Luke 24:1. And certain others with them.— By these other women must be meant some besides those who had followed Jesus from Galilee; of whom alone St. Luke speaks in the former part of this verse, and the latter part of the preceding chapter. By these, therefore, as contra-distinguished from the Galilean women, he probably means the women of Jerusalem, a great number of whom followed Jesus as he was going to his crucifixion, ch. Luke 23:27. But what number of them went upon this occasion out of Galilee, is not any where said: nor of these are any other named, than Joanna, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, though many others followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, and were present at his crucifixion. See Matthew 27:55.Mark 15:41; Mark 15:41. It is therefore probable, that most, if not all who were accustomed to minister to him in Galilee, who attended him to Jerusalem, and accompanied him to mountCalvary, contributed to this pious office of embalming their Master's body, either by buying and preparing the spices, or by going to assist their companions in embalming the body, and rolling away the stone; for which purpose principally we may suppose the women of Jerusalem attended, since none of them seem to have made any purchase of spices for the embalming: and for this last purpose, it is further probable, they thought their number sufficient. To distinguish those women who made the report to the disciples, from the others who came with them, St. Luke adds the words in Luke 24:10. It is observable, that St. Mark, Mar 16:1 says of the women mentioned by him, no more than that they had bought spices to anoint the body; enough to shew with what intent they went to the tomb; that they had any spices with them, he does not say: but St. Luke says, that they actually brought the spices with them; and not only so, but that they had prepared them, that is to say, made them fit for the use intended. The several drugs were bought singly, each by itself, at the shop, and therefore it was necessary to mix them or melt them together for use; and we may imagine, that though all thewomen joined in buying the spices, yet the care of getting and preparing them was left particularly to the women first mentioned by St. Luke; but as they were Galileans, and not at home at Jerusalem, and probably unacquainted with the method of embalming bodies, it is most likely that they employed some inhabitants of the place to buy and prepare the spices, and to go with them to apply them to the body; and these are the others with them here mentioned. This will account for St. Matthew saying nothing of the spices, Mat 28:1 for the women there spoken of had none with them: they set out before those who were to bring the spices, to see what condition the sepulchre was in; and this is properly expressed by the words to see, or take a view of the sepulchre. We may observe further, that it was a circumstance of decency, considering the office which they intended to perform, that the men and the women should perform their respective parts in it bythemselves, which accordingly the evangelists plainly intimate they did intend to do. Their setting out alone was a remarkable instance of their zeal and courage; perhaps some appointment might be made with Peter and John, (who were early up on this occasion) either to meet them, or come after them, to assist in removing the stone, though not in embalming the body. See on Matthew 28.

Luke 24:4. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, &c.— This threw them into a great perplexity, when on a sudden two men stood, &c. It hence seems probable, that the angels disappeared at certain times; for the words intimate, that the women did not see them at their first entrance into the sepulchre, and that their appearance was sudden, and occasioned a surprize. The evangelist here calls them men; but Luk 24:23 he calls them angels. The truth is, angels are sometimes called men, because they appeared in the human form. See Genesis 18:2.—Mar 16:5 where one angel only is mentioned under the appellation of a young man; whence somehaveinferred,thatthetransactiontherementionedwasdifferentfromthis before us: but be that as it may, it is easy to account for the presence of two angels, though only one of them might be seen by some of those who came to view the sepulchre. If the reader will attend to the supposed form of the sepulchre, and to the position of our Lord's body therein, he will find this method of reconciling the evangelists easy, natural, and probable. The sepulchre seems to have been a square room, hewn out of a rock, partly above ground, its roof being as high as the top of the door which formed its entrance. The door opened upon a stair, which ran down straight to the bottom of the sepulchre, along the side of the left wall. Having therefore carried the bodydown with its feet foremost, they would naturally place it lengthwise bythe right side wall of the sepulchre, in such a manner, that its head lay pointing towards what might be called the front, had the sepulchre been wholly above-ground, and its feet to the back wall. They laid the body on the floor, close to the right side wall of the sepulchre, because in that position it was most out of the way of those who might come down. This description is agreeable to the accounts which travellers give us of the Jewish sepulchres; particularly Mr. Maundrell, who was on the spot, and saw several of them. They were generally caves, hewn out of rocks; and as the Jews did not make use of coffins, they placed their dead separately in niches or little cells cut in the sides of these caves or rooms. But Joseph's sepulchre, being a new one, was in all probability unfinished; and particularly it might have no niches cut into the sides where they could deposit the dead; for which reason they laid Jesus on the floor, (see John 20:12.) in the manner described; intending very probably, when the sabbath was past, to remove him to some finished burial-place. See John 19:42. Admitting these suppositions,—most of which are founded on some authority, and all of them perfectly natural,—the women, intending to search the sepulchre a second time, might, as soon as they came upon the threshold, see the angel, who sat on the right side, where the feet of Jesus had been; that is, who sat in the furthermost right corner of the sepulchre: and though his companion, who sat on the same side at the head, or in the hithermost right corner, had been then visible, they would not have observed him; so that, at the first, they must have seen one angel only, as St. Matthew and St. Mark tell us: but stepping down the stairs upon the invitation of the angel who appeared, they got the whole cavity of the sepulchre under their eye, and discovered the other heavenly messenger. Thus they saw two angels, as St. Luke affirms. Besides, the brilliant appearance of him who spake to them, might so fix their eyes, as to hinder them from taking notice of his companion, till, landing at the bottom of the stairs, they turned themselves about upon the floor. Their fear and confusion also might have some influence upon them. The word επεστησαν, which we render stood by, does not imply that the angels at their first appearance were close by the women; this is proved from Genesis 18:2.—LXX: where, though it is said, that Abraham lift up his eyes, and looked, and lo three men, εστηκεισαν επανω αυτου —stood by him, it is added, that when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent-door, which shews that they were at some distance from him; wherefore the words επεστησαν αυταις in St. Luke, answering to the words εστηκεισαν επανω αυτου in Genesis, signify simply they appeared unto them: if so, we may suppose that both the angels were in a sitting posture when they shewed themselves to the women, because St. Mark expressly affirms it of one whom he mentions Mar 16:5 and because they shewed themselves in this posture afterwards to Mary Magdalene, John 20:12. However, if the reader be not satisfied with this solution, the evangelists may easily be reconciled, by supposing that the angel, of whom St. Mark speaks, arose when the women went down into the sepulchre.—It may be proper, and perhaps agreeable to the reader, to observe, that it cannot be objected to the description of our Lord's sepulchre given above, that what is shewn at this day as his sepulchre is of a different form; for the real sepulchre, being originally a matter of private property, must have passed from one owner to another, and of course have undergone various changes; especially as it does not appear that the first Christians were led to preserve it, from that veneration for places and things which in latter ages engrossed the attention of the world. Besides, it should be considered, that though superstition taught Christians, very early, to venerate and perpetuate things of this kind; yet their enemies, on the other hand, would do what they could to destroy them, as having an apparent tendency to confirm the followers of the new religion in their opinions; and therefore, if our Lord's sepulchre was visited by Christians before they obtained the protection of the civil government in Judea, the rulers would certainly destroy it. Nor is this supposition rendered improbable by the accounts which are given of the sepulchre, as subsisting in later times; for when the Roman empire became Christian, and superstition grew apace, the monks would repair the repository of our Lord's body; or if it was entirely destroyed, would make a new one to supply its place. Farther, it ought to be considered, that although the sepulchre had actually subsisted safe till it came into the possession of the monks, it was liable to many accidents after that period: for during the wars which the Mahometans waged with the Christians about the possession of the Holy Land, it is natural to suppose, that when the former carried their victorious arms into Judea, they would destroy every monument of Christianity, as well as of learning. After they were driven out indeed, the Christians would be equally assiduous to repair the devastations occasioned by the Mahometans; and, in particular, they would take care not to be without the holy places, so necessary to the superstition of the times. What confirms this conjecture is, that in the description given of those places, as they now subsist, things evidently and grossly fictitious are found. For example, before our Lord's sepulchre there lies a great marble stone, on which they affirm his body was anointed; and near at hand is another sepulchre, in which Joseph of Arimathea is said to have been buried: nay, they even shew the room where the Virgin Mary was saluted by the angel; with many other things, the knowledge of which could not possibly have been preserved during the course of so many ages, without such a series of miracles as we cannot by any means suppose, on account of things of so trifling a nature. Farther, it is certain, that the sepulchre in Bede's time was different, not only from what it is at present, but from that which the evangelists have described: for he tells us, that the travellers of those days affirmed it had a niche, into which our Lord's body was put; whereas from Joh 20:11-12 it appears that his body was laid on the floor.

Luke 24:11. Their words seemed to them as idle tales,— Their Master's crucifixion gave such a severe blow to their faith, that they laid aside all the thoughts which they had entertained of his being the Messiah, and therefore they had not the least expectation of his resurrection, notwithstanding he had often predicted it to them; nay, they looked upon the account which the women told them about it, as a mere chimera, the delusion of a disordered imagination. It may seem strange, that in the accounts which the evangelists have given of our Lord's resurrection, there is not the least mention made of the disciples meeting one another by the way, although they went several times backwards and forwards in separate companies, between their lodging inthe city and the sepulchre. On the contrary, the circumstances of the history oblige us to suppose that they did not meet one another. But there is nothing improbable in this; for as Jerusalem was a great city, the apostles' lodgings might be at the distance of a mile or two from that extremity of it which was nearest to the sepulchre, and therefore from their lodging to the sepulchre there might be several different ways through the city, all equally convenient. Further, Calvary, where our Lord was crucified, is said to have been nigh to the city; Joh 19:20 but it would be nigh, though it were at the distance of half a mile. Suppose it, however, to have been only a little more than a quarter of a mile—In this place, or nigh to it, εν τοπω, was the garden where our Lord was buried; (John 19:41.) Yet the garden might be on the side of Calvary which was furthest from Jerusalem; wherefore, as it was a spacious garden, the sepulchre could not well be nearer to the city than half a mile. It may, however, have been at the distance of a whole mile, consistently enough with the description which St. John has given of its situation. On either supposition, there may have been different roads from Joseph's villa and garden to the city. Besides, as Jerusalem was walled round, the apostles' lodgings might be so situated, that persons going thence to Joseph's garden, could come out of the city by two different gates. To conclude, the garden where the sepulchre was, might have more doors than one, and several shady walks in it, leading to the sepulchre. On these suppositions, it is easy to imagine, that the disciples, and the women who went to and from the sepulchre, may have missed each other, by taking their route through different streets in the city, or different roads in the field; or they may have been hid from each other by the shady walks of the garden in which the sepulchre stood.
See commentary on Luk 24:9

Luke 24:12. Then arose Peter,— But Peter arose. On this transaction we shall enlarge, when we come to John 20.

Luke 24:16. But their eyes were holden,— St. Mark says that our Saviour appeared to the two disciples in another form, Mark 16:12. St. Luke, that their eyes were holden: who does not see that both evangelists, meant to express the same thing? If Jesus appeared in another form, their eyes of course were holden that they should not know him: all that the historians meant to intimate is, that there was an impediment which prevented their knowing him. That this might happen either in a natural way or a supernatural way, may be proved in a manner agreeable to reason and true philosophy; and such aswill correspond exactly with the expressions of both the evangelists. To state the case in a natural way; two men meet an acquaintance whom they thought dead; they converse with him for some time, without suspecting who he is; the very persuasion they were under that he was dead, contributing greatly to their not knowing him: besides, he appeared in a habit and form different from what he used when they conversed with him; the tone of his voice might be altered; he appeared to them on a journey, and walking with them side by side, in which situation no one of the company has a full view of another: moreover, their thoughts were so swallowed up in the depth of their grief, that as they took little notice of any thing without them, so they might not narrowly examine his features: and where then was the impossibility of their not knowing him? Yet as the words may be taken so as to signify some supernatural restraint, doubtless, there might have been some particular agency from above, either to divert their minds from looking steadfastly upon him, or so to affect their memories, as to render them incapable of recollecting who he was. Compare Genesis 21:19. Num 22:31 and 2 Kings 6:17-18.

