The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 2 — Section 450

of their boundless love. The critics mnke 1-8), wo hear of nngcld, tlio si;.;l1t nf 11,., merry over the suporfluousnese of these vaon.torl tomb, n.nd the 1111golio moRsn.go to tl,rJ women purohe.sing fresh spicee when they apostles, specifying Peter as ouo especially must have known the lavish expenditure of singled out to hear the commIBsion. Trem- the two rich men upon the some design. bling, ecstasy, fee.r, shut their mouths as But the oombination of the two stntmnents they hurried to the abr,de of the Pleven; is e.bsolutoly true to n11t11re; it is cx11ctly they apako nothing to Bny m;in, 1,nt the in- what women wonM do all the world over, telligenco was conveyed" to tho eleven and and on evidence of tho onthenticity of both e.11 the rest" (Luke xxiv. 9). St. Lnko aftor- b11rrolives. And seeth the atone tiiken a.way wards sums up in one statement all the out of the sepulchre. 'l'his is 1111 the infer• various meBll!lges the.t wcro brou~ht, and mntion th11t St. John gived us, ns antecedent mentions by no.mo, not only the i\fogrlalew-. lo l\Ie.ry's flight to Simon Pc:tcr nm! himself. but ,Joanna., Mary the mother of Ja11Jcs, and We have to decide between three hypo- says,'' the remaiuin~ ones with them" (u.l thoscs: eithe1· (a) John's Il[UTative entirely ,\omai cruv a.I,,,.,,:,,). TI,o effect was so far fruit- differs from the synoptic account of whn.t le•S; the apostles t.lid not believe the words J'de.ry se.w a.ud heard, and whe.t she brought (Luke xxiv. 10). 'fhe fact stands in tho e.s !:er contribution to the apostles' ea.re, e.nd synoptics that the first communication which therefore discredits one or the other or both wns carried by women to the apostles, a.nd narratives; or (b) Me.ry of Magdala, having we.a not confined to them, consisted not only preceded the other women, Connel the empty of the fa.et of the empty tomb, but of the sepulchre, e.ud, without waiting for them, language of angels. The first thing might rushed to the home of' Peter e.nd John with ea.sily havP- been set to rest by direct in- this preliminary intelligence e.nd nothing spection; the other part of the narrative else, then, returning with them to the tomb, might easily be disregarded e.s the voice of joined the other women who hacl e.1Tived wilcl enthusiasm and excited imagination. after John e.nd Peter had withdrawn; or It should be distinctly perceived that the (c) that (Hengstenberg) Mary snid more women must have scattered in diffusing than she is reported by John to have ut- their intelligence, and John positively tered,-the.t she told them not merely that asserts that the wain strain of Mary's rc:port they (the Jews) he.d ta.ken away the body, was as to the opening of the tomb e.nd dis- but the.t she he.d seen a vision of angels, appearance of the body, and that it was who affirmed that,thc LorJ hn.cl risen, e.nd delivered personally to himself and Peter. gave eerie.in commissions. Fl"Om Luke's This solution of the first dilliculty was account of the first effect of the news from thrown into confusion by the T.R. form of the tomb, !he apostles thought them idle Ma.tthew's account, which says (xxviii. !J), tales, but they' went to the sepulchre, and "As t!Jey went to bring his disciples word, found it even e.s the women had said, but behold Jesus met them." If that were the him they saw not. Whe.t were the "idle true text of Matthew, it is in irreconcilaL le to.lea"?. Not thnt the tomb was empty, for e.nte.goniam with John's Gospel, i.e. if Mary the.t was a simple matter of fact, which Magdalene mulrt Le regarded as one of tLe the two chief apostles verified, but the story party who were e.d vised to tell the apostles of angels who affirmed that Jesus was that the tomb we.s opened and rillet.1, ancl alive. Still, such a report is very likely to the.t the Lord was risen. H would e.lso be he.ve roused the apostles to the. eagerness of opposed to the statements of both Luke their first visit to the tomb, and the effect e.nd Mark concerning the first message they ,,r it .to ree.ppee.r in the conversation of brought to the apostles e.nd to the rest, as the disciples on theii- way to Emme.us. If well as the manner of thei.t- departure from the third of these hypotheses be followed, the sepulchre. If, however, Matthew is then the nnrre.tive of John simply records here refening to e. second party ( callcll Ly with brevity wliat the other evangelists he.d he.rmonists the Joanna group), then they reported e.t greater length, _clis~ii:ictly o~it- must, in their passage to the apostles, have ting the story of tile augelio v1S1tors, given missed Peter and John on their wo.y to in all three synoptiats. This seems to me and from the sepulchre, e.nd it would con- the fairest e.nd best interpretation of the tradict the assertion of e.ll four evangelists, four ne.rrntives. On this hypothesis t!Je the.t .Mary .Magdalene wes the first to see account which Mary Magdalene brought to the Lord. This most di.llicult clo.use in ·Peter and John corresponds with Matthew Matthew's e.coount bes, however, Leen re- (xx.viii. 6-8), where the women genera.Hy jected by modem critics,' e.nd cousequeutly ran with the news, blending fenr with great 1 By Griesbach, Tischendorf (8th edit.), joy, exoited beyond e.11 pe.m":ol with the strange wonderful e.ssure.noe whioh t~ey ~ad Tregelles, Westcott aud Hort, R.T., on thti received, that they ehoul~ meet theu me~ authority of ~. A, B, D, 33, 69, !35, numerou~ Lord in Galilee. Aceordmg to Mark (xvi. versions, and special 4uotatioUB from Origen  464, TilE GOSrEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. [en. n. 1-31.