Acts 4:10 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

By the name of Jesus, &c.— The time of Christ's resurrection was that of the celebrating the passover, the most solemn festival of the Jews; the scene was in Jerusalem, the metropolis of Judea, and at that time crowded with Jews, who came thither from all parts of the earth, to keep the passover. The actors and witnesses were the chief priests and elders, Pontius Pilate the Roman governor, and the Roman soldiers who guarded the sepulchre. Now, if the account of guarding the sepulchre had been false, it is not to be doubted, but the chief priests and elders, who are said to have obtained the guard, and sealed the door of the sepulchre, would, by some authentic act, have cleared themselves of the folly and guilt imputed to them by the evangelist. All the several charges upon the whole government of Judea, might have been answered at once by an attestation from the chief priests, setting forth, that they never demanded a guard to be set at the sepulchre, confirmed by the testimony of the Roman soldiers, (many of whom were probably at Jerusalem when the gospel was written,) denying that they were ever upon that guard. This, not only the reputation of the chief priests, but their avowed malice to Christ, and aversion to his doctrine and religion, required; and this they would probably have done at all events, had they been at liberty to propagate and invent what lie they pleased. But that a guard was set at the sepulchre, was, in all likelihood, by the dispersion and flight of the soldiers into the city, too well known in Jerusalem for them to venture at denying it: for which reason they were obliged to invent a lie consistent with that known fact, however absurd and improbable the lie might appear, when it came to be considered. Now, as the report put into the mouths of the Roman soldiers by the chief priests and elders, is no proof of the falsehood of this fact, but rather of the contrary; so does the naming the scene, the actors, and the witnesses, form a very strong proof of its being true, since no forger of lies, willingly and wittingly, furnishes out the means of his own detection; especiallywhen we consider that this account is related by that evangelist,who is said to have composed his gospel forthose Christians who dwelt in Judea, many of whom then living were probably at Jerusalem when this thing was done,—not to mention again the absurdity of the report of the disciples coming by night, and stealing the body, as it stands in the evangelist, and taking it, as it was afterwards prudently amended by the Sanhedrim, and propagated by an express deputation from them to all the synagogues of the Jews throughout the world; in which, without making any mention of the Roman guard, they say no more than that the disciples came by night, and stole away the body,—taking it, we say, in the manner in which these wise counsellors were, on mature deliberation, pleased to put it, it may be sufficient to observe, that the theft charged upon the disciples was so far from being proved, that it was not so much as ever inquired into. And yet the accusers were the chief priests and elders of the Jews; men in high reverence and authority with the people, vested with all the power of the Jewish state, and consequently furnished with all the means of procuring informations, and of gaining and extorting a confession. And what were the accused? menof low birth, mean fortunes, without learning, without credit, without support; and who, out of pusillanimity and fear, had deserted their Master, upon the first occasion offered of shewing their fidelity and attachment to him. And can it be imagined that the chief priests and council would not have made inquiry into the fact, the belief of which they took so much pains to propagate, had they themselves been persuaded of the truth of it? And had they inquired into it, can it be supposed that out of such a number of mean persons as must have been privy to it, no one, either from honesty, or religion, or fear of punishment, or the hope of reward, would have betrayed the secret, and given them such intelligence as might have enabled them to put the question ofthe resurrection out of all dispute. For had it been once proved that the disciples stole away the body of Jesus, their word would hardly have been taken for his resurrection. But how did these poor men act? Conscious of no fraud or imposture, they remained in Jerusalem a week or more, after the report of their having stolen their Master's body was spread over the city, and in about a month returned thither again: not long after which they asserted boldly, to the face of their powerful enemies and accusers, the chief priests and elders, that God had raised from the dead that same Jesus whom they had crucified. And what was the behaviour of these learned rabbins, these watchful guardians of the Jewish church and state? Why, they suffered the disciples of Jesus, charged by their order with an imposture tending to disturb the government, to continue unquestioned at Jerusalem, and to depart thence unmolested; and when, upon their return thither, they had caused them to be seized and brought before them, for preaching through Jesus—the resurrection, what did they say to them? Did they charge them with having stolen away the body of their Master? Nothing like it: on the contrary, not able to gainsay the testimony given by the apostles to the resurrection of Jesus, vouched by a miracle just then performed by them in his name, they ordered them to withdraw, and conferred among themselves what they should do with them.