Juan de Maldonado's Commentary on Matthew 28:1-10

 

I didn't have time to edit this before posting. I will do so soon.

Verse 1. And in the end of the Sabbath

THIS passage has been thought one of very great difficulty, because the wording is obscure in itself and the other Evangelists do not appear to agree with S. Matthew; nor S. Matthew with himself; nor the others among themselves; nor S. Mark with himself. S. Matthew, it seems, says that the women came to the tomb “at the end of the Sabbath, when it began to dawn, towards the first day of the week”. S. Mark (16:2): “Very early in the morning, the first day of the week”. S. Luke (24:1): “On the first day of the week, very early in the morning”. S. John (20:1): “On the first day of the week, when it was yet dark”. So that the three Evangelists seem to contradict S. Matthew, and S. Matthew to contradict himself. For when he had said that the women came at the end of the Sabbath, he says in the same place, “When it began to dawn towards the first day of the week,” showing that it was morning.
The other Evangelists seem to differ among themselves, because they say:
S. Mark: “When the sun had risen”.
S. Luke: “Very early in the morning,” and, a little further on (verse 22), “before it was light”.
S. John: “When it was yet dark”.
S. Mark seems to contradict himself by saying, “Very early in the morning,” and then adding, “when the sun was risen”.
They did not come very early if they came after the sun had risen.
The seeming difference between S. Matthew and the others has been thus explained:
That the same women, in their anxiety, came twice, or more (S. Jerome, Comment.; Dionysius of Alexandria to Basilides).
Others say that they came four times.
1. In the evening, as S. Matthew says.
2. In the morning, when it was dark, as S. John says.
3. Very early in the morning, as S. Luke says.
4. When the sun had risen, as S. Mark says.
They therefore give four different times (S. Athanasius, Quæst. 90). But S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke appear to speak as if their visit were in the beginning of the morning, as will be shown (verse 3).
Others think that the women who, as S. Matthew says, came in the evening of the Sabbath were different to those who came on the dawn of the first day of the week; and as it must be objected that one of those who came in the evening and one who came in the morning was each called Magdalene by S. Matthew, as well as by the other three Evangelists, these make two Magdalenes—one who came in the evening and one who came in the morning. So S. Ambrose (Comm. on S. Luke xxiv.), Eusebius, and others in Anastatius.
But that there was only one Magdalene is the constant statement of all, and is clear from every place in which any mention of the name is made (S. Matt. 27:56; S. Mark 15:40; 16:1; S. Luke 8:2, 3; 24:10; S. John 20:1); for they all call her Mary Magdalene, to distinguish her from the other Maries. And, if there had been a second Magdalene, she would have had some other distinctive title, and would have been called, for example, the sister of Martha or Lazarus. The reason of S. Ambrose forming this opinion will be answered on verse 9.
Others think that they were the same women, and came to the tomb only once; that is, on the night which followed the Sabbath.
For whether they came twice, orto jam die, or once only’ is another question which will be discussed (verse 3).
These think that they began to come in the evening, and arrived early in the morning; not that they passed the whole night in so short a journey, but that they seem to have begun to come in the evening, because they then got ready the spices for the following morning (S. Mark 16:1; S. Luke 23:56). So say Bede, Strabus Rabanus (Ap. Thorn.), Rupertus (In Comm. on S. John), and De Lyra (in loc.).
Some think, as Dionysius of Alexandria to Basilides, S. Greg. Nyss. (Orat. ii. de Resurr.), S. Cyril Alexandria (xii., On S. John), S. Augustin (De Cons., iii. 24), Eutychius, Theophylact, S. Thomas, and, perhaps, S. Ambrose (On S. Luke x.), that S. Matthew calls the whole night the evening.
This opinion appears the most, indeed the only, correct one, and it cannot be doubted that it was the intention of S. Matthew to say the same as the others, and most especially of S. Mark, who was S. Matthew’s interpreter in a manner.
The other Evangelists make no mention of any visit in the evening, but state that the women came early in the morning. S. Matthew meant the same. When he speaks, therefore, of the end of the Sabbath, he does not mean the evening, the time between the day and night, but the whole night; at the end of which, that is, at the dawn of the day, the women came to the tomb. This would appear less strange if the Hebrew expression (which even S. Thomas has observed) were understood. The Hebrews call not only the evening but the whole night ערכ “evening,” as the first chapter of Genesis abundantly proves.
Some oppose this, and say that S. Matthew said that it was not only the evening, but the evening of the Sabbath. But the evening of the Sabbath must be part of the Sabbath, like the morning. But the night which followed the Sabbath was not part of it, and therefore could not be called the evening of the Sabbath. It seems strange that men of learning and judgment should have been so completely mistaken as to the true meaning of S. Matthew, and from so slight a cause. They ought first to have observed that S. Matthew did not say, ἑσπέρᾳ δὲ σαββάτων, vespera autem Sabbati, sed ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, “ad verbum”: sero Sabbatorum, aut tarde Sabbatorum, if we may so speak in Latin. S. Gregory of Nyssa, both by birth and language a Greek, and S. Ambrose, apparently following him, have observed that the words properly mean when the Sabbath was long passed, after a considerable interval, for the Greeks spoke thus: ὀψὲ τοῦ καιροῦ παραγέγονας, serius, quam pro opportuno tempore, venisti, et: ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας, transacta longe hora, et: ὀψὲ τῆς χρείας, longe serius, quam opus erat. In the same sense, therefore, S. Matthew said, ὀψὲ σαββάτων, sero Sabbati; that is, the Sabbath having passed some considerable time, because, between the Sabbath and the morning the whole night, as he desired to point out, had intervened. But if S. Matthew had called it the evening of the Sabbath, it would not follow that it was part of the Sabbath. For Scripture frequently calls that the evening of the day of which it is no part, but follows it. 1 Kings 20:5 calls the following night the evening of the third day; for as the king supped at evening, David signified that he should not sup with him; and Exod. 12:6, 18, where it is clear that the following night is called the evening of the fourteenth day, which was a part, not of the fourteenth, but of the fifteenth day. For the lamb was sacrificed, not on the fourteenth, but the fifteenth day. That is, after the day of Pasch, and the feast of Azymes had begun. A similar example is found in Levit. 23:5; Numb. 9:3, 5, 11.
Hence it appears that there is no difference between S. Matthew and the other Evangelists; and in the same way it is proved that S. Matthew does not differ from himself. For he does not mean both the evening and the morning, but only the morning.
But the reader may ask how, if it were night, it could have begun to dawn? Some think it a Hebrew idiom, because candles were lighted in the houses at the beginning of the night, as is taught by the traditions of the Talmudists. S. Jerome is not averse to this opinion. Others think it a Hebrew expression, by which the night is said to dawn when it begins, the expression being derived from the day, for it begins to be day when it begins to dawn. This is so, and it is proved by S. Luke (23:54), “And it was the day of the Parasceue, and the Sabbath drew on” (illuscescebat), that is, it had begun, or was at hand. For the Evangelist speaks of the time when Christ was buried, that is, the day of Parasceue, before the Sabbath, the day then declining. And he says that the Sabbath had then begun to dawn; that is, it had commenced, or was at hand. But against this and the former explanation is not merely the unusual expression, but the truth of the history. For it has been shown that S. Matthew, like all the other Evangelists, meant not the evening but the morning. The lighting of the candles, therefore, of the Talmudists and the Hebraism has nothing to do with the passage; for S. Matthew or his interpreter used the Greek correctly. He wished to say that the day had begun to dawn.
Some think the meaning to be that the evening—that is, the night—had begun to dawn (illucescere) to the first day of the week, because it was inclining towards the following day. As if, on the other hand, we should say that the day had begun (noctescere) to dawn towards night; not that it could really do so, but that the night was coming on, and the day was in a manner changed into night, as Juvencus says:

