Mt 28:8. And they went out quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy
They went out quickly, both at the command of the angel who had told them to do so (verse 7), and from fear at once, and joy. These feelings cause men to act thus. Why the women felt both at the same time can be more easily understood than described. They feared because they had seen the angels; and we fear the sight of heavenly and divine beings, as we are unable to endure it. They rejoiced because they had heard that Christ had risen again. It is said by S. Mark (16:8), “But they, going out, fled from the sepulchre. For a trembling and fear had seized them, and they said nothing to any man, for they were afraid.” The words, “They said nothing to any one,” are not to be taken to mean that they did not speak to anyone whatever, not even to the Apostles, of what they had seen; for S. Luke (24:11, 22, 23) makes it clear that they told the disciples that they had seen the angels in the tomb; but S. Mark signifies that they kept such strict silence on the way, that, like those who are under the influence of great fear, they did not speak of what had happened, either to those whom they met or to one another.
Mt 28:9. And behold Jesus met them
The account given by S. Mark and S. John does not appear to agree very well with these words. S. Mark (16:9) says, “But He, rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils,” as if Christ did not then appear either to the other women or to Magdalene herself, as she went to the disciples, but at another time; but S. John (20:13–17), when he had said that Mary Magdalene stood without the tomb weeping, and when she stooped down and looked into the sepulchre saw the angels, who asked her, “Woman, why weepest thou?” added, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him. When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing; and she knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith to her: Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, thinking that it was the gardener, saith to Him: Sir, if thou hast taken Him away, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith to her: Mary. She, turning, saith to Him: Rabboni, which is to say, Master. Jesus saith to her: Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, I ascend to My Father and to your Father, to My God and to your God.”
As regards S. Mark, the difficulty is less; for as it was his object to tell the disciples that Christ had appeared to the women, he passed by all the circumstances, and said that Christ rose on the same day: not speaking of the Resurrection, so to say, but of the rising up (non de resurrectione sed de surrectione), as if He had first sat down and then appeared to Mary Magdalene; for the Hebrew speaks of “rising up” (surgendi) to undertake some work, although the person do not literally rise, as Exod. 32:6; S. Matt. 22:11, 24. S. Mark had no wish to teach us at what hour Christ rose, which, as said on verse 6, is altogether uncertain, but at what hour He appeared to the women. His having mentioned Mary Magdalene alone, may have been either because Christ appeared at first to her alone, as will be shortly shown, or because, although He appeared to all the other women as well, He first spoke to her alone.
The account of S. John has more difficulty. From his words some think that Christ showed Himself to the women twice—the first time to Mary Magdalene alone as she stood near the sepulchre and turned back, as S. John seems to say (20:14), and then to all the women who had come to the tomb, as they returned to tell the disciples. For when all who were in the tomb had prepared to go away, Mary Magdalene remained alone weeping. She then turned back and saw Christ; and when He asked her why she wept or whom she sought, she answered, thinking Him the gardener, “Sir, if Thou hast taken Him hence,” &c. Christ answered and called her by her name, Mary. The other events related by S. John then happened. She soon after left the tomb and overtook the other women, who had gone on before; and when she was on the way with them, Christ appeared to them again, as described by S. Matthew. So think S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 24) and Severus (in the Commentary of S. Thomas).
