all simplicity what is recorded ; and in doing so it is our duty to discover both unity and order in the words. And, by way of preparing the way for the detailed exposition, it may be asserted that the Evangelist Luke, purposing to give his com- pendious close, gives us, from ver. 36 onwards, like St Mark, from ver. 14 onwards, His resurrection-conclusion of our Lord's words, as they lead to the ascension ; and that he gives it as one whole, in the unity of the fundamental thoughts which guide of Olives," has its difficulty, on account of surrounding beholders. And it did not take place in the night ! 1 Draseke thinks it was the house of John ! Compare ha Jno. xx 26. LUKE XXIV. 44-49. 387 him in his selection. As a perfectly appropriate introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, which in this 7rpwTO? X070? he already had in view, he sums up the words and acts of the Risen Lord as & preparatory encouragement, instruction, and appointment of the disciples, and especially the Apostles, for their office of wit- ness. This general design of the whole is made prominent in ver. 48. We may be permitted once more to give our analysis ; which, while serviceable to the preacher, will be found, it is hoped, strictly in harmony with the text. I. The consolation embraces, 1. The greeting, ver. 36. But, because this did not lay hold on them, 2. The demonstration follows, that He had risen and now stood before them in bodily presence. And this in three ways : a. by the gracious, well- known word of ver. 38 (in which an avros iyco elfii is under- stood) ; b. by the evidence of His visible and palpable corpo- reity, vers. 39, 40 ; c. by that of His eating before them, ver. 41-43. II. The instruction follows (not historically in imme- diate sequence, but thus connected with the preceding) ; to wit, that He had been thus promised in the Scripture, and the open- ing of their understanding gave them to know this. 1 He is obliged to convince His weak Apostles by His encouraging words, before He can give them instruction : — an inversion of the order in which He dealt with the disciples on the way to Emmaus ! 2 He shows them : 1. The accordance of His pre- vious and now-fulfilled sayings with the Scriptures, ver. 44 ; 2. He thus opens their understanding to comprehend these Scrip- tures, ver. 45 ; and 3., draws the comprehensive conclusion of ver. 46. It is the actual accomplishment in fact of the whole economy of salvation through Christ, as a fulfilment of the word of prophecy ; the summary of all that had hitherto taken 1 Olshausen's remark, that the manifestations of the Forty Days had not for their end the communication of new instructions, is only very partially true. If the emphasis is laid upon the " new," there is some truth in it ; for the Lord certainly referred back to His former discourses. But the opening of their understanding as to the facts which had occurred, and the Scriptures, and His former discourses in their unity, was certainly new instruction ; and only thus can we understand Acts i. 3. 2 So that we might be disposed to say — How well prepared must those Two have been, to deserve and to be capable of this ! But they were not so profoundly cast down — as the Apostles were. 388 FURTHER EXPLANATION AND PROMISE. place, corresponding to St Luke's own ireirXfqpo^op^iJbeva irpcuy- fiara in the Preface. It is not now added — And thus it be- hoved Him to ascend into heaven; but this is understood in the transition to what follows, as it had been spoken of already in ver. 26. III. We have the appointment of the Apostles to preach these facts, and this plan of salvation, according to the Scripture. And here comes, 1. The preaching of this, as a new word to be carried to all the nations, ver. 47 ; 2. The office of the Apostles, as called to be the first and most special witnesses, ver. 48 ; 3. The reference of their expectation to that power from on high, the Holy Spirit whom they were commanded to wait for, ver. 49. (And this is the point of connection for the Acts of the Apostles !) Yer. 44. The reader will remember what was said upon ver. 37 concerning superstition, unbelief, and a true faith. The faith in His resurrection which was here demanded of the Apostles, on the evidence of their seeing and touching, would have itself retained some element of the first of these three, if the Lord's instruction had not followed. But this opening of their understanding makes it the faith of knowledge, grounded upon the well-understood accordance between the living words and acts of Christ and the prophetic Scripture. This last was the decisive element in their instruction, as it presented, in the wonderful fulfilment of prophecy, a higher reach and contem- plation to their faith. As the angels in the sepulchre had re- ferred back to the words of Jesus, vers. 6-8, so does the Lord Himself here refer to them : it was a continued conviction of the identity of their former and their present Lord — only in a higher degree, and with reference to His spiritual personality. The reading \6yot, /jlov may very well be genuine, as bringing this into prominence ; and also as in contrast with the words of Moses and the Prophets agreeing with them. The &v crvv v[uv (other than the promised and future //,€#' vficov in Matt.) Grotius well explains — " quotidian o scil. convictu, nam tunc tantum kclt ol/covofjLiav illis aderat." Bengel lays the pointed emphasis upon the en (yet), as transposing them into the time when His departure was to them an impending calamity, when He was still as yet with them. His meaning would be tenderly and affectionately to say, — "Ye do not now wish My former being LUKE XXIV. 44-49. 