Bible Commentaries
Mark 14

Verses 1-8

XXII

THE BETHANY SUPPER; THE PASSOVER SUPPER; WASHING THE DISCIPLES’ FEET; PETER AND JUDAS AT THE LAST SUPPER

Harmony, pages 169-177 and Matthew 26:1-25; Matthew 26:31-35; Mark 14:1-8; Mark 14:27-31; Luke 22:1-16; Luke 22:21-38, John 12:2-8; John 13:1-38.

This section is taken from the events from our Lord’s great prophecy to his betrayal by Judas. The principal events in their order are: (1) Jesus predicts and the rulers plot his death; (2) the three great suppers – at Bethany, the Passover, and the Lord’s Supper; (3) the farewell discourse of comfort to his disciples; (4) Christ’s great intercessory prayer; (5) Gethsemane.

Their importance consist not only in the signification of the events themselves, but also in the sharp contrasts of character in the light of the presence of Jesus, and their bearing upon the meaning of all the rest of the New Testament. The space devoted to them by the several historians is as follows: Matthew, Mark, and Luke give less than one chapter each; Paul a single paragraph; John four full chapters. Here we note the value of John’s contribution to this matter, with similar instances, and his great silences sometimes where the others speak, and the bearing of the facts on two points: Did he have the other histories before him when he wrote, and what one of the purposes of his writing? John’s large contribution to this matter, with similar instances – for example, the early Judean ministry and the discourse on the Bread of Life in Capernaum, and his silences in the main concerning the Galilean ministry, clearly show that he did have before him the other histories when he wrote, and that one of his purposes was to supplement their story.

According to Dr. Broadus these intervening events between the prophecy and the betrayal are but successive steps through which our Lord seeks to prepare both himself and his disciples for his approaching death and their separation. They did prepare Christ himself but not his disciples, who did not understand until after his resurrection, nor indeed, fully, until after the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

The Bethany supper. – Bethany, the village, and Jerusalem, the city, are brought in sharp contrast. The Holy City rejects the Lord, and the little village entertains him by a special supper in his honor.

Two persons also are contrasted, viz.: Judas and Mary. This revealing light of places and persons was in Jesus. The revelations of Mary in her anointing were:

(1) Her faith in the Lord’s words about his approaching death, greater than that of any of the apostles. They were surprised; the great event came upon them as a surprise, but later they understood.

(2) It is a revelation of the greatness of her love, selecting the costliest and best of all she had without reservation to be used as an ointment for her Lord – a preparation for his burial.

(3) It is a revelation of the far-reaching effect of what she did; as the ointment was diffused throughout the house, the fame of her glorious deed would be diffused throughout the world and to the end of time. Such love, such faith, no man has ever evinced.

This incident reveals Judas as one who had become a disciple for ambitious ends and greed. He, like Mary, is convinced now that Christ will not evade death, and that his ambitious desire of promotion in a worldly government will not be realized. The relation between Mary’s anointing and his bargain to sell his Lord arise from the fact that as he was treasurer of the funds, mainly contributed by the women who followed the Lord, and was a thief accustomed to appropriate to himself from this fund, and as Mary’s gift, in his judgment, should have been put into the treasury and thus increase the amount from which he could steal, he determined to get what he could in another direction. This treasury being about empty, and under such following as that of Mary was not likely to be increased, then he must turn somewhere else for money.

In the same way the light of the Lord’s presence revealed by marvelous contrast all other men or women who for a moment stood in that light. We would know nothing worth considering of Pilate, Caiaphas, and Herod, or the thieves on the cross, except as they stand revealed in the orbit of Christ’s light, in which they appear for a short time. On them that light confers the immortality of infamy; as in the case of others like Mary, it confers the immortality of honor.

The Passover supper. – Our Lord’s intense desire to participate in this particular Passover arises from his knowledge of its relation to his own approaching death, he being the true Passover Lamb, the antitype, and because at this Passover supper is to be the great transition to the Supper of the New Covenant. Here the question arises: In the light of this and other passages, did he in fact eat the regular Passover supper? His words, "I will not eat it," being only a part of a sentence, do not mean that he did not participate in the last Passover supper, but it means that he will not eat it again. That he did partake of this supper the text clearly shows. See the argument in Dr. Robertson’s note at the end of the Harmony. But the clause, "Until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16; Luke 22:29-30), needs explanation. Both the Passover supper and the Lord’s Supper, instituted thereafter, are shadows of substances in the heavens. There will be in the glory world a feasting, not on earthly materials, but on the spiritual food of the kingdom of God.

Our Lord washing the feet of the apostles. – When we carefully examine Luke 22:24-30 and John’s account, we find that the disciples, having complied with the ablutions required by the Levitical law preparatory to the Passover, knew that when they got to the place of celebrating, somebody must perform the menial service of washing the feet which had become defiled by the long walk to the place. Hence a controversy arose as to greatness and precedence; each one, on account of what he conceived to be his high position in the kingdom, was unwilling to do the needed service. This washing of feet was connected with the Passover, an Old Testament ordinance, and not with our Lord’s Supper, a New Testament ordinance. A Southern theologian, Rev. John L. Dagg, preached a brief, simple, but very great sermon on this washing of feet, found in the Virginia Baptist Pulpit, an old book now out of print. That sermon gives two classes of scriptures, and analyzes this washing of feet, giving its lessons and showing how it cannot be a New Testament church ordinance, as follows: The two classes of scriptures are: (1) Those which refer to the purifications required before entering the Passover proper, or its attendant seven-day festival of unleavened bread, e.g., Numbers 9:6-10; 2 Chronicles 30:2-4; 2 Chronicles 30:17-20; Luke 22:14-30; John 13:1-26; John 18:28. (2) Those referring to the ablution of feet, before an ordinary meal and as an act of hospitality, e. g., Genesis 18:4; Genesis 19:2; Genesis 24:32; Genesis 43:24; Judges 19:21; 1 Samuel 25:41; Luke 7:38-44; John 12:2-3; 1 Timothy 5:10, counting, particularly, I Samuel 25-41 with Luke 7:38-44 and 1 Timothy 5:10.

The feast of John 18:28 is the feast of unleavened bread following the Passover supper. Here we need also to explain John 13:31-32 and the new commandment, John 13:34, in the light of 2 John 1:5, where it is said to be not new.

(1) The going out of Judas to betray his Lord through the prompting of Satan, Jesus knowing it to be the last step before his person should pass into the hands of his enemies that would result in that expiatory death which would bring about his own glory, used the words, "Now is the Son of man glorified and God is glorified in him."

(2) When Jesus says in John 13:34, "A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another," it was indeed new to their apprehension at that time, but when very many years later, John, in his second letter, declares it to be not a new commandment, but one they had from the beginning, he means by the beginning, this declaration in John 13:34. But since that time the Holy Spirit had come, and many years of intervening events in which the disciples had understood and practiced the commandment until it was no longer new, when John wrote his second letter.

Peter and Judas (it the last Passover. – These two persons are revealed, in the light of Christ’s presence at this last Passover. Peter, standing in the light of Christ, is shown indeed to be a sincere man and true Christian, but one greatly ignorant and self-confident. He is evidently priding himself upon the special honor conferred upon him at Caesarea Philippi, and has no shadow of doubt about his own future fidelity. In this connection Christ makes a triple prediction, which is a remarkable one. This we find set forth on pages 176-177 of the Harmony. He predicted that Judas would betray him; that every one of them would be offended at him, and that Peter would deny him outright three times. What a remarkable prediction! that with those chosen ones before whom he had displayed all of his miraculous powers and with whom he had been intimately associated so long, and who had received such highly responsible positions and who had been trained by him, to whom he had expounded the principles of the kingdom of God – that he would say to them, "All of you shall be offended in me this night." It was very hard for them to believe that this could take place, and when he went beyond that to predict that Peter would deny him outright, Peter just couldn’t believe it.

In Luke 22:3-32; Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-6; John 10:15; John 10:28-29; 1 John 5:18; Judges 1:9, are five distinct limitations of Satan’s power toward Christians, with the meritorious ground of the limitations. Looking at Luke’s account, Harmony, page 176 near the bottom: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked to have you" – "you" being plural, meaning all the apostles – "by asking." To give it literally, "Satan hath obtained you by asking that he might sift you as wheat." That is one of the greatest texts in the Bible: "Satan hath obtained you apostles by asking that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee," using a singular pronoun and not a plural, "that thy faith fail not: and when thou art turned, strengthen [or confirm] thy brethren." Thus is expressed one of the limitations of Satan’s power.

By looking at Job I we find that Satan has to make stated reports to God of all that he does, wherever he goes. I have heard ministers preach on that text – "When the sons of God came, Satan appeared among them," and they seemed to misunderstand altogether the signification of it. Satan did not make any appearance there because he wanted to, but because he had to. Not only good angels, but evil angels, are under the continual control of God, and they have to make stated reports to God. God catechized Satan: "Where have you been?" Satan replies, "Wandering up and down through the earth." "Did you see my servant, Job?" "Yes." "Did you consider him?" "Yes, walked all around him. Wanted to get at him." "What kept you from getting at him?" "You have a hedge built around him, and I couldn’t get to him." "What is your opinion of him?" "Why, I think if you would let me get at him I would show you there is not as much in him as you think there is." Let the Christian get that thought deep into the heart, that Satan is compelled to come before God with the holy angels and make his report to God of every place he has been, of every Christian he has inspected and what his thoughts were about that Christian, what he wants to do with that Christian – that he has to lay it all before God. That is the first limitation.

Let us take the second limitation: "Simon, Satan hath obtained you by asking." The second limitation is that he can’t touch a Christian with his little finger without the permission of God. That is very comforting to me. Satan walks all around us, and it is in his mind to do us damage, for he would destroy us if he could, and if he can’t destroy us, he will worry us. So a wolf will prowl around a fold of sheep and want to eat a sheep mighty bad, but before Satan can touch that Christian at all he has to ask permission – has to go to Jesus and ask permission.

The third limitation is that when he gets the permission, it is confined to something that is really beneficial to the Christian: "Satan hath obtained you by asking that he may sift you as wheat." If he had asked that he might burn them like chaff it would not have been granted, but he asked that he might sift them as wheat. It doesn’t hurt wheat to be sifted. The more we separate the pure grain from the chaff the better. So you see that limitation. Satan made that request on this account: He thought God loved Peter and Jesus loved Peter, so that if Jesus sifted him he would not shake him hard. But Satan says, "I have been watching these twelve apostles. You let me shake them up." And at the first shake-up he sifted Judas out entirely, and Peter got an awful fall. Don’t forget in your own experience, for the comfort of your own heart, that the devil can’t touch you except in the direction of discipline that will really be for your good.

The fourth limitation: Even when he obtains permission to act for God in a lesson of discipline, he can’t take the Christian beyond the High Priest’s intercession: "But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." "Now I will let Satan take you in hand. You need to be taken in hand by somebody. You have very wrong notions. You think that a man’s salvation depends on his hold on Christ, while it really depends on Christ’s hold on him, and you are sure that if everybody else turns loose, you will stand like a rock till you die." In other words, Peter says, "I keep myself." Jesus was willing for Satan, by sifting Peter, to discover to him that if his salvation depended on his hold on Christ, the devil would get him in a minute. It depended on Christ’s hold on Peter. So we have that limitation that Satan is not permitted, even after he obtains permission to worry or tempt a Christian, to take him beyond the intercession of the High Priest; Christ prayed for Peter. We will, in a later discussion, see how he prays for all that believe on him, and all that believe on him through the word of these apostles, and he ever liveth to make intercession for us, and that is the reason we are saved unto the uttermost. He is able to save unto the uttermost because he ever liveth to make intercession.

The last limitation of Satan:

Satan cannot cause a Christian to commit the unpardonable sin. He can’t touch the Christian’s life.

When Satan asked permission to try Job, God consented for him to take away his property and bring temporal death to his children, but not to touch Job’s life. And John (1 John 5:16), in discussing the two kinds of sin – the sin which is not unto death and the sin which is unto death – says, "When you see a brother sin a sin which is not unto death, if you will pray to God he will forgive him, but there is a sin which is unto death. I do not say that you shall pray for it." Prayer doesn’t touch that at all. "And whosoever is born of God does not commit sin [unto death], and cannot, because the seed of God remains in him and he cannot sin it, because that wicked one toucheth him not." Satan never has been able to destroy a Christian. As Paul puts it: "I am persuaded that neither angels, nor principalities, nor powers, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Or, as Jesus says, in talking about his sheep, "My father is greater than all, and none can pluck them out of his hand." To recapitulate: The first limitation of Satan – he must make report statedly to God; second limitation – he must ask permission before he touches a Christian; third limitation – he can then only do to a Christian what is best for the Christian to have done to him; fourth limitation – he cannot take a Christian beyond the intercession of the High Priest; fifth limitation – he cannot make the Christian commit the unpardonable sin.

