Chapter Twenty-Eight

1–10. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. – 11–15. The bribing of the guard. – 16–20. The appearance of the risen Christ to the disciples in Galilee.

Matthew 28:1. After the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to visit the tomb. (Cf. Mark 16:1-5; Luke 24:1-5; John 20:1-2.) As in this verse and in all the others, it is difficult to unite the account of Matthew with the accounts of other evangelists and thus to harmonize them. “The improbability,” says Alford, “that the evangelists were acquainted with one another’s accounts becomes in this section of their Gospels a complete impossibility.” The evangelists tell of different appearances of Christ: they evidently change the order in which events should have followed in their historical sequence. This last can be observed in Matthew from the very first verses of the chapter being considered. If he had conducted his narrative in a strictly chronological order, he obviously would first have to set forth what is told further in verses 2–4, because the events told here undoubtedly occurred before the women’s arrival at the tomb. If we had only the Russian translation of the Gospel of Matthew, the first verse would not cause us particular difficulties. When the Sabbath, before which the Savior was buried, had passed, then at dawn the next day, that is, early in the morning on Sunday, there came to the tomb two women with the purpose of “visiting the tomb” (according to Mark – “to anoint Him”). With such a sufficiently clear exposition, there would remain only one difficulty: why, speaking of the “dawn of the first day of the week,” does the evangelist add that this was “after the Sabbath,” although without this it was already known that this “first day” always followed the Sabbath? No one says: I set out on a journey early in the morning on Tuesday, when Monday was over, because if it was simply said: I set out early in the morning on Tuesday, such speech would be clearer without the mentioned addition, and the latter would be not only an unnecessary pleonasm, but would also obscure the speech. If from the Russian text we turn to the Slavonic, we will find it even less clear: “in the evening of the Sabbath,” (corrected; “in the evening of the Sabbath,”), “as it began to dawn on one of the Sabbaths, Mary Magdalene came” etc. In the Vulgate it is equally unclear: vespere autem sabbati, quae lucescit in prima sabbati, venit Maria Magdalene etc., that is, in the evening of the Sabbath, which grows light on the first day of the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene came etc.). If now from these translations we turn to the Greek text, we find that the obscurity of the translations depends precisely on its obscurity. The interpretation is further complicated by the fact that for the Jews the day began with evening, and “the evening of the Sabbath,” that is, in our terms the evening from Sabbath to the first day of the week (Sunday), could be simply called “the first day.” This first. Secondly, if we suppose that the evangelist wished to express himself the same way we do, that is, “on the evening of the Sabbath,” how could it be possible to say that this evening coincided with the “dawn” (τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων) of the first day of the week? Many explanations of this expression have been offered. 1) “In the evening of the Sabbath is equivalent to what Luke says: early in the morning (“very early”), and Mark: “at the rising of the sun” (Theophylact). 2) “Ὀψέ – after the Sabbath. Thus in Plutarch: ὀψὲ τῶν βασιλέως χρόνων – after the time of the king, and Philostratus: ὀψὲ Τροϊκῶν – after the Trojan war.” In the Russian translation, obviously this interpretation of ὀψέ was adopted, when it says: “after the Sabbath.” 3) The word “evening” (vespera) was understood to mean the planet Venus, which is called Lucifer, in Greek – ἕσπερος, in Latin – vesperus. But hanc stellam non significat graecum ὀψὲ nec latinum vespere (this star is not meant by the Greek ὀψὲ and the Latin vespere). 4) “The plural ὀψὲ σαβάτων makes no sense.” Therefore in many translations the singular – Sabbath is used. 5) The expression in Matthew has been reworked from διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτων in Mark and has lost all meaning. 6) The difficulty disappears if we suppose that the Jews had a “more or less widespread custom” of adding not day to night, but night to day, so that there were two ways of counting complete astronomical days: night – day and day – night. If so, then Matthew’s expression would be clear. But unfortunately, such a “widespread custom of the Jews” is difficult to prove. Therefore “it must remain, important as this is, unknown whether ὀψὲ σαββάτων refers to the evening of the Sabbath or indicates early Sunday morning.” The simplest explanation may be as follows. The expression of the evangelist ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων belongs to the category of those which are difficult to be explained grammatically. Nevertheless, their real meaning is usually clear, and certainly, bearing in mind precisely this meaning, Bliss (Gram., S. 96) translates the expression “spät am Sabbath” – “late on the Sabbath,” which almost corresponds to the Russian translation and is in accord with both the further words of the evangelist and the testimony of Mark 16:1. After ἐπιφωσκούσῃ some add “day” (ἡμέρᾳ), others – “hour” (ὥρᾳ). That is, literally, late on the Sabbath, when the day began to dawn on one of the Sabbaths, or when the hour began to dawn – it was daybreak or the hour of daybreak. The placing of ὥρα (Zahn) is more likely, because the further μίαν assumes ἡμὲραν, and consequently the repetition of ἡμὲραν would be completely unnecessary. Concerning the counting of days by the Jews, see the commentaries to Matt 21:1. Since σάββατα was used by the Jews to mean week, the sense of the expression εἰς μίαν σαββάτων – “the first day of the week” – is clear. This expression was used by the rabbis. The general sense of the first words of the verse being considered is that when midnight, referred by the evangelist to the preceding Sabbath, had not yet ended, and when the dawn of the next day was just approaching etc. This indicates the time when the women approached the tomb, without specifying when they set out from their homes. According to Matthew, these women were “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.” Mark calls the latter “Mary the mother of James” – mother of James the lesser and Joseph, wife of Clopas or Clopa, and also mentions Salome (see commentaries to Matt 20:20). On account of the Sabbath day, the women remained at home and did not go to the tomb. A “curious coincidence” is pointed out – that among the Jews, relatives and friends of the dead usually went to his tomb on the third day after his death (when supposedly decomposition began) to assure themselves that the dead person was truly dead. Commenting on the fact that Abraham saw Mount Moriah on the third day (Gen 22:4), the rabbis insisted on the importance of the third day in various events of Israel’s history, and specifically spoke of it in connection with the Resurrection, referring for proof to Hos 6:2. In one place, referring to the same prophetic saying, they concluded from Gen 40:13 that God never allows the soul of the righteous to suffer and torment for more than three days. During the mourning for the dead, the third day was in a way a limit, because they thought the soul hovered around the body until the third day and at this time finally left its earthly dwelling. Luke does not name the women here, and John speaks of Mary Magdalene alone. John’s account suggests that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb first, having separated from the other women, who came out from different places. The reasons why this last opinion is disputed are not sufficient. The account of Matthew and Mark does not contradict this opinion. Setting out to the tomb, the women apparently did not know that the stone was sealed and that a guard was posted at the tomb (Mark 16:3). This serves as proof that the sealing of the tomb and the posting of the guard occurred between the time of Christ’s burial and the end of the Sabbath, with the understanding that the women did not visit the tomb during this interval.