Others suppose that there were indeed two appearances of Christ, but at different times—the first when Mary Magdalene came to the sepulchre alone, and that Christ was seen by her then, as St. John says; then that she returned to the tomb with the other women, and as she was going back thence to the Apostles again, Christ met them in the way, as S. Matthew says. S. Gregory of Nyssa is the author of this opinion. The original difficulty lies in the supposition that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb twice and that Christ appeared to her twice. Why must we think this, when S. Matthew clearly signifies that all the women came to the tomb at the same time? that all returned together, and Christ appeared to all as they returned? The statement of S. Mark that He appeared first to Mary Magdalene can easily be explained. The Evangelist opposes Mary Magdalene not to the other women but to the Apostles: the meaning being that Christ appeared to her not before He appeared to the other women, but before He appeared to the Apostles. For although not written, it is truly believed by all Catholics, that Christ appeared first of all to His own Mother. If so, the meaning cannot be that He appeared first to Mary Magdalene: that is, that He was seen by her before all the women. That S. Mark names Mary Magdalene alone is in no respect matter of wonder, as S. John mentions no other woman either as coming to the tomb, or returning, or seeing Christ; and it appears from the other Evangelists that others came with her to the tomb, and saw Christ on their return. Why S. Mark so mentioned her alone has been explained. She began to speak first, and perhaps, of all who were with her, she first saw Christ. As regards what S. John says, although it may appear somewhat difficult, it may be explained without much more difficulty.
1. He says that S. Mary Magdalene was standing by the tomb weeping. Then she turned and saw Christ. This may be understood not of her turning and looking back at the tomb, but of her returning on her way to the Apostles. For, although it may appear contradictory of this that she mistook Christ for the gardener, which she would not have done if she had not seen Him in the garden where the tomb was, this may be understood to mean that Christ appeared to the women as they were returning, but when they had not yet got out of the garden: or, if they had done this, yet that Christ appeared as if going to the garden, or that He was in such guise as to be easily mistaken for the gardener, and that Mary thought Him to be such. The words, too, “Why weepest thou?” may be taken to mean that on their return they all, and most especially S. Mary Magdalene, wept, because, as S. Gregory of Nyssa says, and as is clear from S. John, she did not wholly believe even the angel when he said that Christ had risen (Orat. de Christ. Incarnat.). For after his words she still wept, as if believing that Christ had not risen, but had been taken away by stealth. And thus she said, “Sir, if thou hast taken Him hence, tell me,” as she had said to the Apostles, “They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him”; for when she said this she had seen the angel, as we have fully proved (verse 3). That S. John named Mary alone is less wonderful than that S. Mark did so, for he had said that she did not come alone to the tomb, but that other women were with her. S. John, however, said that she came alone. It would be rash to adopt this opinion against so many authorities, did not S. Augustin take the same view (Orat. de Christ. Incarnat.).
All hail.
שלמלכו Pax vobis. So the Hebrews spoke, but the Greeks said, χαίρετε, avete. The Hebrews use this form of address most especially when they bid those to whom they speak not to fear but be of good heart, as Gen. 43:23; Judges 6:23; 19:20. It agrees well with this passage, because Christ saw that the women were filled with fear, as if He had said, “Peace be with you, be of good cheer, I come not as an enemy, but as a friend”. So, in the following verse, He says, “Fear not”.
But they came up and took hold of His feet.
S. John (20:17) signifies that S. Mary Magdalene did not touch the feet of Christ, for He forbade her. If, as appears to be the case, this is the same vision as the one mentioned by S. John, it is easy to explain the points on which the two Evangelists seem at issue. S. John does not say that S. Mary Magdalene did not touch the feet of Christ, but that Christ said, “Do not touch Me,” and perhaps, as many think, when He said this she had already touched them. Perhaps, from the strength and pertinacity of her love, she had touched them despite His prohibition. We read an instance of this in chap. 9:30, 31, when Christ cured the blind men and commanded them to tell no man, but they thought it a kind of piety and obedience rather to break His command.
S. John says that S. Mary Magdalene alone was so forbidden. What if all were so forbidden, but S. John only mentioned her, as he had said that she alone came to the tomb, and she alone saw Christ and thus was forbidden to touch Him? The other Evangelists who speak of the other women do not say that they were forbidden, nor that S. Mary Magdalene was forbidden. As, therefore, they pass over what was done in the case of S. Mary Magdalene, they may have passed over the same thing that was done in that of the other women. It was not what Christ forbade, but what was done. They did not intend to record the will of Christ, but the love of the women for Him.
