(f/.) Grotius {On Matt, xxvi, 19, and John xiii, 1) thought that the meal was a Trarrxn fivrjjxovtvriKov (like the paschal feast of the modern Jews), and such as might have been observed -during the Babylonian captivity, not a TTuaxn ^vai^iov. But there is no rea- son to believe that such a mere commemorative rite was ever observed till after the destruction of the Temple.
(e.) A view which has been received with favor far more generally than either of the preceding is that the Last Supper was instituted by Christ for the occasion, in order that he might himself suffer on the proper evening on which the paschal lamb was slain. Nean- der says, " He foresaw that he would have to leave his disciples before the Jewish Passover, and determined to give a peculiar meaning to his last meal with them, and to place it in a peculiar relation to the Passover of the Old Covenant" (^Life of Chi-isf, § 205). This view is substantially the same as that held by Clement, Origen, Erasmus, Calmet, Kuincil, Winer, and Alford. Dean Ellicott regards the meal as " a paschal supper" eaten twenty -four hours before that of the other Jews, " with- in what were popularly considered the limits of the fes- tival," and would understand the expression in Exod. xii, 6, "between the two evenings," as denoting the time between the evenings of the 13th and 14th of the month. A somewhat similar explanation is given in the Journal of Sacred Literature for October, 1861. Erasmus {Parajihi-ase on John xiii, 1; xviii, 18; Luke xxii, 7) and others have called it an " anticipatory Pass- over." with the intention, no doubt, to help on a recon- ciliation between John and the other evangelists. But if this view is to stand, it seems better, in a formal treatment of the subject, not to call it a Passover at all. The difference between it and the Hebrew rite must have been essential. Even if a lamb was eaten in the supper, it can hardly be imagined that the priests would have performed the essential acts of sprinkling the blood and offering the fat on any day besides the legal one (see Maimonides, quoted by Otho, Lex. p. 501). It coidd not therefore have been a true paschal sacrifice.
(3.) Those who take the facts as they appear to lie on the surface of the synoptical narratives (Lightfoot, Bo- chart, Keland, Schcittgen, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stier, Lange, Hengstenberg, Robinson, and Davidson) start from a simpler point. They have nothing unexpected in the occurrences to account for, but they have to show that the passages in John may fairly be interpreted in such a manner as not to interfere with their own con- clusion, and to meet the objections suggested by the laws relating to the observance of the festival. We shall give in succession, as briefly as we can, wha*: ap- pear to be their best explanations of the passages in question.
(«.) John xiii, 1, 2. Does ttjOo rrjs ioprris limit the
PASSOVER
145
PASSOVER
time only of the proposition in the first verse, or is the limitation to be carried on to verse 2, so as to refer to the supper? In the latter case, for which De Wette and others say there is '• a logical necessity," ti'f rJAof riycnrrjaev cwtovq must refer more directly to the man- ifestation of his love which he was about to give to his disciples in washing their feet; and the natural conclu- sion is that the meal was one eaten before the paschal supper. Bochart, however, contends that irpb tFiq top- Ttig is equivalent to tv T({t irpotopriiii, " quod ita prasce- cedit festum, ut tamen sit pars festi." Stier agrees with him. Others take Trdaxn to mean the seven days of unleavened bread as not including the eating of the lamb, and justify the limitation by Luke xxii, 1 (// topT)) Tuiv dZv/iwv i) AfyojufVjj Triiaxd)- But not a few of those who take this side of the main question (01s- hausen, Wieseler, Tholuck, and others) regard the first ■ verse as complete in itself; understanding its purport to be that " Before the Passover, in the prospect of his departure, the Saviour's love was actively called forth towards his followers, and he gave proof of his love to the last." Tholuck remarks that the expression Sd- TTVov yevof.dvov (Tischendorf reads yivofikvov), "while supper was going on" (not as in the A. V., " supper be- ing ended"), is very abrupt if we refer it to anything except the Passover. The evangelist would then rather have used some such expression as Kai inoir](Tav aiiTfji csIttvov; and he considers that this view is confirmed by xxi, 20, where this supper is spoken of as if it were something familiarly known and not peculiar in its character — og Kai avtiriusv tv t(^ ctiirini). On the whole, Neander himself admits that nothing can safelj' be inferred from John xiii, 1, 2 in favor of the supper having taken place on the 13th.
(6.) John xiii, 29. It is urged that the things of which they had "need against the feast" might have been the provisions for the Chagigah, perhaps with what else was required for the seven days of unleavened bread. The usual day for sacrificing the Chagigah was the loth, which was then commencing. But there is another difficulty, in the disciples thinking it likely either that purchases could be made, or that alms could be given to the poor, on a day of holy convocation. This is of course a difficulty of the same kind as that which meets us in the purchases actually made by the women, by Joseph and Nicodemus. Now it must be admitted that we have no proof that the strict rabbin- ical maxims which have been appealed to on this point existed in the time of our Saviour, and that it is highly probable that the letter of the law in regard to trading was habitually relaxed in the case of what was required for religious rites, or for burials. There was plainly a distinction recognised between a daj' of holy convoca- tion and the Sabbath in the Mosaic law itself, in respect to the obtaining and preparation of food, under which head the Chagigah might come (Exod. xii, Ifi); and in the Mishna the same distinction is clearly main- tained {Yom Tob,x, 2, and Aferiilla, i, .5). It also ap- pears that the school of Hillel allowed more liberty in certain particulars on festivals and fasts in the night than in the day time {Pesachim, iv, 5. The special application of the license is rather obscure. See Barte- nora's note. Comp. also Pesachim, vi, 2). And it is expressly stated in the INIishna that on the Sabbath it- self wine, oil, and bread could be obtained by leaving a cloak (rii?L:) as a pledge, and when the 14th of Nisan fell on a Sabbath the paschal lamb could be obtained in like manner (Sabbath, xxiii, 1). Alms also could be given to the poor under certain conditions (ib. i, 1).