| 122. Divergencies in Relation to the Occurrences At the Last Meal of Jesus. | ||||
NOT only in relation to the time of the last meal of Jesus, but also in relation to what passed on that occasion, there is a divergency between the evangelists. The chief difference lies between the Synoptics and the fourth gospel: but, on a stricter comparison, it is found that only Matthew and Mark closely agree, and that Luke diverges from them considerably, though on the whole he is more accordant with his predecessors than with his successor. | ||||
Besides the meal itself, the following features are common to all the accounts: that, during the meal, the coining betrayal by Judas is spoken of; and that, during or after the rncal, Jesus predicts to Peter his denial. As minor differences we may notice, that in John, the mode of indicating the traitor is another and more precise than that described by the other evangelists, and has a result of which the latter are ignorant; and that, further, in the fourth gospel the meal is followed by prolonged farewell discourses, which are not found in the synopfists: but the principal difference is, that while according to the Synoptics Jesus instituted the Lord's sapper at this final meal, in John he instead of this washes the disciples' feet. | ||||
The three Synoptics have in common the instituting of the Lord's supper, together with the announcement of the betrayal, and the denial; but there exists a divergency between the two first and the third as to the order of these occurrences, for in the former the announcement of the betrayal stands first, in the latter, the instituting of the tSupper; while the announcement of Peter's denial, in Luke, apparently takes place in the room in which the repast had been held, in the two other evangelists, on the way to the mount of {P.703} Olives. Again, Luke introduces some passages which the two first evangelists either do not give at all, or not in this connection: the contention for pre-eminence and the promise of the twelve thrones, have in their narratives a totally different position; while what passes in Luke on the subject of the swords is in them entirely wanting. | ||||
In his divergency from the two first evangelists, Luke makes some approximation to the fourth. As John, in the washing of the disciples' feet, presents a symbolical act having reference to ambitious contention for pre-eminence, accompanied by discourses on humility: so Luke actually mentions a contention for pre-eminence, and appends to it discourses not entirely without affinity with those in John; further, it is in common with John that Luke makes the observations concerning the betrayer occur at the opening of the repast, and after a symbolical act; and lastly, that he represents the announcement of Peter's denial as having been delivered in the room where the repast had been held. | ||||
The greatest difficulty here naturally arises from the divergency, that the institution of the Lord's supper, unanimously recorded by the Synoptics, is wanting in John, who in its stead relates a totally different act of Jesus, namely the washing of the disciples' feet. Certainly, by those who, in similar cases, throughout the whole previous course of the Gospel narrative, have found a sufficient resource in the supposition, that it was the object of John to supply the omissions of the earlier Gospels, the present difficulty is surmounted as well, or as ill, as any other. John, it is said, saw that the institution of the Supper was already narrated in the three first evangelists in a way which fully agreed with his own recollection; hence he held a repetition of it superfluous. But if, among the histories already recorded in the three first Gospels, the fourth evangelist really intended to reproduce only those in the representation of which he found something to rectify or supply: why does he give anoter edition of the story of the miraculous feeding, in which he makes no emendation of any consequence, and at the same time omit the institution of the Lord's supper? For here the divergencies between the Synoptics in the arrangement of the scene, and the turn given to the words of Jesus, and more especially the circumstance that they, according to his representation, erroneously, make that institution occur on the evening of the Passover, must have appeared to him a reason for furnishing an authentic account. In consideration of this difficulty, the position that the author of the forth gospel was acquainted with the synoptic writings, and designed to complete and rectify them, is now, indeed, abandoned; but it is still maintained that he was acquainted with the common oral tradition, and supposed it known to his readers also, and on this ground, it is alleged, he passed over the institution of the Supper as a history {P.704} generally known. But that it should be the object of an Gospel writing to narrate only the less known, omitting the known, is an idea which cannot be consistently entertained. Written records imply a mistrust of oral tradition; they are intended not merely as a supplement to this, but also as a means of fixing and preserving it, and hence the capital facts, being the most spoken of, and therefore the most exposed to misrepresentation, are precisely those which written records can the least properly omit. Such a fact is the founding of the Lord's supper, and we find, from a comparison of the different New Testament accounts, that the expressions with which Jesus instituted it must have early received additions or mutilations; consequently, it is the last particular which John should have omitted. But, it is further said, the narrating of the institution of the Lord's supper was of no importance to the object of the fourth gospel, How so? With regard to its general object, the convincing of its reades that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, (xx. 31), was it of no importance to communicate a scene in which he appears as the founder of a new covenant? and in relation to the special object of the passage in question, namely, the exhibiting of the love of Jesus as a love which endured to the end (xiii. 1), would it have contributed nothing to mention how he offered his body and blood as meat and drink to his followers, and thus realized his words in John vi.? But, it is said, John here as elsewhere, only concerns himself with the more profound discourses of Jesus, for which reason he passe? over the institution of the Supper, and begins his narrative with the discourse connected with the washing of the disciples' feet. Nothing, however, but the most obdurate prejudice in favour of the fourth gospel, can make this discourse on humility appear more profound than what Jesus says of the partaking of his body and blood, when instituting the Lord's supper. | ||||