           “Sidera jam noctis, venturo cedere soli
           Incipiunt, tumuli matres tunc visere septum
           Concurrunt”.

           Now to the coming sun the stars of night
           Begin to render up their fading light;
           And onwards to the stone-defended tomb
           Together now the holy women come.

S. Augustin, Euthymius, and Theophylact are of this opinion. I do not differ from them in the opinion itself, but only in their explanation of it. They seem to think that it was the night which is here said lucescere, but S. Matthew, in my opinion, means that it was not the night but the day. He does not use the word either “night” or “day,” but says Ὄψε σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, “in the end of the Sabbath,” the morning which dawned to the first day of the week. When the article must express either day or night, the Greek requires us to understand the day rather than the night, as in chap. 6:34; S. John 1:35; 12:12; Acts 4:3–5; 20:7; and S. James 4:14; nor do I remember the article ever to be used absolutely when the night is intended. In this way the meaning is better and less cramped. For that the day should begin to grow light is both in fact and expression natural. That the night can do so is unusual, and only to be taken in figure. It may be objected to this view, though it has not been so, that it seems tautology, or at least an expression not well balanced, to say that the day began to dawn to the first day of the week, when by the first day of the week the day that is said to dawn (lucescere) is meant. It may seem so if the word “day” is expressed. But when it is not, it is no more out of place than if we said de die Dominicæ loquentes, “the day began to dawn in Dominicam”. For by the expression “Dominicam” we understand diem, but because dies is not expressed, and the meaning is that the dies Dominica begins to dawn (illucescere), there is no tautology.


On the first day of the week (“in prima Sabbati”).

Εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, in unam Sabbatorum, a more lucid expression. The motion and progress of the night towards the day is shown by the use of the preposition in, with the accusative. So, probably, it was rendered at first; but the final “m” may have dropped out from the fault of the transcriber. The Hebrews called the whole week, as well as the seventh day, Sabbatum; and when they meant the whole week, they called the first day of it prima Sabbati, the second secunda, and so on. It has been observed that when the seventh day alone is intended, Sabbatum, σάββατον, is used in the singular number; when the whole week is intended, the plural σάββατα, Sabbata, is found, as in this place and in S. Mark 16:2; S. Luke 24:1; S. John 20:1–19; Acts 20:7. But this is not universal; for in S. Mark 16:9, we find prima Sabbati, σαββάτου, when the whole week is meant; and, on the other hand, in Acts 13:14, on the day, τῶν σαββάτων, when only the Sabbath day was meant. Again, unam Sabbati is used for prima. Our version renders the Hebrew by Latin words, when it often keeps the expression, as in S. Mark 16:2; S. Luke 24:1—una Sabbatorum, una Sabbati. The first day of the week, as all know, is our “Lord’s day,” which, as the world was first created, and then redeemed by the Resurrection of Christ on it, is kept in the place of the Jewish Sabbath; as Gaudentius (On Exod. i.) and Sedulius (Carm., lib. v.) say:

           “Cœperat interea, post tristia Sabbata, felix
           Irradiare dies, culmen qui nominis alti
           A domino dominante trahit, primusque videri
           Promeruit nasci mundum, atque resurgere Christum”.

           Now, that sad Sabbath past, begins to dawn
           The day, the great and happy day; whose crown
           Of a most lofty name, from Him derived
           The Lord and Ruler, but now first deserved.
           That day on which was born the world, and now
           The Christ doth rise, victorious o’er the tomb.

We have now to see how the other three Evangelists agree among themselves as to the time at which the women came to the sepulchre. The greatest divarication seems to exist between S. Mark and S. John. S. Mark says that the sun had risen (16:2); S. John: “When it was yet dark”. S. Luke says the same in other words: “Before it was light”.
Some would correct the text of S. Mark, by the insertion of a negative, and read, “The sun having not yet risen”. They have no other authority than the fact that in some Greek copies the reading is ἔτι, and that Eusebius so receives it, and the opinion that the one word οὐκ may have easily dropped out. No one of the Ancients, except Eusebius, so reads it, and our version has it as it is; S. Dionysius of Alexandria (Ep. ad Basilides), S. Augustin (De Cons., iii. 24), Rupertus (On S. John xx.), De Lyra (On S. Mark xvi.), do the same. It would, indeed, be a very excellent thing if the negative were read; but, as we have said, Scripture, which of all things ought to be to us the most holy, is not to be altered on such insufficient grounds. It may be better to think with others that the common explanation may be true, that the women, “very early in the morning,” as S. Mark says, left their houses “when it was yet dark,” as S. John says, and arrived at the tomb “when the sun had risen,” as S. Mark says (16:2). For, although the distance from the city was not great, yet it was so great that, if they set out while it was dark, they would hardly arrive till the sun had risen; as Dionysius, in the letter which we have cited more than once, explains; or they may have come when the sun was risen (orto), that is, oriente, sole. The sun is said to be risen, not only when the solar body appears above the earth, but also when his rays have dispelled the darkness of the night, as S. Augustin, Euthymius, Bede, Theophylact, and De Lyra say. This view will be more probable if we read the latter oriente, as S. Augustin and Theophylact do, whether they take the Greek aorist ἀνατείλαντος as meaning the present ἀνατέλλοντος, or read not ἀνατείλαντος but ἀνατέλλοντος. This appears more easy of belief than the supposition that the entire word οὐκ, “not,” has fallen out of the text. And the meaning would not be greatly changed; for it is easier to suppose that the Greek copyist had inserted -τειλ- for -τελλ- than that he had omitted a word, especially in a passage in which the omission would strike everyone at once as senseless, and out of harmony with the context. Read thus there is no divarication between the Evangelists; for sole jam oriente and sole nondum orto are much the same thing.
It seems hardly probable, too, that the women would have had the courage to come to the tomb before daylight. If so, and even if S. Mark had not said, orto jam sole (16:2), both S. John’s adhuc tenebræ sunt and S. Luke’s ante lucem are to be understood as marking the time, not of the women’s coming to the tomb, but of their setting out from their homes; and thus we see how S. Mark does not contradict himself when he says, valde mane, “very early”: meaning when they set out from home; and orto jam sole, “the sun being now risen,” when they came to the tomb.


