01.21. On The Use Or Paraskeue And Pascha In St. John S Account Of Our Lord’s Last Sufferings

Section Ninth. On The Use Or Paraskeue And Pascha In St. John S Account Of Our Lord’s Last Sufferings; And The Question There With Connected, Whether Our Lord Kept His Last Pass Over On The Same Day As The Jews.

IT is simply in connexion with this question respecting the time of keeping the last Passover, that the use of the words παρασκευή and πάσχα, by St. John, in John 18:1-40 and John 19:1-42, is involved in doubt, or assumes an aspect of importance. And, as we are firmly persuaded that the question itself has mainly arisen from some of the historical circumstances being too little regarded, we shall commence our inquiry by taking these in their order, and endeavouring to present them in their proper light.

1. The first thing requiring to be noted is the determined purpose formed by the leading men in Jerusalem to make away with Jesus. The clear revelations He had given, especially on the occasion of this last visit to Jerusalem, of His own character and kingdom, and the unsparing exposure He had made of their ignorance, carnality, and deserved condemnation, had brought matters, as between them and Him, to a crisis. It was now seen that, if their authority was to stand, His career must be extinguished. But, in their project for accomplishing this, two points of special moment are to be noted. In the first place, it was to be by stratagem (ἐν δόλῳ, Matthew 26:4; Mark 14:1) this being, as they naturally conceived, the only safe course for them to adopt. They durst not venture on an open assault, as Jesus had evidently acquired great fame, had come up to the feast with a large retinue of followers, and by His miracles, His discourses, and His disinterested life, had made profound impressions upon many hearts. Against such a person it would have been a hazardous thing for them to bring a formal charge of impiety or crime; it were on every account wiser to compass their design by the hand of an assassin, or some secret plot, which might admit of their remaining in the background. Then, this stratagem was not to be quite immediately put in force; not till after the feast. This is expressly noticed in two of the Evangelists (Matthew 26:5; Mark 14:2;) and they both assign the same reason for the delay--"lest there should be an uproar among the people." These seemed now to an alarming degree won to His side; they had attended Him in crowds from Galilee; they had even borne Him in triumph, and with every demonstration of enthusiastic joy, as King Messiah, from Mount Olivet into the heart of the city; and it was not to be supposed that multitudes, apparently so full of confidence in their leader, and so ardently devoted to His cause, would suffer Him to be openly wronged, without exerting themselves to the utmost in his defense. It was, therefore, the obvious dictate of prudence to let the crowds again disperse, before the hand of violence was lifted against Jesus.

2. But all of a sudden a new element came into their deliberations, and their policy took another form, when the treachery of Judas discovered itself, offering for a sum of money to deliver up Jesus into their hands. The precise moment when Judas made this offer to them is not stated. It must, however, have been sometime between the conclusion of those discourses, in which the Lord had so plainly exposed and denounced the leading Jews, and the actual execution of the treachery; for it is manifest that the traitor had come to terms with them before the paschal feast had actually begun, and yet not less manifest that it must have been after they had formed their plan not to proceed against Jesus till the feast was over. Subsequently to this resolution on their part, but prior even to the assignation of any particular time or place for the accomplishment of the purpose, "he sought how he might conveniently betray Him" (Mark 14:11.) The purpose itself doubtless took shape in the mind of Judas, and reached the point of action, much in the same way that the Jewish rulers were led to their resolution to kill Him. From the position matters had now assumed, it had become for both alike a necessity to get rid of Jesus: His presence was felt to be intolerable. Indeed, Judas, in his state of mind and his procedure toward Jesus, might be taken for a representative among the twelve of those Jewish rulers; he did within the narrower sphere what they did in the larger one--delivered up the Holy One of God to His adversaries; on which account, in the psalms that spake before concerning the treachery, the individual traitor is identified with the whole company of faithless men who were to take the part of violence and deceit (Psalms 119:109; Acts 1:16-20.) Judas had undoubtedly, at the time of his first connexion with Christ, been known as a person of shrewd intellect, as well as respectable demeanour, most probably also as a person of active business habits:-whence the charge naturally fell to him of managing the pecuniary concerns of the company, of bearing the purse. With such natural gifts and acquired habits, he had thought he discerned enough in Jesus of Nazareth to convince him that this could be no other than the expected Messiah; but, beyond doubt, the Messiah of an earthly cause and a worldly kingdom. And as the hopes of advancement in this direction began to give way ; as the plan of Jesus more fully developed itself, and successive revelations of coming events forced on the mind of Judas the conviction, that not earthly grandeur or political ascendency, but sacrifice, self-denial, peril, and shame, were to be the immediate portion of those who espoused the cause of Jesus, then the spell was broken to his calculating and worldly spirit. He not only became depressed and sorrowful, like the others, but totally unhinged: his only distinct motives for embarking In the enterprise were withdrawn from him; he must be done with the concern. Symptoms of this recoil had been perceived by the penetrating eye of Jesus about a twelve-month before the last Passover, which led Him to utter the strong expression, that of those He had chosen, one was a devil (John 6:70.) It was only now, however, that the full effect was produced. The repeated intimations which Jesus had recently made of His coming death, the specific assurance that He was to be rejected by the chief priests and scribes, crucified and slain; the palpable breach that took place be tween Him and these rulers of the people on the occasion of His public entrance into Jerusalem, with the discourses subsequently delivered; still more recently the reproof individually and pointedly addressed to Judas, in connexion with the personal anointing at Bethany, and the fresh allusion then also made to His impending death and burial:--all these following in rapid succession, and leaving, at length, no room to doubt that a catastrophe was at hand, consummated the process which had been going on in the mind of Judas, and impelled him to adopt a course of decisive action--to resolve on being done with a service which no longer possessed his sympathy or his confidence, and make sure of his interest with those that had. Thus prompted and drawn, he secretly threw him self into the camp of the adversaries, and entered into terms with them for the betrayal of Jesus. (It is most likely, on account of the influence exercised on the mind of Judas by what took place at Bethany, that the Evangelists Matthew and Mark mention it in immediate connexion with the purpose of Judas to be tray. In reality, however, it occurred before several of the last discourses were delivered, and six days previous to the last Passover, John 12:1)