389 with you back again ; the matter is different now ; My victory over death is your greatest joy V' 1 The Lord now speaks, also, as no longer being vnth them (ovkctl), as if already in heaven, and united to them in spiritual fellowship. These anticipations of that state, which pervade the whole of the Forty Days, were not introduced at a later period ; they are characteristic evi- dences of genuineness in the narrative : — thus and not other- wise must the Risen Lord have spoken before the ascension, if the history is true. "On Set is translated by Luther very vaguely, after the example of the Vulg. quoniam necesse est (see, nevertheless, also in ver. 46, quoniam; Erasmus has rightly corrected it into quod necesse foret), — that it would be necessary. The Lord had constantly told His disciples that all must be fulfilled — beginning to tell them more specifically in Matt. xvi. 21, Lu. xviii. 31, and continuing it down to Geth- semane. Why was it then that they did not believe and hold fast this truth, but forgot it I Because they understood it not ; nor could they understand it, as being utterly inconsistent with all their expectations of the Messiah and His kingdom. That which man understands not, he believes and retains not. But the notions which prevented them sprang from a false under- standing, or an entire ignorance, of Scripture : the bar to their understanding was, as Jno. xx. 9 says — They knew not yet the Scripture. Thus they also must hear that exposition and open- ing of Scripture, for which the report of the Emmaus-disciples had prepared them. Not only had the Lord Jesus said al] this before it came to' pass ; but all was the counsel of God, long ages before written concerning Him ! The Lord mentions, after the law of Moses, not only the prophets (as Lu. ver. 27 had said), but expressly in addition, the Psalms : this, however, was not intended to signify that the historical books, not named, were in any degree excluded. 2 But it is true, and meant here also, as Lange says, " that the promise and typifying of the resurrection of Christ (but not that alone, for see vers. 46, 47) pervades uniformly all parts of 1 So do we understand Bengel's brief hint : Res tristis erat auditu, ante- quam fieret ; nunc lsetissima, ut facta est. 2 Wesley here for once errs : " little being said directly concerning Him in the historical books. 390 FURTHER EXPLANATION AND PROMISE. Holy Scripture." If in ver. 25 " the prophets" signified the holy, collective body of prophetical writers, and Moses in ver. 27 took the lead as the first prophet, the Lord now means (as t«? ypa(f)d<; ver. 45 at once shows) the entire body of Scripture, and mentions it solemnly and formally by its then customary title — DWD* ETOMD rrrin. In connection with the law of Moses, therefore, the term " prophets" includes the CbBW"! DW3J ; and the Psalms are set, by an obvious abbreviation, as being the com- mencement of the Hagiographa, for the whole of the third section of Scripture. 1 Compare in 2 Mace. ii. 13 the specific /cal tcl tov AavlB. Nevertheless, we must hold — with Bengel, who introduces it as included in the Lord's meaning — that the Lord significantly referred to these psalms which He had so often quoted as especially prophetic and typical of Himself ; those psalms which He understood and expounded, and will have us also understand and expound, in a manner so different from that of our modern critics ! Those psalms in which so many, like de Wette, find, notwithstanding all their practical and devotional exposition, no direct prophecies of Christ ! These exegetes have obviously yet to wait for the " opening of the understanding to perceive." De Wette pushes the Jewish distinction between the inspiration of the prophets and that of the psalms — a dis- tinction which they intended in a quite different sense — to such an extreme as to say that " the psalmists bear no public charac- ter, but utter the feelings of their own hearts, and often touching circumstances in their own personal history." And yet — as if to obviate this misunderstanding — our Lord ranks these psalms, as bearing witness for Him, by the side of the rnin ? the law, and the prophets. David (whom we must not place merely among the "psalmists") was, according to his own declaration, 2 Sam. xxiii., and the assurances of the Apostles who had learned it from the Lord, also a true prophet ; his psalms were for the most part used in the service of God in their " public character " as the " psalms of Israel ;" and what Christ asserted concerning him in Matt. xxii. 43-45 we have considered upon that passage. If Pss. ii. xvi. xl. lxxii. ex. are not, with all their adherence to 1 Compare Havernick, Introduction Vol. i. Whether, however, /3//3Ao? ■^cthpuv has the same signification in ch. xx. 42 ; Acts i. 20, is another question. LUKE XXIV. 44-49. 