Luke 24:17. As ye walk, and are sad?— As ye walk?—For ye are sad: see Bowyer's Greek Testament.

Luke 24:18. Art thou only a stranger, &c.— Are you the only person that sojourns in Jerusalem, and is unacquainted with the things which, &c.? Heylin, and Doddridge.

Luke 24:25. Then he said,—O fools, &c.— Again he said,—O thoughtless men;— ανοητοι . The word expresses a want of due attention and consideration. The slowness of Christ's friends to believe his resurrection, is so far from being an argument that the proofs of it were defective; that, on the contrary, their believing afterwards carries the greater weight: for it removes all suspicion of a collusion between Christ and them in his life-time; and also implies an impartial examination of the fact, and the strength of those proofs which vanquished this incredulity. It appears from the reproof which our Saviour gave them, that Cleopas and his companions were of the number of those who gave little credit to the tidings which the women had brought of their Master's resurrection; wherefore, to shew them their error, Jesus reprovedthemsharplyfornotunderstandingandbelievingtheprophesies;which,said he, declare it to be the will of heaven, that before the Messiah should enter into his glory, that is to say, before he should receive his kingdom, he should suffer such things as you say your Master has suffered.

Luke 24:27. And beginning at Moses, &c.— That his reproof might appear well founded, that their drooping spirits might be supported, and that they might be prepared for the discovery he was about to make of himself, which he explained all the types and prophesies of the Old Testament which relate to the Messiah's sufferings; such as the Mosaical sacrifices, the lifting up of the brazen serpent, the 22nd Psalm, the 53rd of Isaiah, &c. &c. It is no way necessary to suppose that Christ's sufferings, resurrection, and exaltation, are each of them distinctly foretold in each of those parts of the sacred writings which are mentioned in this verse. It is enough if Moses gave some intimation concerning him, which succeeding prophets carried on; and if, when all their testimonies are taken together, all these events are expressed by some one or other of them. The design of our Lord's entering into so particular an exposition of the prophets, or the sacred writers, was to shew, that by making a proper use of their understanding, they might from those very scriptures whose authority they allowed, have been convinced that the Messiah ought to have suffered, as they had seen him suffer, and to rise from the dead on the third day: that is, Christ chose rather to convince them by reason than by sense, or at least so to prepare their minds, that their assenting afterwards to the testimony of their senses, should be with the concurrence of their reason: he had proceeded in the same manner with the other disciples at Jerusalem; from all of whom he had hitherto withholden the evidence of sense, having not appeared to any of them, except Peter, till after the return of these two disciples to Jerusalem. This proceeding, at once so becoming the Lord of righteousness and truth, and the moral liberty of man as a reasonable being, must have been prevented, had Christ discovered himself to them at his first appearing. Wonder and astonishment in that case would have taken the place of reason, and have left them, perhaps, when the strong impression was a little worn away, in doubt or scepticism. The point discussed upon the road was, whether it was agreeable to prophesy that Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead? Christ himself undertook to prove this proposition at large from the scriptures of the Old Testament; and the argument, through his grace, seemed to have its intended effect. Suppose now, that he had made himself known, and then entered upon his argument; what would have been the consequence? Plainly this, the surprise of seeing one from the dead, and the authority of Christ reasoning from the scriptures, must have disturbed their judgment, and made them, perhaps, submit to his interpretation of the prophesies, without considering particularly the justness and propriety thereof. The plain reason, therefore, why the discovery was not made sooner, is, that their understandings might be first convinced upon the strength of argument; while their minds were yet free from any impression by the event itself, and the irresistible force of Christ's authority.