Came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

On Mary Magdalene, vide chap. 27:56. By the other Mary is meant the wife of Cleophas and the mother of James the Less and Joses, as chap. 27:61, and as is clear from S. Mark 16:1. S. Mark also mentions Salome, mother of the sons of Zebedee. S. Luke (24:10) speaks of many other women, as also in chaps. 8:3 and 23:55. Some think that the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of Christ, was among them, as S. Greg. Nyss. (Orat. ii. de Resurr.) and Sedulius:

               “Hoc luminis ortu
           Virgo parens, aliæque simul cum munere matres,
           Messis aromaticæ noctu venere gementes
           Ad tumulum”.

             Now when the sun begins to appear,
             The Virgin Mother draweth near,
             And with her sad companions come,
             To bring sweet spices to the tomb.

It cannot be doubted that the Blessed Virgin yielded to none in love and zeal towards Christ; but that she came with the other women seems hardly probable, for none of the Evangelists mention her, and they would not have passed her over if she had been present with the others. We see that all the Evangelists name Mary Magdalene in the first place, as the most noble of all the women who came to the tomb, and as she was in a sense their leader. But they would have placed the Blessed Virgin, if she had come with them, before Magdalene. S. John says that Mary the Mother of Christ, and Mary Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene were at the cross. He puts Mary the Mother of Christ before all the rest, and the other Evangelists would have done the same here if she had come with them to the tomb. The opinion of S. Gregory of Nyssa seems wholly untenable—that by the other Mary S. John meant the Mother of Christ. S. Mark tells us plainly who she was. S. John (20:1) says that Mary Magdalene came alone—probably because she was the head of the band and she alone held the conversation with the angels, which S. John desired to commemorate. The other Evangelists speak not all of the same number, but all mention more than one, because they desired to show that the three women (S. Mark 16:1) were the first witnesses of the Resurrection, and there must be two witnesses at least to prove a thing, as Deut. 17:6; S. Matt. 18:16. Besides, S. Matthew speaks of two, S. Mark of three, S. Luke of more.


To see the sepulchre.

S. Mark (16:1) and S. Luke (24:1) say that they came to anoint Christ. S. John does not state the cause of their coming. This has caused some to think that the women came twice—the first time not to anoint Christ, but, as S. Matthew says, to see the tomb; and then to anoint. Among these are S. Dionysius of Alexandria and S. Jerome (in loc., and Quest. 6 to Hedibias). But this has been answered above, and will be answered again by and by at more length.
But why did S. Matthew say that they came to see the tomb? Not to show that they came only to see it and not to anoint the body of Christ, but to show that they came to anoint, but doubted whether they could succeed, because they knew that the tomb was sealed with a great stone. And thus they talked anxiously among themselves as they came along: “Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” (S. Mark 16:3). S. Matthew meant that they came to see the sepulchre whether it were so closed and kept as to allow of their entering, and, when they had entered, of anointing the body of Christ.


Verse 2. And behold there was a great earthquake

The word ecce, “behold,” shows that the earthquake took place as the women were going to, or approaching, the tomb. On the force of ecce, vide chap. 2:1. The Evangelist clearly shows the cause of the earthquake—viz., the descent of the angel from heaven, for he uses the causal particle “for”. Why the earthquake took place on that descent the Evangelist does not say. The probable reason may have been that given by S. Chrysostom (Hom. xc. on S. Matt.). Euthymius and Theophylact (in loc.) say that the keepers of the tomb, who were sleeping, might be aroused by the commotion, and so be compelled to become witnesses of Christ’s Resurrection. The reason may have been to show the women and keepers of the tomb that they who appeared by the tomb in shining apparel were not men, but angels; that is, heavenly and divine messengers. It has been shown (27:51) from many passages of Scripture that such convulsions signify the presence of God, or of some representative of God. That the keepers and women, therefore, might believe the angels, it was necessary that they should recognise them, not only by their shining garments, but by the shaking of the ground. There might have been another reason: that the keepers might understand that Christ was not taken away by theft nor by any human means, but that He had risen by the divine power by which the earthquake itself was caused.


For an angel of the Lord descended from heaven.