391 the typical characteristics which pervade the entire Old Testa- ment, to be called direct prophecies, as direct as any other part of the prophetic Scriptures, we understand not how the word is to be understood. In fact, the broad foundation of all later Messianic prophecy was laid in the psalms — to wit, on the ground of the promise given by Nathan in 2 Sam. vii. ; and it is from the psalms that we can best understand the character and mission and glory of David's Son. We contradict Christ and His Apostles, yea, the dying David himself (2 Sam. xxiii. 3), if we say that this David had not yet received the later developed "idea of the Messiah." That idea was never de- veloped, in the sense in which the word is thus currently used ; but it was given by the will of God from the beginning, and comes out into more and more prominence as a revelation till the full time was come. As it regards the more or less direct, the more or less typical, utterances of the entirely and univer- sally typical personality of David, 1 the solution of the question is not to be found in the fact that " the poet transposed himself into any specific condition — that the type produced in himself the conception of the prototype or antitype," and so forth. But the Spirit of God chose and overruled the psalmist, and spoke through him. Ver. 45. How vast the wisdom of God in this Scripture, which first prepared Israel before the manifestation of the Lord in the flesh, and then accompanied and confirmed the Spirit's preaching concerning Him : — How vast the wisdom of God in these Scriptures, manifold and yet one. Without these Scrip- tures, even the way of faith of the God-man Himself, which He pursued only in their light, would not be conceivable. With- out them there would have been no point of connection for His coming and testimony — / am He ! Yea, without them there would be to this day (as our theology and preaching show, in their rejection of the Old Testament as the ground of the New) no perfectly intelligent, and firmly grounded, faith, either for preaching or hearing. Israel preserved this Scripture; 2 but 1 Which the succeeding prophets themselves understood and so exhibited . see Olshausen, uber tiefern Schriftsinn S. 53, 54. 2 Thus the Masoretes have preserved with the most rigid care, and with the most spirit-less letter-spirit, the exact text of the Scriptures for us. 392 FURTHER EXPLANATION AND PROMISE. its kernel, that which Jesus was the first fully to penetrate, remained hidden from them. They knew and they recited the histories : but who understood their meaning and their end ? They were exceedingly zealous for the Law : but its testimony concerning grace and redemption, and its secret influence tend- ing that way, was concealed from most. The masters in Israel knew not that Moses designed to awaken that deepest and inmost sense of need for which the Lord raised up would bring the grace of salvation. Cleaving to the idea of the King, but not discerning the Saviour and Redeemer, they understood the pro- phets only so far as to hold fast this truth, that there was One who should come. And yet this was enough at the beginning of His coming itself : when He had now died and risen again, He could interpret in the light of fulfilment what had been predicted concerning Him. And this He did to the Apostles most certainly, even as He had before done to the Two ; the Apostles would afterwards be able to do the same for others. It is recorded in Acts xvii. 3, according to the common translation, that Paul, who (as he assures us in 1 Cor. xv. 3, comp. xi. 23) received the same instruction from the Lord, " opened" the Scriptures them- selves to the Jews ; and we may understand that literally — for what is a book and a word without understanding ? Comp. Isa. xxix. 11. But, properly speaking, the Siavolycov teal irapa- Tide/ievo? in that passage unitedly refer to the opened substance of the Scripture, the matter which follows with ore. 1 The proper opening must be in the hearts and minds of men, that they may be able to read the book, no longer sealed. (Isa. xxix. 12.) Compare and ponder Ps. cxix. 18, 130 (T^TnrjQ and D^riQ), Eph. i. 18 ; Acts xvi. 14. Therefore we have here Bir/votgev avrwv rov vovv, which certainly refers to them per- sonally, and not to the Scriptures or things written ; — for, it follows, rod aw Lev at, ra? ypacjxis. The opening did not take place externally in the Scripture, but inwardly in their hearts, as on the way to Emmaus. It was partly the result of the light shed upon the word, and its now intelligible accordance with what had taken place ; partly of a preparatory, pre-Pentecostal influence of the Spirit, which proceeded from the Risen Lord. 1 Not eti/rxs, as Luther supplies it twice : opened them and expounded it. LUKE XXIV. 44-49. 