Mary, who had followed Peter and John back to the tomb, still lingered disconsolately there after the two apostles had gone away. There was no reason at all why she should, except that this was the spot where she had last set eyes on her Saviour. In the past two days she had shed tears as never before, and now, more than ever, they refused to be restrained. If only her love and deep loss might express themselves in some practical act of service and solicitude, if only she might have the opportunity to lavish all her devotion on his poor crucified body! But now that her Lord had been mysteriously removed, even this crumb of comfort was denied her.

Could it be that Joseph of Arimathea had decided, for some reason which she was unable to guess, that it would be better to have Jesus interred elsewhere? But then, in that case he would hardly have acted with such unseemly haste, nor would he have taken such a step without consulting or at least informing the disciples.

Unable to make any sense of the situation, she wept the more. Then it suddenly dawned on her that as yet she had not seen for herself. Was there anything to be learned from a closer examination of the sepulchre? So, as the apostles had done, she also stooped to peer within — and immediately saw two men sitting there, as though at the head and feet of Jesus. But there was no Jesus!

Perhaps she was greatly startled to see these men, and showing it, was quickly reassured by them. But there is no sign of this in the narrative. More likely she assumed without surprise that these were two of Joseph’s men. Only in later days did she, and John also, see the wondrous significance of two angels sitting in this dark Holy of Holies and between them the stain of blood shed to take away the sin of the world. In the temple on Mount Zion no ark of God’s covenant, no over-arching cherubim of gold, sanctified the sanctuary as the place where sin was put away. Instead, here in this lonely spot, witnessed by only one worshipper (and she blinded by tears and imperfect knowledge), was the true Mercy-seat. Within a matter of minutes Mary was to understand it all.

Dramatic encounter

“Woman, why weepest thou?” Why indeed? “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.” Yet she would have had much greater cause for weeping had she found Jesus lying there!

Even as she spoke, she turned away again. Was it because she assumed that they could not help her, for they would surely have given her news immediately, if they had news to communicate? Or was it because the two men in the tomb stood to greet one whom they could see behind Mary? The Greek text seems to imply a sound of footsteps behind her.

There came a dramatic change. Staring into the rising sun she was able to see only the outline of the stranger who now drew near. This, for certain, must be Joseph himself. He would be able to help her. And all her love and anxiety were poured out in one intense irrational plea: “Sir” — the word is really Lord;’ imagine it addressed to a gardener! But how appropriate for the garden’s owner (and this is a possible reading),-“If thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.” As though she could — a weak woman, and single-handed!

Alternatively this part of the resurrection narrative should be interpreted differently. “Woman, why weepest thou?” Why did Mary not recognize the voice? Perhaps her instinctive recognition was expressed in the word “Lord” — but then ‘common-sense’ re-asserted itself: ‘Of course, it is not Jesus speaking to me. It cannot be!’ Her mind would move quickly to the only alternative — he must be the gardener. It would seem that Mary expected nothing of help or comfort in response to her appeal, for she was already moving away when one more spoken word arrested her. The Good Shepherd calls his own sheep by name (Jn. 10:3,4). She turned again, stared incredulously, and then in a moment was at his side, grasping his hand and feeling his arm and shoulder for the reassurance by which to turn the impossible into certainty, and all the while incoherent with gladness. (Or did she prostrate herself before him, holding his feet? cp. Mt. 28:9). There was nothing she could say except one exultant word of greeting and of self-reproach: “Rabboni!” The bourn from which no traveller returns’ had yielded back the one whom she longed to see above all other, and how blind her eyes had been not to recognize the fact. Instinctively and appropriately, she used the title which Bartimaeus had bestowed on Jesus in the day when his blindness was taken away (Mark 10:51). A wild welter of glad emotions jostled for supremacy in her mind, and all the while she sought to make assurance doubly sure by the renewed evidence of her own senses.

It became needful to restrain her. “Do not keep on touching me” he said —and with reluctance, one may be sure, for he too was unspeakably glad to be once again with so loyal a friend. Yet, precious as the moment was for both of them, he could not stay longer. “Do not keep on touching me for I am not yet ascended to my father.”

The words have often been read as the equivalent of: ‘Keep away, I am not to be touched. The uncleanness of death is still upon me. I am still as mortal as you are — I have not yet ascended to tht; divine nature of immortality.’ It cannot be too strongly stressed that there is no Bible evidence whatever for such an interpretation. But there are several serious difficulties in its way:

1. The Greek continuous imperative implies definitely that he was being touched.
2. Suppose the Lord were still in a mortal condition, why should he not be touched? In his mortality before crucifixion people had touched him often enough.
3. There is no Bible evidence that “ascended to the father” signified a change of physical nature.
4. The normal meaning of the word is that of “go up to the temple,” “go up to Jerusalem,” “ascend to heaven” (John 7:14; 5:1: 1:51).

So this interpretation, so often given uncritical acceptance, is only to be received if there is no other available.

On the other hand, to take “I ascend to my Father and your father” as having reference to the ascension from the mount of Olives forty days later, is to reduce the words of Jesus to incoherence: ‘Do not touch me because I have not yet gone to heaven, but go and tell the disciples that I shall do so in six weeks time.’

Neither does this satisfy.

Ascension

The only alternative seems to be this: Jesus was speaking of an ascension to the father which must and did happen at that very time.

There is something singularly appropriate about this idea. In the sacrifices under the Law, the evidence of the slaying of the animal was always brought into the presence of God — blood at the foot of the altar, or blood smeared on the horns of the altar of incense, or (in the case of the most important sacrifice of all) blood sprinkled on the mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies. In that sacrifice which all these foreshadowed must there not be something which corresponded to this vital feature? And how else could this happen in the experience of Christ except by his appearing in the presence of the Father with the tokens of his sacrificial death evident in pierced hands and side?

The typology of the Passover ritual is specially instructive here. The Law prescribed that on “the morrow after the (Passover) sabbath — i.e. on the morning Christ rose — there must be offered a wave-sheaf of barley, without leaven: “Christ the first-fruits” (1 Corinthians 1 5:20,23). With this there was also offered “an he-lamb without blemish of the first year, for a burnt-offering unto the Lord” (Leviticus 23:1 2). Here was the Passover lamb come into life again, so to speak, and re-consecrated to the service of God.

Normally these offerings were presented in the temple at the time of the morning sacrifice — the very time when Jesus appeared to Mary in the garden. Hence the urgent words, implying: ‘Do not detain me here, for a higher duty calls me. But go and tell my brethren. This will explain to them why they do not see me through the rest of this day.’

Other Scriptures conform to this interpretation “The Lord hath said unto me (the Messiah), Thou ar» my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (Hebrews 5:5 applies this Scripture to the glorifying of Cnrist “to be made an high priest,” thus pointedly referring the words to the resurrection — and not the birth or baptism —of Jesus). When, it may be asked, did God make this declaration to His Son on “this day,’ except at this “ascension to the Father”?

Again, it was appointed in the ordinance for the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:6) that, before the blood of the sin-offering on behalf of the people be brought into the Holy of Holies, Aaron must first go into the Sanctuary to “offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself alone.”

Also the experience of Hezekiah — one of the most outstanding types of Messiah in the Bible— must surely have its counterpart in the greater work of Christ: “Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy Father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up to the house of the Lord” (2 Kings 20:5).

Although not actually seeing their risen Master until near the end of this day of tantalizing uncertainty, the disciples were to be reassured, if they were willing to be, by the intimate nature of the message which Mary brought: “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God.” Yet even as these words emphasized the close kinship to subsist henceforth between Father and Son and brethren, they also maintained a distinction. Jesus did not speak of “our Father.” for his own relationship to the Almighty was necessarily far more intimate than it could possibly be as yet for his disciples.

Would that expression “my brethren” remind them again of the words of Psalm 22 which had been repeatedly forced upon their minds throughout the day of his crucifixion: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee” — and the name of God which he declared unto them was “Father.” The psalm, if recalled, would also carry a strong assurance that, even though long slow hours would pass that day and he be still absent from them, he would yet come among them, declaring the Father’s name “in the midst of the congregation.”

Mary would fain have lingered there, convincing herself, again and again, that her Lord was truly risen, but he himself was taking leave of her. Ana had he not given her a commission to fulfil? No messenger ever had more joyful news to impart. So again she went away as fast as she could go to find Peter and John once more, again to gasp out excitedly the news of an empty tomb, but this time with the true heart-warming explanation to impart solidity to the new-born faith of John and to kindle a spark of hope in the mind of a puzzled wretched Peter.

NOTES: John 20:11-18

11.	And: in Gk. text therefore, to be linked with v. 13 because
12.	Sifting: “They sit m the empty tomb who stand in the presence of God; Lk. 1:19.
13.	Why weepest thou? There would have been good cause for weeping if the tomb were not empty
14.	She turned herself back Any link here with Gen. 22.13? See also John 1:27, 29
	And saw Jesus The Lord’s first appearance was not to his mother.
	Why these remarkable resemblances? Jesus standing (Rev 5:6); Mary weeping (Rev. 5:4); she turned herself (Rev. 1:10,12).
15.	Whom seekest thou? Whom? not What? Then did Mary hope that Jesus would rise? Here, questions lead to a confession of faith; in Gen. 3:9,11,13, to a confession of sin
	Supposing, NT. usage; fairly sure.
	The gardener This second Adam in this garden is a “gardener” (Gen 2:15)
16.	Rabboni; normally used for an outstanding teacher Jesus was certainly that now, by his very appearance, and more so, by v. 17
17.	Touch me not In nearly all NT occurrences, the word means “touch”. But the parallel to Mt 8:15 in Mk. 1:31 definitely means “hold” or “grip”; and this is the usual meaning in classical Greek (L. & S.). Perhaps also in Lk 7:14; 1 Jn. 5:18. The imperfect tense requires the idea just mentioned.
	Do not keep holding me. The alternative explanation that the uncleanness of death was still on Jesus cannot be sustained.
	My brethren. Jesus brought this term into use after his resurrection: Ps. 22:22; 1 22:8; Mt. 28:10; 25:40; Rom. 8:29; Jn. 21:23; Acts -frequently. Heb. 2:11.
	I ascend; 16:16,28.
	My God Spoken after resurrection, these words veto trinitarian doctrine. Compare also Eph. 1:17; Heb. 1:9; Rev. 1:6; ch.3:2,12; Mt. 27:46.
18.	I have seen: Gk. pf. tense implies: And what I saw is still vivid in my mind. So also v.25,29; Lk. 24:23. John’s Greek splendidly represents Mary’s disjointed speech.