If, as many think, this was a different vision to that described by S. John, a question arises—not the same, but very similar—why Christ forbade Mary Magdalene only to touch Him there, and did not forbid her and the other women to touch Him here? What if He also forbade them here, but the Evangelist omitted to mention it? S. John, because he did not relate this vision, if it be a different one: the others because, although they relate it, yet, as has just been said, they wished to relate not what Christ forbade, but what the women did? And thus, although it is not related either that all were permitted, or that all were forbidden, to touch Him, yet it might have been related. Hence, whether all or some touched Him, whether all or some were forbidden to touch Him, yet there remain two questions: 1. Why either all or some touched Him? all certainly wished to do so. 2. Why Christ forbade either all the women, or certainly Mary Magdalene alone, to touch Him, or at least willed to do so? To the first question Nature herself makes reply. For what Christian, seeing Christ raised from the dead before him, would not be suddenly overpowered by joy, and rush into His arms? It was the nature of womanly modesty and respect not to embrace the body but the feet, as Theophylact and Euthymius say. It was also among the Jews a kind of reverence and adoration, especially of women to men, to touch the feet, as (Exod. 4:25) Sephora touched the feet of her husband as if in deprecation, and, in 4 Kings 4:27, the Sunamite woman, when she had come to Elisæus, touched his feet, and prayed him to come and raise up her son. The Greeks had the same custom (Iliad, A. 500), and Pliny has written upon it at length. It is certain that the custom flourished long in the Church, for, as we find in the decrees of councils, those who saluted bishops used to touch their knees. In this manner Mary Magdalene, from reverence (S. Luke 7:38), held the feet of Christ, and all the women here did the same. The Evangelist explains this, and adds immediately, “and adored”. They touched His feet that they might adore. Another reason of their touching Him might have been to prove whether He were the true Christ, or a spirit which deluded them by the appearance of Christ. Theophylact says that many thought this. The women might think this not without example, for even the Apostles, as S. Luke says (Lk 24:37), when they first saw Christ, thought that they saw a spirit.
But why did Christ forbid the women, or certainly Mary Magdalene, to touch Him? The reason is given by Christ Himself: “I am not yet ascended to My Father”. But this reason makes the question more difficult. For what is the meaning of those words, as if, after He had ascended to the Father, she might touch Him, as S. Augustin says more than once? But she seemed able to touch Him, and it appears as if she ought to have touched Him, for the reason that He had not yet ascended to the Father. If He had done so, she neither ought to have touched Him nor could she have done so. Some think that Christ did not altogether forbid Himself to be touched, but to be touched in the manner in which Mary seemed to touch Him; that is, as a man who would live with his friends, and suffer himself to be touched in the same manner as He used to do before His death: when He was not to live with them as before, but after the manner of a spirit, who is neither seen nor touched, but sometimes appears and sometimes disappears. So say S. Justin (Quæst. 48ad Orthod.) and S. Cyril (On S. John xii. 50). Hence the custom was introduced into the Church, when the mysteries had been consecrated by the Holy Spirit, to cry “Sancta Sanctis,” as Christ, before He ascended and sent the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, would not suffer Himself to be touched by the women. For if He offered Himself to be touched by the Apostles, and said, “Handle Me and see” (S. Luke 24:39); and if He commanded S. Thomas to put his finger into His side, and in the place of the nails, He did it necessarily to cure his unbelief; as before His death He used to heal the sick by His touch. An ingenious explanation, but where is the connection with the words, “I am not yet ascended to My Father”?
Others think that Mary Magdalene was not allowed to touch Christ because she was unworthy to do this, who had doubted about His Resurrection, even when the angels had borne testimony to it, and she herself was seeking the living among the dead. S. Chrysostom (Hom. on John Bapt.), S. Ambrose (Serm. lviii., and On Ps. xlvi., and Comm. on S. Luke x.), S. Jerome (Quæst. 5 to Hedibias, Letter to Paul on the Death of Blesilla), S. Augustin (Ep. lviii.).