Matthew 28:2. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, having descended from heaven, came and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb, and sat upon it; Matthew departs here from the account of other evangelists and alone reports these details. No circumstances could be more majestic. First of all, there was “a great earthquake” (σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας). And here again there is no need to suppose that these words of the evangelist do not point to a physical earthquake, as during the crucifixion. One can agree at best only that instead of several underground shocks, as during the crucifixion, at this time there was one very strong one. But there is really no need even to allow this. There was generally a strong earthquake, if we interpret the words of the evangelist in their literal sense. It was a new earthquake, as it were an echo and renewal of the first, during the crucifixion. It is certainly true that this often happens in natural earthquakes. Simultaneously with the strong underground shock, an Angel descended from heaven and rolled away the stone from the tomb. And at the same time the risen Christ came forth from the tomb. The other interpretations met with here appear at least to be founded on nothing and undoubtedly greatly diminish the majesty of the miracle. Chrysostom says that “after the Resurrection the Angel comes. Why then does he come and roll away the stone? For the women who saw him then in the tomb.” So also Euthymius Zigabenus: “Christ rose before the Angel descended.” Such interpretations were proposed in order to show that Christ, possessing now a spiritualized body, could come out of the tomb just as freely when the stone was rolled against it as pass through locked doors (John 20:19). In recent times it has been said that σεισμός was not really an earthquake, but the sudden opening of the tomb by the descending or descending Angel, as γάρ shows. The rolling away of the stone occurred not in a natural way, but through a trembling, – a word which here (σεισμός). We should not suppose that the Resurrection occurred at this time, as some imagined and as is depicted in pictures. It was before. Such opinions are expressed on the ground that the women did not see the Angel descending from heaven and rolling away the stone. They themselves saw nothing, but could infer the circumstances of the Resurrection from what they saw afterward. But all this is hypercriticism. One important factor is forgotten when present circumstances are considered – the soldiers who were guarding the tomb. They were, according to the meaning of the account, the first and nearest witnesses of the Resurrection and could report it afterward, since it is hard to suppose that, bribed by the chief priests, none of them would later, even after some time, decide to tell the whole truth about such a miracle (cf. τινές – verse 11). However, we can suppose that the guards did not see the Resurrection of Christ itself, but were witnesses to the miraculous appearance of the Angel’s descent and the falling away of the stone from the tomb. This is all we know of the initial event. It is really wrapped in complete mystery, and it is rightly noted that the evangelists narrate only the results of the Resurrection, that is, the events that followed, not the Resurrection itself. At the time of the Resurrection itself, the women were on their way to the tomb. “From the door of the tomb” – these words are not in the Sinai, BD, Siro-Sinaitic codices and Latin translations. It can be seen that without this addition, the speech of the evangelists is more compressed, powerful, and externally beautiful.