There is no peace for the wicked. All through that weekend the minds of Annas and his colleagues were plagued by the thought of dreadful possibilities. So much concerning the Nazarene had seemed to happen that day exactly according to familiar phrases in the prophets! More than that, all that he had foretold to his own disciples concerning his own fate (they had had it all from Judas; Mt. 16:21; 20:19) had come about precisely as he said, even though they themselves had originally planned it otherwise. Then would his other words come true as well? — how he had mysteriously said: ‘the third day he shall rise again.” Had they not themselves heard him speak of raising a destroyed temple in three days? — and they knew right well that it was not the temple on Mount Zion that he meant. Linking that with his scornful word to them about the sign of the prophet Jonah (Matthew 16:4), they might well wonder uneasily what strange impossibilities that Passover might yet hold for them. The idea was in their minds, but not one of them dared frame it in words. Yet they separately knew, each in his own heart, that this was the Heir and they had killed him that the inheritance might be theirs (Lk. 20:14).

Men in a quandary

There was nothing else for it now but to carry the thing through consistently. Even though this Nazarene Messiah was already a cold corpse they must nevertheless take every possible precaution to stifle any strange tale which might be put about concerning him. The sooner he and the memory of him rotted together, the better.

In a way the defection of Joseph, the counsellor, to join the disciples of this pseudo-Messiah was a good thing. Their morale was too low to gain much from his accession to their numbers, and the fact that Jesus had been interred in his new tomb, the making of which had been a familiar feature of recent activity outside the city wall, made it comparatively easy to take precautionary measures. If this Jesus did “rise” —and Lazarus in Bethany had been a hard pill to swallow! — they would be ready for him.

But what could they do without Pilate’s approval. Yet the man’s uncertain temper was at its worst that Passover; and no wonder, when one considered how they had bullied him, as they could never have hoped to do, in order to get the condemnation of Jesus signed and carried through that day. They had best leave him alone for a while. In any case, there was no immediate threat of trouble, for this was Passover night, and everyone – disciples and all — would be indoors. It was the one night in the year when there was not a single crime in Jerusalem. The third day would be the time of crisis. That was what they must prepare for.

Even so, relaxation on that Sabbath was an impossibility for them. Their Sabbath rest, had they but known it, was now taken away for ever. Matthew intimates as much by the way in which he refers to it as “the next day that followed the day of preparation”. So it was with light regard for Sabbath desecration that these men, who earlier had shown such public abhorrence of Pilate’s judgement hall (Jr. 18:28), and who had railed at Jesus for his “flouting” of Sabbath law, now went, in secret to the governor once again — this time unworried about defilement.

It may be safely presumed that they took with them an adequate “persuader”, for they knew well enough that Pilate was no longer disposed to oblige them. Their approach was both suave and respectful: “Sir” — the word is literally “Lord”, and contrasts sharply with the total omission of any title of dignity in their encounters with Pilate on the day of crucifixion: “We remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day.” It almost seemed that they believed what his disciples didn’t (Mk. 9:10). Yet it would not do to let Pilate think that they had any serious fear of this really happening (though indeed, this was the stark truth of the matter), so they dressed it up in a way that would represent them as zealous for the common good:…” lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead.” In twenty four hours this was the most plausible cover-up they could concoct. Even if panic-stricken leaderless disciples were to attempt such a hare-brained imposition on public credulity, would it not be sufficient to expose their desperate folly by a public challenge: “If your Jesus has risen from the dead, give us evidence, other than your own word, that he is alive again.”

Aware that they were on the thinnest ice imaginable, these Sadducee priests and their Pharisee rivals (adversity makes strange bedfellows! Jn. 18:3) rushed Pilate on past the absurdity of their postulates to the inconvenience and embarrassment of the outcome: “So the last error shall be worse than the first.” It was bad enough to have this “deceiver” claiming for three and a half years to be the Messiah, but to have the claim published that he was now risen from the dead would be vastly worse — worse in its effects on the people, and thus in its consequences for both Pilate and themselves. The vileness of these men comes out in their choice of phrase: “The last error shall be worse than the first,” they actually quoted the words of Tamar, raped by her abominable brother Amman (2 Sam. 13:16) — as though the gracious ministry of Jesus fell into the same category as such wickedness!

But now, in fact, the last truth — his resurrection -was to prove greater than the first —his virgin birth.

Bribed or not, Pilate received their plea for precautionary measures with brusque lack of sympathy: “Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.” The Greek expression is peremptory and contemptuous: “Away with you. Be off!” As recently as the previous morning, Pilate had been pushed around by these men more than enough, and he was still fuming over it.

The reference to a watch is commonly interpreted as meaning the temple guard, a squad of Jewish policemen under the authority of the chief priests. But this view ignores what was said to the guard next day: “and if this come to the governor’s ears (RVm_: to a hearing before the governor) we will persuade him, and secure you” 28:14). Had they been the temple police Pilate would not have used the Latin word for “a guard,” nor would he have been interested in the affair at all, much less in applying discipline.

Nor will it do to read the words: “Have a watch” – RVm: take a guard — as though offering them a squad of Roman soldiers. This is a rather forced unnatural reading of the Greek word.

It seems likely that for the duration of the great Feasts, a detachment from the Roman garrison was assigned to the Jewish rulers to help in time of emergency in maintaining order among the crowds of worshippers. Some of these had already been on duty at the arrest of Jesus and at his crucifixion. Now Pilate reminded the chief priests: “You have some of my men at your disposal already; then why bother me about this business?”

It was tacit approval, but coupled with a strangely enigmatic observation: “Make it as sure as ye know.” Was this a sardonic derisive way of showing that he had seen through them? ‘You know what a formidable problem those chicken-hearted disciples of Jesus are. So by all means take the most stringent precautions against them.’

Or is it possible that Pilate was saying: You know he will rise from the dead, and you are scared of the consequences; so by all means do all you can to stop him! Such a surmise is less improbable than it seems at first sight. The previous day Pilate had spent much time in the presence of Jesus, and had conversed with him a good deal. There was also the portentous dream which his wife had had. And, not least, there was the astonishing sequence of awesome events coinciding with the crucifixion. Pilate himself was nearer to believing in Jesus than he cared to admit to anyone. Yet what he had written he had written!

So the priests went their way. They sealed the stone — presumably by the time-honoured method of tape and sealing wax, or by the copious use of cement. And the Roman soldiers who had been on duty at the crucifixion were again more close to Jesus than anyone.

It was a measure of the distraught and anxious frame of mind of these priests that they could deem their seals adequate to prevent either theft or resurrection, certainly the seals, carefully affixed, were a clear evidence that they did not trust the soldiers! Nevertheless, next morning, when these men came to them, all bewildered and shaken with a circumstantial tale about earthquake and angels, their story was never questioned for a moment! Of the obvious reaction: “Liars, all of you!” there was never a sign.

As these priests lay sleepless on their beds that night did it occur to any of them to wonder whefher perhaps they had made a mistake? Could it be that in sealing the stone they had actually provided evidence, which they themselves would not be able to deny, that the crucified Jesus was risen from the dead?

NOTES: Matthew 27:62-66

What a dramatic contrast between the preceding narrative with its record of sorrowing devotion and the scheming fearful hostility of these rulers!

62.	The day of the Preparation. According to Edersheim a standard expression for Friday (Mark explains it; 15:42). At this Passover the usual Sabbath and the special Passover Sabbath (Lev. 23:5-7) coincided.
	Came together. Gk. passive surely implies that they were specially convened by the Sadducee chief priest, who doubtless hod disturbing memories of the Lazarus episode.
63.	We remember. They tell Pilate that Jesus made this prophecy. Then in 28:14, they probably told him of its fulfilment! Gk. suggests ‘we were reminded’ — by whom? Was it the last act of Judas? Or a specially brave word of witness by Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea?
	That deceiver. There is no instance in the gospels of the enemies of the Lord referring to him as “Jesus”. “He is called deceiver for the consolation of his servants who shall (also) be called deceivers”. (Augustus).
	Said -When? Jn. 2:19; Mt. 12:40 – which they evidently understood.
	While he was yet alive. A crass pleonasm! Could Jesus have said it after he was dead? The use of these words betrays the intense agitation of these men. His enemies knew him to be dead. Why do his modern enemies (e.g. Shonfield) think they know better?
64.	The third day. This interprets the idiomatic: After three days. Cp. Mk. 8:31; 10:34. See, for details, ‘Passover”, HAW ch. 10. Jerusalem Targum: “A day and a night together make up a night-day, and any part of such a period is accounted as the whole.”
	The last error worse than the first. Here first (Gk. protos) implies not just one initial evil, but many (his miracles and his teaching). Instead, that truth (resurrection) is better than the first (virgin birth). What a smear it was to quote such a passage as 2 Sam. 13:6 about Jesus!
	Error (deseil) is virtually s.w. verse 63: deceiver.
65.	Three curt verbs here make evident Pilate’s impatience and lack of sympathy. Contrast here his marked willingness to oblige Joseph of Arimathea; v.58
	A watch. Roman,- s.w. 28; 11; Jn. 18:3,1 2
66.	Made the sepulchre sure. The plural use of this word in three vereses – they made sure also that there would be yet more witnesses to the resurrection, unwilling witnesses, too! In a Messianic prophecy Is 41:10 LXX) the same word has a drastically differed context: “Uphold thee.”
	Sealing the stone. Jn. 6:27 s.w, but what a contrast there! Not onlyin his ministry but again in his resurrection Jesus showed his disregard for protocol and red tape, cp Job 5;12, 13, 12-17 Consider also Acts 5:23; 12.10; 16:26. Dan. 6:17 provides a remarkable type.

