Mark 16

Mark 16:4

4. for it was very great.] This is an elliptical form of expression: they were solicitous about removing the stone, and rejoiced to find it removed, “for it was very great.” Grotus.

Mark 16:5

5. a young man] An angel (Matt. xxviii. 2.) in the shape of a young man. Dr. S. Clarke.

Mark 16:7

7. and Peter] It has been thought that St. Peter is thus particularly mentioned, in order to give him consolation, and to shew that he had not forfeited his title to be one of Christ’s disciples after his denial of Him. Dr. Wilsby.

Mark 16:8

8. neither said they any thing] They spake not to say one whom they met by the way, as they were going to tell the disciples. Bp. Mann.

Mark 16:9

9. first to Mary Magdalene.] And to the other women before mentioned, as they went to tell the disciples what the angel had given them in charge. See Matt. xxviii. 9. It is probable that Mary Magdalene was the first who saw Him. Dr. Wells, Bp. Pearce.

Mark 16:10

10. them that had been with him.] That is, the eleven Apostles.

Mark 16:12

12. in another form] In another dress, different from that in which the disciples had been used to see Him before His crucifixion. Bp. Pearce. This appearance to the two disciples going to Emmaus is more fully related by St. Luke, chap. xxiv. 13, &c.

Mark 16:14

14. appeared unto the eleven] Of this appearance, St. Luke gives many further particulars, Luke xxiv. 36.

their unbelief and hardness of heart.] Their unbelief in not crediting those who had already seen Him after His resurrection, and their dulness in not remembering the promise which He had in His lifetime so often made to them, of rising again. Dr. S. Clarke.

Mark 16:15

15. to every creature.] To all nations, to all men, Gentiles as well as Jews. See Matt. xxviii. 29; Luke xxiv. 47. Dr. Whitby.

Mark 16:16

16. He that believeth &c.] He that embraces My religion, and by baptism enters into an obligation to obey it, and lives accordingly, shall be saved; but he that rejects the Gospel, either by obstinate unbelief or impenitent disobedience, shall be condemned. Dr. S. Clarke.

— shall be saved.] Shall be put in the way of salvation, by being a Christian. On the contrary, he that will not attend to the evidence of Christianity, but wilfully rejects it, renders himself unworthy of the Divine mercy. Bp. Mann.

By comparing together the accounts given by the different Evangelists, of the last instructions delivered by our Lord to His Apostles, it sufficiently appears that by the expression “believing and being baptized,” St. Mark means, believing, repenting, and obeying the Gospel; all which there was no need to express at length, because it was perfectly well understood, in the customary acceptation of these words among Christians, that the part was always supposed to be put, in a brief way of speaking, for the whole. To believe, therefore, and to be baptized, is to believe the Gospel, and to enter into a solemn obligation to obey it. And as, under the Law, to him that transgressed the Law, his circumcision, as the Apostle says, was no circumcision; so, under the Gospel, to him that obeys not the Gospel, his baptism is no baptism to any effectual purpose. So, on the other side, the unbelief of those, who in Scripture are condemned for not believing, is not the bare negative unbelief of what men do not clearly know, or have not sufficient means of knowing; but it always means either an obstinate rejecting of what is distinctly proposed to them, and, through the love of vice, refusing to consider what is sufficiently proved to them, or else the disobedience of those who hypocritically profess to be believers. In either of these senses, “he that believeth not,” saith our Saviour, “shall be damned.” The full meaning therefore of these words is this: He that believes the doctrine of the Gospel when preached

Christ’s ascension into heaven. The gospel is preached everywhere. Anno DOMINI 33. Acts 16. 18.

Mark 16:17

17. And these signs shall follow &c.] For the more speedy and effectual propagation of the Gospel against

Mark 16:18

18. They shall take up serpents; &c.] For instances of the completion of this promise, see the passages of the Acts, referred to in the margin.

Mark 16:19

19. So then after the Lord had &c.] Our Lord’s ascension did not take place immediately after what has been just related; for He ascended from Bethany, near Jerusalem; so that at least a sufficient time must have intervened, to enable the eleven Apostles to come to that place from Galilee. Bp. Pearce. See Luke xxiv. 50, 51; Acts i. 4.

— he was received up into heaven, &c.] What tongue of the highest archangel of heaven can express the welcome of the King of Glory into those blessed regions of immortality! Certainly, if, when God brought His only begotten Son into the world, He said, “Let all the angels worship Him;” much more now, that He ascends on high, and hath led captivity captive, hath He given Him a name above all names, that at the name of Jesus all knees should bow. And, if the holy angels did so carol at His birth, in the very entrance into that estate of humiliation and infirmity, with what triumph did they receive Him, now returning from the perfect achievement of man’s redemption! But how should our weakness have ever hoped to ascend into heaven, if our Saviour had not gone before, and made way for us? It is for us that He the forerunner hath entered in. May He teach us to follow Him in the roughest ways of obedience, that we may at last overtake Him in those high steps of immortality! Bp. Hall.