3. But this unexpected occurrence, we may well conceive, cast a new light upon the prospects of Christ s adversaries in Jerusalem, and naturally led to a remodeling of their plans. The discovery that one of His bosom friends was deserting Him, as if he had seen through the imposture, and was even proffering his aid to the accomplishment of their aims, could not fail to beget the conviction, that the cause of Jesus was by no means so powerful, nor His place in the popular esteem so firmly seated, as they had imagined. They now began to think that there was not so much need for stratagem and delay, as they at first imagined; nay, that their best chance for accomplishing the desired result, was by a bold and summary procedure. Most heartily, therefore, did they close with the proposal of Judas, and for the stipulated sum of thirty pieces of silver, agree to act in concert with him. This circumstance, if allowed its due consideration, and followed to its legitimate results, will be found sufficient to account for all the peculiarities and apparent inconsistencies in the evangelical narratives. It first of all led the Jewish rulers to resolve on taking action immediately, the moment Judas might find a favourable opportunity for effecting the betrayal. And it led our Lord, who was perfectly cognizant of what was proceeding in the camp of the enemies, to pursue a course at the very commencement of the Passover, which left Judas no alternative: he must either act promptly that very night, or lose the opportunity of acting at all.

4. This procedure, then, on the part of Christ, is the point that next calls for notice. In compliance with His own instructions, the necessary preparations had been made for holding the feast--an upper chamber was engaged, and the materials requisite for the feast provided. There Jesus met with the disciples at the appointed time--we can readily suppose at a somewhat earlier hour than customary, as He well foreknew what a series of events had to be crowded into the remaining hours of that night. The period, it should be remembered, for eating the paschal lamb, was left somewhat indefinite. The lamb itself was to be killed any time between the two evenings, (Exodus 12:5; Leviticus 23:5;) that is, between the ninth and eleventh hour by the Jewish reckoning, or the third and fifth in the afternoon by ours, (Joseph. Wars, 7: 9, 3.) So that, as our Lord had special reasons for making the hour as early as possible, we may warrantably suppose that the lamb was killed about three o clock, and the feast entered upon about five, or shortly after it. But scarcely had Jesus and His disciples begun the feast--it was, at least, only in progress, after the solemn service of the washing of the disciples feet had been performed, (John 13:1-22,)--when Jesus, with evident emotion, announced that one of them should betray Him. [Notwithstanding the positive assertions of Meyer to the contrary, there can be no reasonable doubt, that the feast mentioned in this 13th ch. Of John, at which our Lord washed the disciples feet, was the same as that described by the other Evangelists under the name of the Passover. The great majority of commentators are agreed on this however they differ oil other points. Stier justly states, that the supper or feast here mentioned from the manner in which it is introduced, was manifestly no ordinary supper; and the reference to it again, at John 21:20, as the supper, by way of eminence, at which John leaned on his Master s bosom, confirms the view. A still further confirmation is derived from the evident allusion, in Luke 22:27, to the action of washing the disciples feet, which took place at it, and is recorded only by St. John; there, however, and with reference to it, our Lord says Himself, "I am among you as one that serveth." The expression of St. John, at the beginning of the chapter, πρὸ τὴς ἑορτῇς τοῦ πάσχα, which Meyer so strongly presses as conclusively showing that the circumstances of this supper were prior to the Passover, and that our Lord did not keep the Passover at all, have no such necessary import. It is utterly arbitrary to make them point to all the transactions that followed, and, indeed, against the most natural and proper sense. The Evangelist simply tells us, that before the Paschal Feast, at which the things concern ing His earthly career were to proceed to their consummation, had actually arrived before that, but without any indication of how long before, Jesus, being cognizant of all that was at hand, and of His speedy return to the Father, having loved His own, and still loving them, was resolved to give them a palpable and personal proof of it, by washing their feet before the feast properly commenced. So substantially, after multitudes of earlier commentators, Alford, Stier, Luthardt. The precise period of washing, however, is wrongly put in our version, by the words in John 13:2, "and supper being ended;" it should be, "supper having come " for it is quite clear from what follows, that it had not ended, nor even in any proper sense be gun. There was, at most, before the washing, the προεόρτιον or ante-supper, as it was called, from which, (John 13:4) Jesus rose and went about the washing; after which came the supper itself, the Paschal Feast.] The disciples, as might be supposed, were greatly stunned by the announcement for a moment looked at one another then anxiously, in succession, put the question, "Lord, is it I?" Judas could not afford to appear singular at such a time, perhaps also wished to learn how far Jesus might be acquainted with the secret, and so, followed the rest in putting the question. The reply informed him that his treachery was known ; but it would seem, the information was so conveyed, as to be intelligible only to the traitor him self. Hence, still revolving the matter, and anxious to attain, to certainty regarding it, Peter beckoned to John, who lay next to Jesus, to the intent that he might endeavour to obtain more definite information. The inquiry was evidently made by John in a whisper, as simply between himself and Christ. But the mode adopted by our Lord in giving the reply, of presenting a sop to Judas, while it served the purpose of a sign in regard to the treachery in question, served, at the same time, to connect the act of Judas with the delineations of prophecy, (John 13:18; Psalms 41:9.) Then, turning to Judas, He said emphatically, "That thou doest, do quickly." This brought the matter to an issue. Judas s time was clearly up; he had forfeited his place among the disciples of Jesus; and if the bargain with his new masters was to be implemented, it must be instantly gone about. Hence, without a moment s delay, he hurried off to the Jewish rulers to get them to strike at once, as now only was it likely he could do aught in their behalf.