One reason of this descent has been mentioned: the rolling away of the stone. There may be others. S. Chrysostom mentions three, besides the rolling away of the stone.
1. That the angels might show that God was buried there, since they stood at the tomb, as they do in heaven where He dwells.
2. To teach the women that Christ had truly risen from the dead, and to warn them to tell the Apostles as soon as possible. For if they had not been taught by the angels, they would not have believed; for it appears from S. John that even after they had been taught by them, they did not wholly believe, but rather thought that He had been taken away by theft.
3. To anticipate all frauds and machinations; and that the Jews, when they heard that Christ had risen, might not put another in the tomb in His place that He might appear not to have risen.
Heretics dispute with the Church as to why the angel moved the stone. Some think that it was done that Christ might rise and go out from the tomb; of which opinion S. Hilary (Can. xxxiii. on S. Matt.) seems somewhat a favourer. S. Leo (Ep. lxxxiii.) to the monks of Palestine: “Let these Christian teachers of a phantasm say what substance of the Saviour was fixed to the Cross; what lay in the tomb, and, when the stone was rolled away, what flesh rose on the third day”. But it is clear from the words of the Evangelists, that Christ rose before the angel rolled away the stone. For S. Matthew clearly says that the earthquake was on account of the descent of the angel. But if Christ had not yet risen, he would have said that the earthquake was not because of the descent of the angel, but because of the Resurrection of Christ. Besides, S. Mark says that the stone was rolled away by the angel, not that Christ might rise, but that the women might enter and see that the tomb was empty (16:3, 4): quite as if he had said, “The angels came in good time and rolled away the stone for the women, who were anxious on the subject before they came to the sepulchre”.
Lastly, as S. Jerome (Quæst. 6 to Hedibias), S. Greg. Nyss. (Orat. ii. de Resurr.), Euthymius (in loc.) say, “No one ever knew at what hour Christ rose”. But that at which the stone was rolled away is found from all the Evangelists. For as the earthquake, as S. Matthew says, was on account of the descent of the angel, and it took place as the women were approaching the sepulchre, as the word “Behold” shows, and the angel, as S. Matthew says, rolled away the stone: it follows that it was rolled away as the women approached. All the Evangelists state that they set out from their homes early, when it was yet dark, as S. John says; and they arrived when the sun was rising or risen, as S. Mark says. The stone, therefore, was rolled away then. It was not rolled away, therefore, as the above-named modern heretics say, that Christ might come out. For all the ancient authors have taught, what the Evangelists clearly teach, that the stone was rolled away, not for the sake of Christ, but for the women: as S. Jerome writes to Hedibias, and others to be cited shortly; and the angels were not sent to aid Christ, as if He could not have come out of the tomb without their assistance; but they sat as witnesses and heralds of His Resurrection. In the same manner they did not come to Christ during His Temptation, when He was tempted by the devil, lest they should have been thought to have come to help Him; but they came after He was tempted, and after His victory, that they might celebrate His triumph and acknowledge Him as conqueror. All ancient authors teach that, in the same manner as that in which Christ passed out of His Mother’s womb, He came out of the tomb, and went in to the disciples; that is, as by His own body He neither opened nor burst that of His mother, so neither did He the stone of the tomb nor the doors of the house where the disciples were, nor, what is similar, soften, but penetrate them. So say S. Justin Martyr (Quæst. 117 ad Orthod.), S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. J. Bapt.), S. Gregory Nazianzen (Tragœd. de Christ. patient.), S. Jerome (Quæst. 6 ad Hedib.), S. Augustin (Serms. cxxxviii, clix., de Temp.), Euthymius (in loc.).


And sat upon it.

The angel sat upon the stone as if expecting the coming of the women; and as if to show that it was he who had rolled away the stone, for he sat upon his own work. But how he is said here to sit, when S. Luke (24:4) describes the angels as standing, and what the stone was upon which they sat, shall be described in the following verse.


