Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

unto the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour b Jesus b Heb. v.7. a cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ? that is to say, ° My God, my God, why b hast thou c Psa. xxii. 1. forsaken me? 47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. 48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, d and d Ps. lxix. 21. filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him

a better, cried out, or even, “cried mightily,” or “shouted forth :" it is the same word as in Mark xv. 8: Luke ix. 38: in which two places only it occurs.

b literally, didst thou forsake me. it was the third hour when they crucified ordinary dialect, not in that of the sacred Him. If so, He had been on the cross text itself. The weightiest question is, three hours, which in April would answer In what sense did He use them? His to about the same space of time in our inner consciousness of union with God day- i.e. from 9-12 A.M. On the diffi- inust have been complete and indestrucculty presented by St. John's declaration tible-but, like His higher and holy will, ch. xix. 14, see notes there and on Mark. liable to be obscured by human weakness

darkness—this was no eclipse of and pain, which at this time was at its the sun, for it was full moon at the time very highest. We must however take nor any partial obscuration of the sun care not to ascribe all his suffering to such as sometimes takes place before an bodily pain, however cruel : his soul was earthquake - for it is clear that no earth. in immediate contact with and prospect quake in the ordinary sense of the word of death-the wages of sin, which He had is here intended. Those whose belief leads taken on Him, but never committed - and them to reflect WHO was then suffering the conflict at Gethsemane was renewed. will have no difficulty in accounting for He himself,' as the Berlenberg Bible rethese signs of sympathy in Nature, nor in marks (Stier), becomes the expositor of seeing their applicability. The consent, in the darkness, and shews what it imports.' the same words, of all three Evangelists, In the words however, · My God'--there must silence all question as to the universal speaks the same union with the divine Will, belief of this darkness as a fact; and the and abiding in the everlasting covenant purearly Fathers appeal to the testimony of pose, as in those, •Not my will, but thine.' profane authors for its truth. The omis. These are the only words on the Cross sion of it in St. John's Gospel is of no related by St. Matt. and St. Mark-and they more weight than the numerous other in- are related by none besides. 47.] This stances of such omission. See Amos viii. was not said by the Roman soldiers, 9, 10. over all the earth] The who could know nothing of Elias; nor same word in the original is rendered was it a misunderstanding of the Jewish earth in Luke, but land here and in Mark. spectators, who must have well underThis would seem to be pure caprice on the stood the import of Eli, nor again was it part of our translators; and might mis. said in any apprehension, from the superlead. Whether these words are to be taken natural darkness, that Elias might really in all their strictness is doubtful. Of course, come; but it was replied in intended over the whole globe the darkness would not mockery, as the contemptuous This man, be supernatural-as it would be night natu. - this one among the three,'-clearly rally over half of it. The question is, are indicates. This is one of the cases we to understand that part of it over which where those who advocate an original there was day? I believe we are; but Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are obliged see no strong objection to any limitation, to suppose that the Greek translator has provided the fact itself, as happening at retained the original words, in order to Jerusalem, is distinctly recognized. This make the reason of the reply clear. last is matter of testimony, and the three 48.] This was on account of the words Evangelists are pledged to its truth: the 'I thirst,' uttered by our Lord: see John, present words hardly stand on the same ver. 28. St. Mark's account is somewhat ground, not being matter of testimony different: there the same person gives the properly so called. 46.] See Ps. xxii. vinegar and utters the scoil which follows. 1. The words are Chaldee, and not This is quite intelligible—contempt minHebrew. Our Lord spoke them in the gled with pity would doubtless find a type

to drink. 49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. 50 Jesus, when he had cried

again with a loud voice, yielded up c the ghost. 51 And, 6.1.02 chron. behold, e the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the 1. 10x, top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks

e Exod. xxvi.

81. 2 Chron. iii. 14. Heb.

8: X. 19 ff.