Let us set over against that the revelation of Judas in John 12:4-6; Luke 22:3-6; Matthew 26:23; Luke 22:48; Matthew 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-20, showing the spiritual status, change of conviction, and trace the workings of his mind in selling and betraying Jesus, his subsequent remorse, despair and suicide, with no limitations of Satan’s power in his case. When we carefully read in the proper order the statements concerning Judas in John 12:4-6, we behold him outwardly a disciple, but inwardly a thief. In the subsequent references to him (Luke 22:3-6; Matthew 26:23; Luke 22:48; Matthew 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-20), the whole man stands clearly before us. Evidently he expected, when he commenced to follow Christ, that he would be the Messiah according to the Jewish conception – a king of the Jews and a conqueror of the world – and that there would come to him high position and great wealth as standing close to the Lord, but when subsequent developments made it plain to him that Christ’s kingdom was not to be of this world, and that his enemies were to put him to death, and that neither worldly honors nor wealth would come to his followers, then he determined to sell and betray his Lord. We are indeed surprised at the small price at which he sells his Lord and himself, but our only account for it is that he was under the promptings of Satan, and as Satan, having used a man and wrecked him, leaves him to his own resources, it is quite natural that remorse and despair should come to Judas. If there be something worth having in the spiritual kingdom, he has lost that. He has gained nothing by betraying and selling his Lord, and now in his despair, there being no limitation of Satan’s power over a lost soul, he is goaded to suicide. We cannot account for Judas and leave Satan out.

Arminians apply the doctrine of apostasy to both Judas and Peter. They say that Peter was truly converted and utterly fell away from the grace of God, and after the resurrection was newly converted. They say that Judas was a real Christian and fell from grace, and was finally lost. Though Adam dark, the noted Methodist commentator, contends that Solomon was a Christian and apostatized and was lost, he contends that Judas, after his apostasy, repented and was saved.

Somewhere about 1875 there appeared a poem in the Edin- burgh Review, which gave this philosophy of the betrayal of Judas: It affirms that Judas was a true Christian and did not mean to bring about the death of Christ, but thought that if he would betray Christ into the hands of his enemies that the Lord would at the right time, by the display of his miraculous power, destroy his enemies and establish his earthly kingdom. But when he found that the Lord refused to exercise his miraculous power to avert his death, then he was filled with remorse that he had precipitated this calamity. The poem is a masterly one, but attributes to Judas motives foreign to any revelation of him in the New Testament. The New Testament declares him to be a thief, and that what prompted him to sell the Lord was the waste of the ointment on Jesus that might have been put into the treasury, which he not only disbursed, but from which he abstracted what he would.

It is seen in Luke 22:32 that Peter did establish the brethren. "When once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren." The word convert in the King James Version, "when thou art converted," does not mean "when thou art regenerated." It is used there in its etymological sense. Here is a man going through temptation. He has a wrong notion in his mind. "Now, when thou art turned, establish thy brethren." He is to establish them on the same point where he has been wrong, and got into trouble by it, and now he is to consider that the other brethren will have the same weakness, and he must, as a teacher, confirm them upon that weak point.

If we turn to 1 Peter we will see how he did establish the brethren on that very point. He thought then he could keep himself – that he could hold on to Jesus, while weak-kneed people, weak-handed people, might turn loose, but he would not. Now, Jesus says, "When you are turned from that error, establish your brethren on that very point." In 1 Peter 1, he says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in the heavens for you, who, by the power of God are guarded through faith." How long and unto what? "Unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time." "You who are kept through the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last day."

You have learned a great lesson if you will take into your heart all of the thoughts in connection with Peter that we have been discussing here, for every point that you can get clear in your mind that touches the devil, will be very helpful to you.

On page 177 of the Harmony we come to this statement: "And he said unto them, When I sent you forth without purse and wallet and shoes, lacked you anything?" They said, "Nothing." By reading Matthew 10 and Luke 10 you will find that the Lord there ordains that they that preach the gospel should live by the gospel: "The laborer is worthy of his hire."

You don’t have to furnish out of your own pocket the expenses of your living while you are preaching for Jesus Christ. Ha is to take care of you. You are to live of the gospel.

And now he puts a question, "When I sent you forth without purse and wallet and shoes, lacked you anything?" A great deal is involved in that. Christ promised to take care of them. "I send you out like no set of men were ever sent before on such a mission in the world." A soldier does not go to war on his own charges. The government takes care of him: "I send you out that way."

But this commission was temporarily suspended at this Passover: "And he said unto them, but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet: and he that hath none let him sell his clothes and buy a sword. [He that hath no sword, let him sell his clothes and buy a sword.] For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me. And he was reckoned with the transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfillment. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords, and he said unto them, it is enough" (Luke 22:36-38).

Now, I will give you some sound doctrine. Christ had ordained that they who left everything and committed themselves with absolute consecration to his service, that he would take care of them, and he established and ordered that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. Now he comes to a time when he is going to reverse that: "There is just ahead of you and very near to you a separation from me, and as much as you are separated from me, i.e., as long as I lie in the grave dead, you will have to take care of yourselves. If you have a purse, take it, and you will not only have to take care of yourselves, but you will have to defend yourselves. If you haven’t a sword, buy one." But that suspension was only for the time that he was in the grave.

Peter applied it both too soon and too late. This is a peculiarity of Peter. See my sermon in my first book of sermons called, "From Simon to Cephas." "Simon" means a hearer, and "Cephas" means established – a stone. But Peter here was both too short and too long in getting hold of what Christ meant. He was too short in this, that he used that sword before Christ was separated from him. He cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. He was not to depend on the sword and not to defend himself as long as the Master was with him. As long as Jesus is alive, we don’t use our swords to take care of ourselves. When Jesus is dead, we may. Peter was too short. He commenced too soon and used the sword. Now I will show that be was too long. After Christ rose from the dead, Peter says, "I go a fishing." In other words, "I go back to my old occupation; I must make a living, and my occupation is fishing, and times are getting hard. I go back to my fishing." It did not apply then, because Jesus was risen and alive. So he took that too far. He commenced too soon, and he carried, it too far.

Whoever opposes ministerial support, and I mean by ministerial support the support of a man who consecrates himself in faith, who does like Peter said they did, "Lord, we left all to follow thee," and whoever opposes the ordinance of Jesus Christ, that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel, virtually put themselves under a dead Christ. They virtually say that Jesus has not risen from the dead.

They go under this temporary commission: "He that hath a purse, let him take it, and a wallet, let him take that, and he that hath no sword, let him take his coat and sell it and buy one to defend himself with. Let the preacher do like other people do." They that take that position virtually deny the resurrection of Christ, and virtually affirm that Jesus Christ is not living. Just as soon as Jesus rose from the dead he said, "Now you can put that sword away, Peter. There was a time when you could defend yourself and make your own living, and that was while I was dead." But we believe that Christ is now alive. He is risen indeed: "I am he that was dead) but am alive to die no more."

The man who believes that God has called him to preach ought to burn the bridges behind him.

A deacon got up once, when we were ordaining a preacher and said, "I am leaving it to the presbytery here to ask the things on doctrine, but I have a question to ask: ’Do you, in seeking this office and submitting to this ordination, burn every bridge between you and the secular life, or do you leave that bridge standing, thinking in your mind that if you don’t make a living you will go back and take up the secular trade?’ " "Well," the candidate said, "I will have to study about that." The deacon replied, "I will have to study about voting for your ordination until you are ready to answer that question." One of the sharpest sentences I ever made in my life was a declaration that:

No man on earth that God called to preach and who burned absolutely all the bridges behind him and really trusted in Jesus Christ to take care of him, ever failed of being taken care of.

That is a hard saying and a broad one, but it is the truth. And whenever a preacher is disposed to question that, let him remember the words of Jesus Christ, "I sent you out without purse or wallet, or sword. You just took your life into your hands. You went out as sheep among the wolves. Did you lack anything?" You won’t lack anything that is good for you. Sometimes you will get mighty hungry. I don’t say you won’t get hungry. Sometimes you will get cold. I don’t deny that.

But I do affirm before God that whoever puts himself unreservedly upon the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ and keeps himself on that, either God will take care of him, or it is the best for him to die, one or the other. Never any good comes from doubting.

QUESTIONS
1. From what great division is this section taken?

2. What are the principal events in their order?

3. What is their importance?

4. What space devoted to them by the several historians?

5. What value of John’s contribution to this matter?

6. According to Dr. Broadus what successive steps do we find in this group of events?

7. Did they prepare Christ himself but not his disciples for his approaching death?

8. What two places are revealed in sharp contrast by the Bethany supper?

9. What two persons are also contrasted?

10. In whom was this revealing light of places and persons?

11. What revelations of Mary in her anointing?

12. What revelation of Judas and the relation between Mary’s anointing and his bargaining to sell our Lord?

13. Show how the light of our Lord’s presence revealed others also.

14. Explain our Lord’s intense desire to eat this particular Passover (Luke 22:15).

15. Explain "I will not eat it" (Luke 22:16).

16. Explain "until it be fulfilled, etc." (Luke 22:16; Luke 22:29-30).

17. What was the occasion of the foot-washing in John 13?

18. Was it connected with the Passover or the Lord’s Supper?

19. What sermon on it is commended?

20. What two classes of scriptures cited and what are the lessons?

21. What was the feast of John 18:28?

22. Explain John 13:31-32; John 13:34 in the light of 2 John 1:5.

23. What two persons are revealed in the light of Christ’s presence at this last Passover?

24. Analyze the revelation of Peter.

25. What triple prediction did Christ set forth in this connection, and what makes it a remarkable prediction?

26. Give five distinct limitations of Satan and the scriptures therefore.

27. Correlate and analyze the scriptures on Judas.

28. How do Arminians apply the doctrine of apostasy to both Judas and Peter and what was the reply?

29. What was the explanation of Judas’ betrayal of our Lord, in the Edinburgh Review)

30. What the meaning and application of Luke 22:32 and what the evidence from his letter that Peter did this?

31. What is the law of ministerial support?

32. What was the reason of its temporary suspension at this Passover?

33. How long was the suspension?

34. How and wherein did Peter apply it too soon and too late?

35. What does one who opposes ministerial support virtually say, and what the lesson for the preachers?

Verses 22-25

XXIII

THE LORD’S SUPPER

Harmony, pages 178-179 and Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

The Passover furnishes the Old Testament analogue of this ordinance. As the Passover commemorated the temporal redemption of the Old Covenant, so this ordinance commemorates the spiritual redemption of the New Covenant. The proof is as follows:

Christ the antitype of the paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7).

Christ crucified at the Passover feast (Matthew 26:2; John 18:28).

This supper instituted at the Passover supper and of its materials.

The analogy discussed by Paul (1 Corinthians 5:6-13; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22;.

The preliminary study essential to a full understanding of this institution is the Old Testament teaching concerning the Passover. The principal classes of New Testament scripture to be studied are:

Those which tell of its institution.

Those which tell of its later observance.

Those which discuss its import, correct errors in its observance, and apply its moral and spiritual lessons.

The historians of its institution and observance are: (1) Paul, who derived his knowledge by direct revelation from the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23); (2) Luke, who derived his knowledge from inspiration, from Paul, and others who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2); (3) Mark, who derived his knowledge from inspiration, from Peter, an eyewitness; (4) Matthew, an inspired eyewitness and participator (Matthew 26:20 f).

The record of its institution is found in (1) Matthew 26:26-29; (2) Mark 14:22-25; (3) Luke 22:19-20; (4) 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The three historic observances are recorded in Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7; and the case at Corinth, 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. We find the discussions of its import and the application of its teachings in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8; 1 Corinthians 10:14-22; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

Jesus instituted the ordinance on the night before his death, at the last Passover, in an upper room in Jerusalem. All the apostles, except Judas, were present and participating. Judas was not present because he was sent out by our Lord before its institution (see Matthew 26:25; John 13:23-26). The apostles receive it as representing the church. The elements used were unleavened bread and unfermented wine, or grape juice, (1) "bread" meaning one loaf not yet broken; (2) "cup" meaning one vessel of wine not yet poured out. The proof of this rendering is found in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, the exposition of which is as follows:

The one loaf of unleavened bread represents the one mortal but sinless body of Christ yet living, but appointed and prepared as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:4-9). It also represents the mystical (body of Christ, the church) (1 Corinthians 10:17).

So the one vessel of wine represents the body of Christ yet living, the blood of which is the life and yet in the body. The first scene of the drama displayed in this ordinance then, is what we behold first of all, in each of two succeeding symbols, the loaf and the cup, the appointed and accepted Lamb of sacrifice. Whether we look at the loaf or the cup, we see the same thing, as in the doubling of Pharaoh’s dream (Genesis 41:23; Genesis 41:32).

In the second scene we behold the appointed sacrifice "blessed," or eulogized, and thus consecrated by the benediction, or set apart for the sacrifice (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22), with thanksgiving (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), that an acceptable sacrifice has been found. This second scene is repeated in both "blessing" and "thanksgiving" in the case of the "cup" (Matthew 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 20:22; 1 Corinthians 11:25). The import is one, but the scene is double, to show that "God hath established it."

In the third scene: (1) The consecrated loaf is broken to show the vicarious death, i.e., for them, of the substitutionary Lamb (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24). (2) The wine is poured out from the cup into the distributing vessels (Luke 22:20) to show the vicarious death of the sacrificial Lamb by the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins. The scene is one, but doubled.

In the fourth scene: (1) The distribution of the broken loaf to all the communicants present and their participation, each by eating a fragment, signifying their appropriation by faith, of the vicarious body given for them. (2) The distribution of the outpoured wine to all the communicants present and their participation, each by drinking a sip, signifying their appropriation by faith, of the expiating, sin-remitting blood. The scene is one, but doubled.

This ordinance is pictorial) showing forth by pictures, or scenes, earth’s greatest tragedy. To make the "showing forth" complete, four double scenes must be exhibited, or made visible to the eye: (1) The appointed spotless Lamb; (2) The consecration to sacrifice with thanksgiving; (3) The sacrifice itself of vicarious death – "broken" – "poured out"; (4) Participation of the beneficiaries, by faith, in the benefits of the sacrifice. The order of the scenes must be observed. The visible consecration and thanksgiving must follow a view of the appointed and suitable substitutionary victim; the visible sacrifice must follow the view of consecration with thanksgiving; the visible participation must follow a view of the sacrifice.

The modern provision of many tiny glasses for sanitary reasons does not violate scriptural order or symbolism: (1) Certainly not in the number of distributing cups. Those cups, like the plates, are for distribution. Whether one plate, two, or a dozen; whether one cup, two, or a hundred are used for distribution is immaterial, a matter of convenience, provided only that there has been one vessel of wine "blessed," or eulogized, before the outpouring into the distributing vessel or cups. (2) It is against the symbolism if the outpouring into the distributing vessels is private and not visible to the congregation, since the outpouring does not come in its order, the blessing and the thanksgiving coming after the outpouring and not before.

Perhaps this construction of the symbolism is too rigid, yet it is true that the order in the record of the institution best shows forth the successive scenes of the tragedy.

The name of the institution is "The Lord’s Supper"; proof is found in 1 Corinthians 11:20. This title is further shown by the expression, "The cup of the Lord . . . The table of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 10:21). It follows from this title that if it be The Lord’s Supper, the Table of the Lord, the Cup of the Lord, then he alone has the right to put the table where he will, to prescribe its elements, to impose the order of its observance, to define its import, and to prescribe who shall be invited to its participation, and indeed to fix authoritatively all its rules and conditions.

The import of the word "communion," in 1 Corinthians 10:16, is as follows: (1) It means participation rather than communion; (2) it is a partaking of the body and blood of Christ, and not communion of the partakers with each other. They do not partake of each other, but of Christ. The design is: (1) To show forth pictorially or to proclaim the Lord’s death for the remission of the sins of his people; (2) to show forth our participation by faith, in the benefits of that death; (3) to show that our spiritual nutrition is in him alone, since he is the meat and the drink of his people; (4) to show our hope of spiritual feasting with him in the heavenly world; (5) to show our faith in his return to take us to that heavenly home; (6) to show that the communicants constitute one mystical body of Christ.

The nature of the ordinance: (1) It represents a new covenant between Jehovah and a new spiritual Israel (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25). (2) It is a memorial ordinance: "This do in remembrance of me. . . . This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me" (1 Corinthians 11:24-25). (3) It is an emblematic ordinance, representing both spiritual nutrition here, and a heavenly feast with Christ (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25). (4) It is a mystical ordinance showing that communicants, though many, constitute one body. (5) It is a church ordinance to be observed by a church assembled and not by an individual (1 Corinthians 10:17; 1 Corinthians 11:17-22; Acts 20:17). (6) It is an exclusive ordinance: "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. Ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons."

The faculties employed in the observance of this ordinance are – memory, faith, hope. We remember (1) Jesus only; (2) Jesus dying on the cross; (3) Jesus dying on the cross for the remission of our sins; (4) Samuel Rogers, an English poet, wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Memory." Faith apprehends and appropriates Christ in the purposes of his expiatory and vicarious death, and finds in his sacrifice the meat and drink which constitute the nutrition of our spiritual life. Hope anticipates his return for his people, and the spiritual feasting with him in the heavenly world; the poet, Thomas Campbell, an Englishman, wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Hope."

The appointed duration of the ordinance is "Till he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). But will we not eat the bread and drink the wine anew in the kingdom of heaven? If not, what is the meaning of Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25? Is it not, "I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom," but "when I drink it new." Here we drink the material wine; there it will be a new thing – spiritual wine. The feasting on earth, in its meat and drink, represents the everlasting joy, love, and peace of our heavenly participation of our Lord, as he himself foretold: "Many shall come from the east and the west and the north and the south and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." See the account of angels carrying the earth-starved Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16) and the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9).

How often must we observe this ordinance the record does not say. Its analogue, the Passover was once every year, but that was strictly prescribed in the law. There is no such prescription in the New Testament law of this ordinance. "But," says one, "does not the New Testament require its observance every Lord’s Day?" There is no such requirement. At Troas, indeed, the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7), but even in that case the ordinance was not observed until the next day (Acts 20:7-11). The other record of observance (Acts 2:42) seems to imply that in this great Pentecostal meeting it was observed every day. Some things are not prescribed, but left to sound judgment and common sense. In a great meeting like that following Pentecost, when thousands of new converts were added every day, and all of every day was devoted to religious service, there was a propriety in and sufficient time for a daily observance of this ordinance. Under ordinary conditions the observance every Sunday, if administered with due solemnity, would shut off much needed instruction on other important matters, at the only hour at which older Christians can attend public worship, and the only hour at which many others do attend.

The main points of the Romanist teaching and practice on this ordinance are: (1) They call it the sacrifice of the mass. (2) That when the priest pronounces the words, "This is my body . . . this cup is the New Testament in my blood," the bread and the wine (though not to sight, taste, or touch) do really become the actual body and blood of Jesus, yea, Jesus in body, soul, and deity; this miraculous and creative change, not only of one material substance into another; not only of inert into living matter, but of matter into both spirit and deity, they call transubstantiation. (3) Being now God, the priest kneels to it in adoration. (4) It is then lifted up that the congregation may adore it as God; this is called "The Elevation of the Host." (5) That so changed to God it may be carried in procession, and so carried, the people must prostrate themselves before it as God; this is called the "Procession of the Host." (6) That the communicant does literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus. (7) That the efficacy of the sacrifice is complete in each kind, and so in the exercise of its heaven-granted authority the church may and does withhold the cup from the laity. (8) That eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus is essential to eternal life. (9) That the words "eat ye" and "drink ye" are a divine appointment of the priesthood, widely distinguishing them from the laity, and making their ministration of the ordinance exclusive and essential to the ordinance itself. (10) That this is, whensoever, wheresoever, and how oftensoever performed, a real sacrifice of our Lord, who as a High Priest forever must offer continual sacrifice. (11) That it is a sacrifice for both the living and the dead, available at least for the dead who are in purgatory, hence in application, their "masses for the dead." (12) That in another sacrament called "Extreme Unction," this consecrated "wafer" is put on the tongue of the dying as a means to remission of sin. (13) That the church has authority to prescribe all the accompaniments of order, dress, language, or other circumstances prescribed in their ritual of observance. (14) That the belief of this teaching in whole and in every part is essential to salvation, and whoever does not so believe let him be accursed.

This Romanist teaching is the most sweeping, blasphemous, heretical perversion of New Testament teaching known to history. As a whole, and in all its parts, it subverts the faith of the New Testament and substitutes therefore the traditions of men.

1. The Lord’s Supper is not a real, but a pictorial sacrifice: (a) The sacrifice of our Lord was once for all, because real, and not often repeated, as the typical sacrifices were. (b) This error gives the officiating priest creative power to transubstantiate inert matter into living matter, both soul and deity, though not even God in creation formed man’s soul from matter, (c) The alleged transubstantiation is contrary to the senses, for the bread and wine are still bread and wine to sight, touch, and taste, unlike when Christ transmitted water into wine, for it then looked like wine, tasted like wine, and had the effect of wine. (d) Christ said, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," and "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in yourself," and is careful thus to explain, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not," and thus he shows that to believe on him is what is meant by the figurative language "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood." (e) This error controverts philosophy, in that the body of Jesus cannot be in more places than one at the same time. (f) It controverts many scriptures that explicitly teach that the body of Jesus ascended to heaven, and must there remain until the final advent and the times of the restoration of all things. (g) It is idolatry, in that mere matter is worshiped and adored as God.

2. It violates the New Testament teaching of the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ, who does not continually repeat his sacrifice, but continually pleads the efficacy of the sacrifice offered once for all, and continually intercedes on the ground of the one offering. As a high priest he does indeed continue to present the spiritual sacrifices of his people, such as prayer, praise, and contribution.

3. It subverts the New Testament teaching of the mission and office of the Holy Spirit, who was sent as Christ’s vicar because he was absent, and whose office continues until Christ returns.

4. It re-establishes the Old Testament typical order of priests, abrogated by the cross, and separates by a greater distance than in the Old Covenant the priest from the laity, and thereby nullifies the New Testament teaching that all believers are priests unto God. It thus sews together again the veil of the old Temple which at Christ’s death God rent in twain from top to bottom.

5. It makes the Pope at Rome Christ’s vicar instead of the Holy Spirit.

6. It makes the church a savior instead of the Lord himself, and confers on it legislative powers instead of limiting it to judicial and executive powers. Yea, it may change or set aside Christ’s own legislation.

7. It substitutes a sacerdotal salvation, and a salvation by ordinances for the New Testament salvation.

8. It destroys the church character of the ordinance by the administration of it to individuals.

9. It withholds the cup from the people, though Christ said, "All ye drink of it."

10. It destroys the unity of the ordinance by affirming that the bread alone is sufficient, though Christ used both symbols to express his meaning.

11. It makes the ordinance for the dead as well as the giving, thus not only extending probation after death, but giving its supposed benefits to those who did neither eat nor drink, thus contradicting their own previous teaching, as well as the words of our Lord which they misapply and pervert.

12. It bases its defense more on ecclesiastical history and tradition, than on the Word of God, and limits that Word to a Latin translation, and to the church interpretation of that translation, rather than its text.

13. It makes belief in the whole and in all parts of this complex, self-contradictory, crude mass of human teaching essential to salvation instead of simple faith in Christ.

While Luther rejected the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation, he advocated a doctrine which he called consubstantiation, by which he meant that while the bread and wine were not the real body and blood of Christ, yet there was a real presence of Christ in these elements. His illustration was this: Put a bar Of iron into the fire until it is red hot, then there is heat with that iron, though the iron itself is not heat. The trouble about Luther’s consubstantiation is, that according to his illustration, there must be some change of the elements that could be discerned by the senses. A man can see with his eye the difference between a cold iron and a red hot iron. And he can tell the difference by touching it, none of which phenomena appeared in the elements of the bread and wine.

The Genevan doctrine was that the Lord’s Supper was a memorial ordinance, this being the principal idea in it; that it exhibited or showed pictorally, not really, certain great doctrines; that the bread and wine remained bread and wine, so that they neither were the real body and blood of Jesus, nor held the presence of Jesus, as iron put into the fire contained heat.