Others think it a mystery, and that S. Mary Magdalene signifies the Church of the Gentiles, which did not believe before—to believe, being to touch Christ before He ascended to the Father. S. Augustin explains it thus, in his treatise on S. John xxvi. and cxxi. Granting it to be a mystery, yet it cannot be granted to be only a mystery, and nothing more.
S. Augustin gives another explanation in two of his writings (Ep. ccxxii. and De Trinit., iv. 3). His words are as follows: “Thus Jesus desired Himself to be believed in”; that is, to be spiritually touched, because He and the Father were one. He, in a manner, ascends to the Father in his most inward feelings, who has become so far a proficient in Him as to acknowledge Him to be the equal of the Father, otherwise He is not rightly touched; that is, He is not rightly believed in: “For I have not yet ascended to My Father: then shalt thou touch Me when thou believest Me to be God, and not unequal to the Father”. Fulgentius, the disciple of S. Augustin (Lib. ii. to Thrasymundus), and S. Chrysostom (Hom. v. de Resurrect.) say the same. “Touch me not,” he says, “you ought not to touch me to believe.”
Calvin, without warrant or authority, says that Christ did not speak these words until S. Mary Magdalene had not only touched Christ’s feet, but had touched them too closely and fondled them; as if He forbade not the simple touch, but the too close and intimate touch. But what have the words that follow, “I am not yet ascended,” to do with too close contact? Nor shall it be passed over in silence, that Calvin terms Mary Magdalene’s piety and devotion “superstition,” and her love for Christ “foolish fervour”. To write this is dreadful; but it would appear, in the open interest of the Church, that Catholics should know how heretics speak of holy men and women, and from their words judge of their religion and doctrine.
To return to the subject. None of the above explanations appear sufficient, because they do not possess any connection with, nor in any way account for, Christ’s addition, “I am not yet ascended to My Father”. It may, perhaps, be allowed me to suggest that S. Mary Magdalene wished to touch Christ as if she were not to see Him more; and she feared that He would depart immediately, or ascend to the Father, and she should have no future opportunity of embracing or worshipping Him. In this sense He answers, “Touch Me not”; as if to say, “Thou wilt have sufficient time to touch Me frequently before I go up to My Father; touch Me not now, cling not to My feet now, but go quickly to My brethren, and tell them to go into Galilee, where they shall see Me”. The only point, apparently, against this explanation is that Christ does not say, “I shall not ascend,” or, “I do not ascend,” but “I have not yet ascended”. The answer is obvious. We speak thus in common when we desire to signify that we are not about to go away immediately, but that we have still sufficient time to converse with our friends. It has also been said before, more than once, that words frequently mean not the actual and literal act, but the will and resolution to act. Peter said, “I go a-fishing” (S. John 21:3); that is, I have resolved to go, but he was not actually going. The others answered, “We also come with thee”; that is, we wish to come, but they were not actually coming. In the same manner Christ says, “I have not yet ascended”; that is, “I have not yet resolved to ascend to My Father”. If, therefore, Christ forbade all the women to touch Him, He forbade them in this sense. If He forbade Mary Magdalene, He forbade her alone, because she alone touched Him in this sense, and with this intention. He did not therefore forbid the other disciples to do so, but rather encouraged them (S. Luke 24:39; S. John 20:27).
