The question of the special sources from which Luke has taken the considerable portion that is peculiar to him in the account of the resurrection (Griesbach: from the mouth of the Joanna named by him alone, Luk 24:10), as well as in all that still follows that account, cannot be decided; but assuredly he did not as yet know the conclusion of Mark as it now stands.
βαθέως (see the critical remarks): the adverb[267] of degree is immediately annexed to a substantive. See on 2Co 11:23. Hence: deep in the morning, i.e. in the first morning twilight. Comp. Plat. Crit. p. 43 A, Prot. p. 310 A. The opposite is: ὁ ἔσχατος ὄρθρος, Theocr. xvi. 63.
Luk 24:2. ΕὖΡΟΝ ΔῈ Κ.Τ.Λ.] agrees as little as Mar 16:4 with the narrative of the rolling away of the stone in Mat 28:2.
Luk 24:4. ἘΝ Τῷ ΔΙΑΠΟΡ. ΑὐΤ. ΠΕΡῚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ] while they were in great perplexity concerning this. Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 237 A, Soph. p. 217 A, Tim. p. 49 B. In the New Testament only in Luke. Still Lachmann and Tischendorf have the simple form ἀπορεῖσθαι (B C D L א), but this easily crept in through neglect of the compound form. Also Luk 9:7, Act 2:12, the reading ἨΠΟΡΕῖΤΟ occurs.
ἘΠΈΣΤ.] as Luk 2:9.
ἌΝΔΡΕς] The angels (Luk 24:23) are designated according to the form of the appearance which they had in the view of the women.[268] Comp. Act 1:10; Mar 16:5. And their clothes had a flashing brightness (ἀστραπτ.).
Luk 24:5. τί ζητεῖτε κ.τ.λ.] indicating the groundlessness of their search.
τὸν ζῶντα] denotes Jesus not as Him who is Himself the life (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, following Joh 1:4), nor yet the conquering life (de Wette), but, according to the context, quite simply Him who is alive, and no νεκρός. Comp. Luk 24:23.
μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν] the grave is in general conceived of as the place where the dead are, where, therefore, he who is sought, is sought among the dead. Luk 24:6 f. ὡς ἐλάλ] Luk 9:22, Luk 18:32 f. The reference to Galilee (Matthew and Mark) Luke could not adopt; see Luk 24:49-50.
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρ.] The designation of Himself previously used by Jesus. After the resurrection He no longer calls Himself by this name. Comp. Luk 24:26. ἀνθρώπ. ἁμαρτ.] heathens. Comp. Luk 18:32; Gal 2:15. Otherwise Mat 26:45.
Luk 24:8. It is psychologically improbable that the remembrance occurred to them now for the first time and at the prompting of the angel, if Jesus actually foretold His resurrection in terms so definite. But see on Mat 16:21.
Luk 24:9. κ. πᾶσι τοῖς λοιποῖς] who adhered to the company of the disciples as followers of Jesus.
Luk 24:10 f. According to the corrected reading (see the critical remarks), ἦσαν δὲ … Ἰακώβου is a supplementary enumeration of the most eminent of the women who brought the tidings; after which by means of καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ κ.τ.λ. the same bringing of the tidings is related also of their female companions, and then by καὶ ἐφάνησαν κ.τ.λ. the narration is further continued. There were, however (these women who returned and announced, etc.), Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; moreover (καὶ), the rest of the women with them told this to the apostles, and their words appeared to them as a fable, and they believed them not. As to Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, see on Mat 27:55 f.; as to Joanna, on Luk 8:3.
ἐφάνησαν] the plural of the verb with the neuter plural (see, in general, Winer, p. 456 [E. T. 645]) denotes here the declarations of the several individual persons. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 3. 12.
λῆρος] a foolish rumour, trick. Plat. Protag. p. 347 D, Hipp. maj. p. 304 B: λήρους καὶ φλυαρίας; Xen. Hist. iv. 8. 15; Arist. Plut. 23, and elsewhere; Soph. Trach. 435: ληρεῖν ἀνδρὸς οὐχὶ σώφρονος.
Luk 24:12. The disciples did not believe the women, but Peter, hasty and impetuous as he was, desired to inform himself by his own sight about this enigmatical state of affairs. To take ἔδραμεν as a pluperfect (Paulus) is on account of βλέπει impossible; a perverted system of harmonizing, in which even Calvin led the way. Of the ἄλλος μαθητής of Joh 20:3, Luke says nothing, but, according to Luk 24:24, does not exclude him. The account is vague in the connection of its several parts,[269] as even Luk 24:34 presupposes something that is not related.
παρακύψ.] stooping down into the grave, Joh 20:5; Joh 20:11.
μόνα] so that thus the corpse was gone.[270]
πρὸς ἑαντ.] not: with Himself (as Mar 14:4; Luk 18:11), so that it would belong to θαυμάζων (Luther, Castalio, Grotius, Wolf, Schegg, and others, following the Vulgate), in which case, however, it would be superfluous, and its position before θαυμάζων would have no motive; but it belongs to ἀπῆλθε: to his home, i.e. πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ διαγωγήν, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. Joh 20:10. Examples in Kypke, I. p. 33 7.
[267] βαθέως might, it is true, be also the genitive of the adjective (see generally, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 246 f.). Thus Bleek, Buttmann, and Schegg. Only no certain instance of such a genitive form occurs in the New Testament.
[268] Schleiermacher makes out of this, persons commissioned by Joseph of Arimathaea. By means of such, Joseph had had the body of Jesus brought away from the grave, in which it had been provisionally laid. See L. J. p. 471. At an earlier period Schleiermacher made another shift, but not a better. See Strauss in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 386 ff.
[269] Since vv. 24 and 34 presuppose what nevertheless is not previously narrated, it is certainly to be assumed that vv. 1-12 and ver. 13 ff. have been taken from two distinct sources, which Luke in his working up has not sufficiently compared together. There has not been wanting here, moreover, the supposition of a tendency. According to Baur (Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 61), the scene at Emmaus is to put in the background the manifestation which was made only to Peter.
[270] That the grave was empty is so decidedly and clearly in the whole of the New Testament (in opposition to Weizsäcker, p. 572) the correlative of the resurrection of Jesus (see also Rom 6:4; Col 2:12), that it is not at all to the purpose when Keim (Geschichtl. Chr. p. 134) adds to the expression of his belief in an appearance of Jesus in glorified corporeality, “it makes no matter whether the grave was empty or not.” Keim, moreover, contends with force against the visionary view of the resurrection. See against this kind of view, also Gebhardt, D. Aufersteh. Christ. 1864, p. 18 ff.; Düsterdieck, Apol. Beitr. I. p. 8 ff.; Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 173 f.; Uhlhorn, D. modernen Darstell. d. Leb. Jesu, 1866, p. 115 ff.
[271] Even this simple observation of Euthymius Zigabenus is sufficient to show that every other cause by which the corpse may have disappeared from the grave, apart from His resurrection, is inconceivable. Schenkel, indeed (in his Zeitschr. 1865, 5), when he defines the resurrection as “the real mysterious self-revelation of the personality of Christ emerging living and imperishable from death,” uses for this purpose no grave, since he makes the personality of Christ emerge only from death, not from the grave. But the certainty that Christ came forth from the grave is at the foundation of every mention of the resurrection throughout the whole New Testament, in which reference, especially also the moral idea of συνθάπτεσθαι and συνεγείρεσθαι Χριστῷ (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12; Col 3:1; Eph 2:6) is of importance.
Luk 24:13-14. The journey to Emmaus, peculiar to Luke. Mar 16:12 is a meagre intimation of the same history from another source.
ἦσαν πορ.] were on the way.
ἐξ αὐτῶν] in general: of the followers of Jesus, ἐκ τῶν ὅλων μαθητῶν, Euthymius Zigabenus. They did not belong to the twelve (see Luk 24:33); whether they were of the seventy (Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others) cannot be determined. In other respects they are perfectly unknown. Luke. Luk 24:18, names only the one (Κλεόπας is the same as Κλεόπατρος, distinct from the Hebrew name Κλωπᾶς, Joh 19:25, or Alphaeus), and that, indeed, accidentally, because he introduces him actually speaking. In this way it is left in doubt whether he knew the name of the other or not (Ambrose calls him Ammaon). From the fact of his not being named, there is neither to be concluded a greater (Borneniann) nor a less (Kuinoel) degree of knowledge regarding him; and who he may have been is not at all to be conjectured, although Nathanael (so Epiphanius), Bartholomew, Peter, or another Simon (Origen, Cyril), nay, in spite of Luk 1:2, Luke himself (in Theophylact, so also Lange, I. p. 252), and even, conjecturally (Holtzmann), the younger James, as having made the journey with his father Alphaeus (but in 1Co 15:7 the Lord’s brother is meant)-have been guessed.
Ἐμμαούς] in Josephus, Bell. vii. 6. 6. Ἀμμαοῦς, a village, also according to Josephus 60 stadia (7½ geographical miles) in a north-western direction from Jerusalem-not to be confounded, as has often been done since Eusebius and Jerome (Robinson, Pal. III. p. 281 f.), with the town of Emmaus, 1Ma 3:40; 1Ma 9:50, in the plain of Judaea, which since the third century after Christ has been named Nicopolis, and is 176 stadia from Jerusalem.[272] See, in general, Ritter’s Palestine, XVI. pp. 512, 545; Arnold in Herzog’s Encykl. III. p. 778 f.; Thrupp in The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, 1860, p. 262 ff.; Zschokke, D. neutest. Emmaus, 1865, who, following tradition, is again in favour of the present village of Kubeibeh, and that on the ground of the more recent measurement of the distance from Jerusalem. Others: Culonieh; others: Kurjat et Enab.
Luk 24:14. Κ. ΑὐΤΟΊ] and they, on their part, said, in view of the appearance of Jesus to them, Luk 24:15 f.
περὶ πάντων τῶν συμβεβηκ. τούτων] Luk 24:1-12. In their subsequent discourse with the unknown one at Luk 24:18 ff. they are more prolix. On ὁμιλεῖν = διαλέγεσθαι, comp. Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 2.
[272] Hence we find, in some MSS. (including א) and vss., the reading ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα, which Tisch.synops. on insufficient evidence prefers [Tisch. 8 has returned to ἑξήκοντα]. Even Arnold expresses himself as not averse to identifying it with Nicopolis.
Luk 24:15-16. καὶ αὐτός] καί is the usual form after ἐγένετο (comp. Luk 24:4; see on v. 12), and αὐτός, He Himself, of whom they were speaking.
ἐγγίσας] probably overtaking them from behind.
ἐκρατοῦντο κ.τ.λ.] they were held so that they knew Him not. Examples of κρατεῖσθαι of organs of the body: impediri, quominus vim et actionem sibi propriam exserant, see in Kypke. The expression itself, which indicates a peculiar external influence, not to speak of its telic connection, as well as the correlative διηνοίχθησαν κ.τ.λ. in Luk 24:31, should have prevented their failure to recognise Him from being attributed to an unfamiliar dress of Jesus, and to an alteration of His countenance by the tortures of crucifixion; or, on the other hand, to the disciples’ own dejection (Paulus, Kuinoel, Lange, and others). The text represents only a wonderful divine effect. The matter is otherwise represented in Mar 16:12, where Jesus appears ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ.
Luk 24:17-18. What are these discourses that ye in turn throw out to one another as ye walk, and are of gloomy countenance? Instead of καὶ ὄντες σκυθρωποί, the address passes over into the finite verb, bringing out this characteristic more emphatically, Matthiae, § 632; Kühner, § 675. 4. After καί we are not to supply τί (Beza). The relative clause οὓς ἀντιβάλλ. πρ. ἀλλ. corresponds to the idea of συζητεῖν (disputare).
σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς κ.τ.λ.] Dost thou alone dwell as a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not learned, etc.? In respect of this question of surprise, it is to be considered-(1) that the destiny of Jesus is so entirely the only thought in the soul of the two disciples, and appears to them now so absolutely as the only possible subject of their conversation and their sadness, that from their standpoint they instantly conclude from the question of the unknown one that he cannot at all know what has come to pass, since otherwise he would not begin by asking of what they speak and why they look sad; (2) that μόνος belongs to παροικεῖς and καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως; so that thus παροικεῖς Ἱερ. καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως (there is no comma to be placed before καί), taken together, constitute the ground of their question, whether it is he alone in whose experience this is the case. Hence it is wrong to take καί in the place of a relative. Comp. Joh 7:4
παροικεῖν Ἱερουσ. may either mean: dwell as a stranger in Jerusalem (thus often in the LXX.; usually with ἐν, but also with the accusative, Gen 17:8; Exo 6:4), or: dwell near, at Jerusalem (Grotius, Rosenmüller, and, with hesitation, Bleek; comp. Xen. De redit. i. 5; Isocr. Panegyr. 162; Thuc. iii. 93; Lucian, D. M. ii. 1); thus Ἱερουσ. would be in the dative. The former view is the usual and the correct one (comp. Heb 11:9; Act 7:6; Act 13:17; 1Pe 1:17; 1Pe 2:11), since the disciples might recognise the unknown, perchance, as a foreign pilgrim to the feast (even from his dialect), but not as a dweller in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Ungrammatically (not to be supported by passages such as Gen 24:37; Num 20:15; Psa 15:1; Psa 120:6, where the LXX. have translated ישב and שכן by terms more specific than the original), Theophylact, also Zeger and others, have taken παροικεῖν as simply to dwell; and Castalio, Vatablus, Clarius, and Kuinoel have taken it in the figurative sense of ξένον εἶναι and hospitem esse: “de iis, qui quid agatur ignorant, art thou then alone so strange to Jerusalem?”
