xvi. 1–8. The Women and the Empty Tomb: cf. Matt. xxviii. 1–8; Luke xxiv. 1–10; also John xx. 1–18.

1. And when the sabbath was past. That is, after sunset on the Saturday. According to Jewish reckoning it was now the third day after the crucifixion, Friday night, Saturday, and Saturday night making three days.bought spices. Luke writes as if the holy women had prepared the spices and ointments before the sabbath (xxiii. 56). The women are those previously mentioned as looking on the cross ‘from afar’; of whom two are also said to have ‘beheld’ where Jesus ‘was laid.’ They had probably observed what was done by Joseph and Nicodemus in preparing the sacred body for burial. They may have seen also that that had been hastily done as the sabbath was so near (Luke xxiii. 54). They procure what was necessary to complete the work—the aromatic herbs and the ointments with which to embalm the sacred body. Compare the account of the burying of King Asa (2 Chron. xvi. 14). [Salmond, 1906]

very early on the first day of the week. The four Evangelists agree in the care with which they note the time. Their terms are remarkably independent; but, while they differ, they all indicate substantially the same part of the day. Matthew gives, ‘as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week’; Mark, ‘very early on the first day of the week … when the sun was risen’; Luke, ‘on the first day of the week, at early dawn’; John, ‘on the first day of the week … while it was yet dark.’ These various terms mean that the Saturday night was just dying out, and the first streaks of dawn were rising on the darkness.when the sun was risen. This statement is thought to be inconsistent with John’s words ‘while it was yet dark.’ But Mark himself gives also the note of time ‘very early on the first day of the week.’ His own two statements, made in one and the same sentence, would thus have to be regarded as discordant, if the terms in either Gospel are pressed too far. The word ‘early’ is used of the fourth watch, that is, from 3 to 6 a.m.; the phrase ‘very early’ might point, therefore, to the beginning of that space of time. Mark’s first note of time consequently is taken by some to be of a general kind. Others take it to express the time when the women set out, while the second note, ‘when the sun was risen,’ gives the time when they came to the sepulchre. It is most probable that Mark speaks of the sunrise, not as its appearing above the horizon, but as bringing in the day, the illumination heralding its coming. So it is understood, e.g., by Andrews, who also notices that at the season of year in question ‘the sun rose about half-past five, and it began to be light enough to discern objects at least half an hour earlier’ (The Life of our Lord, pp. 598, 599). [Salmond, 1906]

Who shall roll us away the stone? They appear not to have known of the visit of the Jewish authorities to Pilate and the sealing of the stone and the setting of the watch (Matt. xxvii. 62–66). But they knew the way in which it was customary to secure rock-hewn sepulchres, and they probably had seen the stone put in its place by Joseph. To remove it was far beyond their strength, and they talked of this difficulty one to another on the way. [Salmond, 1906]

looking up. A graphic touch, true to the life. They were now approaching the rock or mound out of which the tomb had been cut, and with such perplexities in their minds they would naturally look up to see how matters stood.

rolled back. The word means probably that it was ‘not rolled right away, but rolled back so as to leave the opening free’ (Swete).for it was exceeding great. This is added in order to explain how they were able to see the stone at some distance, even though it was not quite light yet, and to discern that it was not in the expected position. Mark says nothing of the earthquake or of the rolling away of the stone by ‘an angel of the Lord,’ which Matthew records (xxviii. 2). [Salmond, 1906]

entering into the tomb. This is not noticed by Matthew. John reports Mary Magdalene as at the sepulchre alone, and gives another train of circumstances (xx. 1–10). Luke agrees with Mark in stating that the women entered the tomb, and adds that ‘they found not the body of the Lord Jesus’ (xxiv. 3).

they saw a young man sitting on the right side. The ‘young man’ is described as ‘an angel’ by Matthew. Luke, again, represents the women as ‘affrighted’ by the sight of ‘two men’ who stood by them. The angel that appeared to Manoah’s wife is described by Josephus as like ‘a young man, noble and great.’ See also the analogous case in 2 Macc. iii. 26, 33.