5. Now, let it be imagined, in what mood he must have found his accomplices at such a time, and what was likely to have been the effect produced on them by his appearance. His purpose had been precipitated by what took place in the Passover-room; and this necessarily led them to precipitate theirs. It was a great crisis with them--now or never. Even scrupulous men could not be expected to be very nice in such a moment ; and since they now had what they could never look for again, the opportune help of one of the companions of Jesus, they must venture somewhat, though it should oblige them to depart a little from use and wont--the rather so, as it was probable that the matter might be brought to quite a speedy termination. Let it be remembered, that it was but a com paratively limited number of persons, who were actively engaged in the business--only a few of the more resolute and daring members of the Sanhedrim. When Judas presented himself before these, it was in all probability still the earlier part of the evening, considerably before persons in their rank of life would be accustomed to sit down to the Passover-feast. And as there was no time to lose, as everything, in a manner, depended upon their seizing the favourable moment, and as they could eat their Passover any time between night and morning, what was more likely than that they should agree to postpone their participation of the feast till they had got through with this urgent business? It was possible enough they might have it dispatched before midnight, when still it would not be too late for them to eat the Passover. Such, it might seem, would be the natural, and, on every account, the most advisable course, for them to pursue in the circumstances. Judas in the first instance, and then the party with whom he was in concert, had both, sooner than they anticipated, been thrown into the vortex of active and violent operations, through the overruling providence of Him, who bounds and restrains even the wrath of the wicked, so as to render it subservient to His purposes. And as they could postpone their paschal solemnity for a certain period, but could not postpone concurrence with the proposal of Judas to proceed immediately against Jesus, they hastily concerted their measures, and commenced their course of action, by sending along with Judas an armed band to the garden of Gethsemane, for the purpose of arresting the Son of Man, and dragging him to the tribunal of judgment.

