The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 87

H the questi.m of the disciples was put on the mr,rnin.r, of the 14th, then harmony with John's nnrmtivo, EIS unrlerstool by Christian writers-rrom Clemens Alex. and Chrysostum to Li;!hlfoot, IlELur, Stmnss, Westcott, and Thoma-i~ impossible. But it is eminently probable thELt the question of the disciples and the an~wer and messa"e of J esns were nil uttered on the 13th of Nisan, a day which was called the prz-preparltion for the Passover. All the circumstances of the feast, the crowds of pil•,rims, the diffi - cnlty of obtaining accommodation, would make the preparation of roim and feast a longer proces~ than could be accompli~hcd in one short afternoon. 'l'he difficulty arises in the expressions of the synoptiHts: "The first day of unlenvened bread," " the days of unleavened bread," " the day of unleavened bread," which nro generally taken by the opponents of John's narrative to mean tl,e 15th of Nisan, commencing on the evening of the 14th; but it was on the evening of the 13th (i.e. the beginning of the Hth), at canrllelight, that the first thorough search was made for the presence of leaven, and that people went forth to draw fresh water for making their unleavened bread. Hence our Lord hastens his proceedings on the very night on which the message was sent; i.e. on the Jewish commencement of the first real day of unleavened bread, he gathers the twelve in the upper chamber, in the real beginning of the day on which be was to suffer, and towards the close of which day the Paschal lambs would be slain by the people generally. That his lamb ~hould have been slain in the temple was not a part of the original enactment concerning the Paschal meal, and on this, as on other occasions, our Lord reverted to the origiual arrangement. Further, the expression, "when they killed the Passover " (Mark xiv. 12), would be perfectly accurate if reference were made to the last hours of the 13th, in which, accord- ing to the Jewish reckoning, the 14th day was already begun. Between these two methods of effecting reconciliation of the Johannine and synoptic narratives, opinions have varied since the days of Chrysostom. Both appear plausible, :ind it cannot be said that the question is finally decided. One thing is certain, that the two na1Tatives are not hopelessly at variance, and therefore the frequent assurances on this head from opponents of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel fall to the ground. Let it be observed that the entire statement of the synoptic narrative turns upon the few words on which we have just commented, while the Johannine references are numerous and varied, though not positively decisive as to the day. The preponderance of evidence seems to me decidedly in favour of the Johannine suggestions and presuppositions, and a close examination of the synoptic narrative its.elf shows it to be in close agreement with the Johannine, and the later Paschal con- troversies are in harmony with the conclusion. Further confirmations of the Johannine chronology may be found (1) In the language or St. Paul, who says, "Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us," showing that it was not left for St. John, still less for an unknown writer in the second century, to have formulated the idea of the close connection between the de:i.th of the Lord and the slaying of the Paschal lamb. (2) The Talmud explicitly confirms the accuracy of John's statements. Mishnab 'Sanh. : ' "Jesus was suspended on the evening of the Passover" (b'eerev h'appesach ), which is undoubtedly the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, not the 15th. (3) Though the preparation of the Paschal lamb is spoken of by the synoptists (Mark xiv. 12-16), yet the peculiarities of the Passover feast are not referred to; e.g. the bitter herbs, the charoseth, the prolix ritual, the recital of the Great Halle!, the four or five cups of wine. '!'he wine and bread portion of the Last Supper was expressly regarded as an appendix to the Supper itself (1 Cor. xi. 25), and not, in accordance with the tradi- tional ritual, a part of the supper itself (Weiss). (4) The simple supposition that a custom prevailed among the Jews of spreading the allowable opportunity of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb over a larger portion of time, in consequence of the great crowd in Jerusalem at the time, would really cover every difficulty, if we add to it that our Lord, "desiring to eat the Passover with his disciples before he suffered," had chosen to select such portions of the ritual and such hour of the day as best suited his dread foreknowledge of the immediate future (see further discussion in notes on eh. xiii. 1, 29 ; xviii. 28 ; xi.x. 14, 31 ). 