Augustine of Hippo

(Lib. 83. Quæst. q. 25.) The Wisdom of God took upon Him man, to give us an example how we might live rightly. It pertains to right life not to fear things that are not to be feared. But some men who do not fear death in itself, yet dread some kinds of death. That no sort of death is to be feared by the man who lives aright, was to be shown by this Man's cross. For of all the modes of death none was more horrible and fearful than this.

(in Serm. non occ.) Let your holiness consider of what might is the power of the cross. Adam set at nought the commandment, taking the apple from the tree; but all that Adam lost, Christ found upon the cross. The ark of wood saved the human race from the deluge of waters; when God's people came out of Egypt, Moses divided the sea with his rod, overwhelmed Pharaoh, and redeemed God's people. The same Moses changed the bitter water into sweet by casting wood into it. By the rod the refreshing stream was drawn out of the rock; that Amalech might be overcome, Moses' outstretched hands were supported upon his rod; the Law of God is entrusted to the wooden ark of the covenant, that thus, by these steps we may come at last to the wood of the cross.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 12.) Matthew shortly says, They parted his garments, casting lots; but John explains more fully how it was done. The soldiers, when they had crucified him, look his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat; now the coat was without seam. (John 19:23.)

(in Serm. non occ.) When now nought of suffering remains to be endured, death still lingers, knowing that it has nothing there. The ancient foe suspected somewhat unusual. This man, first and only, he found having no sin, free from guilt, owing nothing to the laws of his jurisdiction. But leagued with Jewish madness, Death comes again to the assault, and desperately invades the Life-giver. And Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. Wherefore should we be offended that Christ came from the bosom of the Father to take upon Him our bondage, that He might confer on us His freedom; to take upon Him our death, that we might be set free by His death; by despising death He exalted us mortals into Gods, counted them of earth worthy of things in heaven? For seeing the Divine power shines forth so brilliant in the contemplation of its works, it is an argument of boundless love, that it suffers for its subjects, dies for its bondsmen. This then was the first cause of the Lord's Passion, that He would have it known how great God's love to man, Who desired rather to be loved than feared. The second was that He might abolish with yet more justice the sentence of death which He had with justice passed. For as the first man had by guilt incurred death through God's sentence, and handed down the same to his posterity, the second Man, who knew no sin, came from heaven that death might be condemned, which, when commissioned to seize the guilty, had presumed to touch the Author of sinlessness. And it is no wonder if for us He laid down what He had taken of us, His life, namely, when He has done other so great things for us, and bestowed so much on us.

(Cons. Ev. iii. 18.) Luke mentions the words which He thus cries out, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 24.) Concerning the hour when the women came to the sepulchre there arises a question not to be overlooked. Matthew here says, On the evening of the Sabbath. What then means that of Mark, Very early in the morning, the first day of the week? (Mark 16:2.) Truly Matthew, by naming the first part of the night, to wit, the evening, denotes the whole night in the end of which they come to the sepulchre. But seeing the Sabbath hindered them from doing this before, he designates the whole night by the earliest portion of it in which it became lawful for them to do whatever, during some period of the night, they designed to do. Thus, On the evening of the sabbath, is just the same as if he had said, On the night of the sabbath, i. e. the night which follows the day of the sabbath, which is sufficiently proved by the words which follow, As it began to dawn towards the first day of the week. This could not be if we understood only the first portion of the night, its beginning, to be conveyed by the word, evening. For the evening or beginning of the night does not begin to dawn towards the first day of the week, but only the night which is concluded by the dawn. And this is the usual mode of speaking in Holy Scripture, to express the whole by a part. By evening therefore he implied the night, in the end of which they came to the sepulchre.

One must not dismiss lightly the question concerning the exact hour at which the women came to the tomb. For if Matthew says, “In the evening of the sabbath, at the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Madgalene and other Mary came to see the tomb,” what then does it mean that Mark says, “And early in the morning on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb at the rising of the sun”? The other two Gospels, Luke and John, do not disagree with Mark; Luke says “early in the morning,” and John says “in the morning when it was still dark.” Both statements are consistent with Mark’s declaration that it was “early in the morning at the rising of the sun,” that is, when the heavens in the east were brightening. But this doesn’t occur except when the sun is very close to rising, a phenomenon which customarily is called the dawn. Therefore Mark does not oppose John, who says “when it was still dark,” for as day is breaking the remaining shadows of darkness diminish only in proportion to the sun’s rising. And Luke’s phrase, “early in the morning,” need not be understood to imply that the sun had already appeared above the horizon but rather is the kind of expression we normally use when we want to signify that something must be done earlier. For when we say “in the morning,” lest we are understood to mean that the sun is already visible, we usually add “very early,” so that we will be understood to refer to the dawn.Thus it is said “in the evening of the sabbath,” as if he had said “in the night of the sabbath,” that is, in the night which follows the day of the sabbath. Matthew’s words themselves, however, are sufficient, for he says, “In the evening of the sabbath, at the dawn on the first day of the week.” This would be impossible if we understood “in the evening” to signify only the first part of the night. For it is not the beginning of the night which “dawns on the first day of the week” but the night which begins to be terminated by the coming of the light. Now the end of the first part of the night is the beginning of the second part, but the end of the whole night is the light. Thus we cannot say that the evening is “at the dawn of the first day of the week” unless by “evening” we intend “night,” which the light brings to an end. In addition, it is divine Scripture’s customary way of distinguishing the whole from the part. Therefore by saying “evening” it signifies the whole night, the end of which is the dawn. Thus the women came to the tomb at dawn, and therefore they came at night, which is signified in Scripture by the designation of evening. For, as I have said, the whole night is included under that name. Therefore, in whatever part of the night they may have come, they came at night; even if they came at the very end of the night, the fact remains without a doubt that they came at night.