6. So far the traitor had calculated aright. Jesus was found in the well-known garden. He had there already passed through that solemn and affecting scene of agony, in which, with thrice-repeated and ever-increasing earnestness, He had prayed to the Father that the cup might be removed from Him. The season of watching and prayer was no sooner ended than Judas and his company presented themselves. It could not, therefore, be late; as it was still near the beginning of April, when the nights are too cold in Palestine to admit of persons remaining at an advanced hour in the open air, without harm; and hence, when it did become late, Peter is spoken of as shivering with cold, and going near to warm him self at the fire that had been kindled (John 18:18.) We cannot reasonably suppose the time of the meeting in Gethsemane to have been beyond eight, or, at the furthest, nine in the evening, according to our mode of reckoning. What ensued upon the meeting need not at present detain us. Jesus proved Himself to be fully equal to the occasion--with mingled majesty and meekness met the assault of His adversaries, kept them for a time awe-struck and powerless, by word and deed showed how easily, had He willed, He could have smitten them to the ground; but, that the Father s counsel might be fulfilled, freely yielded Himself into their hands. There after Ife was conducted by them to the house of the high priest; first, indeed, to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, then to Caiaphas himself, where the chief priests and elders-such of them as could be got together on such hasty notice-had meanwhile assembled to give formal judgment against Him. Here, however, they met with an unexpected difficulty ; for, while Judas had put them in possession of the obnoxious party, he had but poorly provided them with grounds of guilt, or evidence to establish it. "They sought for witness against Jesus to put Him to death--and found none" (Mark 14:55.) So that, after fruitless efforts to make good a charge of felony, and considerable time spent in the endeavour, they were obliged to fall back on the claims of Jesus regarding His person, and extorted from Him a confession of His assuming to be, in a sense altogether peculiar, the Son of the living God. This they held to be blasphemy, and thereby obtained, indeed, the materials of a capital offence; since, by the law of Moses, blasphemy was punishable with death. But a new difficulty sprung up on this very ground, for, as it was necessary to obtain the sanction of the Roman governor to the doom before it could be put in execution --the charge being a strictly religious, not a civil one--how should they manage to get Pilate to accredit it? They must, however, make the trial; Pilate’s consent was indispensable ; and they must present themselves with the prisoner at the judgment-hall, in order to press the sentence of judicial condemnation. Thither, accordingly, they went.

7. By this time it was past midnight; it is even said in John 18:28, that, when they got to the judgment-hall or πρωί pnetorium of Pilate, it was, not merely past midnight, but early morn. This is implied also, in the circumstance that, before leaving the palace of the high priest, the crowing of the cock, indicating the approach of dawn, had been heard, awakening the cry of guilt in Peter s bosom. It might still further be inferred, from the accounts given by the several Evangelists of the processes of trial and examination gone through, followed by the scenes of mockery and dishonour, during which, it is evident, many hours must have been consumed. And, indeed, the very purpose for which they went to the praetorium is a proof that it must have been about the break of day; since they could not sooner have expected an audience of the governor on a matter of judicial administration. Early in the morning, then--it might be a little before, or a little after sunrise they led Jesus to the praetorium; and when there, they presented Him before Pilate for summary condemnation, as a person whom they had ascertained to be a rebel against the government of Caesar, forbidding men to give tribute, and perverting the nation (Luke 23:1.) This took place, apparently, at the door of the praetorium, and they doubtless hoped that Pilate would instantly accede to their proposal, and allow them to take their own way with the prisoner. Such, however, was not the result; the same over ruling Providence, which controlled their proceedings before, controlled them again; instead of summarily pronouncing judgment, Pilate took Jesus into the hall for the purpose of examining more closely into the matter. But thither, it is said, (John 18:28,) His accusers refused to follow, "they did not go in to the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover."

8. Now, it is here that the first, and indeed the main difficulty presents itself, in reconciling St. John’s account of the transactions with the accounts of the other Evangelists, and with what may seem to have been the facts of the case:--a difficulty which has given rise to avariety of conjectural explanations; in particular, to the supposition, on the part of some, that Jesus kept the Passover with His disciples a day earlier than the Jews generally; and, on the part of others, to the supposition that the eating of the Passover mentioned in the passage just quoted, referred, not to the eating of the Paschal lamb itself, but to the subsequent and supplemental provisions of the feast. Both views carry a somewhat unnatural and arbitrary appearance; and can neither of them stand a rigid examination.

9. The latter view, which would take the expression "eating the Passover" in an inferior sense, of the things to be eaten only on the second and other days of the feast, has the usage of the Evangelists wholly against it. The expression occurs in five other places—Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11; Luke 22:15 --and always in the sense of eating the Passover strictly so called. It is true, as is still urged by Luthardt, that in Deuteronomy 16:2, offerings of the herd and flock to be presented during the feast are called the paschal sacrifices, and that the word Passover itself is used by John frequently of the feast generally (2: 28, 13: 1, 18: 89.) But these things will never prove, or even render probable the idea, that the phrase of "eating the Passover" might be used of any other part of the feast, exclusive of the very thing from which all the rest took its character and name; and the plain meaning of the expression, in all the other passages where it occurs, must be held conclusive against it. Then, as regards the other opinion, that our Lord kept the Passover on a day earlier than the Jews generally, it places the account of John in direct opposition to that of the other Evangelists. They clearly represent the day observed by our Lord as the one looked forward to with common expectation for the keeping of the Passover. In Matthew 26:2, Jesus is represented as saying at the close of His discourses, " Ye know (as if there could be no doubt upon the matter) that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified;" again at Matthew 26:17, "And on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover?" So also in Mark 14:1, it is intimated, as a matter of public notoriety, "After two days was the feast of the Passover, and of unleavened bread;" and still again in Luke 22:7, "Then came the day of un leavened bread, when the Passover must be killed." With such clear and explicit statements on the subject, it is not too much to say with Lucke, that "it is impossible to extract from the text of the Synoptical Gospels even the semblance of an anticipation of the Passover." And if we hold by the historical fidelity of their accounts, no ingenious theorizings as to the probability, or moral fitness of the day preceding that of the ordinary Passover, being observed, can have any effect in countervailing the force of the testimony delivered in the above passages. Of such theorizings none has been pressed with more frequency or confidence than the require ments of type and antitype--not merely as understood by the Jews, and urged by commentators like De Wette, Lucke, Meyer, Ewald, Bleek; but also as demanded by the nature of things. So Mr. Gresswell, for example, presses the consideration: circumstances of time and place were indispensable to the constitution of the paschal offering as a type; it must be slain on the 14th of Nisan, and only in the place where God had put His name, latterly in the city of Jerusalem; other wise, the ordinance was not kept in its integrity. And "who then," asks Mr. Gresswell, "shall say, that they were not equally indispensable to the antitype? Had Christ suffered, though He had suffered as a victim, on any day but the 14th of Nisan could He have suffered as the Jewish Passover? Had Jesus suffered, though He had suffered anywhere but at Jerusalem, could He have suffered as the Jewish Passover?"(Harmony, vol. 3:, p. 163.) But why stop simply there? Why not insist upon other correspondences of a like kind? The Jewish Passover was expressly required to be a lamb of a year old; and could Christ have suffered as the Jewish Passover, if more than a year had elapsed since He entered on His high vocation? The Jewish