But the main point is that harmonists should show us in what part of John's narrative, if we are to believe that he presupposed Jesus to have instituted the Supper at this last meal, he can have made the alleged omission that they should indicate the break at which that incident may be suitably introduced. On looking into the different commentaries, there appears to be more than one place excellently adapted to such an insertion. According to Olshausen, the end of the 13th chapter, after the announcement of Peter's denial, presents the interval in which the institution of the Supper must be supposed to occur; herewith the repast closed, and the succeeding discourses from xiv. 1. were uttered by Jesus after the general rising from table, and while standing in the chamber. But, here, it appears as if Olshausen, for the sake of obtaining a resting place between xiii. 38. and xiv. 1., had resigned himself to the delusion of supposing that the words "Arise, let us go hence," at which he makes Jesus rise from table and deliver the rest of his discourse standing, are found at the end of the 13th chapter, whereas they do not occur until the end of the 14th. Jesus had been speaking of going whither his disciples could not follow him, and had just rebuked the rashness of Peter, in volunteering to lay down life for his sake, by the prediction of his denial: here, at xiv.1ff., he calms the minds of the disciples, whom this prediction had disturbed, exhorting them to faith, and directing their attention to the blessed effects of his departure. Repelled by the firm coherence of this part of the discourse, other commentators, e. g. Paulus, retreat to xiii. 30., and are of opinion that the institution of the Supper may be the most fitly introduced after the withdrawal of Judas, for the purpose of putting his treachery into execution, since this circumstance might naturally excite in Jesus those thoughts concerning his death which he at the basis of the institution. But even rejecting the opinion of L cke and others, that "when he went out," should be united to "Jesus said." It is unquestionable that the words of Jesus v. 31, "Now is the Son of man glorified" and what he says further on (v. 33) of his speedy departure, have an immediate reference to the retiring of Judas. For the verb doxazein in the fourth gospel always signifies the glorification of Jesus, to which he is to be led by suffering; and with the departure of the apostate disciple to those who brought suffering and death on Jesus, his glorification and his speedy death were decided. The verses 31 - 33 being thus inseparably connected with v. 30; the next step is to carry the institution of the Supper somewhat lower, and place it where this connection may appear to cease: accordingly, L cke makes it fall between v. 33 and 34, supposing that after Jesus (v. 31-33) had composed the minds of the disciples, disturbed and shocked by the departure of the traitor, and had prepared them for the sacred meal, he at v. 34 f., annexes to the distribution of the bread and wine the new commandment of love. But, as it has been elsewhere remarked, since at v. 36 Peter asks Jesus, in allusion to v. 33, whither he will go, it is impossible that the Supper can have been instituted after the declaration of Jesus v. 33; for otherwise Peter would have interpreted the expression "I go," by the "body given" and the "blood shed," or in any case would rather have felt prompted to ask the meaning of these latter expressions. Acknowledging this, Neander retreats a verse, and inserts the Supper between v. 32 and 38; but he thus violently severs the obvious connection between the words "shall straightway glorify him" in the former verse, and the words "yet a little while I am with you" in the latter. | ||||
It is, therefore, necessary to retreat still further than Neander, or even Paulus: but as from v. 30 up to v. 18, the discourse turns uninterruptedly {P.706} on the traitor, and this discourse again is inseparably linked to the washing of the disciples' feet and the explanation of that act, there is no place at which the institution of the Supper can be inserted until the beginning of the chapter. Here, however, according to one of the most recent critics, it may be inserted in a way which perfectly exonerates the author of the gospel from the reproach of misleading his reader by an account which is apparently continuous, while it nevertheless passes over the Supper. For, says this critic, from the very beginning John does not profess to narrate anything of the meal itself, or what was concomitant with it, but only what occurred after the meal; inasmuch as the most natural interpretation of deipnou genomenou is: after the meal was ended, while the words "he rises from supper," plainly show that the washing of the disciples' feet was not commenced until after the meal. But after the washing of the feet is concluded, it is said of Jesu, that he "sat down again" anapeswn palin (v. 12), consequently the meal was not yet ended when he commenced that act, and by the words he rises from supper, it is meant that he rose to wash the disciples' feet from the yet unfinished meal, or at least after the places had been taken preparatory to the meal. Again, deipnou genomenou does not mean: after a meal was ended, any more than the words tou Ihsou genomenoj e)n Beqania (Matt. xxvi. 6.) mean: "after Jesus had been in Bethany;" as the latter expression is intended by Matthew to denote the time the residence of Jesus in Bethany, so the former is intended by John to denote the course of the meal itself, Hence he thereby professes to inform us of every remarkable occurrence connected with that meal, and in omitting to mention the institution of the Lord's supper, which was one of its features, he incurs the reproach of having given a deficient narrative, indeed of having left out precisely what is most important. Instead of this highest extremity of John's account, Kern has recently taken the lowest, and has placed the institution of the Supper after the words, "Arise, let us go hence" (xiv. 31); whereby he assigns to it the improbable and indeed unworthy position, of an act only occurring to Jesus when he is preparing to depart. | ||||
