“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.” These words, with the corresponding ones in Mark xiv. 22d to 26th verses, and Luke xxii. 19th and 20th verses, are usually said to record the institution of the Lord’s Supper. This narrative is closely interwoven with the history of the Paschal Feast. The bread and wine were those which belonged to the feast. Why is it then that Christians have felt these sentences to contain the solemnest announcement of a new festival which was to be, and which actually has been, the bond of a new society, having no national or geographical limitations? Has this notion of the whole Christian world been merely a dream? How comes it that so strange a reality has, for eighteen centuries, in all the most civilized portions of the world, corresponded to it?
I can explain this fact only in one way; those who object to it may suggest some other. If beneath the Jewish kingdom there did actually lie another and a deeper one, if its national sacraments contain the idea of some more real sacrament grounded upon an actual relationship between the Son of God and human creatures, if that relationship is one of the most intimate kind which language can express, a relationship implying the closest communion of inward life, of inward love, such language as our Lord uses, however profound, would be exactly what we should look for. The connection of the new institution and the old would be involved in the nature of both; the one would succeed the other as soon as the shell could no longer contain the bird that was within it. Supposing the kingdom of our Lord to be indeed a family kingdom resting upon actual union to a divine father and a divine brother, the domestic element would be even more important to the new sacrament than to the old. Supposing, lastly, the Evangelists to be thoroughly impressed with this idea, to be penetrated by it, one might look for those few, quiet, unimpassioned sentences which record the giving of the bread and of the cup in remembrance of Him. But this is precisely what all the previous records of these three Evangelists have been saying to us. They have been setting forth a divine kingdom, and that kingdom as established in a Son of God. The institution of the Lord’s Supper therefore is in perfect agreement with every step of our previous progress, a preparation for all that is to come.
The Warning to Peter
“Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.” The three Evangelists agree in placing our Lord’s warning to Peter, “the cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice,” at this point. St. Matthew and St. Mark connect it with the general words, “all ye shall be offended because of me this night.” St. Luke enlarges the address to Peter, beginning with the words, “Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have thee that he may sift thee as wheat.” No one, I think, has felt any surprise at the introduction of these words immediately after the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and before the Agony. It has been felt that they stood most appropriately there. And though the attempt to give a reason for any feeling of this kind is often abortive, yet there is assuredly very much plausibility at least in the commonplace that Peter, as the most affectionate and self-confident of the disciples, was warned how little he could depend upon himself, how little strong personal affection would avail him in the hour of trial. It is but an expansion of this remark to say that Peter was taught along with the other disciples, that the feeling of family union which their meeting at the Passover had expressed and celebrated was quite insufficient to keep them together or to retain any one of them in his allegiance, that unless God were binding them by a close and mighty bond to Himself, and were upholding them in it, they could not preserve their unity. Peter was especially reminded that unless he held fast the confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and rested on Him who had revealed that truth to him, he would certainly deny Jesus of Nazareth to be his Master, however lively and energetic his attachment to Him in that character might be. Taken with the context of Peter’s history, it is difficult to deduce any other moral from his acts or our Lord’s words than this. But this is the consistent carrying out of the principle which we have traced everywhere, that the divine Sonship and royalty of Christ are presupposed in all His acts and utterances, are testified of by the sins and unbelief as well as by the faith and obedience of His disciples.
The Agony
“Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And He went a little farther, and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and said unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. And He left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. Then cometh He to His disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.”
