The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 85

MRtt. :niii. 87 recor(ls (as Luke does in his enmmary of the jonrMy tow:uds .Jcrns:ilern T,uke xiii. 28, 31-34) the remarkable apostr,,phe, "0 ,Jerusalem," ~tc. ! In each of thes~ p1t~sages we have the startling phrase, Tio<Td.Ku ~eb,T/<Ta. i1r,<Tuva.yr1:y,iv .,&, .,,Kva. """; "llow often did I wish to gather thy children tog,,ther I " etc.-words which coulrl n/)t be applicable to the synoptic narrative as a complete account of the facts of the case. Not until we read cif the several visits to Jernsalem, with the same uniform re9ult of rejection, do we understand the" ye would not.'' Moreover (as has often been observed), in Luke x. 38, etc., in that portion of the Third Gospel in which many otherwise unknown but most iuvaluable teachings of Jesus are preserved, "a certain village, the home of Martha and Mary," is described, and an interview is referred to in which th'! charl!.cteristics of the Martha and Mary of eh. xi. a.re singularly photographed. Thi, "certain village" can hardly be any other than the Balhany where they lived an,~ where Lazarus died. The narrative in John presumes on long acquaintance anrl frequent visits already paid, and the visit recorded in Luke may without difficulty correspond with the visit of Jesus described in eh. vii.-x. The synoptic account of the advance of Jesus to Jerusalem implies familiarity with the place, acquaintance 0,1 the part of "the certain man" with the Lord (Matt. xxvi. 18). A ~imilar conclu•ion may be drawn from Christ's message to the owners of the colt (Matt. xxi. 2, etc.). The public proclamation of his Messiahship and the declaration of his supreme claims on the homage and obedience of the people, if they were restricted to what the synoptic narratives appear to involve, must have been excessively abrupt. Time w:1s not left for any impression to have been made, or for the final decision to be arriv,,d at, before the Lord pronounced his condemnation of the theocracy and retired. Part of the ungenerous implication more or less involved in the representations of Remrn, Mr. Francis Wm. Newman, author of 'Philo-Christus,' and others, that Jesus rushed suicidally on his fate, by hastily and impetuously assuming the bitter hostility of the hierarchy, and then assailing it, is produced by ignoring the representations of the Fourth Gospel as unhistorical. Previous visits to Jerusalem, and a longer period of ministry than can be made out from the synoptic Gospels, are required to render what they tell us self-consistent and explicable. 2. The length of our Lord's ministry. While admitting the prim afacie discordance to which reference has been made, it is worthy of special consideration that positively no single hint in the chronological records of Luke iii. 1 prevents our Lord's ministry from extending over four, six, or even eight years. Pontius Pilate was not recalled till A.D. 36, and Ca.iaphas held his office until that date. The fourteenth year of Tiberius Caisar (however interpreted) is only the terminus a quo, and settles nothing. Though efforts have been madtl by some chronologists (Browne's 'Ordo Sreculorum ') to compress the chronology of the Fourth Gospel within the limits of a year, this can only be done by unwarrantably expunging eh. vi. 3 from the text, and by bringing all the visits of Jesus to Jerusalem (includiug the first Passover, the unnamed feast, the Feast of Tabernacles, the Feast of Dedication, and the last Passover) within the compass of a single year (see notes). 'l'he reduction of the ministry of the Son of man within the compass of twelve months ·enormously aggra,ates the historical difficulties of the synoptic narrative. The period of our Lord's ministry, taken at the longest possible interpretation of the allusions in the Fourth Gospel, is so brief as to create, as it stands, one of the historical pnzzles of human literature. No one can resist the impression of the supernatural rapidity with which Christ completed his ministry, or fail to contrnst it with the prolonged and varied labours of Paul and John, with the ministry of Ezra, Hosea, or Isaiah, with the reigns of David and Solomon, with tho legislative career d Moses. 'l'he contrast, again, of our Lord's ministry with the period during which Socrates continued his cross-questioning of the youth, and of the sophi.ts and states- men of Athens, is equally remarkable. Let the numerous 1md abundant opportunities which the great founders of religious institutions enjoyed for impressing their person- ality, and enforcing their teaching upon their contemporaries, be compared w_ith the brevity of the ministry of Jesus. 