According to Matthew, the angel sat upon the stone which had been rolled from the tomb, whereas Mark says that upon entering the tomb the women were astounded to see a young man sitting on the right, dressed in a white robe. This discrepancy would be troubling unless we understand that Matthew remained silent concerning that angel whom they saw when they entered the tomb and Mark remained silent concerning that angel whom they saw sitting on the stone outside the tomb. If this be the case, the women saw two angels and heard from them about Jesus progressively; first from the one who sat on the stone outside the tomb and then from the one whom they saw sitting on the right when they entered the tomb. They went into the tomb then because they had been exhorted to do so by the angel sitting outside, when he said, “Come and see where the Lord was placed.” Upon entering, as it is written, they saw and heard similar things from the angel sitting on the right side of the tomb, who is mentioned by Mark but ignored by Matthew.If this explanation fails to satisfy, we certainly ought to understand that when they entered the tomb they were in some sort of walled enclosure which, it is reasonable to believe, had been established as a secured location in front of the rock from which the tomb was cut. According to this scenario, the angel whom they saw sitting on the right side of the tomb would have been in the same space as the angel who Matthew says was sitting on the stone which, at the time of the earthquake, had been rolled back from the entrance to the tomb, that is, from the sepulcher cut from the rock.

(ubi sup.) We conclude that they had speech of Angels twice at the sepulchre; when they saw one Angel, of whom Matthew and Mark speak; and again when they saw two Angels, as Luke and John relate. And twice in like manner of the Lord; once at that time when Mary supposed Him to be the gardener, (John 20:15.) and now again when He met them in the way to confirm them by repetition, and to restore them from their faintness.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. ult.) That the Lord, both by His own mouth, and by the Angel, directs them to seek for Him, not in that place in which He was to show Himself first, but in Galilee, makes every believer anxious to understand in what mystery it is spoken. Galilee is interpreted 'transmigration,' or 'revelationa'. And according to the first interpretation what meaning offers itself, save this, that the grace of Christ was to pass from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, who would not believe when the Apostles should preach the Gospel to them, unless the Lord Himself should first make ready their way in the hearts of men. This is the signification of that, He shall go before you into Galilee. There shall ye see him, means, there shall ye find His members, there shall ye perceive His living Body in such as shall receive you. According to the other interpretation, 'revelation,' it is to be understood, ye shall see him no longer in the form of a servant, but in that in which He is equal with the Father. That revelation will be the true Galilee, when we shall be like him, and shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2.) That will be the blessed passing from this world to that eternity.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 25.) But it is to be considered, how the Lord could be seen bodily in Galilee. For that it was not the day of the Resurrection is manifest; for He was seen that day in Jerusalem in the beginning of the night, as Luke and John evidently agree. Nor was it in the eight following days, after which John says that the Lord appeared to His disciples, and when Thomas first saw Him, who had not seen Him on the day of the Resurrection. For if within these eight days the eleven had seen Him on a mountain in Galilee, Thomas, who was one of the eleven, could not have seen Him first after the eight days. Unless it be said, that the eleven there spoken of were eleven out of the general body of the disciples, and not the eleven Apostles. But there is another difficulty. John having related that the Lord was seen not in the mountain, but at the sea of Tiberias, by seven who were fishing, adds, This is now the third time that Jesus showed himself to his disciples after he was risen from the (John 21:14.) dead. (Mark 16:14.) So that if we understand the Lord to have been seen within those eight days by eleven of the disciples, this manifestation at the sea of Tiberias will be the fourth, and not the third, appearance. Indeed, to understand John's account at all it must be observed, that he computes not each appearance, but each day on which Jesus appeared, though He may have appeared more than once on the same day; as He did three times on the day of His Resurrection. We are then obliged to understand that this appearance to the eleven disciples on the mountain in Galilee took place last of all. In the four Evangelists we find in all ten distinct appearances of Our Lord after His Resurrection. 1. At the sepulchre to the women. 2. To the same women on their way back from the sepulchre. 3. To Peter. 4. To two disciples as they went into the country. 5. To many together in Jerusalem; 6. when Thomas was not with them. 7. At the sea of Tiberias. 8. At the mountain in Galilee, according to Matthew. 9. To the eleven as they sat at meat, because they should not again eat with Him upon earth, related by Mark. 10. On the day of His Ascension, no longer on the earth, but raised aloft in a cloud, as related by both Mark and Luke. But all is not written, as John confesses, for He had much conversation with them during forty days before His ascension, being seen of them, and speaking unto them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3.)

But now, the same star which led the magi to the place where the infant God was to be found with his virgin mother could of course have led them right to the very city. But it withdrew, and didn’t appear at all to them again, until the Jews themselves had been questioned about the city where Christ was to be born. This was to oblige them to name it themselves, on the evidence of divine Scriptures, and to say themselves, “In Bethlehem of Judah. For so it is written, ‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of Judah; for from you shall come forth the leader who will rule my people Israel.’ ” What else can divine Providence have meant by this, but that among the Jews would remain only the divine Scriptures by which the nations would be instructed, they themselves being blind? This evidence they would carry about with them not as an assistance to their own salvation but as evidence of ours. Because today it may happen that when we bring forward prophecies about Christ, uttered long before and now made clear by the events that have fulfilled them, the pagans whom we wish to gain will say that they weren’t foretold so long ago but have been composed by us after the event, so that what has later occurred may be thought to have been previously prophesied. Then we can cite the volumes owned by the Jews, to clear the doubts of the pagans, who were already prefigured in those magi, whom the Jews instructed from the divine books about the city in which Christ was born, without themselves either seeking or acknowledging him.