It has often been asked why Christ was seen by the women before the men, and especially the Apostles. One reason may easily occur to the mind. The women saw Him first because they were the first to seek Him. Their diligence was worthy of that reward. S. Cyprian says: “They saw Him first and recognised Him. They loved Him more ardently, and sought Him more eagerly” (Serm. de Resurrect.). And S. Jerome, “They who so sought Him, and so ran to Him, deserved to meet their risen Lord, and to hear first ‘His peace be to you,’ that the curse of the woman Eve might be reversed”. But why did the women seek Him first rather than the men? It is not for us to weigh the zeal and piety of the women with those of the Apostles, and to lay it down that the women, and not the Apostles, came to seek Christ, because they had more zeal towards Him and more piety. This we must leave to God. We can see another and very obvious reason. The women came, desiring to anoint the body of Christ; and this, and the offices of the dead, were more the employment of women than men. The women, therefore, did not ask Christ, but the body of Christ; and they were therefore reprehended by the angels: “Why seek ye the living with the dead?” Yet, because their work was one of devotion, it did not want its reward: that they should be the first to see Christ. There may be another reason for Christ’s having appeared to the women before the men. When the disciples fled hither and thither, the women remained firm, not only until the death of Christ, but also until the end of His burial (S. Luke 23:55). They who had been witnesses of His death and burial were therefore able to be witnesses of His Resurrection. For Christ knew that the women would believe more easily than the Apostles, when they had seen Him, as the nature of women is more prone to believe than that of men. The result proved this. For we find that the Apostles, even when they had seen Christ, still doubted (verse 17; S. Luke 24:38, 39). The women, when they saw and heard the angel, doubted, as we learn from S. John; but no Evangelist tells us that they did so when they saw Christ. Christ desired, therefore, through the women who believed in His Resurrection, to prepare the Apostles gradually to believe in it also.
It may be asked why Christ Himself did not appear to the women before the angels. The reason is obvious. They would not have believed that He was Christ unless they had first been taught by the angel that He had risen.
Mt 28:10. Then Jesus said to them, Fear not
It is very probable that the women came to the feet of Christ, although, on the one hand, filled with sudden joy because they saw Him before them, yet that, on the other, they trembled and doubted whether He were not a phantom before they saw Him nearer and recognised Him and heard Him speak; and that it was for this reason that He said unto them, “Fear not”.
Go tell.
Christ commanded them to do the same thing as the angels had done, that He might confirm the truth of the angelic vision. Thus a mutual service was performed by Christ to the angels, and by the angels to Christ.
My brethren.
Some suppose that the word “brethren” here meant only the relatives of Christ, but it should be taken to include all His disciples, as the angel said (verse 7), for the women did not tell only His personal kindred of His Resurrection, but all the Apostles (verse 16; S. Luke 24:10; S. John 20:18). Christ calls all His disciples His brethren, because, although in a different sense to Himself, they were all sons of God, and did His will as He said (12:48–50; Ps. 21:23), as explained by S. Paul (Heb. 2:12). Christ here calls them His brethren very opportunely, that He might both show Himself to be Christ, and relieve their minds when depressed by fear, and prevail on them to come to Him.
To go into Galilee.
(Vide verse 7). Christ knew that the Apostles would not go into Galilee on the sole testimony of the women, but He did what lay in Him, and because it was expedient that they should go there and see Him there first. He. however, not the less directed them to go thither, because, as we have frequently seen, Christ orders that to be done, not that would be, but that He knew ought to be, done.
Mt 28:11. Who, when they were departed, behold some of the guards
They went to tell the Apostles, as directed by Christ and the angels. It would appear that all the keepers did not come before the chief priests. There have been many conjectures on this. 1. That the others were terrified and only thought, if possible, of concealing themselves, to escape punishment for having neglected their watch. 2. They dared not tell the truth to the priests, as they would not believe them, but would cast the blame upon them as if they had been guilty of falsehood, and had sold the body of Christ to His disciples, and endeavoured to conceal their treachery by the fiction of a miracle. 3. They who came may have come as a deputation from the rest, as the poet Juvencus says, and as may be concluded from verse 11. For not only to the deputation but to the others also money was given to induce them to publish the falsehood. Some think that, in the hope of extorting money from the priests, the soldiers related what they had seen, knowing that though the others were the most avaricious of men, yet that they were filled with such hostility to Christ, and feared so greatly lest He should be believed to have risen again, that they would probably be induced without difficulty to give them money to conceal His Resurrection. This, however, is not easy of belief, for they would scarcely have incurred the risk to themselves of capital punishment on so uncertain a hope. They came, therefore, not to extort money, but to give an account of their watch, lest they should be accused before the governor of neglect of duty.
