Page images
PDF
EPUB

33-36. So the calling of assemblies, Is. 1, 13, is translated "a great day" by the Seventy, implying that in their estimation any day of solemn convocation was a great day. The Sabbath, then, upon which the sixteenth of Nisan or second day of the festival fell, might be called "great" or "high" for various reasons. First, as the Sabbath of the great national festival, when all Israel was gathered before the Lord. Secondly, as the day when the first fruits were presented with solemn rites in the temple; a ceremony paramount in its obligations even to the Sabbath; see above p. 197. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on John 19, 31. Reland. Antiqq. Sac. 4. 2. 4. p. 227. Thirdly, because on that day they began to reckon the fifty days until the festival of Pentecost, Lev. 23, 15 sq. In all these circumstances there is certainly enough to warrant the epithet "great," as applied to the Sabbath on which the sixteenth of Nisan might fall, as compared with other Sabbaths. There exists, therefore, no necessity, and indeed no reason, for supposing, that John by this language meant to describe the Sabbath in question as coincident with the first paschal day or fifteenth of Nisan.

The preceding four passages are those mainly urged against the consistency of John with the other Evangelists. One or two other considerations are also sometimes brought forward.

e) John 13, 27-30. Here the words: "Buy that we have need of against the feast [festival]," having been spoken apparently near the close of the meal, imply, as some suppose, that the passover-meal was yet to come But this again is to mistake the festival for the paschal supper, a signification which is quite foreign to the word; see p. 200 above. The disciples thought Judas was to buy the things necessary for the festival on the fifteenth and following days. If now our Lord's words were spoken on the evening preceding and introducing the fifteenth of Nisan, they were appropriate; for some haste was necessary, since it was already quite late to make purchases for the next day. But if they were uttered on the evening preceding and introducing the fourteenth of Nisan, they were not thus appropriate; for then a whole day was yet to intervene before the festival. This passage therefore confirms, rather than contradicts, the testimony of the other Evangelists.

f) There remains the objection sometimes brought forward, that a public judicial act, like that by which Jesus was condemned and executed, was unlawful upon the Sabbath and on all great festival days; see Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on Matth. 27, 1. This consideration has, at first view, some weight, and has been often and strenuously urged; yet it is counterbalanced by several circumstances which very greatly weaken its force.

The execution itself took place under Roman authority; and therefore does not here come into account. And as to the proceedings of the Sanhedrim, even admitting that the prohibitory precepts already existed at this early time, (which is very doubtful,) yet there are in the Talmud other precepts of equal antiquity and authority, which actually direct and regulate the meeting and action of that body on the Sabbath and on festival days; see Tholuck's Comm. on John, p. 304 sq. Edit. 6. But besides all this, the chief priests and Pharisees and scribes, who composed the Sanhedrim, are every where denounced by our Lord as hypocrites, 'who say, and do not; who bind heavy burdens upon others, but themselves touch them not with one of their fingers;' Matth. 23, 1 sq. Such men, in their rage against Jesus, would hardly have been restrained even by their own precepts. They professed likewise, and perhaps

[ocr errors]

some of them believed, that they were doing God service; and regarded the condemnation of Jesus as a work of religious duty, paramount to the obliga tions of any festival. Nor are other examples of such a procedure by any means wanting. We learn from John 10, 22. 31, that on the festival of Dedication, as Jesus was teaching in the temple, "the Jews took up stones to stone him." On the day after the crucifixion, which, as all agree, was a Sabbath and a 'great day," the Sanhedrim applied to Pilate for a watch; and themselves caused the sepulchre to be sealed, and the watch to be set; Matth. 27, 62 sq. A stronger instance still is recorded in John 7, 22. 37. 44. 45; where it appears, that on the last great day of the festival of Tabernacles, the Sanhedrim having sent out officers to seize Jesus, "some of them would have taken him, but no man laid hands on him;" so that the officers returned without him to the Sanhedrim, and were in consequence censured by that body. The circumstances show conclusively, that on this last great day of that festival, the Sanhedrim were in session and waiting for Jesus to be brought before them as a prisoner. Nor was it merely a casual or packed meeting, but one regularly convened; for Nicodemus was with them, v. 50. And finally, according to Matth. 26, 3-5, the Sanhedrim, when afterwards consulting to take Jesus and put him to death, decided not to do it on the festival. Why? because it would be unlawful? Not at all; but simply "lest there should be an uproar among the people." But when, through the treachery of Judas, this danger was avoided, the occasion was too opportune not to be gladly seized upon even on a great festival day.

All these considerations seem to me to sweep away the whole force of this objection; on which Scaliger and Casaubon, as also Beza and Calov, laid much stress; and which Lücke has again brought forward and urged with no little parade.