When the grim business of crucifixion had been concluded—Jesus first, then the two thieves—the quaternion of soldiers settled down (Gen. 37 :25) to the more congenial ploy of sharing out their perquisites-the garments of Jesus and the others. From each victim there would be five items of clothing-head-dress, sandals, robe, girdle and chiton or shirt. The chiton of Jesus was evidently specially good, so this was set on one side until, with the ubiquitous dice, they had gambled for the other four articles.

“Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.” Josephus (Ant. 3.7.4) uses almost identical phraseology to describe the linen garment of the high priest. Chiton is the normal word for the robe of a priest. Was this garment blue or white (Ex. 39:22,27; Lk.9:29)?

“They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be.” Contrast the decision of the angels of God regarding the veil of the temple (Mt. 27:51).

It was strange indeed that these soldiers should contemplate even for a moment the rending of any of the victim’s clothing, for what use could a mere fragment of a garment be?

Symbolic meaning

But again the symbolic mind of the evangelist looked beyond the mere outward form of events. The double meaning here is underlined with the otherwise quite superfluous phrase: “These things therefore the soldiers did.” John saw in this trivial incident a happening of far-reaching significance. In the first place, these Roman soldiers, all unknown to themselves, were fulfilling an inspired Scripture written hundreds of years earlier about this very thing. “They parted my garments among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots” (Ps. 22 :18). Down to the very last detail the accuracy of the prophecy was established.

If that 22nd Psalm had any application to the life and experience of David-and such application is by no means free from difficulty —it must belong to the time of Absalom’s rebellion. In that case these words about “parting my garments” were probably used originally in a symbolic sense for the avid greed with which the rebels settled down 10 apportion among themselves the various lucrative honours and dignities which hitherto had belonged to the king himself.

In a similar fashion, John may have seen a symbolic fulfilment alongside the literal, in the application of the Psalm to Jesus. Men who had rebelled against the authority of Jesus and had compassed his death did so because they regarded Jerusalem as “their place” and the Jews as “their nation” (Jn. 11:48). “This is the heir: come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.” And Pilate and Herod had connived at this fell work because each had deemed himself to be “King of the Jews.” They all insisted on having for themselves what was Christ’s by right.

But John must surely have seen even more than this. Here in symbol was the very truth which many a time Jesus had been at pains to enunciate for the benefit of his disciples: “and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd;” “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are . . . Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us” (Jn. 10:16; 17:11,20,21). And it is plain that by contrast John saw only the opposite kind of experience as possible for those estranged from Christ: “So there was a division among the people because of him.” “Then said the Pharisees. . . but others . . . And there was a division among them . . . There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings” (Jn. 7:43; 9:16; 10:19).

All these things were impressively symbolized in two simple facts: at the trial of Jesus the high priest rent his garments, but from the cross Jesus looked down and saw his own priestly garment preserved whole and free from any tear. There is a sad sad irony about the rending of his robe which has gone on since that time. Even to the present day he looks down from his work as priest beside the heavenly throne (Zech. 6 :13) at the blithe indifference with which his brethren rend that which was intended to be without even a seam.

A speculation

There is an interesting and perhaps not altogether unprofitable speculation as to what happened to the clothes of Jesus that day. No Bible support for this idea is forthcoming, yet it has a certain inherent probability about it.

The scene is readily imagined: the Roman soldiers sitting close to the crosses and busy with their dice. Standing nearby (by special permission doubtless), the group of faithful women, and John with them. Their thoughts as they saw the garments of their Lord being light-heartedly gambled for may well be imagined. Probably one of them (his mother? cp. 1 Sam. 2:19) had made that seamless robe with her own hands. And now it and the rest were to be sold for the price of a drink in some tavern in the city! In these circumstances it would be strange indeed if one of the group did not come across to the soldiers and quickly do a deal for what they had just shared out. (Those who read the NT in Greek may like to ponder the force of the men . . . de in Jn. 19:24 end, 25).

Now a further consideration. When Jesus rose from the dead, he appeared to his disciples as a normal clothed person. Is it an altogether irrelevant and irreverent question to ask: Where did he get his clothes from? A possible answer is, of course, that one of the angels brought them from heaven. But another answer, not impossible, is that those garments acquired from the soldiers were hurried away for laundering, and at the end of that day of anxiety and sorrow someone who was present when Jesus was laid in the tomb of Joseph brought them, now sweet and clean and free from the dust, blood and sweat which had soiled them, saying: “Lay these by his side. He will surely need them before long.”

But this is only a guess.

Perhaps Zechariah’s prophecy about the “filthy garments” of Joshua-Jesus calls for a literal, as well as a figurative, fulfilment (3:3, 5)

At a time during the long drawn-out hours of pain, thirst and misery, when by jeers and taunts priests, people and Roman soldiers seemed bent on adding as much as they could to the sufferings of Jesus, there came marvellous help and encouragement from an altogether unexpected source. What was it that turned the thief at Jesus’ right hand from curses and blasphemy to the utterance of a matchless confession of faith? The gospels offer no explanation, nor do the commentators. It is ground for thankfulness that the fact is recorded.

The contrast between the two malefactors is picked out markedly by Luke’s choice of word “other” —a different kind of man. The one ends his days foaming out bitter curses and sarcastic sneers: “You are the Messiah, aren’t you?” The other not only rebukes him but also acknowledges his own fate to be well-deserved. His estimate of Jesus is remarkable: “This man hath done nothing amiss.” But how did he know that Jesus had done nothing amiss? Even if taken in a vague, general way as signifying: ‘This Jesus has committed no bloody crimes as we have,’ his words are sufficiently startling as betraying a knowledge of the kind of man Jesus was and the work he had been doing. But if the words are taken at their face value then this thief must have known Jesus before this, and known him so intimately as to be able to say with emphasis: ‘This man hath done nothing amiss; his character is without any blemish; none has ever convicted him of sin.’

By itself this conclusion might appear farfetched. But the rest of this unique incident makes it a much more likely explanation.

Eloquent confession of faith

“Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The thief’s appeal appears to mean: ‘Remember me when you inherit your kingdom.’ But the more precise translation of the RV changes the meaning drastically: “Remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.” These words now plainly imply the thief’s conviction that Jesus would one day come again in a kingdom, that is, with authority and power as King of the Jews.

Indeed, the implication is much more far-reaching than this. Here was Jesus dying by his side, and yet the thief expressed a conviction that he would one day “come in a kingdom.” Then he must surely have believed that Jesus would rise from the dead, and, further, that he would ascend to heaven; for unless he first went away how could he come in a kingdom?

It has to be realised, that, whilst the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension to heaven are commonplace knowledge to the believer of today, the disciples of Jesus seem to have been blind to these glorious truths until the resurrection had actually taken place. Time after time when Jesus had sought to instruct the Twelve concerning the experience that lay before him at Jerusalem, “they understood not that saying” (Mk. 9:32), “they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken” (Lk. 18;34). Indeed, after the first news of the resurrection had been proclaimed to the Twelve, it was still possible for Jesus to say to the two whom he accompanied on the road to Emmaus; “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Lk. 24:25,26).

The impressive conclusion seems inescapable, then, that when the thief proclaimed his faith in the dying Jesus, he was perhaps the only man in all the world who believed also that this same Jesus would soon rise again from the grave, the conqueror of the great Enemy, and would ascend to heaven. Surely, if ever there was a justifying faith, it was in the heart of this man who now hung on a cross paying the penalty of his crime.

It is worthwhile to make a list of the articles of belief, which explicitly or by implication, were included in the malefactor’s confession of faith:

1. Jesus was sinless—”this man hath done nothing amiss.”
2. He himself was a worthless sinner: “We indeed receive the due reward of our deeds.”
3. Jesus was “Lord”, i.e. the Meessiah.
4. He would rise from the deed.
5. He would ascend to heaven.
6. He would come again,
7. At his coming he would raise dead —”remember me,” a victim crucifixion,
8. “Remember me” also implies discrimination (i.e. judgment) between those accepted and those not.
9. His coming would also establish a kingdom.

The catalogue is certainly a remarkable one, especially when set over against the blindness of the apostles who had had such exceptional opportunities of grasping the truth of the Father’s purpose in His Son.

Now it is possible to add other even more remarkable items to the list. The other malefactor, echoing the jibes of the chief priests, had railed on Jesus, saying: “If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us.” But this man made a careful distinction. He said, in effect: “I know you are the Christ. Therefore save me.” This seems to imply a realisation that Jesus must die, and that apart from the death of Jesus there could be no salvation for himself! This harmonizes admirably with what has already been learned concerning the man. It adds the crowning fact to his saving knowledge of Jesus that without the death of the Saviour on the cross his own sins could not be forgiven!

There is also this. The rebuke to his fellow: “Dost not thou fear God . . . ?” carried with it the implication: “I do fear Him.” Thus, not only did he believe, but he also made an open confession of faith. Up to that point, as a supporter of a popular hero Barabbas, he and his fellow would have the strong sympathy of the crowd. But now this was forfeited. He chose instead to share the reproach of Christ.