in a white robe. A long robe or stole. So Matthew says of the angel that ‘his appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow’ (xxviii. 3); and Luke describes the two men as ‘in dazzling apparel’ (xxiv. 4).amazed. The strong word which was used also in ix. 15, xiv. 33. Fear was the impression naturally made by the sight. Matthew speaks of the watchers as quaking and becoming ‘as dead men’; Luke describes the women as ‘affrighted’ and bowing down ‘their faces to the earth.’ [Salmond, 1906]

he is risen; he is not here. So, too, in effect Matthew. Luke reports that the angel addressed to the women the question, ‘Why seek ye the living among the dead?’ and reminded them of the Lord’s words in Galilee about his death and resurrection (xxiv. 6, 7). The Resurrection is stated as a fact accomplished. It had taken place when there was no eye to see it.behold, the place where they laid him! So in Matthew, ‘Come, see the place where the Lord lay.’ He would have them satisfy themselves as to the fact by looking at the place themselves. Though there had been no human witness of the Lord’s rising from the dead, there were evidences all around. The place was empty; the body was gone; Peter and John found it so, somewhat later (John xx. 3–10); and there was no disorder, no sign of violent, disturbing removal. The Third Gospel tells us how, when Peter stooped and looked into the tomb, he saw ‘the linen cloths by themselves’ (xxiv. 12). The Fourth Gospel states in like manner that Peter saw ‘the linen cloths lying’ when he looked in, and that, when he ventured within the tomb, he beheld not only ‘the linen cloths lying,’ but ‘the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself (xx. 6, 7)—a remarkable statement, from which an ingenious argument has been drawn in support of the reality of the Resurrection. [Salmond, 1906]

But go, tell his disciples. They had a duty to discharge—one that demanded immediate attention, as Matthew’s ‘go quickly’ indicates (xxviii. 7), and made it impossible for them to linger in the wonder and rapture of the occasion. They had a message to carry, all important to the disciples in their darkness, and especially to one of their number.

and Peter. The special grace meant for Peter, and of such significance to the man broken by the double shock of his own denials and penitence, and the death of his Lord, is mentioned only by Mark. The strong, restored, thankful apostle could never forget that grace, and may have spoken of it often to his interpreter, Mark.He goeth before you into Galilee. The disciples, if they had understood the Master’s former words (Matt. xxvi. 32; Mark xiv. 28), would not have tarried in Jerusalem, but would have gone forward to Galilee, strong in the hope of meeting him again. But in the agitation of these latter days they had forgotten his words, and the message sent by the women was intended not only to give them testimony of the Resurrection, but in particular to remind them of what he had said, and to set them on their way to the appointed place of meeting, where he was to precede them. For the force of the word ‘goeth before you’ see on x. 32. [Salmond, 1906]

went out, and fled from the tomb. This was the first effect of the intimation, and it is true to nature.trembling and astonishment had come upon them. ‘Trembling’—a word used in the Gospels only this once, but four times by Paul (1 Cor. ii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 15; Eph. vi. 5; Phil. ii. 12). ‘Astonishment,’ lit. ‘ecstasy,’ the word used in v. 42, as also in Luke v. 26; Acts iii. 10. It means a trance (Acts x. 10, xxii. 17), but also amazement or awe, a condition in which one loses control of himself. We see from Matthew that this first impression of terror and mental confusion gave place by-and-by to other feelings, so that the women’s fear was tempered by joy, and they ran to bring his disciples word’ (xxviii. 8). [Salmond, 1906]

APPENDIX.

At verse 9 the regular course of the narrative appears to be broken, and a paragraph is introduced which gives a description of Mary that seems hardly in place in the case of one who has been named only a few verses before. It is very generally held, therefore, that the whole section from the ninth verse to the end did not belong to the original form of Mark’s Gospel, but was appended to it, whether taken from some other primitive document or written by the Evangelist himself or one of his company. To this conclusion we are led by a variety of considerations—the state of the historical testimony in ancient manuscripts, versions, and Patristic writings; the number of words and phrases in which the vocabulary and style of this part differ from those of the body of the Gospel; and the nature of the contents. It is, however, a narrative of most ancient date and great historical weight, added to the Gospel very soon after the original draft was composed. See more at length above in the Introduction.

xvi. 9-11. Appearance of the Risen Lord to Mary: cf. John xx. 11-18.

9. he appeared. The word by which the appearance of the Risen Christ is expressed here is one which is also used of the appearance of God to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4), and of the appearance of Elijah (Luke ix. 8). In Luke (xxiv. 34) and in Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5, &c.) the word used is one meaning ‘was seen.’

first to Mary Magdalene. Mark alone mentions distinctly that the first person to whom Jesus shewed himself was Mary. But it is implied in John’s narrative (xx. 1, &c.). On discovering that the sepulchre was empty she ran with the tidings to Peter, and after that she seems to have returned to the tomb and to have had the manifestation of her Risen Lord which is told briefly here, and with rich and touching circumstantiality by John.

from whom he had cast out seven devils (or, ‘demons’). This deliverance is noticed also by Luke at an earlier stage in his narrative (viii. 2). Her love was supreme, and it had this supreme reward. [Salmond, 1906]

told them that had been with him. This phrase, those ‘with him,’ has sometimes a more technical sense and sometimes a wider application. It is used of the Apostles in particular (e.g. Mark iii. 14; John xvii. 12; Acts iv. 13); but also of the disciples or followers of Jesus generally. Mary found them still lost in sorrow and without hope. [Salmond, 1906]

they heard that he was alive. Mary was able to report plainly not only that Jesus lived, but that he had been seen by herself. She was certain it was no vision or apparition that she had looked upon, but the Lord himself, whom she had hailed as Rabboni, and from whom she had received a message for the brethren (John xx. 16, 17). The word for “seen” here occurs nowhere in the body of Mark’s Gospel, though it is found twice (here and in verse 14) in this Appendix. It is an expressive word used repeatedly in a profound, solemn sense by John (e.g. John i. 14, 32; 1 John i. 1, iv. 12, 14).

they … disbelieved. So Luke reports that the things told the Apostles by the women “appeared in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them” (xxiv. 11). A distinction is drawn between “disbelief” and the positive “unbelief” into which it may pass (cf. Heb. iii. 12, 18, &c., iv. 11). Sunk in their sorrow as they were, the disciples could not take in the fact to which Mary bore such strong and convinced testimony. It seemed incredible to them, a thing too good to be true. [Salmond, 1906]

xvi. 12, 13. Appearance of the Risen Lord to two of the disciples: cf. Luke xxiv. 13-32.

12. after these things he was manifested. This appearance took place, says Mark, “after these things.” But how long after he does not explain. The incident appears to be the same, however, as that which Luke records at length in his last chapter, and from him we learn that it took place on “that very day,” that is, on the same day as the former manifestation. The word used here for “manifested” is used of the appearances of the Risen Lord once again by Mark (verse 14), thrice by John (xxi. 1, 14). It is also used of the manifestation of Christ at the Second Advent (Col. iii. 4), and of the manifestation of men at the Last Judgement (2 Cor. v. 10).

in another form. There had been a change in the Lord’s appearance. To Mary he seemed like a gardener (John xx. 15); to these disciples he looked like a wayfarer. He was altered so that he was not recognized at first (Luke xxiv. 16); this was the manner of his appearances in his Risen condition. He was the same and yet not the same; speaking, having the voice that was familiar to the disciples, eating with them, talking with them, and yet going and coming in ways they knew not, moving and acting according to laws strange to our experience, appearing only from time to time (Acts i. 3), and shewing himself not to all, but only to chosen witnesses. ‘So far as we know none could see him in this new condition of being but those to whom he was pleased to manifest himself’ (Andrews, The Life of our Lord, p. 590).

unto two of them. From Luke (xxiv. 18) we learn that the name of one of them was Cleopas.as they walked, on their way into the country. They were going to ‘a village named Emmaus,’ as Luke tells us (xxiv. 13), ‘which was threescore furlongs,’ or about seven English miles, from Jerusalem. In ancient times this village was identified with an Emmaus, afterwards called Nicopolis (1 Macc. iii, 40), and known now as Ammas. But that place was away near the plain of Philistia, some twenty-two miles or so from Jerusalem. More recently it has been identified with el-Kubeibeh, a small village about nine miles north-west of Jerusalem, or with Kulonich on the west of the city, or with e-Khamasa on the south-west. The site remains uncertain. [Salmond, 1906]

told it unto the rest. They recognized their Lord in the breaking of the bread, and when he vanished out of their sight they hastened to their brethren in Jerusalem with the tidings (Luke xxiv. 30-35).neither believed they them. It appears from Luke’s narrative that the Lord had already shewn himself to Peter, and that the Apostles were able to report the fact to the two when they came with their glad news. Yet the two were as little believed as was Mary. The slowness of the disciples to credit the report may have been due to their inability to understand this strange, new kind of life and action implied in the Lord’s shewing himself now here and now there, now in one form and then in another. [Salmond, 1906]

xvi. 14-18. Appearance of the Risen Lord to the Eleven: cf. Matt. xxviii. 16-20; Luke xxiv. 30-43; John xx. 19-25; also 1 Cor. xv. 5, &c.

14. afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves. Only at this stage, after he had shewn himself to Mary, to Peter, and to two disciples, does he manifest himself specially to the Apostolate as a body.

as they sat at meat. This agrees with the more detailed narrative of Luke, which states that Jesus took a piece of broiled fish and ate it with the Eleven; cf. also John xxi. 9.upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart. Their despondency had sunk into a settled indisposition to believe out of which they had to be roused. Here for the first time definite unbelief is charged against the Apostles themselves. Before this they had been rebuked for the smallness, the immaturity, the backwardness and unreadiness of their faith (Matt. vi. 30, viii. 26, xiv. 31, xvi. 8; Mark iv. 40, xi. 22; Luke xxii. 32). Formerly it had been said of them that they had their ‘hearts hardened’ (Mark viii. 17). Here they are upbraided with a hardness of heart of a pronounced kind, expressed by a different term, and pointing to a condition of mind in which love and the tenderness of penitent feeling die out. Luke tells us that the Eleven were ‘terrified and affrighted’ by this manifestation, and that the Lord sought to convince them that he was no spirit by pointing to his hands and feet and partaking of food before them (xxiv. 37-41). [Salmond, 1906]

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. The rebuke passes into a commission. During our Lord’s earthly ministry the commission of the Twelve had been limited to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Gentiles and Samaritans being both excluded (Matt. x. 5, 6). Indications of the world-wide extension which the Gospel was to have in the future, however, had also been given (Matt. xxvi. 13; Mark xiv. 9). The commission to the Apostles obtains now its corresponding enlargement. John records the Lord’s breathing on the Eleven, bidding them receive the Holy Ghost, and giving them powers of order and discipline in his Church (xx. 22, 23). [Salmond, 1906]

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Baptism is thus coupled with belief, acceptance of the outward rite with the profession of faith. Everywhere in the N.T., in Gospels and in Epistles, belief or faith is connected with salvation and made its condition. Baptism has a place in that connexion, but only a secondary place; cf. on the one hand, 1 Pet. iii. 21; Titus iii. 5, and on the other, John iv. 1, 2; 1 Cor. i. 14-17, &c. [Salmond, 1906]

these signs shall follow them that believe. The promise has the widest extension—to all believers, not only to teachers or to the Eleven. The powers referred to were to be ‘signs,’ confirming their word and work, assuring themselves also in their faith. See 1 Cor. xii. 28-30, xiv. 22.

in my name shall they cast out devils (or, ‘demons’). This power has already been bestowed on the Apostles (vi. 13) and the Seventy (Luke x. 17). Others, also, who were not declared disciples of Jesus, had been seen casting out demons in his name (Mark ix. 38). The Book of Acts records the exercise of this power by Philip in Samaria (viii. 7) and Paul at Philippi and Ephesus (xvi. 18, xix. 11, 16).they shall speak with new tongues. As is noticed in the margin of the R.V. the word ‘new,’ which is of considerable importance in the interpretation of the gift in question, is of somewhat uncertain authority. This speaking with tongues, with which some difficult questions are connected, is first heard of as in actual exercise in the report of the events of the great day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 4-11), and again in the cases of the men sent by Cornelius to Peter (Acts x. 46), and the disciples at Ephesus (Acts xix. 6). It is dealt with more particularly by Paul in 1 Corinthians (xii. 28, xiv.). It is mentioned also in ancient Christian literature as prevailing towards the end of the second century (Euseb., Eccles. Hist. v. 7). [Salmond, 1906]

shall take up serpents. Compare the case of Paul at the island called Melita (Acts xxviii. 5). Jesus had previously given the Seventy ‘authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions’ (Luke x. 19).

if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them. Nothing of this kind is recorded in the N.T. Eusebius, the ancient Church historian, reports instances of this immunity in the case of St. John and Barsabas surnamed Justus.

they shall lay hands on the sick. The Apostles received the power of healing the sick from Jesus during his ministry (e.g., vi. 13). The ‘gifts of healing’ are referred to both by James (v. 14, 15) and by Paul (1 Cor. xii. 9, 28). In the Book of Acts, too, we see Peter healing the lame man at the temple gate (iii. 7), and Paul restoring Publius (xxviii. 8).

The Appearances of the Risen Lord. These had at least two great purposes, namely, to assure the disciples of the reality of the Resurrection and the personal identity of their Lord, and to furnish opportunities for preparing them for their future ministry by instructing them in the things of the kingdom. None of the Evangelists gives more than a selection of these manifestations, and it is not easy to determine, therefore, either their number or their order. They are usually said to be nine; or, with the addition of that to James (1 Cor. xv. 7), ten. Various arrangements of them have been proposed. One of the best gives this order—(1) To Mary Magdalene; (2) to the other women; (3) to the two disciples at Emmaus; (4) to Peter; (5) to the Eleven; (6) to the Eleven again; (7) at the Sea of Galilee (John xxi. 1); (8) to the five hundred; (9) to James; (10) on the mount of Olives. Comparing the several accounts, embracing those in Acts and 1 Cor. xv, we conclude that five of the appearances took place on the day of the Resurrection, one on the Sunday following, two at a later period, one at a time unknown (James), and one when he ascended. Thus Jerusalem was the scene of five or six (the latter if we assign that to James to the city), Emmaus of one, Galilee of two, and the mount of Olives of one. [Salmond, 1906]

xvi. 19, 20. The Ascension: cf. Luke xxiv. 53; Acts i. 3-12; see also Rom. viii. 34; Heb. viii. 1; 1 Pet. iii. 22.

19. So then the Lord Jesus. This designation ‘the Lord Jesus’ occurs frequently in Acts, and is used at times by Paul (1 Cor. xi. 23). This is the only distinct occurrence of it in the Gospels, with the possible exception of the case in Luke xxiv. 3. (See R. V. margin.)

after he had spoken unto them. The note of time is indefinite. It does not necessarily mean, however, immediately after he had spoken the words recorded in the preceding verses. It means generally after Jesus had discoursed to his disciples. Some think that, looking to the character and trend of this Appendix, we may take it to mean ‘after the series of interviews with the Eleven, of which a specimen has been given.’ (So Swete.)

was received up into heaven. This is the only occurrence in the Gospels of the word here rendered ‘received up.’ It is used again of the Ascension in Acts i. 2, 11, 22; 1 Tim. iii. 16. In the passages in Acts it is rendered ‘taken up’ in the A. V. In the fuller accounts given in the Third Gospel we are told how Jesus led the disciples out ‘until they were over against Bethany’; how he lifted up his hands to bless them; and how, while he was in the act of blessing them, he ‘parted from them and was carried up into heaven (Luke xxiv. 50, 51). The narrative of the Book of Acts shews us further how the Apostles interrogated their Lord about the time when he should restore the kingdom, and how, when he had answered their question and had given them his final commission, ‘as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight’ (i. 6-8).and sat down at the right hand of God. This is peculiar to Mark. Christ’s session at the right hand of God, in the place of honour and authority and power, is a frequent subject of N.T. teaching, and not by one writer only, but by most (Acts vii. 55; Rom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20; Col. iii. 1; Heb. i. 3, viii. 1, ix. 12, xii. 2; 1 Pet. iii. 22; Rev. iii. 21). [Salmond, 1906]

they went forth. Not at once, however, as the words, if they stood alone, might mean. From the Book of Acts we learn that they were instructed to tarry in Jerusalem until they should receive ‘the promise of the Father,’ that is to say, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and that they did wait as they had been told (Acts i. 4, 12, &c.).

preached everywhere. Faithful to their commission and in accordance with the universal extension which the Lord had stated to be destined for his Gospel.

the Lord working with them. This, too, is peculiar to Mark.

confirming the word. This term ‘confirming’ is also peculiar to Mark here, and occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. It is used repeatedly, however, in the Epistles (Rom. xv. 8; 1 Cor. i. 8; 2 Cor. i. 21; Col. ii. 7; Heb. ii. 3, xiii. 9).

by the signs that followed. The ‘signs,’ therefore, were the gift of the Ascended Lord, the results of the ministry which he continues in heaven, tokens of his abiding work and his continuous interest in his followers.

The Ascension. Jesus had spoken repeatedly of his departure, and had explained to his disciples its necessity or expediency. He had given them to understand that unless he went away the Holy Spirit could not come to them, and he had shewn them how great their loss in that case would be by disclosing to them the ministries which the Holy Ghost was to discharge when sent into the world (John xvi. 5-11). The event of the Ascension itself, however, occupies a small place in the Gospel records. Matthew and John give no distinct report of it. Only Mark and Luke relate the circumstances. Even in their case the narrative is brief. A fuller account of it is found, however, in the Book of Acts. The Gospels report the story of our Lord’s ministry on earth. The Book of Acts reports the story of his ministry in heaven discharged through his Apostles, and it begins appropriately with the Ascension. The event is also referred to now and again elsewhere in the N. T. (Eph. iv. 8, 9; 1 Pet. iii. 22, &c.). Various questions have been raised in connexion with the event and with the reports of it. It has been asked, e.g., whether it is placed in the same relation to the Resurrection in the several narratives of it which have come down to us in the canonical writings. It has been thought by many that the appendix to Mark’s Gospel leaves no room for the interval of forty days which is spoken of in the Book of Acts, but represents the Ascension as following immediately on the Resurrection. Some have met the difficulty created by this apparent discrepancy in the narratives by supposing that there were several Ascensions, our Lord’s existence during the forty days consisting in a series of goings and comings. But it is not necessary to take the brief, summary statement in the appendix to the Second Gospel to mean that the Lord’s return to heaven took place immediately after he rose from the dead or immediately after he spoke the words to the Eleven which are recorded in xvi. 14-18. There are many things in the Gospel narratives to make us cautious in supposing that events which are reported one after another without any break actually took place in immediate historical succession. Another question which has been largely discussed concerns the scene of the Ascension. The traditional site is that of the present Church of the Ascension. ‘In the centre of the chapel,’ says Baedeker, ‘which is octagonal in shape with a small dome, is the spot where Christ is said to have ascended.’ This is on the mount of Olives, and the tradition regarding it is a very ancient one—as old as the third century at least. But this site is open to the serious objection that it is only about half a mile from the city wall, whereas it is explicitly stated in the Book of Acts that the point from which the witnesses of the Ascension returned was ‘a sabbath day’s journey off’ (i. 12). Other sites, therefore, have been suggested, especially one on a height above Bethany, about a hundred yards from the footpath between that village and Jerusalem. The difficulty which seemed to many to be created by the reading of the A. V., ‘as far as to Bethany’ (Luke xxiv. 50), which would mean a distance of more than a sabbath day’s journey, is removed by the better reading of the R.V. ‘over against Bethany.’ It is impossible to determine the scene of the Ascension, however, more particularly than that it was on one of the heights far up on the mount of Olives, overhanging Bethany and facing to the east. [Salmond, 1906]