Mark 16:20

20. — the Lord working with them, &c.] We have here an account of the means by which the preaching of the Apostles became so wonderfully operative and successful. It was not from any mighty talent of persuasion, any extraordinary faculty of reasoning with which they were endued; it was not merely by those intrinsic evidences of truth which the distinguishing doctrines they preached carried with them; nor by any other method purely human and natural; but by a Divine power and assistance which accompanied them in every step they took, and miraculously blessed their endeavours! Bp. Atterbury.

— with signs following.] Miracles were the evidences of the Christian revelation, as they had before been of the Jewish. The proof of the Christian faith, built on these, is sound and satisfactory. Let us adhere then steadily to it, and devoutly adore the Divine wisdom and goodness which contrived it for our sakes. Let us not be moved by the little cavils and exceptions with which perverse and unreasonable men are too apt to assail it; but let us remember that, in this state of imperfection, there is scarcely any truth so bright and clear, but that one who industriously stirs up doubts, may do something towards clouding and darkening it. Let us not “walk in the counsel of those ungodly,” who

studioualy undermines principles, and delight to affront the common sense of mankind; who set up for a repute by disbelieving every thing, and are resolved to pay regard to nothing, but their own deep penetration and sagacity. Let us preserve ourselves free from that sort of caution and reserve, which, lest it should be imposed upon by false grounds of belief, will close with none; and, for very fear of being deceived, takes the unavoidable course to be deceived, by equally suspecting every thing. For, far better were it to entertain some falsehood together with truth, than to be wise to such a degree as to esteem everything a falsehood. Bp. Atterbury.

Whether we consider the number, the means of information, or the veracity of the witnesses, no testimony can surpass, in its degree of credibility, that which was borne by the Apostles to the fact of our Lord’s resurrection. And it is a singular circumstance in this testimony, that it is such as no length of time can diminish. It is founded on the universal principles of human nature, upon maxims which are the same in all ages, and operate with equal strength on all mankind, under all the varieties of temper and habit of constitution. So long as it shall be contrary to the first principles of the human mind to delight in falsehood for its own sake; so long as it shall be true that no man willingly propagates a falsehood to his own detriment and to no purpose; so long it will be certain that the Apostles were serious and sincere in the assertion of our Lord’s resurrection. So long as it shall be absurd to suppose that twelve men could all be deceived in the person of a friend with whom they had all lived three years; so long it will be certain that the Apostles were competent to judge of the truth and reality of the fact which they asserted. So long as it shall belong to the nature of man to prefer his own interest to that of another; so long it will be an absurdity to suppose that twelve men should persevere for years in the joint attestation of a falsehood, to the great detriment of every individual of the conspiracy, and without any joint or separate advantage; and so long will it be incredible, that the history of our Lord’s resurrection was a fiction which the twelve men (to mention no greater number) conspired to support, with unparalleled fortitude, and with equal folly. So long, therefore, as the Evangelical history shall be preserved entire; that is, so long as the historical books of the New Testament shall be extant in the world, so long the credibility of the Apostles’ testimony will remain whole and unimpaired. This preservation of the form and integrity of the Apostolick evidence argues, in the original propagation of the Gospel, that contrivance and forecast in the plan, that power in the execution, which are far beyond the natural abilities of the human

mind, and declare that the whole work and counsel was of God.

It has sometimes been considered as an important objection to Christianity, that our Lord should have shown Himself after His resurrection, not to the publick at large, but only “to witnesses chosen before of God,” Acts x. 41. But the fact itself is not to be admitted without some limitation. St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, (chap. xv. 6,) tells us of an appearance of our Lord to more than five hundred brethren at once; and, as this is a larger company than, it is probable, could have been assembled in a house, or would have met by accident, we must suppose that they were called together for some express purpose; perhaps that of beholding with their own eyes, their crucified Lord restored to life; and this, probably, in some publick situation, from which those who were not “brethren,” were not excluded. Still it is certain that our Lord’s appearance after His resurrection was not publick, compared with what it had been during His ministry; and that He did not then maintain a familiar conversation with the world. This circumstance, however, is of no real weight, as an objection to the truth of our Lord’s resurrection. The reality of any fact is always to be measured by the positive proof which we possess, on one side or on the other. If no proof is found but what is imperfect in itself, as when the witnesses seem to be few, or their reports contradictory, the fact is questionable. But, if any proof exists in itself unexceptionable, the thing is not to be questioned for the mere want of other proofs, which persons, living at a distance from the time and scene of the business, may imagine it might have had. Men are very apt to lose sight of this principle, which is of great importance in its application to the proofs of our Lord’s resurrection. Again, the required proof would in this instance have afforded no addition to the evidence of the fact. For, to have seen our Lord ever so often after His resurrection, would have qualified no one to be a witness of the fact, who had not such a previous knowledge of His person, as might enable him to perceive and to attest its identity. As therefore it is probable they were not many, besides His constant followers, who knew Him previously well enough to identify His person, they were the only persons who could give a credible attestation to the fact of His resurrection. Thus the evidence of this fact, which we actually have, in the testimony of chosen witnesses, is the greatest of which the fact is naturally capable. No other could have been transmitted as original testimony to posterity, no other could have been satisfactory to the publick at the time. Bp. Horsley.