A lapsed disciple

The question inevitably arises: How came this malefactor to have such remarkable insight into all these divine truths? To this, there is only one possible answer: He had been a disciple of Jesus in earlier days! Not only so, to have gained such exceptional knowledge of his character and teaching he must have been one of Christ’s most intimate followers.

Consequently, it is manifestly inaccurate and unfair to represent this man as making a “deathbed” repentance-a rank unbeliever suddenly brought to belief in the Saviour when face to face with the stark horror of death.

A far more close (though not exact) parallel would be with Peter, who in spite of many vigorous protestations to the contrary, denied His Lord three times and then, coming to himself, went out and wept bitterly. For such the grace of divine forgiveness is ever available “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (Ps. 32:5).

Thus it was with David; thus it was with Peter; and thus also it was with this nameless sinner, for did he not declare: “We (the other malefactor and himself) are receiving the due reward of our deeds”?

The suggestion that a man of this character could ever have been a disciple is not as unlikely as it may seem. This matter is worth exploring further.

The word “thief” in the ordinary version of the Bible is misleading. This man crucified with Christ was neither pick-pocket, cat-burglar, highwayman nor brigand. The same word is applied to Barabbas (Jn. 18:40 Gk.), who certainly was no insignificant, unknown cutthroat from the hills, but a well-known and popular figure in Judaea (a “notable prisoner”; Mt. 27:16), who had led a rebellion in Jerusalem itself against Roman authority (Lk. 23:19). This “thief” was one of a number who had been taken prisoner during this upheaval: “And there was one named Barabbas which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him…” (Mk. 15:7).

Evidently, then, Barabbas and his two fellows were Jewish Zealots, patriots who might be described in modern jargon as members of the nationalist resistance movement.

Alternative to Jesus

With these facts in mind the sequence of ideas in John 6 becomes impressive. At the time of that Passover, Jesus had fed a great multitude miraculously from a few loaves and fishes. The effect of this on the crowd was more marked than after any of his other miracles: “Then those men, when they had seen the miracles that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone” (Jn. 6:14,15).

The party of the Zealots evidently thought that at last they had found the very leader they needed. Led by a chief endowed with such amazing powers, they could speedily drive the Romans into the sea, and the Kingdom of Jehovah over Israel would once again be established in Palestine.

But Jesus quenched all such wild notions by an abrupt departure and, next day, by his discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” There was immediately a sharp reaction among the multitude: “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying: who can hear it? . . . From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (Jn.6 :53,60,66).

The more energetic and idealistic of these who now deserted Jesus would almost inevitably drift into the ranks of the Zealots. Where else could they go? And if indeed this “thief” crucified with Jesus was among that number, the sudden regeneration of faith when hanging on the cross is easily understood. He would not only recognize Jesus but would also have it driven home to his mind that Jesus, in foretelling his own miserable death at the time of Passover in order that others might have eternal life, had proved himself a true prophet. It would therefore come to him in a flash that all the other far-reaching claims included in that discourse at Capernaum must also be true- his divine origin, his Messiahship, his sinlessness, his resurrection and his coming again to raise the dead (see, for instance, John 6:46,38,51,62,54,). All of these, in one way or another, this malefactor now included in the noblest confession of faith ever made. And who can doubt that he was encouraged to it by the memory of other words of Jesus that day: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Jn.6:37)?

Baptized?

There need be no difficulty now over the question: Will this malefactor receive his eternal life without being baptized? The preponderant evidence of the New Testament is that baptism is essential for salvation (Mt. 3:15; Jn. 3:5; Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 10:48 and 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). Appropriately, then, both John the Baptist and Jesus had insisted on baptism for their disciples (Jn.3 :22,23; 4 :1,2). So if this crucified sinner were indeed a renegade disciple, his earlier acceptance of Christian baptism may be safely presumed.

A question of some interest now arises. Baptism is a symbolic death with Christ. Then, since this malefactor was literally crucified with Christ, dying when he died, would he need the symbolic death also? The answer is not important for modern believers, but it is intriguing.

In that endless day of living death how Jesus would be heartened by this sinner’s matchless confession of faith. What a difference it would make to the spirit with which he now endured the torment of suffering and shame. Here was plain proof to his own eyes and ears that his work was not in vain.

Re-punctuation

No wonder, then, that he answered the man’s appeal with such emphasis: “Verily / say unto thee today, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise” —as who should say: ‘Remember you then, in the day of my glory? nay, you shall have my assurance now.’

Some are uneasy about this shift of a comma in such a way as to rid the words of Jesus of the meaning put on them by a misguided orthodoxy, but they have no need to be. Textually and grammatically, and also from the point of view of harmony with the context and the over-all teaching of Scripture, this re-punctuation of the words is altogether sound.

The same construction (in Gk.) comes in Lk. 22:61 (see RV); Acts 26 :29. There are plenty of examples in the RV of corrections of, or alternatives to AV punctuation similar to the one suggested here: Lk. 23:42 (the preceding verse!); 17:7; 13:24; 10:5; 12:1; 24:47; 21:34; 1:45; Mt. 19:28; 24:47; Jn. 1:3; 4:35; 7:21,38; 11:28; 16:23; Rom. 9:5; 15:13; Dt. 5:29; Is. 40:3; Jer. 31:33. At Lk. 23:43 the Gospel according to Nicodemus has the order of words: “Today I say unto thee . . .” Yet there may be a sense in which the promise of Jesus had its fulfilment in the very day in which it was spoken (see Study 232).

Paradise

One further detail of interest and importance remains for consideration. The malefactor asked to be remembered in Christ’s kingdom. Why, then, did Jesus answer with a promise of blessing “in that Paradise” (see Gk. text)?

There is, of course, no adequate ground for equating Paradise with heaven, as is commonly done. In Genesis 2,3 LXX uses “paradise” thirteen times. The word normally means a garden, and is used with this specific reference in Ezekiel 36:35: “This land that was desolate is become like the garden (paradise) of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.”

Paul’s personal reminiscence about being “caught up to Paradise” (2 Cor. 12:1-4) is much too figurative and problematical to serve as proof for anything. The promise: “To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7), also has a marked figurative element, but it is as definitive as one could wish, for it pictures an enjoyment of this world restored to the faultless perfection of the Garden of Eden (cp. Rev.22:2 for the same idea).

A little reflection will now show that there was purpose and wonderful insight in this precise choice of words made by Jesus. It was in Paradise that Adam and his wife, whilst yet innocent of transgression, had fellowship with the angels, the sons of God (Job 38:7). Later, because of sin, that high privilege was lost. Instead they found themselves thrust forth from the garden and put under sentence of death. Yet even in the hour of condemnation they were given ground for hope in the promise of a Seed of the Woman who would crush the power of sin, himself suffering in the process (Gen. 3:15). Understanding and believing this matchless Promise, Adam gave his wife a new name: Eve, the mother of life. Thus Adam and Eve died according to the curse, but they died justified by faith in the promise of the Saviour.

All this story of human sin, condemnation and regeneration was re-enacted in the microcosm experience of this thief to whom Jesus spoke. He had known the fellowship of the Son of God: he too through disbelief had gone over to the side of the Enemy: he suffered the due reward of his deeds, for still death was and is the wages of sin, and he, believing in the promised Saviour who was even now consummating at his side the great work of sin-conquest, was justified by his faith and received the sublime and emphatic assurance of restoration to life and the fellowship of his Lord.

All this remarkable parallel Jesus saw in a flash and with the divine wisdom which was with him to his dying breath he embodied it in a word, for the blessing and inspiration of generations to come: “Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”

The centurion at Golgotha had never witnessed a crucifixion like it. Against the background of earthquake and unnatural darkness this Jesus of Nazareth, instead of mouthing imprecations or self-pity, had concerned himself all the time with others round about him, and had ended with prayer and praise to the God of Israel. Meantime the centurion’s own soldiers cowered in fear, terrified by the fantastic happenings in the world of nature around them. It is little wonder that these men, for whom Jesus had prayed, concluded that he was the Son of God.

It was written in the prophets that, “though Israel be not gathered” God would yet be glorified in His Messiah when he became became “a light to the Gentiles” (ls.49 :3,5,6). Here already at the cross were the foreshadowings of such a work.

Awe-inspiring event and O. T. prophecy

Meantime Jews, who earlier had stood around fascinated by the grisly spectacle of crucified men, took themselves off to their homes in fear, “beating their breasts”, as one awe-inspiring omen after another shook their nerves and harrowed their consciences. Zechariah had prophesied: “They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son” (12 :10). Already that scripture was having its token fulfilment, a pale foretaste of the bitter remorse which will one day baptize Israel in sorrow when they see this crucified Jesus glorious in their midst.

In the temple, the like things were happening. At the very time that Jesus died, they began to slay the Passover lambs in the court round the altar of burnt-offering. The law of the Passover had said that the lambs must be killed “between the two evenings” (Ex.12 :6mg), a phrase which traditionally was interpreted to mean between mid-afternoon and sunset (cp.Matthew 14 :15,23, at the previous Passover). On this particular Passover, because of the supernatural darkness, there were literally two evenings, and in that period the slaying of the lambs coincided with the death of the Lamb of God.

At the same time the veil of the temple separating off the Most Holy from the Holy Place was rent from top to bottom. The point has often been made that this symbol of “Christ’s flesh” (Heb.10 :20) was destroyed by act of God—from top to bottom, and not upwards, as a man would have done it. “It pleased the Lord to bruise him: He hath put him to grief.”

