Page images
PDF
EPUB

26. 27. Werner de poculo Benedict. in Ugolini Thesaur. T. XXX. See too Biblioth. Sac. ib. p. 411 sq.

According to these authorities, four cups of red wine, usually mingled with one fourth part of water, were drunk during the meal, and served to mark its progress. The first was merely preliminary, in connection with a blessing invoked upon the day and upon the wine; and this corresponds to the cup mentioned in Luke 22, 17. Then followed ablutions, and the bringing in of bitter herbs, the unleavened bread, the roasted lamb, and also the Khagigah of the fourteenth day, and a broth or sauce made with spices. After this followed the instructions to the son, etc. respecting the Passover; and the first part of the Hallel or song of praise (Pss. 113. 114) was repeated. The second cup was now drunk. Next came the blessing upon each kind of food, and the guests partook of the meal reclining; the paschal lamb being eaten last. Thanks were then returned, and the third cup drunk, called the cup of blessing; comp. 1 Cor. 10, 16 The remainder of the Hallel (Pss. 115-118) was now repeated and the fourth cup drunk; which was ordinarily the end of the celebration. Sometimes a fifth cup might be added, after repeating the great Hallel, Pss. 120-137.

The institution of the Lord's Supper probably took place at the close of the proper meal, immediately before the third cup, or cup of blessing, which would seem to have made part of it; comp. 1 Cor. 10, 16.

VI. Did our Lord, the night in which he was betrayed, eat the Passover with his Disciples? Had we only the testimony of the first three Evangelists, not a doubt upon this question could ever arise. Their language (see § 132) is full, explicit, and decisive, to the effect, that our Lord's last meal with his disciples was the regular and ordinary paschal supper of the Jews, introducing the festival of unleavened bread, on the evening after the fourteenth day of Nisan. Mark says expressly, 14, 12: when THEY killed the passover; which, whether the subject they refer to 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, 22, 7: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover MUST be killed," i. e. according to law and custom. This marks 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 as the Passover, v. 15. Philologically considered, there cannot be 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.

When, however, we turn to the Gospel of John, we seek in vain in this Evangelist for any trace of the paschal supper, as such, in connection with our Lord at that time. John narrates indeed (c. 13) our Lord's last meal with his disciples; which the attendant and subsequent circumstances show to have been the same with that, which the other Evangelists describe as the Passover. Upon just that point, however, John is silent; but from this silence the inference can never be rightfully drawn, that this last meal was not the Passover; any more than John's similar silence in respect to the Lord's Supper warrants the conclusion that no such rite was ever instituted. John, as all admit, wrote his Gospel as a supplement to the others; and hence, in speaking of this last

meal, he narrates only such circumstances as had not been fully set forth by the other Evangelists. He does not describe this meal as being the Passover, not make any mention of the Eucharist, because this had been done, in both cases, in the most explicit manner, by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In this way the difference in the two reports of the same occasion, is satisfactorily accounted for.

But there are a few expressions in John's Gospel, in connection 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 crucifixion, the regular and legal Passover had not yet been eaten, but was still to be eaten on the evening after that day.

The point of 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 ? 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?

This question 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 alleged difference between John and the other Evangelists, has been urged to the extreme of attempting to make it irreconcilable.

John obviously wrote his Gospel as supplementary to the other three. He had them then before him, and was acquainted with their contents. He 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 the correction along with the mention of the meal itself, which John describes, as well as they. Indeed, that would have been the appropriate and only fitting place for such a correction. But John has nothing of the kind; and we are therefore 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, then much less by mere implication in other places and connections.

Let us examine the passages referred to in John's Gospel; and see whether they require to be so understood or interpreted, as to present any appearance of discrepancy. They are the following:

a) John 13, 1: "before the feast of the passover." This form of expression, it is said, shows that our Lord's last meal with his disciples took place before the Passover; and could not, therefore, itself have been the paschal supper. But we must here take into account the meaning of the Greek word thus rendered feast, the true and only proper signification of which is festival; that is, it implies every where 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, (Engl. Ver. feast,) which began on the fifteenth and continued for seven

days. See farther Luke 2, 41. 22, 1. In this view, the phrase in question does not mean "before the paschal supper," but "before the festival of the Passover," i. e. of unleavened bread (Luke 22, 1). It is equivalent therefore to the Engl festival-eve; and here marks the evening before the festival proper of seven days' continuance; on which evening, during the (paschal) supper, our Lord 'manifested his love for his disciples unto the end,' by the touching symbolica act of washing their feet. It is therefore evident, that this passage does not sustain the inference attempted to be drawn from it.

b) John 18, 28: "and they themselves [the Jews] went not into the judgmenthall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might cat the passover." From this last phrase, it has been inferred, that the Jews were expecting to partake of the paschal supper the ensuing evening; and of course had not eaten it already.

But to bring out this inference, the phrase "to eat the passover" must be taken in the most limited sense, to eat the paschal supper." This certainly cannot be necessary, unless the context requires such a limitation; which is not the case here.

The word passover in the New Testament is found in no less than three main significations: a) The paschal lamb; Mark 14, 12. Luke 22, 7. 1 Cor. 5, 7. b) The paschal meal; Matth. 26, 18. 19. Luke 22, 8. 13. Heb. 11, 28. c) The paschal festival, comprising the seven days of unleavened bread; Luke 22, 1. 2, 41 comp. 43. Matth. 26, 2. John 2, 13. 6, 4. etc.-As now there is nothing in the circumstances or context of John 18, 28, to limit the meaning of the word passover in itself either to the paschal lamb or paschal meal, we certainly are not bound by any intrinsic necessity so to understand it here in the phrase "to eat the passover." If, on the other hand, we adopt for it in this place the wider sense of paschal festival, two modes of interpretation are admissible, either of which leaves no room for the above inference.

1. By modifying the force of the verb to eat, so as to make the phrase "to eat the passover" equivalent to the more common expression, "to keep or celebrate the passover." Precisely this form of expression occurs in the Hebrew in 2 Chron. 30, 22, literally: "and they did eat the festival seven days;" where the English Version has it: "throughout seven days." The Septuagint translates correctly according to the sense, though not according to the letter: “and they fulfilled (kept) the festival of unleavened bread seven days."

2. Or we may assign to the word passover (paschal festival), by metonymy, the sense of paschal sacrifices, that is, the voluntary peace-offerings and thankofferings made in the temple during the paschal festival, and more especially on the fifteenth of Nisan; called in later times the Khagigah; see p. 198 above. A like metonymy is found in Ps. 118, 27: "bind the sacrifice (festive offering, lit. festival) with cords." See too Ex. 23, 18. Mal. 2, 3. The same metonymy is assumed by some in the passage above quoted, 2 Chr. 30, 22; which they then render thus: "and they did eat the festival offerings seven days."

It is manifest. that both the above methods of interpretation are founded on fair analogies; and that either of them relieves us from the necessity of refer ring the phrase in question to the paschal supper, and thus removes the alleged difficulty. The chief priests and other members of the Sanhedrim, on the morning of the first day of the festival, were unwilling to defile themselves by entering beneath the roof of the Gentile procurator; since in that way they

would have been debarred from partaking of the sacrificial offerings and ban quets, which were customary on that day in the temple and elsewhere; and ir which they, from their station, were entitled and expected to participate.

This view receives some further confirmation from the circumstance, that the defilement which the Jews would thus have contracted by entering the dwelling of a heathen, could only have belonged to that class of impurities, from which a person might be cleansed the same day by ablution; the ablutions of a day, so called by the Talmudists. See Lev. 15, 5 sq. 17, 15. 22, 6. 7. Num. 19, 7 sq. Lightfoot Hor. Heb on Joh. 18, 28. If now the passover in John 18, 28 was truly the mere paschal supper, and was not to take place until the evening after the day of the crucifixion, then this defilement of a day could have been no bar to their partaking of it; for at evening they were or might be clean. Their scruple, therefore, in order to be well-founded, could have had reference only to the Khagigah or paschal sacrifices offered during the same day before evening.

c) John 19, 14: "and it was the preparation of the passover, about the sixth hour." Does this "preparation" refer, as usual, to the Jewish Sabbath, which actually occurred the next day? or does it here refer to the festival of the Passover as such, and as distinct from the Sabbath? It is only on the latter supposition, that the passage can be made, in any way, to conflict with the testi mony of the other Evangelists.

This "preparation" is defined by Mark (15, 42) to be "the day before the Sabbath," i. e. the fore-sabbath, the day or hours immediately preceding the weekly Sabbath, and devoted to preparation for that sacred day. No trace of any such observance is found in the Old Testament; though the strictness of the Mosaic law respecting the Sabbath, which forbade the kindling of fire and of course the preparation of food on that day (Ex. 35, 2 3. comp. 16, 22-27), would very naturally lead to the subsequent introduction of such a custom; as we find it in the times of the New Testament. In the still later Hebrew of the Talmudists, it bore the specific appellation eve, as being the eve of the Sabbath; Buxtorf Lex. col. 1659. The Greek word "preparation," is also every where translated by the like Syriac form for eve, in the Syriac Version of the New Testament.

