The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 96

that, there is no lire in us. This principle being reiterated (eh. vi. 64-56), the Lord declit.res," He that c_atelh me" (an expression which enlarges and completes the previous st.at.ement) "shall hve because of m•." After the expansion nnd interpretation of the original thought, he returns back to it again: "'l'his is tile bread," etc. (eh. vi. 58). Now, which is the more rational hypothesis? Did nu unknown writer of the second century, by this insertion of eh. vi. 35-60, and by subsequent omission of the institu- tion of the Supper, intend to throw discredit upon the latter? or did the beloved disci1;>le, upon whom this wonderful di~course made in<lelible impression, record the first occasion (by no means tbe only occasion) when Jesus spoke of his Divine humanity and his cruel denth, and of faith in his Divinity and sacrifice as the condition of life? and, h11Ving done so, did the evangelist omit the record of the well-known Eucharist to show still more fully what he understood the Master to have meant by eating the body and drinking the blood of the Son of God? The discourse in Capernaum, and the valedictory discourse at Jerusalem, are alike charged with the ideas, principles, and lessons which the constantly repeated Eucharist impressively symbolizes. It may be asked why should St. John omit the symbol, the concrete embodiment of spiritual ideas with which he wns familiar? Why should St. John pass over the origin of an institution which is so well adapted to conserve the most impressive lessons which he proves the Lord to have given in other forms? In reply we say: (a) The repudiation of symbolic event was not his universal custom. The concrete embodiment and positive expression in historic fact of the ideas of the Temptation are proof that he did not as a habit turn from historic facts to spiritual phenomena, but even reversed the process. (/J) The dawning superstition which began to enwrap the simple ritual may explain the reticence of the apostle with reference to its origination. (-,,) The fourth evangelist does, however, record illustrations of the symbolic method. By recording the washing; the disciples' feet (eh. xiii. 8), the spiritual significance of miracles on the blind and dead (eh. ix. 39; xi. 25), the breathing on the apostles that they might receive the Holy Ghost (eh. xx. 22), the author proved that he was not a bigoted spiritualist., or indifferent to visible symbols of eternal truth. Consequently, the omission of the well-known story of the "institution" is charged with high interpreta- tive force. (cl) The omission of tke agony in the garden. The silence of the fourth evangelist touching "the agony" in the garden is very noticeable. There are, however, several distinct correspondences of time and place. The writer (eh. :xviii. 1) shows that he was acquainted with and vividly recalled both. He records the fact of the Lord'd crossing the stream of Kedron and reaching a garden (rdi,ros more accurately describes the scene than the xa,p(av of Matthew and Mark, or the -ro,ros or Luke), which witnessed the cruel betrayal of the Son of man. Several impressive features are preserved by the fourth evangelist. It was "a -r&ras to which Jesus often resorted "-a quiet resting- place. The party of the Pharisees, "with lanteras and torches," had been seen by the watchful eye of the evangelist descending the steep slopes below the city walls. Sundry notes of identity with the synoptic account discover themselves; e.g. the servant of the high priest is referred to by the synoptists, but his name is given here, and the ,ight ear which he lost at the hand of Simon Peter is also specified ; the allusion to "twelve le,giom of angels" (Matt. xxvi. 53) is curiously confirmed by the writer's state- ment that a XtAlapxos ( eh. xviii. 12) was in command, showing that a legion of Roman soldiers was ready to suppress a revolt should one arise; and, finally, the language of our Lord to Peter (eh. xviii. 11), "The cnp which my Father giveth me to drink, shall I not drink it?" forcibly recalls the solemn language (Matt. xxvi. 89; Mark xiv. 36; Luke xxii. 42), "Take this cup from me: yet not as I will, bnt as thou wilt." Never- theless, it is most certain that the tone of matchless patience and courage, the mien of ineffable dignity, with which the Lord met and rebuked the guard, and proved the Imperial power he could have wielded (if be had chosen) for the utter discomfiture of his enemies, form a striking contrast with the scene which John must have witnessed in the depth of that olive shade. Luke himself may have even learned from John the terrible transaction he recorded (nil. 43, 44). Why, then, should the evangelist have omitted it? Why, in place of the agonizing, bleeding sacrifice, with strong crying and tears, does he give us an imperial potentate, a match for all the devilry of Judas, nnd all the malice of the Pharisees, and all the power of Caisar? No hint of weakne68, or  THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. ,JOHN. cvii