John Calvin Commentary Mark 16

And when the Sabbath was past. The meaning is the same as in Matthew, In the evening, which began to dawn towards the first day of the Sabbaths, and in Luke, on the first day of the Sabbaths. For while we know that the Jews began to reckon their day from the commencement of the preceding night, everybody understands that when the Sabbath was past, the women resolved among themselves to visit the sepulcher, so as to come there before the dawn of day.

The two Evangelists give the name of the first day of the Sabbaths to that which came first in order between two Sabbaths. Some of the Latin translators³⁰² have rendered it one, and many have been led into this blunder through ignorance of the Hebrew language. For though (אחד) sometimes means one, and sometimes first, the Evangelists, as in many other passages, have followed the Hebrew idiom and used the word μίαν, one.³⁰³ But so that no one may be led astray by the ambiguity, I have stated their meaning more clearly.

Regarding the purchase of the spices, Luke’s narrative differs in some respects from the words of Mark. For Luke says that they returned into the city and procured spices, and then rested one day, according to the commandment of the law, before pursuing their journey. But Mark, in introducing two different events into the same part of the narrative, attends less accurately than Luke to the distinction of dates, for he blends what had been previously done with their setting out on the journey.

In the substance of the fact, they perfectly agree: that the women, after having observed the holy rest, left home during the darkness of the night so that they might reach the sepulcher about the break of day.

We should also recall what I have previously suggested: that the custom of anointing the dead, though common among many heathen nations, was applied to a lawful use by the Jews alone. It had been handed down to them by the Fathers to confirm them in the faith of the resurrection.

For without this object in view, to embalm a dead body, which has no feeling, would be an idle and empty solace. We know that the Egyptians bestowed great labor and anxiety on this point without looking for any advantage.

But by this sacred symbol, God represented to the Jews the image of life in death, to lead them to expect that out of putrefaction and dust they would one day acquire new vigor. Now, as the resurrection of Christ, by its quickening vigor, penetrated every sepulcher so as to breathe life into the dead, so it abolished those outward ceremonies.

For Christ Himself did not need those aids, but they were owing to the ignorance of the women, who were not yet fully aware that He was free from corruption.

Afterwards He appeared to the eleven, while they were sitting. The participle (ἀνακειμένοις), which some have rendered sitting at table, ought, in my opinion, to be simply rendered sitting; and it is not without reason that I take this view of it, if it is agreed that the Evangelist here describes the first appearance, for it would have been an unseasonable hour for supper about midnight. Besides, if the table had been set,³²² this would not have agreed with what Luke shortly afterwards says, that Christ asked if they had anything to eat. Now, to sit is the Hebrew phrase for resting in any place.

And upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart. This reproof corresponds more to the first appearance than to the second; for since, the disciples, as John tells us (John 20:20), were glad when they had seen the Lord on the day after the Passover, their unbelief was then rebuked. To restrict these words of Mark to Thomas alone, as some have done, appears forced; therefore, I prefer to explain them simply as meaning that when Christ first appeared to the apostles, He reproved them for not believing the testimony of eyewitnesses who informed them of His resurrection.

And yet when He condemns their hardness of heart, it is not solely because they did not give credit to men, but because, after having been convinced by the outcome, they did not finally embrace the testimony of the Lord. Since, therefore, Peter and Mary, Cleopas and his companion, were not the first witnesses of the resurrection, but only subscribed to the words of Christ, it follows that the rest of the apostles poured dishonor on the Lord by refusing to believe His words, though they had already been proved by the outcome.

Justly, therefore, are they reproached with hardness of heart, because, in addition to their slowness, there was wicked obstinacy, as if they had intentionally desired to suppress what was evidently true. This was not because they intended to extinguish the glory of their Master or to accuse Him of falsehood, but because their obstinacy stood in the way and hindered them from being submissive. In short, He does not here condemn them for voluntary obstinacy, as I have already said, but for a blind indifference, which sometimes hardens people who are otherwise not wicked or rebellious.