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