celebrated by all the Jews the same evening. Mark's words are: öre rò náoza ëdvor, when THEY killed the passover, v. 12; which, whether the subject of vor be the Jews, or be indefinite, implies at least the regular and ordinary time of killing the paschal lamb. Luke's language is, if possible, still stronger and more definite: " Then came the day of unleavened bread, ἐν ᾗ ἔδει θύεσθαι τὸ nάoza, when the passover MUST be killed," i. e. according to law and custom, Luke 22: 7. It was the first day of unleavened bread, the day on which the passover must be killed, of course the fourteenth day of Nisan; and on that same evening our Lord and his disciples sat down to that same passover-meal, which had thus by his own appointment been prepared for them, and of which Jesus speaks expressly of the passover, v. 15. Philologically considered, there cannot be and I presume is not and has not been in the minds of the great body of commentators a shadow of doubt, but that Matthew, Mark, and Luke intended to express, and do express, in the plainest terms, their testimony to the fact, that Jesus regularly partook of the ordinary and legal passover-meal on the evening after the fourteenth of Nisan, at the same time with all the Jews.

If, however, we turn to the Gospel of John, we seek in vain in this Evangelist for any trace of the paschal supper in connection with our Lord. John narrates indeed (c. 13) our Lord's last meal with his disciples; which the attendant circumstances show to have been the same with that which the other Evangelists describe as the Passover. But on that point John is silent. Does this silence of itself imply, that it was not the Passover, and thus contradict the other Evangelists? To admit this would prove far too much; for John in like manner says not a word respecting the Lord's supper; and yet no one doubts the testimony of the other Evangelists as to its institution during this meal. John, as is admitted by all, obviously wrote his Gospel as a supplement to the others. Hence, in speaking of this last meal, he does not mention the previous contention among the disciples, because Luke had sufficiently described it, Luke 22: 24-30; but he does narrate in addition the touching act of our Lord in washing his disciples' feet, which evidently arose out of that same contention. John nar. rates, indeed, like the rest, the pointing out of Judas as the traitor; but he does it in order to add the further circumstance of his own particular agency in the matter. He omits, it is true, all mention of the Lord's supper, because the other Evangelists had fully described it; but he gives in full, what they had not preserved, the

See pp. 406, 407 above.

1845.] Had the regular Passover been eaten on Friday?

415

affecting discourses of our Lord held in connection with it, and his pathetic final prayer with his disciples, c. 17. The silence of John, therefore, does not in the case before us, imply even the slightest contradiction of the other Evangelists; while all the above circumstances, and the subsequent going out to the Mount of Olives, related also by John, where Jesus was betrayed, serve incontestably to mark this supper in John as identical with the passover-meal of the other Evangelists. They also sufficiently account for the difference between the two reports of the same occasion.

But there are a few expressions in John's Gospel, in connec tion with this meal and especially with our Lord's Passion, which taken together might, at first view and if we had only John, seem to imply, that on Friday, the day of our Lord's erucifixion, the regular and legal passover had not yet been eaten, but was still to be celebrated on the evening after that day. The following are the passages.

a) John 13: 1 πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα. This phrase introduces the account of our Lord's last meal; and the form of expression, it is said, shows that this meal took place before the passover, and could not therefore itself have been the paschal supper.

b) John 18: 28" and they themselves (the Jews] went not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defled, ἄλλ ̓ ἵνα φάγωσι τὸ nάoya but that they might eat the passover." Taking this last phrase in its ordinary acceptation of the paschal lamb, as in Matt. 26: 17, etc. it hence follows, as is averred, that the Jews were expecting to partake of the paschal supper the ensuing evening; and of course had not eaten it already.

c) John 19: 14 v dè nagaoxevý rov náoza. This "preparation of the passover," being the day on which Christ suffered, necessarily implies, it is alleged, the day before the passover-meal; which of course was to be eaten that evening.

d) John 19: 31 ἦν γὰρ μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτου. The next day after the crucifixion being the Jewish sabbath, and that sabbath being a "great day," we must infer, it is argued, that the reason of its being thus called "great" was the fact, that it coincided with the first day of the festival or fifteenth of Nisan, and was thus doubly consecrated.

These four are the passages mainly urged. Some other considerations are brought forward as auxiliary.

e) In John 13: 27-30, Jesus says to Judas, after giving him the sop, "that thou doest, do quickly." These words the other dis

ciples did not comprehend; but supposed, among other things that Jesus had said to him, "Buy that we have need of for the feast." Now as this was spoken apparently near the close of this meal, it follows, as some think, that the passover-meal was yet to come, and could not have been that at which these words were uttered.

f) The same conclusion, it is affirmed, is greatly strengthened by the circumstance, that on the day of the crucifixion the Sanhedrim was convened, sat in judgment upon Jesus, condemned him, and delivered him over to death,—a public judicial act, which according to the Talmudists was unlawful upon the sabbath and upon all great festival days.1

To all these different considerations we shall again recur in the sequel. It is only from the first four passages of John above cited, that any important difficulty has arisen, or can well arise, as to the question before us. The whole inquiry relates simply to the time of the Passover. According to all the four Evangelists, our Lord was crucified on Friday, the day before the Jewish sabbath; and his last meal with his disciples took place on the preceding evening, the same night in which he was betrayed. The simple question, therefore, at issue is, Did this Friday fall upon the fifteenth day of Nisan, or upon the fourteenth day? Or, in other words, did our Lord on the evening before his crucifixion eat the passover, as is testified by the first three Evangelists; or was the passover still to be eaten on the evening after that day, as John might seem to imply?