393 But this was very different from that which a pious man describes in the colloquy with the Emmaus-disciples : " He related the story of His passion, of His bloody death upon the cross (which they themselves well knew already !), and illustrated it out of Scripture." (Albertini, with his customary Moravian colouring.) It was not in that way that He opened their under- standing. He gave the reason and the explanation of the dark history ; He gave proof for its " must be " from the Scripture ; He united the death and the resurrection together in His ex- position. 1 He had never, even to the Apostles, pointed out the great connection of Scripture, and the perfect concert of the details of His life, death, and resurrection with the prophecies ; He had only given isolated hints, and quoted individual pas- sages. It must of course be understood that this " sharpening of their intelligence to apprehend the great whole " (as Hess says) was not a specific exegesis of all the individual passages, but rather the placing of a strong light in the centre, revealing the one object, and the perfect harmony of the entire mass of Scriptures. The one central point was the understanding of the humiliation and exaltation, the sufferings and the glory, of Christ, in then* unity, their foundation, and their design. 2 But, notwithstanding the fundamental clearness of the view which they now received, it was still possible — until the day of Pente- cost perfected their knowledge, or at least made it infallible in their office — that they should have questions to put, such as that in Acts i. 6 concerning the establishment of the kino-dom for Israel — and even that they should mistake in specific cir- cumstances, as Peter did, Acts i. 20, concerning the successor of Judas. 1 "To say that Jesus was guided by the Jewish manner of exposition darkens, instead of illustrating, the subject. He manifestly understood the doctrine of the Messiah, aud the Scriptural passages winch referred to it, in an altogether different way from that in which the Jews of His own time interpreted or rather misinterpreted." Hess. 2 Thiersch (die Kirche im apostol. Zeitalter, S. 48, 49) seems to border on the notion of an, as it were, esoteric instruction concerning the abundant fulness of which the Evangelist maintained an intentional and prudent reserve. According to Matt. x. 27, however, we find that this concealed instruction was to be disclosed in all the preaching and instruction of the Apostles. 394 FUKTHER EXPLANATION AND PROMISE. Vers. 46, 47. We doubt, as has already been said, whether these specific words were spoken at the ascension, and therefore belong to Acts i. 1 The discourse goes on so uninterruptedly, the " thus it is written " points so directly to what preceded, that we are constrained to receive all as spoken at one and the same time. Thus it is written — thus has it come to pass ! This declares at the outset the clear concordance of all with what had been written. But then this emphatically redoubled "ot/TO)?" — thus in the Scripture corresponding with thus in the event, this in the event corresponding with thus in the Scripture — brings out the distinctive meaning, Thus and not otherwise : — though man's understanding may not be able to apprehend much that is involved in it ; and man's wisdom might be tempted to con- demn ; or his prejudiced mind might at least be disposed to wish some things in it otherwise. Out of the " it is written," as the sure expression of the Divine counsel, follows here, for the last time in the lips of Jesus, an irrevocably decisive and final e'Set as to all that was past, and consequently also a Set for all that was yet to come. 2 This sacred Set, this must of the Divine will, and of the Divine wisdom — and, as the expression of it, this sacred ' fyta?, which belongs to the fytet? of ver. 48. Consequently — upon you as My witnesses ; so that the whole discourse of Jno. xv. 26, 27, is brought to their full remembrance. But all this does not exclude (as Neander thinks) the reference to all the ancient promises of God in the Scriptures (Gal. hi. 14). The expres- sion iirar/yeXla is, as it were, the summary of all extant and not-yet-fulfilled promises ; and is the continuation of the key- note struck in vers. 46, 47. That which God, the Father of Jesus Christ, had promised from the beginning as the last and highest gift for the great time of fulfilment, is the same promise which the Lord gave to His