Matthew 28:3. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow; In any apocryphal fiction it would probably be told differently. There the shining and radiant Christ Himself would be portrayed. But the evangelists, speaking of the fact of the Resurrection, at first say nothing about the Risen Christ Himself. Instead of Him, a majestic appearance of an Angel is presented to the women. “Appearance” – here is meant not the face, but the whole outward form. It is possible that the Angel did not appear as such before the time the women saw him. In the New Testament the expression εἰδέα is found only here, but in the Old Testament – Dan 1:15; 2 Macc 3:16 and often among the Greeks. Perhaps ἀστραπ (“lightning”) here should be understood to mean that rays emanating from the Angel were like lightning. But although in Plato’s “Phaedrus” the expression εἶδον τὴν ὄψιν... ἀστράπτουσαν is found (Meyer), we cannot imagine what this appearance was like. The presence of the Angel indicated the extreme majesty and brilliance of the event taking place.

Matthew 28:4. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men; The word ἐσείσθησαν corresponds to σεισμός used in verse 2 – “were shaken,” “came in terror.” Euthymius Zigabenus says that ἐσείσθησαν is placed here instead of ἐτρόμαξαν from τρομέω – “to tremble,” “to fear.” The guards were not killed, but became like dead men. Since we no longer see them on the same night at the tomb, we must suppose that, recovering from their terror, they all fled.

Matthew 28:5. And the angel said to the women: Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus, who has been crucified; (Cf. Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5.) In Mark, similar (but not the same literally) words are spoken to the women by a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white garment, – obviously the same Angel of whom Matthew speaks; in Luke – “two men in shining garments.” Since Matthew and Mark could simply have omitted one of the two Angels, there is no contradiction here. The Angel to Matthew does not “speak” to the women, but “answers” (ἀποκριθείς) them. This can be understood in two ways, paying attention to the particle δέ placed here. First, the appearance of the Angel (or, according to Luke, two) caused fear and trembling in the soldiers making up the guard; but (δέ) the attitude of the Angel (or Angels) to the women who came to the tomb was different – the Angel addressed them with words of encouragement, announcing to them the joyful news of the Resurrection. Secondly, the women themselves said nothing to the Angel (or Angels), but were in fear, “bent their faces to the ground” (Luke) and “were amazed” (Mark). “Answering” not to their words, but to this their mental state, the Angel announces to them the news of the Resurrection. The entire condition of the women appeared as it were a question, caused by extreme astonishment and fear. De Wette holds that the personal pronoun “you” (ὑμεῖς) here has no special and definite meaning, and that in such a sense personal pronouns are used in different cases (Mark 13:9; Acts 8:24). But other exegetes attach special meaning to the pronoun “you” here. The soldiers, as if the Angel were saying, were afraid and came in terror, but as far as you women are concerned, do not be afraid. The reason (γάρ) for the women to be free from all fear is that, as known to the Angel, the women “seek Jesus the crucified.” They do not belong to the enemies of Christ, they came with good, kind intentions to find the Body of the Crucified One. The Angel thus calls Christ “the Crucified One.” “Does not shrink from calling Him the Crucified, because this is our highest good” (St. John Chrysostom). Ζητεῖτε (“you seek”) – a verb frequently found in the New Testament. If the Savior had been in the tomb, even then, for women wishing to see the body of the Savior, it could have been said that they “seek” Christ. Since the Body was not in the tomb, the verb ζητέω here has a fuller meaning – to seek and not find and therefore to continue one’s search. The verb in general indicates a desire to find some object.