But perhaps the most pointed witness of all had been, and was to be, made to the rulers. These men were still desperately uneasy concerning Jesus. Even though he were now crucified, so many strange things had happened that day which his disciples would be able to turn to good account as fulfilment of Bible prophecy, that there was still the possibility of a serious situation if this dead Nazarene were to be proclaimed—with convincing Biblical force—a divine Messiah whose very rejection had been precisely according to the declared will of God in the scriptures.

A crafty plan

With the deliberate cunning of chess players the danger was not only anticipated but met by means of a brilliant device. From the Pharisees’ point of view the situation required that any one of the ancient prophecies be plainly and demonstrably vitiated in the experience of the prophet of Nazareth, for then on this rock all the outlandish claims made on his behalf would immediately come to grief.

So with simulated ingenuousness and concern, and also with a studied ignoring of Passover defilement (Jn.18 :28), an official deputation sought audience with Pilate, and put their case. Passover Feast and Sabbath would begin in a matter of hours. It was needful, therefore according to their religion (Dt.21 :23), that the corpses of these crucified men be suitably disposed of as speedily as possible. Would the governor help them in their difficulty by commanding that the legs of the three men be broken so as to accelerate their deaths? There was little time to spare.

It has been argued that this breaking of the legs of crucified men was a normal practice, and that such treatment would accelerate death by throwing such a strain on the thorax as to inhibit breathing, thus causing the individual to die fairly quickly from asphyxia. The first of these points is quite unsupported by evidence. The second is not true—as may be readily established (as indeed it has been) by actual experiment.

To Pilate the request seemed harmless enough even though the usual Roman practice was to leave crucified men hanging until their bones were picked clean by carrion crows. What could he know about the typology of the Passover? What could he know about Messianic declarations that: “He (Jehovah) keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken” (Ps.34 :20)? Neither would it occur to him to ask why, if they had scruples about leaving a body on a cross on their sabbath, they had no scruples about the murder of an innocent man on one of their Feast Days. Or did it? However, it may be that this ready acquiescence to the Pharisees’ request was actually given by some lesser official, well bribed for the occasion, who was able to act in smaller matters with the governor’s authority (Jn.19 :22 andMk.15 :44 support such a view).

It must have been with great satisfaction that the Jews now transmitted to the centurion the order from the fortress of Antonia that the legs of the crucified men be broken. And, reluctant though that officer was to pass this instruction to his men, the order was given.

Evil intent frustrated

What was it made the soldier detailed for this unsavoury job go first to one thief, then to the other, and last of all to Jesus in the middle? And why, although trained to obey every order explicitly, did he hesitate before that middle cross, take in at a glance that Jesus was already dead, and then lower his mallet? What moved him instead to lift his javelin and make a hard thrust into the side of that corpse?

Thus not only did it stand true that “a bone of him shall not be broken,” but also the way was opened for another scripture to be fulfilled when Christ returns as the Lord of Glory: “They shall look on him (an only son) whom they pierced” (Zech.12:10).

In recording that the soldier’s spear pierced Jesus in the side John may have had also the intention to remind his readers that it was by the opening of his side that the First Adam received his Bride when he awoke from a deep sleep. Or maybe the reader of this gospel is to be reminded of the enigmatic “last words of David” when the Spirit of the Lord spake concerning the Messiah, that “he that ruleth over men must be just. . . and be filled with iron and the staff of a spear” (2 Sam.23 :7).

However, John’s emphasis goes markedly on the truth that not a bone of Jesus was broken. Once again the impressiveness of the literal fulfilment of prophecy must not be allowed to obscure the yet more important symbolic truth that those who belong to the Body of the Redeemed are One and Indivisible, as Jesus himself had prayed: “that they may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also be one in us.”

Of all the arresting and intensely significant happenings at Golgotha none seems to have been so eloquent to John the eyewitness as that flow of blood and water soaking into mother earth at the foot of the cross. Concerning this especially he felt impelled to give his own personal guarantee of truth: “And he that saw it bear witness, and his witness is true ” I saw it with my own eyes!

John’s story of the crucifixion has already given evidence of its mystical interpretation of many an otherwise insignificant detail. And here his distinctive use of two words for “true” (19 :35) shows that once again his symbolic mind is busy enriching his readers’ appreciation of the momentous happening of that Day. Any doubt on that score is set at rest by the emphatic way in which John makes allusion to this very thing in his First Epistle: “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (1 John 5 :6,8). Clearly, like so much else in John’s First Epistle, this reference to water and blood looks back to the gospel narrative for its meaning. But what meaning?

It is plain that in the gospel, just as John the Baptist at the outset proclaimed Jesus as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”, so in the consummation of that work John the Evangelist asserted the same glorious truth by his testimony to blood and water from “the riven side.”

It has often been asserted that Jesus died of a broken heart—not in the modern figurative sense of the term, but in its most completely literal sense, namely, through rupture of the wall of the heart. This could well have been the cumulative result of the terrific emotional strain to which Jesus had been subjected and the long drawn-out physical ordeal of the past twenty-four hours.

But John was not concerned with the physiological facts. Of far greater importance in his eyes were the spiritual truths that such facts proclaim. Why then did he insist so strenuously on the witness of the water ana’ the blood? What is their witness? And for what reason did he omit to expound it? Is it because he considered the meaning to be already sufficiently obvious, or is it because the ideas that cluster round these pregnant symbols of Christ are too many and too profound to be capable of adequate exposistion?

Perhaps a brief review may be attempted of some of the main ideas which associate themselves easily and naturally with the blood and water from the side of Jesus.

1.	They are often linked in Scripture with the opposing principles of flesh and Spirit, the human and the divine in Jesus. “To them gave he power to become sons of God . . . which were born, not of blood . but of God” (Jn.1 :12,13). “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father which is in heaven” (Mt.16 :17). In contrast with these: “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (Jn.4 :14).
2.	Blood and water and hyssop were the symbols associated with the inauguration of the Mosiac Covenant at Sinai (Heb. 9:19). Here, in John 19:34,29, are the same three symbols, now signifying the bringing in of a New Covenant: “This is my blood of the New Covenant.” “As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water (i.e. from the grave)” (Zech. 9:11). It may be asked: Why should these particular symbols be elements of ratification of God’s Covenants? Because:
3.	They are Covenants with sinners—people afflicted with moral leprosy, the incurable disease. Blood, water and hyssop again combine for the cleansing of God’s lepers (Lev. 14 :6,7). In that day when Jesus died on the cross there was “a fountain opened . . for sin and for uncleanness” (Zech.13 :1). And this follows immediately after: “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced . . (Zech. 12 :10), words quoted in John’s account.
4.	Yet another symbol finds eloquent reinforcement and fulfilment in the piercing of the side of Jesus: “Behold I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that my people may drink” (Ex. 17 :6). It was with allusion to this that Jesus cried out in the temple court on the very day of the Feast ot Tebernacles which celebrated the giving of water in the wilderness: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and he that believeth on me, let him drink, as the scripture hath said, Out of his belly (I.e. from the Messiah, typified by the smitten rock) shall flow rivers of living water” (Jn 7:37,38).
	On another , occasion Moses was commanded to give the people water by speaking to the rock (at Kadesh, this time). Instead he smote it twice. In this particular place (Numbers 20) the Jewish Targum of Jonathan elaborates the story remarkably, telling that when Moses first struck the rock it dripped blood, and at the second blow water gushed forth! Undue emphasis should not be placed on this uninspired elaboration of Numbers 20, but its insight is certainly remarkable.
5.	But the most immediate and satisfactory interpretation of the water and blood is to be found in the Lord’s own words: “Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3 :5). “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:53,54).
	Here is plain anticipation of the two sacraments Jesus instituted —sacraments which are not really two, but one, for the meaning is fundamentally the same. Baptism, a birth out of spiritual water, is the beginning of a man’s life in Christ; by this means he is identified with the one whom he acknowledges as Saviour, Master, Lord. The Bread and Wine are the outward tokens of the grace and power by which that New Life, begun in baptism, may be maintained and matured. Hence John is able to say with palpable truth: “This is the One who comes in the water and in the blood”-that is, in baptism which begins the life in Christ, and in the Communion which maintains the life in Christ. “Not in the water only,” John persists, putting his case negatively as well as positively, “but in the water and in the blood.” Baptism by itself will achieve nothing. Its work must be consolidated and nourished by a sharing of the fulness of Christ through the life that he can impart.
	Not content with this emphasis, John underlines yet again: “And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth, for there are three that bear witness, in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” Probably here the Spirit which bears witness (called in 5:9: “the witness of God”) is the inspired unfolding of the work and teaching of Jesus which John has set out in his accompanying gospel. In other words John is here asserting that the Gospel he has written is not his own but the Holy Spirit’s. With these words should be compared the challenging claim that John deliberately joined on to his narrative of the stabbing of his Lord: “And he that hath seen it hath borne witness (here in this gospel), and his witness is true: and he (the risen Lord) knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”

Thus the Spirit (in the gospel), and the water (of baptism), and the blood of Christ shed on the cross and symbolized in the wine of the sacrament do agree in one. They tell the same story. They insist on the same Truth. They are one. Christ is the body, soul, and spirit of then-all.

Apart from John’s very indirect allusion to himself as present at the crucifixion, the gospels give no hint of the other apostles being there. Yet Peter was at Golgotha-“a witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pet. 5 :1). Now, as he beheld his Master suffering alone, with what pangs of self-reproach he would think of the harrowing experiences of the previous night.

Possibly others of the apostolic band were there also, mingling as obscurely as possible with the crowd. But if they were there, the reference to them is veiled. Luke records that “all his acquaintance stood afar off beholding these things.” That phrase seems to include the apostles. Is it then because of their desertion of him that they are not named as disciples?

