Jesus Christ (continued) – Jesus Christ (continued)

Jesus Christ (continued)

(,d) The attitude of Jesus Himself to the Messiahship. — While the Synoptics labour to show by accumulated proofs that Jesus was the Messiah, they do not represent Him as obtruding the claim. On the contrary, He enjoins silence upon those who know. He forbids the spirits to testify (1:25). He even takes steps to keep secret the notable miracles — such as the healing of the leper (1:44). and the raising of the daughter of Jairus (5:43). which would have been likely to carry conviction to the general mind. The impression which is conveyed is that Jesus desired that His disciples, without being prompted, and as the result of their knowledge of Him, should draw the right inference as to His dignity and mission. Even when the grand discovery was made and proclaimed by Peter at Csesarea Philippi — and in all the Gospels this confession is recognized as momentous— Jesus enjoined reserve (Mark 8. Matthew 16:13 ff.). Henceforward, He spoke of it freely to the ‘Twelve with the purpose of preparing them for the unexpected issue of His Messiahship in suffering and death. Following upon Peter’s confession,’ He began to teach them that he must suffer many things, and be killed, and on the third day rise again’ (Mark 8:31). The same was the burden of His teaching on the last journey through Galilee (9). These predictions of His Passion, it may be added, were manifestly precious to the Primitive Church as removing a stumbling-block in the way of believing the Messiahship. The Crucifixion was a very real difficulty to faith, but it would have been much greater had not the Apostolic witnesses testified that He who claimed to be the Messiah had also foretold His own death.

(c) The results of the Galilcean ministry. — The Synoptic tradition, while not concealing the darker side of the picture, is most concerned with the achievements and the gains of the Galileean period. It is well known that, as Jesus foretold, much of the seed fell on bad soil or came to nothing. We read of a Woe pronounced by Jesus on Chorazin and Bethsaida which expresses a sense that He had failed to produce a general change for the better in the cities by the Lake (Matthew 11 ) . Luke, in particular, puts in the forefront His rejection by the people of His own town (Luke 4). gut as the Primitive Christians looked back on it, it might well seem, in the light of later confidence and optimism, that the success was more conspicuous than the failure. The people reverenced in Him One of superlative greatness — either the Baptist, or Elijah, or ‘the prophet’ (Mark 8:28). He had gathered round Him a body of disciples, who were the germ of the future Church (Matthew 16:18). Above all, they had risen, in spite of prejudice and opposition, to a heroic avowal of the faith in His Person and in His mission which was to move and to transform the world (Mark 8:29).

The epic treatment of the Galilcean ministry. — In the treatment of this period many modem ‘Livea* proceed on the footing that the Galilsean ministry has the tragic interest of a splendid failure following on the brightest hopes. It has been common enough in public life for great men to sink from popularity, through conflict, to neglect and impotence; and there ia not a little to suggest that it was so with Jesus in Galilee, The usual representation ia that, after being borne along on a tide of popular enthusiasm, the opposition grew more persistent and envenomed, He was forsaken by the multitude, and was forced to move from place to place with a handful of faithful followers. The dramatic effect is sedulously laboured by Keim.who represents Him as becoming a homeless fugitive, seeking safety from His enemies in distant journeys or in obscure places. Graphic pictures are drawn of the change in the popular attitude.’ Formerly the multitude of hearers thronged Jesus, so that He could not eat in the house in peace, and had to betake Himself from the shore to the lake. Now He sita alone in the house with the disciples, and the collectors of the Temple-tax know not whetner they are to assess Him as still a member of their community’ (O. Holtzmann. CArisius, 1907, p- 71). In explanation of His desertion by the multitude, use la made of the incident recorded inMk 7:1 ff.; ^hich, it is thought, was popularly regarded as meaning that He had been defimtely repudiated by the highest religious tribunal. The latter, it is supposed, moved the Galil£ean’authorities[to action which menaced the liberty of Jesus, and even His life.