disciples in words harmonising with the ancient Scriptures. This great promise was now in the koi ISov (Behold !) to become living and real ; it was to be sent as the living and personal Spirit Himself. The airoGTeXXcD was plain enough ; the Lord therefore may connect with it, without any danger of misapprehension, other and seemingly impersonal expressions concerning the Spirit. He gives to Him two such designations : the one looks back upon the former promises, as was most appropriate here ; the other, with equal appropriateness, indicates His influence, or the need which was to be supplied in the disciples. They were to be endued with power from on high. If the Father, the Almighty, Matt. xxvi. 64, is Himself called f) Svva/jLis — power 404 FURTHER EXPLANATION AND PROMISE. — why may not the Spirit be so termed, who is specifically His active energy ? See, for example, Micah iii. 8, and simi- larly Ecclus. xi. 21, xnro irvev/jLaro? SvvdfjL6(o<; crov. See also in the New Testament, Acts i. 8, x. 38 ; Rom. xv. 19, etc. And, finally, Eph. iii. 20, according to the power (jcara ttjv Bvvafuv) that ivorketh in us (ch. i. 19), where we have a like designation of the Holy Ghost ; for in vers. 20, 21, there is the same com- bination of the Sacred Three which there was in vers. 14-17. So in St Luke, ch. i. 17, in the spirit and power of Elias-; and in ver. 35, the power of the Highest — SiW/u? v-^rlarov — as the parallel name of wvevfia ayiov, the Holy Spirit, who came upon Mary. So here it is, still further, power from on high.; partly, it may be, to remind them of the ancient a promise," Isa. xxxii. 15 (comp. Ecclus. ix. 17), thus speaking in a prophetical ex- pression ; and, partly, because the Lord once more speaks as He who is already above and sendeth down from on high what should be necessary for earthly infirmity, and what could come only from above through the Spirit of God — that is, power. Thus here we have once more the prolepsis of the ascension ! On high, {n|ro?, DilO and D^Dhp — the well-known expression for heaven, from Job xvi. 19 down to Lu. i. 78, and beyond. Pre- sently He will ascend above, and receive gifts as man for men, Ps. lxviii. 19. It is further and finally confirmed that He speaks in echoes of the Scripture, by the remarkable ivSv- arjaOe, which in the Old Testament was the constant expres- sion for a sudden and temporary afflatus of the Holy Spirit, and which is now assumed into the New Testament as c msum- mated into a permanent impartation. As &J? frequently occurred with a similar meaning, for instance in Isa. li. 9, fjr ,, KO? ; as in Ps. cxxxii. 9, 16 (2 Chron. vi. 41) the priests are spoken of as clothed with the salvation of righteousness (the enemies, in ver. 18, with disgrace ; and Judas, Ps. cix. 18, with curse) ; so the Spirit (of the Lord) came upon or clothed Gideon, Amasai, Zechariah ; Judg. vi. 34, 1 Chron. xiii. 18, 2 Chron. xxiv. 20. It is quite needless that Gesenius should demonstrate the mean- ing implere (clothe inwardly) for these passages (and for Lu. xxiv. 49, which he adds from the New Testament), by going so far as the formula Syra concerning Satan, TjKofc &ODD, in Eph- raem. It is much more obvious to refer to the putting on of ACTS I. 4-8. 405 Christ, Kom. xiii. 14, Gal. iii. 27, with which the being clothed with the Spirit in our present passage is strictly parallel. For with power we can only inwardly be clothed. Olshausen says, quite correctly : " It is to be understood of the entire, internal penetration and actual possession," — just as the baptizing of Acts i. 5 is an internal reception of the power spoken of in ver. 8. Thus it is not merely inadequate, to resolve the figure, so called, into no more than an " equipment, or furnishing, etc. ;** such an explanation is most superficial, and robs the words of their profound meaning. Bengel gives his suggestive interpre- tation in two words — subito, prorsus, suddenly and entirely. In the subito lies the analogy with the Old Testament formula — " The Spirit came upon him" suddenly and for the time. But the prorsus intimates the distinction which is also found in the turn of the expression — Ye shall be endued, or clothed. Bengel goes on to say — " We are naked without virtue from heaven ;" and this is the profound truth. The nakedness of the Fall is here first fully reclothed ; the last need of our weak- ness is here provided for by this amictus. With this we might have appropriately connected the appoint- ment in the first two Evangelists, Go forth — (but then ye shall go out into all the world) — were it not that the observations we made at the outset oppose such a conjunction. We cannot decide upon the time and the place of these words, because nothing is specifically recorded (how easily might a single sen- tence have explained the whole !) — but we can understand why St Luke should thus close his Gospel, as a preparation for the Acts of the Apostles. We may also close with the