Passover, wherever and however killed, must have its blood poured around the altar; and could Christ have suffered as the Jewish Passover, if a like service was not performed with His life-blood? If such merely outward correspondences are pressed, we shall not find the reality, after all; and that not here alone, but in the ordinances generally which had their antitypical fulfillment in the history and work of Christ. The demand for these proceeds on mistaken views of the relation between type and antitype, as if the one stood upon the same level with the other, and were equally dependent upon conditions of place and time. (See Typology of Scripture, vol. 1:, p. 57.) And, besides, what, in the circumstances supposed, should become of our Lord s own Passover? The precise day did enter as an important element into the Old Testament ordinance; and was He, who came to fulfill the law, to change at will the Divine appointment? Was it by infringing upon one part of a typical institution, that He was to make good another? To say with some, among others Stier, that it was probably the right day for the Passover our Lord and His disciples kept, and that the Jews erred a day in their calculations, is a mere assertion, and against the manifest bearing of the evangelical statements already adduced. Such lame and halting respect to the ordinances of heaven, could neither be pleasing to God, nor satisfactory to men; and Christ s accomplishment of the things written beforehand concerning Him in type and prophecy, must be placed on another footing, if it is to approve itself to our religious feelings and intelligent convictions. We dismiss, therefore, all pleadings of the kind now referred to; and hold to the plain import of the historical statements in the Evangelists, that our Lord and His disciples knew of no day for observing the Passover, but the one which the law required and which was common to them with their countrymen. [The reasoning in the text is directed only against those who hold the idea of an anticipated Passover being kept by our Lord, without impugning the historical accuracy of the Synoptical Evangelists. But most of the German writers, who think that our Lord either did not keep the Passover at all, or, at least, that He did not keep it on the common day, give up the historical accuracy of the Synoptists. So, for example, Meyer and Ewald (the latter in his Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 5: p. 409, sq.,) who both, though Meyer most sharply and offensively, hold John’s narrative to be irreconcilable with the other accounts; that he, however, gave the correct one, while the others erroneously identify the feast kept by our Lord with the proper Jewish Pass over. They followed a mere tradition; and Meyer supposes the tradition to have originated in the Lord s Supper coming to be identified with the Paschal Feast; whence the day of its institution was first viewed as an ideal 14 Nisan, and by-and-by was taken for a real 14 Nisan. Precious writers of sacred history to say nothing of their inspiration who could thus, all three, confound the ideal with the real, which is here, in plain terms, the false with the true! Considering the importance which attached to the last festal solemnity of Jesus, we ask, with Luthardt, how could such an error in the tradtion have sprung up, especially under the eyes of the apostles, and gained an established footing? Or, if such a thing had been possible, what must one think of the intelligence and the memory of the Synoptists? The very pro posing of such a solution seems like an affront to one’s understanding, as well as an assault on one’s faith.]