This dramatic treatment is not wholly justified by the records, and is to some extent dependent on inherent probability In the idyllic early days, when we are told that only the first murmurs of opposition were heard, Mk. Bays that the cry of blasphemy and of Sabbath-breaking was already raised against Jesus, and that there was a conspiracy to murder Him (3:6). At the close of the period, again, when He is pictured as a discredited popular hero, the verdict of Galilee still is that He is a Divine messenger (S^s), while at the Transfiguration, which falls in the darkest days, a great multitude still attends upon His steps (9-*).^ The truth would seem to be that the Synoptics, especially Mk., have given insufficient expression to the element of movement and to the proportion of failure, and that modem biographers have striven too much after strong effects. At the same time the modem work has certainly brought into clearer relief certain points. It aeema certain that the-e was a growing bitterness and violence on the part of the religious authorities, as seen in the fact that Jesus ceased to preach in the sjmagogues. There was also a measure of popular disappointment, which was the inevitable result of the absence of the patriotic note from the teaching of Jesus, and of the high-pitched spirituality of His demanc^. Jesus, moreover, regarded the response of Galilee to His preaching as having been representatively given, and as tantamount to a refusal to repent and believe the gospel. As to the motive of the journeys of the last months, there are various considerations to be taken into account. That one motive was to avoid the machinations of His enemies is quite possible, as this would have been in accordance with a counsel given by Him to His disciples (Matthew 10:23). But this was quite consonant with a purpose to proclaim the gospel in regions hitherto unevan^elized. And if , as is true, there is little evidence that these journeys had a missionary aim, it may well be that for Jesus the most pressing necessity now was to devote Himself to the training of the disciples, and in their society to prepare them, along with Himself, for the trials and the tasks that awaited them at Jerusalem.

rAco7T.es of development.— It is characteristic of the modem writing of history to postulate a process of evolution and to try to explain its causes; and reference may here be made to the treatment from this point of view of the central theme of the period— the Messianic conaciouaness of Jesus. The Gospels know of development only in the form of a growth in the faith of the disciples, and of a modification of the educative method of Jesus; but the question is raised whether the original plan of Jesus, and the means by which Hebrews 9 posed to accomplish it, were not also altered during its course. The theories which may be noticed are those of (1) a modification of His earlier ideas under the influence of John the Baptist; (2) the substitution of the|idea of a purely spiritual Kingdomf or that of a theocratic State.under the impression which had been made upon Him by the providential course of events; (3;His more complete adoption, also as theoutcome of experience, of the Apocalyptic conception of a heavenly Kingdom to be founded on the ruins of the earthly world.

( IJ The Gaiilaean ministry which has been described is supposed by Kenan to represent a declension from an earlier stage. Hebrews 200 that for some months, perhaps a year, previously, Jesus had laboured in Galilee as the teacher of a simple gospel of Divine and human love. On joining John the Baptist He absorbed his ideas and his apirit, and after the arrest of the latter began to publish a new message ■ Jesus is no longer simply a delightful moralist, aspiring to express simple lessons m short and lively aphorisms, He Is the transcendent revolutionary who essays to revolutionize the world from its very basis, and to establish on earth an idealwhich Hehadconceived (Z/i^elojFyesus. Eng tr p 106). It is clear, as already said, that a time came when Jesus became certain of His Messianic vocation; but that He was already engaged in teaching before Hebrews 1 contact with the Baptist, there is no evidence whatever. And ‘the Galilsean spring-tide,’ as Keim calls it. certainly does not bear out the idea that the influence of the Baptist had tinged the apirit of Jesus with gloom.

