Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

DISSERTATION XLII.

On the proceedings of the night of Thursday, and the
morning of Friday, in Passion-week.

THE best distribution which we can make of the transactions of both these periods the former of which answers to the thirteenth of the Jewish Nisan and the fourth of the Julian April, and the latter to the fourteenth of the one and the fifth of the other-is first, from the beginning of the celebration of the last supper to the time of the apprehension of Jesus; secondly, from the time of the apprehension of Jesus to the time of his being brought before Pilate; thirdly, from the time of his being brought before Pilate to the time of his being led away to be crucified; fourthly, from the time of his being led away to be crucified to the time of his being taken down from the cross, and buried.

With regard to each of these divisions, as well as to the residue of the Gospel accounts, though the difficulties, which present themselves in the way of an Harmony, will be found to be neither few nor trifling, yet the reduction of St. Matthew to an entire agreement with St. Mark will be seen to be a much easier task, than the reduction of St. Luke or of St. John to a similar agreement with either of them, or with each other.

These difficulties, however, will be sensibly mitigated, if not altogether removed, by the help of the principle so often enforced already; which is to consider the later Gospels as designedly supplementary to the earlier; a relation, of which the whole of this portion of their narratives furnishes the clearest proofs,

and of which no part of the Gospel Harmony makes the application either more justly or with more success. The best mode of reconciling the respective accounts, in a given instance, is consequently to regard them in this mutual relation, and to insert the particulars, supplied by a later, where there is reason to suspect the existence of hiatuses or omissions in an earlier.

The first division is comprised by Matt. xxvi. 20– 56. Mark xiv. 17-52. Luke xxii. 14-53. John xiii -xviii. 11. inclusively. The facts which it contains are partly the circumstances of the supper previously to the departure to the garden; and partly the circumstances posterior to that but prior to the apprehension of Jesus. The scene of the former was altogether the upper chamber where the supper was celebrated; the scene of the latter was partly the way from thence to mount Olivet, and partly the garden upon the mount. The one, then, may be referred to one period of time, viz. between the sitting down to supper and the departure to the mount; the other may be referred to another, between the time of the departure to the mount and the time of the seizure of Jesus.

The commencement of the Paschal supper, we may reasonably suppose, would be the usual time of that solemnity; which, according to the appointment of the Law, was the evening after the Passover had been killed; and, consequently, as we before observed, after not before the beginning of the Jewish fifteenth of Nisan. The time answerable to this in the present instance would be after not before the beginning of the Jewish fourteenth; a time which St. Luke expresses in general by ὅτε ἐγένετο ἡ ὥρα, and St. Matthew as well as St. Mark more explicitly by ovias yevoμévns.

[ocr errors]

And now, the celebration of the supper in the usual

manner of the Passover having thus been begun; for the better explanation of subsequent particulars some account of the ceremonies, with which the Passover was wont to be commemorated, might perhaps appear to be requisite. But the use of any such account would be merely to define certain leading points of time in the economy of the supper from first to last; before or after which the corresponding divisions of the narrative might most conveniently be introduced. I consider it, therefore, sufficient for my present purpose to touch upon those general outlines only; referring such as desire a more minute and detailed explanation of the same things to the authors who have treated expressly of this subject. There is good reason indeed to doubt whether the Paschal ritual, as it is commonly described in such books, is perfectly authentic, and to be depended on. It is an obvious objection to its truth or probability, that it makes of a very simple ceremony one of the most formal and most complicated imaginable. On this question, however, it is by no means incumbent upon me to enter at present.

I. At this point of time, when our Saviour and his twelve disciples were now met together, and the solemnity was ready to begin, we may introduce Luke xxii. 15, 16, peculiar to that account; and consequently the first clear proof of an omission in St. Matthew's or St. Mark's.

II. Perhaps with no sensible interval after this, as the Paschal supper began and ended with the introduction of a cup of wine, the act, and the declaration accompanying the act, at Luke xxii. 17, 18, might also take place. This too is peculiar to his account; and therefore a proof of a second omission in St. Matthew and St. Mark. Nor can this cup, and what was connected with its introduction, reception, and distribution

among the disciples, be confounded on any principle with what is similarly related at verse 20, of another cup; as the place of each in a common account, and the absence of the article before the mention of the one, and its presence before the mention of the other, are sufficient to prove. This circumstance of distinction shews the introduction, reception, and distribution of that other cup to have been a very different thing from the introduction, reception, and distribution of the forThe well-known Christian cup arose out of the one, but not out of the other. St. Matthew and St. Mark also mention such a cup; which may agree with the second in St. Luke; but the first must still be peculiar to him and if a similar declaration concerning the fruit of the vine accompanied both, St. Luke, who had specified this in the former instance, might naturally omit it in the latter.

mer.

III. Since it must be evident that the supper was actually now begun, there is no point of time where we can better introduce St. John's account of the washing the disciples' feet, than this; first, because the act took place δείπνου γενομένου-when the supper must have been begun, though not necessarily when it was over: secondly, because it took place in the course of the supper; our Lord arose from table to perform it; and having performed it he resumed his former position; a position, which the Greek terms employed, ávateσwv Táλiv, determine to be the position of a person at meat. The act therefore was critically interposed between the beginning and the end of the same solemnity; the supper had been going on before it, and continued to go on after it. Thirdly, the allusion in verses 10. and 11, demonstrates that Judas was still present, and one of those whose feet were washed. But after the time implied at verse 30, he was not still

present and that time, as we shall see hereafter, was much prior to the conclusion of the supper.

The whole of this account, then, from John xiii. 1– 17, impressive and significant as it is, is clearly an episode, relating to a matter of fact between the two extremes of the Paschal solemnity; and strictly independent of them both which is probably the true reason why the former Evangelists omitted it. With the motive, the final end, or the circumstances of it, we have nothing to do at present. It might evidently come where we have placed it; and as our Lord began with Peter, he probably ended with Judas, and took the rest of the Apostles in their order between them.

IV. Upon the resumption of our Saviour's place at the table, the next thing, in the order of particulars, might be the introduction and consumption of the Paschal lamb; coincident with which, either during or immediately after it, we may place the institution of the breaking of the bread, the first part of the Christian sacrament. The lamb in the Paschal, and the bread in the Evangelical supper, were equally types of the same body of Christ; nor could a fitter time perhaps for the conversion of the Legal into the Christian symbol have been pitched upon, than the precise moment when, the Legal purpose designed by the former being now complete, the virtue of the Jewish was thenceforward to cease, and that of the Christian to begin.

Besides, it is evident that of the Paschal lamb Jesus himself partook; but of the Christian symbol, which was the bread, it does not appear that he did partake. To judge from the account of each of the Evangelists, He took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and distributed it among his disciples; but it is not said that he ate of it himself: nor in fact, consistently with the de

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »