“After that He was seen of James, then of all the apostles.”

The reading ἔπειτα, afterwards, is preferable here; for we come now to the last appearances granted to the apostles. That given to James no doubt preceded by a short time the appearing on the day of the ascension, which immediately follows. This James can only be the one who played a considerable part in the Church of Jerusalem, as head of its council of elders (Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18), and who is called, Galatians 1:19, “the Lord's brother,” and 1 Corinthians 2:9, “one of the pillars of the Church.” He was not a believer during the Lord's lifetime (John 7:5); but we find him united with the apostles and holy women, in the upper chamber, immediately after the ascension (Acts 1:14). This extraordinary change was no doubt brought about by the appearance here mentioned, which should not be confounded with that described by a legend preserved in the Gospel of the Hebrews (Jerome, de viris illustr. c. 2); for had there been a foundation of truth in this narrative of the apocryphal book, the fact must have immediately followed the resurrection.

The subsequent appearance to all the apostles can only be that of the day of ascension. But why the adjective all, and why is it placed so emphatically after the substantive? Meyer thinks Paul wishes thereby to indicate a larger circle of persons than that of the Twelve properly so called (1 Corinthians 15:5), including, for example, James or others, such as Barnabas or Silas, who sometimes in the New Testament bear the title of apostles; comp. Acts 14:4; Acts 14:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:6. But the expression all the apostles does not naturally express the idea of a circle larger than the Twelve, and at the time when this appearance took place, before Pentecost, no apostles different from the Twelve could possibly be thought of (see Holsten). On the other hand, if the expression all the apostles has the same meaning as that which was used in 1 Corinthians 15:5 (the Twelve), why this wholly different expression here? Hofmann answers: Because in 1 Corinthians 15:5 the apostles were mentioned as forming the intimate companions of Jesus, while here they are mentioned as founders of the Church. Holsten rightly regards this distinction as arbitrary, and on this, according to him, inexplicable difference of expression he again fastens the suspicion of inauthenticity, which he throws on the last words of 1 Corinthians 15:5. But this is a very risky conclusion. Perhaps the particular expression used here is explained by the special character of this last gathering of the apostles round their Master. One is struck with the two expressions in Luke's narrative, Acts 1:4; Acts 1:6: καὶ συναλιζόμενος, and having assembled them; then: οἱ μὲν οὖν συνελθόντες, they, therefore, having come together. It is obvious that this gathering was, like that of 1 Corinthians 15:6, the result of a positive and solemn convocation on the part of Jesus. It was to be the last, His adieu to the apostles, as that of 1 Corinthians 15:6 had been His adieu to the Church. The apostolic college must be there in full, and Jesus had provided that none of the apostles should be wanting. This explains the πᾶσι, all, especially if we think of Thomas, who was absent the first time (the appearance of 1 Corinthians 15:5), and must on no account be wanting this last time. The term apostles reminds us of their mission to the world, of which the ascension was about to become the signal.

Finally, Paul mentions the fact which closed the series of the appearances of the risen One, and which was separated from all the preceding by a much greater interval than those which had separated these from one another.

Continues after advertising
Continues after advertising

Old Testament

New Testament