The last days of the Saviour, or, History of the Lord's passion

Front matter

/Of

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. _

THE

Introduction

The accounts in the four Gospels of the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ, form in themselves so harmonious a whole, that we call them the Passion-history, and devote to them a separate consideration. All our canonical Gospels have not only, as its importance demands, treated this part of our Lord's history with peculiar exactness and predilection, in as much, as they give us such detailed accounts of a few days, as to distinguish this from the other parts of the Gospel history ; but, aside from the manner of representation, an entirely different character is expressed in the portraiture of our Saviour, from what we discover in the preceding pages of the Gospel. Although the garb of lowliness and poverty enrobed our Lord, from the manger to the cross, yet heretofore a surprising majesty appeared under this garb. Although Jesus had not where to lay his head, he still ruled as Prophet and King. He spake, as never man spake, he commanded the hearts of his followers and reigned in the midst of his enemies, who, held by the viewless bands of the Spirit, could not limit the broad compass of his activity ; he exercised unlimited power over the forces of nature, ruled the storm, walked over the waves of the sea, fed thousands with a few loaves, healed the sick, cast out evil spirits. But in these last days of his earthly pilgrimage, this radiant glory, which surrounded him, vanishes altogether. His speech, alike gentle and powerful, is silent before the multitude of hearers, whom it had addressed in vain ; Jesus confines himself to the little company of his disciples, and strives to plant in their hearts the undying germ of the Kingdom of God ; his glorious miracles cease, everything brilliant, everything extraordinary vanishes, the poverty and lowliness of the outer being reached inward through the whole soul ; he sinks, as it were step by step, into deepest humiliation. The eye, awake to the conception of true majesty and beauty, readily sees in this utter uncomeliness, the secret glory of the Heavenly image, beaming forth the more purely and clearly. Although the active virtues shine the stronger, yet the passive ones are truly greater and the harder to exercise. These have their perfect work in Christ; the record of his sufferings breathes but a heavenly forbearance, gentleness, patience.

Even if we consider the person of Christ as merely human, the story of his sorrows presents a touching and deeply affecting image. But the higher view of his person alone can give the true idea of the events, which the Evangelists record of our Lord's last days on earth. The faith, that in Christ Jesus, the Word of the Father was made flesh, that all the prophets have spoken of him and his appearing, that he was appointed to raise up that, which was sunk in guilt by the fall of man, and to restore the lost — this faith first gives to the story of the Passion the full meaning, which belongs to it, and shows the connexion between the sufferings and death of Jesus, and his resurrection, as the object of the most momentous concern. His sufferings and death do not appear to the eye of faith, as something brought on by the power of circumstances, as a sacrifice for a truth, an exalted idea ; but as a free-will offering of the Son of God, for the reconciliation of a sinful world ; and his resurrection, as the necessary consummation of his death of pure love, since its all-conquering power subdued death, and life could not be held in its bonds. Thus as we see in the history of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus, the middle point of the Gospel ; the fountain of new life, which rests in him, forms peculiarly the idea of it. It will seem less improbable to us then, than it usually appears to men, that the minute circumstances in this history, which are very often specially stated, constitute important features in this most remarkable picture ; all will have a meaning for us, because it relates to Him, and to Him at these holy moments.