Such then is a general review of the passages and arguments, on the strength of which the alleged discrepancy between John and the other Evangelists in respect to this Passover has usually been maintained. Nothing has here been assumed, and nothing brought forward, except as founded on just inference and safe analogy. After repeated and calm consideration, there rests upon my own mind a clear conviction, that there is nothing in the language of John, or in the attendant circumstances, which upon fair interpretation requires or permits us to believe, that the beloved disciple either intended to correct, or has in fact corrected or contradicted, the explicit and unquestionable testimony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

For a fuller discussion of the subject, see the Greek Harmony, p. 211-224. For a review of other proposed methods of conciliation, and for the literature of the subject, the student is referred to the author's article above mentioned, in the Biblioth. Saen, for Aug. 1845, p. 405-436.

§ 133 For the cup mentioned by Luke in v. 17, see the preceding Introductory Note, p. 199.

The contention among the disciples had apparently occurred quite recently, perhaps even in the guest-chamber while taking their places at the table. That they were prone to yield to such a spirit, is evident from the instances recorded in § 79 and also § 108. Our Lord en this solemn occasion reproves them; especially by the touching act of washing their feet; see § 134.

§ 134. The washing of the disciples' feet by their Lord and Master was an impressive lesson, that they should live in harmony and love and humility one with another. The occasion of this act was their previous contention, as re lated by Luke in § 133. Compare Luke 24, 26 sq. with John 13, 16 sq. John's narrative is supplementary to that of Luke; and therefore he does not speak of the contention itself, because the latter had already described it.

On the phrase "before the feast of the passover," v. 1, see above in Introd. Note, p. 200.-The phrase " supper being come," v. 2, is here equivalent të "during supper;" see v. 4 and v. 12. The time of the action was probably after they had taken their places at table, and before they had partaken of the proper meal; perhaps between the first and second cups of wine; see p. 199 above.

§ 135. The sequence of the transactions during the supper appears to have been the following: The taking of their places at table; the contention; the first cup of wine; the washing of the disciples' feet and reproof (SS 133, 134); the pointing out of the traitor and his departure (§ 135); the foretelling of Peter's denial (§ 136); institution of the Lord's Supper (§ 137), etc. Luke's order differs from that of Matthew and Mark, in placing by anticipation the institution of the Eucharist before the pointing out of the traitor, etc. He was apparently led to this by the mention of the first cup of wine, vv. 17. 18. Afterwards he returns and narrates the previous circumstances.

In the present section, Jesus first declares that one of the twelve shall betray nim; they in amazement inquire, "Lord, is it I? is it I?" and Peter makes a sign to John, leaning on Jesus' bosom, that he should ask, who it was. John does so; and Jesus gives him privately a sign by which he may know the traitor, viz. the sop. The amazement and inquiry still continuing, Jesus gives the sop to Judas; who then conscience-smitten, but desiring to conceal his confusion, asks as the others had done, "Lord, is it I?" Jesus answers him, and he immediately goes out, before the institution of the Eucharist; comp. John 13, 26 sq.-For John 13, 28. 29, see Introd. Note, p. 204.

§ 136. Mark says, "Before the cock crow twice," v. 30; the other Evangelists have simply, "Before the cock crow;" see Note on § 144.

§ 137. The institution of the Lord's Supper took place obviously at the close of the passover-meal, and in connection with the "cup of blessing," or third cup, which terminated the meal proper; comp. 1 Cor. 10, 16, and see p. 199 above. With this view accords the expression "after supper," in Luke 22, 20; and so 1 Cor. 11, 25. Matthew and Mark speak of Jesus as 'breaking he bread "as they were eating;" which implies nothing morcepaun "during the meal," while they were yet eating; and does not require the institution of the bread to be separated from that of the cup.

§ 142. Matthew relates that our Lord went away thrice and prayed. Mark speaks of his going away twice only, but mentions his coming again the third time, v. 41; and therefore accords with Matthew. According to Luke, Jesus goes away and prays, and an angel strengthens him; after which he prays the

'more earnestly," v. 44. The three Evangelists, therefore, agree in their narratives.

§ 143. Jesus advances to meet the crowd, and declares himself to be the person whom they sought. At the same time Judas, in order to fulfil his bargain, comes up and salutes him with a kiss.

§ 144. An oriental house is usually built around a quadrangular interior court; into which there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house, closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a smaller wicket for single persons, kept by a porter. In the text, the interior court, often paved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the place where the attendants made a fire; and the passage beneath the front of the house, from the street to this court, is the porch in Matth. 26, 71. Mark 14, 68. The place where Jesus stood before the high priest, may have been an open room or place of audience on the ground-floor, in the rear or on one side of the court; such rooms, open in front, being customary. It was close upon the court; for Jesus heard all that was going on around the fire, and turned and looked upon Peter; Luke 22, 61.