There is a thrilling story of the vain effort by Philip of Hesse to bring Luther and the advocates of the Genevan doctrine into harmony on the Lord’s Supper. When the question came up in the Reformation as to whether Christ’s presence was really in the bread and wine, Philip of Hesse, who loved Luther, and who also loved the Genevan reformers, invited two of the strongest of each to meet at his castle and have a friendly debate. Luther contended for consubstantiation, or the presence of Christ in the bread and wine, and the Genevan reformers insisted that it was simply a memorial ordinance. So for the debate were chosen Luther and Melanchthon on one side and Zwingli and Cecolampadius, on the other side. Luther was the fire on the one side and Zwingli was the fire on the other side. Philip placed Luther against Cecolampadius, and Zwingli against Melanchthon. But after they had debated a while, Cecolampadius and Melanchthon dropped out, and the two fiery men came face to face. In the course of the discussion Luther wrote on the wall a verse from his Latin Bible: "Hoc meum est corpus," "This is my body," and Zwingli said, "I oppose it by this statement," and he wrote under it, "Ascendit in coelum," "He ascended into heaven." "The heavens must retain him; therefore," said he, "Christ cannot be in his body in heaven and on earth at the same time."

A theological seminary, a district association, a state, national, or international convention, cannot set out the Lord’s Table and observe this ordinance, because it is strictly a church ordinance. The spiritual qualifications of the participants are: (1) On the divine side, regeneration. (2) On the human side, repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The legal qualifications are justification, redemption and adoption, while the ceremonial qualifications are: A public, formal profession of faith in Christ, or, in other words, the relating of one’s Christian experience before a competent official authority; baptism by that authority in the name of the Trinity; formal reception into a particular church, which is the authority to pass upon the credibility of the profession of faith, to administer the baptism, to judge of the Christian life, and the only body that may lawfully set the Lord’s Table. Certain passages show that though one has all the qualifications enumerated above, whether spiritual, legal, or ceremonial, and yet is living an unworthy Christian life, the church of which he is a member may judge him and bar him from participation in this Supper, viz.: 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 1 Corinthians 10:21. These qualifications may all be condensed into one brief statement, thus: A baptized child of God, holding membership in a particular church and walking orderly in Christian life.

The officers of the church cannot carry the elements of this Supper to a member who, for any cause, was absent at the assembly observance, and administer them to him privately. Here are two well-known historic cases:

First case. – A member of a church, who had been living far from God, attending church seldom and never remaining when the Supper was observed, was now penitent, and in his last illness, knowing death to be at hand, dictates a penitential letter to the church, avowing the faith originally professed, but confessing all the irregularities of his life, claiming to have received the divine forgiveness, and asks forgiveness of the church. The letter expressed deep regret that the writer had never once obeyed his Lord in observing this ordinance and an intense desire to obey him one time in this matter before death, carefully assuring the church that he attributed no magical value to the ordinance, being himself already at peace with God, but longing to have God’s people with him one more time, to hear them sing and pray and to partake of this Supper, so that when he passed to the heavenly feast, he could say, "Lord, though unworthy, I did obey your solemn commandment one time on earth." Whereupon the church voted forgiveness to the penitent brother, adjourned the conference to meet in the sick man’s house that night, and there convened pursuant to adjournment, and did there observe the Lord’s Supper as the assembled church, and allowed -the sick man to participate. The members had come for miles in buggies, wagons, and on horse-back. The conference was unusually large. The house seemed to be filled with the glory of God. Others confessed their sins; alienated members were reconciled. A marvelous revival prevailed, and the dying brother passed from the earthly feast to drink the wine at the heavenly feast. I was present and officiated as pastor.

Second case. – A wife, professing to be a Christian, though not a church member, appealed to a Baptist preacher to come and administer the Lord’s Supper to her dying husband, himself not a member of any church, but who desired to partake of the Lord’s Supper before death. This preacher, of his own motion and alone, carried bread and wine to the house and there administered to the dying man the elements of the Lord’s Supper. I knew this pastor and wag instrumental in his confession and recantation of his error.

If the church, according to Christ’s law, must judge as to a participant’s qualification, what then the apostle’s meaning of "Let a man examine himself and so let him eat?" The man who is commanded to examine himself is not an outsider, but a member of the church, already qualified according to church judgment, yet on whom rests the personal responsibility to determine whether by faith he now discerns the Lord’s body.

What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:27? This passage does not say, "Whosoever is unworthy," but who partakes "unworthily," i.e., whose manner of partaking, like these Corinthians, was disorderly. They ate and drank to satisfy physical hunger and thirst. They feasted separately without waiting for the assembly.

What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:30: "For this cause many are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep"? This has no reference to physical weakness, sickness and sleep, as if a judgment in this form had come on them for a disorderly manner in partaking of the Supper. The meaning must be sought in the purpose of the ordinance. We have houses in which to eat ordinary’ food when we seek physical nutrition and from that, bodily strength and health. The taste of bread and the sip of wine in this ordinance cannot serve such a purpose. These represent a different kind of nutriment for the saved soul, which we appropriate and assimilate by faith. If we do not by faith discern the Lord’s body, then missing the spiritual nutrition, the soul becomes weak, or sick, or sleepy: "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee."

I here expound the Old Testament analogue in Exodus 24:9-11. This is the passage: "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: and they beheld God and did eat and drink." This is the ratifying feast of the Old Covenant, as the Lord’s Supper is the feast of the New Covenant. In Exodus 19 God proposes a covenant which they agree to accept and prepare themselves for it. God himself then states the three great stipulations of the covenant binding upon Israel: (1) The Decalogue, or God and the normal man (Exodus 20:1-17); (2) the law of the Altar, or the way of a sinner’s approach to God; in other words, God and the sinner (Exodus 20:24-26), with all its developments in Exodus 25-31; 35-40, and almost the whole of Leviticus; (3) the judgments, or God, the state and the citizen (Exodus. 21-23), with all developments therefrom in the Pentateuch.

These three make the covenant with national Israel. Then in Exodus 24:3-8, this covenant, so far only uttered, is reduced to writing, read to the people and solemnly ratified. Following the ratification, comes this passage, which is the Feast of the Covenant (Exodus 24:9-11). Here Moses records the institution of this feast of the ratified Old Covenant as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul record the institution of the feast of the New Covenant, in which Jesus says, "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood." It is noteworthy that in the institution of both feasts (not in subsequent observances) the partakers are few, acting in a representative capacity. Moses, Joshua, Aaron, Aaron’s two sons, seventy elders, seventy-five in all, in the first case; Jesus and the eleven apostles in the other case. In both cases the communion, or participation, is with God, who is present: "They saw God and did eat and drink." But they saw no similitude. They saw symbols. They saw him by faith. They saw the symbols of God’s presence with a natural eye, and tasted of the symbol, i.e., the Lamb of sacrifice, with the natural tongue. The symbol was not God; it represented him; nor was it changed into God. God was neither the symbol, nor in the symbol, nor with, by or under the symbol. He was there himself and with his covenant people. They saw him as propitiated through the sacrifice. Hence they saw him in the holy of holies, the paved work like sapphire stones under his feet (Exodus 24:10), which is the sign that they saw him on his throne of grace and mercy, as appears from a comparison of kindred passages (see Ezekiel 1:26; Rev. 4). Hence it is said (Exodus 24:11), "And on the elders of the children of Israel he laid not his hands," i.e., to smite them. Seeing God out of the covenant the men would have died. But in the covenant they were safe, because he was propitiated.

The Lord’s Supper is not the holy of holies, but in faithful observance of the Covenant feast, we by faith approach and commune with him in the holy of holies. That is, the blood of the everlasting Covenant propitiates God, so that we may approach him and commune with him, and by faith see him and yet not die, for the blood turns away his wrath.

To further illustrate this thought, the tabernacle was God’s house, or dwelling place, whose innermost chamber was the holy of holies. There, over the mercy seat between the Cherubim, the symbol of the Divine presence appeared as a Shechinah, the sword flame (Genesis 3:24), or pillar of cloud, or fire, and was the oracle to reveal and to answer questions; hence the most holy place is many times called the oracle, i.e., the house of the oracle. So in the Temple. But the tabernacle and the Temple fulfilled their temporary mission, and the veil was rent when Christ died. So a new house or Temple succeeded, namely, the church, a spiritual building (1 Corinthians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 3:17; Ephesians 2:21, American Standard Version, 1 Peter 2:5), and this new temple was anointed with the Holy Spirit (Daniel 9:24; Acts 2:1-4), as the first was (Exodus 30:25-26), with the holy oil which symbolized the Spirit. Now, in this new temple, the church, is a most holy place, the place of the real Divine presence, in the person of the Holy Spirit, and in the Supper as a covenant feast, when faith is exercised, we approach and commune with a propitiated God. We see him and eat and drink in his presence. The hiding veil in this case was Christ’s flesh. When he died, whose death is commemorated in the Supper, the veil was removed, and the way into the most holy place is wide open to the believing communicant. But in the church in glory, which is an eternal temple, hieron, there is no naos or symbolic shrine, most holy place, or isolated, inner chamber (Revelation 21:22), for God and the Lamb constitute the naos, and the tabernacle (Revelation 21:3) with all the inhabitants of the Holy City, who see God directly, face to face – not by faith. The days of propitiation are ended then, and the glorified ones need no intercession of the High Priest. Their salvation in body, soul, and spirit is consummated forever. But they feast with God forever. They sing indeed, but they do not "sing a hymn and go out."

QUESTIONS
1. What is the Old Testament analogue of the Lord’s Supper?

2. What is the proof?

3. What preliminary study essential to an understanding of its institution?

4. What are the principal classes of New Testament scriptures to be studied?

5. Who were the historians of its institution and observance?

6. Where and what record of its institution?

7. What are the three historic observances?

8. Where do we find the discussion of its import and the application of its teachings?

9. Who instituted the ordinance and when and where?

10. Who were present and participating?

11. Why was Judas not present?

12. In what capacity did the apostles receive it?

13. What elements used?

14. What is the meaning of "bread" and "cup"?

15. What is the proof of this rendering and what the exposition?

16. What then was the first scene of the drama of this ordinance?

17. What was the second scene?

18. What was the third scene?

19. What was the fourth scene?

20. What kind of an ordinance then is this, and what is necessary to convey its full meaning?

21. Is the order of the scenes important?

22. What of the modern provision of many tiny glasses?

23. What is the name of this ordinance and what the proof?

24. How is this title further shown?

25. What follows from this title?

26. What is the import of the word "communion" in 1 Corinthians 10:16?

27. What is the design of this ordinance?

28. What is the nature of the ordinance?

29. What faculties do we employ in the observance of this ordinance?

30. Whom do we remember, where and why, and who wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Memory"?

31. Faith does what?

32. Hope does what, and who wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Hope"?

33. What was the appointed duration of the ordinance?

34. What was the meaning of Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25?

35. How often must we observe this ordinance?

36. Does not the New Testament require its observance every Lord’s Day?

37, What were the main points of the Romanist teaching and practice on this ordinance?

38. What was the reply to this Romanist teaching?

39. What is Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation?

40. What is the Genevan doctrine?

41. Recite the story of Philip of Hesse?

42. May any religious organization except a church celebrate the Supper?

43. What are the spiritual qualification of the participants?

44. What are the legal qualifications?

45. What are the ceremonial qualifications?

46. What scriptures show that a man with all these qualifications may be barred from the Supper by the church?

47. Condense these qualifications into one brief statement.

48. May the officers of the church administer this ordinance to an individual in private?

49. State the two cases cited and show which was right and why?

50. What is the meaning of "Let a man examine himself, etc."?

51. What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:27?

52. What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:30?

53. Expound the Old Testament analogue in Exodus 24:9-11.

54. Is the Lord’s Supper the holy of holies?

55. How further illustrate the thought?

Verses 26-42

XXV

JESUS IN GETHSEMANE

Harmony, pages 183-186 and Matthew 26:30; Matthew 26:36-48; Mark 14:26-42; Luke 22:39-46; John 18:1; Hebrews 5:7-8.

This section commences on page 183 of the Harmony, introducing us at once to the Gethsemane scene. It is of vital importance that the interpreter of the Bible should know what significance to attach to this scene in the garden. We have four accounts – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. You will observe that while John touches the other historians on some things, he has nothing to say about this garden scene. His Gospel was written so much later than the others, and the others had so clearly set forth all the necessary facts about the garden of Gethsemane that he does not mention it at all. And when we confine ourselves to the accounts given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, we get at results about which I will now speak in their order.

The word, "Gethsemane," means an oil-press. The word, "place," as Matthew calls it – "He came to a place" – means an "enclosed place." In this were olive trees, other trees, and flowers. Just as you cross the brook Kidron, which separates that part of Jerusalem near the Temple from Mount Olivet, and right at the base of Mount Olivet, was this enclosed space. If you were there now you would see about an acre of ground with old olive trees in it, centuries old, but you are not to understand that this enclosure represents the enclosure of the text, or that these very trees were there when Christ spent this night of agony in that garden. We know from history, Josephus among others, that all of the trees of every kind for miles were cut down by the Romans when they were besieging Jerusalem about forty years after Christ’s entrance into the garden of Gethsemane.