It cannot be denied, that if we had only the Gospel of John, we should naturally be led to adopt the latter view; for then there would be no opposing evidence whatever. In like manner, if we had only the Gospel of John, we should know nothing as to the institution of the Lord's supper. But since the testimony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as we have already seen,2 shows conclusively, that these inspired writers held to the first view, and intended so to record their testimony; we are compelled, either to seek out some mode of reconciling this apparent diversity of statement between John and them; or, to admit, that the discrepancy is irreconcilable. To this last point it has, of late years, been the effort of German neological commentators to bring the discussion of this subject. But the sincere inquirer, who holds the Gospel

1 See Lightfoot Hor. Heb. in Matt. 27: 1. Jahn Bibl. Archaeol. III. ii. p. 309. De Wette Archaeol. § 218.

2 See above, p. 413.

1845.]

Examination of several Passages in John.

417

to be the inspired Word of God, will be slow to arrive at or admit any such conclusion, except upon irrefutable evidence. In this case no such evidence exists.

The question before us has been more or less a subject of discussion in the church ever since the earliest centuries; chiefly with a view to harmonize the difficulties. It is only in recent years, that the apparent difference between John and the other Evangelists has been urged to the extreme of attempting to make it irreconcilable.

VII. Examination of passages in John's Gospel, etc.

Admitting, as we must, and as we have already seen, that the testimony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is too definite and explicit to be in any way set aside or modified, let us examine more closely the passages in John, and thus see whether they may, or may not, without violence and without any strained interpretation, be so understood, as to remove all appearance of discrepancy.

John obviously wrote his Gospel as supplementary to the other three. He had them then before him, and was aware that the other three Evangelists had testified to the fact, that Jesus partook of the passover with his disciples. Did John believe, that their testimony on this point was wrong; and did he mean to correct it? If so, we should naturally expect to find some notice of such a correction along with the mention of the meal itself, which John describes, as well as they. But is this the case? John narrates additional circumstances, which took place at the meal; and he does not indeed say it was the passover. But does he say or imply, that it was not the passover? Not at all; although this is what we should naturally expect, if it was his purpose to correct the testimony of the other Evangelists. As, therefore, on the one hand, we have already seen,1 that there was a sufficient reason why he did not speak of that meal as the paschal supper; so here, on the other hand, no good reason can be assigned, why, if the testimony of the other Evangelists was wrong, John should not in the same connection have corrected it; as he might have done by a word. Indeed, that was the appropriate and only fitting place for such a correction. And as none is there found, we are authorized to maintain, that it was not John's purpose thus and there to correct or contradict the testimony of the other Evangelists; and if not

there, much less by mere implication in other places and connections.

Let us now examine the passages adduced from John, in the same order as before.

Α) John 13: 1 πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα, see p. 415, α. Here something may depend upon the import of door. The proper and only signification of this word, as of the Hebrew, is festival, not feast; that is, it implies both in classic and scriptural usage a yearly day or days of festive commemoration, never a single meal or entertainment. So in Num. 28: 16, 17, where the paschal supper, prepared on the fourteenth of Nisan and eaten at evening, is distinguished from the festival, Heb. an, Sept. ogry, which began on the fifteenth and continued for seven days. See further Luke 2: 41. 22: 1; also the Lexicons and Concordances of the New Testament and Septuagint.

Interpreters differ as to the construction of John 13: 1. Griesbach and Knapp connect it with the following verses; and make the full sentence close at the end of v. 4. So too De Wette and others, who would thus make noò ris kooris qualify the action in v. 4.1 In favour of this view it is urged, that sides in v. 3 is nothing more than a resumption of eidos in v. 1; while the phrase is téLos ránηoer avtous in v. 1, does not express an action, but only a state of feeling, and therefore logically the mind does not rest upon it, but remains suspended until the action in v. 4. But the sentence thus formed is exceedingly involved and intricate, wholly unlike John's usual manner; and that without any necessity. A glance at the second eidos shows that it has no relation to the first, but stands in a connection altogether different; and this De Wette admits. He further admits, that strict grammatical construction requires v. 1 to be made independent; against which he urges only the logical objection above stated. Yet ayanάo in classic usage signifies not only to love as an emotion, but also to manifest love in action, to receive or treat with affection.2 Hence the words in v. 1, ɛis réλos nyánŋoev avroús, imply not merely an emotion, but that Jesus manifested his love towards his disciples unto the end, in the touching manner which the Evangelist proceeds to relate. True logic, therefore, as well as strict grammar, requires us to regard v. 1 as an independent sentence, forming a fitting preface to the narrative which follows. As such it has been re

1 Exeget. Handb. Joh. 13: 1.

2 See Passow Lex. s. voc. Hom. Od. 23. 214; also in N. T. Matt. 19: 19. Luke 6: 32. 2 Cor. 12: 15.