Every variation in the story of the Agony is deserving of the most careful observation and reflection. One part of the description in St. Luke is inseparably connected in our mind with the narrative, nay, has almost given it its name. Still, on the whole, St. Matthew is the more full and minute. The impression of anguish, of solitude, of one craving for sympathy and not finding it, is brought out perfectly by him, and the repetition of the prayer with the memorable change in it we owe especially to him. I have nothing to add to what thousands have said of it; and it is after all what has not been said of it, the unuttered, unutterable experience of human beings in all kinds and states of suffering for eighteen hundred years, which has brought out its meaning. I think I might safely leave it to that experience to declare whether the word “Father” has not been felt to contain the very essence of the sorrow and the consolation, whether if that were withdrawn the whole record would not become utterly incoherent, pervaded by a vague horror from which the heart could find no escape, and yet to which it could give no form. The intensity of the sorrow is surely in this, that it is filial sorrow, the distinct will of the Son coming forth as if it were something separate and alone, yet striving in the agony of prayer to submit itself, to claim its perfect essential unity with the Fatherly will. Who can find words except those which the Evangelists give even to indicate this conflict and this sacrifice; a sacrifice which was complete from the very intenseness of the conflict? The words must be paradoxical and contradictory which we use to denote such a struggle of life and death. Yet who does not feel that the truth which they shadow forth lies at the very root of all the feelings and sorrows of humanity, and of every individual man? Who does not feel that the very secret of the power and life of the Gospel is lying there? No one has ever questioned that if the New Testament contains more than a few beautiful moral maxims, if it really touches upon the deepest root of man’s being, the story of the Agony is the most living and inward part of it, that by which we are to understand the rest. And why is it so? Because the sonship of Christ is here more distinctly and fully revealed than even in the Temptation. Why is it so? but because the relation of Christ to all human beings, that kingly relation which we have traced through His different acts of power and mercy, is here brought out as wonderfully. He enters into the deepest experience of human sufferings. He enters into the innermost depth of that struggle of the human spirit to be independent, which is the ground of all its suffering and all its sin. He treads that wine-press alone, and there is none with Him. But He comes forth with the dyed garments of the Conqueror. Again and again one feels how miserable these attempts at commentary and elucidation are. The simple narrative contains the whole. The mind of the writer was so penetrated and possessed by the idea of the divine Son and the divine King that he could utter only the words, or a few of the words, by which the Son of God Himself had expressed it; no one Evangelist is able to take in the whole mystery; each gives some one side or glimpse of it; their differences having, no doubt, justified themselves to the hearts and consciences of men in different stages and moods of suffering; the entire result of all belonging to the history and life of the Church universal.
The Betrayal and Apprehension. The Sanhedrim. Peter’s Denial
“And while He yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is He: hold Him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master; and kissed Him. And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took Him. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook Him, and fled. And they that had laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and elders were assembled. But Peter followed Him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end. Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witnesses against Jesus, to put Him to death; but found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto Him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto Him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He had spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard His blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in His face, and buffeted Him; and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee? Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.” The corresponding passages are Mark xiv. 43d verse to the end; Luke xxii. 47th verse to the end.
The chief variations are in the account of the act of violence to the servant of the high priest, in the story of the young man introduced by St. Mark, and in his account of the double cock crowing, when St. Peter was denying his Lord. St. Luke has placed the account of the denial before the examination of our Lord by the high priest. In the main the narratives correspond. The part of them which refers to the betrayal and the denial, I pass over, because I have already alluded to both in speaking of our Lord’s prophecy at the Paschal Feast. I am anxious that the reader’s mind should not be distracted by any accessary or subordinate events from considering that which was the object and the result of the apprehension; viz. the accusation before the Sanhedrim, which is so carefully recorded by every Evangelist. “I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us if thou art Christ the Son of God:” St. Mark says, “Again the high priest asked Him and said unto Him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the blessed One?” St. Luke introduces other questions, but they all terminate in the one, “Art thou the Son of God?” The answer is in St. Matthew, “Thou hast said — nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven;” in St. Mark, “I am: and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” St. Luke had introduced these words already with one important variation, “Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God.” But they said all “Art thou then the Son of God?” and He said to them, “Ye say that I am.” The decision is nearly the same in all three. St. Luke omits the rending of the clothes, but, “what need we any further witness?” is the common sentiment of the high priest and the Sanhedrim.
I have dwelt on these points because you will at once perceive how important they are in reference to the object of this lecture. The condemnation of our Lord by the Jewish nation turns, no one has ever disputed it, upon the blasphemy of His pretending to be the Son of God. With that proclamation the history began, with the effects and proof of it the history is about to wind up. But the all-important question of the high priest is met by an answer as important, as much belonging to the essence of the whole gospel. He who is the Son of God is also the Son of Man. The Son of God is about to be condemned to death, that the Son of Man may sit on the right hand of the power on high. So one part of the assertion which the gospels have been making throughout is receiving its seal. But there is also another. Another title was claimed, another charge is to be brought. They all arose, it is said, and led Him to Pilate.
Christ the King. The Arraignment Before Pilate
“When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put Him to death: and when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor… And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked Him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders. He answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against Thee? And He answered him to never a word; inasmuch that the governor marvelled greatly. Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him… But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let Him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath He done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let Him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto Him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped Him, and put on Him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon His head, and a reed in His right hand: and they bowed the knee before Him, and mocked Him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon Him, and took the reed, and smote Him on the head. And after that they had mocked Him, they took the robe off from Him, and put His own raiment on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him.”
The passages I have omitted in Matthew refer to the death of Judas and the message of Pilate’s wife. What is peculiar to St. Luke is the whole story of our Lord’s being sent to Herod. That which is brought out in all the three narratives is the fact that Jesus is accused, mocked, and condemned in His character of King. Pilate is not allowed to deal with the question in any other way than this; he takes all possible means to show his contempt for the charge; his insults, as well as those which St. Luke records of Herod’s, are Roman jests upon the Jewish nation, partly political, for the purpose of showing how little he feared Jewish insurrection, partly the mere gratification of a conqueror’s pride, partly merciful, to save the criminal from punishment by making him contemptible. There can be no doubt, I conceive, that Barabbas, though a brigand, was not merely that, but was one of those brigands who had gone forth into the wilderness in some sort as a chieftain and a Christ, pretending a divine commission to emancipate the people. The priests probably had a very cordial dislike for Barabbas as one of those insurgent leaders who interfered with their own influence over the people even far more than they shook the supremacy of Rome. The people would be surprised to hear them urging the release of one whose death had seemed certain, they would welcome it as a kind of liberal concession, and would be easily persuaded to the alternative of leaving the other victim to his fate. What the chief priests in fact said and felt was, “this is the more dangerous pretender of the two, though He may come with less violence, He is the real underminer of the throne of the Cæsars.” No doubt their thoughts were very mixed. Partly they really conceived Him a blasphemer, partly they hated Him for His denunciation of themselves. They were insincere in pretending any love for Roman ascendancy; yet they believed it was safer for the nation and themselves than what might come if it were broken up. They half thought our Lord a mere impostor, they half suspected that there dwelt some mysterious royalty in Him. They could therefore easily justify their acts to themselves; there was nothing in their accusations which was in their minds directly false. The inward spiritual falsehood is what the Evangelists impute to them; their acts they look upon as expressing and bringing out the most precious and living of all truths. Pilate they look upon as contributing his own Gentile testimony to that truth, for this was the inscription which he put upon the cross in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
The Crucifixion
“And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross. And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. And sitting down they watched him there; and set up over his head his accusation written, This is Jesus the King of the Jews. Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also, the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man called for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him.” The parallel passage in St. Mark is the 15th chapter, 21st to 41st verses; that in St. Luke is the 23d chapter, verses 26 to 49.
I have anticipated this record in my last words. There are few which I shall add to them. It will be seen that there are differences in these reports; the story of the thief perhaps contains the most memorable to be found in the Gospels. What is it which is the same? Would not every one say; The inscription “This is the King of the Jews,” and the cry of “Father,” whether it be, “forgive them,” “why hast Thou forsaken me?” or, “into my hands I commend my spirit”? Does not the essence of the narrative lie in these? Is not the mystery of the cross in them? Shall we ever preach the cross or glory in it as the Apostles did—shall we ever understand the meaning and the coherency of the Evangelists and of all the Scriptures, till we see in it the revelation of Jesus the Son of God and the King of Men?
The Burial
“When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathæa, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: he went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.” St. Mark’s record of this event is in the 15th chapter, 42d to 47th verses; St. Luke’s, in the 23d chapter, 50th to 56th verses.
Whatever import we give to the words “It is finished,” the Evangelist clearly do not understand them as intimating that the lowest humiliation had been reached, that the history of Christ’s acts is at an end. The placing the body in the tomb by him who waited for the Kingdom of God, is in their minds a necessary part of the story; to be told quickly, like all the rest, with no pomp of words; still a fact important in itself, and a necessary step to that which will be recorded next. The quiet entombing is noticed as carefully as the violent death; the honor which is paid to the body as much as the suffering it has undergone. If it is the body merely of a departed and beloved friend, we should hear how all laws and duties were broken through and dissolved by the grief over it; if it is the body of a Son of God and King of Men, it may rest through the Sabbath-day; the tomb in the rock is a sign that the light of the world, though it seems to be quenched, is only hidden.
The Resurrection
The 28th chapter of St. Matthew, the 16th of St. Mark, the 24th of St. Luke, contain this history. What is the impression which it leaves upon every one who reads it? Surely this: that the Evangelists looked upon the Resurrection as the natural and inevitable sequel of their history. No pains are taken to show how an event so strange and unparalleled could take place; no pains to bring any weight of testimony in support of it. The incredulity of the disciples is recorded with blame; their wonder and joy without comment. St. Matthew is very brief in his narrative. Part of it is taken up with explaining the arrangement between the priests and the soldiers. St. Mark speaks of our Lord’s upbraiding the disciples with their hardness of heart: He asks in St. Luke, “ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?” The assumption is that another issue, if you take the premises of the story, would be incredible; that this was the exact fulfilment of the Divine order, the victory over irregularity and disorder. It was not possible that He should be holden of death—not possible if He was the Son of God and the King of Men, not possible if His baptism, His temptation, His miracles, His parables, His whole life, were what the three Evangelists declare them to have been.
The narrative of the Resurrection belongs to the three Evangelists; that of the Ascension belongs only to two of them. Here, then, is the point at which I commence my inquiry into the peculiarities of those documents, the common ground and meaning of which I have hitherto been endeavoring to ascertain.