The importance is not to be given to the outward events as such ; a nobler, a far deeper idea of the history presses upon the believer, according to which we discover in the particular circumstances, not mere accidents, but an order divinely willed, which by deeds and events speaks to the world like a creating Fiat. Although henceforth, the mouth of truth was silent, and crucified love gave no more admonitions to men, still the whole career of our Lord speaks, and he still speaks with more life and power to the world of sin, through the events, by which he finished his course, than all the warnings and exhortations of the prophets and men of God. The suffering, dying, and victoriously rising Saviour, with all the various attendant circumstances, affords a complete model of the great contest between the powers of Good and Evil, about which the world's history turns in its development. In this view, the history of the Passion takes its deep, we may say, its infinite character. If, in the history of the last moments of Christ on earth, we look only at the outward side, there the griefs of many another sufferer may seem in some respects more severe, as to the torments heaped upon him ; in some respects more imposing, through the firmness and consequence of the struggler, while Jesus appeared anxious and faltering in his inmost soul, (a circumstance, which will be more closely examined in the consideration of the agony of the Lord in Gethsemane,) in some respects more attractive through the abundance of striking occurrences in the contest. But viewed on the inner side, every other historical occurrence can be no more compared to the sufferings and death of Christ, than any human teacher can be compared with our Lord. While it is the most exalted office of an earthly sage, to be a genuine inquirer after truth, Christ himself is the actual truth, which the former seeks. All the rays of shining virtues, which have appeared in all the earthly champions and sufferers for truth and right, are united in him, as the sun, and melted into an unutterable unity.

LAST DAYS OF THE SAVIOUR,

HISTORY OF THE LORD'S PASSION.

LAST DAYS OF THE SAVIOUR.

Part First. On The Sufferings And Death Of Jesus Christ

(Matt, xXvi., xxvii.; Mark xiv.? xv\; Lukexxii., xxiii. } John xviii., xix.)

Before proceeding to the explanation of particulars, we give, in few words, a general view of the four Gospels, in regard to the order of events, in the portion of history we are considering. While John, as early as the thirteenth chapter, describes the Saviour's last supper with his disciples, (a description, which, together with the accompanying sayings of our Lord, reaches to chap. xvii. 9,) Mark comes much later to the description. It may hence seem, as if the joint consideration of all four Gospels, in 2

ORDER OF EVENTS.

this section of Evangelical history, must have great difficulties. But upon a sufficient consideration, these difficulties appear far less than would be supposed. Except an account of the anointing by Mary at Bethany, which has already been considered in the exposition of John, the three Synoptical* Evangelists give no fact, which is to be placed before the last supper ; only in two short remarks, that are couched in general terms, the particulars of which have their explanation elsewhere, they speak of the- wicked plotting of the Pharisees and the treachery of Judas. Hence the matter stands in such a way, that we have only two distinct accounts of the last supper of Jesus with his disciples ; one by John ; the second by the other Evangelists. The continued parallel narration of all four Evangelists, begins at John xviii. 1 , where the capture of our Lord is related. In the history of the last supper, John

* This treatise following, and being part of, the exposition of John, the three other Gospels are therefore culled Synoptical.

ORDER OF EVENTS. 19

is the most explicit narrator, since he communicates in connexion all the sublime sayings, which our Lord uttered at the end of the meal to his disciples. But the case seems entirely reversed, in regard to that part of the Gospel history, which lies between the entry into Jerusalem and the last supper. Here John, together with Luke, appears the most brief, since he entirely omits all those important speeches and conversations, which Jesus, according to Matthew, who is the most explicit on this subject, held with the Pharisees, and with the disciples at Jerusalem. On account of these few points of contact between John and the Synopsists, until the capture of Jesus, the separate consideration of both accounts is desirable only up to that period. But from the period of our Lord's captivity, a satisfactory parallel consideration of the four narrations can be carried fully through.

Section I. The Last Supper

(Matt. xxvi. 17-35; Mark xiv. 12-31; Lu6e xxii.

Our Lord had ended his great public ministry. His voice, which, in the days immediately before, had so powerfully spoken in warning, rebuke, exhortation, and prophecy, was silent. The perversity of the Pharisees, the unbelief of the people, had hindered its operation. But no perversity, no unbelief, could stay the exalted mission of Christ. The Redeemer had come to Jerusalem to the Feast, with the firm conviction of his approaching death, and he went boldly to this death, that from his downfall new life might spring up for a sinful world ; that the Comforter might come, the Holy Spirit, who should remind the disciples of all their Lord had spoken, so that

THE LAST SUPPER.