Thus viewing the subject generally, there is no conceivable motive why John, if he spoke of this last evening at all, should have omitted the institution of the Lord's supper; while, on descending to a particular consideration, there is in the course of his narrative no point where it could be inserted: hence nothing remains but to conclude that he does not mention it because it was unknown to him. But as a means of resisting this conclusion, theologians, even such as acknowledge themselves unable to explain the omission of the institution, rely on the observation, that a rite so universally prevalent in the primitive Church as was the Lord's supper, cannot possibly have been unknown to the fourth evangelist, whoever he {P.707} may have been. Certainly, he knew of the Lord's supper as a Christian rite, for this may be inferred from his 6th chapter, and unavoidably he must have known of it; it may, however, have been unknown to him under what circumstances Jesus formally instituted this observance. The referring of so revered an usage to the authority of Jesus himself was an object of interest to this evangelist; but from unacquaintance with the synoptic scene, and also from a partiality for the mysterious, which led him to put into the mouth of Jesus expressions unintelligible at the moment, and only to be explained by the issue, he effected this purpose, not by making Jesus actually institute the rite, but by attributing to him obscure expressions about the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which, being rendered intelligible only by the rite of the Lord's supper introduced into the Church after his death, might be regarded as an indirect institution of that rite. | ||||
As John omits the institution of the Lord's supper, so the sy-noptists omit the washing of the disciples' feet: but it cannot be maintained with equal decision that they were therefore ignorant of this incident; partly on account of its inferior importance and the more fragmentary character of this part of the synoptic narrative; and partly because, as has been above remarked, the contention for pre-eminence in Luke v. 24 ff, has appeared to many expositors to be connected with the washing of the disciples' feet, as the inducement to that action on the part of Jesus, But as regards this contention for pre-eminence, we have shown above, that being unsuited to the tenor of the scene before us, it may owe its position only to a fortuitous association of ideas in the narrator: while the washing of the disciples' feet, in John, might appear to be a legendary development of a synoptic discourse on humility. In Matthew (xx.26ff.) Jesus admonishes his disciples that he among them who would be great must be the servant (diakonoj) of the others, just as he himself came "not to be served but to serve" and in Luke (xxii. 27), he expresses the same thought in the question: "Which is greater, he that sits at meat or he that serves?" and adds, "but I am among you as he that serves." Now it is certainly probable that Jesus might see fit to impress this lesson on the disciples through the medium of their senses, by an actual serving (diakonein) among them, while they played the part of those sitting at table; but it is equally probable, since the Synoptics are silent respecting such a measure, that either the legend, before it reached the fourth evangelist, or this writer himself, spun the fact out of the dictum. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the above declaration {P.708} came to him as having been uttered at the last meal of Jesus, in accordance with the representation of Luke; for it naturally resulted from the expressions "to recline at meat", and diakonein (to serve), that this symbolizing of the relation which they denote should be attached to a meal, and this meal might on easily conceivable grounds appear to be the most appropriately represented as the last. | ||||
According to Luke's representation, Jesus on this occasion addresses the disciples as those who had continued with him in his temptations, and as a reward for this fidelity promises them that they shall sit with him at table in his kingdom, and seated on thrones, judge the twelve tribes of Israel (v. 28-30). This appears incongruous with a scene in which he had immediately before announced his betrayal by one of the twelve, and in which he immediately after predicted his denial by another; at a time, moreover, in which the temptations properly so called, were yet future. After what we have already observed in relation to the entire character of the scene in Luke, we can hardly seek the reason for the insertion of this fragment of a discourse, in anything else than a fortuitous association of ideas, in which the contention about rank among the disciples might suggest the rank promised to them by Jesus, and the discourse on sitting at table and serving, the promise that the disciples should sit at table with Jesus in his Messianic kingdom. | ||||
In the succeeding conversation Jesus says to his disciples figuratively, that now it will be necessary to buy themselves swords, so hostilely will they be met on all sides, but is understood by them literally, and is shown two swords already in the possession of the society. Concerning this passage I am inclined to agree with Schleiermacher, who is of opinion that Luke introduced it here as a prelude to Peter's use of the sword in the ensuing narrative. The other divergencies in relation to the last meal will come under review in the course of the following investigations. | ||||