John is silent; but from this silence the inference can never be rightfully drawn that this last meal was not the Passover; any more than John's similar silence in respect to the Lord's Supper warrants the conclusion that no such rite was ever instituted. John, as all admit, wrote his Gospel as a supplement to the others; and hence, in speaking of this last meal, he narrates only such circumstances as had not been fully set forth by the other Evangelists. He does not describe this meal as being the Passover, nor make any mention of the Eucharist, because this had been done in both cases, in the most explicit manner, by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In this way the difference of the two reports of the same occasion is satisfactorily accounted for.

But there are a few expressions in John's Gospel, in connection with this meal, and especially with our Lord's Passion, which taken together might at first view, and if we had only John, seem to imply that on Friday, the day of our Lord's crucifixion, the regular and legal Passover had not yet been eaten, but was still to be eaten on the evening after that day.

The point of the whole inquiry relates simply to the time of the Passover. According to all the four Evangelists our Lord was crucified on Friday, the day before the Jewish Sabbath; and his last meal with his disciples took place on the preceding evening, the same night in which he was betrayed. The simple question, therefore, at issue is: Did this Friday fall upon the fifteenth day of Nisan, or upon the fourteenth? Or, in other words, did our Lord on the evening before his crucifixion eat the Passover, as is testified by the first threc Evangelists; or was the Passover still to be eaten on the evening after that day, as John might seem to imply?

This question has been more or less a subject of discussion in the church ever since the earliest centuries; chiefly with a view to harmonize the difficulties. It is only in recent years that the apparent difference between John and the other Evangelists has been urged to the extreme of attempting to make it irreconcilable.

John obviously wrote his Gospel as supplementary to the other three. He had them then before him, and was acquainted with their contents. He was aware that the other three Evangelists had testified to the fact that Jesus partook of the Passover with his disciples. Did John believe that their testimony on this point was wrong; and did he mean to correct it? If so, we should naturally expect to find some notice of the correction along with the mention of the meal itself, which John describes as well as they. Indeed, that would have been the appropriate and only fitting place for such a correction. But John has nothing of the kind; and we are therefore authorized to maintain that it was not John's purpose thus and there to correct or contradict the testimony of the other Evangelists; and if not there, then much less by mere implication in other places and connections.

Let us examine the passages referred to in John's Gospel, and see whether they require to be so understood or interpreted as to present any appearance of discrepancy. They are the following:

(a) John 13: 1, "before the feast of the passover." This form of expression, it is said, shows that our Lord's last meal with his disciples took place before the Passover and could not, therefore, itself have been the paschal supper.

But we must here take into account the meaning of the Greek word thus rendered feast, the true and only proper signification of which is festival; that is, it implies everywhere a yearly day or days of festive commemoration; never a single meal or entertainment. So in Num. 28: 16, 17, where the paschal supper, prepared on the fourteenth of Nisan and eaten at evening, is distinguished from the festival (Engl. Ver. feast), which began on the fifteenth and continued for seven days. See farther Luke 2: 41; 22: 1. In this view, the phrase in question does not mean "before the paschal supper," but "before the festival of the Passover," that is, of unleavened bread (Luke 22:1). It is equivalent therefore to the Engl. festival-eve; and here marks the evening before the festival proper of seven days' continuance; on which evening, during the (paschal) supper, our Lord manifested his love for his disciples "unto the end," by the touching symbolical act of washing their feet. It is therefore evident that this passage does not sustain the inference attempted to be drawn from it.

(b) John 18: 28, "and they themselves [the Jews] went not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover." [The R. V. differs

slightly: "that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover."] From this last phrase it has been inferred that the Jews were expecting to partake of the paschal supper the ensuing evening, and of course had not eaten it already.

But to bring out this inference, the phrase "to eat the passover" must be taken in the most limited sense, "to eat the paschal supper. This certainly cannot be necessary, unless the context requires such a limitation; which is not the case

here.

--

The word Passover in the New Testament is found in no less than three main signification: (a) The paschal lamb; Mark 14: 12; Luke 22: 7; 1 Cor. 5: 7. (b) The paschal meal; Matt. 26: 18, 19; Luke 22: 8, 13; Heb. 11: 28. (c) The paschal festival, comprising the seven days of unleavened bread; Luke 22 : 1; 2:41; comp. 43; Matt. 26: 2; John 2: 13; 6: 4, etc. As now there is nothing in the circumstances or context of John 18: 28 to limit the meaning of the word Passover in itself either to the paschal lamb or paschal meal, we certainly are not bound by any intrinsic necessity so to understand it here in the phrase "to eat the passover.' If, on the other hand, we adopt for it in this place the wider sense of paschal festival, two modes of interpretation are admissible, either of which leaves no room for the above inference.

1. By modifying the force of the verb to eat, so as to make the phrase "to eat the passover" equivalent to the more common expression, "to keep or celebrate the passover." Precisely this form of expression occurs in the Hebrew in 2 Chron. 30: 22, literally: "and they did eat the festival seven days;" where the A. V. has it: "throughout seven days." The Septuagint translates correctly according to the sense, though not according to the letter: "and they fulfilled (kept) the festival of unleavened bread seven days." [R. V.: "They did eat throughout the feast for the seven days."]

2. Or we may assign to the word Passover (paschal festival), by metonymy, the sense of paschal sacrifices, that is, the voluntary peace-offerings and thank-offerings made in the temple during the paschal festival, and more especially on the fifteenth of Nisan; called in later times the Khagigah; see p. 188, above. A like metonymy is found in Ps. 118: 27, "bind the sacrifice (festive offering, lit. festival) with cords." See, too, Ex. 23: 18; Mal. 2:3. The same metonymy is assumed by some in the passage above quoted; 2 Chr. 30: 22; which they then render thus: "and they did eat the festival offerings seven days."

It is manifest that both the above methods of interpretation are founded on fair analogies; and that either of them relieves us from the necessity of referring the phrase in question to the paschal supper, and thus removes the alleged difficulty. The chief priests and other members of the Sanhedrin, on the morning of the first day of the festival, were unwilling to defile themselves by entering beneath the roof of the Gentile procurator; since in that way they would have been debarred from partaking of the sacrificial offerings and banquets which were customary on that day in the temple and elsewhere; and in which they, from their station, were entitled and expected to participate.

This view receives some further confirmation from the circumstance that the defilement which the Jews would thus have contracted by entering the dwelling of a heathen could only have belonged to that class of impurities from which a person might be cleansed the same day by ablution; the ablutions of a day, so called by the Talmudists. See Lev. 15: 5 sq.; 17: 15; 22: 6, 7; Num. 19: 7 sq.; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on John 18: 28. If now the Passover in John 18: 28 was truly the paschal supper, and was not to take place until the evening after the day of the crucifixion, then this defilement of a day could have been no bar to their partaking of it; for at evening they were clean. Their scruple, therefore, in order to be well founded, could have had reference only to the Khagigah or paschal sacrifices offered during the same day before evening.

[It is important to bear in mind that John wrote later than the other Evangelists, after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that he distinguishes "the Jews" in a peculiar way. "Jewish institutions had, in his eyes, been emptied of their significance and value." (Andrews.) There are other indications, even in his use of geographical terms, of this position toward the Jews. Hence we may expect him to be less exact in his references to the Passover rites, and we have a right to interpret his language accordingly.]

(c) John 19: 14, "and it was the preparation of the passover, about the sixth hour." Does this "preparation" refer, as usual, to the Jewish Sabbath, which actually occurred the next day? or does it here refer to the festival of the Passover as such, and as distinct from the Sabbath? It is only on the latter supposition that the passage can be made, in any way, to conflict with the testimony of the other Evangelists.

This "preparation" is defined by Mark (15 : 42) to be "the day before the Sabbath," that is, the fore-sabbath, the day or hours immediately preceding the weekly Sabbath, and devoted to preparation for that sacred day. No trace of any such observance is found in the Old Testament; though the strictness of the Mosaic law respecting the Sabbath, which forbade the kindling of fire and of course the preparation of food on that day (Ex. 35 : 2, 3; comp. 16: 22-27), would very naturally lead to the subsequent introduction of such a custom, as we find it in the times of the New Testament. In the still later Hebrew of the Talmudists, it bore the specific appellation eve, as being the eve of the Sabbath. The Greek word "preparation " is also everywhere translated by the like Syriac form for eve, in the Syriac Version of the New Testament.

Primarily and strictly, this "preparation" or "eve" would seem to have commenced not earlier than the ninth hour of the preceding day; as is implied, perhaps, in the decree of Augustus in favor of the Jews, where it is directed that they shall not be held to give pledges on the Sabbath, nor during the preparation before the same after the ninth hour; see Jos. Ant. xvi. 6, § 2. But in process of time the same Hebrew word for " eve or "preparation" came in popular usage to be the distinc tive name for the whole day before the Jewish Sabbath, that is for the sixth day of the week or Friday. The same was the case in Syriac; and we know, too, that the corresponding word in Arabic for eve was likewise an ancient name for Friday.

It appears, then, that among the Jews, Syrians, and Arabs the common word for eve, to which corresponded the Greek word "preparation," meaning the preparation of the weekly Sabbath, became at an early date a current appellation for the sixth day of the week. That is, Friday was known as the Preparation or Fore-sabbath just as in German the usual name for Saturday is now Sonnabend, that is, Sunday."

eve of In the later Talmudists a Passover-eve is likewise spoken of. But what this could well have been, so long as the Passover (paschal supper) continued to be regularly celebrated at Jerusalem, it is difficult to perceive. The eve before the Passover-festival could have included, at most, only the evening and the few hours before sunset at the close of the fourteenth of Nisan; as in the primary usage in respect to the fore-sabbath, as we have just seen. But according to all usage of language, both in the Old and New Testament, those hours and that evening were part and parcel of the Passover-festival itself, and not its preparation; unless indeed the paschal meal and its accompaniments be called the preparation of the subsequent festival of seven days; which again is contrary to all usage. It would seem most probable, therefore, that this mode of expression did not arise until after the destruction of the temple and the consequent cessation of the regular and legal Passover-meal; when of course the seven days of unleavened bread became the main festival.

But even admitting that a Passover-eve did exist in the time of our Lord; still, the expression could in no legitimate way be so far extended as to include more than a few hours before sunset. It could not have commenced apparently before the ninth hour, when they began to kill the paschal lamb; see p. 187, above. On the other hand, the Hebrew term for eve, for which the Greek "preparation” stands in the New Testament, was employed, as we have seen, as a specific name in popular usage for the whole sixth day of the week or Friday, not only by the Jews, but also by the Syrians and Arabs. Hence, when John here says: "and it was the preparation of the passover, about the sixth hour," there is a twofold difficulty in referring his language to a preparation or eve of the regular Passover ; first, because apparently no such eve or preparation did or could well then exist; and secondly, because, it being then the sixth hour or mid-day, the eve or time of preparation (supposing it to exist) had not yet come, and the language was therefore inapplicable. But if John be understood as speaking of the weekly preparation or fore-sabbath, which was a common name for the whole of Friday, then the mention of the sixth hour was natural and appropriate.

We come then to the conclusion that if John (like Mark in chap. 15:42) had here defined the phrase in question, he would probably have written on this wise: "and it was the preparation of the passover, that is, the fore-sabbath of the passover," implying that it was the paschal Friday, the day of preparation or fore-sabbath which occurred during the paschal festival. And further, in the only other two instances where John uses the word "preparation" in this way, he applies it to this very same day of our Lord's crucifixion, and in this very same sense of the weekly preparation preceding the weekly Sabbath; John 19: 31, 42.

66

(d) John 19:31, "for that sabbath-day was a high day." Here, as is alleged, it is the coincidence of the first festival day with the Sabbath, that made the latter a "high" or more properly a great" day. This would certainly be the effect of such a coincidence; but the Sabbath of the Passover would also be still a "great day, even when it fell upon the second day of the festival. The last day of the festival of Tabernacles is called "that great day," though in itself not more sacred than the first day; John 7: 37; comp. Lev. 23: 33-36. So the calling of assemblies, Is. 1: 13, is translated "a great day" by the Seventy, implying that in their estimation any day of solemn convocation was a great day. The Sabbath, then, upon which the sixteenth of Nisan or second day of the festival fell might be called "great" or "high" for various reasons. First, as the Sabbath of the great national festival, when all Israel was gathered before the Lord. Secondly, as the day when the first fruits were presented with solemn rites in the temple; a ceremony paramount in its obligations even to the Sabbath; see, above, p. 188. Thirdly, because on that day they began to reckon the fifty days until the festival of Pentecost, Lev. 23: 15 sq. In all these circumstances there is certainly enough to warrant the epithet “great, as applied to the Sabbath on which the sixteenth of Nisan might fall, as compared with other Sabbaths. There exists, therefore, no necessity, and indeed no reason, for supposing that John by this language meant to describe the Sabbath in question as coincident with the first paschal day or fifteenth of Nisan.

The preceding four passages are those mainly urged against the consistency of John with the other Evangelists. One or two other considerations are also sometimes brought forward.

(e) John 13:27-30. Here the words: "Buy that we have need of for the feast [festival]," having been spoken apparently near the close of the meal, imply, as some suppose, that the Passover-meal was yet to come. But this again is to mistake the festival for the paschal supper, a signification which is quite foreign to the word; see p. 190, above. The disciples thought Judas was to buy the things necessary for the festival on the fifteenth and following days. If now our Lord's words were spoken on the evening preceding and introducing the fifteenth of Nisan, they were appropriate; for some haste was necessary, since it was already quite late to make purchases for the next day. But if they were uttered on the evening preceding and introducing the fourteenth of Nisan, they were not thus appropriate; for then a whole day was yet to intervene before the festival. This passage therefore confirms, rather than contradicts, the testimony of the other Evangelists.

(f) There remains the objection, sometimes brought forward, that a public judicial act, like that by which Jesus was condemned and executed, was unlawful upon the Sabbath and on all great festival days. This consideration has, at first view, some weight, and has been often and strenuously urged; yet it is counterbalanced by several circumstances which very greatly weaken its force.

The execution itself took place under Roman authority; and therefore does not here come into account. And as to the proceedings of the Sanhedrin, even admitting that the prohibitory precepts already existed at this early time (which is very doubtful), yet there are in the Talmud other precepts of equal antiquity and authority, which actually direct and regulate the meeting and action of that body on the Sabbath and on festival days; see Tholuck's Comm. on John, p. 304 sq. Edit. 6. But besides all this, the chief priests and Pharisees and scribes, who composed the Sanhedrin, are everywhere denounced by our Lord as hypocrites; Matth. 23: 1 sq. Such men, in their rage against Jesus, would hardly have been restrained even by their own precepts. They professed likewise, and perhaps some of them believed, that they were doing God service, and regarded the condemnation of Jesus as a work of religious duty, paramount to the obligations of any festival. Nor are other

examples of such a procedure by any means wanting. We learn from John 10: 22, 31, that on the festival of Dedication, as Jesus was teaching in the temple, "the Jews took up stones to stone him.” On the day after the crucifixion, which, as all agree, was a Sabbath and a “great day,” the Sanhedrin applied to Pilate for a watch; and themselves caused the sepulchre to be sealed, and the watch to be set; Matth. 27: 62 sq. A stronger instance still is recorded in John 7: 22, 37, 44, 45; where it appears, that on the last great day of the festival of Tabernacles, the Sanhedrin were in session and waiting for Jesus to be brought before them as a prisNor was it merely a casual or packed meeting, but one regularly convened ; for Nicodemus was with them; v. 50. And finally, according to Matt. 26: 3-5, the Sanhedrin, when afterwards consulting to take Jesus and put him to death, decided not to do it on the festival. Why? because it would be unlawful? Not at all; but simply "lest [a tumult arise, R. V.] among the people." But when, through the treachery of Judas, this danger was avoided, the occasion was too opportune not to be gladly seized upon even on a great festival day.

oner.

All these considerations seem to me to sweep away the whole force of this objec

tion.

Such then is a general review of the passages and arguments, on the strength of which the alleged discrepancy between John and the other Evangelists in respect to this Passover has usually been maintained. Nothing has here been assumed, and nothing brought forward, except as founded on just inference and safe analogy. After repeated and calm consideration, there rests upon my own mind a clear conviction that there is nothing in the language of John, or in the attendant circumstances, which upon fair interpretation requires or permits us to believe that the beloved disciple either intended to correct, or has in fact corrected or contradicted, the explicit and unquestionable testimony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

For a fuller discussion of the subject, see the Greek Harmony, pp. 243-256, revised edition. For a review of other proposed methods of conciliation, and for the literature of the subject, the student is referred to the author's article above mentioned, in the Biblioth. Sacra for Aug. 1845, pp. 405–436. [An excellent statement of the arguments on both sides, but concluding in favor of Dr. Robinson's position, will be found in Andrews, Life of Our Lord, pp. 423-460. The recent commentaries, especially Lange, Matthew and John, contain full exegetical discussions. There is as yet no sign of unanimity. Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Norton, Keil, Andrews, Schaff, Milligan (Popular Commentary), Plumptre (Ellicott's Commentary), McClellan, and many others accept the view defended in the above Note. The earlier date (13th of Nisan) is maintained, among others, by Bleek, De Wette, Meyer, Ewald, Stier, Greswell, Ellicott (Life of Christ), Godet (Commentary, Luke and John), Farrar (Life of Christ), and Westcott (Speaker's Commentary, John). Schürer has (in a monograph on the subject) recently opposed all interpretations of "that they might eat the passover" which refer it to the paschal festival.]

§ 133. For the cup mentioned by Luke in v. 17 see the preceding Introductory Note, p. 189.

The contention among the disciples had apparently occurred quite recently, perhaps even in the guest-chamber while taking their places at the table. That they were prone to yield to such a spirit is evident from the instances recorded in § 79 and also § 108. Our Lord on this solemn occasion reproves them, especially by the touching act of washing their feet; see § 134.

§ 134. The washing of the disciples' feet by their Lord and Master was an impressive lesson that they should live in harmony and love and humility one with another. The occasion of this act was their previous contention, as related by Luke in § 133. Compare Luke 24 : 26 sq. with John 13: 16 sq. John's narrative is supplementary to that of Luke, and therefore he does not speak of the contention itself, because the latter had already described it.

On the phrase "before the feast of the passover,” v. 1, see, above, in Introd. Note, p. 199. [The correct text in v. 2 is followed in the R. V., and properly rendered: "during supper." This sustains Dr. Robinson's view of the time; but the received reading would not bear this sense.] The time of the action was probably after they had taken their places at table, and before they had partaken of the proper meal; perhaps between the first and second cups of wine; see p. 189, above.