[ p. 336 ]
IN THE account of the last two days of the life of Jesus given by synoptists there is a small confusion. All agree that Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples on the I4th Nisan, which was Friday; yet all agree in representing him as crucified and buried on the same day, as lying in the tomb during the Sabbath Saturday, and risen on the Sunday. It is impossible to reconcile these statements.
The cause of the confusion seems clear. The Last Supper inevitably occupied so cherished and honored a place in the memory of his disciples and in the ritual of the Early Church, that it became indistinguishable from the Jewish Passover itself. The day of the great sacrificial feast which replaced the Passover was identified with the day of the Passover. It was not the Jewish Passover that Jesus bade his disciples prepare that he might eat it with them.
[ p. 337 ]
The Last Supper took place on the night of Thursday, and not on the night of Friday.
It was indeed necessary that this should be so, for Jesus was himself to be the Paschal Lamb of the new covenant, and had determined that he would die on the I4th Nisan. He died on that day at about three o’clock : at about the same hour began the killing of the Passover lambs in the Temple for the Passover meal that night.
If it be asked how could Jesus predetermine so profound and symbolic a conjuncture, it must be freely admitted that, for lack of evidence, we cannot give a detailed account of the means by which he achieved his end. But broadly we hold it to be established that after carefully concealing his movements, save when he appeared in broad daylight in the Temple with a crowd of willing hearers, at his chosen moment he offered himself to capture, and at the same time arranged that the secret that he was Messiah should be betrayed to the priestly authorities of Jerusalem. Whether Judas was in this the conscious servant of Jesus’ purpose, or whether Jesus made him his unconscious instrument these things are utterly beyond [ p. 338 ] our finding out. Imagination would incline us to the former choice.
On the day before the Passover Jesus sent two of his disciples—Luke names them, Peter and John—from Bethany into Jerusalem. He had arranged with some one in the city for a room to be prepared where he could eat his last farewell supper with his disciples undisturbed. He needed to keep his movements hidden, above all at night; and he had arranged a secret sign with the owner of the room so that he should be known to the disciples, and they to him. They would find a man with a pitcher of water in a certain street; him they were to follow into the house which he would enter. They were then to ask the master of the house the question which Jesus told them :
“The Master says: Where is my room that I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”
They did as he bade them: they followed the man with the pitcher and put their question to the master of the house. He led them to a large upper room ready laid with couches. There the two disciples prepared the meal.
It was not the Passover meal, though doubtless Jesus meant it to be a new ceremony, both like and [ p. 339 ] unlike the old. There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the words in which he spoke of it to his disciples as “this Passover” ; or, in the great question, to doubt that he was establishing a solemn and symbolic feast. We need not call upon St. Paul’s evidence that this ritual commemoration was firmly established in the very earliest days of the Church, for if the main tenor of this narrative is true, a solemn dedication of himself to his puts pose is what we expect of Jesus at this moment: a solemn dedication of himself is what the evangelists record.
But between the three accounts a choice must be made. Matthew follows the bald and brief account of Mark. Luke’s account is detailed and peculiar : it seems to be the more original. Whereas Mark’s account appears to be a reminiscence of the ritual of the early community, Luke’s account gives the impression of an authentic personal recollection of the actual happenings in the upper room in Jerusalem.
At the beginning of the supper Jesus said :
“With a great desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you [ p. 340 ] I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.”
Then he took a cup in his hands and gave praise to God, and said :
“Take this and share it among yourselves. For I tell you, I shall drink no more of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you in the Kingdom of God.”
It was an earnest of the meal he would partake with the sons of the Kingdom when the end had come, and he had returned, as Messiah, to judge the world by its love, and establish the Kingdom of God forever.
But as the supper ended, the bread and wine which they shared took on a yet deeper symbolic jfneaning for Jesus. They were not merely the earnest of the great feast of the Kingdom, of which ne had spoken in parables ; they were symbols of his body and his blood that were to be given that the Kingdom of God might come.
Therefore he took bread, and gave praise, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying :
“This is my body which is given for you.”
And after supper, he once more took the cup, [ p. 341 ] and gave praise, and gave it them all to drink, saying:
“This is my covenant-blood that is poured out for many.”
Jesus was the willing sacrifice whose blood sealed the new covenant between man and God. Why should the authenticity of his words be doubted? Surely so great a man as he, going forward to his lonely and wonderful destiny, was capable of such a thought. At this moment the ends of the world were come upon him : he was indeed many things in his own sight, as he has been many things to the af tertime.
Then he said :
“Verily I tell you that one of you will betray me—one that has eaten with me.”
Sorrowfully they began to ask him one by one, “Can it be I?”
He said to them again :
“It is one of the twelve one that has dipped with me into the dish. For the Son of Man goes the way of hi’s destiny.”
Was this the signal for Judas? Were the famous words that follow really spoken?
“But woe to that man by whom the Son of Man [ p. 342 ] is betrayed. It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
Then, while the disciples sought for a sign of the betrayer, they fell once more into the old dispute; who was to be the greatest among them in the coming Kingdom. The old question who should sit on his right hand, who on his left, emerged again.
He said:
The kings of the heathen lord it over them, and those that have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But you must not be as they. Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be the slave of all. Which is greater? He that dines or he that serves? Is it not he that dines? But I am in your midst as a server. For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
“But you are they who have stood by me in my trials. And I will give you kingship as my Father has given it to me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.”
The supper was ended and they sang a Psalm. [ p. 343 ] Probably it was the Passover psalm the same 1 1 8th Psalm which had been running in Jesus’ mind when he disputed in the Temple, the great psalm of victory out of defeat. Then he led the way to the Mount of Olives.
Under cover of darkness Judas slipped from the company to tell the high-priests where they might find the Master, and to lead their servants to the olive garden of Gethsemane where he would await the arrest. On the way thither Jesus said:
“You will all be offended in me. It is written: ‘I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. ’ ”
Then he turned to Simon :
“Simon, Simon! Satan has demanded all of you, to winnow you like corn. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail. Do thou turn and make thy brothers firm.”
Simon answered :
“Even though all are offended, yet I will not be.”
Jesus said:
“Truly I tell you that this very night before the cock crows twice you will deny me thrice.”
He was the more vehement.
[ p. 344 ]
“Even if I must die with you, yet I will not deny you.”
And all the disciples said the same.
Jesus said:
“When I sent you out without purse, or wallet, did you want for anything?”
They answered : “Nothing.”
He said :
“But now let him that has a purse take it, and a wallet also ; and let him that has none, sell his coat and buy a sword. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted a malefactor.’ For the things concerning me now have their end.”
They said : ‘Master, there are two swords here.’
“It is enough,” Jesus answered.
The disciples were literal to the last. If Jesus spoke of swords, they must be real swords. The irony of “It is enough,” was lost upon them.
The words are precious. It would be hard indeed to doubt the authenticity of their sad irony. If they are accepted, it follows that Jesus used the words, “And he was counted a malefactor” of himself on his last night on earth. That is to say it was Jesus himself and not after-generations who saw [ p. 345 ] him prefigured in the “suffering servant” of 53d Isaiah. That this was so we are convinced; but modern criticism, lacking here as in so many places the flexibility of mind to conceive the creative power of a great spirit, has tended more and more to deny that Jesus could thus have conceived himself.
Jesus did thus conceive himself; from his conception he wrung out the courage of his lonely sacrifice. Those who would deny that it was possible forget that the only reason why they are still passionately concerned with his life story, is that he was the greatest man of whom memory remains.