Luke 24:29. They constrained him,— They pressed him. Heylin, &c. See ch. Luke 14:23. We are told in the subsequent verses, that the disciples, having returned from Emmaus, were telling their brethren what had happened to them, when Jesus stood in the midst, and saluted them, Luke 24:35-36. Moreover, it is taken notice of, that this appearance happened on the first day of the week at even; John 20:19. These circumstances, together with the departure of the disciples, who went to Emmaus before the news of Christ's resurrection had reached the city, shew plainly that by the evening in this verse, we are to understand the first evening of the Jewish day, which began at three o'clock. See Matthew 14:15. It is toward evening, means, "It is toward three o'clock;" and the day is far spent, κεκλικεν η ημερα, means, The day has declined: for, on any other supposition, the two could not have returned to Jerusalem, after dining at Emmaus, so as to have been present when Jesus shewed himself to his disciples the first day of the week, which ended at sun-setting.

Luke 24:32. Did not our heart burn, &c.— Nothing can be more beautiful than this remark: the author of the Guardian observes, that this whole narrative is delivered in a style which men of letters call "the great and noble simplicity:" the attention of the disciples when Christ expounded the scriptures concerning himself, his offering to take his leave of them, their fondness of his stay, and the manifestation of the great Guest whom they had entertained while he was yet at meat with them, are all incidents, which wonderfully please the imagination of a Christian reader, and give to him something of that touch of mind which the disciples felt, when they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, &c.? See Guardian, No. 21.Psalms 39:3; Psalms 39:3.Jeremiah 20:9; Jeremiah 20:9.

Luke 24:33. They rose up the same hour,— As soon as Jesus departed, the two disciples made all the haste they could to Jerusalem, that they might have the pleasure of acquainting their brethrenwith the agreeable news; but they were in some measure prevented: for immediately on their arrival, the eleven, with the women, accosted them, giving them the news of their Master's resurrection. The eleven was the current stile for the whole college of apostles; and afterthe call of Matthias to the apostleship, they were again called the twelve. In virtue of this stile, a general meeting of the apostles is called a meeting of the eleven, or the twelve, though one or more may happen to be absent. This is agreeable to both antient and modern usage, in the case of senates, councils, and the like. Hence it is that St. Luke says the eleven were gathered together, though it appears that Judas was dead, and that Thomas was absent, John 20:24. St. Paul, 1Co 15:5 calls it a meeting of the twelve, because he was not converted till after the election of Matthias, when that again came to be the usual stile.

Luke 24:34. The Lord is risen indeed,— Our Lord appeared to St. Peter the same day as he did to the disciples, in their way to Emmaus; but whether, before he conversed with the disciples, or after, is not certain. It was not till after the two disciples had left Jerusalem, and set out for Emmaus; for it appears from the account which they give our Lord of what had come to their knowledge, that they knew nothing of any appearance to St. Peter: and yet it must have been before they returned to Jerusalem; for they found the eleven discoursing of this appearance to Simon. It is doubtful therefore which of these two appearances should be placed first; but they both happened on the day of Christ's resurrection. As neither the time nor the particulars of this appearance are recorded by the evangelists, though St. Paul expressly refers to it, 1Co 15:5 we shall not pretend to say any thing more about it, than that the apostles seem to have laid greater stress upon that alone, than upon all those related by the women; for upon the two disciples coming into the chamber, they accost them immediately, without waiting to hear their relation, with the Lord it risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon, but make no mention of any of his appearances to the women. Probably Peter was the first man, as Mary Magdalene was the first woman, favoured with a sight of our Saviour after his resurrection. St. Peter's report of his being risen may have been supposed less subject to suspicion, after his having denied him; and therefore our Lord's first appearance to him might have been designed to establish this important circumstance upon the most unexceptionable evidence. Peter had denied his Master; and had his Master shewn himself to any other disciple before he shewed himself to him, might not Peter have thought his repentance ineffectual, his reconciliation impossible, and consequently have been plunged in despair? but what greater consolation could be afforded to this penitent sinner, and through him to all other penitents, than to find that his Lord was entirely reconciled to him, by the peculiar honour paid him; that thoughhe had denied him, he was not rejected by him; and though his fall wasattended with inconceivable aggravations, the magnanimity and mercy of his Saviour was still greater. As the faith of the disciples was much strengthened by the report of St. Peter, so must it have been greatly confirmed by the arrival of these two disciples, who declared that the Lord had appeared to them also. St. Mark, however, represents the reception which their report met with somewhat differently, ch. Luke 16:12-13. They went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. But there is no inconsistency between the evangelists; for though the greatest part of the apostles believed that Jesus was risen, as St. Luke affirms, some, who had not given credit either to the women nor to Simon, continued obstinately to disbelieve, in spite of all that the two disciples or the rest could say. This seems to be a better method of reconciling the evangelists, than to suppose that on St. Peter's information the apostles believed Jesus was risen, but did not believe that he had appeared to the two disciples; because, according to their own account of the matter, they did not know him at first, and because at parting he had vanished out of their sight: for surely it is natural to think that the disciples, who, on this occasion, were more than twentyin number, would divide in their opinions upon such a subject as the resurrection of their Master from the dead. We know from St. Luke himself, that a few did not believe after they had seen Jesus with their own eyes. See Luk 24:41 and compare Matthew 28:17. It is therefore no straining of the text to suppose, that by the eleven saying, the Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon, St. Luke means only some of the eleven; perhaps the greatest part of them said so. Besides, we must understand the evangelist's words in a limited sense, because St. Peter, of whom he speaks, was himself one of the eleven.