Right at the foot of the mountain three roads went over or around Mount Olivet. They centered in that garden, and Jesus was accustomed to stop there. Our record tells us that he was accustomed to stop in that garden, either going to Jerusalem from Bethany; or going to Bethany from Jerusalem; and Judas, we learn, was sure that there Jesus could be found, if he had left the upper room where the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. You will remember that just at the close of the Passover supper, Judas "went immediately out," and gathered the crowd unto whom he wished to betray him. He knew he would find Jesus either where he left him, in that upper chamber, or in that garden on his way back to Bethany, which was his headquarters. So much, then, for the place.

The next item is that when he came to that garden he stopped eight of the apostles at the gate: "You stay here." He took three with him – Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, and with these three he entered deeper into the garden. Then he stationed the three, and went deeper still into the garden, as far as you can throw a stone – say fifty paces. Those at the gate, and particularly these three, were commanded to watch and pray; to watch, because he wanted to be informed when his betrayer was coming; to pray, lest they should enter into temptation when they saw him openly captured by his enemies. He knew that it would greatly shake them, and that they ought to be praying.

It was very late in the night, and being in the time of the Passover, it was full moon, but they were weary and sleepy. As he said of them, "The flesh is weak; your spirit is ready, but your flesh is weak." These three that entered with him are mentioned on two other special occasions in the Gospels. Peter, James, and John were selected from the twelve apostles to be witnesses of his power when he raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead, as we learn from Mark 5. Peter, James, and John were selected to witness his glory on the Mount of Transfiguration, as we learn from Matthew 17, and now Peter, James, and John are selected to witness his agony in this garden. They became very important witnesses to all of these events.

We notice the next point. He said, as Matthew expresses it, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." Mark says the same thing. This language evidently teaches that Jesus really had a human soul. There is an old heresy to the effect that he had only a human body, and that the Deity inhabited that body. But Jesus was a man in the true sense of the word. He took upon himself our nature, apart from any sin, but yet it was fully human nature, soul and body. Or, if you want to express it in a trichotomous way – body, soul, and spirit. He was fully human. This sorrow proves that he was human in every true sense of the word. "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." The agony described here is mental and spiritual. The effect is shown in his body, in that he sweats, as it were, great drops of blood. This is the most thrilling description in literature of the intensity of spiritual suffering under the preparation of the coming evil, and how that suffering evidences itself in the body. The body and the soul are intimately connected. When Belshazzar saw the handwriting on the wall, his knees shook, the terror in his soul was connected with his body. Or, as a man in reading a letter, or receiving a telegram of awful news, becomes so transfixed with pain that he has a tendency to faint. That is the reaction of the inner man on the outer man.

The next thought is – what caused that sorrow even unto death? A young preacher, and a very brilliant one, preached a sermon on this subject in which he took the position that the devil, as a person – a visible, tangible person – that night tried to kill Jesus, as he had first tried to have Jesus killed when he was a baby. So there was a wrestle between Christ and Satan, and that when Jesus prayed, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," he meant, "If it be possible, don’t let the devil kill me before I go to the cross and expiate human sin."

It was a very ingenious thing that young preacher preached, but it was very unscriptural. The sorrow that came over Jesus – the trouble of his soul, of his spirit, was that he was very near the time of dying on the cross, not as a martyr – for a martyr has no such sorrow as that; not as a guilty person in view of pending execution, for he was without sin; but it was a sorrow caused by the thought that in dying he was to die alienated in soul from God; to die as a sinner, though no sinner; to die the death of a felon, and, for the time being, pass under the power of Satan. He knew that when that sacrifice was made the Father would forsake him; that he would have to die the spiritual death, and the spiritual death is absence of the soul from God.

You get at a fine idea of the thought – a very fine idea indeed – when you consider the petition of Major John Andre to George Washington, commander-in-chief of the American armies. He prayed that he might be shot as a soldier, and not hanged as a spy. His agony was not the thought of death, for he was a very brave man, but the thought of a felon’s death. To die by a hangman – that constituted the agony of Major Andre. He did not want to die that death.

The humanity of Jesus, not merely his body, but his soul and spirit, suffered vicariously the spiritual death. His soul shuddered unspeakably at the thought of passing away from God and going under the power of Satan, and to feel the stroke of the punitive sword of the divine law won him. That was his trouble.

Paul’s statement of the case is thus expressed: "Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered" (Hebrews 5:7-8).

The next thought is this – that in that agony of approaching separation from his Father, he prays to his Father, that if it be possible, to let this cup pass from him. That means this: "I came to the earth to save men; to do anything that is necessary to their salvation, and the means appointed for their salvation is that I should take the sinner’s place; die the sinner’s death; die under God’s judgment; die under the sword of the divine law." Now when he says, "Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me," he means this: "If there is any other way to save men, then let this cup pass from me; it is so bitter."

The theology involved in that prayer has a depth that has never yet been sounded. It is the strongest possible proof of the sinner’s destiny; of the enormity of the sinner’s death. It is the strongest proof that I know that the only available way to save men was by substitution.

In other words, the law of God, which is holy, just, and good, must be vindicated. That law says, "The soul that sinneth it shall die." "Man has sinned. If I came to redeem man, and to take the place of man, I must pay man’s debt to the law. I must die the death of the sinner, or God can never be just in justifying man – in forgiving man." The claim of the law must be met, and if you just think a moment, when a man talks about your being saved without the expiation of sin by Jesus Christ upon the cross, remember that Jesus prayed: "If it be possible, i.e., if there be any other way under heaven among men whereby man can be saved, apart from vicarious and substitutionary death in his behalf, then let this cup pass from me." And the cup was not allowed to pass.

Let us suppose that some one takes the position: "I believe in God; I believe in his love and in his mercy, but I reject this idea of Jesus Christ as a Saviour, and whenever I come to stand before the judgment bar of God my petition will be: ’Lord have mercy on me and save me.’ " The answer will be: "If it had been possible for man to have been saved in that way, then the petition of Jesus would have been answered." The omniscience of God could see no other way; the omnipotence of God could work out no other way; the omnipresence of God could get in touch with no other way; the holiness and justice of God could find no other way. And, therefore, Peter, who witnesses this, says, "There is no other name given among men whereby we can be saved, but by the name of Jesus," and the name of Jesus avails only as Jesus died in our behalf. "God made him to be sin, though he knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." In the Old Testament we have his words, as given, not by these Gospel historians, but by prophetic historians, and one of his words is, "Save me from the sword," not the sword of man, but the sword of divine justice. And the reply that came to that petition was: "Awake, O sword, and smite the shepherd." Another one of his prayers, as given by the prophetic historian, is, "Lord, save me from the lion." The lion is the devil. He is the one who goeth about like a roaring lion. He was not saved from the lion. In other words, he was to be the live goat; the goat laden with the sins of the people; the goat that was to be sent into the wilderness to meet Azazel; he was "set alive before Jehovah to make atonement for him, to send him away to Azazel into the wilderness." So Jesus must meet the prince of evil and there fight out the battle in which Jesus would be bruised in the heel and Satan would be crushed in the head, and in which Jesus’ body would die, but his soul would be triumphant and Satan be cast out.

The devil knew that Christ was near the cross; he knew that if Christ got to the cross and died on the cross, what would be the effect of that death. And what he was trying to effect here (for this was a real temptation of Jesus), was not to bring about the physical death of Jesus, as that young preacher taught, but it was to get Jesus to so shrink back from this suffering that he would not undertake it. That was his point. And Jesus felt all of the agony, so deeply felt it that he prayed, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me." But he said, "Not my will, but thine be done." It was the will of God that the sufferer for sinners must die for sinners.

It is noticeable in all cases of this kind, that the great internal fight is made before we get to the actual reality. I never undertook a great enterprise that I did not first pass through all of the agony before I started out. I had my battle then, and after I had fought the battle out, I never fought it the second time. And when Jesus fights it out here in Gethsemane, he is as serene and equable from this time on as he ever was in his earlier life, when this dark shadow was yet a long way off. Notice that while the Father does not remove the curse, and could not remove it and save man, that he does send an angel to strengthen Jesus – to hold up his fainting head.

I ask the reader to notice in the next place that these prayers of Jesus were threefold. He prayed, and the hardest of the fight was in the first prayer; he prayed again, a prayer which was not such a terrible prayer as the first one; he prayed the third time, and in the last prayer peace came to him. He had asked these men to watch, and they slept; he had asked them to pray, not for him, but lest they enter into temptation when they saw their Captain taken, and their hopes, as they understood them, blasted, but they slept. And how pathetic were his words to Peter: "Simon, could not you have watched with me one hour? You have been up a good deal and it is now midnight; the flesh is weak, but your Lord is going through a death agony. Could you not hold out just one more hour?" What a great text! He felt the need of human sympathy. But he was alone in Gethsemane, as we will see him later alone on the cross.

I ask the reader to notice also three prayers of Jesus: First, the prayer that he taught his disciples to pray, commencing, "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name." Next, the prayer that we discussed in our last chapter, in which he prayed for the disciples. And now this prayer in which he prays for himself. From these prayers we learn what he prayed for, and how he prayed for himself.

I also note in this connection, the three gardens: The garden of Eden, in which the first Adam was tempted and fell; the garden of Gethsemane, in which the Second Adam resisted all of the wiles of the devil, the weakness of the flesh, and the mental despondency that comes from the contemplation of the felon’s death, and, finally, the garden of Paradise, in the last chapter of the Bible – that as Adam in the first garden of Paradise turned it into a desert of sin, Jesus in Gethsemane turned the desert into a garden of flowers; that by the preparation here for that which must be accomplished for man’s redemption, viz., to die on the cross, he made possible our entrance into the garden of Paradise. The last chapter in the Bible says, "Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city."

Please notice again in what the essence of prayer consists: "Not my will, but thine be done." As it is expressed later: "If we ask anything according to his will," and John got the thought right here, when witnessing that agony; so he afterward wrote, "If ye ask anything according to the will of God, he heareth us." This shows the limit there is upon prayer. I could not pray that God would enable me to steal from a man, or kill a man. I could not rightfully pray for anything in order that I might consume it upon my lusts and passions. James says that is asking amiss; that is asking not according to the will of God. That is the limitation upon all prayer. And Jesus hedged upon that point, "Not my will, but thine be done."

I heard Major Penn one hundred times, standing up before great crowds of people, when he had invited hundreds not to come and take -the mourner’s bench, but to come up as inquirers to investigate; and he would stand up, and pointing his finger at them, say, "Now have you come to this point: the will of the Lord be done? Have you come to the point that you can say, I want that to be undergone because it is the will of God?’ Are you willing for the will of God to prevail in regard to your conversion, whoever should be the instrument? Or, do you say, I will be converted if a certain preacher should come; or, if it be at home; or, if God shall convert me some night when they shout; or, when they do not shout?’ Are you ready for the will of God to be done?"

The next point is – who were coming to capture him? A statement in John in the original Greek says, "These saw the band, and the chief captain." "The band," with the definite article is, in the Greek, "the cohort," which was that special cohort of Roman soldiers quartered in the tower of Antonio, which sat over the Temple; and the chief captain there, in the Greek, chiliarch (chiliarchos), means "chief of the thousand." The Roman legion usually, at this time, consisted of 6,000 men; there would be six chiliarchs, six men each over one thousand; and each chiliarch would have under him ten men, centurions, each over one hundred. The chiliarch was one who occupied an office similar to our colonel – commander of a regiment; and the legion answered somewhat to our brigade, or division, more to a division than to a brigade. When it says, "the chief captain," or chiliarch, was there, it means the most important Roman officer in the city – a man of great dignity and power – and while the legions were not always full, and therefore the band or number commanded by the chiliarch was not always full in number, yet it meant that hundreds of trained Roman soldiers had here come; the colonel of the regiment, and the captains of several companies. That shows that there was a strong realization, that even in the night people might wake up and that an attempt might be made to rescue him. For fear of that very thing the Sanhedrin would not arrest him in the day time. The chiliarch and the cohort came not to arrest, but merely to prevent a tumult of the people when the Temple officers arrested Jesus. It is quite important to note not only the presence of the cohort and the reasons therefore negatively and positively, and the fact that they did not arrest Jesus, nor carry him to Pilate, nor to anybody else, but were present to prevent possible disorder. Then the text also says that the officers of the Sanhedrin, and the partially armed rabbis that attended them, and their followers carrying staves, were there. The soldiers, of course, had their swords. The short sword of the Roman soldier was a very deadly weapon. So that at least, counting the representatives of the Sanhedrin and the rabbis, and that disciplined band of Roman soldiers, who could not have been sent without the consent of Pilate, at night were all apparently coming to arrest a man that never carried a weapon in his life; coming to arrest a man whose constant followers were twelve, or eleven in this case, unarmed men; coming by night to arrest a man who had taught every day openly in their Temple and in their city. Hence his question: "Do you bring out this army here as if you are going to capture a robber or a thief? Why do you come by night when you could have found me any time by day in the very heart of the city?"

And notice the traitor: Though it was full moon, this man brought lanterns and torches. They wanted to identify the Person, and while the lanterns were shining and their torches throwing out a lurid glare, Jesus says, "Whom do you seek?" And as he stepped out and said, "Whom do you seek?" they fell, just as if they were shot. That was a supernatural event. It showed how easily he could have blotted the whole band out of existence. And when they got up he repeated his question, "Whom do you seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus answers them, "I am he: you have not said you have come seeking these followers of mine. Let them go; do not arrest them."

QUESTIONS
1. Who are the historians of the Gethsemane scene and why, in all probability, was it omitted by John?

2. What is the meaning of the word "Gethsemane," what is the meaning of the word "place" as used by Matthew in his account and how is Gethsemane described as to location, its contents, etc.?

3. What was the access to this garden and what made it easy for Judas to find our Lord here on the night of his betrayal?

4. Upon entering this garden on the night of his betrayal how did our Lord station the disciples, what command did he give them; why watch and why pray?

5. What hour of the night, who were with him and on what occasions were they admitted to special privileges with Jesus?

6. What does the expression, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, etc.," teach, what heresy mentioned, was Jesus dichotomous or trichotomous, what proof, what was the nature of the agony which Christ suffered, and what is the reaction of the inner man on the outer man? Illustrate.

7. What was the young preacher’s theory as to the sorrow of Christ in. Gethsemane, what was the real cause of the sorrow, how does the case of Major Andre illustrate this? what was the nature of Christ’s death and how does Paul express this Gethsemane suffering?

8. What is the meaning of Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane and of what is it a proof?

9. What is the judgment test of this idea of our salvation, what is the answer from the standpoint of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, holiness, and justice? What was Peter’s testimony? Paul’s? the prophetic historian’s? What Old Testament type of this vicarious work of our Lord?

10. What was the devil’s real temptation of our Lord in Gethsemane"

11. What notable fact about this Gethsemane conflict of our Lord?

12. What relief did the Father send to our Lord in this very intense agony?

13. How is Christ’s need of human sympathy revealed in this scene, what three prayers of Jesus cited and what do they teach?

14. What 3 gardens are mentioned here, what were the points of correspondence and what was the condition of entrance into the garden of Paradise?

15. In what does the essence of prayer consist, what was John’s testimony on this point, what does this show, what was James’s testimony, and what practical illustration of the application of this principle given?

16. Who arrested Jesus, why this great band of Roman soldiers, and in what consists the ridiculousness of their course?

17. Why did Judas carry lanterns and torches, what supernatural event happened at this arrest, what does it show and what request did he make for his disciples?

Verses 27-31

XXII

THE BETHANY SUPPER; THE PASSOVER SUPPER; WASHING THE DISCIPLES’ FEET; PETER AND JUDAS AT THE LAST SUPPER

Harmony, pages 169-177 and Matthew 26:1-25; Matthew 26:31-35; Mark 14:1-8; Mark 14:27-31; Luke 22:1-16; Luke 22:21-38, John 12:2-8; John 13:1-38.

This section is taken from the events from our Lord’s great prophecy to his betrayal by Judas. The principal events in their order are: (1) Jesus predicts and the rulers plot his death; (2) the three great suppers – at Bethany, the Passover, and the Lord’s Supper; (3) the farewell discourse of comfort to his disciples; (4) Christ’s great intercessory prayer; (5) Gethsemane.

Their importance consist not only in the signification of the events themselves, but also in the sharp contrasts of character in the light of the presence of Jesus, and their bearing upon the meaning of all the rest of the New Testament. The space devoted to them by the several historians is as follows: Matthew, Mark, and Luke give less than one chapter each; Paul a single paragraph; John four full chapters. Here we note the value of John’s contribution to this matter, with similar instances, and his great silences sometimes where the others speak, and the bearing of the facts on two points: Did he have the other histories before him when he wrote, and what one of the purposes of his writing? John’s large contribution to this matter, with similar instances – for example, the early Judean ministry and the discourse on the Bread of Life in Capernaum, and his silences in the main concerning the Galilean ministry, clearly show that he did have before him the other histories when he wrote, and that one of his purposes was to supplement their story.

According to Dr. Broadus these intervening events between the prophecy and the betrayal are but successive steps through which our Lord seeks to prepare both himself and his disciples for his approaching death and their separation. They did prepare Christ himself but not his disciples, who did not understand until after his resurrection, nor indeed, fully, until after the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

The Bethany supper. – Bethany, the village, and Jerusalem, the city, are brought in sharp contrast. The Holy City rejects the Lord, and the little village entertains him by a special supper in his honor.

Two persons also are contrasted, viz.: Judas and Mary. This revealing light of places and persons was in Jesus. The revelations of Mary in her anointing were:

(1) Her faith in the Lord’s words about his approaching death, greater than that of any of the apostles. They were surprised; the great event came upon them as a surprise, but later they understood.

(2) It is a revelation of the greatness of her love, selecting the costliest and best of all she had without reservation to be used as an ointment for her Lord – a preparation for his burial.

(3) It is a revelation of the far-reaching effect of what she did; as the ointment was diffused throughout the house, the fame of her glorious deed would be diffused throughout the world and to the end of time. Such love, such faith, no man has ever evinced.

This incident reveals Judas as one who had become a disciple for ambitious ends and greed. He, like Mary, is convinced now that Christ will not evade death, and that his ambitious desire of promotion in a worldly government will not be realized. The relation between Mary’s anointing and his bargain to sell his Lord arise from the fact that as he was treasurer of the funds, mainly contributed by the women who followed the Lord, and was a thief accustomed to appropriate to himself from this fund, and as Mary’s gift, in his judgment, should have been put into the treasury and thus increase the amount from which he could steal, he determined to get what he could in another direction. This treasury being about empty, and under such following as that of Mary was not likely to be increased, then he must turn somewhere else for money.

In the same way the light of the Lord’s presence revealed by marvelous contrast all other men or women who for a moment stood in that light. We would know nothing worth considering of Pilate, Caiaphas, and Herod, or the thieves on the cross, except as they stand revealed in the orbit of Christ’s light, in which they appear for a short time. On them that light confers the immortality of infamy; as in the case of others like Mary, it confers the immortality of honor.

The Passover supper. – Our Lord’s intense desire to participate in this particular Passover arises from his knowledge of its relation to his own approaching death, he being the true Passover Lamb, the antitype, and because at this Passover supper is to be the great transition to the Supper of the New Covenant. Here the question arises: In the light of this and other passages, did he in fact eat the regular Passover supper? His words, "I will not eat it," being only a part of a sentence, do not mean that he did not participate in the last Passover supper, but it means that he will not eat it again. That he did partake of this supper the text clearly shows. See the argument in Dr. Robertson’s note at the end of the Harmony. But the clause, "Until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16; Luke 22:29-30), needs explanation. Both the Passover supper and the Lord’s Supper, instituted thereafter, are shadows of substances in the heavens. There will be in the glory world a feasting, not on earthly materials, but on the spiritual food of the kingdom of God.

Our Lord washing the feet of the apostles. – When we carefully examine Luke 22:24-30 and John’s account, we find that the disciples, having complied with the ablutions required by the Levitical law preparatory to the Passover, knew that when they got to the place of celebrating, somebody must perform the menial service of washing the feet which had become defiled by the long walk to the place. Hence a controversy arose as to greatness and precedence; each one, on account of what he conceived to be his high position in the kingdom, was unwilling to do the needed service. This washing of feet was connected with the Passover, an Old Testament ordinance, and not with our Lord’s Supper, a New Testament ordinance. A Southern theologian, Rev. John L. Dagg, preached a brief, simple, but very great sermon on this washing of feet, found in the Virginia Baptist Pulpit, an old book now out of print. That sermon gives two classes of scriptures, and analyzes this washing of feet, giving its lessons and showing how it cannot be a New Testament church ordinance, as follows: The two classes of scriptures are: (1) Those which refer to the purifications required before entering the Passover proper, or its attendant seven-day festival of unleavened bread, e.g., Numbers 9:6-10; 2 Chronicles 30:2-4; 2 Chronicles 30:17-20; Luke 22:14-30; John 13:1-26; John 18:28. (2) Those referring to the ablution of feet, before an ordinary meal and as an act of hospitality, e. g., Genesis 18:4; Genesis 19:2; Genesis 24:32; Genesis 43:24; Judges 19:21; 1 Samuel 25:41; Luke 7:38-44; John 12:2-3; 1 Timothy 5:10, counting, particularly, I Samuel 25-41 with Luke 7:38-44 and 1 Timothy 5:10.

The feast of John 18:28 is the feast of unleavened bread following the Passover supper. Here we need also to explain John 13:31-32 and the new commandment, John 13:34, in the light of 2 John 1:5, where it is said to be not new.

(1) The going out of Judas to betray his Lord through the prompting of Satan, Jesus knowing it to be the last step before his person should pass into the hands of his enemies that would result in that expiatory death which would bring about his own glory, used the words, "Now is the Son of man glorified and God is glorified in him."

(2) When Jesus says in John 13:34, "A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another," it was indeed new to their apprehension at that time, but when very many years later, John, in his second letter, declares it to be not a new commandment, but one they had from the beginning, he means by the beginning, this declaration in John 13:34. But since that time the Holy Spirit had come, and many years of intervening events in which the disciples had understood and practiced the commandment until it was no longer new, when John wrote his second letter.

Peter and Judas (it the last Passover. – These two persons are revealed, in the light of Christ’s presence at this last Passover. Peter, standing in the light of Christ, is shown indeed to be a sincere man and true Christian, but one greatly ignorant and self-confident. He is evidently priding himself upon the special honor conferred upon him at Caesarea Philippi, and has no shadow of doubt about his own future fidelity. In this connection Christ makes a triple prediction, which is a remarkable one. This we find set forth on pages 176-177 of the Harmony. He predicted that Judas would betray him; that every one of them would be offended at him, and that Peter would deny him outright three times. What a remarkable prediction! that with those chosen ones before whom he had displayed all of his miraculous powers and with whom he had been intimately associated so long, and who had received such highly responsible positions and who had been trained by him, to whom he had expounded the principles of the kingdom of God – that he would say to them, "All of you shall be offended in me this night." It was very hard for them to believe that this could take place, and when he went beyond that to predict that Peter would deny him outright, Peter just couldn’t believe it.

In Luke 22:3-32; Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-6; John 10:15; John 10:28-29; 1 John 5:18; Judges 1:9, are five distinct limitations of Satan’s power toward Christians, with the meritorious ground of the limitations. Looking at Luke’s account, Harmony, page 176 near the bottom: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked to have you" – "you" being plural, meaning all the apostles – "by asking." To give it literally, "Satan hath obtained you by asking that he might sift you as wheat." That is one of the greatest texts in the Bible: "Satan hath obtained you apostles by asking that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee," using a singular pronoun and not a plural, "that thy faith fail not: and when thou art turned, strengthen [or confirm] thy brethren." Thus is expressed one of the limitations of Satan’s power.

By looking at Job I we find that Satan has to make stated reports to God of all that he does, wherever he goes. I have heard ministers preach on that text – "When the sons of God came, Satan appeared among them," and they seemed to misunderstand altogether the signification of it. Satan did not make any appearance there because he wanted to, but because he had to. Not only good angels, but evil angels, are under the continual control of God, and they have to make stated reports to God. God catechized Satan: "Where have you been?" Satan replies, "Wandering up and down through the earth." "Did you see my servant, Job?" "Yes." "Did you consider him?" "Yes, walked all around him. Wanted to get at him." "What kept you from getting at him?" "You have a hedge built around him, and I couldn’t get to him." "What is your opinion of him?" "Why, I think if you would let me get at him I would show you there is not as much in him as you think there is." Let the Christian get that thought deep into the heart, that Satan is compelled to come before God with the holy angels and make his report to God of every place he has been, of every Christian he has inspected and what his thoughts were about that Christian, what he wants to do with that Christian – that he has to lay it all before God. That is the first limitation.

Let us take the second limitation: "Simon, Satan hath obtained you by asking." The second limitation is that he can’t touch a Christian with his little finger without the permission of God. That is very comforting to me. Satan walks all around us, and it is in his mind to do us damage, for he would destroy us if he could, and if he can’t destroy us, he will worry us. So a wolf will prowl around a fold of sheep and want to eat a sheep mighty bad, but before Satan can touch that Christian at all he has to ask permission – has to go to Jesus and ask permission.

The third limitation is that when he gets the permission, it is confined to something that is really beneficial to the Christian: "Satan hath obtained you by asking that he may sift you as wheat." If he had asked that he might burn them like chaff it would not have been granted, but he asked that he might sift them as wheat. It doesn’t hurt wheat to be sifted. The more we separate the pure grain from the chaff the better. So you see that limitation. Satan made that request on this account: He thought God loved Peter and Jesus loved Peter, so that if Jesus sifted him he would not shake him hard. But Satan says, "I have been watching these twelve apostles. You let me shake them up." And at the first shake-up he sifted Judas out entirely, and Peter got an awful fall. Don’t forget in your own experience, for the comfort of your own heart, that the devil can’t touch you except in the direction of discipline that will really be for your good.

The fourth limitation: Even when he obtains permission to act for God in a lesson of discipline, he can’t take the Christian beyond the High Priest’s intercession: "But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." "Now I will let Satan take you in hand. You need to be taken in hand by somebody. You have very wrong notions. You think that a man’s salvation depends on his hold on Christ, while it really depends on Christ’s hold on him, and you are sure that if everybody else turns loose, you will stand like a rock till you die." In other words, Peter says, "I keep myself." Jesus was willing for Satan, by sifting Peter, to discover to him that if his salvation depended on his hold on Christ, the devil would get him in a minute. It depended on Christ’s hold on Peter. So we have that limitation that Satan is not permitted, even after he obtains permission to worry or tempt a Christian, to take him beyond the intercession of the High Priest; Christ prayed for Peter. We will, in a later discussion, see how he prays for all that believe on him, and all that believe on him through the word of these apostles, and he ever liveth to make intercession for us, and that is the reason we are saved unto the uttermost. He is able to save unto the uttermost because he ever liveth to make intercession.

The last limitation of Satan:

Satan cannot cause a Christian to commit the unpardonable sin. He can’t touch the Christian’s life.

When Satan asked permission to try Job, God consented for him to take away his property and bring temporal death to his children, but not to touch Job’s life. And John (1 John 5:16), in discussing the two kinds of sin – the sin which is not unto death and the sin which is unto death – says, "When you see a brother sin a sin which is not unto death, if you will pray to God he will forgive him, but there is a sin which is unto death. I do not say that you shall pray for it." Prayer doesn’t touch that at all. "And whosoever is born of God does not commit sin [unto death], and cannot, because the seed of God remains in him and he cannot sin it, because that wicked one toucheth him not." Satan never has been able to destroy a Christian. As Paul puts it: "I am persuaded that neither angels, nor principalities, nor powers, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Or, as Jesus says, in talking about his sheep, "My father is greater than all, and none can pluck them out of his hand." To recapitulate: The first limitation of Satan – he must make report statedly to God; second limitation – he must ask permission before he touches a Christian; third limitation – he can then only do to a Christian what is best for the Christian to have done to him; fourth limitation – he cannot take a Christian beyond the intercession of the High Priest; fifth limitation – he cannot make the Christian commit the unpardonable sin.

Let us set over against that the revelation of Judas in John 12:4-6; Luke 22:3-6; Matthew 26:23; Luke 22:48; Matthew 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-20, showing the spiritual status, change of conviction, and trace the workings of his mind in selling and betraying Jesus, his subsequent remorse, despair and suicide, with no limitations of Satan’s power in his case. When we carefully read in the proper order the statements concerning Judas in John 12:4-6, we behold him outwardly a disciple, but inwardly a thief. In the subsequent references to him (Luke 22:3-6; Matthew 26:23; Luke 22:48; Matthew 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-20), the whole man stands clearly before us. Evidently he expected, when he commenced to follow Christ, that he would be the Messiah according to the Jewish conception – a king of the Jews and a conqueror of the world – and that there would come to him high position and great wealth as standing close to the Lord, but when subsequent developments made it plain to him that Christ’s kingdom was not to be of this world, and that his enemies were to put him to death, and that neither worldly honors nor wealth would come to his followers, then he determined to sell and betray his Lord. We are indeed surprised at the small price at which he sells his Lord and himself, but our only account for it is that he was under the promptings of Satan, and as Satan, having used a man and wrecked him, leaves him to his own resources, it is quite natural that remorse and despair should come to Judas. If there be something worth having in the spiritual kingdom, he has lost that. He has gained nothing by betraying and selling his Lord, and now in his despair, there being no limitation of Satan’s power over a lost soul, he is goaded to suicide. We cannot account for Judas and leave Satan out.

Arminians apply the doctrine of apostasy to both Judas and Peter. They say that Peter was truly converted and utterly fell away from the grace of God, and after the resurrection was newly converted. They say that Judas was a real Christian and fell from grace, and was finally lost. Though Adam dark, the noted Methodist commentator, contends that Solomon was a Christian and apostatized and was lost, he contends that Judas, after his apostasy, repented and was saved.

Somewhere about 1875 there appeared a poem in the Edin- burgh Review, which gave this philosophy of the betrayal of Judas: It affirms that Judas was a true Christian and did not mean to bring about the death of Christ, but thought that if he would betray Christ into the hands of his enemies that the Lord would at the right time, by the display of his miraculous power, destroy his enemies and establish his earthly kingdom. But when he found that the Lord refused to exercise his miraculous power to avert his death, then he was filled with remorse that he had precipitated this calamity. The poem is a masterly one, but attributes to Judas motives foreign to any revelation of him in the New Testament. The New Testament declares him to be a thief, and that what prompted him to sell the Lord was the waste of the ointment on Jesus that might have been put into the treasury, which he not only disbursed, but from which he abstracted what he would.

It is seen in Luke 22:32 that Peter did establish the brethren. "When once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren." The word convert in the King James Version, "when thou art converted," does not mean "when thou art regenerated." It is used there in its etymological sense. Here is a man going through temptation. He has a wrong notion in his mind. "Now, when thou art turned, establish thy brethren." He is to establish them on the same point where he has been wrong, and got into trouble by it, and now he is to consider that the other brethren will have the same weakness, and he must, as a teacher, confirm them upon that weak point.

If we turn to 1 Peter we will see how he did establish the brethren on that very point. He thought then he could keep himself – that he could hold on to Jesus, while weak-kneed people, weak-handed people, might turn loose, but he would not. Now, Jesus says, "When you are turned from that error, establish your brethren on that very point." In 1 Peter 1, he says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in the heavens for you, who, by the power of God are guarded through faith." How long and unto what? "Unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time." "You who are kept through the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last day."

You have learned a great lesson if you will take into your heart all of the thoughts in connection with Peter that we have been discussing here, for every point that you can get clear in your mind that touches the devil, will be very helpful to you.

On page 177 of the Harmony we come to this statement: "And he said unto them, When I sent you forth without purse and wallet and shoes, lacked you anything?" They said, "Nothing." By reading Matthew 10 and Luke 10 you will find that the Lord there ordains that they that preach the gospel should live by the gospel: "The laborer is worthy of his hire."

You don’t have to furnish out of your own pocket the expenses of your living while you are preaching for Jesus Christ. Ha is to take care of you. You are to live of the gospel.

And now he puts a question, "When I sent you forth without purse and wallet and shoes, lacked you anything?" A great deal is involved in that. Christ promised to take care of them. "I send you out like no set of men were ever sent before on such a mission in the world." A soldier does not go to war on his own charges. The government takes care of him: "I send you out that way."

But this commission was temporarily suspended at this Passover: "And he said unto them, but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet: and he that hath none let him sell his clothes and buy a sword. [He that hath no sword, let him sell his clothes and buy a sword.] For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me. And he was reckoned with the transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfillment. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords, and he said unto them, it is enough" (Luke 22:36-38).

Now, I will give you some sound doctrine. Christ had ordained that they who left everything and committed themselves with absolute consecration to his service, that he would take care of them, and he established and ordered that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. Now he comes to a time when he is going to reverse that: "There is just ahead of you and very near to you a separation from me, and as much as you are separated from me, i.e., as long as I lie in the grave dead, you will have to take care of yourselves. If you have a purse, take it, and you will not only have to take care of yourselves, but you will have to defend yourselves. If you haven’t a sword, buy one." But that suspension was only for the time that he was in the grave.

Peter applied it both too soon and too late. This is a peculiarity of Peter. See my sermon in my first book of sermons called, "From Simon to Cephas." "Simon" means a hearer, and "Cephas" means established – a stone. But Peter here was both too short and too long in getting hold of what Christ meant. He was too short in this, that he used that sword before Christ was separated from him. He cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. He was not to depend on the sword and not to defend himself as long as the Master was with him. As long as Jesus is alive, we don’t use our swords to take care of ourselves. When Jesus is dead, we may. Peter was too short. He commenced too soon and used the sword. Now I will show that be was too long. After Christ rose from the dead, Peter says, "I go a fishing." In other words, "I go back to my old occupation; I must make a living, and my occupation is fishing, and times are getting hard. I go back to my fishing." It did not apply then, because Jesus was risen and alive. So he took that too far. He commenced too soon, and he carried, it too far.

Whoever opposes ministerial support, and I mean by ministerial support the support of a man who consecrates himself in faith, who does like Peter said they did, "Lord, we left all to follow thee," and whoever opposes the ordinance of Jesus Christ, that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel, virtually put themselves under a dead Christ. They virtually say that Jesus has not risen from the dead.

They go under this temporary commission: "He that hath a purse, let him take it, and a wallet, let him take that, and he that hath no sword, let him take his coat and sell it and buy one to defend himself with. Let the preacher do like other people do." They that take that position virtually deny the resurrection of Christ, and virtually affirm that Jesus Christ is not living. Just as soon as Jesus rose from the dead he said, "Now you can put that sword away, Peter. There was a time when you could defend yourself and make your own living, and that was while I was dead." But we believe that Christ is now alive. He is risen indeed: "I am he that was dead) but am alive to die no more."

The man who believes that God has called him to preach ought to burn the bridges behind him.

A deacon got up once, when we were ordaining a preacher and said, "I am leaving it to the presbytery here to ask the things on doctrine, but I have a question to ask: ’Do you, in seeking this office and submitting to this ordination, burn every bridge between you and the secular life, or do you leave that bridge standing, thinking in your mind that if you don’t make a living you will go back and take up the secular trade?’ " "Well," the candidate said, "I will have to study about that." The deacon replied, "I will have to study about voting for your ordination until you are ready to answer that question." One of the sharpest sentences I ever made in my life was a declaration that:

No man on earth that God called to preach and who burned absolutely all the bridges behind him and really trusted in Jesus Christ to take care of him, ever failed of being taken care of.

That is a hard saying and a broad one, but it is the truth. And whenever a preacher is disposed to question that, let him remember the words of Jesus Christ, "I sent you out without purse or wallet, or sword. You just took your life into your hands. You went out as sheep among the wolves. Did you lack anything?" You won’t lack anything that is good for you. Sometimes you will get mighty hungry. I don’t say you won’t get hungry. Sometimes you will get cold. I don’t deny that.

But I do affirm before God that whoever puts himself unreservedly upon the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ and keeps himself on that, either God will take care of him, or it is the best for him to die, one or the other. Never any good comes from doubting.

QUESTIONS
1. From what great division is this section taken?