prayer: — Endue us too with Thy power ; but help us to wait, until Thou sendest it ! LAST WORDS AT THE ASCENSION (Acts i. 4-8.) At the Ascension ! Would that we could assume that all our readers received this word in the simplicity of the under- standing of faith ! And must we still pave the way, and once 406 LAST WORDS AT THE ASCENSION. more remove the impediments of unbelief, in approaching the last words of our Lord? — We will not concern ourselves with the superficial and barren stupidity which has not yet learned the alphabet of the word which speaks of the power of God, and which therefore cannot free itself from notions of gravita- tion and corporeal weight, even in the case of Him whom the winds and the waves had obeyed, and who, as the Conqueror of death, had effectually burst asunder the bonds of " matter !" Nor will we enter into discussion with that wilful criticism of Kinkel which would escape from difficulty by imagining an essential contrariety between the ascensions at Bethany and at the Mount of Olives recorded by the same St Luke. 1 Nor shall we exhibit its shame by giving prominence to the wisdom which has represented the Lord of glory as " disappearing Lycurgus- wise." Nor shall we drag from its obscurity the "Essene lodge." All these are faded speculations, which only haunt the regions that are external to true science. Lutz and many others are able to tell us of the origination of " a notion and legend of a removal to heaven amid the circumstances which Luke reports." Such readers we leave to their speculations, if they have not been brought by our whole exposition back to another style of thinking, until the Scripture and the power of God bring them to a higher and more correct intelligence. Nor will we enter into controversy with those who, while they admit an assumption of the Saviour into the upper world, will not admit it to have been visible, will not receive it as recorded in that Scripture from which alone we learn all that we surely know concerning Jesus and the heavens. A few positive words, however, we must speak, for the sake of many whose views of the ascension are still beclouded, and that we may, as hereto- fore, exhibit clearly the scene of the words which we expound. The ascension of our Lord, as we now contemplate it in order to hear the words spoken in connection with it, is inseparable from His dignity, His work, and His whole manifestation : it is the only conceivable and befitting consummation of His earthly history and visible appearance. The ascension in itself y in its 1 Not to mention his ridiculous perversion of the text ; according to the Gospel they assembled in the temple after the ascension, in the Acts they tarried (all the ten days) in a vvspuov. ACTS I. 4-8. 407 substance so to speak, is, on the one hand, the goal and reward of His personal human life, as being a glorification and exalta- tion ; and, on the other, it is the condition of His still continuing Divine-human influence and government. (Eph. iv. 10 : that He might fill all things.) But the visible ascension, as the last historical circumstance that the eyes of men witnessed in con- nection with Him, is, to speak briefly : 1. The most befitting, and naturally to be expected attestation of His heavenly origin) Jno. iii. 13, vi. 62, xvi. 28) — for what could more clearly, sensibly, and decisively testify, that this man who thus miraculously ascended to God, was also miraculously born into the world ? 1 2. It was the final and most evident — for the first witnesses in- dispensable — exhibition of the truth, that the kingdom of Jesus should be established by the Spirit from heaven, and yet through this same Jesus. 2 3. And finally, it is even to us the most assuring guarantee and pledge of His heavenly power, of His heavenly being, and of the certainty of His return to consum- mate ourselves, and establish His kingdom upon earth. For He who ascended above all heavens in the highest power, can, when it pleaseth Him, come down to this earth again. St Peter announces the ascension by a iropevOei*; (as the his- torical foundation for iarlv iv Segia) 1 Pet. iii. 22. St Paul similarly, if we read him aright, disertis verbis, Kom. x. 6 ; Eph. iv. 8-10 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Heb. i. 3. And what of the two Evan- 1 Here belongs the beautiful conclusion, by which Neander redeems so much that is deplorable in his life of Jesus : " We make the same remark upon the ascension of Christ as was before made upon His miraculous con- ception. In regard to neither is prominence given to the special and actual fact in the apostolic writings ; in regard to both such a fact is presupposed in the general conviction of the Apostles, and in the connection of Christian consciousness. Thus the end of Christ's appearance on earth corresponds with its beginning — Christianity rests upon supernatural facts; stands or falls with them. By faith in them has the Divine life been generated from the beginning. — "Were this faith gone, there might, indeed, remain many of the effects of what Christianity had been ; but as for Christianity in the true sense, as for a Christian Church, there could be none." 2 Wesley closes St Luke's Gospel with the words : " It was much more proper that our Lord should ascend into heaven, than that he should rise from the dead, in the sight of the Apostles. For His resurrection was proved, when they saw Him alive after His passion ; but they could not see Him in heaven, while they continued on earth." 