Luke 24:36. And as they thus spake,— See John 20:19.

Luke 24:41. And while they yet believed not, &c.— The disciples, beholding the infallible proofs of their Master's resurrection specified in the former verses, received him with exultation and rapture; but their joy and wonder so wrought upon their minds, that some of them, sensible of the commotion they were in, suspended their belief, till they had considered the matter more calmly. Jesus therefore, knowing their thoughts, to calm their minds, and to establish their conviction, calls for meat, and eats with them; so much compassion did he shew for their infirmity; so much care did he take, that not even a shadow of a scruple should remain in their minds, upon a point of the utmost importance to the great business for which he came into the world: and perceiving now that every doubt was vanished, and that they were perfectly convinced, he said to them, pursuing the argument begun by the angels, and carried on by himselfwith the two disciples in the way to Emmaus, These are the words, &c. Luke 24:44-48.

Luke 24:44. In the law of Moses, and in the prophets, &c.— The Old Testament was in those days divided into three parts; first, the law, which contained the five books of Moses; secondly, the hagiographa, which contained divine hymns and moral instructions, and went under the general title of the Psalms, because they were esteemed the most eminent, and were placed at the head of those writings; and thirdly, the prophets, which contained not only the books merely prophetical, but those likewise which were historical, written by prophetic men.

Luke 24:45. Then opened he their understanding,— That is, he strengthened and enlarged their understandings, so as to make them comprehend the meaning of the inspired writings; several passages of which he now explained to them, as we may gather from the next verse.

