« VorigeDoorgaan »
man the breath, or spirit of life," Gen. ii. 7, (see Vol. II. p. 2, &c.) so now, at the new creation, as it were, or regeneration of his disciples, he made them“ new men" in disposition, or in "the spirit of their mind,” for He breathed on them, (evequonge,) and said, Receive ye a holy spirit! This was the prelude of that fuller baptism of the Holy Spirit, which was repeatedly promised them before, from the days of John's ministry, Matt. iii. 11, Luke xii. 12, xxi. 15, John vii. 38, 39, xiv. 26, xv. 26, and again, Acts i. 5. The Holy Spirit now conferred on them, as distinguished from that fuller effusion on the day of Pentecost, seems to correspond to “ the Spirit of THE LORD,” which animated the worthies of the OLD TESTAMENT, Gideon, Jephtha, Samson, Saul, David, &c. *, namely, an uncommon and præternatural spirit of boldness or fortitude, and fervent zeal for THE LORD, and all the other qualifications of a moral nature, necessary for the discharge of their arduous and perilous mission, to enable them “ to speak the word with boldness," regardless of the consequences to themselves, John xx. 21, 22.
Our Lord also, on this occasion, formally confirmed the privilege of binding and loosing, which he had promised before, Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18, by granting them authority to remit sins to the penitent, and to retain sins to the impenitent, John XX. 23.
Such were the amazing and important occurrences that occupied the whole of this eventful day of the resurrection, here, we trust, arranged in a simple, natural, and consistent order of time and place; sufficient, by the harmonious symmetry of the outline with the detail, even in the minutest parts, to solve all those“ variations,” or “ inconsistencies," hitherto complained of, which surely are neither “ trifling" nor“ unimportant t” to belierers, and have actually proved a “ stumbling block” to sceptics, and “ foolishness" or absurdity to infidels ; all attributing to the inspired Evangelists, the faults of their own error, or unskilfulness, or precipitation, or presumption.
THE SUNDAY FOLLOWING.
At the foregoing manifestation on Easter evening, Thomas, one of the Apostles, happened to be absent. When the rest
• See Vol. II. pages, 281, 287, 293, 310, 315, &c. + See Gilpin, Notes on Matt. xxviii. 1, John xx. 11, &c. stating them as "trifling," &e.
told him that they had seen THE LORD, he remained incredulous, and said, “ Except I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I shall not believe," John xx. 24, 25.
Eight days after, the disciples were assembled again, and Thomas with them. Then cometh JESUS, the door having been shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you! Then said he to Thomas, repeating his own expressions, Reach hither thy finger, and see, (or examine,] my hands, and reach [hither] thy hand, and put it into my side, and be not a disbeliever, but a believer," John xx. 26, 27.
Overpowered by this unmerited condescension, and thoroughly convinced by Christ's knowledge of the very words he had spoken, that he must be the Divine SEARCHER OF HEARTS, from whom no secrets are hid, he instantly exclaimed, with the fullest confession of faith, MY LORD, AND MY GOD *!
This is indeed the most signal and important confession of faith in Christ, to be found in the Gospels. It clearly and distinctly recognizes his proper Sovereignty and Divinity, as our immediate LORD or GOVERNOR, Psalm xxii. 28, and our future JUDGE, or Mighty God, the Arbiter of the destinies of Mankind, Psalm l. 1–4, as OUR LORD himself asserted, John v. 22, Matt. xxv. 31.
It is also the most satisfactory and convincing, for it was extorted from “ a disbeliever," or obstinate unbeliever, after he had, for an entire week, resisted the most authentic and credible human testimony of a “cloud of witnesses" of the resurrection, and was only borne down irresistibly, by “many infallible proofs," addressed both to his senses and to his understanding.
Any idle argument, therefore, designed to evade, or explain away its evidence, is criminal and unpardonable. Jt ranks, perhaps, with that blasphemy against THE HOLY Spirit, which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the next; and most justly, because it sets at defiance all testimony, human and divine, by a reprobate or undiscerning mind, incapable of conviction.
