Part 10 (1/2)

190 The gospels all report the last evening which the little coence, however, between John and the others concerning the relation of this supper to the feast of the Passover In their introduction of the story, Mark and his coospels indicate that the supper which Jesus ate was the Passover meal itself John, on the other hand, declares that it was ”before the feast of the Passover” (xiii 1) that Jesus took this meal with his disciples

John's account is consistent throughout, for he states that on the next day the desire of the Jews to ”eat the Passover” forbade theovernor lest they should incur defileospels, moreover, hint in several ways that the day of Jesus' death could not have been the day after the Passover; that is, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread Dr Sanday has recently enu that ”the Synoptists make the Sanhedrin say beforehand that they will not arrest Jesus 'on the feast day,' and then actually arrest hiuards, but one of the disciples (Mark xiv 47), carries arms, which on the feast day was not allowed; that the trial was also held on the feast day, which would be unlawful; that the feast day would not be called simply Preparation (see Mark xv 42, and co from the field' (Mark xv

21 [Greek])fro a linen cloth (Mark xv 46) and the wo spices and ointments (Luke xxiii 56), all of which would be contrary to law and custoospels seem to confirm the representation of the fourth that the day of the last supper was earlier than the regular Jewish Passover

On the other hand, a strong arguh one that has not coy, has been put forth by Dr Edersheim (LJM ii 567f) to prove that John also indicates that the last supper was eaten at the tiular Passover In the present condition of our knowledge certainty is impossible If John does differ froht While not conclusive, it has sonificance that Paul identified Christ with the sacrifice of the passover (I Cor v 7), a statement which may indicate that he held that Jesus died about the ti of the paschal lamb If John be taken to prove that the last supper occurred a day before the regular Passover, Jesus must have felt that the anticipation was necessary in order to avoid the publicity and consequent danger of a celebration at the same time with all the rest of the city

191 Whatever the conclusion concerning the date of the last supper, and consequently of the crucifixion, the last meal of Jesus with his disciples was for that little company the equivalent of the Passover supper Luke states that the desire of Jesus had looked specially to eating this feast with his disciples (xxii 15) The reason must be found in his certainty of the very near end, and in his wish to make the meal a preparation for the bitter experiences which were overhanging him and them

192 It is customary to connect as occasion and consequence the dispute concerning precedence which Luke reports (xxii 24-30), and the rebuke which Jesus ad the disciples' feet (John xiii 1-20)

The jealousies of the disciples may have arisen over the allotment of seats at the table, as Dr Edersheim has most fully shown (LJM ii

492-503); such a controversy would be the natural sequel of earlier disputes concerning greatness, and particularly of the request of Jadom (Mark x 35-45), and would lead as naturally to the distress of heart hich Jesus declared that one of the disciples should betray him, and that another of them should deny him The narrative in Mark favors the withdrawal of Judas before the new rite was appointed This must seem to be the probability in the case, for the presence of Judas would be ruous at such a memorial service John's mention of his departure before the announce fall confirms this interpretation of Mark (Mark xiv 18-21; John xiii 21-30)

193 The paschal memories furnished to Jesus an opportunity to establish for his disciples an institution which should symbolize the new covenant which he was soon to seal with his blood Jesus regarded this new covenant as that which was promised by the prophets, especially Jereht, like that of the prophets, goes back to the story of the covenant established at Sinai (Ex xxiv 1-11) In this way he gave to his disciples a conception of his death, which later, if not iard it as a necessary part of his work as Messiah They were now oppressed by the evident certainty that the near future would bring their Master to death; he accordingly gave them a sacred reminder of hi ”for the the disputed text of Luke (xxii 19), the institutional character of the act and words of Jesus is clear As Holtzmann remarks (NtTh i 304): ”The words 'this do in remembrance of me' were perhaps not spoken; all the more certainly do they of themselves express what lay in the situation and made itself felt with incontestable conclusiveness”

194 Several hints in the records seem to connect the meal in various details hat is known of ancient custom in the celebration of the Passover The hy to Mark and Matthew the supper closed is easily identified with the last part (Psal at the close of the Passover meal