they might be able to take up his words, that had apparently fallen powerless, and to establish their meaning and power for centuries and millions of years by the Scripture. — From the bustling world of festive Jerusalem the Saviour withdrew among the quiet circle of his disciples. The twelve, whom he had chosen to be the props and pillars of a new world, were the company, among whom Jesus had resolved to keep the festival. Even in the narrow band of his own followers the kingdom of evil had its representative. Not one of the disciples indeed was so grounded and established in goodness, in his inmost nature, that he could have resisted thoroughly the coming attack of the enemy. When the shepherd was slain, all the sheep were scattered ; while only one had so opened his heart to the influence of evil, that he instead of a friend (although a very weak one) became an enemy of the Holy One of God. This unfortunate one, Judas Iscariot, was at first present among the twelve ; but afterwards he left the circle, from which he had long been alien in spirit. The presence and the withdrawal of this lost child most naturally give the meal a different character, and therefore it is divided into two unlike parts. The last part alone conveys the impression of a truly intimate communion of Jesus with his faithful ones, whose pure happiness was disturbed only at the view of the hour of parting and bitter suffering, that was now approaching. Hence the four narrators hasten over the first part : they give so much of it only, as is necessary to show what was the Lord's intercourse with his disciples, while Judas was present ; but, with love and with all their hearts engaged, they dwell on the description of the second part of the supper, where the Saviour reveals himself in all the fulness of his Divine Nature. John in particular rests with longing delight on these moments, in which he leaned on the bosom of Jesus, as if he delayed to paint those later hours, whose image recalled must have so troubled him.

As to the individual incidents, which the Evangelists relate of the supper, it has already been remarked, that John communicates some particulars of it different from the others, until John xiii. 21-29, which passage coincides with the narrations of the others. Only the departure in the account of Luke, both from John and Matthew and Mark makes a careful consideration necessary as to the course of particular events in the supper. Luke places the complaint of Jesus about his betrayer after the instituting of the Holy Supper, while Matthew and Mark place it before that point. John, as has already been remarked, makes no mention of the instituting of the Eucharist, and therefore the passage accusing Judas cannot be connected with this event so satisfactorily. From the very idea of the Holy Supper, it is highly probable, that it must have been a feast of such intimate love and communion, that so alien a member, as Judas was, could have had no part in it. Not to mention that it would be opposed to the love and compassion of our Lord, to have allowed the traitor to have added to his guilt by partaking of the meal in an unworthy spirit. Another point in the narrative of Luke, which conflicts with the account of John, is the position of the " strife among the disciples, as to who should be greatest in the kingdom of God," immediately after the impeachment of the traitor. This altercation is connected undoubtedly, as the words of Luke intimate, with the washing of the disciples' feet.

By this symbolic act, our Lord would exhibit condescending love, as the only true dignity in the kingdom of God. But John xiii. 4, shows that the washing of feet took place during the meal, and probably at the beginning; but the complaint about the traitor belongs in its position, as we have seen, before the supper ; and this, according to the plain expression of Luke, immediately succeeds the Passover. We must accordingly say, that Luke has not been very explicit on these two points ; following his account, it might be believed that Judas had shared in the Holy Supper, which, however, neither the narration of Matthew and Mark, nor the nature of the occasion signify. And, according to this, we might suppose that the disciples had striven together, even after the Holy Supper, a supposition evidently opposed, as we learn from John, to their whole frame of feeling at the time. This circumstance of Luke's Gospel is evidently less to be attributed to the fact, that Luke was not present, (for this may equally well be said of Mark, who gives a pretty full account,) than to the idea, that he did not wish to give a full representation of what took place at this meal, but only aimed at giving a supplement. He therefore looked less at the course of events, than to the several accounts themselves. If we now take all four narrations together, the particular incidents at the last supper may be arranged in this manner. First, the Synopsists speak of the preparation for the feast ordered by Jesus. The words of the Saviour at the introduction of the meal, as well as the mention of the first cup, which was handed immediately after, are given only by Luke. Hereupon follows the strife of the disciples, as to who should be greatest in the kingdom of Heaven, with which the account of the washing of feet (which John alone gives) may be satisfactorily connected.

To this act the charge against Judas, and his consequent withdrawal, may be annexed. Upon his withdrawal, the love of the Saviour towards his own broke forth, from his heart, like a stream long confined, in the words, " Now is the Son of Man glorified ; " the warning to Peter, which Mark only has, is probably next to these words. And then probably follows the instituting of the Holy Supper, the breaking up of the meal, and finally the sayings of Jesus, which he probably held with his disciples, standing in the hall. We now proceed to consider the particulars of the last supper in this order.

The nature of Gospel narratives demands, for their explanation, an account of the manner in which the Jews celebrated the Passover. John's representation requires this less, because it does not touch upon the peculiar form of this festival. But the narrative of Luke, in connexion with Matthew and Mark, makes the consideration of the Jewish custom indispensable. In regard to these, we have no information besides the ordinances in the Pentateuch, excepting more modern notices, that are in the Talmud. It is in the highest degree probable, that the knowledge of the manner, in which this was celebrated, has been handed down by tradition correctly in all that is essential. The Passover, according to the Mosaic law, was, together with the Pentecost and Feast of Tabernacles, the great festival of the Jews. It was, as is well known, founded on the departure from Egypt, and had its name from the sparing of the first born. The name of the Paschal lamb, is derived from a Hebrew word, signifying to spare, and was applied to the feast itself, which is called in Greek Pascha. The Passover is sometimes called " the feast of the unleavened bread," since the use of such bread was peculiar to this feast. The sacrifice and partaking of a lamb formed the centre of this feasi. The lamb was regarded as an offering for the sparing of the first born, and on the one hand had the true nature of a sacrifice, (in which the idea of an offering for another's sake is implied,) but on the other hand it was given for pleasure and enjoyment, because the feel-

THE LAST SUPPER.

ing of preservation was vividly excited by its sacrifice. It has of late been denied, that the Paschal lamb was a sacrifice at all, which, however, is expressly declared in the Mosaic law, (Exodus xii. 27; xxiii. 18; xxxiv. 25.) Even Hengstenburg, in his Christology, thinks it must be granted, that it was not an atoning sacrifice. This is entirely true in so far as it can neither be ranked as an expiatory, nor a sin offering, in which the idea of atonement was decidedly expressed ; since they did not use lambs for these purposes, and these offerings were entirely burnt, but the Paschal lamb was mostly eaten by those who offered it. Nevertheless the idea of substitution very plainly exists in the offering of the Paschal lamb, since with its blood the door posts of the dwellings of the Israelites were sprinkled, in order that the destroying angel might pass over. Hence it may be with the utmost propriety said, that the Paschal lamb has its own entirely peculiar character, that the characteristic of the expiatory together with the thank-offering is expressed in it, and even in this union there is a most affecting prefiguration of the sacrifice of Christ, since in this the ground for the deepest sorrow is also the occasion for the purest joy. The Paschal lamb, as the first sacrifice instituted by God, as the germ of all others, contains in itself all these characteristics. By the tenth of the month, Nisan or Abib, the heads of families must, according to the law of Moses, select a ram or he-goat for sacrifice ; it must be, like all animals for sacrifice, without blemish.