Luke 24:47. Beginning at Jerusalem.— It was both graciously and wisely appointed by our Lord, that the gospel, which was to be disseminated among all nations, should begin to be preached at Jerusalem: graciously, as it encouraged the repentance of the greatest sinners, when they saw that even the murderers of Christ were not exempted from the offer of gospel mercy: and wisely, as hereby Christianity was more abundantly attested, the facts being published first on the very spot where they happened, and as the vast concourse of people of various nations present there at the feast of Pentecost would contribute greatly to its speedier propagation. Our Lord commands that his gospel should be preached among all nations, to the whole Gentile world; an event inconceivable to the Jews, and to human reason almost impossible. Naturally every man is zealous for the religion of his fathers; and though it may have many absurdities in it, he does not easily perceive them, because he imbibed them in his earliest years. Idolatry had this further advantage, that all the pleasures of the flesh wereconsistentwiththisreligion.Itsworship required no attention of mind; every part of it was external and pompous, fit to captivate and entertain the senses: besides, all degrees of men were engaged to defend it:—thecivil powers, from maxims of policy, every great change in religion portending danger to the state, and every change in religion being prohibited by the laws, unless the consent of the sovereign power was obtained; the artists, because of gain; the priests, to preserve their authority and emoluments; the people, out of superstition and misguided devotion. This was the unpromising prospect, when Christ foretold and commanded the setting up of his religion in the room of idolatry; a religion which taught the denial of man's self, his irregular appetites and passions; which prescribed an invisible God for the object of adoration, and a spiritual worship and purity of heart suitable to the nature of that object; which promised nothing desirable in this world, neither riches, dignities, nor grandeur, but often the loss of all these, as their portion who should embrace it.—And what were the means which Christ proposed for so vast an undertaking? As disproportioned to the work, as the religions were opposite.—A few men, of mean extraction, of no education or experience, without the arts of rhetoric and persuasion, without armies, without force or policy; of a nation hated by the Gentiles, and hating them from a bigotry to their own customs. What an extravagancy was it to think of extirpating, by such means, a religion deeply rooted in human nature, supported by prejudices, vices, interest, and authority, wherein so many wise men and philosophers formerly miscarried; and to plant upon its ruins Christianity, which to the Greeks was foolishness.—How vain the attempt,—had not God declared the success beforehand! St. Luke tells us, that Christ had had discourses to this purpose with his disciples, and reminded them, after his resurrection, of what he had said upon that subject; Luke 24:44-47. These respective events are written in several prophets. See Psalms 2.Hosea 2:23; Hosea 2:23.Joel 2:32; Joel 2:32.Malachi 1:11; Malachi 1:11.Daniel 7:14; Daniel 7:14. But this of preaching among all nations seems to be taken particularly from Isa 49:6 as well as from various other prophesies; whence St. Paul also tells the Jews that salvation ought to be offered to the Gentiles, and that they would hear it, Acts 28:28. St. Matthew, Mat 12:17-21 applies another text of the same prophet, Isa 42:1-4 which is direct to his purpose. From these and the like passages in the New Testament there is good ground to affirm, that Christ and his apostles did declare the conversion of the Gentiles to Christianity, as impossible as it seemed to be, upon the authority of the scripture prophesies; and the present and past face of the world demonstrates, that they were not mistaken.

Luke 24:48. And ye are witnesses of these things.— That this was the grand business of the apostles, is evident; and the ingenious author of Miscellanea Sacra has taken great pains to shew how the title of witnesses, and the office of testifying, are, in the sacred writings, appropriated to the apostles. But after all, though it was indeed essential to the apostolical office, that they who bore it should be able to testify the facts as of their own personal knowledge, yet it is certain that a great many others, who were not apostles, were to testify the same; and it was their duty, and no doubt their care to do it, as the providence of God gave them opportunity. The apostles had many other duties incumbent upon them for the edification of the church; and, in order to the performance of them, were furnished with extraordinary gifts and powe

Luke 24:49. Behold, I send the promise, &c.— That is, I will shortly send; the present being used for the future tense, as it is frequently in scripture. Till ye be endued, or invested with power from on high, means, "Till you are inspired with the Holy Ghost from above."

Luke 24:50. He led them out as far as to Bethany;— The town of Bethany was about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem; Joh 11:18 whereas the place from which our Lord ascended on mount Olivet, was but a sabbath-day's journey, or about half that distance from Jerusalem; Acts 1:12. So that to reconcile what St. Luke here tells us in his gospel, with the account that he gives of our Lord's ascension in the Acts, we must conclude, that he conducted his disciples only to the boundaries of Bethany, which came much nearer to Jerusalem, and took in part of the mount of Olives. See on Matthew 21:1. It is indeed possible that our Lord might make his last visit on earth to Lazarus and his pious sisters; but it is manifest that he did not ascend from the town of Bethany, where many others must have seen him; but from the mount of Olives, where none beheld him but his own disciples;nor is there any intimation in the words of the evangelists that he came from Bethany to the mount of Olives on the day of his ascension; but rather that he went directly from Jerusalem thither. Lifting up the hands was an attitude of blessing, as well as of prayer. See Genesis 19:23; Genesis 48:14-15; Genesis 48:22. It has been observed, that it was much more proper that our Lord should ascend to heaven in the sight of his apostles, than that he should arise from the dead in their sight; for his resurrection was abundantly proved to them, when they saw him alive after his passion; but they could not see him in heaven while they continued upon earth, unless in vision.