Verse 3. And his countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow

All the Evangelists describe the peculiar clothing of the angel carefully, but S. Matthew the most so of all (S. Mark 16:5; S. Luke 24:4; S. John 20:12). Such care is not devoid of mystery, and it is some proof of it. We often read of angels visiting men in the usual habit of men, so as to be thought to be men (Gen. 16:7; 18:1, 2; 19:1; 32:24; Joshua 5:13; Judges 2:1, 4; Dan. 8:16; Zach. 2:1; Tobit 5:5, 6; 12:15). But here the angels appear in a new clothing; in a new manner and with a new splendour. It is easy to suppose that they were sent to assure us, by heavenly and divine authority, of the Resurrection of the Lord. And it was therefore needful that they should come with such an appearance as to render it certain that they were angels. When it was not necessary that they should be known as such, or it was better that they should not be, they appeared in the usual guise of men, as to Abraham (Gen. 18:2), to Lot (19:1), and to the son of Tobias (5:7). But when it is necessary that they should be recognised as angels, they bear a more exalted appearance than that of men, as Acts 1:10. This is the reason given by S. Cyril (chap. xlvi. on S. John xii.). But S. Gregory (Hom. xx. in Evangel.) and Bede (in loc.) give another, why the angels here appeared in shining apparel—to show the glory of the rising of Christ and our joy thereat. To the same effect is S. Mark’s calling the angel a young man, for the angels never appear in any but a youthful form, that, as S. Dionysius (Cœlest Hier.,. xv) says, their vis vitalis may never appear as aged, but always youthful and flourishing, and that their immortality might be seen. S. Matthew and S. John call them angels. S. Mark and S. Luke men; the former as what they were, the latter as what they appeared at first sight.
There are many other difficult questions in this place, besides the apparent divarication on the above point between the Evangelists.
1. How S. Matthew and S. Mark speak of one angel; S. Luke and S. John of two.
2. How S. Matthew says that the angel sat upon the stone which he had rolled away, which was outside the tomb, so that the angel must necessarily have been outside also, while S. Mark (16:5) and S. John (20:12) say that he was inside; the former speaking of a young man, and the latter of two angels.
3. How S. Matthew and S. Mark speak of the angel as sitting; while S. Luke says that the angels were standing, and were seen to be so by the women.
4. How S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke speak of more women than one as having seen the angels; S. John only of Mary Magdalene.
5. How S. John says that Mary Magdalene, when she came first to the tomb, found the stone rolled away, but did not see the angel until she had returned and told the disciples of the Resurrection; when S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke say that the women not only saw the angel when they came first, but that he told them to go and announce the Resurrection to the disciples.
To the first question. They who follow the opinion of S. Augustin (De Cons., iii. 24), and think that the women came twice, not in the evening and morning, as S. Jerome says, but when the sun had risen, easily (though whether truly or not may be a question) answer that when they came the first time they saw one angel, and when they came the second time they saw two.
Others think that at first, before they went into the tomb, they saw one angel, and then when they had entered they either saw one and then another, as S. Mark indicates, or two, as S. Luke and S. John say. So it is explained by Theophylact (in loco) and S. Thomas. It may be suggested, however, that there are three difficulties here:
1. That the women came to the tomb twice.
2. That when they came first they saw either no angel at all, or only one.
3. That they saw one angel outside the tomb, the other inside; or one outside and two inside.
To these three points, because the explanation of all the other proposed questions depends upon them in great part, it may be worth while to reply.
The first and second, because they are so closely united that they cannot be separated, stand together and may be refuted by the same arguments.
1. When S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke say that the women came to the tomb, it is not a question that they speak of their first visit. They add that they came summo mane, to show that they came when it was first possible; both because of the Sabbath and the night that followed it. As if they had passed the whole night without sleep, and waited for the morning that they might hasten to the tomb. But the Evangelists say that when they came in the morning, they then saw the angels, and it cannot be doubted that the women, at the commandment of the angel, then told Peter and John of the Resurrection, and that they thereupon ran to the tomb to judge for themselves. For S. Mark says in plain words (16:7) that the angel said to the women, “But go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee; there you shall see Him as He told you”.
They therefore saw the angel before they told Peter and John, and before Peter and John came to the tomb. For what need would there have been to command them to tell Peter that Christ had risen if he had already come and seen the empty tomb with his own eyes?
They who think that the women came to the tomb twice, and when they came the first time saw no angel, say, or must say, that Peter and John came to the tomb before the women saw any angel, as S. John seems to indicate, by whose account they are urged into this opinion. But this opposes the plain words of S. Mark. Besides, S. Matthew relates clearly that the women and the soldiers both saw the angel at the same time (28:4), and it is clear that before Peter and John came, the soldiers had seen the angel and gone away terrified. For Peter and John would not have come to the tomb so boldly unless they had heard from the women that the soldiers had gone away; but this hardly applies to the women. It is no matter of wonder that they had the courage to come to the tomb while it was yet guarded by the soldiers; for these are apt to be severe towards men when they spare the women. Besides, S. Luke (24:13) says that on that same day, as when two of the disciples were going to Emmaus, Christ joined Himself to them, and that they said (verses 21, 22, 23), “And now, besides all this, to-day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company affrighted us, who, before it was light, were at the sepulchre. And, not finding His body, came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who say that He is alive. And some of our people went to the sepulchre, and found it so as the women had said; but Him they found not.” It cannot be doubted that the words “some of our people” refer to S. Peter and S. John; the Evangelist had said that the women saw the vision of angels, and told it to Peter and the other disciples. To this should be added the greatest authorities, who think that when the women came first to the tomb they saw the angels. Among these is S. Greg. Nyss. (De Resurr. Chti., Orat. ii.). As, then, they who say that the women came to the tomb twice do so only that they may not appear to contradict S. John, who seems to say that the women when they came the first time did not see the angels; and as it has been sufficiently proved that they saw them when they came the first time, there is no reason why they should say that the women came twice. The passage in S. John shall shortly be explained, so as to show that there is no contradiction in it. It appears, therefore, both that the women only came once, and that when they came the first time they saw the angels.
2. The third question is more easily answered. S. Mark 16:4, 5: “And, looking, they saw the stone rolled back. For it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed with a white robe; and they were astonished.” S. Mark means that they saw one angel inside the tomb, even if they saw another outside, as S. Matthew is commonly taken to mean. It would seem that the angel of whom S. Matthew speaks, and the one mentioned by S. Mark, were the same; for they both used the same words. Each said, “Fear not” (S. Matt. 28:5). “Fear not you: for I know that ye seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord was laid. And going quickly, tell ye His disciples that He is risen; behold He will go before you into Galilee, there you shall see Him” (S. Mark 16:6). As, then, the angel of whom S. Matthew and S. Mark wrote was the same angel—and S. Mark says in plain words that he was seen by the women inside the tomb, and S. Matthew does not say that he was seen outside, but only that he was sitting upon the stone which he had removed—it follows that he was seen not outside the tomb, which S. Matthew does not say, but inside it, which S. Mark does say. And most especially when the other Evangelists, S. Luke (24:4) and S. John (20:12), say that two angels were seen, not outside, but inside.
What mostly influences the maintainers of the other view is the words of S. Matthew (verse 2): “An angel of the Lord descended from heaven; and, coming, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it”. The stone they conclude from S. Mark to have been outside the tomb and not inside of it. “Who,” they say, “shall roll back;” and, therefore, they assume that it was at the door of the tomb, that is, outside it. It is matter of wonder that it has escaped the notice of authorities that there were two stones, and that each was rolled back by the angel. S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 24) thinks that the sepulchre alone did not contain the tomb of Christ, but that it was a building called by him a maceria, a wall of enclosure, having an outside arched door by which it was entered; and within this was the tomb where the body was laid, which was closed by another stone. That it was a tomb of this kind, Bede, Bocardus (On Jerusalem and the Holy Land), and all who have seen it agree uno ore. There were, therefore, two stones—one outside by which the door of the whole monument was closed, the other inside by which the tomb was closed; and the angels removed both—the first, that the women might enter; the second, that they might see that the tomb was empty. The angel did not sit upon the first, but upon the second; for if he had sat upon the first, the women would have been terrified at the first sight of him, and they would not have ventured to enter the tomb. It was fit that the angel should have sat, not upon the first stone, but upon the second; both to show that he had moved away the stone that the women might see that the sepulchre was empty; and to point, as it were, with his finger to the place where Christ had been placed, and show that it was empty, as in verse 6.