Matthew 28:6. He is not here – He has risen, as He said. Come and see the place where the Lord lay, (Cf. Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5-8.) In Luke it is told in more detail than in Matthew and Mark: the Angels cite the very words spoken by the Savior when He was still in Galilee. “He is not here” – it points to the simple fact that the Body of Jesus Christ was not in the tomb. Further, the reason (γάρ) is explained why He is not here: “He has risen” (ἠγέρθη γάρ). This was the first news of the Resurrection, and it was given to the women; only news, not the very appearance of the Risen Lord. People heard from heavenly messengers that He had risen. The Resurrection is presented in all the Gospels as something completely opposite both to the crucifixion and to death. The crucifixion was a state of extreme humiliation and shame, the Resurrection – of the highest glory and majesty of Christ. There could have been no Resurrection if death had not come before it. Death was the ending of this temporal life, the Resurrection – the beginning of a new, infinite life. The question of the reality of the Resurrection of the Savior is very complicated, and its resolution belongs properly to the domain of apologetics. Let us say but a few words about this. To explain not so much the very fact of Christ’s Resurrection as the reports of the evangelists about this fact, many theories have been presented. Apologists are mostly engaged only in their examination, preferring here almost exclusively the negative path and avoiding the positive resolution of the question. Thus, in the end, if Renan, Strauss and many other critical dissenters could not refute the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection, and if their theories, in which attempts are made in one way or another to diminish the significance of this most important Christian fact, do not withstand criticism, then this fact is true. Justice requires saying that this negative path, consisting in refuting the anti-Christian theories of the Resurrection, fully achieves the goal – the defense of the fact of the Resurrection itself, and one can fully affirm that till now the critical dissenters have not presented even one, not only fully, but even at all satisfactory theory, by means of which it would be possible in any way to explain the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection by natural (and not miraculous) causes. However, this negative path, ordinarily adopted by apologists, is insufficient and does not satisfy a believing person. He feels extreme boredom when in apologetic treatises before him is laid out a series of fabrications belonging to numerous critical dissenters, and when apologists are carefully refuting them, although some fabrications (especially the notorious ones of Renan) do not at all deserve not only any refutation, but even simple mention. The method adopted by apologists here amounts to the following: wishing to prove that twice two is four, they prove that twice two is not equal to 1, not equal to 2, and not equal to 3, and stop there. But certainly it would be much better if they proceeded directly to the proof that twice two equals four, without turning to the examination of various absurdities presented with the purpose of refuting this mathematical truth. Certainly, not all apologists go this negative way. In some are encountered attempts at a positive resolution of the question. The positive way to its solution consists first of all in the examination of the testimony of the Apostle Paul, who speaks or directly of the Resurrection of Christ, or assumes and presupposes it in his speech. The testimony of the Apostle Paul, both direct and indirect, concerning the Resurrection of Christ has full and positive significance for us even in the case that we should treat with complete distrust the accounts of all without exception of the evangelists. But if the Resurrection of Christ as a simple fact, independent of details, is fully and clearly confirmed by the Apostle Paul, then this gives us the right to affirm that the evangelists affirm in their testimony a trustworthy fact (again independent of details), and their testimony should therefore be received with complete confidence. The Apostle Paul affirms, among other things, that “if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain” (1 Cor 15:14). These words have profound theological meaning. The Apostle does not say: our knowledge is in vain or our activity is in vain (except preaching). But: preaching is in vain, faith is in vain. What does this mean? Why faith, and not knowledge? This means that the Resurrection of Christ has not scientific, but preeminently religious significance, significance for our faith. If Christ had not risen, then this whole wonderful Gospel story of the great Teacher, who was nevertheless at the end crucified, would be for us perhaps even less instructive than the story of the life of Muhammad or Confucius. It is enough only to imagine that all the evangelists have omitted, there do not exist at all, chapters where the Resurrection is spoken of, and at once one can see that the whole Gospel story has no proper conclusion. It would be completely unknown what precisely the evangelists wished to clarify by relating the history of the life of a great historical Person. Reading the Gospels, we could only think that all noble, self-sacrificing activity for the benefit of mankind, all manifestations of outstanding mind and talent always end only very sadly, as it ended for the Savior – with the Cross alone. This would be not only unattractive for anyone, but on the contrary would repel and cause one to avoid going the same path as Christ did, would be a very serious warning, especially for inexperienced and unfamiliar with life persons. But the matter appears in a completely different light if we understand that the Resurrection is a necessary postulate of the entire Gospel story and its natural epilogue. In that case the whole preceding Gospel history, the whole life and activity of Christ, beginning from the Bethlehem manger to the cross, will appear to us in a completely different and completely brilliant light. We will clearly see that here visibly, accessibly and understandably the most profound and all-embracing vital problem is resolved, the problem of life and death, and its solution has such profound, shall we say, inexhaustible theological and philosophical meaning. Some of the evangelists report more details about this fact, others – less; nevertheless, one main and all-sufficient fact remains in them, as it were, completely intact. In the verse being considered of Matthew, this main fact is designated with amazing simplicity and in only five main words: οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε ἡγέρθη γάρ – literally: “(He) is not here, for (He) has risen.” In order that this fact should not appear to the women completely new and unexpected, the Angel adds: καθὼς εἶπεν – “as He said,” namely, when He was still alive on earth. And in order to remove from the women all further doubts, the Angel invites them in equally simple and clear words to draw closer to the tomb and personally assure themselves of the truth of his words. Literally: “Come here! Look at the place where He lay.” The additional word “Lord” is not in many and important codices, although it is found in ACDL, minuscules, the Latin translation and Peshito. When “the Lord has risen,” the Angel does not say. Therefore it is hardly unnecessary to interpret, somewhat disturbing the harmony and wondrous simplicity of the angelic speech, by which “all the holy fathers and teachers unanimously reckon the time of His Resurrection to be the first crowing of the cock, which had already announced the light of the Lord’s day” (Euthymius Zigabenus).

