One hypothesis, which the writer was at one time tempted to entertain, — very tentatively, — . that the 'Passover' which lay before the disciples and the Sanhedrin was not the Pa.ssover proper, but the eating of the Chiia'tgah (so Kdersheim, M'Clellan, Nosgen), he now believes to be unten- able (see Expo^s. 18i)2, i. 17 ff., 182 f., and Wright, Prohh-ms, p. 173 ff.). It is more likely that, for some reason or other, the regular Passover was anticipated.
Dr. Chwolson, writing as a Jew, whose interest in the question is purely archieological, would account for such anticipation by the fact that in the year of the Passion, Nisan 15 (not 14) fell upon a Sabbath. But it must be confessed that his argument seems strained (cf. also Schiirer in ThL, ut. sup.).
Mr. Wright thinks that the Synoptists have combined the narrative of the Last Supjier with that of some previous Paschal meal partaken of by our Lord {Problems, p. 179 ff.). But even if this h}-pothesis held good, it would hardly meet the case ; because it is just the details of the Last Supper, belonging to it qua Last Supper (e.r/. the 'cup of blessing'), which remind us of the Passover. And, in any case, the hypothesis deserts the documents too far to be at all capable of proof.
As the question at present stands we can only acknowledge our ignorance. [The literature will have been sufficiently given in the course of this section ; cf. esp. Mr. A. Wright's Some Xew Testti- ment Problems, London, 1898, p. 147 ff. ].
iii. Tlie Prophetic Teaching of the Last Week. — This, too, has raised difficulties which are not only apparent but real. It is important to bear in mind that no less than six distinct kinds of pre- diction are ascribed to our Lord during this week or in the period preceding. There is (1) the pre- diction of His own death and resurrection. There is (2) the prediction of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. With this in the great pas.sage (Mk 13j|) is directly connected (3) the prediction of the end of the world and the last judgment. (4) The discourses in Jn clearly predict the coming of the I'araclete as the substitute for Christ llimselt. (5) In another leading pa.ssage (Mk 9') a phrase is used which may be explained, though it is not
.Tohannean rather than the Synoptic tradition, placing the Cruci- tixion not on, but before, the first day of unleavened bread (irptf
fj.ia^ ToiV a^iifiwc, £v. Pet. 3).
JESUS CHKIST
JESUS CHRIST
635
usually fxplainetl, of the remarkable spread of the C'liri.sliau (.'luuch from the Day of Pentecost on- wards. Lastly ((>), there is the explanation which is frequently given of the ■ Coming of the Son of Man ' as a so-called -historical cominf;,' a comini; not exhausted by a single occasion, but repeated in t\v great events of history.
'I'lie tirst three of these cla.sse.s of predictions are, in any case, authentic and certain. To the be- liever in the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel the jirophecy of the Paraclete is ei|ually certain, and there is much which goes to eonlirm it in the Act.s and Kpp. independently of its direct attestation. The other two forms of prediction arc more hy- pothetical. They have been intnjduced more or less in order to meet the dithculties, although they may have substantial grounds of their own. We will not as yet beg the question either way.
The great ditticulty is that as our documents stand the second and third predictions are in- timately connected with each other, and in at least one other i)a.ssage it would seem as if It were expressly .stated that the coming of the Son of Man {i.e. the final Coming, the Coming to Judg- nienf) would take jilacc^ within the lifetime of that generation. We know that it has not so taken place, and the great (juestion is what we are to say to this. Is it an error in One who has never been convicted of error in anything else ? We nuist not endeavour to ex)>lain away facts ; but we may interrogate them, and interrogate them somewhat strictly, to see whether they are facts or no.
We cannot disguise from ourselves, that, what- ever the precise language used by our Lord, the disciples would be exceedingly prone to attribute til Him the prediction of His own return as near at hand. The connexion of the Messiah with a world-wide judgment was no new doctrine, but was a common feature in the Jewi.sh apocalypses. lUii this return would seem to them, as applied to our Loril, tlie necessary complement of the life of humiliation which He had led upon earth. For it was reserved the full triumph over His enemies which so far nmst have seemed very imperfect. Kesurrection and Ascension would seem to be only foretastes of the great coming in glory on the clouds of heaven. They were steps, but only steps, towards the goal.
We might have been sure, even if we had not been told, that the disciples would naturally fix their thoughts on this Sec(md Coming, and that it would be a natural inference for them to suppose that it w.as near at hand. Instances like the com- Iiarison of .\It ^i-' = Mk i;!2' = Lk 21" show that the expectation as to time was not fixed but vari- able.