This loneliness in suffering is another of the aspects of the Lord’s sacrifice which is dwelt upon more than once in the prophecies of his rejection. “My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore; and my kinsmen stand afar off” (Ps.38 ill). “Thou hast put mine acquaintance far from me; Lover and friend hast thou put far from me; mine acquaintance is darkness” (88:8,18). “Because of all mine adversaries I am become a reproach, yea, unto my neighbours exceedingly, and a fear to mine acquaintances: they that did see me without fled from me” (31 :11RV; note that verse 5 here was quoted by Jesus on the cross).

Some of the women seem to have taken courage to come right up to the cross. “Perfect love casteth out fear.” Possibly, after a while, they were given permission by the centurion in charge. The expression: “when Jesus saw his mother,” implies that they were not there close to the cross all the time. Along with Mary was her sister Salome (Mk.15 :40), the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John, and also Mary Magdalene and the other Mary the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus), the mother of at least one of the Twelve (Study 42).

These were a few out of a larger group of women who had made it their special concern to see that Jesus was suitably and properly cared for as he travelled up to Jerusalem from Galilee. Probably from the earliest days of his ministry there were some who had devoted themselves to serving the Lord in this way. It is eloquent of their attachment to him that they were now prepared to stand by him in sympathy and grief, even though the horror of the scene harrowed their souls.

But this was no place for the Lord’s mother—she had not only borne him, she had reared him, taught him, cooked and sewed and scrubbed for him. She had given him good counsel and been counselled by him. She had known his friendship and rejoiced in his love. From his earliest days it was foretold that because of him “a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also.” That bitter experience had been Mary’s already when she had found herself disowned by her best Son (Study 77).

As time passed., her faith in him had been reborn. But now, in a different sense, a sword pierced her soul as she found herself witnessing and sharing his agony. It was an experience from which he fain would save her.

So with moving economy of phrase, he said to her: “Behold thy son.” The ambiguity of the words was immediately removed by the instruction to John: “Behold thy mother.” This was the Lord’s last will and testament. To his mother he bequeathed his beloved disciple as a son in his stead. To his disciple he bequeathed the care of his mother. And who more fitted to receive and care for Mary than he? Up to this time the rest of the Lord’s family did not believe on him. But John understood and loved him more than almost any; and he was Jesus’ cousin. So it was right that Mary should be in his care.

Here for all time the principle was enunciated, and given practical expression by the Lord himself, that the father or mother or brother or sister in Christ is a far closer relation than those of the same blood or the same roof who do not know the Lord. Mary was not left to the care of James or Joses or Simon or Judas or any of the sisters in that Nazareth family.

This trust: “Behold thy mother,” involved a change of status for John. He was now accepted as brother of Jesus. Hitherto Jesus had referred to his followers as servants (Jn. 15 :15) and disciples, and at last as friends. But now here was the first hint of a higher relationship, brought into being through his own death. His word on the morning of resurrection: “Go. tell my brethren. . .” appropriately marked, by his first use of that word, the coming to birth of a New Family.

Rightly interpreting his instructions, John took Mary to his own home “from that hour.” Doubtless accompanied by his own mother also, he promptly lead her away from Golgotha. All attempts at consolation would be ineffective by comparison with her own cherished memory of how once, years before, in Jerusalem at another Passover she had lost her Son, only to find him again “among his Father’s men” on the third day!

When John knew that Mary was in good hands and comforted, he returned without loss of time to Golgotha. His love for his Lord would not allow him to stay away. And thus in later days he was able to write out of his own personal experience: “He that saw it bear record, and his record is true.”

“After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled saith, I thirst” (Jn.19:28).

There is no hint who the rough ignorant son of Israel was who responded to the Lord’s cry, but-as will be seen-he not only quenched thirst but also enabled Jesus to spend the last minutes of his earthly life precisely as he would wish to use them.

The man ran to get a sponge (specially provided for the crucifixion?) saturated it with “vinegar” (the cheap wine provided for the Roman soldiers?), pushed the end of a reed of hyssop into it, and held it up to Jesus’ mouth Was he, one wonders, kind enough to do thp same for the other two?

Hyssop

There is so much of symbolism in the gospels’ crucifixion narratives, and especially in John’s, that one is constrained to look again at this mention of hyssop. It was to be used with the blood of the Lamb at the first Passover (Ex.12 :8,22). It was prescribed for the cleansing ceremony of a man suffering from leprosy, the sin disease (Lev.14 :4,6,49-52). It was an integral part of the ordinance of the red heifer which provided a limitless water of purification outside all the other sacrificial appointments (Num.19 :6,18). None of these is without relevance to this solemn occasion. (See also Study 236).

It is because John wrote: “that the scripture might be fulfilled,” that the strange assumption is sometimes made that Jesus deliberately said. “I thirst” in order to fulfil the one remaining prophecy which he had not yet fulfilled. Such an explanation is only to be received if there is no alternative available. It was not the Lord ‘s habit to go through life fulfilling Old Testament prophecies just for the sake of fulfilling them. And, m any case, if this were the right idea, then it would not be correct to say that “all things were now accomplished.” What of the prophecies associated with his burial, resurrection and ascension —to say nothing or all that stands written concerning his priesthood and kingship?

There must be something else behind this simple incident. The word “fulfilled’ provides the key, for it is not the word normally used in the New Testament to intimate the fulfilment or prophecy, it is not, for example, the same word as is used only a few verses later: “. . .that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken” (Jn.19 :36; cp.v.24 and scores of other places). In fad, in no passage is this word “fulfilled” (v.28) used about the fulfilment of prophecy. Its more exact meaning is: “completed, finished” (e.g. Lk.2 :43) and in the light of Study 232 the scripture referred to may well be Psalm 22.

A psalm recited

It is known for certain that Jesus quoted the words of verse 1 of that Psalm (with a certain deliberate modification). Reason has also been found (Study 232) for believing that he may also have used verse 8: “He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him.” And at verse 15 this agonizing thirst of Jesus is also included in the details of the prophecy: “My strength Is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws.”

Yet it is hardly likely that one who had already refused to be drugged against the first excruciation of pain and the long drawn-out torture of crucifixion would be likely all at once to seek relief from this lesser phase of torture.

It is not unreasonable, then, to believe that Jesus was actually reciting the entire psalm on the cross, and that when he came to this place in it his dry throat and parching thirst would allow him to proceed no further. So in order that “the scripture might be completed” (that is, his reciting of it), he asked that his thirst might be quenched.

Further, there is some indication that Jesus did recite psalm to its very end. Scholars as different in character as Bullinger and W. A. Wordsworth have separately pointed out that Christ’s “It is finished” (read as Greek middle voice, and not passive) is the exact equivalent of the last phrase of Psalm 22: “he hath done this.”

Thus no less than four verbal contacts can be found between the words of Jesus on the cross and the inspired prophecy concerning his sufferings. When, in addition to this, the marvellous accuracy of the prophecy and the wide sweep and power of its thought are contemplated, it would be an ever, bigger marvel if Jesus had hung all day on the cross without resorting to its words for help anc solace in his loneliness.

Exact detail

It is a psalm or one who reckoned God as his Father: “Thou art he that took me out of the womb,” one who was despised and rejected of men : “All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.” The manner of his death is foretold: “They pierced my hands and my feet” (the Hebrew text here-“like a lion”-is clearly wrong; a very slight correction, supported by LXX, gives: “they dug”; (s.w. 40 :6; 57 :6). The dividing of garments and the casting of lots for his vesture is explicitly anticipated. This suffering and death is brought about only through a confederacy of Gentile and Jewish enemies: “Dogs (Gentiles) have compassed me: the assembly (Sanhedrin) of the wicked have enclosed me.”

Yet this unique picture of loneliness and suffering inflicted by implacable enemies merges into a confident expectation of achievement and glory. No longer loneliness, but fellowship: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee . . . My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.” The sufferings of this Son of God shall yet send forth a message of godliness to both Jews and Gentiles: “All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” Through this Man who dies, crucified, a scorned King of the Jews, “the kingdom shall be the Lord’s: and he shall be the governor among the nations.”

A yet more glorious outcome of his tribulation and rejection is this: a new Family of God is called into being: “A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.” And a people new-born through his righteousness are to celebrate with gladness that this is the work of God which they could in no wise do for themselves: “He hath done this.”

A shout of triumph

If these concluding words of the psalm were indeed used by Jesus on the cross, then his “It is finished” was no gasp of thankfulness that at last the ordeal was ended. It was a shout of triumph. John’s narrative implies as much by its sequel: “And he bowed his head” (on this, compare Ps.3 :l-5). But the head of a crucified man naturally sags forward. So this consideration establishes that Jesus uttered these words in a loud shout (Mt.27 :46,50) and with head uplifted. It was a shout of triumph. God’s redeeming work in His Christ was accomplished, and the concluding words of Psalm 22 were the crucified’s filial tribute of praise to “a just God and a Saviour.”

The sudden collapse and death of Jesus so soon after giving voice to a great shout has been seen as a difficulty of some consequence amounting almost to a discrepancy. But if he actually had set himself to recite the whole of Psalm 22, as he proceeded he would find it necessary to summon all his failing physical powers to carry through to the end. Now pain and torment were lost as he found himself carried away by the majestic theme of the words on his lips. Self and suffering were obscured and altogether forgotten as the inspired scripture led him on to a matchless climax of praise and gladness that the Father had wrought through him the great redemption that was to save a stricken creation from utter ruin.

The ground rocked in a mighty earthquake beneath him, the cross on which he hung shuddered with the shock of it, yet on he went. Regardless now of all around, he gave himself in a supreme act of devotion to the Almighty who had made him strong for Himself.

Nothing could be more fitting than that the Son of God should concentrate all his remaining physical and mental energies in a final act of public consecration to his Father in Heaven. The swaddling bands of mortality had been with him from manger to cross, yet through all the years, and now supremely in their close, there was “Glory to God in the highest.”