Matthew 28:7. And go quickly, tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead, and behold, He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you. (Cf. Mark 16:7.) In Mark – “Tell His disciples and Peter.” Do not be afraid, but “quickly” (ταχύ – “soon,” “speedily”) go from here, go not to women who believed in Christ, not to the Mother of God Herself, but to the disciples. The Angel refers to the words of the Savior Himself about His Resurrection (verse 6) and now cites His own words about the fact that the Lord will meet the disciples in Galilee (Matt 26:32). The women had to repeat before the disciples the words spoken to them by the Angel, that “He has risen from the dead.” Προάγει – see the commentaries to Matt 26:32. This verb does not mean that Jesus Christ will go before the disciples, will lead them into Galilee, but will already be in Galilee when they arrive there. It is difficult to say whether ὄψεσθε refers to the women and disciples together, or only to the disciples. The sense can be rendered thus: “tell His disciples: He has risen from the dead and is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him”; and thus: “tell His disciples: He has risen from the dead. There He is going before you, women (together with the disciples); there you, women (and disciples), will see Him.” In the further account, Matthew does not clearly say that Christ appeared in Galilee to the women as well (verse 16). Meyer notes that ὑμᾶς and ὄψεσθε refer to the disciples, not only to the women, who had already seen Jesus Christ. In response to this it can be said that, as seen from the accounts of other evangelists, the disciples also saw the Lord before His appearance in Galilee. The end of this verse and the remainder of chapter 28 were lost in the Siro-Sinaitic manuscript (Merx).

Matthew 28:8. And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell His disciples. (Cf. Mark 16:8; Luke 24:8-11.) Literally: “and departing quickly from the tomb” etc. None of the Synoptics express precisely the thought that the women came “out of” the tomb (as in the Russian translation), if we do not accept the reading ἐξελθοῦσαι in Matthew, found in several codices, instead of ἀπελθοῦσαι (in the Vulgate – exierunt). Mark uses ἐξελθοῦσαι with ἀπό. The replacement of the preposition “from” with “out of” in the Russian translation was probably a consequence of the fact that the Angel invited the women to enter the tomb itself (verse 6), or the cave where it was located. But there is no great difference in meaning with such or another translation. Ταχύ – “quickly” – of verse 7 corresponds to the same word in verse 8. But instead of “go” (πορευθεῖσαι) of verse 7 here is ἔδραμον, from τρέχω – “to run.” The Angel commanded them only to quickly “go”; carrying out this command, the women quickly “ran.” When they were still at the tomb, fear (φόβος) was in their soul, although the Angel had said to them: “Do not be afraid” (verse 5). This fear was completely natural for the first witnesses of such miraculous events. But it was mixed with “great joy.” The union of such feelings is psychologically explicable and understandable. But as soon as the women left the tomb, their feelings of joy completely left them. “Trembling and astonishment seized them,” and “they said nothing to anyone” – understood as on the way – “because they were afraid” (Mark 16:8).