On the 14th day of the same month, towards evening, the animal was slain in the Temple, (therefore the Passover could be celebrated only at Jerusalem,) and the meal prepared. •For the proper celebration of the feast, which continued from the 15th to the 20th of Nisan, the dwelling was carefully cleaned of all leaven, and during the festival, unleavened bread, as bread of affliction, alone was used. The Paschal lamb was not to be boiled in water, but roasted by fire. It was eaten with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. Not more than twenty nor less than ten persons should be present at the meal, who were to eat the whole lamb ; but if any was left, it was consumed by fire. The procedure at the time of the meal was also regulated ; and, according to the more recent account of the Talmud, was as follows. The master of the house, who officiated as priest, opened with a short prayer, and handed round a cup of wine, mingled with water, among those present. After all had drunken and washed their hands, the food already mentioned, the lamb, with the bitter herbs, with the unleavened bread, and some other dishes were served. In eating, the son asked the father of the house, what all this meant, and he replied, that it was done in remembrance of the departure from Egypt. Hereupon, the 113th and 114th Psalms were read, the first of which is an universal song of praise, and the second a song of triumph, in which the departure from Egypt is represented, as a mighty deliverance of Jehovah's. Next came the second cup, upon the partaking of which, the master of the house breaks the unleavened bread, (which consists of thin, flat cakes,) and divides it among the guests, who eat it in the sauce of the bitter herbs. Here follows the third cup, which is called the cup of blessing, and to this is added the singing of Psalms 115-118. At the fourth cup, they read sometimes Psalms 120-137, which are called the great Hallel, and then ended with the fifth cup.

The accounts, which the Gospels give us of the Paschal supper of Jesus, agree essentially with this description. Our Lord officiated among his disciples, as head of a family and priest ; — he uttered the prayers and songs, broke the bread, and distributed the cups of wine ; but, above all, he comprehended the symbolical use of the Paschal feast in the deepest signification, and consecrated it to holy observances of a higher kind, which in the new Jerusalem, the community of the Lord, were to be repeated until the day of his coming.

After these general observations, we now proceed to consider the acount of the Synopsists (Matt. xxvi. 17 - 19, and parallel passages) about the preparation of the feast. There is no reason to suppose anything miraculous in Christ's sending forth two of his disciples, and in their finding the man with the vessel of water, and a room already prepared for them. The meaning of the Apostles coincides perfectly with the supposition, that our Lord had previously requested the man, who was probably inclined favorably towards him, to have the Passover celebrated in a chamber of his house, in company with the disciples. That Jesus did not in any way mention the name of the man, nor his abode to the disciples, whom he sent to make all ready, but merely gave a direction that would lead to the man, is very easily explained, as Theophylact and many others after him have remarked, on the supposition, that Judas Iscariot would not be aware before hand of the place, where the Passover was to be celebrated ; otherwise Judas might have induced the Priests to seize Jesus in the city before the meal, and it was very natural for the Saviour to wish to celebrate the sacred meal in peace and quietness with his own. On the way to the meal, Judas did not easily find the place, at which he could withdraw without suspicion, and inform the Priests ; and when he was allowed by Jesus to depart, the night had so far come on, that Judas could not expect, even if he had gathered the officers of the law together, to find Jesus still in the city ; therefore he led them immediately to Gethsemane. What object could there have been for a miracle on such an occasion ? It may be said, that a miracle was needed to strengthen the faith of the disciples. But let us remember in the outset, that they betrayed no such weakness as to need a confirmation of faith. Moreover, after the infinitely sublimer miracles, which they had beheld, this fact was not important enough to confirm them much. And, finally, in order that the event should be regarded as miraculous, it must have been decided, that there could have been no previous concert. But since the narrators do not by a single word indicate this, the view of the matter above given is the only tenable one. Besides, the accounts of Luke and Mark are distinguished for their fulness and accuracy of detail. Both speak of the man with the 3 water-pitcher, who was to direct the two disciples, describe the condition of the chamber, destined for the feast, and Luke expressly names Peter and John, as the two disciples who had orders to make the arrangements for the evening.

The Synopsists are unanimous in fixing the time of this preparation on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. By this is meant the day, upon which all leaven and all leavened bread is removed from the houses, and on the limit of both days, which, according to the Jewish custom, begins at six o'clock at sun-down — on the limit of 14th and 15th of Nisan, they slew the Paschal lamb, and opened the feast with partaking

of it.'* .

But John's Gospel, when compared with

the Synopsists, seems to present some diffi-

* According to the view of Rauch, the Paschal lamb .was not eaten at the end, but at the beginning, of 14th Nisan, or between the 13th and 14th day, or from 3 to q in the afternoon, by our reckoning; an opinion, which is probably correct, and does much to remove difficulties.

culties. But these difficulties are easily removed. John xiii. 1, seems to speak of this preparation, as made the day before the Passover; this apparent difference disappears, if we consider that John wrote for the Greeks, who did not, like the Jews, begin the day with sunset, and that therefore the 14th of Nisan might as well be called the day before the Passover, as (after six in the evening) it could be called the first day of the feast. Moreover the words of Jesus, connected with the date in John, do not stand in immediate connexion with the account of the last supper, but merely with the statement of the knowledge of Jesus, that his hour had come. In John xix. 14, 31, in which the day of Christ's death is called the preparation of the Passover, this expression can very simply be understood to mean the preparation day, preceding the Sabbath, which fell upon the Passover week, and therefore possessed a peculiar sanctity. The chief difficulty, however, lies in John xviii. 28, where the Jews are said to have avoided entirely Pilate's palace, lest they should be defiled,

" but that they might eat the Passover/' while Jesus is represented by the other Evangelists, as having celebrated it with his disciples the evening before.* When it is said that the Jews did not wish to defile themselves, " but that they might eat the Passover," we can well suppose the word translated " Passover," Pascha, to relate to an offering, which was offered the day after the regular Paschal feast. At the end of the first day of the

* Without following our author in his statement of the modes, in which different authors have sought to harmonize this seeming opposition, and his objections to these modes, we merely state the explanation, that to him appears most satisfactory. Let it be remarked, however, that he appears in the preceding note to doubt his own view, and to concede to that of Rauch, to whose opinion Tholuck has finally yielded. According to this view, Jesus partook of the Paschal lamb between the 14th and 15th of Nisan, and when it is said, that the day after, the Jews were unwilling to defile themselves, but that " they might eat the Passover," we are to understand by the Passover, not the Paschal lamb, nor the Chagigah, but the feast of herbs and unleavened bread, which was continued for a week. For a full statement of this opinion, see Biblical Repository, January, 1834. — Translator.

Passover, a solemn sacrifice was made, which was called " Chagigah." This offering, like all others offered on that day, was called by a name derived from the Hebrew word, to spare, from which the word " Pascha " is also derived. Moreover it should be remembered, that entering a heathen abode defiled the Jews only for the same day. Therefore the entering the house of Pilate would keep the Jews away from the Chagigah, which occured on the same day, but not from the Passover, which (pre-supposing Jesus to have died on the 14th Nisan) would have taken place on the following day, that is, after six in the evening. Tholuck and other distinguished commentators adopt this view.

By the preparation for the Passover, which was entrusted to Peter and John, we are to understand, not merely the arrangement of the chamber, but above all things the slaughter of the lamb. This must take place in the temple, and every Israelite exercised priestly privileges, as it were, on this day. Both the minute narrators describe the chamber, in which the meal was to be held, as an upper room ready furnished. We have no particular information as to the master of the house himself. If Jesus had refrained from mentioning his name on account of Judas, Matthew surely might have named him afterwards, when he wrote his Gospel ; yet he speaks of him only as a certain person. It is not improbable that Matthew witheld the name to avoid compromising the man, who must have been living, or at least his family, when Matthew wrote. That he was a follower of Jesus is not expressly said ; but the words, " my time is at hand" render this highly probable. This expression cannot refer merely to the preparation of the meal, but to the whole Divine Mission of the Son, which now drew near completion. It is then highly probable, that the master of the house was a secret friend of Jesus, and thus regarded, the expression, with thee I will eat the Passover, conveys not merely the sense of a bare announcement, but also a mark of love in the Lord to his disciple: I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples. Like Zaccheus, this man is also to receive the gracious favor of having his dwelling consecrated by the Lord in this way. That he himself was not present at this meal, is evident from the fact, that as head of the household, he must have officiated at the supper of the Paschal lamb with his own family. But even here the Saviour exercised the highest forbearance. Since he did not express himself against Judas openly before the other disciples, much less upbraid him, but allowed the betrayer a favorable occasion to withdraw.