408 LAST WORDS AT THE ASCENSION. gelists who were eye-witnesses ? Herder said formerly, " they think not of a visible ascension!" But who can thoughtfully read their Gospels without finding the exact reverse ? Let any one carefully read St. John, ch. iii. 13, vi. 62, viii. 21, 23, xx. 17, and he will find in these passages the future visibility and historical actuality of the avafiaiveiv and the virwyeiv. St Luke, however (who more closely explains St Mark's avekrjcpOr)), re- lates to us a Trpayfia ireTrk^po^op^fievov in this, as in all things which took place before — a fact and not a myth. He defines in Acts i. 2 the day, the fortieth after the resurrection, that last day down to which he had brought his Gospel, as the day of the ave\rj<\)6rj — records that, and in what manner, the elaeXOelv eU ti)v Sogav avrov (Lu. xxiv. 2Q) became an avdkrjyfri? (ch. ix. 51). He defines the place twice, with apparent deviation, but with real agreement ; for it is otherwise certain that Bethany lay, and still lies, on the Mount of Olives. 1 We have already given our opinion as to where the words in the Gospel, ch. xxiv. 44-49, were spoken ; and have preliminarily shown that the statement of ver. 50 is altogether independent of this uncer- tainty. But are we to interpret eh BrjOavlav of an entrance into the village, as Hess did, e.g., who thought of a brief visit with which our Lord honoured Mary, Martha, and Lazarus ? Certainly not, for the ea)9 itself gives the eh a somewhat diffe- rent tone : it was not altogether into the place, but so far as the point where Bethany came into sight ; and with this is connected the interpretation which we give to the igdyetv, for this in its strictly literal sense is scarcely supposable. The disciples, going to Emmaus, were accompanied by the Lord in another form : — but are we now to suppose that he journeyed out of the city to Bethany, discernible to the Apostles and those who were with them, but unknown to or altogether withdrawn from, every other eye I This would certainly not harmonise with all His other appearances ; and we shall presently find in St Luke a hint for another interpretation. Should we even grant that He 1 Teschendorf (Reise in dem Orient) has lately decided for the Mount of Olives against Robinson ; since Lu. xxiv. only gives the measured distance from Jerusalem, not the exact locality of the ascension. Braune expresses it well : " at the point where the country of Bethany was divided from the city." ACTS I. 4-8. 409 in person led them out — must we (with Ebrard) assume that " a few minutes before entering the place He stood still and began to ascend," or " if not in a public road yet in the garden?" All this has so strange a sound that we must take refuge in St Luke's own supplementary interpretation in the Acts, especially as it is in full accordance with his irpcaro^ X070?. For eo)? et?, if genuine, is not meant otherwise than Lachmann's substituted ecu? 737)0? — toward Bethany, on the way thither. 1 The mention of Bethany has its own affectionate and easily-understood mean- ing when we remember the significance of this final journey to our Lord. But as He ever selected mountains for every pre- eminently sacred transaction ; as it was upon a mountain that He contemplated the glory of earth, and yet devoted Himself wholly to heaven ; as His transfiguration took place upon a mountain ; should not the Mount of Olives in the immediate neighbourhood, in the very region of Bethany, be the selected place of His ascension % St Luke expressly declares that it was. And how significantly symbolical was this, according to the analogy which has been seen directing all these events ! Yon Gerlach says, inappropriately, " There, in the precincts of the holy city, within sight of the temple, would He go up to heaven ;" for, the city and the temple had sanctity or significance now only for the testimony of the Holy Ghost which was hereafter to commence upon earth. The ascension, to speak more precisely, should rather take place where the humiliation of the passion had already taken place, and yet not upon Golgotha : — the place of external scorn and redeeming death must retain its own peculiar sanctity. But Gethsemane and the ascension — are most har- moniously related, in regard to the Person of the Redeemer as reaching its consummation : " At its feet He had wrestled in the bitterness of death, at its head He now stands as the vic- torious Prince of Peace." (Braune.) Yet more pertinently Hofacker : " In the selfsame place where His deepest abase- ment had taken place before His disciples, should His glorious exaltation be attained in their presence. And with this another 1 Baumgarten has correctly remarked that Bethany in the Gospel refers back to the earlier life of Jesus, while, on the other hand, the Mount of Olives points prophetically towards the distant future. But we shall find a reference to the past in the Mount of Olives also. 410 LAST WORDS AT THE ASCENSION. aim was blended. The disciples must see exhibited before their eyes the nature and the process of Jesus Christ's kingdom of the Cross, — that sufferings lead to glory." Yes, verily, this Mount of Olives preaches now for the whole earth, and all who dwell upon it, what in Acts xiv. 22 is declared to be the ordi- nance for all the followers of the great Forerunner. However much we might wish to know the time of the day, this is not indicated to us. But, since everything has up to this point been significant and subservient to a pre-arranged whole, we may conclude that the principle holds good here too ; and, so thinking, we have already in Yol. vi. referred the ascension to the bright noon, the culmination of the day, the " might of the sun." With this agrees an ancient tradition ; and we may at least regard it as unsuitable to refer this event to the going down of the light of the world,— more appropriate to the passion ; or to recur to the early morning of the rising day, — already ap- propriated to the resurrection. The former notion belongs to the fantasies of the Koran ;* but why Teschendorf^ should so unsymbolically assert that " the sun was near to his going down," we cannot tell. Others have chosen the obscurity of early morning, scarce brightened out of night, in order that the Lord's course (He led them out) might be concealed from other wit- nesses. 2 But we think quite differently of this ; and have far other notions of the propriety of the whole. Finally : Were the Eleven alone witnesses of the ascension, or are we to suppose others present with them ? It is as good as certain that St Paul's " of all the Apostles," 1 Cor. xv. 7, refers to the ascension- Appearance, but that decides nothing. Draseke says in his sermon : " The connection leaves it to be inferred that the Eleven only were there," citing further Mark xvi. 14, Luke xxiv. 33, 44, Acts i. 2, 4, 6, and especially ver. 1 See in Sepp v. 154, where there is mentioned also a great feast in Bethany preceding. 2 So Pfenninger, who incorrectly takes the word Acts i. 8 as spoken in the city. So Hess : " Probably in the night or early in the morning ; at such a time of night or day as He might most unobservedly lead them forth !" Draseke : " In the first and holiest morning, He will Himself lead them out to His own triumph which is also theirs ; this He would by no means have clone in the day-time, and before the eyes of the people, who were to see Him no more." ACTS I. 4-8. 411 13. But Mark xvi. 14 signifies nothing for the closing Appear- ance, and even as to the Appearance on the first evening Luke xxiv. 33 teaches the contrary. It was very natural that in the Acts of the Apostles the Apostles should be made prominent ; but even here chap. i. 22 (just as ver. 2) seems to presuppose other witnesses of His assumption. Let us now look more narrowly at the statements of the Acts. The Lord had assem- bled together the Apostles on the last day ; He had told them previously the time and place of a general gathering; — for this is the only valid meaning of avvaXi^ofievo^ ver. 4. 1 It is not to be supposed, as Sepp thinks, that they would of themselves have assembled so early for the Pentecost. But was that a penulti- mate assembly in Jerusalem, or actually the last ? The answer depends upon the question whether the word of Jesus in ver. 4 is identical with chap. xxiv. 49 in the Gospel, the thread being taken up from there, and ver. 5 being recovered and appended in this more circumstantial report. This might assuredly be the case, and then we should have first in avve\66vTe^ ver. 6, the final assembly of the ascension. But — and this might import much ! — the following avvekOelv is manifestly connected by the ovv with the preceding GvvdXiC^dQai : when those who had been thus summoned together had obeyed His direction and were met. Certainly, we cannot admit BengeFs idea that this was a sudden concourse of the Apostles, for the purpose of a united request. (Facilius putabant conjunctim se impetraturos 1 We need neither the correcting readings (jvvxv*i£6fievog or avvcikta- KOf&evos, nor Hemsterhuis' conjecture avvxhtfrueuotg. But the Yulg. con- vescens (corrected into convivens) is certainly false. (Although it is thus. in the Syr. Ktirh ftnai )ts» — Ar. JEth. Chrys. Theoph. (Ecamen. conrp. Symm. Ps. cxli. 4.) For while this derivation as from