Matthew 28:9. And as they were going to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them and said: Rejoice! And coming up, they took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. In all these and many other circumstances told by the evangelists, we see signs of night movement of the disciples of Christ to His tomb and from it. If, as was noted above, the disciples of Christ slept before the very time of His suffering, when the enemies of Christ were awake, then now, on the contrary, the enemies, having rested, show almost no movement, while the disciples, on the contrary, are awake and moving in different directions. To describe such movement always and everywhere is always difficult. Mary Magdalene probably came to the tomb first and then departed to Jerusalem. After her go the other women who brought word and quickly hastened to Jerusalem to the disciples to tell them the news of the Resurrection. About the same time Pеter and John set out from Jerusalem, and after them again Mary Magdalene. Movement to the tomb took place, probably from different places and by different roads from and back to Jerusalem. Therefore it is difficult to say whether the women bringing glad tidings spoken of in this verse are the same as those spoken of in verse 8, or whether they are different women who came to the tomb last and now were returning either alone or together with the first. It is ordinarily supposed that they were different and that Mary Magdalene joined them. In any case, it should be considered probable that this account of Matthew has no parallels in other evangelists. To these women, already after His appearance to Mary Magdalene, the Savior now appears on the road and greets them with the word “Rejoice” (χαίρετε). The women immediately, perhaps from one word alone, recognized Him, took hold of His feet, as though not wishing to part with Him, and performed for Him the worship due to God (προσεκύνησαν, see the commentaries to Matt 2:2). The opinion that before this such worship was rendered to Him only by pagans is false (cf. Matt 14:33; John 9:39).

Matthew 28:10. Then Jesus said to them: Do not be afraid; go tell My brothers to go into Galilee, and they will see Me there. The Savior here almost word for word repeats the words of the Angel spoken to the women at the tomb (verse 7). It would be incredible that these words were repeated if the evangelist were relating fictional facts. But this repetition gave occasion to various exegetes to differently determine the significance of Christ’s words. Some thought that here the previous account continues. Others – that here is an insertion not belonging to the previous speech. And all this was stated on the one ground that the words of Christ are a repetition of what was said before! Further, it was supposed that, by placing this account, Matthew knew nothing of the appearances of Christ in Jerusalem, nor of His Ascension. This seems improbable. The evangelist apparently wishes only briefly to indicate the main fact that Christ has risen, without going into details. Why this was so cannot now be determined for lack of data. Meyer divides all appearances of Christ, recognizing the section Mark 16:9-20 as inauthentic, into three categories: 1) purely Galilean, of which only Matthew speaks; 2) purely Judean, of which only Luke and John relate, with the exception of John 21; 3) mixed in John with the addition of John 21. Such division is somewhat artificial, and one cannot agree that Matthew says nothing of the appearances of Christ in Judea. Καὶ ἐκεῖ μὲ ὄψονται – this proposition does not depend on the preceding ἵνα. The risen Savior here calls His disciples His brothers.

Matthew 28:11. And as they were going, some of the guard went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. The flow of thought is as follows. Having indicated the fact that Christ has risen, and shown that its truth was confirmed by several persons, the evangelist at once proceeds to explain that from the very first this fact they wished to refute by the enemies of Christ with the help of the soldiers posted at the guard of the tomb. The evangelist has an obvious purpose: not to relate pragmatically about all the appearances of Christ, but only to establish, on one hand, the truth of the fact of the Resurrection, and on the other – the unreliability of the rumors refuting it. Thus, the exposition in Matthew is more logical and schematic than pragmatic. The account of the lie of the chief priests is only in Matthew, and is so brief that we would in vain seek here details which would clarify how the matter was. We do not know in what manner the guards recovered from their terror and where this happened. We can only conclude that they were witnesses to miraculous events, at least in part. Not all the guards went to the high priests and reported to them ἅπαντα τὰ γενόμενα – everything that happened at the tomb, but only some (τινές). The connection with the previous is clear. The guards themselves, by their own strength, could not prevent what happened. But since they were liable to responsibility, they now come with a report to the high priests that what happened occurred against their will. The coming into the city and the reporting to the high priests of all that happened the evangelist places in connection with the women’s journey from the tomb. But, despite this indication of time, it is impossible to determine precisely when the guards came into the city. We can only suppose that this was during the night of Christ’s Resurrection or early in the morning.

Matthew 28:12. And after conferring with the elders and taking counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, It is thought that this was a meeting of the Sanhedrin, but hardly official and open. The enemies of Christ supposed that with money they could most conveniently refute the truth. They acted the same as those who buy and sell the truth. The strong and influential people now fear simple soldiers and possible unpleasant for the enemies of Christ and even perhaps dangerous spreading of rumors from their side. The criminal whom they had executed has risen. What will the people say when they find out? “A large sum of money” (ἀργύρια ἱκανά) – a characteristic expression which shows that the money was given exactly as much as was needed to seal the lips of the guards and force them to speak lies, neither more nor less. Some of the guards were obviously needy people and were willing to speak what they were told, even if it was a lie.