The hymn of praise ended. “He bowed his head, and gave up the spirit.” This may be a simple Bible equivalent for “he breathed his last,” but it is also possible that John intended a deeper meaning . “He bowed his head (towards his disciples), and handed over the Spirit (to them).” The symbolism of the action would only be understood in later days, when it may have been linked in the minds of the early believers with the symbolic action of the risen Jesus: “He breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit.”

It was with yet another word of Scripture (quoted, remarkably, from LXX) that Jesus passed into the darkness: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.” (Peter alludes to this, very appropriately, in 1 Pet.4 :19). The words are from Psalm 31 :5: and it may surely be assumed that the rest of that verse: “Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth”, was on his lips when divine power restored him to life on the third day.

Luke’s emphasis

Even though Luke’s record of the crucifixion does not mention the Lord’s quotation from Psalm 22, certain parts of his account correspond remarkably with parts of the Psalm:

	Psalm 22		Luke 23
16.	Dogs (Gentiles) have compassed me.	36.	The soldiers mocking him.
	The assembly (Sanhedrin) of the wicked have inclosed me.	35.	The rulers derided him.
17.	They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.	34.	They parted his raiment, and cast lots
	They look and stare upon me.	35.	The people stood beholding.
21.	Thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns (the cherubim).	45.	The veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
23.	Ye that fear the Lord.	47.	The centurion glorified God.
	All ye seed of Jacob..	48.	All the people smote their breasts.
	All ye the seed of Israel	49.	All his acquaintance and the women.

Luke’s account also brings out some remarkable antitheses.

1. the repentant malefactor and the one who cursed (v. 39,40).
2. The centurion who later glorified God, and the soldiers who earlier mocked (v.47,36).
3. The great men of the nation-Joseph of Arimathea confessing faith, and the men of the Sanhedrin deriding (v.50,35).
4. The common people beating their breasts, and those standing and staring (v.48,35).
5. The women with Christ to the last, and those lamenting him on the way to crucifixion (v.55,27).

At this point, so Hoskyns very usefully observes, John’s narrative is so constructed that the weight of testimony depends on the two chief disciples and not on the women — this for the special benefit of Jewish readers, doubtless: “at the mouth of two witnesses’ (Dt. 19:15), and men rather than women.

Peter and John ran as they had not run since the days of boyhood on Galilean hills. Men at the north gate of the city stared at them as they went rushing past. John, more lithe and supple, and probably younger, was soon well ahead of the other. Perhaps, too, his being unembarrassed by a bad conscience made some difference. But Peter, being Peter, was probably already resolved to track down the desecrators of his Lord’s tomb and by some desperate act of reprisal make a last futile gesture of loyalty to the one he had denied.

At the tomb – different reactions

So John was at the sepulchre with a good lead With a fineness of feeling which might be expected of him, he was content, on arrival, to stand by the entrance and stoop to peer in. There was just time to take things in before he was pined by Peter breathing heavily, but one quick look was sufficient for him to realize, though with no certainty, the main fact that the body was gone. The linen wrappings were there in position, yet it seemed that there was no body inside them.

Peter had no compunction whatever about going straight into the sepulchre. He went right up to the place where Jesus had been laid and stood staring hard at the grave clothes. John joined him, and quickly saw more than he did.

“He saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” These words from John’s account carry a double difficulty. The expression ‘knew not’ must surely be taken in a deeper sense: ‘they understood not’, for of course they were acquainted with the Old Testament passages which anticipated the resurrection of Jesus – the stories of Jonah and of Isaac, Psalm 16, Isaiah 53, the Passover ritual described in Leviticus 23, and so on. With the text of all, or most, of these the disciples would certainly be familiar, but it is one thing to know the words, it is a another to grasp the truth they convey. Not yet did they understand.

The sequence of ideas in this part of John’s record presents a much more tricky problem: “he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture.” If John had written’: ‘even though as yet they knew not…’, all would be consistent. But lack of knowledge (or understanding) of Scripture as a reason for believing hardly makes sense. For this reason many, following the fourth century Augustine, have given the words a very different application, thus: John saw the grave-clothes and believed the story brought by Mary (that the body of Jesus had been taken away), and he was the more ready to do this because the Bible prophecies concerning the Lord’s resurrection were not understood as yet.

There is, however, one simple fact which disallows this interpretation — quite apart from the not too satisfying conclusion which it leads to. The sight of the linen winding sheet supplied immediate proof that the body of Jesus had not been carried away, for who in their senses wishing to do such a thing would first go to the trouble of tediously unwrapping the corpse? The presence of those linen wrappings was the plainest possible proof that the body had not been removed by either friend or enemy. This must be John’s main reason for mentioning the fact.

A problem of interpretation

Then why that perplexing word “for”? This is not the Greek word which in such a place must mean “because.” Instead, it is a word which may carry this meaning but which can and often is added simply for emphasis, rattier in the way in which ‘truly, indeed, really, actually’, are used in modern English. For instance: “But some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee?” (John 7:41 RV; the AV leaves the word untranslated). Again: “Why, herein is a marvellous thing…” (9:30). There is no lack of examples of this kind.

John’s statement is now seen to be a clear-cut declaration that it was because of what he saw that he believed Jesus to be risen, not because of what he expected: “Actually as yet they knew not the scripture…”

The circumstantial detail with which John describes what he saw in the tomb shows that he regarded it all as specially significant: “He seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.”

From this description, and especially from the word translated “wrapped together,” it has been argued that John was wishing his readers to infer his own conviction that the body of Jesus had come through the linen wrappings, leaving them in the shape they had taken round the corpse.

Whilst this conclusion can hardly be said to follow from the expression used in the narrative here, a consideration of a different sort provides strong support for it. My friend, Raymond Mallinder, an analytical chemist of first-rate ability and wide experience, tried the experiment of using muslin and a mixture of myrrh and aloes (as Joseph and Nicodemus had done in burying Jesus; 1 9:39), and he found that if the myrrh and aloes were used in a dry form, as powders, then weeks later the material was unchanged in character. If, however, these spices were wetted either with water or alcohol (wine), the muslin immediately became very sticky and soon set firm like a plaster cast on a broken limb.

It has been argued that since the women who came to the tomb on the resurrection morning were hoping to be able to anoint the body, they must have known that the former method of using the spices in a dry form must have been adopted at the time of interment. But this does not necessarily follow for the two Marys who attended the burial “sat over against the sepulchre” (Mt. 27:61), and therefore (most probably) would not be near enough to see whether the wrappings were wetted or not.

Symbolism

So with the limited information available, it does not seem possible to decide whether, at his coming to life again, the Lord manually divested himself of the wrappings (or was helped by angels), or whether his resurrection body with its extraordinary powers came through the cerecloths, leaving them undisturbed. The word “wrapped (folded)” in John 20:7 might be read as supporting the former conclusion. But neither this point nor any other detail available seems to be decisive. John often thought and wrote symbolically. Those who pore reverently and sympathetically over his gospel can trace this characteristic in many a place (e.g. 3:2; 13:3; 10: 22,23; 19:22; 19:34; there are a great many more). Here — who can doubt it? — is another eloquent example. That separation, so clearly seen even in the dim light of the tomb, between the head-wrapping and winding sheet round the body stamped itself on the memory of John. In years to come he treasured it as a symbolic picture of the divine appointment for the resurrection of the faithful: “Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” (1 Cor. 15:23; cp. the distinction in Rom. 1:4; 6:4). Between the resurrection of Christ the Head and the rising again of those who are his Body there must needs be a significant space of time during which men either see and believe or are unable to see and yet believe just the same. Even the rather colourless word “place” — “in a place by itself” — may have been intended to have special significance, for very often in the Old Testament (and in several New Testament places also) this word has the specialised meaning of “A holy place, a sanctuary.” John’s theology (1 Jn. 2:1) and phrasing together suggest an extension of the symbolism.

All this the disciple whom Jesus loved saw with the inspiration of faith but dared not utter. So he went back to his own folk to brood on it, leaving a bewildered, less discerning Peter to go his own way. “Ye shall be scattered, every man to his own.” Without Jesus the disciples tended to fall apart. (And when disciples fall apart they show that they are without Jesus). Conversely, the news of his resurrection was to bring them together again (Luke 24:33).