Luk 24:19-21. Ποῖα] scil. οὐκ ἔγνων γενόμενα κ.τ.λ. The qualitative word of interrogation presupposes things of a special kind which must have happened; προσποιεῖται ἄγνοιαν, Euthymius Zigabenus.
οἱ δὲ εἶπον] Probably here also Cleopas was the speaker, and the other added his own assent to what was said.
ὃς ἐγένετο] not: who was (thus usually), but: who became, whereby the idea se praestitit, se praebuit (see Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4), is expressed.
ἀνὴρ προφ.] an honourable expression, Bernhardy, p. 48.
δυνατὸς ἐν ἔργῳ κ. λόγῳ] Comp. Thuc. i. 139. 4, where Pericles is called λέγειν τε καὶ πράσσειν δυνατώτατος. ἐν marks the sphere wherein, etc. Comp. Act 18:24; Act 7:22; Jdt 11:8; Sir 21:8. In the classical writers the mere dative of the instrument is the usual form. See Bornemann, Schol. p. 159. See examples of both arrangements: ἔργῳ κ. λ. and λόγῳ κ. ἔ., in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 64 f.; Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 6; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 373. In this place ἔργῳ is put first as containing the first ground of acknowledgment of the Messianic dignity. Comp. Act 1:1; Joh 10:38; Act 10:38
ἐναντίον κ.τ.λ.] i.e. so that He represented Himself as such to God and the whole people.
Luk 24:20. ὅπως τε] et quomodo, still depending on the οὐκ ἔγνως of Luk 24:18, which is mentally supplied as governing τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ κ.τ.λ. On εἰς κρίμα θανάτου, to the condemnation of death, comp. Luk 23:24
καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν] for it was their work that He was crucified by the governor. Comp. Act 2:23
Luk 24:21. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἠλπίζομεν] but we, on our part, were entertaining the hope (observe the imperfect), etc. This hope, demolished by the crucifixion, how soon was it again inflamed! Act 1:6
αὐτός] He, and no other
λυτροῦσθαι] according to the politico-theocratic idea of the national Messiah. Comp. Act 1:6, and see Theophylact.
ἀλλά γε] but indeed, although we cherished this hope. See Hermann, ad Eur. Ion. 1345, Praef. p. xx.; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 12. On the immediate juxtaposition of the two particles, a usage foreign to the older Greek writers, see Bornemann, Schol. p. 160; Klotz, ad Devar. pp. 15 f., 25; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. I. p. 331 B.
καί] (see the critical remarks): besides.
σὺν πᾶσι τούτοις] σὺν denotes the accompanying circumstance: with all this, i.e. with the having undergone all this fate, namely, of being delivered up and crucified (Luk 24:20). Comp. Neh 5:18; 3Ma 1:22; and see, generally, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 763.
τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον] The subject is Jesus, who immediately before was the subject emphatically made prominent. Comp. Beza, Kypke. ἄγειν, of time: to spend; as e.g. δέκατον ἔτος ἄγειν, to be in the tenth year, and the like, does not belong merely to the later Greek.[273] Compare the passages in Kypke. τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν is equivalent to ταύτην τρίτην οὖσαν ἡμέραν, or ταύτην, ἣ τρίτη ἐστὶν ἡμέρα. See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 7. 5. Comp. iii. 5. 9. Hence: But indeed, besides all this, He passes this present day as the third since, etc. In this case, it is true, σήμερον is superfluous, but it corresponds to the painful excitement of the words. Comp. Mar 14:29. ἄγει has been ungrammatically taken as impersonal: agitur (Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Buttmann, Bleek, and others); while others grasp at arbitrary modes of supplying the subject, as ὁ χρόνος (Camerarius), Θεός (Heinsius), ὁ ἥλιος (Er. Schmid, Heumann). Bornemann regards Ἰσραήλ as the subject: “Is dies, quem Israel hodie celebrat, tertius est, ex quo,” etc. But the context leads us neither to Israel nor to the mention of the celebration of the festival.
[273] Sophocles, El. 258, has: ἔπειτα ποίας ἡμέρας δοκεῖς μʼ ἄγειν: What kind of days thinkest thou I am spending?
Luk 24:22-23. Nevertheless on this frustration of our hopes the following also has occurred, which has again aroused them, and still (Luk 24:24) has left them till now unfulfilled.
ἐξ ἡμῶν] from our company, ὡς ἡμεῖς πισταί, Euthymius Zigabenus.
ὄρθριαι] an Attic form, instead of which, however, the later ὀρθριναί (see Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 186; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 51) is preponderatingly attested, and is, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be preferred.
καὶ μὴ εὑρ.] καὶ … ἦλθον, instead of carrying on the participial expression in conformity with γενόμεναι, continues with greater emphasis in an independent sentence.
καὶ ὀπτασίαν κ.τ.λ.] καί: and moreover, besides the fact that they found not the body.
οἳ λέγουσιν] indicative, the direct vision mingling in a lively manner with the oratio obliqua, Bernhardy, p. 299; Reisig, Conject. p. 226 f.
Luk 24:24. Τινές] therefore not merely Peter, Luk 24:12. But did Luke conceive these several persons as having gone together? Probably, according to the analogy of Luk 24:22. Moreover, comp. on Luk 24:12.
οὕτω καθὼς κ.τ.λ.] namely, that the corpse was not in the grave.
αὐτὸν δὲ οὐκ εἶδον] but Him, Him who yet, according to that angelic assurance narrated by the women, was to live, Him they saw not; a tragical conclusion!
Luk 24:25-26. Αὐτός] He on His part, after the disciples had thus helplessly expressed themselves.
ἀνόητοι (Rom 1:14; Gal 3:2 f.), without intelligence, refers to the understanding, and βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ to the whole internal living activity, in respect of which (dative) its dulness, i.e. its deficiency in the proper susceptibility and fixedness of purpose, is reproved. σκληροκαρδία, Mar 16:14, is stronger. On βραδύς as tardus in the spiritual sense, comp. Il. x. 226; Plat. Defin. p. 415 E: δυσμαθία βραδυτὴς ἐν μαθήσει. Theophr. Mor. not. 14 ἡ βραδύτης τῆς ψυχῆς. The opposite: ἀγχίνους, Plat. Phaedr. p. 239 A; Diog. Laert. vii. 93; also ὀξύς, Plat. Rep. vii. p. 526 B.
τοῦ πιστεύειν] a genitive of nearer definition dependent on βραδεῖς (see Winer, p. 290 [E. T. 407]); slow to believing confidence in.
On πιστεύειν ἐπί with a dative, comp. Mat 27:42; Rom 9:33; Rom 10:11; 1Ti 1:16; 1Pe 2:6
πᾶσιν] not merely referring to a single thing. There was wanting to them the faith without exception, otherwise they would have recognised even the suffering and death of the Messiah as prophesied, and have rightly discerned them; ἔστι γὰρ πιστεύειν καὶ μερικῶς καὶ καθόλου, Theophylact.
Luk 24:26. Must not the Messiah, etc., namely, according to the prophetically announced divine decree. Comp. Luk 24:44 ff.
ταῦτα] with emphasis: this, which He, to wit, had in fact suffered, and which causes you to be so cast down.
καὶ εἰσελθ. εἰς τ. δόξαν αὐτοῦ] not as though He had already by the resurrection in itself, and before the ascension, attained to His δόξα (for His heavenly condition is not until His glory after death, see Luk 9:26, Luk 21:27; Php 2:9 f.; 1Pe 1:21; 1Ti 3:16; Joh 20:17; Joh 17:5, and elsewhere), but out of the foregoing ἔδει, δεῖ is here to be supplied: and must He not attain unto His glory? Wherefore, on the one hand, those sufferings needed first to precede; and, on the other, He must be again alive. The definite εἰσελθ. εἰς τ. δόξ. is not to be evaporated into the general “attain His destination” (Schleiermacher). As to supplying the verb in another tense, see Bornemann on Luk 24:27, ad Xen. Apol. § 26; and, generally, Krüger, § 62. 4. 1; also Nagelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 76.
Luk 24:27. Καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τ. προφ.] ἀρξάμενος is to be conceived of successively: He began from Moses, and when He had finished with him, from all the prophets, taking them one by one in succession, consequently making of each one of them a new commencement of His διερμήνευσις. Thus the reproach of a careless (Winer), inexact (Buttmann, Bleek), or defective (de Wette) mode of expression (Act 3:24) becomes, to say the least, unnecessary. What special passages Jesus referred to, Luke unfortunately does not tell us. Theophylact adduces many, and specially Jacob Capellus, from Gen 3:15 down to 2 Chron. Comp. also Erasmus, Paraphr.[274]
διερμήνευεν] He interpreted (Act 9:36; 1Co 12:30; 2Ma 1:36; Polyb. iii. 22. 3), to wit, by explanation according to their destination referred to Him, i.e. having their fulfilment in Him.
[274] In respect of the prophecies bearing upon the sufferings of the Messiah, see, in general, Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 8 ff.
Luk 24:28-29. Ἐσχηματίζετο ποῤῥωτέρω πορεύεσθαι ὡς ἁπλῶς συνοδοιπόρος, Euthymius Zigabenus. He desired to prompt the invitation, which was a matter of decorum, but knew that it would follow. Comp. Mar 6:48. The imperfect προσεποιεῖτο (He feigned, gave Himself the air) and then the aorist παρεβιάσαντο: a lively representation.
πορεύεσθαι] not: that He is constrained or wishes to go farther, but we must conceive that for appearance’ sake He actually began to move forward.
Luk 24:29. On παρεβιάσ., they constrained, to wit, by means of urgent entreaty, comp. Act 16:15; Gen 19:3; also ἀναγκάζειν, Luk 14:23; Mat 14:22. They felt their holiest interests engaged to this stranger (Luk 24:32). That these two disciples dwelt in Emmaus is possible, but follows just as little from μεῖνον μεθʼ ἡμῶν (comp. τοῦ μεῖναι σὺν αὐτοῖς) as from εἰσῆλθε. For to the latter expression is not to be supplied εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτῶν, but from Luk 24:28 : εἰς τὴν κώμην; that invitation, however, does not of necessity mean: stay in our lodging, but may just as well signify: stay in our company, pass the night with us in the house of our host. Comp. Joh 1:39 f.
Luk 24:30. Jesus proceeds not as a guest, but as the master of the house, according to His accustomed manner in the circle of His disciples; thus, it is true, that does not appear by which they recognise Him, but probably it is the external situation, corresponding to the opening of their eyes that now follows, which enhances the certainty and the impression of the recognition. Comp. Luk 24:35.
εὐλόγησε] “Tres, qui simul comedunt, tenentur ad gratias indicendum,” Berac. f. 45, 1. It is the master of the house giving thanks before the meal. It is quite arbitrary for most of the church Fathers (Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many others) and Catholics (so also Sepp, not Schegg, but Bisping) to decide that Jesus celebrated the Lord’s Supper,[275] from which even the ἐν τῷ κατακλιθ. ought to have guarded them, since this in fact points to the time before the proper beginning of the meal (as they reclined). Comp. on Luk 3:21.
[275] The Catholics make use of vv. 30 and 35 as a defence of their Eucharistia, sub una specie. See the Confut. Confess. Aug. II. 1. Even Melanchthon does not refuse to explain the passage before us of the Lord’s Supper, disapproving, nevertheless, of the conclusion drawn from it: unam partem tantum datam esse; “quia partis appellatione reliquum significatur communi consuetudine sermonis,” Apol. x. 7, p. 234.
Luk 24:31. Αὐτῶν δὲ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί] is the opposite of οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν ἐκρατοῦντο, Luk 24:16. As the latter, so also the former, according to Luke, is to be referred to extraordinary divine causation. This is opposed to the view (Paulus, Kuinoel, and others) that the disciples, only by means of the accustomed breaking of bread and giving of thanks by Jesus, wherein they had more attentively considered Him and had seen His pierced hands, arrived at the recognition of Him who until then had been unknown to them. Comp. on Luk 24:30.