(2) According to Hase, the experiences of the Galilsean ministry led to a modification of the hopes and plans of Jesus. At the outset He expected to found a Kingdom, such as the OT prophets had foretold, viz. a Kingdom which, while distinguished by piety and righteousness, would be in form a glorious revival of the Kingdom of David. He also hoped that the people as a whole would repent and believe the gospel, and accept Him as the great emancipator. ‘Down to the time when His earthly career was approaching the catastrophe. we never hear a rebuke of the worldly hopes which the Messianic idea everywhere called forth; and. on the other hand.Hespoke of the Apostles as sitting on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and answered questions of the disciples about places’of supreme honour and power.’ ‘But when, in view of the falling away of the people. His earthly destruction seemed impending, He recognized it to be the purpose of God, and made it His own purpose to establish only a spiritual Kingdom in loyal hearts, and left it to the wonder-working energy of His Heavenly Father to make it grow into a world-power’ (Gesch. Jesu\ 617 ff,). This construction derives a certain plausibility from the fact that it seems to be a general law of Providence that God only gradually reveals His purpose to His chosen instruments, and that the founding and reformation of religions has seldom been carried out in accordance with apredetermined plan. But apart from the doctrinal difficulty of supposing that Jesus was i^orant of a matter so vital, the weight of the historical evidence is against the hypothesis. The story of the Temptation makes it clear that Jesus from the beginning rejected the idea of a Messiahship resting on a basis of political power. Hebrews 9, moreover, too deeply versed in OT history not to know the usual fate of the prophets. An early sayingis preserved, in which Hebrews 105 Galilsean spring- tide X) a wedding which would be followed by bereavement and mourning (Mark 2:19, 20).,

(3) A more recent phase of the discussion was initiated by Baldensperger (Z>as SelhstbewussUeinJesu, 1888). who made use of the ideas of the Jewish Apocalyptic literature to explain the later teaching of Jesus. He differs from Hase in that he holds that the politicalideal was completely rejected in the wilderness, and that during the Galilsean period Jesus made prominent the spiritual nature of the Kingdom — although not knowing when and how it was to be realized. At the later date, when the fatal issue became probable. He would welcome the thought of His death as solving many difficulties, while Hebrews 1 fully appropriated the current Apocalyptic ideas of the Kingdom, and promised to return in the clouds to establish by supernatural means a Kingdom of a heavenly pattern. The interesting fact brought out by this line of mvestigation is- that in His Messianic utterances Jesus applied to Himself, to a much greater extent than wasformerly supposed, the contemporary Jewish conceptions about the Messiah, the manner of His advent, and the exercise of His power. But the attempt so to enter into His consciousness as to trace a development in His attitude towards these ideas is too speculative to be readily endorsed.

At the opposite pole is the theory of Wrede (J)as Messiasgeheimmss, 1901), who denies that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah, and regards the relative passages, and also the Injunctions to secrecy, as fiction. _ But even the Resurrection would nothave createdtheibelief in the Messiahship had Jesus not made the claim in life (Julicher,iVei/« Limen, 1906, p. 23).

(B) The JuD.ffiAN Ministry, — In seeking to follow the footsteps of Jesus after His departure from Galilee, we have to choose between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. All that the former directly tell us is that He next entered upon a mission in Judaea and beyond Jordan, Mark 10:1 (‘Judaea beyond Jordan,’ Matthew 19:1), and that after an undefined Interval He travelled by way of Jericho, with a company, to keep the last Passover in Jerusalem. According to the Fourth Gospel, the Peraean sojourn was only an episode in a Southern ministry which extended over six months, and of which the scene was laid mainly in Jerusalem. There can be little doubt that at this point the Fourth Gospel is in possession of rehable information. Mk. and Mt. are very vague in their notices, and Lk. uses the journey to Jerusalem (9) as the framework of a mass of material which obviously belongs to a number of different places and times. It is to be noticed that there are incidental references in Mk. and Lk. which imply that there were visits to Jerusalem before the end — notably the incident at the inhospitable Samaritan village, which may well have occurred when Jesus went up on an earlier occasion from Galilee (Luke 9; ct. 17:11–19). We may hold, as Tatian held, that the Fourth Gospel misplaces important events, and even that events of the Judaean ministry are altogether ante-dated; but it seems certain that it is right in placing a mission to Jerusalem immediately after the closing scenes in Galilee. Apart from the confidence and circumstantiality of the report, there are various considerations which make it probable that He proceeded to Jerusalem. For Jesus Himself, with His knowledge of the destined end, felt the necessity of bringing things to a decisive issue. He was straitened till His baptism should be accomplished (12:50). From the point of view of the disciples, who could not believe in the tragic event, it was natural to expect Him to lay before the religious leaders and the people of the capital the evidence that had created their own faith. We also hear of a natural taunt of those who believed not. Why hesitate to submit the case to those who are really competent to judge? (John 7:4). On the other hand, there are facts which are difficult to explain on the supposition that Jesus only arrived in Jerusalem a few days before the Crucifixion. The knowledge and the hatred of His enemies disclosed in the last week, point to earlier collisions, and an earlier ministry of some duration seems clearly implied in the words, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would notl’ (Matthew 23:37).