The mention of two cups in the farees with the repeated cups of the Passover ritual; so also do the sop and the dipping of it hich Jesus indicated to John who the traitor was (John xiii 23-26; Mark xiv 20) If it could be proved that the custoe in Jesus' time it would be of extreme interest to seek to connect what is told us of the last supper with that Passover ritual as Dr Edersheim has done (LJM ii

490-512) The antiquity of the rabbinic record is so uncertain, however, that it is only useful as shohat possibly may have been the case

All that can be asserted is that the rabbinic ritual probably originated long before it was recorded, and that as the last supper was a meal which Jesus and his disciples celebrated as a Passover, it is probable that some such ritual was ive the fullest reports of as said at the table

All the gospels tell of Peter's declaration of superior loyalty and the prediction of his threefold denial; Luke, however, adds that in connection with it Jesus assured Peter of his restoration, and charged hiives the long and full discourse of admonition and comfort, followed by Jesus' prayer for his disciples (xiii 31 to xvii 26) It is evident froarden of Gethsemane (Mark xiv 33, 34), as froht him the last day in the tereatly troubled during the supper by the apparent defeat which was now close at hand His quietness and self-possession during the supper, particularly when tenderly reproving his disciples for petty a Peter of his denials, must not blind us to the depth of the e his own soul It is only as we remember his trouble of heart that it is possible justly to value the ministry which in varied ways he rendered to his disciples that night In the discourses reported by John he showed that he realized that the approaching separation would sorely try the faith of his followers, and he sought to strengthen the them another who should abide with them spiritually as his representative, and continue for theed them to maintain their devotion to him, still to seek and find the source of their life and secret of their strength in fellowshi+p with hiht to convince thee, that fellowshi+p with him spiritually would be far more real and efficacious than the intercourse they had already enjoyed He whose own heart was ”exceeding sorrowful even unto death” bade his disciples not to let their hearts be troubled nor afraid How long the conversation continued, of when the company left the upper chamber, cannot be told At some time before the arrival at Gethsemane Jesus turned to God in prayer for the disciples whom he was about to leave to the severe trial of their faith, asking for them that realization of eternal life which he had enjoyed and exemplified in his own intimate life with his Father With this histhe Kidron, he entered the garden of Gethsehed down by the sorrow of his own soul

VIII

The Shadow of Death

196 Of the garden of Gethsemane it is only known that it was across the Kidron, on the slope of the Mount of Olives Tradition has long pointed to an enclosure soe that crosses the ravine on the road leading eastward froate Most students feel that this is too near the city and the highway for the place of retreat chosen by Jesus Archaeologically and sentimentally the identification of places connected with the life of Jesus is of great interest Practically, however, it is easy to over-emphasize the importance of such an identification Granted the fact that in soave a name to the place (Gethseht, and all that is ihtly the relation of what took place in that garden to the things which preceded and followed it in the life of Jesus At that time Jesus saw pressed to his lips the ”cup” from the bitterness of which his whole soul shrank It was not an unlooked-for trial; soht to cool the ardor of the a them that they should drink of his cup, and declared that even the Son of Man caive his life a ransoospel, whose representation oony of Gethsemane and only reports its victory, tells how Jesus rebuked the violent iiven me to drink shall I not drink it?” (John xviii 11b); and all the gospels exhibit the nity of self-surrender which characterized Jesus throughout his trial and execution In Gethsele in which that cal to consider that scene with any vulgar curiosity to knohat it was thatof his ”cup” It is not unfitting, however, to recognize that in his cry, ”Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; re of his own soul's life had expression There was so in the fate which he saw before hier than this was his fixed desire to do his Father's will Here was supremely illustrated the truth that ”he came down from heaven, not to do his oill, but the will of him that sent him”

(John vi 38) The fullest allowance for the shrinking of the most delicately constituted nature from pain and death completely fails to account for this dread of Jesus He was no coward, drawing back froain more than matched by many of the martyrs to truth who preceded and followed him He himself declared to the sons of Zebedee that they should share a cup in kind like unto his, suffering for the kingdom of God, for the salvation of the world Yet there is a difference evident bethat others have had to bear and the cup from which Jesus shrank The death which now stood before him in the path of obedience had in it a bitterness quite unexplained by the pain and disappointment it entailed That excess of bitterness can probably never be understood by us A hint of its nature may be found in the ”shame of the cross” which the author of Hebrews (xii