NOTES: John 20:4-10

4.	Came first Gk: protos means first of more than two. Thus it is implied that Mary followed; v.11.
	Did outrun Peter, and in faith also.
5.	linen clothes. This assumes that Mt. 28:13 is known. Body stealers would not trouble to unwrap the body.
	Stooping down. Souter’s lexicon defines the meaning: ‘stretch forward the head to catch a glimpse; or peep; or peer in.’ Cp. its interesting use in Gen. 26:8 LXX, Jas, 1:25; and especially 1 Pet, 1:12, as though suggesting that angels had preceded the two apostles in this exciting exercise, and are still as eager (in a less literal sense).
6.	Seeth. The words used about John and Peter are different. Peter stared s.w. verses 12, 14. John saw with new enlightenment. Went into. The Gk. is emphatic: went right in.
7.	Gk- from upon his head. Contrast 11:44: Gk. perf The phrase in a place by itself suggests a special place.
	The words for wrapped and lying point to a distinction here of both appearance and meaning.
	The napkin upon (Gk.) his head was separate. Then what price the Turin shroud? The details of this passage, and also Rom. 1:4; 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:18; Mt. 3:16, suggest a Jesus immortal from the moment of resurrection.
8.	That other disciple, which came first. Why does John say this twice? is it so important? Indeed, why does he say it at all?
	believed Jesus to be risen; cp. v.25, 27, 29. In view of this economy of words, the repetition just mentioned is the more remarkable. In this verse, John is careful to emphasise that he was the first of those blessed disciples who believed without seeing (v.29). Note how conviction came to others (a) Mary; (b) the apostles,- (c) the two at Emmaus; (d) Thomas.
9.	Knew not; s.w. 13:12. Consider Mt. 16:21; 17:9-23; 20:19.
	He must rise again Gk: it is necessary: (a) because foretold in OT; (b) “raised again for our justification The word must mean- it was necessary.
10.	Unto their own home – and not go and tell all the fellow-disciples they could reach? (Mt. 28:7). Surely not so. It is more likely that this masculine plural means: ‘to their own (friends)’

It is no easy matter to harmonize the gospel narratives in their accounts of the visits to the tornb, and of the appearance of the angels and of Jesus himself. Many say dogmatically that it cannot be done. Unwilling to believe themselves capable of error, such critics are very ready to assume fallibility in the gospel writers. In the world of mathematics the man who says: “I cannot find a solution to this problem, therefore it cannot be solved,” is written off as a fool. Yet in the field of Bible exegesis there are plenty of such. Close akin to these are others who take the line: “This is the only way in which I can make any sense of this passage. Therefore this is the correct interpretation. All others are mistaken.” Of course, such attitudes are never baldly expressed in so many words, but it is often possible to detect this kind of self-confidence. Maybe there are times when it is justified, but the study of the resurrection of Jesus can hardly be reckoned as being in that category. Hence, because of the difficulty of piecing the four records together into a smooth continuous story, let conclusions be regarded as tentative.

Blending the records

The accounts of the visits of the women to the tomb near Golgotha certainly present difficulties. Some solve the problem —or, at least reduce its dimensions – by assuming that two different groups of women, each actuated by the same motive, set out early on the Sunday morning to visit the sepulchre. Thus, by applying some details to one group and some to the other, the gospels are made to yield a coherent continuous inter-woven account.

The basis of the present study, however, will be that only one group of women is involved. The tendency to resolve superficial difficulties in gospel harmonization by the slick assumption of similar but different incidents builds up its own antibodies. By the time one has got two separate anointings in Bethany, two healings at the house of the centurion, two restorations of sight to the blind at Jericho, and four malefactors instead of two, the fever is on in way out. (Yet it is necessary to insist on more than one cleansing of the temple. The evidence for this is strong, and the reason compelling; see “Passover”, HAW ch.3).

There are, however, indications of time whicr strongly suggest more than one visit to the tomb. Whereas Mark, Luke and John make it clear that it was on the Sunday morning when the women set out with this intention, Matthew has the expression: “in the end of the sabbath,” i.e. on Saturday evening. Not by any stretch of imagination or translation can this be made to mean anything different. Yet immediately Matthew goes on to confuse the picture with an expression which can only have been intended to make it more explicit: “as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week.” These words would normally mean at first light on Sunday morning. Yet the writer of this wonderful gospel was no fool. Is it likely that he would be content to set down in the same sentence words which involve a shouting contradiction? There is need to look further into this.

Frst, then, the word translated “end” (of the Sabbath) means “late in the day.” A cognate word is normally translated “evening ” The word which gives rise to “as it began to dawn” normally meant “to grow light.” Its proper application is to early morning. However, because by beginning at sunset the Jewish day was out of step with Gentile reckoning, this word came to be applied to the beginning of the Jewish day. In this way a word meaning “to grow light” came to mean “get dark”! Luke’s record of the burial of Jesus has a clear example of its usage. In a verse which unquestionably refers to Friday evening, Luke has: “And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on”(RVm: Gk. began to dawn; Luke 23:54).

Thus both of Matthew’s expressions are seen to refer to the Saturday evening when “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre.” What a sabbath of sorrow and lamentation that was! In its earliest hours well before midnight, the whole of Jewry was eating the Passover meal. But not these, for had not Jesus himself said: “The days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and the;-shall they fast” (Mt. 915).

Then, as soon as the end of sabbath restrictions would allow, in the last hour of daylight they were bock at the tomb. And how natural that they should do this! It may be argued against this interpretation that Matthew’s record runs on apparently to equate this visit with that which was made to the tomb next morning. This is undeniable, and is probably to be attributed to the compression which is characteristic of the gospel (compare what is said about this in chapter 243). The only alternative would seem to be the elimination of this visit to the tomb on Saturday evening. But that can only be done by assuming that when Matthew writes ‘late on the Sabbath” (which ended at sundown on Saturday) he really means “early the next morning.” it would also require that he uses the Greek verb epiphosko (translated in the AV: began to dawn) in a different sense from which it is used in Luke 23:51. The hint of Saturday evening activity in Mark 16:1 supports the interpretation adopted here.

“When the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought [not, as in AV: had bought) sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.” That this was done on the Saturday evening as soon as the shops were open after the sabbath is put beyond doubt by the words which follow: “And very early in the morning the first day of the week they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun” (John 20:1: when it was yet dark).

It is noteworthy that Matthew omits to mention Salome. So perhaps this group of women acted in concert, Salome seeing to the purchase of the spices whilst the others made their evening visit to the tomb.

This must have been before the guard was posted there. This inference follows from the fact that when the women returned next morning they showed no concern regarding the soldiers, but only about means of access to the body: “Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” And it is understandable that the watch would not be set until daylight had ended because in this way public attention to a very unusual procedure would be avoided. Also, during daylight hours there would, of course, be no risk of interference with the tomb, by disciples or anybody else.

The sequence of events

Thus the sequence of events would appear to have been.

1. The last hour of sabbath daylight, the two women come to see the tomb.
2. Sabbath sunset, the placing of the guard.
3. Just after sunset, the purchase of spices.
4. Before Sunday daylight, Mary Magdalene sets out to join the other women to go to the tomb to complete the anointing of Jesus.
5. Earthquake (and resurrection?) at sunrise. The fright of it probably delays the women.
6. The guard, scared, abandon the tomb and return into the city,
7. The sun is alreadr risen by the time the women arrive at the tomb.

Precisely when Jesus rose from the dead is not ascertainable. In fact, his resurrection is not described, but is first mentioned in the words of the angel. The gospels, which are content to mention the crucifixion of Jesus in a brief participial phrase – “and having crucified him” (Matthew 27:35 Gk) – make no attempt whatever at a picture of the resurrection.

There was a great earthquake, caused by the corning of the angel. “The earth which trembled with hoi rot (Matthew 27:51) at the death of Christ,” says a seventeenth century commentator, “leapt for joy at his resurrection.”

This resurrection angel was resplendent in divine glory: “His countenance was like lightning, and hi; raiment white as snow” (Matthew 28:3). With the possible exception of Daniel 10:6, this would appear to be the first time that an angel was seen in appearance different from that of an ordinary man. Yet after Jesus rose from the dead there are several descriptions similar to this (contrast Lk. 24:4, Acts 1:10 and 10:30 with Gen. 18:2 and 19:1,5; Josh 5:13 and Jud. 13:9-1 1). Is this change altogether fortuitous or without meaning? Or did the resurrection of Jesus somehow change the status of angels (Col. 1:1 6)? One would fain know more about these mysteries.

The angel of the Lord

The inevitable effect on the soldiers is vividly described: “For fear of him (not for fear of the earthquake, though there are few experiences which strike such terror in men’s hearts) the keepers did shake, and became “as dead men”, corpses guarding a corpse! This word “shake” is essentially the same as that for “earthquake.” Impressive as the heaving of the ground might be, it was nothing to the upheaval within themselves. Literally paralysed from fright, they grovelled on the ground, and later slunk away at the first opportunity — presumably when the angel went inside the tomb. It is not absurd to enquire as to the source of this information about the effect of angels and earthquake on the Roman guard. There is a hint (see p.770) that it may have been supplied to Matthew in later days by some of the soldiers themselves.

At first, the angel “rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” (But epano above, over). The priests had taken all care to seal the tomb shut, but now here was the Almighty sealing the tomb open – by His angel sitting on the stone.

There is no hint that the great stone was rolled away to allow Jesus (at first in a state of revived mortality?) to emerge to the world outside. Then could it be that the stone was removed in order to give the disciples access to the place of interment, so that they might see for themselves the evidence that their Lord was risen? Whatever the reason, there is ground for deep thankfulness that the resurrection did take place this way. For many that stone rolled away has become a foundation stone of faith.

Notes: Matthew 28:1-4.

1.	The first day of the week. It was 16th Nisan, the anniversary of Gen. 8:4 and Ex. 14:20.
	Came. Remarkably, a singular verb with plural nouns, is this to put the emphasis on Mary Magdalene, or to indicate their complete unaniminity of spirit?
	The other Mary. See ch.229, and Mark 1 6:1.
2.	For, indicating that the reason for the earthquake was not either “natural causes” nor the resurrection of Jesus, but the coming of an angel of glory.
	An angel…from heaven. Apparently another pleonasm, as in 27:63 (see note), for whence else might an angel come down? Perhaps the phrase is intended to steer the reader away from reading angel as meaning a human messenger.
	The details here must have been supplied by one of the soldiers, surely; v.l la.
3.	The appearance of this angel matches in some respect that of the angel seen by Daniel in 1 0:6ff, where note:
	lightning … a guard … quaking fell upon them … they fled., in a deep sleep upon my face.
	His countenance. This word is unique in the NT, but is the exact equivalent of appearance, vision, in Dan. 1 0:1,1 8. These echoes of Daniel’s experience might suggest that whereas some of the soldiers fled in terror, others bowed in worship.

Mark 16:1.

1.	Anoint; 14:8. Edersheim says Jewish usage allowed the opening of a tomb on the third day to attend to the body. On this first day of the week believers now come to Christ with the incense of praise and the frankincense of thanksgiving.