Such appears to be that early heretical gloss of Theodore Mopsuesta, which was condemned in the fifth general council of Constantinople, held under Justinian, A.D. 553, but has been revived, unfortunately, in modern times, by the Socinians and Unitarians ; idly supposing that the words of Thomas contained two distinct exclamations, ó Kuplog pov, kai, ò Otog pov, “O my Lord, and O my God!" either expressive of thanks to God for this miraculous resurrection of Christ, or else that they were mere expressions of astonishment or surprise, unmeaning and irreverent ejaculations to heaven ; such as are too frequent in the modern languages of our own times.
“ It is much to be lamented, (as Middleton justly observes,) that the [Socinian] bias of Wetstein's mind inclined him to countenance such “ absurdity,” adopting the former (Theodore's exposition), in his note on the place.” But it is more extraordinary, that Middleton himself, that judicious critic in general, should partially adopt it, and suppose that “ these words were spoken by way of exclamation ; the nominative case, with the article prefixed, being put for the vocative, (• Deos pov, for Oɛɛ uov,) rather than by way of assertion of Christ's divinity, with the ellipsis ou el, understood ; of such ellipsis,”
His earnestness and emotion, unequivocally supplying the ellipsis, “ I beliere that thou art my LORD AND MY GOD!" John xx. 28.
“ I have not noticed any example.” And yet, he rather inconsistently states afterwards, “Our Saviour's reply makes it absolutely certain, that the words of Thomas, though in the form of an exclamation, amount to a confession of faith, and were equivalent to a direct assertion of our Saviour's Divinity. Christ commends Thomas's acknowledgment, while he condemns the tardiness with which it is made.” Middleton's Doctrine, p. 381, 382.
It may be shewn, however, 1. that the words are not in the form of an exclamation ; 2. that of such an ellipsis, there are examples to be found :
1. The cases he has adduced from Psalm v. 3, and from Psalm xxxv. 3, seem to be irrelevant, for the Septuagint renderings of the former, ó Baoilevs pov Kai ) Kvpios pov, and of the latter, ó Okog pov kai ó kupiog pov, are not necessarily vocative cases ; they may fairly be understood as nominatives, supplying an easy ellipsis, (Ev, ó wy] • Baoilevs uov, &c. [Thou, who art] my king, &c. And though in some cases the Septuagint Version unquestionably uses such phrases vocatively, as in our Lord's ex. clamation on the cross, My God! MY GOD! which it renders 0 Osos jov, ó Osos pov; yet for this, the Evangelist Matthew substituted the vocative, Oɛɛ pov, Dee uov, xxvii. 46. And Wetstein has ably shewn (in the very note in question), that though the Altic writers frequently used the nominative for the vocative case, yet they never confounded ò and w, their respective articles ; as in the instances, w qulog for pile, Odyss. III. 375 ; û girar' Atas, Sophocles, Ajax, 992, &c. A grammatical nicety, which ought not to have escaped Wakefield; grounding his mistranslation, as he says, upon the Attic usage. It is still more extraordinary that it is unnoticed in the Doctrine of the Greek Article
2. Such an ellipsis as ov et is frequently understood in the Gospels. Thus, in that remarkable thanksgiving of ουκ LoRD to his FATHER, Ναι, ο Πατηρ ότι [συ ει]ούτως EYEVETO Evĉokia Eunpoodev qov, adduced by Matthew, xi. 26, and repeated by Luke, x. 21, it seems absolutely necessary to introduce it, in order to discriminate the nominative, ó Iarnp, from the vocative, at the beginning, IIarep.
Again, at the celebration of the passover, Christ, recomiending humility by his own example to his disciples, says “Ye call me THE TEACHER, and the LORD, (emphatically,] (ò didaokalos, kai ó K uploç,) and ye say well, for I am: if then I, THE LORD, and THE TEACHER (Eyw, ó K uplos, kai ó ciðackalos,) washed your feet, ye also ought to wash each others feel," John xiji. 13; where our Lord's acceptance of these exclusive titles, in xyw elui, “ I am," demonstrates that ou el, " thou art,” must be understood, at least, if not expressed, by the disciples, [Thou art] “THE TEACHER,” and “THE LORD." “ These titles are not to be supposed to be given him at one and the same time, but distinctly and independently, as if our Saviour had said, One of you calls me ò diờaokalos, another ở K vpios,” as judiciously remarked by Middleton himself, who vindicates, in this place, the propriety of the article, p. 369, and has well explained the title given by our Lord to Nicodemus, ò didackalog tov Iopanı, “ The teacher of Israel ;" as being “ the appellation which the followers of Nicodemus gave him, by way of distinction ; in conformity with the high and sounding titles which the Jews gave their doctors," p. 346.