4. The omissions of the synoptists. The silence of the synoptists toncbing some of the most conspicuous events of our Lord's life, as recorded in the Fourth Gospel, is  xcvi lNTRODUOTWN TO - ---- - -- -- ------- ---------- ext.remely perplexing on nny hypothesis, such e.g. as the resurrection of Lazarus, the dii:courses in the temple, the valedictory discourse, and the intercessory prayer. They do ecverally report_ much interesting instruction which had already been recorded by one or 0tber of their number: why should they, then, omit the discourses of tho Lord. wbich, in common with the younger son of Zcbcdce, either they he.d heard, or with which their informants must have been as familiar ns he? No answer which will remove all difficulty can be given to these questions. Still, tho following remarks nre worthy of consideration. (1) Each of the ev~ngelists records some words an(l actions of our Lord which are peculiar to himself. Even St. Mark is alone in preservina the miracle on the blind man at Bethsaida (viii. 22-26), and the singularly sugaestive uemand of our Lord for "the little ship," which might secure his safe departu;e from the threatening crowd (iii. 9, 10). Mark alone records the impressive parable concernina "the seed growina secretly" (iv. 26-29). The condensed form of the great parabl;s of the fast thing;, as given at length in Matt. xxv., recorded by Mark in xiii. 34, corresponds with a host of minute touches in every narrative which materially facilitate and augment our apprehension of the events which occu1Ted. Again, Matthew alone_pre- serves whole groups of special instructions and events; e.g. the visit of the Wise Men, the flight to Egypt (ii.), large portions of the sermon on the mount (v.-vii.), of the apostolic commission in x., together with numerous sayings in Matt. xvili., x..x., xxi. 28, etc.; xxiii. and xxv. Luke, again, alone among the four evangelists, records the particulars of the birth at Bethlehem, the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years of age, and the miracle which determined the final call of Simon Peter and the two sons of Zebedee (v. 1-11). Luke alone gives the occasions when our Lord repeated the great teaching of the sermon on the mount, under conditions of which Matthew says nothing. The most memorable of all is the repetition of the substance of the Lord's Prayer (Luke xi. 2-4). Luke alone preserves the thrilling narrative of the raising of the son of the widow of Nain (vii. 11-17), a.nd the action of our Lord with reference to the woman that was a sinner (vii. 36-50). He also alone enumerates the names of the women who ministered to Jesus (viii. 1-3). He takes special account of an evangelistic mission of seventy chosen disciples--a peculiarity of our Lord's ministry of immense significance, and which the other three Gospels, the Acts, and Epistles entirely ignore. This ministry of the seventy was followed by a. visit of Christ to the various places where they had prepared the way for his approach, as well as an extended tour of our Lord preparatory to his final manifestation of himself in Jerusalem (Luke ix. 51-56; x. 1-16; x. 17-24). Luke preserves the wonderful para.hie of the good Samaritan (L 25-37), the visit to Bethany (x. 38-42), numerous instructions and parables in xi., xii., a.nd pre-eminently xiv., xv., xvi., including the most impressive of all the parables. The healing of ten lepers (uii. 12-19), with the special benediction on the grateful Samaritan. Luke preserves the parable of the "unjust judge,'' and of the" Pharisee and publican" (xviii. 1-14). In addition to the "prodi!!lll son," the "rich man and Lazarus," he gives the story of Zacchams (xix. 1-10)~ the appearance of Jesus before Herod (xxiii. 6-12), the manifestation of him- self on the evening of Easter Day to the disciples on their journey to Emme.us, a.nu the account of the Ascension. These peculiarities of Luke are accompanied by other narra- tives, in which he preserves likewise words and actions of onr Lord with which we are familiar from the other evangelists. The paragraphs of various length in the Fourth Gospel, containing matter peculiar to John, are reckoned as ninety-six; but the para- graphs containing matter peculiar to Luke in his G~spel are no fewer_ t~an eevent;y-two; and those peculiar to Matthew not fewer than sixty-two I A fair mference is that Matthew, Luke, and John each adopted a similar principle of selection from a vast store of material, and that the peculiarities of John are not more striking or idiosyncratic than those of Luke or Matthew. If the originalities of Luke receive our credit as having a basis of positive knowledge, then a /ortiori we have a right to assume that the originalities of John have a still more trustworthy basis. . It may be said that the imposing miracle at the grave of Lazarua e1tero1sed too striking an effect on the state of feeling in the capital to suffer excision from any narrative of the last tragedy. This argument proves too much, for, on the same principle, Matthew, of all the evangelists, ought not to have omitted the reception of  THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. xcvii