αὐτῶν] with lively emphasis placed first. What Jesus did is previously described.
ἀνοίγειν] (more strongly διανοίγειν) τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, which is often used of the healing of blind people (Mat 9:30; Mat 20:33; Joh 9:10; Joh 9:14; Joh 9:17; Joh 10:21; Joh 11:37), describes in a picturesque manner the endowing with a capacity, bodily or spiritual, of recognising what before was unknown, Gen 3:5; Gen 3:7; Gen 21:19; 2Ki 6:17; 2Ki 6:20; comp. Act 26:8
ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπʼ αὐτῶν] He passed away from them invisibly. Comp. on γίνεσθαι ἀπό τινος, to withdraw from any one, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 25; Bar 3:21. Luke intends manifestly to narrate a sudden invisible withdrawal effected through divine agency; hence those do wrong to his intention and to the expression who, like Kuinoel, make out of it only a subito ah iis discessit, so that this departure would not have been observed till it occurred (Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 474). Beza well says that Luke has not said αὐτοῖς, but ἀπʼ αὐτῶν; “ne quis existimet praesentem quidem Christum cum ipsis mansisse, sed corpore, quod cerni non posset.” The Ubiquists supported the doctrine of the invisible presence of Christ’s body by the passage before us. Comp. Calovius.
On the word ἄφαντος-which is very frequent in the poets, but only rarely used in prose, and that of a late period, and, moreover, is not found in the LXX. and the Apocrypha-instead of the classical prose word ἀφανής, see Wesseling, ad Diod. iv. 65.
Luk 24:32-33. Οὐχὶ ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν καιομένη ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν;] Was not our heart on fire within us? The extraordinarily lively emotions are, as in all languages, represented under the image of burning, of heat, of being inflamed, and the like, Wetstein and Kypke in loc.; Musgrave, ad Soph. Aj. 473. Hence the meaning: Was not our heart in an extraordinarily fervent commotion? Comp. Psa 39:4; Jer 20:9. Quite naturally the two disciples abstain from explaining more fully the excitement of feeling that they had experienced, because such an excitement, comprehending several affections, rises into consciousness, as divided into its special elements, the less in proportion as its experiences are deep, urgent, and marvellous. The connection of the question with what precedes is: “Vere Christus est, nam non alia potuit esse causa, cur in via eo loquente tantopere animus noster inflammaretur,” Maldonatus.
ὡς διήνοιγεν κ.τ.λ.] without καί (see the critical remarks) adds the special to the general asyndetically, in which form that which is urgent and impressive of the recollection expresses itself.
Luk 24:33. αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ] Certainly after such an experience the meal of which they had intended to partake was immediately given up. They had now no more irresistible necessity than that of communicating with their fellow-disciples in Jerusalem, and “jam non timent iter nocturnum, quod antea dissuaserant ignoto comiti, Luk 24:29,” Bengel.
Luk 24:34-35. Λέγοντας] belongs to τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς, who in a body met them as they arrived with the cry: ἠγέρθη ὁ κύριος κ.τ.λ. On the discrepancy with Mar 16:13, see on the passage.
ἠγέρθη and ὤφθη are placed first with triumphant emphasis, as contrasted with what is narrated at Luk 24:11-12. The appearance to Peter, which Luke has not related further (but see 1Co 15:5), took place in the interval, after what is contained in Luk 24:12. “Apparitiones utrimque factae, quibus se invicem confirmabant illi, quibus obtigerant,” Bengel.
Σίμωνι] at that time the name which was still the general favourite in the circle of the disciples. According to Lange’s fancy, the apostle after his fall laid aside his name of Peter, as a priest his consecrated robe, and an officer his sword. Jesus Himself named him, indeed, before and after his fall, almost exclusively Simon (Mat 17:25; Mar 14:37; Luk 22:31; Joh 21:15). In Luk 22:34, Πέτρε has a special significance.
Moreover, Luk 24:34 ought to have forbidden the assumption that Luke distinguishes the two disciples who went to Emmaus above the apostles (Hilgenfeld).
Luk 24:35. καὶ αὐτοί] and they on their part, as contrasted with those who were assembled.
ἐν τῇ κλάσει] not: in the breaking, but at the time of the breaking. See on Luk 24:31.
Luk 24:36-37. Αὐτὸς ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν] He Himself stood in the midst of them. These words point to the fact that Luke, who already at Luk 24:31 has related also a sudden disappearance and vanishing of Jesus, conceived of a marvellous, instantaneous appearance of the Risen One in the circle of His disciples, and this is confirmed by the narrative in Joh 20:19 of the appearance of Jesus within closed doors. The subsequently (Luk 24:37) related impression upon those who were assembled is, moreover, easily explained from this fact, although they had just before spoken as specified at Luk 24:34.
ἐν μέσῳ] “id significantius quam in medium,” Bengel.
εἰρήνη ὑμῖν] Peace to you! The usual Jewish greeting שָׁלוֹם לָכֶם, Luk 10:5.
Luk 24:37. πνεῦμα] a departed spirit, which, having come from Hades, appeared as an umbra in an apparent body; the same that Mat 14:26, calls φάντασμα.
Luk 24:38. Wherefore arise thoughts in your heart? i.e., wherefore have ye not immediately and without any consideration (see on Php 2:14) recognised me as the person I am?
Luk 24:39. In the first half of the verse Jesus desires to remove from His disciples their consternation, and that by means of their being required to convince themselves that it is He Himself (no other); in the second half He desires to oppose the notion of a πνεῦμα, and that in such a way that they should be persuaded that it is He bodily. The two parts of Luk 24:39 correspond, that is to say, to the two parts of Luk 24:38.
τὰς χεῖράς μου κ. τ. πόδας μ.] These, pointed to as a proof that it is He Himself, must afford this proof by the traces of the crucifixion, namely, by the wounds of the nails in the hands and feet (as to the nailing of the feet, see on Mat 27:35). Comp. Joh 20:20.[276] According to Paulus and de Wette, Jesus pointed to His hands and feet as the uncovered parts, in order to oppose the notion of a spirit. In this way αὐτὸς ἐγώ would have to be understood of the reality, not of the identity of His appearance. But the hands and the feet were seen even without special pointing to them; the latter presupposes a characteristic to be recognised by closer inspection. Even this characteristic, however, could not prove the reality (since it might appear as well in a φάντασμα or εἴδωλον), but probably the identity though apart from the reality, for which latter the conviction was to be added by means of touch.
ὅτι] is in both cases: that. On σάρκα κ. ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, comp. Hom. Od. xi. 219.
[276] Without reason Schleiermacher says of these wounds: “they may have been two or four” (p. 447). He has indeed taken up a position of great indifference about the question whether Jesus was actually or only apparently dead (in respect of which he sophistically misuses Act 2:27); but still a merely apparent death does not come to the same thing, and it is only opposed to the (true) view of the resurrection that the disciples took internal for external phenomena. See especially p. 471.
Luk 24:41-43. Ἔτι] in the sense of still; see Schneider, ad Plat. Rep. p. 449 C.
ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς] on account of the (presently experienced by them, comp. Luk 22:45; Act 12:14; Mat 13:44) joy. That a great and happy surprise keeps back and delays the full conviction of the truth of the happy event itself, is a matter of psychological experience; Liv. xxxix. 49: Vix sibimet ipsi prae nec opinato gaudio credentes.
καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσ. κηρίου] and (some) of a bee’s honeycomb (favus). μελισσίου is added as a distinction from any other kind of honey. The word, however, does not elsewhere occur, but μελισσαῖος (Nicander, Th. 611); 1Sa 14:27 : κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος. On διδόναι ἀπό, comp. Luk 20:10.
Luk 24:43. ἔφαγεν] in respect of which what had already gone before (Luk 24:39-40) must keep at a distance the idea of a merely apparent eating, such as is attributed to angels, Tob 12:19 (comp. Gen 18:8; Gen 19:3). Comp. Act 10:41.
Luk 24:44. Εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς] after the eating; a continuation of the same scene. According to the simple narrative, it is altogether unwarrantable to place an interval between these two passages.[277] No impartial reader could do this, and how easy would it have been for Luke to give a hint to that effect!
οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι κ.τ.λ.] these (namely, that I-as ye have now convinced yourselves-after my sufferings and death have actually arisen) are the words (in their realization, namely) which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, to wit, that all things must he fulfilled, etc. (the substance of the λόγοι). Jesus assuredly often actually said this to them, according to the substance generally. Comp. Luk 18:31 f., Luk 22:37; Mat 26:56, and elsewhere.
ἔτι ὢν σὺν ὑμ.] for by death He was separated from them, and the earlier association with them was not, moreover, now again after the resurrection restored.[278]
ἘΝ Τῷ ΝΌΜῼ Μ. Κ. ΠΡΟΦ. Κ. ΨΑΛΜΟῖς] certainly contains in itself that which is essential of the Jewish tripartite division of the Canon into law (תוֹרָה), prophets (נְבִיאִים), and Hagiographa (כְּתוּבִים). Under the law was reckoned merely the Pentateuch; under the prophets, Joshua, Judges , 1 James , 2 d Samuel, 1James , 2 d Kings (נְבִיאִים רִאשׁוֹנִים), and the prophets properly so called, except Daniel (נְבִיאִים אַהֲרו̇נִים); under the Hagiographa, all the rest of the canonical Scriptures, including Daniel, Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah (the two reckoned together as one book), and Chronicles. See Bava Bathra f. xiv. 2; Lightfoot, p. 900. Yet, according to the use of προφητ. and ψαλμ. elsewhere (comp. Luk 20:42) from the mouth of Jesus, it is not to be assumed that He by these two designations intended to express that definite literary historical extent of the נביאים, and the whole of the Hagiographa. He means the prophets proper who have prophesied of Him (Luk 24:25), from whom He certainly, moreover, did not think Daniel excluded (Mat 24:15); and by ΨΑΛΜ., the actual Psalms in the accustomed sense as that portion of the Scripture in which, besides the law and the prophets, the Messianic prophecy is chiefly deposited. Moreover, observe the non-repetition of the article before ΠΡΟΦ. and ΨΑΛΜ., whereby the three portions appear in their connection as constituting one whole of prophecy.
[277] But to say, with Ebrard, p. 596, that the passage vv. 44-49 depicts in general the whole of the teaching communicated to the disciples by Christ after His resurrection, is just as marvellous a despairing clutch of harmonistics. So also older harmonists, and even Grotius. Wieseler, in the Chronol. Synopse, p. 423 f., like Bengel and others, places between ver. 43 and ver. 44 the forty days, after the lapse of which ver. 44 ff. is spoken on the day of the ascension. But his proof depends on the presupposition that in the Gospel and in Acts 1. Luke must needs follow the same tradition in respect of the time of the ascension. The separation of ver. 44 from what precedes ought not only to have been prevented by the use of the δέ (comp. on ver. 50), but also by the use of the οὗτοι, referring as it does to what goes before. Lange, L. J. II. 3, p. 1679, represents ver. 45, beginning with τότε διὴνοιξεν κ.τ.λ., as denoting the forty days’ ministry of Jesus begun on that evening; for he maintains that the unfolding of the knowledge did not occur in a moment. But why not? At least there needed no longer time for that purpose than for the instructions of ver. 27. Rightly, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 5, declares himself opposed to separations of that kind; nevertheless, he afterwards comes back to a similar arbitrary interpolation of the forty days in vv. 45-49. If the place for the forty days has first been found here, there is indeed sufficient room to place the direction of ver. 49, καθίσατε ἐν τῇ πόλει κ.τ.λ., first after the return of the disciples from Galilee, as Lange does; but Luke does not, since he here absolutely excludes a withdrawal on their part to Galilee. Ewald rightly recognises (Gesch. des Apost. Zeitalt. p. 93) that Luke limits all appearances of the Risen One to the resurrection Sunday. So also, impartially, Bleek, Holtzmann.
[278] Grotius well says: “nam tunc tantum κατʼ οἰκονομίαν illis aderat.”
Luk 24:46-47. Καὶ οὕτως ἔδει being deleted (see the critical remarks), the passage reads: for thus it is written that the Messiah should suffer and rise again, etc., and that there should be announced, etc. By means of ὅτι Jesus adds the circumstance in the way of motive, on account of which He opened their νοῦς, etc.; οὔτω, however, has its reference in these instructions just given: in the manner, in such a way as I have just introduced you into the understanding of the Scripture. What follows, being conceived under the form of doctrinal positions (“the Messiah suffers,” etc.) as far as the end of Luk 24:47, is then the Messianic summary of Old Testament prophecy.
ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ. αὐτοῦ] on the foundation of His name-on the confession of this name, to wit, by which the whole evangelic agency is supported-depends the announcement of repentance and forgiveness, as far as concerns their specific purpose and their characteristic nature. Comp. Act 3:16; Act 4:17 f., Act 5:28; Act 5:40.
ἀρξάμενον] for which Erasmus and Markland conjectured ἀρξαμένων,[279] is the impersonal accusative neuter: incipiendo (Herodotus, iii. 91, and thereon Schweighäuser), i.e. so that it (the office of the κηρυχθῆναι) begins, i.e. from Jerusalem (Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 288). See Winer, p. 550 [E. T. 779]; Bornemann, Schol. in loc. Comp. Buttmann, Neutest. Gr. p. 321 [E. T. 374 f.].
ἀπὸ Ἱερουσ.] as the metropolis of the whole theocracy. Comp. Isa 2:3; Isa 40:9, and elsewhere; Act 1:8; Rom 15:19.
εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη] among all nations, Mat 28:19.
[279] As D actually reads. Other attempts at improvement: ἀρξαμένην, ἀρξάμενος. In respect of ἀρξάμενοι, followed by Ewald, see the critical remarks.
Luk 24:48. Ἐστε] indicative.
τούτων] is arbitrarily referred only to the sufferings and the resurrection (so also Kuinoel and de Wette). It must belong to all the three points previously mentioned. Hence: “But it is your business to testify that according to the prophecies of Scripture the Messiah actually suffered, and is risen again, and repentance and forgiveness are announced on the ground of His name,” etc. Of the former two points the apostles were eye-witnesses; of the last, they were themselves the first executors, and could therefore in their office, testify of their experience that according to the prophecies of Scripture is announced, etc.
Luk 24:49. Encouragement to this calling of bearing witness by assurance of the sending of the Spirit, and they were not to leave Jerusalem until after they had received this mission. Comp. Act 1:4. They were therefore soon to receive it, and not before their reception of it to enter upon their calling.
ἐγώ] it is I who send. The present of the near and certain future. Moreover, this assurance has as its presupposition the approaching ascension. Comp. Joh 7:39; Joh 16:7; Joh 16:13-15; Act 2:33.
καθίσατε κ.τ.λ.] In respect of the difference of the evangelical traditions about the place of sojourn of the risen Lord and His disciples, see on Mat 28:10. On καθίζειν, to remain, to abide in peace, comp. Act 18:11.
Jesus characterizes the gifts of the Holy Ghost by the expression τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρός μου (Act 1:4), so far as God promised the bestowal thereof by prophetic prediction.[280] Joe 3:1-2; Isa 44:1 ff.; Eze 36:27; Eze 39:29. Comp. Act 2:16 ff.; and on Eph 1:13; Gal 3:14. The pouring out of the Spirit is the realization of the promise of the Father.
ἕως οὖ ἐνδύσησθε δύναμιν ἐξ ὕψους] till ye have been endued with (definitely; hence without ἄν) power from on high (vim coelitus suppeditatam), to wit (comp. Act 1:8), by the Holy Spirit. The power is distinct from the Spirit Himself, Luk 1:35. The metaphoric use of ἐνδύεσθαι and other verbs of clothing, to denote spiritual relations into which man is translated or translates himself (comp. also Rom 13:14; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:24; Col 3:12), is not a Hebraism, but is also frequently found in the classical writers. See Kypke, I. p. 345. Comp. 1Ma 1:28; Sir 27:8; Test. XII. Patr. p. 587. So the Latin induere, Liv. iii. 33; Quint, Luk 1:1, and elsewhere; and the Hebrew לָבַשׁ, Jdg 6:34; 1Ch 12:18.
ἘΞ ὝΨΟΥς] comp. Eph 4:8.
[280] The discrepancy, apparent indeed, though too much insisted on by Strauss, II. p. 645 ff., between the passage before us and Joh 20:22 f. is perfectly explained when it is observed that in this passage the communication of the Spirit κατʼ ἐξοχήν, which was the substance of the prophetic promise, is meant, and that this which was to follow at Pentecost does not exclude an earlier and preliminary communication.
Luk 24:50. Ἐξήγαγε κ.τ.λ.] namely, from Jerusalem (Luk 24:33; Luk 24:49), and that after the scene just related (Luk 24:36-49). Observe in respect of this-(1) that this ἐξήγ. κ.τ.λ. does not agree with Act 10:40-41, because Jesus had openly showed Himself. (2) The immediate linking on by δέ, and therein the absence of any other specification of time, excludes (compare also the similar circumstance in Mar 16:19-20) decisively the forty days, and makes the ascension appear as if it had occurred on the day of the resurrection. Comp.Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 77 f.; Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 463. The usual naive assumption is nothing else than an arbitrary attempt at harmonizing: οὐ τότ ἀλλʼ ἐν τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ ἡμέρᾳ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν· τὰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ παρέδραμεν ὁ εὐαγγελιστής, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. Theophylact, Kuinoel, Ebrard, and many others, including Gebhardt, Auferst. Chr. p. 51 f. Luke himself could neither wish to leave the reader to guess this, nor could the reader guess it. That Luke also in other places goes on with δέ without any definite connection (in discourses: Luk 16:1, Luk 17:1, Luk 18:1, Luk 20:41; in events: Luk 20:27; Luk 20:41; Luk 20:45, Luk 21:1; de Wette, comp. Ebrard) in such an extension as this (according to de Wette, he forgot in Luk 24:50 to specify the late date), is an entirely erroneous supposition. There remains nothing else than the exegetic result-that a twofold tradition had grown up-to wit-(1) that Jesus, even on the day of the resurrection, ascended into heaven (Mark 16, Luke in the Gospel); and (2) that after His resurrection He abode still for a series of days (according to the Acts of the Apostles, forty days) upon the earth (Matthew, John). Luke in the Gospel followed the former tradition, but in the Acts the latter. Hence we may infer in regard to the latter account, either that he did not learn it until after the compiling of his Gospel, or, which is more probable, that he adopted it as the correct account. As to the variation in the traditions regarding the locality of the appearances of the risen Lord, see on Mat 28:10.
ἔξω] with verbs compounded with ἐκ; see Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 334, ad Phryn. p. 10; Bornemann, Schol. p. 166.
ἕως εἰς Βηθ.] as far as to Bethany, not necessarily into the village itself, but (comp. Mat 21:1) as far as to the part of the Mount of Olives where it enters into Bethany. Comp. Act 1:12.
ἐπάρας τ. χεῖρας] the gesture of blessing, Lev 9:22.
Luk 24:51. Ἐν τῷ εὐλογ.] therefore still during the blessing,-not immediately after, but actually engaged in the discourse and attitude of blessing on parting from them. According to the usual reading: διέστη ἀπʼ αὐτῶν κ. ἀνεφέρ. εἰς τ. οὐραν., He separated Himself from them, and (more specific statement of this separation) was taken up into heaven. The passive voice does not require us to assume that there were any agents to carry Him up (according to de Wette, probably angels or a cloud). The imperfect is pictorial. Luke thinks of the ascension as a visible incident, which he has more fully represented at Acts 1. According to Paulus, indeed, κ. ἀνεφέρ. εἰς τ. οὐρ. is held to be only an inference! Moreover, if the words κ. ἀνεφέρ. εἰς τ. οὐρ. are not genuine (see the critical remarks), then the ascension is certainly meant even by the mere διέστη ἀπʼ αὐτῶν; but here it is not yet definitely indicated, which indication, together with the detailed description, Luke reserves for the beginning of his second book,-till then, that διέστη ἀπʼ αὐτῶν was sufficient,-the matter of fact of which was already incidentally mentioned at Luk 9:51, and was elsewhere familiar. On διέστη, secessit, comp. Hom. Il. xii. 86, xvi. 470; Valckenaer, Schol. in loc.
REMARK.
On the subject of the ascension[281] the following considerations are to be noted:-(1) Considered in general, it is incontestably established as an actual fact by means of the testimony of the New Testament.[282] For, besides that in the passage before us it is historically narrated (comp. with Acts 1 and Mark 16.), it is also expressly predicted by Jesus Himself, Joh 20:17 (comp. as early as the suggestion in Joh 6:62); it is expressly mentioned by the apostles as having happened (Act 2:32-33; Act 3:21; 1Pe 3:22; Col 3:1 ff.; Eph 2:6; Eph 4:10. Comp. Act 7:56; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 9:24); and it forms-and that, too, as a bodily exaltation into heaven to the throne of the glory of God-the necessary historical presupposition of the whole preaching of the Parousia (which is a real and bodily return) as of the resuscitation of the dead and transformation of the living (which changes have their necessary condition in the glorified body of Him who is to accomplish them, viz. Christ, 1Co 15:5 ff., 1Co 15:8; 1Co 15:16; 1Co 15:22-23; Php 3:20-21, and elsewhere). (2) But the idea of a visibly, yea, sensibly glorious event must the rather be considered as an addition of subsequent tradition which grew up as a reflection of the idea of the Parousia, Act 1:11, since only Luke, and that certainly merely in the Acts (Mark not at all, Luk 16:18), expressly relates an event of that kind; but the first and fourth evangelists, although John had been an eye-witness, are wholly silent on the subject (including Joh 6:62), which they hardly either morally could have been or historically would have ventured to be, since such a highest and final external glorification would have incontrovertibly made good, even from a literary point of view, the forcible impression which that event would have necessarily produced upon the faithful, and would have just as naturally and incontrovertibly put forward this most splendid Messianic σημεῖον as the worthiest and most glorious copestone-the return to heaven corresponding to the heavenly origin. The reasons by which it has been sought to explain and justify their silence (see e.g. in Flatt’s Magaz. VIII. p. 67; Olshausen; Krabbe, p. 532 f.; Hug, Gutacht. II. p. 254 ff.; Ebrard, p. 602; Lange, II. p. 1762 ff.) are nothing more than forced, feeble, and even psychologically untenable evasions. Comp. Strauss, II. p. 657 f. (3) The body of the risen Lord was not yet in the state of glorification (it has flesh and bones, still bears the scars of the wounds, is touched, breathes, eats, speaks, walks, etc., in opposition to Theophylact, Augustine,[283] Krabbe, Ewald, Thomasius, Keim, and the old dogmatic writers); but, moreover, no longer of the same constitution as before the resurrection (Schleiermacher), but, as Origen already perceived, in a condition standing midway between[284] mundane corporeality and supra-mundane glorification-and immortal (Rom 6:9-10). Although, on account of the want of any analogy within our experience, such a condition of necessity does not admit of a more exact representation, yet still it explains in general the sort of estrangement between the risen Lord and His disciples,-the partial doubt of the latter as to His identity, His not being hindered by the crucifixion wounds, His marvellous appearance and disappearance, and the like; moreover, by the consideration that Jesus rose again in a changed bodily constitution, the physiological scruples which have been raised against His rising from not merely apparent death are removed. The actual glorification whereby His body became the σῶμα πνευματικόν (1Co 15:45-47), the σῶμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ (Php 3:21), first began in the moment of the ascension, when His body was transformed into the spiritual body, as they who are still living at the time of the Parousia shall be transformed (1Co 15:51-52), still with this difference, that the body of the latter up to that moment is still mortal (1Co 15:53), whereas the body of Christ, even from the time of the resurrection, was immortal; hence also an appeal to the marvellous healing power of Jesus, which was powerfully exercised on Himself (Hase, L. J. § 118), is here insufficient and inapplicable. The perfecting of this glorification of the body of Christ is not to be regarded as a matter to be perceived by the senses, since in general a glorified bodily organ does not fall into the category of things perceptible by human sense. The same is the case with the taking up of the glorified Christ into heaven, which, according to the analogy of Luk 24:31, is perhaps conceivable in the form of a vanishing. (4) Of the two traditions which had grown up in regard to the time of the ascension (see on Luk 24:50), in any case the one bearing that after His resurrection Jesus still abode on earth for a series of days, is decidedly to be preferred to the other, that even as early as the day of resurrection He also ascended. And this preference is to be given on the preponderating authority of John, with which is associated also Paul, by his account of the appearances of the risen Lord, 1Co 15:5-7,[285] and the notices of Act 10:41; Act 13:31.[286] Still there must remain a doubt therein whether the definite specification of forty days does not owe its origin to tradition, which fixed the approximate time (comp. Act 13:31) at this sacred number. The remarkable testimony of Barnabas, Ep. 15 (ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς), in no way agrees with the forty days.[287] (5) If the appearances of the risen Lord are transferred as products of the imaginative faculty into the subjective region (Strauss, Holsten, and others), or if, in spite of the unanimous attestation of the third day as being that on which they first began, they are viewed as spiritual visions of the glorified One in the deepest excitement of aspiration and prayer (Ewald, Gesch. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 68 ff.); then, on the one hand, instead of the resurrection, in the sense of the New Testament, as an historical starting-point, there remains only the personal continuance of the exalted One (Schenkel); and, on the other hand, the ascension does not appear as an objective fact, but just as nothing more than the end of that powerful excitement, and this must carry with it the conclusion that from him to whom He in such wise appeared, the glorified One vanished again tranquilly into His everlasting glorification with God (Ewald, l.c. p. 95 ff.). Every spiritualizing of those appearances into internal experiences, “into glorifications of the image of His character in the hearts of His faithful people” (Schenkel), and the like, must convert a strange, widespread fanaticism into the fruitful mother of the mighty apostolic work, and into the foundation of the ecclesiastical edifice, but must regard the Gospel narratives on the matter as products and representations of self-deceptions, or as a kind of ghost stories,-a view which the narratives of the Apostle John in reference thereto most decisively forbid. Comp. on Matt., Remark after Mat 28:10. This, withal, is opposed to the generalization of the concrete appearances into continued influences of the Lord, who still lived, and of His Spirit (Weizsäcker), in which for the ascension, as such, there is left nothing historical. Weisse’s view, moreover, is absolutely irreconcileable with the New Testament narratives, identifying as it does the ascension with the resurrection, so that, according to apostolic view, the fact was no going forth of the body from the grave, but the taking up of the soul (with a spiritual corporeality) out of Hades into heaven, whence the exalted One announced Himself in visions (see also Weisse, Evangelienfrage, p. 272 ff.; Gebhardt, Auferst. Chr. p. 72). To make out of the ascension absolutely the actual death which Jesus, being awakened from apparent death, soon after died (Paulus), could only be attained at the height of naturalistic outrage on the New Testament, but is not avoided also by Schleiermacher in his wavering expressions. The mythical construction out of Old Testament recollections (Strauss), and the directly hostile crumbling and destruction of the Gospel narratives (Bruno Bauer), amount to subjective assumptions contradictory of history; whilst, on the other hand, the revival of the Socinian opinion of a repeated ascension (Kinkel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 597 ff.[288]) depended on erroneous interpretations of single passages (especially Joh 20:17). Finally, the abandoning of all attempts historically to ascertain the fact (de Wette on Luk 24:53) does justice neither to the accounts and intimations of the New Testament itself, nor to the demands which science must make on the ground of those intimations.