Matthew 28:13. And said: You are to say, ‘His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we were sleeping.’ This was a lie, and in this verse it shows through in almost every word. The guards are secretly, of course from the people and all outsiders, invited to speak a public lie. Since the disciples were close to the Teacher, it was they, no other, who stole Him. But, asks Chrysostom, “tell me, in what way did the disciples steal Him, these poor and simple men who did not even dare to show themselves?” How could the disciples come (ἐλθόντες) to the tomb when a guard was posted around it? In order to give this lie some probability, the guards, spreading it, had to add that this happened at a time when they were sleeping. But if the body was stolen at a time when the guards were sleeping, how could they know about it? All this was an obvious lie, but on the other hand, very characteristic. All thefts and robberies happen when guards are asleep.

Matthew 28:14. And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble. From these words it is clear that the guard was given by Pilate (cf. commentaries to Matt 27:65). The soldiers were responsible to him. He could deal with them severely (cf. Acts 12:19). Therefore it is natural if the guards turn with a report not to Pilate, but to the chief priests, as if asking them for protection (however, in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter 28:11–15 it is different). The latter assure them that they have nothing to fear. The enemies of Christ know that Pilate will not look into this matter, and therefore the rumor about it, in all probability, will not reach Pilate. But if something like this should happen, then “we” – special emphasis is placed on this word – we, strong, influential people having even access to Pilate, “will satisfy him,” that all this happened not through the fault of the guards and that the disciples are guilty. Πείσομεν – “will satisfy” – in Acts 12:20 is translated: “having won over to our side.” The word can have such meaning in the present place as well. Since Pilate will be satisfied by the words of the chief priests (perhaps with the presentation of a gift), the soldiers will not only have nothing to fear, but will be relieved of any unpleasantness. This is expressed by the word ἀμερίμνους, which here is freely translated into Russian as “keep you out of trouble.” Foreign commentators note that ἀμερίμνους is not exactly translatable into their languages. Luther translates it by sicher, which is also inexact. The Vulgate – securos. Closer to the original our Slavonic translation – “carefree,” although it is also not entirely exact. Completely accurate is the German word sorgenfrei – “carefree”: we will make you carefree regarding the consequences of negotiations with Pilate, you will have nothing to worry about. But, of course, it is impossible to exactly convey this word into Russian in the present connection.

Matthew 28:15. So they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. The first sentences of the verse are understandable without explanation. Regarding the last sentence, there is seen here what is called hiatus – a gap; the complete speech would be: the rumor about this spread among the Jews and exists to this day. About the existence of such rumors, the martyr Justin testifies, saying that they continued till his time (Dialogus cum Tryphone, 108). It is strange that on their basis some modern critics built their theories that the disciples really did steal the body of Jesus Christ and then announced His Resurrection.

Matthew 28:16. Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. Matthew does not report about many subsequent appearances of Christ and His Ascension. Instead, his Gospel ends with the apotheosis of the Servant of Jehovah, now the glorified Messiah. The speech of the evangelist here is exalted and majestic, despite all its simplicity. In other evangelists there are no parallels to this verse, though perhaps they should be sought in 1 Cor 15:6. “What Matthew tells about happened later, namely when what John related had previously happened,” that is, after the appearance of Christ on the Lake of Tiberias (Theophylact). Small details, such as the precise indication of the mountain and the time when the event occurred, perhaps in view of the overwhelming majesty of the very event are omitted by the evangelist here. There is no trace here of mention of the “five hundred” brothers; only of the eleven disciples.

Matthew 28:17. And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. The mention of “some” makes us think that there were gathered far more than eleven. To the same conclusion the evangelist’s report that these “some doubted” leads. After the appearances in Jerusalem and in Galilee it would be hard to expect from the eleven that they would doubt the truth of the Resurrection and the presence of Christ in their midst. However, the account is so brief that it is very difficult to draw definite conclusions from it on this subject. Theophylact concludes that here, besides the eleven disciples, there were seventy. Οἱ δὲ, according to Theophylact, is used here instead of τινὲς δὲ – “some.” Seeing Christ, the disciples worshiped Him as God (προσεκύνησαν), but some doubted (ἐδίστασαν, see commentaries to Matt 14:31). Perhaps they now saw the Risen Christ for the first time and did not believe their own eyes. He appeared, apparently, at some distance from those gathered, perhaps on the highest place of the mountain. But if some “doubted,” this in no way prevents us from thinking that they too worshiped Him. The reading οὐδὲ instead of οἱ δὲ, proposed in order to eliminate the mention of doubts (if we accept οὐδὲ, then we should translate “and did not doubt”), cannot be accepted.