C render, his spirit.

among the bystanders. There is no need for set aside that symbolism entirely. assuming that the soldiers offering vinegar That was now accomplished, which was in Luke, ver. 37, is the same incident as the one and great antitype of all those this. Since then, the bodily state of the sacrifices offered in the holy place, in order Redeemer had greatly changed: and what to gain, as on the great day of atonement was then offered in mockery, might well (for that day may be taken as the reprebe now asked for in the agony of death, sentation of their intent), entrance into and received when presented. I would the holiest place,--the typical presence of not however absolutely deny that St. Luke God. What those sacrifices (ceremonially) may be giving a less precise detail; procured for the Jews (the type of God's and may represent this incident by his universal Church) through their High ver. 37. The vinegar is the posca, sour Priest, was now (really) procured for all wine, or vinegar and water, the ordinary men by the sacrifice of Him, who was drink of the Roman soldiers. On the other at once the victim and the High Priest. particulars, see notes on John. 49.7 When the objectors assert that no use If we take our account as the strictly is made of this event in the Epistle to precise one, the rest-in mockery-call the Hebrews, they surely cannot have upon this person to desist, and wait for remembered, or not have deeply conElias to come and save Him : if that of sidered, Heb. x. 19—21. Besides, supSt. Mark, the giver of the drink calls upon pose it had been referred to plainly and the rest (also in mockery) to let this by name - what would then have been suffice, or to let him (the giver) alone, said ? Clearly, that this mention was a and wait, &c. The former seems more later insertion to justify that reference. probable. 50.7 It has been doubted And almost this latter, Strauss, recog. whether it is finished of John (ver. 30), nizing the allusion in Heb., actually does. and Father, into thy hands I commend Schleiermacher also asks, how could the my spirit of Luke (ver. 46), are to be event be known, seeing none but priests identified with this crying out, or to be could have witnessed it, and they would taken as distinct from it. But a nearer not be likely to betray it? To say noexamination of the case will set the doubt thing of the almost certain spread of the at rest. The delivered up" of John (ib.) rumour, has he forgotten that (Acts vi. 7) implies the speech in Luke; which accord- “a great company of the priests were ingly was that uttered in this loud voice. obedient unto the faith ?” Neander, who It is finishedwas said before; see notes gives this last consideration its weight on John.

(but only as a possibility, that some priests 51 - 56.7 SIGNS FOLLOWING HIS DEATH, may have become converts, and apparently Mark xv. 38–41. Luke xxiii. 47–49. The without reference to the above fact), has three narratives are essentially distinct. an unworthy and shuffling note (L. J. That of St. Luke is more general-giving p. 757), ending by quoting two testionly the sense of the centurion's words — monies, one apocryphal, the other rabbitwice using the indetinite all-and nical, from which he concludes that some not specifying the women. The whole is matter of fact lies at the foundation of omitted by St. John. 51.] The behold this (according to him) mythical adjunct. gives solemnity. This was the inner

the earth did quake-not an ordiveil, screening off the holy of holies from nary earthquake, but connected with the the holy place, Exod. xxvi. 33: Heb. ix. two next clauses, and finding in them its 2, 3. This circumstance has given rise to explanation and justification. the much incredulous comment, and that even rocks rent] It would not be right altofrom men like Schleiermacher. A right gether to reject the testimonies of traand deep view of the 0. T. symbolism vellers to the fact of extraordinary rents is required to furnish the key to it; and and fissures in the rocks near the spot. for this we look in vain among those who Of course those who know no other proof

rent; 52 and the graves were opened ; 'and many bodies (Isa. Suvi. 10. of the saints which slept arose, 53 and d came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 54 8 Now when the centurion, 8 ver. 86. and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. 55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which fol- h Luke viii. 2, lowed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him : 56 among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of e Zebedee's children.

d render, they came out: the gender is masculine, whereas bodies is neuter.

e render, the sons of Zebedee. of the historical truth of the event, will rending of the veil, are not in the possesnot be likely to take this as one; but to us, sion of St. Mark, of the minute accuracy who are firmly convinced of it, every such of whose account I have no doubt. His trace, provided it be soberly and honestly report is that of one man--and that man, ascertained, is full of interest. 52, more than probably, a convert. St. Mat. 53.] The whole transaction was super. thew's is of many, and represents their natural and symbolic: no other inter general impression. St. Luke's is also pretation of it will satisfy even ordinary general. I those things that wero common sense. Was the earthquake å done points to the crying out, as indeed mere coincidence? This not even those does the “so” in Mark :-but see notes assert, who deny all symbolism in the there. was the Son of God -- which matter. Was it" a mere sign of divine the Centurion had heard that He gare wrath at what was done-a mere prodigy, Himself out for, John xix. 7, and our ver. like those at the death of Cæsar? Surely 43. It cannot be doubtful, I think, that no Christian believer can think this. Then he used these words in the Jewish sensewhat was it? What but the opening of and with some idea of that which they the tombs—the symbolic declaration, that implied. When Meyer says that he must the Death which had happened had broken have used them in a heathen sense, meanthe bands of death for ever? These fol. ing a hero or demigod, we must first be lowing clauses, which have no mythical shewn that “Son of Godwas ever so nor apocryphal character, require only this used. I believe St. Luke's to be a different explanation to be fully understood. The report: see notes there. 55, 56.] graves were opened at the moment of Magdalene, from Magdala: see note on ch. the death of the Lord; but inasmuch as xv. 39. She is not to be confounded with He is the firstfruits from the dead – Mary who anointed our Lord, John xii. 1, the Resurrection and the Life-the bodies nor with the woman who did the same, of the saints in them did not arise till Luke vii. 36 : see Luke viii. 2. Mary He rose, and having appeared to many the mother of James ....] The wife of after his resurrection,-possibly during Alphæus or Clopas, John xix. 25 : see note the forty days,-went up with Him into on ch. xiii. 55. Mark adds “ the less" His glory. Moses and Elias, who were to distinguish him from the brother of our before in glory, were not from the dead, Lord (probably not from the son of Zebedee). properly speaking : see note on ch. xvii. 1.

The mother of the sons of Zebedee arose is the result-not the imnie (i. e. of James and John: not“ of Zebedee's diate accompaniment, of the opening of children,” as A. V. curiously renders it)] the tombs. It is to prevent this being Salome, Mark. Both omit Mary the supposed, that the qualification after his mother of Jesus :—but we must remember, resurrection is added. 54.] the earth that if we are to take the group as quake and those things that were done is described at this moment, she was not represented by " that he so gave up the present, having been, as I believe (see note ghost,Mark. Does the latter of these on John, ver. 27), led away by the beloved look as if compiled from the former? The Apostle immediately on the speaking of circumstances of our yv. 51-53, except the the words, Behold thy mother. And if


i Isa. liii. 9.

57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathæa, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: 58 he went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. 59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and i laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. 61 And

there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting this view be objected to, yet she could not was wrapped. The Three seem not to be be named here, nor in Mark, except sepa- in possession of this, por St. Matthew and rately from these three-for she could St. John of the subsequent design of the not have been well included among those women to embalm It. What wonder if, who ministered to Him. There must have at such a time, one party of disciples been also another group, of His disciples, should not have been aware of the doings within sight;-e. g. Thomas, who said, of another? It is possible that the • Except I see in his hands the print of the women, who certainly knew what had nails,' &c., and generally those to whom He been done with the Body (see ver. 61), afterwards shewed his hands and feet as a may have intended to bestow on it more proof of His identity.

elaborate care, as wbatever was done this 57-61.] JOSEPH OF ARIMATHÆA BEGS, night was hurried, --see John, vy. 41, 42. AND BURIES THE BODY OF JESUS. Mark

60.7 St. Matthew alone relates that it xv. 42-47. Luke xxiii. 50–56. John xix. was Joseph's own tomb. St. John, that it 38-42. The four accounts, agreeing in was in a garden, and in the place where He substance, are remarkably distinct and in- was crucified. All, except St. Mark, notice dependent, as will appear by a close com- the newness of the tomb. St. John does parison of them. 57.] Before sunset, not mention that it belonged to Josephat which time the sabbath, and that an but the expression "in which was never man high day, began : see Deut. xxi. 23. The yet laidlooks as if he knew more than be Roman custom was for the bodies to re- has thought it necessary to state. His main on the crosses till devoured by birds reason for the Body being laid there is, of prey. On the other hand Josephus that it was near, and the Preparation says that the Jews were so careful about rendered haste necessary. But then we burying that they took down even may well ask, How should the body of an those who had been crucified, and buried executed person be laid in a new tomb, them before sunset. came] probably without the consent of the owner being to the Pretorium. Meyer supposes, to the first obtained ? And who so likely to place of execution : which is also possible, provide a tomb, as he whose pious care and seems supported by “came and took for the Body was so eminent ? All down," John ver. 38, and “there came that we can determine respecting the also ...,” ver. 39, which certainly was sepulchre from the data here furnished is, to Golgotha. a rich man-he was (1) That it was not a natural cave, but also a counsellor, i. e. one of the Sanhe- an artificial excavation in the rock. (2) drim : see Mark, ver. 43: Luke, ver. 51. That it was not cut downwards, after the

Arimathæa] Opinions are divided manner of a grave with us, but hori. as to whether this was Rama in Benjamin zontally, or nearly so, into the face of (see ch. ii. 18), or Rama (Ramathaim) in the rock-this I conceive to be implied in Ephraim, the birth-place of Samuel. The “rolled a great stone to the door," as also form of the name is more like the latter. by the use of “stooping down,” John xx.