10. In truth, the supposition, that our Lord and his disciples anticipated by a day the proper time for observing the Passover, when closely examined fails to explain the statement, for the solution of "which it was more peculiarly adopted: it does not, if it were true, account for the refusal of our Lord’s accusers to enter the praetorium. This has been well pointed out by Friedlieb, in a passage quoted by Alford, "The Jews would not enter the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. For, the entrance of a Jew into the house of a Gentile made him unclean till the evening. It is surprising, that, according to this declaration of the holy Evangelist, the Jews had still to eat the Passover; whereas Jesus and His disciples had already eaten it on the previous night. And it is no less surprising, that the Jews in the early morning should have been afraid of rendering themselves unclean for the Passover; since the Passover could not be kept till the evening; 1: e. 9 till the next day, (for the day was reckoned from evening to evening;) and the uncleanness which they dreaded, did not, by the law, last till the next day." Had these Jews, therefore, been simply concerned about fitness for eating the Passover on the day following that observed by Christ and His disciples, they did not need to have been so sticklish about entering the praetorium; the uncleanness they were anxious to avoid contracting would of itself have expired by the time they behooved to be free from it ; at sunset they should again have been pure. So that the supposition, which is historically groundless, is also inadequate for the purpose of a proper explanation.

11. Friedlieb himself, along with not a few critical authorities, in former as well as present times, is disposed to fall in with the other supposition, and to regard the eating of the Passover, in John 18:28, as referring to subordinate parts of the feast. After stating that the passage labours under no small exegetical difficulties, which, perhaps, cannot be solved for want of accurate knowledge of the customs of the time, he adds, "Possibly the law concerning Levitical defilements and purifications had in that age been made more stringent, or otherwise modified; possibly they called some other meal beside the actual Passover, by its name. This last we certainly, with our present knowledge of Hebrew antiquities, must assume." We might, indeed, have to do so, and take what satisfaction we could from the possible solution thereby presented, if the circumstances of the case absolutely required it. But it is here we demur: we see no necessity for having recourse to the merely possible and conjectural, when the actual (if duly considered) may suffice. It is to be borne in mind, we again repeat--though constantly overlooked by the authors of those hypothetical explanations--that the persons mentioned by the evangelist as afraid to contract uncleanness by entering, the pragtoriura, and thereby losing their right to eat of the Passover, formed no fair representation, in this matter, of the Jews at large. The Evangelist, in the whole of this part of his narrative, is speaking merely of the faction of the chief priest and elders, the comparative handful of men who conducted the business of our Lord s persecution, and never once refers to the general population of the Jews. Once, indeed, and again, he calls them by the name of Jews (John 18:31, John 19:7, etc.) partly to distinguish them from Pilate, the heathen, and partly also from his custom of using the general name of Jews, where the other Evangelists employ the more specific names of Scribes and Pharisees, (John 5:16, John 5:18, John 6:10, etc.) He still, however, leaves us in no doubt, that the persons really Concerned were the mere party of the high priest, the accomplices of Judas. This base faction had, as already stated, been driven by circumstances, over which they had no control, to a course of proceeding different from what they had contemplated. When preparing to partake of the Pass over, they suddenly found themselves in a position which obliged them to act with promptitude, while it did not appear to exclude the possibility of their being able, at a more advanced period of the night, to eat the Passover. In the urgency of the moment they allowed the feast to stand over till the business in hand was dispatched. But unexpected difficulties met them in the way; in the midst of which the night wore on, and at last the morning dawned, without the desired result being reached. They did not, however, on that count ,abandon the purpose of eating the Passover—no doubt conceiving that the greatness of the emergency justified the slight deviation they had to make from the accustomed order. Hypocrites and formalists, in all ages, when bent on the execution of some cherished project, have been notorious for their readiness in accommodating their notions of duty to the exigencies of the moment; they can swallow a camel when it suits their purpose, while at other times they can strain at a gnat. Nor were the chief actors on the occasion before us ordinary hypocrites and formalists; the more forward of them at least belonged to the Sadducean party, the members of which, it is well known, never scrupled to make religious practice bend to self-interest or political expediency. It is vain, therefore, in a case like the present, to summon a host of witnesses (as Mr. Gresswell does, Harmony, 3: p. 156) to the great regard which the Jews as a people paid to the Sabbath, and to the consequent improbability of their pressing forward such judicial proceedings against Christ, on the supposition of the time being the first day of the Paschal Feast, which by the law was to be observed as a Sabbath. A single fact or two, coupled with the known characters of the actors, is perfectly sufficient to put all such general testimonies to flight. Looking into Jewish history, we find it related of a period very shortly after that now under consideration, during the commotions, which took place under Cestius, that while the Jews were celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles, they heard of the governor s approach with an army towards Jerusalem; and immediately, (to use the words of Josephus, Wars, 2: 19, 2,) " they left the feast, and betook themselves to their arms; and, taking courage greatly from their multitude, they went in a sudden and disorderly manner to the fight, with a great noise, and without any consideration had of the rest of the seventh day, although the Sabbath was the day to which they had the greatest regard; but that rage, which made them forget the religious observance, made them too hard for their enemies in the fight." Here, both the solemnities of the feast and the hallowed rest of the Sabbath were unhesitatingly sacrificed to the demands of a civil emergency. And at a somewhat later stage of affairs, instances are recorded by Josephus, which show, that the men who then chiefly ruled in Jerusalem came even to count nothing whatever sacred, in comparison of their own mad policy; that the most hallowed things were turned, without scruple, to a profane use whenever the interests of the moment seemed to require it; so that, from what passed under his observation, the historian is led to express his conviction that, if the Romans had not come and put an end to such impieties, some earthquake, or supernatural visitation from heaven, must have been sent to revenge the enormities, (Wars, 5: 13, 6.)