The following Chapters from St. Mark are appointed as Gospels on Sundays and Holydays:

CHAP. VER. VII. … 31—37, 12th Sunday after Trinity,… Gospel. VIII. … 1— 9, 7th Sunday after Trinity,… ditto. XIV. … 1—72, Monday before Easter,… ditto. CHAP. VER. XV. … 1—39, Tuesday before Easter,… Gospel. XVI. … 14—20, Ascension-day,… ditto. # THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO # S T. L U K E. ## INTRODUCTION.

THE New Testament informs us of very few particulars respecting St. Luke, the writer of this Gospel. He is not once named in any of the Gospels. In the Acts of the Apostles, which were written by him, (see the Introduction to the Acts,) he uses the first person plural, when he is relating some of the travels of St. Paul; and thence it is inferred, that at those times he was himself with that Apostle. The first instance of this kind is in the eleventh verse of the sixteenth chapter; he there says, “Loosing from Troas, see came with a straight course to Samothracia.” Thus we learn, that St. Luke accompanied St. Paul in this his first voyage to Macedonia. From Samothracia they went to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. At this last place we conclude that St. Paul and St. Luke separated, because, in continuing the history of St. Paul, after he left Philippi, St. Luke uses the third person, saying, “Now when they had passed through Amphipolis,” chap. xvii. 1, and he does not resume the first person till St. Paul was in Greece the second time. We have no account of St. Luke during this interval; it only appears that he was not with St. Paul. When St. Paul was about to go to Jerusalem from Greece, after his second visit into that country, St. Luke, mentioning certain persons, says, “These going before tarried for us at Troas; and we sailed away from Philippi,” chap. xx. 5, 6. Thus again we learn, that St. Luke accompanied St. Paul out of Greece, through Macedonia to Troas; and the sequel of St. Paul’s history in the Acts, and some passages in his Epistles, (2 Tim. iv. 11; Col. iv. 14; Philem. ver. 24,) written while he was a prisoner at Rome, inform us that St. Luke continued from that time with him, till he was released from his confinement at Rome, which was a space of about five years, and included a very interesting part of St. Paul’s life. See the last nine chapters of the Acts. Here ends the certain account of St. Luke. It seems probable, however, that he went from Rome into Achaia; and some authors have asserted that he afterwards preached the Gospel in Africa. None of the most ancient Fathers having mentioned that St. Luke suffered martyrdom, we may suppose that he died a natural death; but at what time, or in what place, is not known.

It is probable that St. Luke was by birth a Jew, and a native of Antioch in Syria; and there seems no reason to doubt that “Luke the beloved physician,” mentioned in the Epistle to the Colossians, chap. iv. 14, was Luke the Evangelist. In the introduction to his Gospel, chap. i. 1, &c. St. Luke appears to intimate, that he was not himself an eyewitness of the things he was about to relate: however, some have thought that he was one of the seventy disciples; but there is no authority in the Scriptures for that opinion, and there are now no means of ascertaining whether he was or was not, unless the above-mentioned passage may be considered as conclusive against it.

There was among the ancients a difference of opinion respecting the priority of the two Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke; and it must be acknowledged to be a very doubtful point. Upon the whole, we may be inclined to think that St. Luke wrote before St. Mark, and to place the publication of St. Luke’s Gospel in the year 63, soon after St. Paul’s release from imprisonment at Rome. There is also great doubt respecting the place where the Gospel was published. It seems, on the whole, most probable, that it was published in Greece, and for the use of Gentile converts. It has been observed, that the Evangelist has inserted many explanations, particularly concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, which he would have omitted if he had been writing for those who were acquainted with the customs and sects of the Jews.

We must conclude that the histories of our Saviour, referred to in the preface to this Gospel, were inaccurate and defective, or St. Luke would not have undertaken this work. It does not, however, appear that they were written with any bad design, but being merely human compositions, and perhaps put together in great haste, they were full of erreurs. They are now entirely lost, and the names of their authors are not known. When the four authentick Gospels were published, and came into general use, all other histories of our Divine Master were quickly disregarded and forgotten.

We have seen that St. Luke was for several years the companion of St. Paul, and many ancient writers consider this Gospel as having the sanction of St. Paul, in the same manner as St. Mark’s had that of St. Peter. Whoever will examine the Evangelist’s and the Apostle’s account of the Eucharist in their respective original works, will observe a great coincidence of expression. Compare Luke xxii. 19, 20, with 1 Cor. xi. 23—25.

St. Luke seems to have had more learning than any other of the Evangelists, and his language is more various, copious, and pure. This superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education, than fell to the lot of the writers of the other three Gospels.