When, therefore, S. Matthew says that the angel moved the stone, he means both stones. When he says that he sat upon it, he means the second stone which was inside the tomb. For, as he could not have sat upon both stones, he must have sat either upon the first or the second. S. Matthew does not say that he sat upon the first. S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John clearly say that he sat upon the second, when they say that he sat inside; and, therefore, S. Matthew also, when he says that he sat upon the stone, understands the second stone; whence it follows that even, according to S. Matthew, the angel was seen by the women, not outside the tomb, but inside it. It will be objected that S. Matthew (verse 6) says that the angel said to the women, “Come, see the place where the Lord lay”; as if they had not yet entered the tomb, but he were inviting them to do so. These words have deceived many into thinking that the women were invited by the angel to enter the tomb, whereas they were not invited to enter, but to come; that is, to draw near and see the tomb. The angel did not say “Enter” but “Come”. For they were then inside the tomb, as S. Mark and S. Luke state most clearly. Then, when they had come to the tomb and unexpectedly found the first stone, about which they had been anxious on the way, rolled back, they boldly entered. When they were inside, and saw the angel sitting upon the stone, they were astonished, and did not venture to approach the tomb. But the angel first directed them to lay aside their fear, saying, “Fear not” (verse 5), and then invited them to come, and see the tomb: “Come, see”.
What S. Luke says (24:2, 3, 4) may be objected. He here indicates that the women had entered, not only into the monument but even to the tomb as well, which was within, and had seen that it was empty before the angel invited them, or they had even seen him.
The answer is that S. Luke spoke by anticipation, for he was desirous of passing on to relate that the women had not found Christ in the tomb, because He had risen; and he therefore said this before stating that the angels were seen by them, and that by their testimony the Resurrection of Christ was confirmed.
Thus the first and second of the five questions proposed above have been answered.
The first by the proof that there were two angels, as S. Luke and S. John relate; but because one only spoke with the women, we must believe that S. Matthew and S. Mark, as they especially desired to relate what the angels said to the women, make mention of one only. It would certainly have been superfluous that the other angel should speak, as he could only have repeated what the other had said. So, on the other hand, whilst more women than one came to the sepulchre, one only, Mary Magdalene, spoke both with the angels and with Christ. S. John mentions her alone; but as S. Luke and S. John wished to show that the Resurrection of Christ was proved by the testimony of the angels, they were compelled to mention more angels than one. Thus it was fitting that at least two angels should appear as witnesses, that “by the mouth of two or three every word should be established”. And we see in the similar case of the Ascension of Christ into heaven, two angels also appeared in white garments, who testified to them that He had gone up to heaven, and would so return (Acts 1:10).
But the words of S. Luke (24:5) seem opposed to this, an d S. John (20:12) relates that the angels said to Magdalene, “Woman, why weepest thou?” The answer is easy. They speak by syllepsis, as often before; for example, the thieves on the cross, and as in Heb. 11:33, 37. The Prophets “were cut asunder,” whereas only one was so treated—Isaiah: “and stopped the mouths of lions,” whereas only Daniel did so. The angels, then, are said by S. Luke and S. John to have spoken with the women because one of them did so.
The answer to the second question is clear per se. It has been proved that the angel, of whom S. Matthew speaks, sat upon the second stone, not outside the tomb but inside it; and, therefore, that there is no difference in this respect between S. Matthew and S. Mark and the other Evangelists.
The third question is how S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. John say that the angels sat, and S. Luke that the angels stood. The question seems to depend on the proper sense of the word “stand”. S. Augustin and his followers think that there was one angel, of whom S. Matthew and S. Mark speak, and others of whom S. Luke and S. John speak, and that the former sat while the latter stood. But what will they do with S. John, who says of the two angels, of whom S. Luke writes, that they sat, when S. Luke says that they stood? Some say that they sat at first (as in S. Matt., S. Mark, and S. John), and when they spoke with the women they rose up and stood, as S. Luke says: a distinction very little necessary, for S. Luke’s words may be more easily explained by the proper understanding of the word “stood”. It has been said (6:5) that the word “stand” in both Latin and Greek does not always mean an upright position of body, but sometimes the mere presence alone, and at others repose alone; for he is not only said to stand who is in an upright position, but he who is simply present though he be sitting; as chap. 16:28, “There are some of them that stand here,” that is, they who are present; and S. Mark 11:25, “And when ye stand to pray,” where there is no command to stand upright, but to stand, that is, to pray in quiet or put themselves as it were in God’s presence, for praying is to address God; and S. Luke 7:37, 38, “And standing behind at His feet,” she was not standing erect, but was prostrate at the feet of Christ, when she washed His feet with her tears and wiped them with the hairs of her head and kissed His feet; and S. Luke 18:11, “The Pharisee, standing, prayed,” where it is not to be supposed that a man, and a hypocrite especially, stood to pray; and S. John 1:26, “There hath stood one,” that is, among you, present with you.
The fourth question is answered by another similar question being asked. It is asked, how S. John says that Mary Magdalene alone saw the angels, whilst the other Evangelists say that there were more women who saw them? It may be asked in return, why S. John says that Mary Magdalene alone came to the tomb, when the other Evangelists say that more came than she? It was no intent of the Evangelists to describe fully every circumstance. There were more women than one around the cross of Christ and many men besides, as signified by S. Luke (23:49) and S. Matthew (27:55); yet he names three women alone, as being better known and more active, and no man at all. In the same manner S. John says that Mary Magdalene both alone came to the tomb and alone saw the angels, because it is not doubtful that Mary Magdalene took the chief part and was the highest in position of any. We may see this from the other Evangelists always, when naming the other women, placing her first, as in S. Matt. 27:56, 61, and in this chapter, verse 1; S. Mark 15:40; 16:1.
The fifth question, which alone of all seems to contain any real difficulty, turns upon the right understanding of S. John. How he seems to say that Mary Magdalene, when she came to the sepulchre first, saw neither angel nor the Lord, but when she saw the stone rolled away she returned at once and told Peter and John, “They have taken away my Lord,” &c.; but he signifies that she returned afterwards and saw the angels and Christ. S. John seems to relate the whole so clearly and fully that most writers have thought that the other Evangelists, who appear to contradict him, are to be explained from him. The other Evangelists, however, seem so clearly to contradict him, that he is rather to be explained from them; and if they have not so much perspicuity, we must still yield to them as superior in numbers. How can it be supposed that the three Evangelists conspired as if by design to speak obscurely? It is more easy to suppose that one did so than that many did. That Mary Magdalene and the other women came only once to the tomb, and that before they told the above events to Peter and John they had seen the angels, has been clearly proved.
How, then, is S. John to be understood? He, like the other Evangelists, did not keep the order of events, but such as happened at the same time are related, some first and others later. Mary Magdalene came, and she saw the angels at the same time. He says that she came and saw the stone rolled away first, and afterwards saw the angels. This would appear more likely if we could find a probable reason for this infraction of the order of events. S. Greg. Nyss. (Orat. ii. de Resurrect.) thinks that Mary was reluctant to say anything to Peter and John about the angels she had seen, because she doubted that they were real angels, and, therefore, that she did not say anything of the Resurrection, but only “They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him”. S. John, in fact, appears to wish to pass over everything else, that he may hasten to the explanation of how he and Peter ran together to see the tomb, at the first word of Mary Magdalene; and he therefore omits the vision of the angels, and Christ, and describes his own and Peter’s hastening to the tomb, not from any vainglory (for he was so far from this that he would not even mention his own name), but from his desire of proving the Resurrection of Christ, and that he might, as soon as possible, bear witness that he himself and Peter had actually seen it, and thus gain great belief for the history. But it may be said that not only was S. John silent on the subject, but that even Mary Magdalene herself did not tell Peter and John that she had seen the angels and Christ, but that she rather indicated that she had not done so, when she said, “They have taken away the Lord,” &c. For if she had seen the angel and been taught by him that Christ had risen, she would have said so, and not that He had been taken out of the tomb; and she would have proved her words both by the vision and by the testimony of the angels. In fact, she would have said what would have done much more to cause belief that she had seen Christ Himself.
What if she did not say to Peter and John that she had seen the angels and the Lord, because, as soon as they heard her words, not expecting anything more, they ran off to the tomb? And what if she would not relate her vision of the angels and the Lord from prudence, but related the fact as if Christ had been taken out of the tomb—that she might the more incite them to go and see it and seek Him, believing that if they went to the tomb and saw the angels and Christ, as she had done, they would have no more need of her testimony?
S. Luke, however (24:23), seems to oppose this idea. He says that the women told the disciples that they also had seen at the tomb a vision of angels, and that some of the disciples—that is, Peter and John—ran to the tomb. But it is not unlikely that the women wished at first to say nothing of their having seen the angels and Christ, nor of this Resurrection, but only said, “They have taken away the Lord” (as if they thought that He had been removed by theft), that, as has been said, they might incite the disciples to go to the tomb. What was sufficient to arouse S. Peter and S. John, who were more ardent than the rest, was not enough to move the others, and, therefore, when those Apostles had gone out, they, to convince the others, related the whole more clearly, and told them that they had seen both the angels and Christ. And this was the cause of their being upbraided by Him: “At length He appeared to the eleven as they were at table, and He upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen Him after He was risen again (S. Mark 16:14).
This explanation is both intelligible per se, and is incapable of refutation by those who do not receive it. In this way the Evangelists agree most perfectly among themselves. For S. John wished to relate his own and S. Peter’s visit to the tomb first. When he had done this, he returned, by way of summary, to the explanation of the vision of the angels and of Christ (20:11). His assertion that Mary stooped, when S. Mark and S. Luke say that she entered the tomb, is not contradictory. She did both. She both entered and stooped that she might see the tomb; or she entered, stooping when she had brought not her feet but her head and body inside the sepulchre, that she might see the tomb.