Primarily and strictly, this "preparation" or "eve" would seem to have commenced not earlier than the ninth hour of the preceding day; as is implied, perhaps, in the decree of Augustus in favour of the Jews, where it is directed that they shall not be held to give pledges on the Sabbath, nor during the preparation before the same after the ninth hour; see Jos. Ant. 16. 6. 2. But in process of time the same Hebrew word for "eve" or "preparation" came in popular usage to be the distinctive name for the whole day before the Jewish Sabbath, i. e. for the sixth day of the week or Friday; Buxtorf Lex. col. 1659. Scaliger Emend. Temp. VI. p. 569. The same was the case in Syriac; and we know, too, that the corresponding word in Arabic for eve was likewise an ancient name for Friday; see Golius' Arabic Lexicon, p. 1551. Freytag III. p. 130. It appears then, that among the Jews, Syrians, and Arabs, the common word for eve, to which corresponded the Greek word "preparation," meaning the preparation of the weekly Sabbath, became at an early date a current appellation for the sixth day of the week. That is, Friday was known as the Preparation or Fore-sabbath; just as in German the usual name for Saturday is now Sonnabend, i. e. "eve of Sunday."

In the later Talmudists a passover-eve is likewise spoken of; Buxtorf Lex, col. 1765. But what this could well have been, so long as the passover (paschal supper) continued to be regularly celebrated at Jerusalem, it is difficult to perceive. The eve before the passover-festival could have included, at most, only the evening and the few hours before sunset at the close of the fourteenth of Nisan; as in the primary usage in respect to the fore-sabbath, as we have just seen. But according to all usage of language, both in the Old and New Testament, those hours and that evening were part and parcel of the passover-festival itself, and not its preparation; unless indeed the paschal meal and its accompaniments be called the preparation of the subsequent festival of seven days; which again is contrary to all usage. It would seem most probable, therefore, that this mode of expression did not arise until after the destruction of the temple and the consequent cessation of the regular and legal passover-meal; when of course the seven days of unleavened bread became the main festival.

But even admitting that a passover-eve did exist in the time of our Lord; still, the expression could in no legitimate way be so far extended as to include more than a few hours before sunset. It could not have commenced apparently before the ninth hour, when they began to kill the paschal lamb; see p. 196 above. On the other hand, the Hebrew term for eve, for which the Greek "preparation" stands in the New Testament, was employed, as we have seen, as a specific name in popular usage for the whole sixth day of the week or Friday, not only by the Jews, but also by the Syrians and Arabs. Hence, when John here says: "and it was the preparation of the passover, about the sixth hour," there is a twofold difficulty in referring his language to a preparation or eve of the regular Passover; first, because apparently no such eve or preparation did or could well then exist; and secondly, because, it being then the sixth hour or mid-day, the eve or time of preparation (supposing it to exist) had not yet come, and the language was therefore inapplicable. But if John be understood as speaking of the weekly preparation or fore-sabbath, which was a common name for the whole of Friday, then the mention of the sixth hour was natural and appropriate.

We come then to the conclusion, that if John, like Mark in c. 15, 42, had here defined the phrase in question, he would probably have written on this wise: "and it was the preparation of the passover, that is, the fore-sabbath of the passover," implying that it was the paschal Friday, the day of preparation or fore-sabbath which accurred during the paschal festival. In a similar manner Ignatius writes: Sabbath of the Passover," Ep. ad Phil. c. 13; and Socrates also: "Sabbath of the festival," Hist. Ecc. V. 22. And further, in the only other two instances where John uses the word "preparation" in this way, he applies it to this very same day of our Lord's crucifixion, and in this very same sense of the weekly preparation preceding the weekly Sabbath; John 19, 31. 42.

d) John 19, 31: "for that sabbath-day was an high day." Here, as is alleged, it is the coincidence of the first festival day with the Sabbath, that made the latter a "high" or more properly a "great" day. This would certainly be the effect of such a coincidence; but the Sabbath of the Passover would also be still a "great" day, even when it fell upon the second day of the festival. The last day of the festival of Tabernacles is called "that great day," though in itself not ore sacred than the first day; John 7, 37. comp. Lev. 23,

« PreviousContinue »