2; xiii 13) emphasizes, and in the ”curse” of the cross whichblock to Paul and his Jewish brethren (Gal iii 13; I Cor i

23) Jesus caarden ready to endure the cross in obedience to his Father's will; but it was a costly obedience, a co of himself (Phil ii 7, 8)

198 The loneliness of Jesus in his struggle is eospels of Mark and Matthew In search of sympathy he had confessed to the disciples his trouble of heart, and had taken his three intimates with hi them to watch with him They were too heavy of heart and weary of body to stand by in his bitter hour, and instead of being in readiness to warn him of the approach of the hostile band, he had to awake theospel reports that after the struggle Jesus bore marks of majesty which astonished and overawed his foes when he cal Their fear was overco his Master (Mark xiv 45) The thought for the disciples' safety which John records (xviii 8) is another proof that the fight had been won, and Jesus had fully resu ministry appointed to him by his Father

199 The band that arrested Jesus was accoarrison of the city, but it was not needed, for the disciples offered no appreciable resistance; on the contrary, ”they all forsook hi arrested Jesus, the band took hih not at the tih-priest He had held that office soovernor of Syria after being in power for nine years His influence continued, however, for although he was never reinstated, he seems to have been able to secure the appoint a period of h-priest, was his son-in-law Annas, as the leader of aristocratic opinion in Jerusalem, had doubtless been foreet rid of Jesus, hence the captive was, as a matter of course, taken first to his house The trial by the Jewish authorities was irregular There seems to have been an informal examination of Jesus and various witnesses, first before Annas, and then before Caiaphas and a group of members of the sanhedrin, the outcoainst Jesus froe of blaspheing himself to be the Messiah (Mark xiv 61-64) The early hours before the day were given over towas come, the sanhedrin was convened, and he was condee of blasphemy (Mark xv 1; Luke xxii 66-71), and then was led in bonds to the Roovernor for execution, since the Romans had taken from the sanhedrin the authority to execute a death sentence (John xviii 31)

Before Pilate the Jews had to nanized by Roman law; his accusers therefore falsified his claim and made him out a political Messiah, hostile to Roe was truood-will of the people, to escape the responsibility of giving sentence against Jesus His first effort was a simple declaration that he found no fault in the prisoner (Luke xxiii 4); then, having heard that he was a Galilean, he tried to transfer the case to Herod, who happened to be in the city at the tireeing to chastise Jesus and then release him (Luke xxiii 13-16); next he offered the people their choice between the innocent Jesus and Barabbas, a convicted insurrectionist (Mark xv 6-15; Luke xxiii 16-24), and the people, instructed by the priests, chose Barabbas, caring nothing for a Messiah ould allow hiospel tells of Pilate's still further effort, by appealing to the people's sy sentence, even after he had delivered Jesus to the soldiers for the prelith, a religious charge, Pilate's superstitious fear was roused (John xix 7-12), and he sought again to release hiainst hiainst the man whom he knew to be innocent (John xix 12-16)

200 Some of Jesus' disciples and friends itnesses of the early stages of the informal trial, in particular, John (John xviii 15) and Peter It was during the progress of the early examination that Peter was drawn into his denials by the comments made by the bystanders on his connection with the accused It has been suggested that the house of the high-priest where Jesus was tried was built, like other Oriental houses, about a court so that the room where Jesus was examined was open to view from the court In this case it is easy to see how Jesus could overhear his disciple's strenuous denials of any acquaintance with hiive him that look which sent him out to weep bitterly (Luke xxii 61, 62) If it be further assumed that Annas and Caiaphas occupied different sides of the sah-priestly palace, the double exa from the one court in which the faithless disciple was a fascinated witness of his Master's trial

201 Hu, it may be said that the fate of Jesus was sealed when the Sadducean leaders caer to the State (John xi 47-50, note the ious opposition was serious, and ht trouble, in some such way as it seems to have done to John the Baptist (see Matt xvii