Verse 4. And for fear of him

For fear of the angel, of whom S. Matthew had last spoken. Although we may easily believe that the keepers were terrified by the earthquake, yet, as that might appear to be a natural event, they were thrown into much greater consternation by the sight of the angel. How they saw the angels when they themselves were outside and the angels inside may be reasonably asked. It is probable that the angels, when they first came and removed the stone from the door of the tomb, showed themselves also outside, that the keepers might see them and be seized with terror. For they had come that the keepers might be witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ even against their will. It is also probable that the guards, when they saw that the stone had been removed, went into the tomb before the women came, to see if the body of Christ, which had been committed to their faith and keeping, were in the tomb, and that they then saw the angels sitting inside it.


And became as dead men.

The same thing happened to Daniel when he saw the angel (10:8). The keepers feared, not with a mere human fear, lest the body of Christ should be required of them to whom it had been committed, and when they could not produce it (as if the disciples had either stolen it away through their negligence, or had bribed them to give it), that they should be punished: but they feared much more with a divine fear lest, when they saw the Resurrection of Christ and that it confirmed His Divinity, they should be punished from heaven, either by fire sent thence or by the earth opening, as men who had assisted the Jews in their wickedness; and as Pilate, when he heard that Christ was the Son of God, feared to condemn Him, and sought occasion to set Him free (S. John 19:8).
The women also feared when they saw the angels (verse 8; S. Mark 16:6–8; S. Luke 24:5), but none of the Evangelists says that their fear was as great as that of the soldiers, who became as dead men. S. Luke, on the contrary, signifies that theirs was rather the fear of humility than the dread of any danger (24:5); for to bow the head to the ground was less a sign of fear than of humility. Who, indeed, would not fear at the sudden and superhuman sight of angels? Daniel feared (10:8, 16): Zaccharias feared (S. Luke 1:12): the Virgin Mary herself feared (S. Luke 1:29): but the good fear in a different manner to the bad, for an evil conscience increases fear to the latter. The evil fear, as wicked servants, lest they should meet punishment; the good fear, as sons, lest before the angels they appear too little reverent, and because human weakness is not able to endure a divine vision. The soldiers fear, and are as dead men: the women fear, but are not disheartened, because, like S. Antony, as S. Thomas in his commentary and S. Jerome on this passage say, when a good angel appears to good men, even if by his unexpected appearance he strike terror at first, he leaves in the end comfort and tranquillity. The angel, therefore, comforted the women, not the trembling soldiers (verse 5). “Fear not you,” as S. Jerome and the poet Juvencus have observed. Such is the force in this passage, as shall be explained, of the word “you”.


Verse 5. And the angel answering

“Answering” is a Hebraism, by which ענה means both “to answer” and “to begin to speak,” as explained on chaps. 11:25, 22:1.


Fear not you.

As if the angel had said, “Let the soldiers fear who came with the evil intention of preventing if they could the Resurrection of Christ. You, who have come not to hinder Him, but to render to Him all the offices of piety and love, have no cause for fear.” The word “you” has here the force of opposition to the soldiers, as has been observed by S. Cyril Jerus. (Cat. Lect., xiv.), S. Chrysostom (Hom. xc.), S. Gregory (Hom. in Evang., xxi.), Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact. “Let those fear,” says S. Gregory, “who love not the visits of citizens from on high; let those live in dread who, oppressed by carnal desires, despair of being able to attain to their fellowship; but for you, why should you fear who see in them your fellow-citizens?”


For I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.

The angel gives the reason why they need not fear. They had come, not with an evil but with a good and holy intention, to seek the body of Christ and perform the religious duty of anointing it. The angel shows them that he knows this, lest perhaps the women, although their consciences were good, might fear some evil from him, as, not knowing why they came, he might suspect that they intended to steal the body or do some other wrong. But the fact that the angel named Jesus by His proper name, and his saying that He was crucified, tended to cause faith in the women, and to show that he knew Christ truly, and that He was crucified and had died and been buried in that place, and had risen again. The angel (S. Mark 16:6) called Christ “Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified,” which tends to the same result. S. Matthew omits the words “of Nazareth”. S. Luke (24:5) uses other words: “Why seek ye the living with the dead?” S. John (20:13) still others: “Woman, why weepest thou?” It is to be believed that the angel uttered them all. The women first began to lament when they saw the door open, thinking that the body of Christ had been taken away. This is the meaning of S. John 20:11: “Mary stood at the sepulchre without, weeping,” naming only one woman, but understanding all. Soon after they entered the tomb weeping, and the angels said, “Why weep ye?” S. John, speaking of Mary Magdalene, says that she alone answered for all (verse 13). The angel then answered, speaking for himself and the other angel, “Fear not,” &c. (S. Matt. 28:5), as if gently and in kind words blaming their unbelief; for if they had had faith in the words of Christ which He spoke while yet alive, that He should rise again on the third day, they would not have sought the living among the dead, but would have believed for certain that He was alive. Lastly, he added what S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke all record: “He is not here, for He has risen as He said”; and he commanded them to go to the Apostles and tell them that Christ had risen, as the same three Evangelists relate.


Verse 6. He is not here, for He is risen

It was not sufficient to say, “He is not here,” for He might not have been there and yet not have risen again. He might have been carried thence, or His body stolen; and, therefore, the angel added, “for He is risen”; as if he had said, “He is not here: not because, as you suppose, He has been removed or stolen, but because He is risen again”; and that this might not appear new or strange, he added the words, “as He said,” confirming Christ’s Resurrection from His own words, and as silently observing the unbelief of the women; as if he had said, “If you had believed Christ when He said that He would rise again on the third day, you would not now need my testimony, but you would readily have believed”.


Come and see the place where the Lord was laid.

