John 20:3

Peter therefore went forth,— Peter and John only are mentioned in this relation; but the circumstances taken notice of by the other evangelists shew, that the apostles lodged all together in one house, as they used to do while their Master was alive: if so, it is reasonable to believe, that they all heard Mary Magdalene's report, and were anxious to know the truth of it. But in their present situation, they would judge it imprudentto go out in a body to examine the matter, and would rather depute two of their number for that purpose. Accordingly we suppose that Peter and John went to the sepulchre by the advice and appointment of the rest. Instead of came to the sepulchre, the Greek should rather be rendered went. The fact mentioned by St. Luke (Luke 24:12.) has been commonly taken to be the same with this related by St. John; from which, however, Mr. West observes, it differs, among other things, in this material circumstance, viz. that whereas St. John expresslysays, that Peter went into the sepulchre, while he [John], who got thither first, contented himself with barely stooping down and looking into it, St. Luke tells us, that Peter stooping down and looking in, beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed. The original word παρακυψας, stooping down and looking in, used by both evangelists, and in the latter applied only to St. Peter, in the former only to St. John, is in St. John's gospel plainly distinguished from the word εισηλθεν, entered in, and set in direct opposition to it; and that not bythe force of etymology and construction only, but by some particulars resulting from the actions signified by those two words, which prove them to be distinct and different from each other. He who went into the sepulchre, saw more than he who, standing without, only stooped down and looked in. Thus Peter and John, when they entered into the sepulchre, saw not only the linen clothes lie, but the napkin that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself: but when they only stooped down and looked in, they could see only the linen clothes, as is evident from the words of St. John, John 20:3. Now these two actions being by these marks as clearly distinguished from each other in St. John, as the different places where they were performed can be by the terms entrance and inside of the sepulchre, and, as so distinguished, having been separately performed by that apostle, they must also necessarily be taken for separate and distinct actions, when related of St. Peter. And if it be reasonable to conclude from St. John's account, that Peter, when he came with him to the sepulchre, did not stop at the entrance, stoop down and look in, but that he entered into it; it is no less reasonable to conclude from St. Luke's narration, that when he came at the time mentioned by him, he did not enter in, but stooping down, beheld the linen clothes and departed; especially if the force of the Greek word μονα (rendered by themselves) be considered, and the whole passage rendered, as it ought to have been, "Beheld the linen clothes only lying." From all which it appears, that the fact related of St. Peter by St. Luke, and that here related by St. John, are separate and distinct facts, and not one and the same, as has been imagined. And as the facts were different, so did they take their rise from two different occasions; or in other words, as it is evident from all that has been just now said, that Peter went twice to the sepulchre, so there are two distinct reasons for his so doing, assigned in the gospels of Luke and John, viz. the report of Mary Magdalene, and that of Joanna and the other women. By the former having been told that the body of Jesus was taken out of the sepulchre, he ran in great haste to examine into the truth of that account; and in pursuance of this intent entered into the sepulchre, that hemight receive a thorough satisfaction upon that point. In the latter were two additional circumstances of importance, sufficient toawaken the curiosity of a less zealous disciple than St. Peter, whose affection for his Lord was like his natural temper, fervent and impetuous. When he heard therefore from Joanna and the other women of a vision of angels, who had appeared to them at the sepulchre, and informed them that Christ was risen, can we wonder at his running thither a second time, in hopes of receiving some confirmation of the truth of that report, which, though treated by the rest as an idle tale, he certainly then gave credit to, as the whole tenor of this passage implies? We say a second time, because had he gone for the first time upon the report of Joanna, he could have had no inducement to have gone to the sepulchre a second time from any thing he could learn from the first report made by Mary Magdalene, whose account contained nothing but what was implied in that given by Joanna and the other women. His behaviour also upon this occasion, when he only stooped down and looked into the sepulchre, so different from the former, when he entered into it, is very consonant with the purpose of this second visit, which was, to see if the angels who had appeared to the women at the sepulchre, were still there: this could as well be discovered by looking, as by going into the sepulchre, as is plain from the account given by Mary Magdalene, who, stooping down and looking in, saw two angels sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. Having now proved that the visit of St. Peter to the sepulchre, mentioned by St. Luke, must have been his second visit, this passage is cleared from two objections which lay against it; one, that it did not agree with the relation given by St. John; and the other, that it disturbed and confounded the whole order of St. Luke's narration. This point being settled, the reader will permit a few inferences in order to explain some passages in the preceding part of that chapter of St. Luke's gospel. First then, it is plain from John 20:9 that St. Peter, after he had been with St. John and Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre, was now got among the other apostles and disciples, whom, in all probability, he and John had assembled upon the occasion of Mary Magdalene's report. Peter, we say, and John had, in all probability, assembled the other apostles and disciples, to inform them of what they had heard from Mary Magdalene, and of their having been themselves at the sepulchre to examine into the truth of her report. For it is not to be imagined, that these apostles would not have immediately communicated to the rest an event of so much consequence to them all, as that of the Lord's body being missing from the sepulchre. And as we now find them gathered together, and Peter with them, it is no unnatural supposition, that they had been summoned thither by Peter and John; at least their meeting together so early in the morning, is this way accounted for. Here then we see the reason of St. Luke's naming Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, among those who told these things to the apostles, John 20:10. For although these two women were with Joanna and her party, and, consequently, could not have joined them in relating to the apostles the vision of the two angels, &c. yet, as the account of their having found the stone rolled away, and the body of Jesus missing, had been reported from them by Peter and John to the other apostles before the return of Joanna from the sepulchre, St. Luke thought fit to set them down as evidences of some of the facts related by him; and indeed it was proper to produce the testimony of the two Mary's concerning these facts, because they first went to the sepulchre, and first gave an account of those two particulars to the apostles. Secondly, It may hence be inferred, that the reports of the women were made separately and at different times. For if St. Peter went twice to the sepulchre, there must have been two distinct reasons for his so doing, the distinct reports of Mary Magdalene and of Joanna: and as there was a considerable interval between his first and second visit, a proportionable space must have intervened between the two reports. After Mary Magdalene's report, he had been at the sepulchre, had returned thence to his own home, and was now got with the other apostles and disciples, whom, as we have said, he and St. John had in all probability called together, before Joanna, and the women with her, came to make theirs. Thirdly, as the reports were made at different times, and by different women; as the facts reported were different, and said to have happened all in the same place, viz. at the sepulchre, and as these facts must of consequence have happened at different times; it follows, that the women who reported those facts as happening in their presence, must have been at the sepulchre at different times. For had they been all present at each of these events, no reason can be assigned for their differing so widely in their relations; and pretty difficult will it be to account for their varying so much as to the time of their making their reports. Here then is a strong argument in favour of the women's coming at different times to the sepulchre. Their different motives for going, some intending only to view the sepulchre, and others to embalm the body, is still another argument; and as this gave occasion to two appearances of Christ, and as many of the angels, it consequently multiplied the proofs and witnesses of the resurrection, and established this important truth upon stronger evidence.