[281] Heaven is not herein to be taken in the sense of the omnipresence of the courts of God, as the old Lutheran orthodoxy, in the interest of the doctrine of Christ’s ubiquity, would have it (thus also Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, II. p. 282 ff.), or of the unextended ground of life which bears the entire expanse of space (Schoeberlen, Grundl. d. Heils, p. 67), but locally, of the dwelling place of the glory of God; see on Mat 6:9; Mar 16:18; Act 3:21. Erroneously, likewise in the sense of ubiquity, says Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 265: “Where Jesus, according to His divinity, chooses to be essentially present, there He will also be according to His human corporeality.” No; according to the New Testament view, it must mean: He there effectuates this His presence by the Holy Spirit in whom He communicates Himself. See, especially, John 14-16.; Rom 8:9-10. A becoming bodily present is a marvellous exception, as in the case of Paul’s conversion, see on Act 9:3. Calvin, Inst. II. 16, rightly designates the being of Christ in heaven as a corporalis absentia from the earth.
[282] Against the denial of the capability of historical testimony to prove the actuality of miracles in general, see, especially, Rothe, zur Dogmat. p. 84 ff.
[283] “Claritas in Christi corpore, cum resurrexit, ab oculis discipulorum potius abscondita fuisse, quam defuisse credenda est,” Augustine, De civ. Dei, xxii. 9.
[284] Comp. Martensen’s Dogmat. § 172; Schmid, Bibl. Theol. I. p. 118; Hasse, Leben d. verklärt. Erlös. p. 113, who, however, mingling truth and error, represents the resurrection body of Christ already as σῶμα πνευματικόν (“a confluence of spirit and body,” p. 123). More accurately, Taute, Religions-philosophie, 1852, II. 1, p. 340 ff.
[285] Although at 1 Corinthians 15. it is not possible definitely to recognise whether all the appearances, which are specified before ver. 8, occurred before or after the ascension. Very little to the point, moreover, does Strauss (Christus des Glaubens, p. 179) lay stress on the fact that Paul knows nothing of “touching and eating proofs.” These, indeed, did not at all belong to the purpose and connection of his representation, as little as in the Acts at the narrative of the conversion of Paul “broiled fish and honeycomb” could find a place.
[286] But to seek to make out an agreement between the narrative of Luke about the appearances of the risen Lord with that of Paul (see e.g. Holtzmann) can in no way be successful.
[287] It may be supposed, with Weisse, that the ascension was here placed on the resurrection Sunday, or, with Ebrard, Lange, and many others, that it was generally placed on a Sunday. In respect of the latter supposition, indeed, the number forty has been given up, and it has been taken as a round number and increased to forty-two. But if, with Dressel, Patr. Ap. p. 36, a point be put after νεκρῶν, and what follows be taken as an independent clause, this is a very unfortunate evasion, by means of which καὶ φανερωθεὶς κ.τ.λ. is withdrawn from all connection, and is placed in the air. Not better is Gebhardt’s notion, Auferst. Chr. p. 52, that Barnabas, in mentioning also the ascension, did not intend to make specification of date at all for it.
[288] Comp. moreover, Taute, Religionsphilosophie, II. 1, p. 380 ff., according to whom the resurrection of Christ is said to have been His first descent out of the intelligible region of the existence of all things, but the ascension His last resurrection appearance, so that resurrection and ascension are so related to one another as special epoch-making appearances of the Lord before the brethren after His death. With such extravagant imaginations of historical details of faith is the philosophy of Herbart, even against its will, driven forth far beyond the characteristic limits which by Herbart himself are clearly and definitely laid down.
Luk 24:52. Καὶ αὐτοί] and they on their part, after the Lord was separated from them (and was taken up into heaven). To the ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τ. οὐρ. corresponds in this place the equally suspicious προσκυν. αὐτόν (see the critical remarks on Luk 24:51 f.), which is referred to Him who was exalted to heavenly dominion.
μετὰ χαρᾶς μεγάλ.] at this final blessed perfecting of their Lord Himself (Joh 14:28), and at the blessing which they had just received from Him. “Praeludia Pentecostes,” Bengel. “Corpus suum intulit coelo, majestatem suam non abstulit mundo,” Augustine.
Luk 24:53. Καὶ ἦσαν διὰ παντὸς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ] κατὰ τοὺς καιροὺς δηλονότι τῶν συνάξεων, ὅτε εἶναι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐξῆν, Euthymius Zigabenus. The popular expression διὰ παντός is not to be pressed (comp. Luk 2:37), hence it does not exclude the coming together in another locality (Act 1:13; Act 2:44) (in opposition to Strauss). Comp. Lechler, Apost. u. Nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 281. Moreover, after the pouring forth of the Spirit, they continued as pious Israelites daily in the temple, Act 2:46; Act 3:1.
Luk 24:8.And they remembered his words; by which we are taught that, though they had made little proficiency in the doctrine of Christ, still it was not lost, but was choked up, until in due time it yielded fruit.
Luk 24:12.And Peter arose, and ran to the tomb. I have no doubt that Luke here inverts the order of the narrative, as may be readily inferred from the words of John, (Joh 20:3;) and, in my opinion, the word ran (ἔδραμεν) might justly be rendered as a pluperfect tense, had run. All who possess a tolerable acquaintance with Scripture are aware that it is customary with Hebrew writers to relate afterwards those occurrences which had been omitted in their proper place. Luke mentions this circumstance for the purpose of showing more strongly the obstinacy of the apostles ill despising the words of the women, when Peter had already seen the empty grave, and had been compelled to wonder at an evident proof of the resurrection.
Luk 24:13.And lo, two of them. Although Mark touches slightly and briefly on this narrative, and Matthew and John say not a single word respecting it; yet as it is highly useful to be known and worthy of being remembered, it is not without reason that Luke treats it with so much exactness. But I have already mentioned on various occasions, that each of the Evangelists had his portion so appropriately assigned to him by the Spirit of God, that what is not to be found in one or two of them may be learned from the others. For there are also many appearances (312) which are mentioned by John, but are passed over in silence by our three Evangelists.
Before I come to the minute details, it will be proper to begin with stating briefly, that those were two chosen witnesses, by whom the Lord intended, not to convince the apostles that he was risen, but to reprove their slowness; for though at first; they were of no service, yet their testimony, strengthened by other aids, had at length its due weight with the apostles. Who they were is uncertain, except that from the name of one of them, whom we shah find that Luke shortly afterwards calls Cleopas, we may conjecture that they did not belong; to the eleven. Emmaus was an ancient, and by no means inconsiderable, town, which the Romans afterwards calledNicopolis and was not at a great distance from Jerusalem, for sixty furlongs are not more than seven thousand and four hundred paces. (313) But the place is named by Luke, not so much on account of its celebrity, as to add certainty to the narrative.
(312) “Car aussi bien il y a pluieurs recits de diverses fois que Christ s’est monstré;” — “for there are also many narratives of various times that Christ showed himself.”
(313) “Sept mille et quatre cens paas d’Italie, qui font quatre lieues et demie ou environ;” — “seven thousand and four hundred Italian paces, which are equal to four leagues and a half, or thereabouts.”
14. And they were conversing with each other. It was a proof of godliness that they endeavored to cherish their faith in Christ: though small and weak; for their conversation had no other object than to employ their reverence for their Master as a shield against the offense of the cross. Now though their questions and disputes showed an ignorance which was worthy of reproof — since, after having been informed that the resurrection of Christ would take place, they were astonished at hearing it mentioned—still their docility afforded Christ an opportunity of removing their error. For many persons intentionally put questions, because they have resolved obstinately to reject the truth; but when men are desirous to embrace the truth submissively, though they may waver on account of very small objections, and stop at slight difficulties, their holy desire to obey God finds favor in his sight, so that he stretches out his hand to them, brings them to full conviction, and does not permit them to remain irresolute. We ought, at least, to hold it as certain, that when we inquire about Christ, if this be done from a modest desire to learn, the door is opened for him to assist us; nay, we may almost say that we then call for himself to be our Teacher; as irreligious men, by their unholy speeches, drive him to a distance from them.
16. But their eyes were restrained. The Evangelist expressly states this, lest any one should think that the aspect of Christ’s body was changed, and that the features of his countenance were different from what they had formerly been. (314) For though Christ remained like himself, he was not recognized, because the eyes of beholders were held; and this takes away all suspicion of a phantom or false imagination. But hence we learn how great is the weakness of all our senses, since neither eyes nor ears discharge their office, unless so far as power is incessantly communicated to them from heaven. Our members do indeed possess their natural properties; but to make us more fully sensible that they are held by us at the will of another, God retains in his own hand the use of them, so that we ought ever to reckon it to be one of his daily favors, that our ears hear and our eyes see; for if he does not every hour quicken our senses, all their power will immediately give way. I readily acknowledge that our senses are not frequently held in the same manner as happened at that time, so as to make so gross a mistake about an object presented to us; but by a single example God shows that it is in his power to direct the faculties which he has. bestowed, so as to assure us that nature is subject to his will. Now if the bodily eyes, to which peculiarly belongs the power of seeing, are held, whenever it pleases the Lord, so as not to perceive the objects presented to them, our understandings would possess no greater acuteness, even though their original condition remained unimpaired; but no in this wretched corruption, after having been deprived of their light, they are liable to innumerable deceptions, and are sunk into such gross stupidity, that they can do nothing but commit mistakes, as happens to us incessantly. The proper discrimination between truth and falsehood, therefore, does not arise from the sagacity of our own mind, but comes to us from the Spirit of wisdom. But it is chiefly in the contemplation of heavenly things that our stupidity is discovered; for not only do we imagine false appearances to be true, but we turn the clear light into darkness.
(314) “Et qu’il y eut autres traits de visage qu’auparavant.”
17. What are those discourses which you hold with each other? What was at that time, as we perceive, done openly by Christ, we daily feel to be accomplished in ourselves in a secret manner; which is, that of his own accord he approaches us unperceived for the purpose of instructing us. Now from the reply of Cleopas it is still more evident that, as I have lately mentioned, though they were in doubt and uncertainty about the resurrection of Christ, yet they had in their hearts a reverence for his doctrine, so that they were far from having any inclination to revolt. For they do not expect that Christ will anticipate them by making himself known, or that this fellow-traveler, whoever he may be, will speak of him respectfully; but, on the contrary, having but a small and obscure light, Cleopas throws out a few sparks on an unknown man, which were intended to enlighten his mind, if he were ignorant and uninformed. The name of Christ was, at that time, so generally held in hatred and detestation, that it was not safe to speak of him respectfully; but spurning from him suspicion, he calls Christ a prophet of God, and declares that he is one of his disciples. And though this designation falls greatly below the Divine Majesty of Christ, yet the commendation which he bestows, though moderate, is laudable; for Cleopas had no other intention than to procure for Christ disciples who would submit to his Gospel. It is uncertain, however, if it was through ignorance that Cleopas spoke of Christ in terms less magnificent than the case required, or if he intended to begin with first principles, which were better known, and to rise higher by degrees. Certain it is, that a little afterwards, he does not simply place Christ in the ordinary rank of prophets, but says that he and others believed him to be the redeemer.
19. Powerful in deed and in word. Luke has employed nearly the same form of expression in reference to the person of Stephen, (Act 7:22,) where he says of Moses, by way of commendation, that he was powerful in words and in actions. But in this passage it is uncertain if it is on account of miracles that Christ is said to be powerful in actions, (as if it had been said that he was endued with divine virtues which proved that he was sent from heaven;) or if the phrase is more extensive, and means that he excelled both in ability to teach, and in holiness of life and other remarkable endowments. I prefer the latter of these views.
Before God and all the people. The addition of these words ought not to be reckoned superfluous; for they mean that the high excellence of Christ was so well known, and was demonstrated by such undoubted proofs, that he had no hypocrisy or vain ostentation. And hence we may obtain a brief definition of a true Prophet, namely, that to what he speaks he will likewise add power in actions, and will not only endeavor to appear excellent before men, but to act with sincerity as under the eyes of God.
21. But we hoped. From what follows it is evident that the hope which they had entertained respecting Christ was not broken off, though at first sight such might appear to be the import of their words. But as a person who had received no previous instruction in the Gospel might be apt to be prejudiced by the narrative which he was about to give respecting the condemnation of Christ, that he was condemned by the rulers of the Church, Cleopas meets this offense by the hope of redemption. And though he afterwards shows that it is with trembling and hesitation that he continues in this hope, yet he industriously collects all that can contribute to its support. For it is probable that he mentions the third day for no other reason than that the Lord had promised that after three days he would rise again. When he afterwards relates that the women had not fouled the body, and that they tad seen a vision of angels, and that what the women had said about the empty grave was likewise confirmed by the testimony of the men, the whole amounts to this, that Christ had risen. Thus the holy man, hesitating between faith and fear, employs what is adapted to nourish faith, and struggles against fear to the utmost of his power.
25. And he said to them. This reproof appears to be too harsh and severe for a weak man such as this was; but whoever attends to all the circumstances will have no difficulty in perceiving that our Lord had good reason for rebuking so sharply those on whom he had long bestowed labor to little purpose, and almost without any fruit. For it ought to be observed, that; what is here said was not confined to these two persons, but, as a reproof of a common fault, was intended to be conveyed by their lips to the rest of their companions. So frequently had Christ forewarned them of his death — so frequently had he even discoursed about a new and spiritual life, and confirmed his doctrine by the inspired statements of the prophets — that he would seem to have spoken to the deaf, or rather to blocks and stones; for they are struck with such horror at his death, that they know not to what hand to turn. This hesitation, therefore, he justly attributes to folly, and assigns as the reason of it their carelessness in not having been more ready to believe. Nor does he only reprove them because, while they had the best Teacher, they were dull and slow to learn, but because they had not attended to the instructions of the Prophets; as if he had said, that their insensibility admitted of no excuse, because it was owing to themselves alone, since the doctrine of the Prophets was abundantly clear, and had been fully expounded to them. In like manner, the greater part of men, at the present day, remain in ignorance through their own fault, because they are obstinate, and refuse to be instructed. But let us observe that Christ, perceiving that his disciples are excessively sluggish; commences with reproof, in order to arouse them; for this is the way in which we must subdue those whom we have found to be hardened or indolent.
26. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things? There is no room to doubt that our Lord discoursed to them about the office of Messiah, as it is described by the Prophets, that they might not take offense at his death; and a journey of three or four hours afforded abundance of time for a full explanation of those matters. Christ did not, therefore, assert in three words, that Christ ought to have suffered, but explained at great length that he had been sent in order that he might expiate, by the sacrifice of his death, the sins of the world, — that he might become a curse in order to remove the curse, — that by having guilt imputed to him he might wash away the pollutions of others. Luke has put this sentence in the form of a question, in order to present it with greater force; from which it may be inferred, that he employed arguments for showing the necessity of his death. The sum of what is stated is, that the disciples are wrong in distressing their minds about their Master’s death, (without which he could not discharge what belonged to Christ; because his sacrifice was the most important part of redemption;) for in this way they shut the gate, that he might not enter into his kingdom. This ought to be carefully observed; for since Christ is deprived of the honor due to him, if he is not reckoned to be a sacrifice for sins, the only way by which he could enter into his glory was that humiliation or emptying, (Phi 2:7,) out of which the Redeemer had arisen. But we see that no trivial offense is committed among at the present day, by the inversion of this order; for among the multitude of those who declare, in magnificent language, that Christ is King, and who extol him by divine titles, hardly one person in ten thinks of the grace which has been brought to us by his death.
27. And beginning at Moses. This passage shows us in what manner Christ is made known to us through the Gospel. It is when light is thrown on the knowledge of him by the Law and the Prophets. For never was there a more able or skillful teacher of the Gospel than our Lord himself; and we see that he borrows from the Law and the Prophets the proof of his doctrine. If it be objected that he began with easy lessons, that the disciples might gradually dismiss the Prophets, and pass on to the perfect Gospel, this conjecture is easily refuted; for we shall afterwards find it stated, that all the apostles had their understanding opened, not to be wise without the assistance of the Law, but to understand the Scriptures. In order that Christ may be made known to us through the Gospel, it is therefore necessary that Moses and the Prophets should go before as guides, to show us the way. It is necessary to remind readers of this, that they may not lend an ear to fanatics, who, by suppressing the Law and the Prophets, wickedly mutilate the Gospel; as if God intended that any testimony which he has ever given respecting his Son should become useless.
In what manner we must apply to Christ those passages respecting him which are to be found in every part of the Law and the Prophets, we have not now leisure to explain. (315) Let it suffice to state briefly, that there are good reasons why Christ is called the end of the law, (Rom 10:4.) For however obscurely and at a distance Moses may exhibit Christ in shadows, rather than in a full portrait, (Heb 10:1,) this, at least, is beyond dispute, that unless there be in the family of Abraham one exalted Head, under whom the people may be united in one body, the covenant which God made with the holy fathers will be nullified and revoked. Besides, since God commanded that the tabernacle and the ceremonies of the law should be adjusted to a heavenly pattern, (Exo 25:40; Heb 8:5,) it follows that the sacrifices and the other parts of the service of the temple, if the reality of them is to be found nowhere else, would be an idle and useless sport. (316) This very argument is copiously illustrated by the apostle, (Heb 9:1;) for, assuming this principle, that the visible ceremonies of the law are shadows of spiritual things, he shows that in the whole of the legal priesthood, in the sacrifices, and in the form of the sanctuary, we ought to seek Christ.
Bucer, too, somewhere throws out a judicious conjecture, that, amidst this obscurity, the Jews were accustomed to pursue a certain method of interpreting Scripture which had been handed down to them by tradition from the fathers. But that I may not involve my inquiries in any uncertainty, I shall satisfy myself with that natural and simple method which is found universally in all the prophets, who were eminently skilled in the exposition of the Law. From the Law, therefore, we may properly learn Christ, if we consider that the covenant which God made with the fathers was founded on the Mediator; that the sanctuary, by which God manifested the presence of his grace, was consecrated by his blood; that the Law itself, with its promises, was sanctioned by the shedding of blood; that a single priest was chosen out of the whole people, to appear in the presence of God, in the name of all, not as an ordinary mortal, but clothed in sacred garments; and that no hope of reconciliation with God was held out to men but through the offering of sacrifice. Besides, there is a remarkable prediction, that the kingdom would be perpetuated in the tribe of Judah, (Gen 49:10.) The prophets themselves, as we have hinted, drew far more striking portraits of the Mediator, though they had derived their earliest acquaintance with him from Moses; for no other office was assigned to them than to renew the remembrance of the covenant, to point out more clearly the spiritual worship of God, to found on the Mediator the hope of salvation, and to show more clearly the method of reconciliation. Yet since it had pleased God to delay the full revelation till the coming of his Son, the interpretation of them was not superfluous.
(315) “Cela passeroit la mesure de ce present oeuvre;” — “that would exceed the limits of the present work.”
(316) “Un jeu d’enfans;” — “a game for children.”
28. And they drew near to the village. There is no reason for supposing, as some commentators have done, that this was a different place from Emmaus; for the journey was not so long as to make it necessary for them to take rest for the night at a nearer lodging. We know that seven thousand paces—even though a person were to walk slowly for his own gratification—would be accomplished in four hours at the utmost; and, therefore, I have no doubt that Christ had now reached Emmaus.
And he seemed as if he would go farther. Now as to the question, Can insincerity apply to him who is the eternal truth of God? I answer, that the Son of God was under no obligation to make all his designs known. Still, as insincerity of any kind is a sort of falsehood, the difficulty is not yet removed; more especially as this example is adduced by many to prove that they are at liberty to tell lies. But I reply, that Christ might without falsehood have pretended what is here mentioned, in the same manner that he gave himself out to be a stranger passing along the road; for there was the same reason for both. A somewhat more ingenious solution is given by Augustine, (in his work addressed To Consentius, Book II., chap. 13, and in the book of Questions on the Gospels, chap. 51,) for he chooses to enumerate this kind of feigning among tropes and figures, and afterwards among parables and fables. For my own part, I am satisfied with this single consideration, that as Christ for the time threw a veil over the eyes of those with whom he was conversing, so that he had assumed a different character, and was regarded by them as all ordinary stranger, so, when he appeared for the time to intend to go farther, it was not through pretending any thing else than what he had resolved to do, but because he wished to conceal the manner of his departure; for none will deny that he did go farther, since he had then withdrawn from human society. So then by this feigning he did not deceive his disciples, but held them for a little in suspense, till the proper time should arrive for making himself known. It is, therefore, highly improper to attempt to make Christ an advocate of falsehood; and we are no more at liberty to plead his example for feigning any thing, than to endeavor to equal his divine power in shutting the eyes of men. Our safest course is to adhere to the rule which has been laid down to us, to speak with truth and simplicity; not that our Lord himself ever departed from the law of his Father, but because, without confining himself to the letter of the commandments, he kept by the true meaning of the law; but we, on account of the weakness of our senses, need to be restrained in a different manner.
30. He took bread. Augustine, and the greater part of other commentators along with him, have thought that Christ gave the bread, not as an ordinary meal, but as the sacred symbol of his body. And, indeed, it might be said with some plausibility, that the Lord was at length recognized in the spiritual mirror of the Lord’s Supper; for the disciples did not know him, when they beheld him with the bodily eyes. But as this conjecture rests on no probable grounds, I choose rather to view the words of Luke as meaning that Christ, in taking the bread, gave thanks according to his custom. But it appears that he employed his peculiar and ordinary form of prayer, to which he knew that the disciples had been habitually accustomed, that, warned by this sign, they might arouse their senses. In the meantime, let us learn by the example of our Master, whenever we eat bread, to offer thanksgiving to the Author of life, — an action which will distinguish us from irreligious men.
Luk 24:31.And their eyes were opened. By these words, we are taught that there was not in Christ any metamorphosis, or variety of forms, by which he might impose on the eyes of men, (as the poets feign their Proteus,) but that, on the contrary, the eyes of beholders were mistaken, because they were covered; just as, shortly afterwards, he vanished from the eyes of those very persons, not because his body was in itself invisible, but because God, by withdrawing their rigor, blunted their acuteness. Nor ought we to wonder that Christ, as soon as he was recognized, immediately disappeared; for it was not advantageous that they should any longer behold him, lest, as they were naturally too much addicted to the earth, they might desire again to bring him back to an earthly life. So far, then, as it was necessary to assure them of his resurrection, he made himself visible to them; but by the sudden departure, he taught them that they must seek him elsewhere than in the world, because the completion of the new life was his ascension to heaven.
32. Did not our heart burn within us? Their recognition of Christ led the disciples to a lively perception of the secret and hidden grace of the Spirit, which he had formerly bestowed upon them. For God sometimes works in his people in such a manner, that for a time they are not aware of the power of the Spirit, (of which, however, they are not destitute,) or, at least, that they do not perceive it distinctly, but only feel it by a secret movement. Thus the disciples had formerly indeed felt an ardor, which they now remember, but which they had not then observed: now that Christ has made himself known to them, they at length begin to consider the grace which they had formerly, as it were, swallowed without tasting it, and perceive that they were stupid. For they accuse themselves of indifference, as if they had said, “How did it happen that we did not recognize him while he was talking? for when he penetrated into our hearts, we ought to have perceived who he was.” But they conclude that he is Christ, not simply from the bare sign that his word was efficacious to inflame their hearts, but because they ascribe to him the honor which belongs to him, that when he speaks with the mouth, he likewise inflames their hearts inwardly by the warmth of his Spirit. Paul, indeed, boasts that the ministration of the Spirit was given to him, (2. o 3:8;) and Scripture frequently adorns the ministers of the word with such titles as the following; that they convert the hearts, enlighten the understandings, and renew men so as to become pure and holy sacrifices; but then it is not to show what they do by their own power, but rather what the Lord accomplishes by means of them. But both belong equally to Christ alone, to pronounce the outward voice, and to form the hearts efficaciously to the obedience of faith.
It cannot be doubted that he then engraved an uncommon Mark on the hearts of these two men, that they might at length perceive that in speaking he had breathed into them a divine warmth. For though the word of the Lord is always fire, yet a fiery rigor was at that time manifested in a peculiar and unusual, manner in the discourse of Christ, and was intended to be an evident proof of his divine power; for it is he alone who baptizeth in the Holy Ghost and in fire, (Luk 3:16.) Yet let us remember that it is the proper fruit of heavenly doctrine, whoever may be the minister of it, to kindle the fire of the Spirit in the hearts of men, to purify and cleanse the affections of the flesh, or rather to burn them up, and to kindle a truly fervent love of God; and by its flame, as it were, to carry away men entirely to heaven.
33. And they arose in the same hour. (320) The circumstance of the time, and the distance of the places, show with what ardor those two men turned to convey the intelligence to their fellow-disciples. As they entered a lodging towards evening, it is probable that the Lord had not made himself known to them before night came on. To perform a journey of three hours in the dead of night was exceedingly inconvenient; yet they rise that very instant, and return in haste to Jerusalem. And, indeed, if they had only gone thither next day, their tardiness might have exposed them to suspicion; but as they chose rather to deprive themselves of the repose of the night than to allow the slightest delay in making the apostles partakers of their joy, the very haste gave additional credit to their narrative. Now whenLuke says that they arose in the same hour, (321) it is probable that they came to the disciples about midnight. But, according to the testimony of the same Luke, the disciples were at that time conversing together; and hence we learn their anxiety, and industry, and ardor, in spending almost the whole night without sleep, and unceasingly making inquiries at each other, until the resurrection of Christ was ascertained by a multitude of testimonies.
(320) “Au mesme instant;” — “that very instant.”
(321) “Au mesme instant;” — “that very instant.”
34. Saying, The Lord is actually risen. By these words Luke means that those persons who had brought to the apostles joyful intelligence to confirm their minds, were informed by the disciples respecting another appearance. Nor can it be doubled that this mutual confirmation was the reward which God bestowed on them for their holy diligence. By a comparison of the time, we may conclude that Peter, after having returned from the sepulcher, was in a state of great perplexity and uncertainty, until Christ showed himself to him, and that, on the very day that he had visited the sepulcher, he obtained his wish. Hence arose that mutual congratulation among the eleven, that there was now no reason to doubt, because the Lord had appeared to Simon.
But this appears to disagree with the words of Mark, who says, that the eleven did not even believe those two persons; for how could it be that those who were already certain now rejected additional witnesses, and remained in their former hesitation? By saying that he is actually risen, they acknowledge that the matter is beyond all doubt. First, I reply, that the general phrase contains a synecdoche; for some were harder or less ready to believe, and Thomas was more obstinate than all the rest, (Joh 20:25.) Secondly, We may easily infer that they were convinced in the same way as usually happens to persons who are astonished, and who do not consider the matter calmly; and we know that such persons are continually falling into various doubts. However that may be, it is evident from Luke, that the greater part of them, in the midst of that overpowering amazement, not, only embraced willingly what was told them, but contended with their own distrust; for by the word actually they cut off all ground for doubt. And yet we shall soon afterwards see that, a second and a third time, in consequence of their astonishment, they fell back into their former doubts.
36. Jesus himself stood in the midst of them. While the Evangelist John copiously details the same narrative, (Joh 20:19,) he differs from Luke in some circumstances. Mark, too, differs somewhat in his brief statement. As to John, since he only collects what Luke omitted, both may be easily reconciled. There is no contradiction about the substance of the fact; unless some person were to raise a debate about the time: for it is there said that Jesus entered in the evening, while it is evident, from the thread of the narrative, that he appeared at a late hour in the night, when the disciples had returned from Emmaus. But I do not think it right to insist precisely on the hour of the evening. On the contrary, we may easily and properly extend to a late hour of the night what is here said, and understand it to mean that Christ came to them after the evening, when the apostles had shut the doors, and kept themselves concealed within the house. In short, John does not describe the very commencement of the night, but simply means that, when the day was past, and after sunset, and even at the dead hour of night, Christ came to the disciples contrary to their expectation.
Still there arises here another question, since Mark and Luke relate that the eleven were assembled, when Christ appeared to them; and John says that Thomas was then absent, (Joh 20:24.) But there is no absurdity in saying that the number — the eleven — is here put for the apostles themselves, though one of their company was absent. We have lately stated—and the fact makes it evident—that John enters into the details with greater distinctness, because it was his design to relate what the others had omitted. Besides, it is beyond a doubt that the three Evangelists relate the same narrative; since John expressly says that it was only twice that Christ appeared to his disciples at Jerusalem, before they went to Galilee; for he says that he appeared to them the third time at the sea of Tiberias, (Joh 21:1) He had already described two appearances of our Lord, one which took place on the day after his resurrection, (Joh 20:19,) and the other which followed eight days afterwards, (Joh 20:26) though, were any one to choose rather to explain the second appearance to be that which is found in the Gospel by Mark, I should not greatly object.
I now return to the words of Luke. He does not, indeed, say that Christ, by his divine power, opened for himself the doors which were shut, (Joh 20:26;) but something of this sort is indirectly suggested by the phrase which he employs, Jesus stood. For how could our Lord suddenly, during the night, stand in the midst of them, if he had not entered in a miraculous manner? The same form of salutation is employed by both, Peace be to you; by which the Hebrews mean, that for the person whom they address they wish happiness and prosperity.
37. And they were terrified and affrighted. John does not mention this terror; but as he also says that Christ showed his hands and sides to the disciples, we may conjecture that some circumstance had been omitted by him. Nor is it at all unusual with the Evangelists, when they aim at brevity, to glance only at a part of the facts. From Luke, too, we learn that the terror excited in them by the strangeness of the spectacle was such, that they dare not trust their eyes. But a little ago, they had come to the conclusion that the Lord was risen, (verse 34,) and had spoken of it unhesitatingly as a matter fully ascertained; and now, when they behold him with their eyes, their senses are struck with astonishment, so that they think he is a spirit. Though this error, which arose from weakness, was not free from blame, still they did not so far forget themselves as to be afraid of enchantments. But though they did not think that they are imposed upon, still they are more inclined to believe that an image of the resurrection is exhibited to them in vision by the Spirit, than that Christ himself, who lately died on the cross, is alive and present. So then they did not suspect that this was a vision intended to deceive them, as if it had been an idle phantom, but, seized with fear, they thought only that there was exhibited to them in spirit what was actually placed before their eyes.
38. Why are you troubled? By these words they are exhorted to lay aside terror, and regain the possession of their minds, that, having returned to the rigor of their senses, they may judge of a matter which is fully ascertained; for so long as men are seized with perturbation, they are blind amidst the clearest light. In order, therefore, that the disciples may obtain undoubted information, they are enjoined to weigh the matter with calmness and composure.
And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? In this second clause, Christ reproves another fault, which is, that by the variety of their thoughts they throw difficulties in their own way. By saying that thoughts arise, he means that the knowledge of the truth is choked in them in such a manner, that seeing they do not see, (Mat 13:14;) for they do not restrain their wicked imaginations, but, on the contrary, by giving them free scope, they permit them to gain the superiority. And certainly we find it to be too true, that as, when the sky has been clear in the morning, clouds afterwards arise to darken the clear light of the sun; so when we allow our reasonings to arise with excessive freedom in opposition to the word of God, what formerly appeared clear to us is withdrawn from our eyes. We have a right, indeed, when any appearance of absurdity presents itself, to inquire by weighing the arguments on both sides; and, indeed, so long as matters are doubtful, our minds must inevitably be driven about in every direction: but we must observe sobriety and moderation, lest the flesh exalt itself more highly than it ought, and throw out its thoughts far and wide against heaven.
39. Look at my hands and my feet. He calls upon their bodily senses as witnesses, that they may not suppose that a shadow is exhibited to them instead of a body. And, first, he distinguishes between a corporeal man and a spirit; as if he had said, “Sight and touch will prove that I am a real man, who have formerly conversed with you; for I am clothed with that flesh which was crucified, and which still bears the marks of it.” Again, when Christ declares that his body may be touched, and that it has solid bones, this passage is justly and appropriately adduced by those who adhere to us, for the purpose of refuting the gross error about the transubstantiation of bread into the body, or about the local presence of the body, which men foolishly imagine to exist in the Holy Supper. For they would have us to believe that the body of Christ is in a place where no Mark of a body can be seen; and in this way it will follow that it has changed its nature, so that it has ceased to be what it was, and from which Christ proves it to be a real body. If it be objected, on the other hand, that his side was then pierced, and that his feet and hands were pierced and wounded by the nails, but that now Christ is in heaven without any vestige of wound or injury, it is easy to dispose of this objection; for the present question is not merely in what form Christ appeared, but what he declares as to the real nature of his flesh. Now he pronounces it to be, as it were, a distinguishing character of his body, that he may be handled, and therefore differs from a spirit. We must therefore hold that the distinction between flesh and spirit, which the words of Christ authorize us to regard as perpetual, exists in the present day.
As to the wounds, we ought to look upon this as a proof by which it was intended to prove to us all, that Christ rose rather for us them for himself; since, after having vanquished death, and obtained a blessed and heavenly immortality, yet, on our account, he continued for a time to bear some remaining marks of the cross. It certainly was an astonishing act of condescension towards the disciples, that he chose rather to want something that was necessary to render perfect the glory of the resurrection, than to deprive their faith of such a support. But it was a foolish and an old wife’s dream, to imagine that he will still continue to bear the marks of the wounds, when he shall come to judge the world.
Luk 24:41.But while they yet believed not for joy. This passage shows also that they were not purposely incredulous, like persons who deliberately resolve not to believe; but while their will led them to believe eagerly, they were held bound by the vehemence of their feelings, so that they could not rest satisfied. For certainly the joy which Luke mentions arose from nothing but faith; and yet it hindered their faith from gaining the victory. Let us therefore observe with what suspicion we ought to regard the vehemence of our feelings, which, though it may have good beginnings, hurries us out of the right path. We are also reminded how earnestly we ought to struggle against every thing that retards faith, since the joy which sprung up in the minds of the apostles from the presence of Christ was the cause of their unbelief.
43. And he took, and ate it in their presence. Here we perceive, on the other hand, how kindly and gently Christ bears with the weakness of his followers, since he does not fail to give them this new support when they are falling. And, indeed, though he has obtained a new and heavenly life, and has no more need of meat and drink than angels have, still he voluntarily condescends to join in the common usages of mortals. During the whole course of his life, he had subjected himself to the necessity of eating and drinking; and now, though relieved from that necessity, he eats for the purpose of convincing his disciples of the certainty of his resurrection. Thus we see how he disregarded himself, and chose always to be devoted to our interests. This is the true and pious meditation on this narrative, in which believers may advantageously rest, dismissing questions of mere curiosity, such as, “Was this corruptible food digested?” “What sort of nourishment did the body of Christ derive from it?” and, “What became of what did not go to nourishment?” As if it had not been in the power of Him who created all things out of nothing to reduce to nothing a small portion of food, whenever he thought fit. As Christ really tasted the fish and the honeycomb, in order to show that he was a man, so we cannot doubt that by his divine power he consumed what was not needed to pass into nourishment. Thus the angels, at the table of Abraham, (Gen 18:1,) having been clothed with real bodies, did actually, I have no doubt, eat and drink; but yet I do not therefore admit that the meat and drink yielded them that refreshment which the weakness of the flesh demands; but as they were clothed with a human form for the sake of Abraham, so the Lord granted this favor to his servant, that those heavenly visitors ate before his tent. Now if we acknowledge that the bodies which they assumed for a time were reduced to nothing after they had discharged their embassy, who will deny that the same thing happened as to the food?