(1) Sequence of events. — At the Feast of Tabernacles, which fell in the third week of the month Tishri (Sept.- Oct.), Jesus appeared in Jerusalem, where He taught and disputed in the courts of the Temple, making many disciples (John 8:30). The healing of the man blind from his birth belongs to this time. After a brief retirement (8:59). He returned to the Feast of Dedication (lO^^) on the last week of the ninth month (Nov.-Dec), when His clairns and rebukes led to a threat of stoning, and to plans for His arrest (10:31, 39). He next withdrew beyond Jordan, where His ministry met with much success (John 10:40–42. with which matter in Mark 10, Matthew 19. 20, Luke 18:15 may be parallel). Hence He returns to Bethany on hearing of the sickness of Lazarus, whom He raises from the dead ( John 11) . Next follows a sojourn with His disciples at Ephraim, a town supposed to be in the N.E. of Judaea (11:54). The narratives are combined by the hypothesis that from Ephraim He proceeded to join the train of Galilaean pilgrims — probably at Jericho (Mark 10:46. Matthew 20:29, Luke 18:35) that in their company He made His last journey to Jerusalem. He arrived on the Friday, before the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath, and lodged at Bethany (John 12:1).

(2) The Johannine picture. — In passing from the Synoptics to the Fourth Gospel we are conscious of many differences. In contrast to the free movement of act and speech, there is something stereotyped in the way in which events develop and arguments are sustained. In place of the vividness and the rich variety of the Synoptic discourses, we have the frequent recurrence of a few themes, and the ^iteration and exemplification of the fundamental ideas of the Gospel. But what is most noticeable is that, while with the Synoptics the Messiahship of Jesus is a secret which is spoken of only after a great venture of faith in the Apostolic circle, there is here no evidence whatever of reserve. The confession of Peter is mentioned (6). but many have known Him before, — Andrew as far back as the Baptism (!")■ Moreover, the point of most of the discourses delivered by Jesus is that He is the Messiah, and more than the Messiah, and that His claim rests upon the strongest authentication. That this was the burden of His teaching after Caesarea Phllippi, we may well believe, for it is quite in accordance with the situation disclosed by the Synoptics at the close of the Galilsean ministry, that Jesus, after being assured of the faith of the Apostles, should have proceeded to urge His claim in the boldest and most public way. But for the same reason it is difficult to believe that the discourses connected with earlier visits to Jerusalem, which contain the same message, are properly dated. The interview with Nicodemus, as well as the cleansing of the Temple, may well belong to the later phase of the ministry; and the story of the woman of Samaria may be an incident of the journey from Galilee to the Feast of Tabernacles. The supposition that the Fourth Gospel has interwoven with the GaUlaean period events which all belong to the one Judsean ministry of the last six months seems to the writer to go far to lighten the difficulties of the harmonist, and to make it possible to profit, without being misled, by its history.