Peter's first denial took place at the fire in the middle of the court, on his being questioned by the female porter.-Peter then, according to Matthew and Mark, retreats into the porch or passage leading to the street, where he is again questioned, and makes his second denial. Luke and John do not specify the place. The Evangelists differ in their statements here, as to the person who now questioned him. Mark says the same maid saw him again, and began to question him, v. 69; Matthew has "another maid," v. 71; Luke writes "another," i. e. another man, v. 58; while John uses the indefinite form, they said. As, according to Matthew (v. 71) and Mark (v. 69), there were several persons present, Peter may have been interrogated by several.-The third denial took place an hour after, probably near the fire, or at least within the court, where our Lord and Peter could see each other; Luke 22, 61. Here Matthew and Mark speak of several interrogators, Luke has still "another," and John specifies the servant of the high priest.

The three denials are here placed together for convenience; although during the intervals between them the examination of Jesus was going on before the high priest; the progress of which is given in § 145.

Mark relates that the cock crowed twice, vv. 68. 72; the others speak only of his crowing once. This accords also with their respective accounts of our Lord's prophecy; see § 136. The cock often crows irregularly about midnight or not long after; and again always and regularly about the third hour or daybreak. When therefore "the cock-crowing" is spoken of alone, this last is always meant. Hence the name cock-crowing, for the third watch of the night, which ended at the third hour after midnight; Mark 13, 35. Mark therefore here relates more definitely; the others more generally.

§ 145. This examination by Caiaphas, John 18, 19-23, took place soon after Peter's first denial; see § 144. Not improbably the high-priest again withdrew, after having sent off messengers to convoke the Sanhedrim, which met

at early dawn, Luke 22, 66.-Luke 22, 63-65 is transposed, in accordance with Matthew and Mark.

§ 146. On John 18, 28, see Introd. Note, p. 201.

§ 149. The scarlet robe of Matth. 27, 28, and the purple robe of John 19, 2, are put for the paludamentum or red military cloak worn by officers; see Adam's Rom. Antiqq. p. 371. The Greek word in Matthew signifies properly coccusdyed, crimson, and seems to be nearly synonymous with purple; just as purplered and crimson are often interchanged in English.

§ 150. On the phrase "preparation of the passover," v. 14, see the Introd. Note, p. 202. In the same verse, the expression "about the sixth hour," does not accord with the "third hour" of Mark 15, 25; see in § 153. But the "third hour" of Mark, as the hour of the crucifixion, is sustained by the whole course of the transactions and circumstances; as also by the fact stated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that the darkness commenced at the sixth hour, after Jesus had already for some time hung upon the cross; see § 155. The reading sixth in John is therefore probably an early error of transcription for third, arising out of the similarity of the Greek numeral letters. Indeed, this last reading is found in two of the best manuscripts, as well as several other authorities; so that its external weight is marked by Griesbach as nearly or quite equal to that of the common reading; while the internal evidence in its favour is certainly far greater. The suggestion of some commentators, that John here computes the hours from midnight, seems to be without any historical foundation. The time also which would thus result, viz. sunrise, would be much too early for the course of events.

§ 151. Judas repented, it would seem, as soon as he saw that Jesus was delivered over to be crucified. Till then he had hoped, perhaps, to enjoy the reward of his treachery, without involving himself in the guilt of his Master's blood.

According to Matthew (v. 5), Judas "strangled," i. e. hanged himself. Luke says in Acts 1, 18, "falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst." These two accounts are not inconsistent with each other; the rope breaking, the fall might easily be such as to cause the bursting of the abdomen.

In Acta 1, 18 the word "purchased" is to be taken as expressing the idea: he gave occasion to purchase, was the occasion of purchasing. For such an usage, see Matth. 27, 60. Rom. 14, 15. 1 Cor. 7, 16. 1 Tim. 4, 16. etc.

The quotation in Matth. 27, 9. 10, is found, not in Jeremiah, but in Zech. 11, 12 sq. The reading Jeremiah is therefore most probably an early error of a transcriber, misled by a reminiscence of Jer. 18, 1 sq. The Syriac version, the earliest of all, as also several other versions and manuscripts, have simply "by the prophet;" which is apparently the true reading. Other later authorities read Zechariah.

§ 152. Jesus bore his cross at first; but he being probably faint from exhaustion, Simon was compelled to bear it after him.

The "vinegar mingled with gall" of Matthew 27, 34, is the same with the

« PreviousContinue »