The high importance of the subject, and the deserved celebrity of the Doctrine of the Greek Article, must apologize for the length and minuteness of this note. It is only the mistakes of Master Critics that this work can afford to notice, and even these with regret, merely to counteract any undue weight of their authority. To such eminent scholars as
The necessity of supplying this ellipsis is demonstrated by OUR LORD's gentle rebuke: Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed that I am the LORD AND THY Gon] and then, we may presume, with an approving look, or kind glance, directed to the beloved disciple, John, the meaning of which he only could understand, he contrasted his quickness of belief at the tomb, with the slowness of the rest ; including him chiefly in the general commendation, Blessed are they that did not see, yet did believe! which, in fact, was confined to John himself, John xx. 29. And this appropriation of the commendation seems to be confirmed by Mark's account of the preceding rebuke to Thomas in particular, which he represents as general likewise. “Afterwards he appeared to the eleren, at supper, and reproached them with their disbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not beliere them that beheld him after he was risen;" even the Apostles that witnessed the resurrection, Mark xvi. 14. That this reproach was not uttered at the former meeting is evident from two circumstances, 1. The eleven were not all there, Thomas being absent; 2. CHRIST then kindly soothed their fears, and convinced their senses and their reason, without any reproach, which then they were unable to bear, dejected as they were at the time. Our blessed LORD then graciously imitating, to the Apostles, the mildness of his angels to the timorous women at the tomb; and at the present meeting, how gently did he reproach other disbelievers through Thomas.
And the Apostle Paul confirms this, by omitting the preceding manifestation, and ranking the present to "the twelve," next to the single manifestation to Peter. Mark reckons only “ eleren" before the election of Matthias in the room of the traitor Judas; but Paul states the full number, because Matthias was present at the meeting, Acts i. 21--26. Thus do the Evangelists and Apostles, even in their omissions and dissonances, attest their intimate knowledge of the whole subject.
To the beloved disciple we are indebted for the detail of this
Michaelis, Dathe, Parkhurst, &c. Wetstein, Marsh, Lardner, Middleton, &c. " whom I have withstood to the face where they were blameable," as in duty bound, “I consign” my own mistakes, “in turn,” for detection and for correction, ready to kiss the rod :
Hanc veniam petimusque, damusque vicissim.-HOR. “ Petimus," ut Critici ; "damus," ut Scriptores hallucinantes.
manifestation, only slightly intimated by Mark, and obscurely by Paul. His invincible modesty, so conspicuous throughout his Gospel, in which he never expressly names himself, has suppressed the obvious allusion to himself, in the blessing pronounced by his adored LORD, on the rational believers of his resurrection, of which class he was the solitary instance among the aggregate of the disciples; even of the Apostles themselves, who ought to have known better things.
With this precious and most interesting anecdote John closes the detail of our Lord's manifestations at Jerusalem.
Next to these public manifestations we rank, with the Apostle Paul, (who derived his information from immediate revelation of CHRIST himself, 1 Cor. xv. 3; Gal. i. 12.) the most public of all, according to appointment, at
THE MOUNTAIN IN GALILEE.
What time elapsed from the last manifestation to this we are not told. But if we suppose, as is probable, 1. That the disciples returned to Galilee immediately after the last appearance; and 2. That this grand appearance took place, like the two preceding, on a Sunday, we cannot be much mistaken, in dating it three weeks, or the twenty-second day from Easter, inclusively; which will give full time for collecting his friends from various quarters of that district, in which he had spent the greater part of his ministry, and where he was best known.
The Evangelist comprizes this in the following short account.
“ And the eleven disciples departed into Galilee, unto the mountain where JESUS had appointed to meet them.] And when they saw him they [in general] worshipped Him; but some distrusted,” [doubting his bodily presence,] Matt. xxvii. 16, 17.
This assembly was numerous, according to Paul; it consisted of more than five hundred brethren, or disciples, of whom the majority were still alive when he wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians, about A. D. 57, or twenty-six years after. To all these surviving witnesses he appeals, with confidence, to vouch his own testimony.
THE SEA OF TIBERIAS, OR GALILEE. This we conceive to be the scene of the ensuing manifestation to “ James," mentioned by Paul; as the head of the fishing