(a) The self-witness of Jesus. — He publicly claims to be the Messiah. ‘If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.’ ■Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not, (10:24, 25) cf. 9). There is also developed a high doctrine of His origin and primordial dignity. He is from God (7:29) He is before Abraham was (8:58) He pjid the Father are one (lO’") — which last is interpreted to mean that being a man. He makes Himself God (v. 33). Proportional to His dignity are the blessings which He bestows — repose and refreshment of soul (7:37; cf. 4:14), true life (5:40). spiritual freedom (8:32), resurrection and life everlasting (11:25).

(5) The proof of Christ’s claim. — To the repeated demand for corroboration Jesus appeals to God as His witness. The source of His doctrine, God also attests its truth (8:18). In this connexion the healing of the blind man (eh. 7) is thought of as decisive: ‘When the Christ shall come,’ the multitude ask, ‘will he do more signs than those which this man hath done?’ (v. 31). His Divine mission, it is further declared, is accredited by His disinterested zeal for God’s glory (8). On the other hand, great stress is laid on the tact that the attitude to Christ is determined by the spirit and the life of those who come in contact with Him. Those who are of the truth instinctively recognize Him for what He is, as the sheep know the voice of their shepherd (10:4, cf. 18:37). Tobit 8 man Christ is self-evidencing. ‘If any man wiUeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching whether it be of God’ (7:17).

(c) The explanation of the Passion. — He speaks of His sufferings and death not merely to His disciples, but to the half-believing (3:14), and before the multitude (10:1–20). The points of view under which the Passion is presented are that it is not an evidence of God’s rejection, but an act of self-surrender which calls forth the Father’s love (10:17), that death comes in the line of the vocation of a good shepherd (10:11 ff.), that it is His own voluntary act (10:18), and that it is at once the ground of salvation (3:14 f.) and the secret of the gospel’s spell (12:32).

(d) The response of the hearers. — The Fourth Gospel shows us Jesus surrounded by three classes — a band of believers, the multitude which, though divided and wavering, is deeply impressed, and the religious leaders who regard Him with hatred or contempt. The charges, as in Galilee, are mainly Sabbath-breaking (7:23) and blasphemous utterances (lO^^); and the attempt is made further to discredit Him as unlearned (7:15) and a Galltean (v. 41). Finally, a definite resolution is formed to destroy Him. What brought matters to a head, according to this Gospel, was the raising of Lazarus, which produced a popular excitement that portended the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, and gave reason to (ear the infliction of the most severe retribution by the Romans (11:48).

11. The week of the Passion. — A view may be given of the probable order of events between the arrival of Jesus in Bethany on the eve of the Sabbath and the Crucifixion.

Saturday: the supper in the house of Simon the leper (Jn l2"‘-, Mk l4s«).

Sunday; the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mk ll*-ifl|), visit to the Temple, return to Bethany (Mark 11:11).

Monday: visit to .Jerusalem, the cutsmg of the fig-tree (Mark 11:12–14). the cleansing of the Temple (Mk H"-‘8||), return to Bethany (v.).

Tuesday: visit to Jerusalem, teaching in the Temple, interrogation by membera of the Sanhedrin (Mark 11))). Pharisees (12:13–17))). and Sadduoees (12:18–27))). and others; parables (Mark 12:1–12))) return to Bethany.

Wednesday; visit to Jerusalem, denunciation of the Pharisees (Mark 12:38–40), discourse on the last things (Mk 13:5–37))). deliberations of the Sanhedrin (14:4). the overtures of Judas (14). return to Bethany.

Thursday: preparation for the Passover (Mark 14:12–16). . the Last Supper (14:17) the Agony (14:32–42))). the betrayal and the arrest (14))).