58.] The repetition of the body 5, 11, and “went in," ib. 5, 6. is remarkable, and indicates a coinmon (3) That it was in the spot where the cruorigin, in this verse, with Mark, who after cifixion took place. Cyril of Jerusalem gave expresses the body, on account of speaks of " the tomb close by, where He was the expression of Pilate's surprise, and laid, and the stone which was put on the the change of subject between.

door, which to this day (about 380 A.D.) 59.7 John (ver. 39) mentions the arrival of lies by the tomb.” 61.) St. Luke menNicodemus with an hundred pound weight tions more generally the women who came of myrrh and aloes, in which also the Body with Him from Galilee; and specifies that

John ii, 19.

over against the sepulchre. 62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, k after three days I will rise again. 64 Command there- k ch xyl, 21.:

k ch. xvi. 21 :

xvii, 23 : xx. fore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, John

19: xxvi. 61. lest his disciples come [f by night], and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead : so the last error shall be worse than the first. 65 Pilate said unto them, & Ye have a h watch : go your way, make [i it] as

fomit. & or, Take : see note. A render, guard. i omit. they prepared spices and ointments, and rising from the dead was to be ;-and rested the sabbath day according to the that the fulfilment of the Lord's ancoinmandment.

nouncement of his crucifirion would na62–66.] THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES turally lead them to look further, to what OBTAIN FROM PILATE A GUARD FOR THE more he had announced. (2) How should SEPULCHRE. Peculiar to Matthew.

the women, who were solicitous about the 62. the next day] not on that night, but removal of the stone, not have been still on the next day. A difficulty has been more so about its being sealed, and a found in its being called the day after guard set ? The answer to this has been the preparation, considering that it was given above-they were not aware of the itself the sabbath, and the greatest sab circumstance, because the guard was not bath in the year. But I believe the ex set till the evening before. There would pression to be carefully and purposely be no need of the application before the used. The chief priests, &c. did not go approach of the third day-it is only to Pilate on the sabbath, but in the made for a watch until the third day, erening, after the termination of the sab- ver. 64—and it is not probable that the bath. Had the Evangelist said " which is circumstance would transpire that night the sabbath,the incongruity would at - certainly it seems not to bave done so. once appear of such an application being (3) That Gamaliel was of the council, and made on the sabbath—and he therefore if such a thing as this, and its sequel ch, designates the day as the first after that, xxviii. 11–15, had really happened, he which, as the day of the Lord's death, need not have expressed himself doubt. the preparation, was uppermost in his fully, Acts v. 39, but would have been mind. The narrative following has certain that this was from God. been undeservedly impugned, and its his. But, first, it does not necessarily follow torical accuracy given up by even the that every member of the Sanhedrim was best of the German Commentators, and present and applied to Pilate, or even had by others. The chief difficulties found they done so, that all bore a part in in it seem to be: (1) How should the the act of ch. xxviii. 12. One who, like chief priests, &c. know of His having said, Joseph, had not consented to their deed

in three days I will rise again,' when the before-and we may safely say that there saying was hid even from His own dis were others such would naturally withciples? The answer to this is easy. The draw himself from further proceedings meaning of the saying may have been, against the person of Jesus. On Gama. and was, hid from the disciples; but the liel and his character, see note on Acts, fact of its having been said could be no as above. (4) Had this been so, the three secret. Not to lay any stress on John other Evangelists would not have passed ii. 19, we have the direct prophecy of over so important a testimony to the ReMatt. xii. 40-and besides this, there surrection. But surely we cannot argue would be a rumour current, through the in this way, for thus every important fact intercourse of the Apostles with others, narrated by one Evangelist alone must be that He had been in the habit of so saying. rejected-e. g. (which stands in much the As to the understanding of the words, same relation) the satisfaction of Thomas, we must remember that hatred is keener and other such narrations. Till we know sighted than love ;-that the raising of much more about the circumstances under Lazarus would shew, what sort of a thing which, and the scope with which, each

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »