III. APPOINTMENT OF THE WATCH AT THE

GRAVE OF JESUS.

MATTH. XXVII. 62–67.

62." Now, the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

63. "Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

64. "Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead; so the last error shall be worse than the first.

65. "Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch; go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

66. "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch."

Matthew alone relates this history, probably as a prelude to that, which he relates in the subsequent chapter, of the current rumour that pervaded Jerusalem, and the consequent argument which it produced against the resurrection of Jesus, namely, that his disciples had, whilst the

F

guard were asleep, stolen the dead body, out of the grave, which was thus missing on the third day. The object of the narrative is, therefore, local, and intended to counteract a rumour, which had gone abroad in the city, and militated strongly against the truth of the resurrection. A person writing in Jerusalem and in the Hebrew language, could do this with propriety; the other evangelists, who wrote in places remote from Jerusalem, and where this rumour was unknown, had no reason to revive it, or even to mention the fact of the sepulchre having been guarded. Mark, therefore, who had the gospel of Matthew before him, and so scrupulously follows him, leaves this passage out; for as he wrote at Rome or Alexandria, he had no object in relating or answering reports prevalent at Jerusalem, but not perhaps even known in any other cities. The silence of the other evangelists is, therefore, no contradiction to Matthew; but because this silence is made an argument against the truth of Christianity, I shall examine it, as far as it relates to Mark and John. Both of them had read Matthew, they could not, therefore, omit the history of the keepers, because they knew nothing of it, but because they considered it false, or be

The

cause it did not apply to their situation. objections, raised to the history of the evangelists, namely, that it looked as if coming from people who had agreed in the main point, but had forgotten to arrange minor circumstances, do not apply here, for if the evangelists were deceivers, Mark and John had only to take their history from: Matthew, and even if every thing had been invented, not to have omitted this part of the story, merely because it had been invented. At Rome, at Alexandria, at Ephesus, they might have related it much more securely, and much less exposed to contradiction, than Matthew, assuming even that it was false, could have done in the circle of Palestine. But why do they omit it? John evidently omits it, in conformity with his usual plan of writing, which is to omit in his own gospel what his readers have found in the other gospels, and therefore his silence, so far from being an objection, is equivalent to a confirmation of what existed, and what he assumes to be known from Matthew. Mark does it, because this objection to the resurrection was unknown at Rome, where he wrote, and required, therefore, no contradiction.

62." Now the next day that followed the day

of the preparation."] Literally translated, on the following day, which is after Friday. As it is self-evident that one day must follow another, and it requires no author to tell us this, the meaning is," on the following day, immediately after the end of Friday," or in other words, immediately after sunset, with which, according to the custom of the Jews, the day ends, and the sabbath begins. This mode of speaking seems singular in Greek, but in Hebrew, from the same word signifying “evening," "holy evening," or, as we should say,

66

vespers," it becomes more intelligible. The meaning is, that from an apprehension the body might be stolen in the night, they did not wait until the following morning, they went immediately to Pilate that same evening, which now no longer belonged to Friday, but formed part of the sabbath, and requested a guard. That it was already sabbath, forms no objection to their going to Pilate; bodily labour was not undertaken by the Jews on the sabbath, but it must have been permissible to ask a favour of the civil authority, especially when it was connected with the honour of their religion. This was neither contrary to the traditions of the elders, nor to the doctrines of the Pharisees. The

Jews had the privilege from the Romans not to be cited before legal tribunals, that is, before Roman tribunals on the sabbath, but Jewish judicial cases might be attended to on the sabbath, since they considered this, as studying the law, and the law was derived from Moses, and was, if not literally the word of God, the illustration of the word of God. A Jew will give an answer upon Jewish questions of legislation in the same way as our clergymen would give answers upon questions of conscience, and I have applied to Jews, who were very scrupulous about their sabbath, and they have given me answers upon questions of their own law. The Roman privilege did not prevent the Jews from soliciting assistance from the civil authorities upon sabbath days. This removes an objection which has been made to the application for a guard occurring on a sabbath.

62. “The chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate."] These words are misunderstood, partly through too literal a translation, partly through a misconception of another kind. When we read "the chief priests and Pharisees," we conceive the whole synod of the Jews, and thus the objection, which has been raised against this passage, is supported. This is a clear misconception; the Pharisees were a sect