12. Now, it is only ascribing a measure of the same spirit, and in a far inferior degree, to the few leaders of this conspiracy against Jesus, when we suppose them to have been hurried on by the progress of events beyond the proper time for eating the Passover; yet, without abandoning the intention, and the hope of still partaking of it, after the business in hand was brought to a close. They were consequently anxious to avoid contracting a defilement, which would have prevented them from eating the Passover during the currency of the first day of the feast. Were it not better that they should strive so to keep the feast, than omit its observance altogether? Undoubtedly, they would reckon it to be so. For the delay that had occurred beyond the appointed time, they would plead (as with their views there was a fair pretext for doing) the constraint of circumstances; they would rest in the conviction, that they had come as near to the legal observance of the institution as it was practicable for them to do. And as to the special objection of the first day of the feast being a Sabbath, and, as such, unfit for the prosecution of such a matter as now engaged their attention, the same considerations, which could reconcile them to the postponement of the feast, would also appear to warrant the active operations they pursued. It was not as if matters were moving in a regular and even current, and they could shape their proceedings in accordance with their own deliberate judgments; the rush of unexpected circumstances had shut them up to a particular course. Nor are there wanting instances in what is presently after recorded of them in Gospel history, in perfect keeping with the view now taken of their procedure. On the day following the crucifixion, which by the testimony of all the Evangelists, was not only a Sabbath, but a Sabbath of peculiar solemnity, they waited upon Pilate, for the purpose of getting him, on that very day, to set a watch around the sepulchre of Jesus, lest the body should be stolen (Matthew 27:62-63) And at an earlier period, we learn from John 7:32; John 7:37; John 7:45, the Pharisees sent out officers to apprehend Jesus on the last day of the Feast .of Tabernacles, which by the law was also to be observed as a Sabbath. So that either they did not look upon such judicial proceedings as work unsuited to a Sabbath, or they thought the urgency of the occasion justified its being done. How much more, then, in the matter now under consideration, when everything, in a manner, was at stake? It is proper also to add, that while the first day of the Paschal Feast was appointed to be kept as a Sabbath, it was not possible, from the amount of work that had to be done in connexion with the feast, that it could have so much the character of a day of rest as an ordinary Sabbath. And, indeed, the law regarding it expressly provides, that such work as was necessary to the preparation of victuals and travelling to their respective abodes, was allowable (Exodus 12:16; Deuteronomy 16:6-7;) ordinary avocations merely were prohibited, in order that the observances proper to the feast might proceed. The conclusion, therefore, to which on every account we are led is precisely that which the Statement in John 18:28 it self requires us to adopt. The expression of " eating the Passover" there employed, by invariable usage points to an actual participation on that very day of the proper feast; and the more closely the circumstances of the time, and the character of the actors are considered, the more reason do we find for the belief, that it was the same Passover of the 14th of Nisan which our Lord had kept, and which they were still intent on celebrating, though from urgent circumstances, it had to be postponed a little beyond the due season. (It is not necessary to do more than refer to an objection that might be raised against this conclusion, drawn from the procedure of our Lord Himself, going out with His disciples after eating the Passover. This Mr. Alford mentions as a reason for thinking of another than the exact day and feast prescribed by the law being kept; since in Exodus 12:22, it was ordered that none should leave his house till the morning. But it was equally ordered, that all should cat the Passover, attired as travellers, and ready for a journey,—though we know, the prescription was not kept in later times, and was understood to be temporary. So and much more must the other have been; for, keeping the Passover, as multitudes necessarily did, in other people’s houses, it must often, have happened that they were obliged to go out after wards.)