44. These are the words. Though it will afterwards appear from Matthew and Mark that a discourse similar to this was delivered in Galilee, yet I think it probable that Luke now relates what happened on the day after his resurrection. For what John says of that day, that he breathed on them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost, (Joh 20:22) agrees with the words of Luke which here immediately follow, that he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. By these words Christ indirectly reproves their gross and shameful forgetfulness, that, though they had long ago been fully informed of his future resurrection, they were as much astonished as if it had never been mentioned to them. The import of his words is: “Why do you hesitate as if this had been a new and unexpected occurrence, while it is only what I frequently predicted to you? Why do you not rather remember my words? For if hitherto you have reckoned me worthy of credit, this ought to have been known to you from my instructions before it happened.” In short, Christ tacitly complains that his labor has been thrown away on the apostles, since his instruction has been forgotten.
All things which are written concerning me. He now rebukes them more sharply for their slowness, by declaring that he brought forward nothing that was new but that he only reminded them of what had been declared by the Law and the Prophets, with which they ought to have been familiar from their childhood. But though they had been ignorant of the whole doctrine of religion, nothing could have been more unreasonable than not to embrace readily what they knew to have undoubtedly proceeded from God; for it was a principle admitted by the whole nation, that there was no religion but what was contained in the Law and the Prophets. The present division of the Scriptures is more copious than what we find in other passages; for besides the Law and the Prophets, he adds, in the third place, the Psalms, which, though they might with propriety have been reckoned among the Prophets, have, something distinct and peculiar to themselves. Yet the division into two par which we have seen elsewhere, (Luk 16:16; Joh 1:45,) embraces notwithstanding the whole of Scripture.
45. Then he opened their understanding. As the Lord had formerly discharged the office of Teacher, with little or no improvement on the part of the disciples, he now begins to teach them inwardly by his Spirit; for words are icily wasted on the air, until the minds are enlightened by the gift of understanding. It is true, indeed, that
the word of God is like a lamp,
(Psa 119:105;)
but it shines in darkness and amidst the blind, until the inward light is given by the Lord, to whom it peculiarly belongs to enlighten the blind, (Psa 146:8.) And hence it is evident how great is the corruption of our nature, since the light of life exhibited to us in the heavenly oracles is of no avail to us. Now if we do not perceive by the understanding what is right, how would the will be sufficient for yielding obedience? We ought, therefore, to acknowledge that we come short in every respect, so that the heavenly doctrine proves to be useful and efficacious to us, only so far as the Spirit both forms our minds to understand it, and our hearts to submit to its yoke; and, therefore, that in order to our being properly qualified for becoming his disciples, we must lay aside all confidence in our own abilities, and seek light from heaven; and, abandoning the foolish opinion of free-will, must give ourselves up to be governed by God. Nor is it without reason that Paul bids men
become fools, that they may be wise to God,
(1. o 3:18;)
for no darkness is more dangerous for quenching the light of the Spirit than reliance on our own sagacity.
That they might understand the Scriptures. Let the reader next observe, that the disciples had not the eyes of their mind opened, so as to comprehend the mysteries of God without any assistance, but so far as they are contained in the Scriptures; and thus was fulfilled what is said,
(Psa 119:18,) Enlighten mine eyes,
that I may behold the wonders of thy law.
For God does not bestow the Spirit on his people, in order to set aside the use of his word, but rather to render it fruitful. It is highly improper, therefore, in fanatics, under the pretense of revelations, to take upon themselves the liberty of despising the Scriptures; for what we now read in reference to the apostles is daily accomplished by Christ in all his people, namely, that by his Spirit he guides us to understand the Scriptures, and does not hurry us away into the idle raptures of enthusiasm.
But it may be asked, Why did Christ choose to lose his labor, during the entire period of three years, in teaching them, rather than to open their understandings from the very outset? I reply, first, though the fruit of his labor did not immediately appear, still it was not useless; for when the new light was given to them, they likewise perceived the advantage of the former period. For I regard these words as meaning, not only that he opened their understandings, that, in future they might be ready to receive instruction, if any thing were stated to them, but that they might call to remembrance his doctrine, which they had formerly heard without any advantage. Next, let us learn that this ignorance, which lasted during three years, was of great use for informing them that from no other source than from the heavenly light did they obtain their new discernment. Besides, by this fact Christ gave an undoubted proof of his Divinity; for he not only was the minister of the outward voice, which sounded in their ears, but by his hidden power he penetrated into their minds, and thus showed that what, Paul tells us, does not belong to the teachers of the Church is the prerogative of Him alone, (1. o 3:7.) Yet it ought to be observed, that the apostles were not so destitute of the light of understanding as not to hold certain elementary principles; but as it was only a slight taste, it is reckoned to be a commencement of true understanding when the veil is removed, and they behold Christ in the Law and the Prophets.
46. And he said to them, Thus it is written. The connection of these words refutes the calumny of those who allege that outward doctrine would be superfluous, if we did not naturally possess some power of understanding. “Why,” say they, “would the Lord speak to the deaf?” But we see that, when the Spirit of Christ, who is the inward Teacher, performs his office, the labor of the minister who speaks is not thrown away; for Christ, after having bestowed on his followers the gift of understanding, instructs them out of the Scriptures with real advantage. With the reprobate, indeed, though the outward word passes away as if it were dead, still it renders them inexcusable.
As to the words of Christ, they are founded on this principle: Whatever is written must be fulfilled, for God declared nothing by his prophets but what he will undoubtedly accomplish.” But by these words we are likewise taught what it is that we ought chiefly to learn from the Law and the Prophets; namely, that since Christ is the end and the soul of the law, (Rom 10:4,) whatever we learn without him, and apart from him, is idle and unprofitable. Whoever then desires to make great proficiency in the Scriptures ought always to keep this end in view. Now Christ here places first in order his death and resurrection, and afterwards the fruit which we derive from both. For whence come repentance and forgiveness of sins, but because our old man is crucified with Christ, (Rom 6:6,) that by his grace we may rise to newness of life; and because our sins have been expiated by the sacrifice of his death, our pollution has been washed away by his blood, and we have, obtained righteousness through his resurrection? He teaches, therefore, that in his death and resurrection we ought to seek the cause and grounds of our salvation; because hence arise reconciliation to God, and regeneration to a new and spiritual life. Thus it is expressly stated that neither forgiveness of sins nor repentance can be preached but in his name; for, on the one hand, we have no right to expect the imputation of righteousness, and, on the other hand, we do not obtain self-denial and newness of life, except so far as
he is made to us righteousness and sanctification,
(1. o 1:30.)
But as we have elsewhere treated copiously of this summary of the Gospel, it is better to refer my readers to those passages for what they happen not to remember, than to load them with repetitions.
47. To all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Christ now discovers clearly what he had formerly concealed—that the grace of the redemption brought by him extends alike to all nations. For though the prophets had frequently predicted the calling of the Gentiles, still it was not revealed in such a manner that the Jews could willingly admit the Gentiles to share with them in the hope of salvation. Till his resurrection, therefore, Christ was not acknowledged to be any thing more than the Redeemer of the chosen people alone; and then, for the first time, was the wall of partition (Eph 2:14) thrown down, that they who had been strangers, (Eph 2:19,) and who had formerly been scattered, might be gathered into the fold of the Lord. In the meantime, however, that the covenant of God might not seem to be made void, Christ has assigned to the Jews the first rank, enjoining the apostles to begin at Jerusalem. For since God had peculiarly adopted the posterity of Abraham, they must have been preferred to the rest of the world. This is the privilege of the firstborn which Jeremiah ascribes to them, when Jehovah says, I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is first-born, (Jer 30:9.) This order, too, Paul everywhere observes with the greatest care, telling us that Christ came and proclaimed peace to those who were near, and afterwards to strangers who were at a distance, (Eph 2:17.)
48. And you are witnesses of those things. He does not yet commission them to preach the gospel, but only reminds them to what service he has appointed them, that they may prepare themselves for it in due time. He holds out this, partly as a consolation to soothe their grief, and partly as a spur to correct their sloth. Conscious of their recent departure from their Master, they must have been in a state of dejection and here, contrary to all expectation, Christ bestows on them incredible honor, enjoining them to publish to the whole world the message of eternal salvation. In this manner he not only restores them to their former condition, but by the extent of this new favor he utterly obliterates the recollection of their heinous crimes; but at the same time, as I have said, he stimulates them, that they may not be so slow and dilatory in reference to the faith of which they were appointed to be preachers.
49. And, lo, I send. That the apostles may not be terrified by their weakness, he invites them to expect new and extraordinary grace; as if he had said, though you feel yourselves to be unfit for such a charge, there is no reason why you should despond, because I will send you from heaven that power which I know that you do not possess. The more fully to confirm them in this confidence, he mentions that the Father had promised to them the Holy Spirit; for, in order that they might prepare themselves with greater alacrity for the work, God had already encouraged them by his promise, as a remedy for their distrust. Christ now puts himself in the place of the Father, and undertakes to perform the promise; in which he again claims for himself divine power. To invest feeble men with heavenly power, is a part of that glory which God swears that he will not give to another: and, therefore, if it belongs to Christ, it follows that he is that God who formerly spoke by the mouth of the prophet, (Isa 42:8.) And though God promised special grace to the apostles, and Christ bestowed it on them, we ought to hold universally that no mortal is of himself qualified for preaching the gospel, except so far as God clothes him with his Spirit, to supply his nakedness and poverty. And certainly, as it is not in reference to the apostles alone that Paul exclaims,
(2. o 2:16,)
And who shall be found sufficient for these things?
so all whom God raises up to be ministers of the gospel must be endued with the heavenly Spirit; and, therefore, in every part of Scripture he is promised to all the teachers of the Church without exception.
But remain you in the city of Jerusalem. That they may not advance to teach before the proper time, Christ enjoins on them silence and repose, until, sending them out according to his pleasure, he may make a seasonable use of their labors. And this was a useful trial of their obedience, that, after having been endued with the understanding of the Scripture, and after having had the grace of the Spirit breathed on them, (Joh 20:22;) yet because the Lord had forbidden them to speak, they were silent as if they had been dumb. For we know that those who expect to gain applause and admiration from their hearers are very desirous to appear in public. Perhaps, too, by this delay, Christ intended to punish them for indolence, because they did not, in compliance with his injunction, set out immediately, on the same day, for Galilee. However that may be, we are taught by their example, that we ought to attempt nothing but as the Lord calls us to it; and, therefore, though they may possess some ability to teach in public, let men remain in silence and retirement, until the Lord lead them by the hand into the public assembly. When they are commanded to remain at Jerusalem, we must understand this to mean, after they had returned from Galilee. For, as we shortly afterwards learn from Matthew, though he gave them an opportunity of seeing him at Jerusalem, still he did not change his original intention to go to Galilee, (Mat 26:32.) The meaning of the word, therefore, is, that after having given them injunctions at the appointed place, he wishes them to remain silent for a time, until he supplies them with new rigor.
Luk 24:50.And lifted up his hands, and blessed them; by which he showed that the office of blessing, which was enjoined on the priests under the law, belonged truly and properly to himself. When men bless one another it is nothing else than praying in behalf of their brethren; but with God it is otherwise, for he does not merely befriend us by wishes, but by a simple act of his will grants what is desirable for us. But while He is the only Author of all blessing, yet that men might obtain a familiar view of his grace, he chose that at first the priests should bless in his name as mediators. Thus Melchizedek blessed Abraham, (Gen 14:19,) and in Num 6:23, a perpetual law is laid down in reference to this matter. To this purport also is what we read in Psa 118:26, We bless you out of the house of the Lord In short, the apostle has told us that to bless others is a Mark of superiority; for the less, he says, is blessed by the greater, (Heb 7:7.) Now when Christ, the true Melchizedek and eternal Priest, was manifested, it was necessary that in him should be fulfilled what had been shadowed out by the figures of the law; as Paul also shows that we are blessed in him by God the Father, that we may be rich in all heavenly blessings, (Eph 1:3.) Openly and solemnly he once blessed the apostles, that believers may go direct to himself, if they desire to be partakers of his grace. In the lifting up of the hands is described an ancient ceremony which, we know:, was formerly used by the priests.
52. And having worshipped him, they returned. By the word worship, Luke means, first, that the apostles were relieved from all doubt, because at that time the majesty of Christ shone on all sides, so that there was no longer any room for doubting of his resurrection; and, secondly, that for the same reason they began to honor him with greater reverence than when they enjoyed his society on earth. For the worship which is here mentioned was rendered to him not only as Master or Prophet, nor even as the Messiah, whose character had been but half known, but as the King of glory and the Judge of the world. Now as Luke intended to give a longer narrative, he only states briefly what the apostles did during ten days. The amount of what is said is, that through the fervor of their joy they broke out openly into the praises of God, and were continually in the temple; not that they remained there by day and by night, but that they attended the public assemblies, and were present at the ordinary and stated hours to render thanksgiving to God. This joy is contrasted with the fear which formerly kept them retired and concealed at home.