What the angel had proved by his own testimony and by that of Christ, he now confirms by the evidence of the women’s senses, and he endeavours to instil belief into their minds by the actual sight of the place: “Come and see the place,” &c. In calling Christ “Lord,” the angel confessed Him to be God; for who but God is Lord of angels? The angel seems to have used the same words deliberately as Mary had used before, as we learn from S. John 20:2. She had called Him her Lord; the angel called Him not only his own Lord, but the Lord of all, both men and angels. He showed this when he called Him Lord, absolutely and without addition.
We have purposely deferred to this place the question at what hour Christ rose from the dead; because in this place mention is first made of His Resurrection.
All admit that He arose in the night which intervened between the Sabbath and the first day of the week, which we call the Lord’s day. Almost all ancient authors agree that He did not rise before midnight, though some, as S. Dionysius of Alexandria, in his letters to Basilides, from S. Matthew’s words (verse 1)—“And in the end of the Sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre”—say that He rose in the beginning of the night. He was the author of this opinion, which is received by few, and has been answered above. That He rose in the middle of the night, as He was believed to have been born in the middle of the night, was the opinion of many, who, as Dionysius adds, therefore ended the Lent fast at midnight before the day of Pasch, as was ordered by the Eighty-ninth Canon of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo, as Balsamon states in his commentary to Dionysius. This is confirmed by the ancient custom of almost the whole Church, which used to celebrate at midnight the Mass of the Resurrection, which we now celebrate on the Saturday at about ten in the morning.
Others believe that He arose towards dawn, at or about the crowing of the cock. S. Greg. Nyss. (Orat ii. de Resurrect) inclines much to this opinion. S. Dionysius says that it was the custom of the Romans to end the fast at that hour, as believing that Christ rose then. Euthymius also states this as the opinion of all the early Fathers, and that he himself followed it as the most probable. It is most certain, indeed, as S. Greg. Nyss. in the above-named oration, S. Jerome (Quæst. 6 to Hedibias), and Euthymius (in loc.) say that no man can know the hour at which Christ rose from the dead; for He Himself alone can know it who rose as He would, and when He would. But if certain proof be wanting, there is some room for conjecture; and in matters of uncertainty that which appears most probable may be received for truth, until the truth itself appear. We must believe that Christ rose about the dawn of day. For as the angels came down from heaven to witness of His Resurrection, it is probable that they descended immediately as He rose; lest, in the meantime, the soldiers or the priests who had closed the tomb had opened it, and, not finding the body, had concluded that it had been taken away by theft, and had published it as a fact, not with the gift of bribes, but gratis, and supposing themselves to be speaking the truth. That the angels came about dawn is clear, because the earthquake happened at the time of the arrival; and this, as S. Mark relates, took place as the women drew near the tomb, when the sun was just rising. This, however, is only a conjecture, and may be taken simply for what it is worth.


Verse 7. And going quickly

The angel commanded them to go quickly that they might, as soon as possible, cheer those who were sad, by the most joyful news of the Resurrection, and sustain their failing faith before it gave way altogether. We learn from S. Mark (16:7) that the angel said, “Go tell His disciples and Peter, that He goeth before you into Galilee; there you shall see Him as He told you”. S. Peter was named especially, lest from his thrice-repeated denials of Christ he might think himself shut out from the benefit of the Resurrection. So say S. Gregory (Hom. xxi. in Evang.) and Euthymius.


That He has risen.


Quia surrexit, a Hebraism, as said before, for surrexisse.


And behold He will go.

The angel signifies that Christ had already gone into Galilee, either because he thought so, or because he knew that Christ intended to go there after His Resurrection, and show Himself to His disciples. Unless we take the present tense by a Hebraism for the future, as if the angel had said, “Behold He will go before you into Galilee, hasten as you may”; for he knew that Christ passed hither and thither in a moment. The angel was ignorant, apparently, of what was shortly to take place—that Christ would show Himself to the women as they returned to the city. He acted with the view of kindling the zeal of the disciples, that when they heard of Christ’s having already gone into Galilee, they might hasten thither more readily, and not be reluctant to follow, if they had been so to go before.
Wonderful is the infirmity of human nature, and wonderful its inconsistency; for it was much more easy for them to follow Christ when He was going into Galilee and had now risen, and was become glorious, than to follow Him to the cross when infirm and weighed down with ignominy; and yet all promised this (26:35), although they did not perform it. For when these words were related by the women to the disciples, “they seemed to them as idle tales, and they did not believe them” (S. Luke 24:11).
A twofold question arises here:
1. Why Christ wished to show Himself to the Apostles in Galilee, rather than in Judæa?
2. Why, contrarily to what He had determined and said, He showed Himself in Judæa before He went into Galilee?
Many answer the first question as follows:
Christ desired to appear to the disciples in Galilee, that He might converse with them and teach them more freely; for in Judæa their dread of the priests and Pharisees might be a hindrance to them. So say S. Chrysostom (Hom. xc.) and Euthymius. S. Ambrose says the same (On S. Luke xxiv.).
Others say that as He had preached the Gospel in Galilee a long time, He had many disciples in the country, whom He wished to strengthen at the same time. S. Jerome and Bede give another, but allegorical reason: that Galilee, as its name indicates, was a very hog-stye of all vices, and it ought therefore to be purified by the presence of Christ, as Isaiah had said long before (9:1, 2), and as S. Matthew (4:15, 16) applied his words to the preaching of Christ.
But why did He not go there at once? This is the second question. Because He saw the Apostles lingering and doubting, and that they would not go into Galilee unless He first appeared to them in Jerusalem to confirm their faith. This is said by S. Ambrose. Christ did not therefore falsify His promise, but He exceeded it, for He did more than He promised. He had promised to appear to the disciples in Galilee, and He appeared also to them in Jerusalem; as S. Gregory of Nyssa says.


Lo, I have foretold it to you.

These words would tend to cause the disciples, when they should see Christ in Galilee, to believe that He was not a phantom nor a spirit, but Himself in verity, the true Christ, ipsissimum Christum; they would have seen that the angel had foretold the truth, and therefore that He could only have spoken from God. They must, therefore, have believed that it was Christ whom they saw, as it had been foretold by the same angel that they should see Him. So Samuel, to persuade Saul that what he had foretold to him should come to pass, foretold certain other things which Saul should experience on that same day, that these might confirm the others; e.g., 1 Kings 10:2. In the same way Christ said (S. John 14:29): “Now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it shall come to pass you may believe”. S. Mark’s words (16:7) are slightly different, that the angel might say that it was not himself but Christ that foretold this, alluding to the words which He addressed to the disciples shortly before His death (26:32). Perhaps “he” should be read for “I,” a lapse easily made by the change of one Greek, and the dropping out of one Latin, letter. If so, there will be no divarication between S. Matthew and S. Mark.


Verse 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.


Verse 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 (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.


Verse 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.