'l'ake, e.g., the careers of Bnddha, Confucius, a!1d Mohammed. If, however, the ministry of Christ were confined to one short year, and this diversified by several visits on foot from Jerusalem to Galilee, from Tyre and Sidon to Banias and Perrea the rapidity becomes so intens~ as to savour of the unhig- toric altogether. The records, therefore, of the Fou_rth Gospel, which provide II m, ,re  xcil INTRODUCTION TO ----------- - --- - ------ - --------------- abundant and far more probable chronological basis for the beneficent ministry of the Lorci, greally strengthen by their apparvnt discrepancy with the eynoptiste the his- toricity of the latter. We have also already seen that they are not absolutely silent concn11ing a Jerusalem ministry. 3. The day of our Lord's <leath. There arc grave difficulties in the endeavour to harmonize the twofold chronology of the day of the Last Supper and of the Cruci- fixion. In Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; and Luke xxii. 7, we gather that our Lord celebrated the Paschal m<>al with his disciples. The natural interpretation of such phrases as, "on the first day of unleavened bread" (to which Luke adds, "when the Passover m:,~t be kil~ed/' and Mark, "when they kill the Passover"), suggests that no extraordmary dev1at1on from the legal enactment as to the day took place on the occasion. T·" The first _day of unleavened bread" legally began on the evening of the 14th or N 1san or Ab1b, after the Paschal meal was ea.ten, i.e. after sunset of the 14th (E:rnd. xii. 18, 19; xxiii. 15), the days being reckoned from sunset to sunset. It was not the universal custom to abstain from leaven on that day, but the 14th day, being so closely associated in its earlier hours with the solemn ceremony of the evening, was often thus hallowed, because "between the evenings" of that day-between three and six-the Passover wa.s prepared, the lamb was slain in the courts of the temple, and the other elements of the feast were brought together for the purpose. So the whole of the 14th day (see Josephus, 'Bell. Jud.,' v. 3. 1) was often regarded as the first day of unleavened bread. We find also(' Ant.,' ii. 15.1) that the Feast of Unleavened Bread is said to last eight days. At this Paschal supper Judas was pointed out as the traitor, and, according to all the synoptists, the Lord's Supper was instituted. Now, there can scarcely be any doubt that the supper, or evening meal, described in John's Gospel is identical with this Supper; otherwise, on two distinct occasions Peter must have obtained an indication of the person of the traitor. Moreover, in John's Gospel, as well as the synoptists, the night of the Supper was also the night of the betrayal. It must, however, be observed that John prefaces his account with the statement that the" supper" at which this indication of Judas's treachery took place was" before the Feast of the Passover" (eh. xiii. 1). Further, this statement in John is coupled with a variety of expressions which imply that the Passover of the Jews was kept on the following day. Thus such an implication is found in eh. xiii. 29, where "the feast" is spoken of as still impending, and Judas is supposed to have received a command to purchase what was needed and give something to the poor, and he went out, as the disciples thought, to fulfil the commission. .At all events, we learn that, on the night of the Supper, he did chaffer and agree with priests, and arra.nged his guard of temple servants to apprehend his Lord. Now, legally speaking, this would have been a violation of the Law according to all four accounts, because the 15th day, commencing with the evening of the 14th, was a holy day. Contradictory passages are brought from the Jewish writers, from the Mishnah and the Talmudists, to illustrate the degree of sanctity with which the 15th day of Nisan was regarded. Thus Tholuck shows from Mishnah (' Schabbath,' c. 23. 1) that a species of purchase could be made on the sabbath, and (c. 1. 1) that gifts could be made to the poor on" the sabbath;" while Godet and Schiirer quote from Talmudists (' Beyah,' v, 2), "Every action which is reprehensible on the sabbath day is equally so on a festival day, such as to hold a meeting of a court" (cf. Josetihus, 'Ant.,' xiii. 8. 4; 'Bell Jud.,' iv. 2. 3). But further (eh. xviii 28), the Jews, we are told, would not enter the house of a heathen, lest they should be polluted, but that they might" eat the Passover." The natural interpretation of this is that the Paschal meal had not yet been celebrated by the priests and people, and the suggestion is then made that, while Jesus Wll.8 hanging on the cross, the Paschal lambs were being slain by thousands in the temple, and that the people were generally preparing to eat the Passover. In addition to this (eh. xix. 14, 81, 42), the evening of the Crucifixion was spoken of as the wa.pa.u,cfvf/ of the Pass- over, and that the holy day following the Paschal meal, by reason of its coinciding with the ordinary weekly sa.bbath, was therefore spoken of as a " great day," If these passages from the fourfold narrative are allowed to stand in their most obvious prifr.a. /(1,(M aense, it is clear that a grave apparent contradiction occurs, on which the opponentl of the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel hn.ve not failed to lay  THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. ,JOHN. xciii - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- powerful streee. They hBve endeavoured to found upon H, in part, an argument that the Buthor of the Fourth Gospel, in his resolve to give a theolo"'ical bias to his narrative nnd to identify Jesus with the Paschal Lamb of the new cove~ant, deliberately Bet !It nought the widespread tradition of our Lord's crucifixion having taken place on the great day of convocation. Such a course is thought utterly incompatible with Johnnnine authorAhip; inasmuch as we are told, in the synoptic narrative, that Peter nnd John assisted in preparing the Paschal meal on the night before the Crucifhion. Moreover, they have argued, from the tradition preserved by Eusebius, • Hist. Eccl.,' v. 24, that Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, had appealed to the authority and practice of the Apostle John as having" observed the 14th day, acccrding to the Gospel." It has been assumed that John followed a custom which is directly repudiated by the Gospel attributed to him, and therefore some have urged he could not have been the writer, but that another and much later author had bad the audacity to make these changes, induced by a settled anti-Jewish theological bias. Moreover, every attempt at harmonizing the narratives has been often contemptuously resisted as the work of presumptuous apologists, who are unable to appreciate the higher criticism. Let UB inquire what the quarto-deciman practice was to which, according to Polycrates and others, the apostle gave his sanction. "The Churches of all Asia," says Eusebius (' Hist. Eccl.,' v. 23), "guided by a very ancient tradition, thought they ought to observe the 14th day of the moon at the season of the Feast of the Saviour's Passover n (O'c.m1pCo11, not 0'111-r71plar: it is important to notice this, because the Tiibingen critics endeavour to ident'lfy this with the celebration of the commemoration of the Lord's Supper, by translating it "at the festival of the Passover of salvation"); "being the day on which the Jews were commanded to slay the lamb; holding that it was fitting to terminate the days of fasting on that day, on whatsoever day of the week it might occur." The Sicilian' Pasch. Uhron.,' quoting· Apollinarius of Hierapolis and Clemens of Alexandria, strongly and explicitly identify _the sacrifice of Christ with the slaying of the Paschal lamb, and declare emphatically that our Lord was crucified on the 14th day of the month. If the Ttibingen hypothesis be correct, the early Jewish Christians terminated their fast and began their festival on the night preceding the day on which they commemorated the Lord's crucifixion. This is entirely incredible. The" festival of the Saviour's Passover" was clearly celebrated by them, whichever day of the week it occurred, at a time when the Jews were celebrating their Passover, and on the night after the Passion. The idea conveyed by the above quotation was that the celebration of the Passover of the Saviour, i.e. the sacrifice of Christ our Passover, in place of the Paschal Lamb took place when the Jews were commanded to slay the lamb, and was not a mere commemoration of the institution of the Supper on the previous evening. The repudiation, however, of the Johannine authorship of the Gospel has been advocated on these most insufficient grounds. It seems to us strangely unsatisfactory to insist on this conclusion so long as any rational method can be discovered by which the apparently contradictory statements can be reconciled. The difficulties of doing this are obviously enhanced by the attempts which have been made by apologists to create a harmony by precisely opposite methods. (1) Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Godwin, Wieseler, Edersheim, Lightfoot, Lange, Luthardt, Lieut. Conder, and M'Clellan have all, with high plausibility, endeavoured to explain every reference to the impending Passover in the Fourth Gospel as being in harmony with the assertion of the synoptists that the Jewish Paschal meal was held on the Thurs- day evening, and that that evening, in fact, was none other than the 14-15th of Nisan. They have minimized the importance of the reference to the outgoing of Judas and his supposed purchase, and by the fact that the synoptists all describe transacttons of that terrible night which were all obviously contrary to the strict letter of the Law. They have shown that the .-b 1rd<TX", which the Jews were going to eat on the day of the Crucifixion, was the midday festival, consisting of the chagigah and other offerings, which were eaten every day of the Passover week, and which were in the Old Testament called "Passovers" (see Deut. xvi. 2; 2 Chron. xxxv. 7-9). It is said that pesach does not mean the Paschal Jamb exclusively (see 2 Chre,n, xxx. 22). It is urged, further, that the <lefilemcnt of entering the Prmtorium on a morning of the 15th of Nisan would last till sunset, and no later, and BO would not have interfered with their eating the Paschal  ~civ INTRODUO'l'ION 'l'O