JESUS
CHRIST
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
(Jn
7"-8")
occurred
at
the
same
time
—
the
intention
being
to
compromise
Jesus
by
eUciting
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
(Mk
12^'-"\\)
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
im-mediate
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
im-mortahty
(Mk
12i«-2')
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
com-mandment
of
all
Ukewise
appears
to
have
lain
outside
of
the
plot
(122auH).
(4)
The
maturing
of
the
plan.
—
On
the
Wednesday
a
meeting
of
the
Sanhedrin
was
held
in
the
house
of
Caiaphas
(Mt
26';
cf.
Mk
14'),
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
(Mk
14"i-
").
It
is
suggested
in
all
accounts
that
the
motive
was
mercenary
(Mk
14";
cf.
Jn
12'),
but
it
is
also
implied
that
Judas
was
beside
himself
when
he
lent
himself
to
such
an
act
of
treachery
(Lk
22',
Jn
IS'")-
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
poUcy
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
(Jn
13>5),
the
announcement
of
the
betrayal
(Mk
14i«-"||),
the
institution
of
the
sacra-ment
of
the
Lord's
Supper
(Mk
1422-2=,
jit
262»-2s,
Lk
22'«-2«,
1
Co
ll™.),
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
(Lk
22").
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
(Mk
14™-).
JESUS
CHRIST
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
(Ac
2*^-
*")
;
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
Hamack
(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
(
Jn
4"
7")-
(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
con-nexion
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
calcu-lated
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
Co
ll^i-
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'
(Hamack).
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
(Mk
14^).
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"f).
It
is
in-credible
that
there
was
a
purpose
of
denying
the
institu-tion
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.
14.
The
inner
life
of
Jesus
during
the
period.
—
The
soul
of
Jesus
was
agitated
by
a
succession
of
deep
and
conflicting
emotions.
Amid
the
hosannas
of
the
triumphal
entry
He
wept
over
Jerusalem
(Lk
19«).
In
pain
and
wrath
He
contended
with
His
enemies,
and
in
the
intervals
of
conflict
He
spoke
of
a
peace
which
the
world
could
not
take
away,
and
uttered
words
of
thanksgiving
and
joy.
He
was
gladdened
by
tokens
of
faith
and
devotion
from
His
followers
(Jn
12«),
and
He
was
also
wounded
in
the
house
of
His
friends,
when
one
of
the
Twelve
became
the
tool
of
His
enemies,
and
even
Peter's
faith
failed.
More
and
more
exclusively
He
felt
Himself
thrown
for
sympathy
on
the
unseen