Mt 28:12-13. And they assembled together with the ancients
The ancients, that is, the Scribes; for a council at Jerusalem consisted of these classes, as has been described on chap. 2:4. The hardened malice of the priests against the known truth is detestable; and as they were the most avaricious of men, they purchased only falsehood and their own condemnation. But truth cannot be overcome by money. And we can easily believe that the very men who were bought over to publish falsehoods, the soldiers, published among their acquaintance both the glorious Resurrection of Christ and the infamy of the priests who gave them money to darken it.
Mt 28:14. And if the governor shall hear of this
Ἐπὶ τοῦ ἤγεμονος Apud præsidem or Coram præside. That is, if the report reach him. This is the force of ἐπί, as in 1 Tim. 6:13, where it is rendered in our version sub, as if it had been written ὑπό. Perhaps, in this passage as in others, ἀπό is put for ἐπί, which, as has been said before, is joined to the agent with verbs passive, and thus we have the expression a præside. The soldiers had reason to fear being punished by the governor, either for neglect of their watch or their falsehood. Against this danger the priests promised their assistance, that by their own falsehood, in addition to that of the soldiers, they might succeed in persuading and convincing the governor. He would readily, they thought, believe them if they who ought to have been the first to accuse them took their parts. “The keepers,” says S. Hilary, “who saw all that happened, purchased with money their silence on the Resurrection, and their falsehood about the theft of the body” (Can. xxxiii. in S. Matt.). This has been elegantly and forcibly commented on by the poet Sedulius.
“Fare, improbe custos.
Responde scelerate cohors si Christus, ut audes
Dicere, concluso, furtim productus ab antro,
Sopitos latuit, cujus latet intus amictus
Cujus ad exuvias sedet angelus? anne beati
Corporis ablator velocius esse putavit
Solvere contectum quam devectare ligatum?
Cum mora sit furtis contraria? cautius ergo
Cum domino potuere magis sua lintea tolli
Mentita est vox vana sibi, tamen ista figuram
Res habet egregiam, Judaeis constat ademptum,
Quern nos, devoto portamus pectore Christum.”
Say, wicked keeper, say, atrocious band,
If from the fast-closed tomb by robbers’ hand,
Unseen by sleeping guards, as you declare,
The Christ was brought—whose clothes are lying there?
Whose is that winding-sheet, which angels bright
Sit watching, clad in robes of shining white?
When fatal had been all unwise delay,
Why should the robbers there still lingering stay,
When they the blessed form must slow unwind
From burial clothes, left there for men to find?
Vain, lying tale! But wondrous is the truth:
For Him, who, Jews affirm, was, without ruth,
Stolen from his rock-hewn bed of deathly rest
We ever bear enshrin’d within our breast!
Mt 28:15. And this word was spread abroad among the Jews even unto this day
“This word,” namely, that Christ was stolen away by the disciples. So S. Chrysostom (Hom. xci. on S. Matt.), Euthymius (in his commentary), and Rabanus (in S. Thomas) explain it. This was indeed the almost universal opinion; though it does not appear unreasonable, if it be referred to the words of the Evangelist, that the falsehood was published abroad, even among the Jews themselves, that the soldiers had money given to them by the priests to say that the disciples stole away the body while they slept. There seems no objection to this view but the want of authority. Indeed, it may appear more probable per se, because the Evangelist had more reason for saying this than that which the commentators suppose him to have said. For it was more in accordance with the history that the Evangelist should say that the falsehood of the priests did not escape the knowledge of the Jews themselves (that no one might suppose him guilty of bringing a false accusation against them), than it would be to say that the Jews believed Christ to have been furtively carried off by the disciples, the exposition of which the history did not require of him.
Comments
Post a Comment