The chief difBcuIties presented by the narratives may be briefly noticed. The Syuoptists make the triumphal entry take place on the arrival of Jesus with the pilgrims from Galilee (Mark 11:1 ff.), while according to John it was arranged while Jesus was staying at Bethany (12:1, 12). (P) The anointing in Bethany, which is seemingly placed by Mk. (14:1) two days before the Passover, is expressly dated by Jn. (12:1) six days before the Passover, (y) The day of our Lord’s death, according to all accounts, v/aa on the Friday; but while the Synoptics make this to have been the Passover day, or the 15th Nisan (Mk 14:12, 17), the Fourth Gospel represents it as the day before the Feast of the Passover (13:1), or the 14th Nisan. In each of these cases there is reason to believe that the Fourth Gospel is accurate. As regards the day of our Lord’s death, it is unlikely that the Passover day, which had the sanctity of a Sabbath, would have been profaned by the Jewish authorities engaging in business, while the evidence of haste in carryingout the crucifixion points to the same conclusion.

(1) The acHmty of Jesus. — In agreement with the general view of the Judaean ministry given in the Fourth Gospel, the work of Jesus during the last week falls mainly under the point of view of an affirmation of His Messiahship in deed and word. Naturally, also, His mind is turned to the future, and His discourses set forth the power and glory reserved for the crucified Messiah in the counsels of God. The explanation and vindication of His mission have their counterpart in an attack upon the principles of those who had rejected Him and who were plotting His destruction.

(i) The Messianic acts. — The triumphal entry, in which Jesus was offered and accepted the homage of the multitude (Mark 11:1 ff.), is decisive evidence that He made the claim to be the Messiah. Evidently, also, there is a natural connexion between the public assumption of His dignity and the cleansing of the Temple. According to one account, Jesus proceeded immediately after His triumphal entry to carry out the reform of the Temple of God (Matthew 21:12, 13).

(ii) The Messianic discourses. — The burden of the discourses in which the Messianic claim is prominent is that there awaits Him the same fate as the prophets — that He will be rejected by His people and put to death (parables of the Vineyard, Mark 12:1–12; and the Marriage Feast, Matthew 22:1–14). But beyond this seeming failure, two vistas open up into the future. The death is the prelude to a glorious future, when Christ will return a second time, accompanied by the angels, and will have at His command all power needed for the establishment and defence of His Kingdom. For this type of teaching the main source is the so-called ‘Synoptic Apocalypse’ (Mark 13, Matthew 24:4–36, Luke 21), with the topics of the Day of the Son of Man, the Passover, and the Last Judgment. The other leading thought is that the guilt of the rejection of their Messiah will be terribly avenged upon the Jews in the horrors of the last days, and especially in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple (Mark 13:1, 2, Matthew 24).

(ill) The polemics. — The self-vindication of Jesus naturally involved an examination of the position of those who rejected His claim. We have already seen the nature of His replies to the detailed objections which were made to His teaching. As the crisis approaches. He advances, in the manner represented by the Fourth Gospel to be characteristic of the whole Judsean ministry, to an attack upon the religious position of His adversaries — especially of the professed saints and religious guides. Their hypocrisy, their spirituar pride, their blindness, the cupidity and cruelty which their pretended sanctity cannot wholly mask, are exposed in the most merciless invective (the Woes of Matthew 23:1–36).

(2) Reasons tor thehatred of Jems. — We are accustomed to think of the opposition to Jesus as due to a temporary ascendency of a diabohc element in human nature, but as a fact the hatred of the principal parties, and the murderous conspiracy in which it issued, are too easily intelligible from the point of view of average political action. The chief responsibility rests with the Sadducees, who dominated the Sanhedrin, and who set in motion the machinery of the law. As we saw, they were statesmen and ecclesiastics, and it is the recognized business of the statesman to maintain social order, of the ecclesiastic to defend the interests of an institution, by such measures as the exigencies of the case seem to demand. And if they were convinced that the popular excitement aroused by JesiM was likely to be made a pretext by the Romans for depriving them of the last vestiges of national existence (John 11:48)) and if, on the other hand, His reforming zeal in the Temple was an attack on one of the sources of the revenues of the priesthood (Mark 11), they could claim that what they did was to perform an administrative act under the compulsion of higher expediency. The Pharisees, while less able to strike, exhibited a more venomous hatred. They represented the standpoint of religious conservatism; and it has been no uncommon thing, or universally censured, for men to believe that what is essential in religion is old and unchangeable, and that it is a duty to God to suppress, it necessary by violence, the intrusion of new and revolutionary ideas. And though it is true that the old, to which they clung, itself contained the promise of the new, the new approached them in such unexpected shape that the conservative spirit could feel justified in attempting to crush it. Again, political and ecclesiastical leaders depend greatly on public respect and confidence, and are moved by the instinct of self-preservation to protect themselves against those who humiliate them or threaten to supplant them. It is therefore no surprising conjunction that soon after the exposure of the religion of the scribes and Pharisees, we read of a consultation to ‘take him and kill him’ (Mark 14:1, Matthew 26:2, Lt 20:19). On the whole, therefore, it would appear, not indeed that the enemies of Jesus were excusable, but that they were so closely representative of normal ways of judging and acting in public life as to involve mankind, as such, in the guilt of the plot which issued in the death of Jesus.

(3) The preparation of a case. — Unless resort was to be had to assassination, it was necessary to frame a capital charge which could be substantiated before a legal tribunal, and a series of attempts were made at this time to extract from Jesus statements which could be used for this purpose. To convict Him of blasphemy might be sufficient, but as the consent of the Roman authorities had to be procured to the death penalty, it was an obvious advantage to have the charge of sedition in reserve. The first question, evidently framed by the Sanhedrin, was as to His authority (Mli; U"-33||). If we may believe the Fourth Gospel, He had often enough claimed to be from God, and to speak the things which the Father had showed Him; but He refuses to fall in with their design, and puts a question about John the Baptist which reduces them to confusion. It is quite probable that the incident of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53) occurred at the same time — the intention being to compromise Jesus by eliciting a merciful judgment which would have the character of the repudiation of a Mosaic commandment. Jesus avoided the snare — inasmuch as He did not challenge the law which visited adultery with death, but at the same time made an appeal to the consciences of the accusers which constrained them to fall away from the charge. The question about the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar (Mark 12:13–17)) was designed to procure a deliverance which would support the charge of treason. The answer of Jesus clearly meant that He regarded the Roman rule as part of the providential order which He did not propose to disturb, while yet it implied that there was a region into which the authority of Rome did not extend. While this answer baulked the immediate purpose of His questioners, it may be that it so far served their end as to damp the popular enthusiasm with which He had been welcomed to Jerusalem. The question of the Sadducees about re-marriage and immortahty (Mark 12:18–27) does not seem to have had any more serious purpose than to make a sceptical point; while the question of the scribe touching the first commandment of all likewise appears to have lain outside of the plot (12:28 ff.))).

(4) The maturing of the plan. — On the Wednesday a meeting of the Sanhedrin was held in the house of Caiaphas (Matthew 26:3; cf. Mark 14:1), at which it was resolved to apprehend Jesus. It was of importance to avoid a tumult, and they found a welcome instrument in Judas, who could undertake to guide them to His place of retirement (Mark 14:10, 11). It is suggested in all accounts that the motive was mercenary (Mark 14:11; cf. John 12:6). but it is also implied that Judas was beside himself when he lent himself to such an act of treachery (Luke 22:3. John 13:27). Many moderns, following De Quincey, have thought that the action of Judas was intended to force Jesus to put forth His power. It would thus be of a kind with the policy of Themistocles when he knew that the Greek fleet could conquer if driven into a corner, and sent a seemingly treacherous message to the Persians urging them to advance to the attack. It is more probable that Judas was a patriotic fanatic who could not reconcile himself to the new conception of the Messiah, and now judged it to be a lost cause.

12. The Last Supper.— The Wednesday night, as before, was passed at Bethany. On the forenoon of the Thursday Jesus sent two of His disciples into the city, to bespeak a room from one of His friends, and to make the necessary preparation for the Paschal meal. The chronological difiBculty already referred to is best surmounted by supposing that Jesus in partaking of the Passover with His disciples anticipated by a day the regular celebration. The matters recorded are the feet-washing (John 13:1 ff.), the announcement of the betrayal (Mark 14:18–21))), the institution of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:22–25, jit 26, Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff.), and the farewell discourses (Jn 14-17).

13. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper. — It was in accordance with a deeply human instinct that Jesus, knowing the hour of separation to be at hand, desired to celebrate in the company of His disciples, whom He sometimes called His children, the most solemn domestic observance of OT reUglon (Luke 22:15). It was further in agreement with His method of teaching that, in distributing to them bread and wine, He should have given to the act the significance of a parable and made it to testify of spiritual things (Mark 14:22 ff.).

In the older period of controveray the questions agitated were of a kind which could be settled only by high doctrinal considerations, but there has been a recent discussion of the whole subject, conducted on literary and historical grounds, in which the following questions nave been raised. (1) Did Jesus intend to institute a rite which should be repeated among His followers as the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper? The main reason for denying it is that there is no injunction to repeat it in Mk. or Mt., or in the oldest text of Lk. , and that we are thus thrown back on St . Paul as the sole authority. Some have therefore thought of the Apostle, who was familiar with the power of mysteries , aa the founder of the institution (P . Gardner, The Origin of the Lord’s Supper, 1893) . But the recollection of its repetition as a sacrament goes back to the earhest days of the Church (Acts 2:42, 46) ; and, besides, it is incredible that ‘a usage which was practically the invention of St. Paul could havesjpreadf rom an outlying Gentile Church over the whole of Christendom’ (Sanday, Outlines).

(2) Are the elements of bread and wine an essential part of the observance? It has been contended by Harnack (TU vii. 2) that in the primitive usage the only constant element was bread, and that water was frequently, if not commonly, used in place of wine. If a liberty is to be allowed with the original institution, there is less to be said infavourofunfermentedwine,which destroys the symbolism, than of water, which was expressly used by our Lord as an emblem of the highest blessmgs which He bestows ( John 4:14 7:37).

(3) How was the sacrament intended to be observed? Was it intended to become an element in a purely religious service, or to be grafted as an actual meal upon the social life of a community? It was certainly instituted in connexion with a common meal; in Apostohc times it followed on, if it was not identical with, the Agape; and this mode of observance continued to;be popular, as Augustineattests, down to the fifth century. But, while there may be reason to regret that a mode of observance ceased which was calculated to have a hallowing influence in the sphere of social intercourse, now almost entirely secularized, wemust believe with St. Paul that the primitive association of it with a common supper entailed the greater danger of secularizing, and even profaning, the sacrament (1 Corinthians 11:21, 22).

(4) What meaning did Jesus intend the sacrament to convey? In recent discussion it has been conceived as essentially predictive in character — i.e. as a foretaste of the communion which the disciples would enjoy with their Master in the future Kingdom of Heaven. Its central lesson has also been declared to be that food and drink when rightly used are a means of grace — that they become ‘the food of the soul when partaken of with thanksgiving, in memory of Christ’s death’ (Harnack). Without denying to these suggestions an element of truth, it may be firmly held that the average thought of the Church has more nearly divined the meaning of Jesus in interpreting it as a parable of salvation through His sacrifice. The bread and wine were symbols of the strength and joy which Christ bestowed through His life-giving gospel, and He desired His death to be remembered as the sacrifice which in some way ratified and ushered in the new dispensation (Mark 14:24).

The attitude of the Fourth Gospel to the Lord’s Supper is enigmatical. It relates the incident of the feet-washing (IS’"), and furnishes in another context a discourse which has the aspect of containing the sacramental teaching of the Gospel (6:5 ff.). It is incredible that there was a purpose of denying the institution of the ordinance by Christ, but it may well be that the Fourth Gospel intended to emphasize the truth that ‘eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood’ of Christ is a spiritual act which is not tied exclusively to the rite of the Lord’s Supper.