13. So much for the more peculiar passage in St. John’s Gospel on this subject; but there are one or two others that also require explanation. These have respect to the Sabbath, and in particular what is called the paraskeue. Speaking of the time when Pilate was going to pronounce judgment against Jesus, it is said in John 19:14, ἠν δὲ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, it was the paraskeue or preparation day of the Passover. This, it has been alleged, points to the proper passover-day as still to come, and fixes it to be the day following the one of which the transactions are recorded. It would certainly do so, if the expression, as used by the Evangelist, meant a preparation-day before the keeping of the Passover. But this does not appear to be the case. He uses the word paraskeue twice again in the same chapter, and each time in reference to the Sabbath: ver. 81, "The Jews, therefore, because it was the paraskeue, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath-day (for that Sabbath was a high day) be sought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away;" and John 19:42, "There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews paraskeue; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." Here, plainly, it is with the Sabbath, that the term is specially connected; and the natural inference is, that in the earlier passage, although it is called the para skeue of the Passover, yet what is meant is not a paraskeue of the feast itself, but a Sabbath paraskeue during the feast. This is confirmed by what is written in the other gospels. Thus, at Matthew 27:62, with reference to the application made to Pilate for a guard on the day after the crucifixion it is said, "Now, on the following day, which is the one after the paraskeue" (ἥτις ἐστὶν μετὰ τὴν παρασκευήν;) the following day, beyond doubt, was the ordinary Sabbath; and the name paraskeue had become so common as a designation of the preceding day, that the Sabbath itself, it would seem, was sometimes denominated from it. Not merely, the evening after sunset of the sixth day, as Michselis, Kuinoel, Paulus, and Alford suppose (though even so, the words would apply to what was strictly the Jewish Sabbath;) but the following morn, as the τῇ ἐπαύριον of the Evangelist properly means. This we may the rather believe to be the meaning, as it is against all probability that the thought of placing a guard around the sepulchre during the night between the second and the third day, should have occurred so early as the very night of the crucifixion; it has all the appearance of an after-thought, springing up when reflection had got time to work. In Mark 15:42, we have not only the same word applied to designate the time preceding the Sabbath, but an explanation added, "And evening having now come, since it was paraskeue, which is προςάββατον, fore Sabbath." Luke says, Luke 23:54, "and it was paraskeue day" (καὶ ἡμέρα ἦν παρασ.) The day which preceded the Sabbath, was called by way of emphasis, the preparation, on account of the arrangements that had to be made on it in anticipation of the approaching Sabbath, with the view of spending this in perfect freedom from all ordinary labour. So much account was made of such preparatory arrangements, in the later periods of Jewish history, that the name paraskeue came to be a familiar designation for the sixth day of the week, and even to have a certain degree of Sabbatical sacredness attached to it. Josephus gives a decree of Augustus securing, among other liberties to the Jews, exemption from judicial proceedings on the Sabbath, and on paraskeue, after the ninth hour (Ant. 16: 6, 2.) Irenaeus, in his account of the Valentinian System, represents them as connecting the creation of man with the sixth day, because it was the paraskeue (I. 14, 6.) And in a passage quoted by Wetstein, at Matthew 27:62, from a Rabbinical authority, the days of the week are given thus: the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, paraskeue, Sabbath. Clearly therefore the word in question had come to be familiarly applied to denote the day correspending to our Friday, to denote that day as a whole, not merely some concluding fragment of it; but we have no evidence of any such appellation being customary in regard to the Passover Feast. Nor, indeed, can we conceive how it should have been thought of. For, as already stated, even on the first day itself of the feast, a certain freedom was allowed for travelling and preparing victuals ; and the day preceding it must usually have been one of considerable bustle and activity. We hold it, therefore, as established beyond all reason able doubt, that the paraskeue is the day preceding the regular Jewish Sabbath; and that when the Evangelist John speaks of the paschal paraskeue, he is to be understood as meaning simply the Jewish Saturday, the fore-Sabbath of the Passoversolemnity; in other words, not an ordinary preparation-day, but that heightened by the additional solemnities connected with the Passover--such a paraskeue as was itself a sort of Sabbath. Hence he makes the further explanatory statement, that the Sabbath following was a high day, or, lite rally, " Great was the day of that Sabbath." Why should it have been called great? Not surely--though this is very often alleged--because the first day of the Jewish Passover coincided with the ordinary Sabbath; for a great deal had to be done on the first day of the feast, which tended rather to disturb Jewish notions of Sabbatical repose:--the killing of many thousand victims (Josephus even speaks of so many as 200,000,) the pouring of the blood around the altar, the hurrying to and fro of persons performing these services, and all the labour and bustle connected with the cooking of so many suppers. A day, on which all this went on, could scarcely be regarded among the Jews as emphatically a great Sabbath. They were much more likely to apply such an expression to the Sabbath immediately following the Paschal Supper, when, the activities of the feast being over, the assembled people were ready, in vast numbers, and with excited feelings, to engage in the public services of the sanctuary.

Thus, every expression receives its most natural explanation; no constraint is put upon any of the words employed either by St. John or by the other Evangelists; while, by giving full play to the historical elements mentioned in the narrative, we have the best grounds for concluding, both that our Lord kept the Passover with His disciples on the 14th of Nisan, on the day prescribed by the law, and observed by the great body of the Jews, and that a faction, but in point of number, only a small faction of these, lost the opportunity of observing it till a later period of the same day. If these positions have been successfully made out, then, in this case, as in so many others connected with the sacred writings, the apparent discrepance in the different statements, as seen from a modern point of view, coupled with the satisfactory explanation, which arises from a careful examination of the circumstances, affords a strong confirmation of the thorough truth fullness and integrity of the writers--greatly more than if their narratives had presented a superficial and obvious agreement.