Matthew 28:18. And Jesus came and said to them: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. “Now the New Testament in all its fullness was first proclaimed on earth.” Instead of the former διακονία in a humiliated state, now ἐξουσία – “power,” “dominion,” “authority.” “All” (πᾶσα), that is, all. The addition of the words “in heaven and on earth” indicates worldwide dominion, authority and strength. It is not said that the authority “was given by God”; the meaning is that Christ received this authority, having destroyed the barrier, the partition between God...

Matthew 28:19. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Cf. Mark 16:15.) “Therefore” (οὖν) is added in many codices, but is ordinarily considered only a gloss, although a “correct” one. In some manuscripts it is replaced by the word “now,” which in Greek is similar to “therefore” (νῦν – οὖν). But whether οὖν is recognized as authentic or not, verse 19 is a conclusion from the preceding speech of Christ, and that conclusion is purely evangelical. Christ said that He has been given “all (every) authority in heaven and on earth.” It would be expected in the further speech that He would transfer this authority to His disciples and would say: go, rule.... Instead: “go, make disciples”.... Make disciples because all authority has been given to Christ. The word “make disciples” (μαθητεύσατε) cannot be precisely translated. If Christ wished to say “teach,” a different verb would be used here – μανθάνω. Μαθητεύω means not “to teach,” but to put people in the same position and relation to Christ in which the twelve, seventy and others found themselves. All of them became disciples of Christ without previous teaching. Thus the meaning of the expression is that the disciples, according to the commandment of Christ, were to go to the “nations” and acquire among them disciples (followers) of Christ. Under πάντα τὰ ἔθνη are meant all peoples living on earth, not excluding the Jews. The further αὐτούς – masculine gender, not agreeing with ἔθνη (neuter gender), but clearly refers to it. This is explained by the fact that here are meant both the nations themselves and individual persons among them. In carrying out this commandment of Christ, the apostles never doubted that all, both Jews and Gentiles, should be admitted into the Kingdom of Christ, or the Church. Doubts in the apostolic time arose only regarding circumcision and generally Jewish ceremonial law – should Gentiles be admitted to the Church, performing circumcision on them first, or not. Regarding the further “baptizing” (βαπτίζοντες), many disputes have arisen: should it be understood in a literal or only spiritual sense; should baptism be performed by immersion, or by pouring, or by sprinkling; should children be baptized, or only adults, and those who have been previously taught Christian truths. All these questions belong, properly, to the domain of practical theology. The verse being considered, from the exegetical side, appears to have, in general, only a general sense, and it is not clearly indicated whether one should first teach and then baptize, or vice versa, or simultaneously. The aim of Christ’s commandment is to draw people into His Kingdom, baptizing them and teaching, teaching and baptizing. But by baptism here is meant not only a spiritual, but also a physical act (ordinary baptism). The Greek word βαπτίζοντες points to immersion. In BD – βαπτίσαντες (aorist). The last words are difficult to interpret and have been the subject of many discussions. It is possible, however, to establish that “in the name” does not correspond to the Hebrew formula “be shem” – in that case in Greek it would be ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, corresponding to the Latin in nomine, and this would mean: baptize with the pronunciation of the name or in communion (ἐν) with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Greek expression εἰς τὸ ὄνομα corresponds to the Hebrew “le shem” – “toward the name,” that is, baptize people toward the recognition of the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, toward the assimilation of one of the most important New Testament truths about the Trinity of Divine Persons. Simply and briefly, the thought can be expressed thus: in baptism is expressed the “belonging” of people to the Kingdom of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. By virtue of the very act of baptism, a person becomes a member of the Church of Christ – he is forgiven the original sin and becomes a partaker of all further gracious Christian gifts. Ὄνομα (“name”) is used in the singular. This points to the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity (otherwise it would be said εἰς ὀνόματα).

Matthew 28:20. Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age. Amen. Theophylact notes that, by commanding to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, Christ taught us theological doctrine (τὴν θεολογίαν), and by commanding to observe the commandments, presented practical virtue. The word διδάσκοντες means, properly, “instruction,” that is, the teaching of Christian faith truths, and indicates continuity, constancy. The disciples of Christ must act as He commanded. He Himself will remain with them, providing them constant guidance and help till the close of the age (τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος – see explanation of this expression in the commentaries to Matt 24:3).