2. What are the principal events in their order?

3. What is their importance?

4. What space devoted to them by the several historians?

5. What value of John’s contribution to this matter?

6. According to Dr. Broadus what successive steps do we find in this group of events?

7. Did they prepare Christ himself but not his disciples for his approaching death?

8. What two places are revealed in sharp contrast by the Bethany supper?

9. What two persons are also contrasted?

10. In whom was this revealing light of places and persons?

11. What revelations of Mary in her anointing?

12. What revelation of Judas and the relation between Mary’s anointing and his bargaining to sell our Lord?

13. Show how the light of our Lord’s presence revealed others also.

14. Explain our Lord’s intense desire to eat this particular Passover (Luke 22:15).

15. Explain "I will not eat it" (Luke 22:16).

16. Explain "until it be fulfilled, etc." (Luke 22:16; Luke 22:29-30).

17. What was the occasion of the foot-washing in John 13?

18. Was it connected with the Passover or the Lord’s Supper?

19. What sermon on it is commended?

20. What two classes of scriptures cited and what are the lessons?

21. What was the feast of John 18:28?

22. Explain John 13:31-32; John 13:34 in the light of 2 John 1:5.

23. What two persons are revealed in the light of Christ’s presence at this last Passover?

24. Analyze the revelation of Peter.

25. What triple prediction did Christ set forth in this connection, and what makes it a remarkable prediction?

26. Give five distinct limitations of Satan and the scriptures therefore.

27. Correlate and analyze the scriptures on Judas.

28. How do Arminians apply the doctrine of apostasy to both Judas and Peter and what was the reply?

29. What was the explanation of Judas’ betrayal of our Lord, in the Edinburgh Review)

30. What the meaning and application of Luke 22:32 and what the evidence from his letter that Peter did this?

31. What is the law of ministerial support?

32. What was the reason of its temporary suspension at this Passover?

33. How long was the suspension?

34. How and wherein did Peter apply it too soon and too late?

35. What does one who opposes ministerial support virtually say, and what the lesson for the preachers?

XXVI

JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, FORSAKEN; TRIED BY ANNAS, BY CAIAPHAS, AND BY THE SANHEDRIN

Harmony, pages 186-196 and Matthew 26:47-75; Matthew 26:59-75; Matthew 27:1-2; Mark 14:48-15:1; Luke 22:47-23:1; John 18:2-28.

In the last chapter we considered the sorrow of Christ in Gethsemane, and dipped somewhat into the account of the betrayal of our Lord. Just here we call attention particularly to the supplemental testimony of John’s Gospel that the Roman band or cohort, under its own prefect or miltary tribune, or chiliarch, was present when Jesus was arrested, and participated therein, indeed, themselves arresting, binding, and conducting Jesus to the Jewish authorities. This is a little difficult to understand, but we find no difficulty in the presence of the Temple guard, under the leadership of the Sanhedrin, and the mixed multitude irregularly armed, that came out for the purpose of arresting Jesus. Our trouble is to account for so strong a Roman force, under a high Roman officer, and the part they played in the matter, inasmuch as it was not an arrest for violating a Roman law, nor did they deliver the prisoner to Pilate, but to Annas and Caiaphas. From this supplemental story of John (John 18:2-14), certain facts are evidenced:

Judas, the betrayer of Christ, and who guided the arresting party, "received the Roman cohort," usually about 600 men, under its own commanding officers. This could not have been without the consent of Pilate.

They evidently did not go out to make an ordinary arrest under Roman law, else would the prisoner have been delivered to Pilate. Yet the facts show that they did seize and bind Jesus and deliver him to Annas, one of the acting high priests, and thence to Caiaphas. As it was not customary for Roman legionaries in conquered states to act as a constabulary force for local municipal authorities in making an arrest touching matters not concerning the Empire, and as it is evident there were present an ample force of the Jewish Temple guard, besides an irregularly armed Jewish multitude subordinate to the Sanhedrin, then why the presence of this Roman force at all, and more particularly, why their participation in the arrest? The answer is as follows:

First, both the Sanhedrin and Pilate feared tumults at the crowded feasts when the city swarmed with fiery, turbulent Jews gathered from all the lands of the dispersion. Doubtless the Sanhedrin had represented to Pilate the presence in the city of a dangerous character, as they would charge, yet one so popular with the masses they dare not attempt to arrest him in the daytime, and even feared a mob rising in the night.

Second, their presence and intervention was necessary to protect the prisoner himself from assassination or lynch law. When they came to the garden and found Jesus there with a following of at least eleven men disposed to resist the arrest, and when they saw the whole Jewish guard fall before the outshining majesty of the face of Jesus as if stricken by lightning, and when they saw at least one swordstroke delivered in behalf of Jesus, then only, it became proper for the Roman guard to intervene. This necessity might arise from the fact that they could not trust the turbulent Jews with the management of this case. "We will arrest this man and protect him from their violence until delivered to their authorities to be tried for whatever offense with which he may be charged under their laws." Indeed, humanly speaking, if that Roman cohort had not been present, he would have been mobbed before he reached any kind of a trial. The case of Paul (Acts 21:30), and the intervention of Lysias, the chiliarch, illustrates the grounds of Roman intervention. It must be borne in mind that the Romans were silent, and did nothing until they saw the Temple guard unable to face the dignity of Jesus, and that a commencement, at least, of the struggle had been made by Peter to resist arrest.

As we are now coming to the climax of our Lord’s earth life, his betrayal, his trials, condemnation, execution, and resurrection, the literature becomes the richest in the world, and the bibliography most important. Particularly do we here find a unique and most powerful literature from the viewpoint of lawyers. They do not intrude into the theological realm to discuss the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of spiritual death, nor the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of Satan on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical death, but they discuss the legal aspects of his trial before the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy) with the penalty of stoning, and the trials of Jesus before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod on the charges of treason and sedition. They answer the question: Under the Jewish law, which was not only civil and criminal, but ecclesiastical, was Jesus legally arrested, legally prosecuted, and fairly condemned, or was the whole case, as tried by the Sanhedrin, a case of malice, violating all the rights of the accused, and culminating in legal murder? In the same way these great lawyers and jurists expound the case before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod, and from a lawyer’s viewpoint pronounce upon the Judgment of these cases under a judicial construction of the Roman law.

Under this first head of bibliography I give a list of these books by the great lawyers, every one of which ought to be in every preacher’s library. Do not waste money on inconsequential and misleading books. Do not fill your libraries with rubbish. Have fewer and greater books, and study them profoundly.

The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was a law partner of Chief Justice Story, was for quite a while professor of law in Harvard University, and the author of that noted book, The Law of Evidence, which has been accepted in two continents as the highest and safest authority OD this great theme. Indeed, when we consider this splendid contribution by Dr. Greenleaf, we may almost forgive Harvard for its erratic infidel president emeritus, Dr. Charles v. Eliot, and many of its radical critic professors. This book of Greenleaf’s, over 600 pages, is divided into the following distinct parts:

The legal credibility of the history of the facts of the case, as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, of which there are no known existing autographs, but only copies. The question he raises is from the lawyer’s standpoint: "Before a human court, could these confessed copies be accepted as legal evidence of the history of the case?" That part of the case he demonstrates affirmatively in the first fifty-four pages.

Then he gives a harmony of these histories, pages 55-503, in order to compare the several histories on each fact given, not only of our Lord’s life and death, but of his resurrection and appearances. The point of this section is to show that the books, having been accepted as legal evidence, then these are a legal harmony of the testimony of the books.

He gives on pages 504-549 Tischendorf’s discussion of the various versions or translations of these histories, with notes of variations from the King James Version, to show that the legal harmony is not disturbed.

Having thus shown the legal credibility of the histories, and their legal harmony as witnesses, he applies the case by giving his account of the trial of Jesus before these three earthly courts, demonstrating that it was a case of legal murder, pages 550-566.

Then on pages 567-574 he gives an account of the trial of Jesus from a Jewish viewpoint. Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and a learned Jew, published at Paris a work entitled A History of the Institutions of Moses and of the Jewish People, in which, among other things, he gives an account of the course of criminal procedure in a chapter on the administration of justice, which he illustrates in a succeeding chapter by an account of the trial of Jesus, which he declares to be the most memorable trial in history. This last is the chapter Mr. Greenleaf publishes. Mr. Salvador ventures to say that he shall draw all of his facts from the evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether their history was developed after the event, to serve as a form of new doctrine, or an old one which had received fresh impulse. This was a daring venture on the part of Mr. Salvador. Relying upon these historians – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – for the facts, he contends that Jesus was legally arrested, legally tried, according to all the forms of Jewish law, and legally condemned.

The rest of Mr. Greenleaf’s book, pages 575-603, he gives to a reply to Salvador by the very distinguished French advocate and doctor of laws, M. Dupin, which is a most overwhelming demonstration of the fallacy of Mr. Salvador’s argument. This sixth section of Mr. Greenleaf’s Kook makes it invaluable to a biblical student.

The late Judge Gaynor, a jurist, and who later became mayor of New York City, delivered a legal exposition on the trial of Jesus Christ, purely from a lawyer’s standpoint. His conclusions are in harmony with Dr. Greenleaf and Dr. Dupin.

In two octavo volumes Walter M. Chandler, of the New York bar, has written perhaps the most critical examination of the whole subject from a lawyer’s standpoint. He devotes his first volume to the Jewish trial, and his second volume to the trials before the courts of Herod and Pilate. On all substantial points, and after a most exhaustive investigation of the legal points involved, he agrees substantially with Dr. Greenleaf, Dr. Dupin, and Judge Gaynor.

In only one point would the author think it necessary to criticize this great book by Mr. Chandler, and that does not touch the merits of the law of the case he discusses. I refer to that part of his second volume where, after bearing his most generous testimony to the many excellencies of the Jewish character and its many illustrious men and women in history, whether as prime ministers, financiers, philanthropists, or as contributors to special forms of literature, and after denouncing the persecution to which the Jewish people have been subjected by all nations, except the United States, he then seems to deny national responsibility to God and, particularly, any connection of the worldwide sufferings of the Jews with their national sin of rejecting the Messiah.

All my life shows my abhorrence of the persecutions of Jews and my admiration for their great men and women who have conferred lasting benefits on the race. The only point upon which I would raise a criticism is that he does not write as a lawyer when he seems to deny that nations, like individuals, are under responsibility to God for what is done by them, and through their acknowledged leaders. That part of his book cannot be sustained in either nature, law, or revelation. To sustain his contention on this point he must repudiate the univocal testimony of the entire Jewish Bible, whether law, prophets, or psalms, as well as the entire New Testament, Christ and the apostles, universal history, and nature as interpreted by true science.

Among the general works on the trial of Jesus (i.e., not confined to the legal phases of the case), I commend Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, a part of Farrar’s Story of a Beautiful Life, with Broadus’ Commentary on Matthew. It would cover the limits of a whole chapter to even name the books on the cross.

It was a strange episode of the young man in the linen garment: "And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth and fled naked" (Mark 14:51-52). Commentators have supposed that this young man was John Mark, who alone recounts the fact. They account for his presence and state thus: The upper room in which the Lord’s Supper was established was the house of his mother. When Judas gathered his arresting force he could not yet know that Jesus had left that room, and so first, he led his armed force to that house. This aroused the house, and Mark, himself a Christian, threw a linen robe about him and followed to Gethesame and so was present at the arrest of Jesus.

It is at least worthy of notice, that Melville, a great Scotch preacher, preached a sermon on the passage (Mark 14:51 f), contending that the young man in the linen robe was the antitype of the scapegoat (Lev. 16). The sermon is a classical model in diction and homiletics, but is absolutely visionary. There is not a hint anywhere in the New Testament that his conjecture is at all tenable. I cite this fact to show you that preachers, in their anxiety to select texts that have the suggestion of novelty in them, will sometimes preach a sermon that will be sensational in its novelty, and yet altogether unscriptural in its matter, and to warn you against the selection of texts of that kind.

The next thought is the manner in which Judas identified the person of Christ, that he might be arrested. They were sure that some of the disciples would be with him, and they wanted to get the right man. So Judas gave this sign: "When we get to them I will step out and kiss the One that we want to arrest: that will be the sign to you. When you see me step out from you and kiss a certain Man in the group, that is the Man you want." Christ submitted passively to the kissing of Judas, but said to Judas, "Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" And that has gone down into history. Traitors betray with a kiss. It is to that incident Patrick Henry refers in his famous speech before the House of Burgesses in Virginia, when he said to them, "Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss," that the English government would furnish bouquets in compliments, while mobilizing armies and fleets for conquest.

The incident of the sword. Some-find, it difficult to reconcile Luke 22:22 with Matthew 26:51-55; Luke 22:51; John 18:10-11; John 18:24. The explanation seems to be simple. In his charge (Matt. 10), while he was alive and they were in his service, they must depend upon him for defense and support. But while he was dead they must defend and support themselves. This, of course, could apply only after his death and until his resurrection. Peter was both too soon to fight, for he was not yet dead, and too late to go back to his fishing, for Christ was then risen.

Only those preachers whose Christ is dead should use the sword or resume self-support.

When Christ was arrested, all the disciples, without any exception (and there were eleven of them), forsook him and fled, and now at midnight he is led through the silent streets of Jerusalem, hemmed in by a cohort of Roman soldiers, who are attended by officers of the Sanhedrin and their servants. They bring him, strange to say, first to the house of Annas. This man Annas is one of the most remarkable men in Jewish history. He had himself been high priest; his son-in-law, Caiaphas, is high priest at this time; six of his sons became high priests. It made no difference to him who was official priest, he, through sons and sons-in-law, was the power behind the throne. He was very wealthy, lived in a palatial home, and was a Sadducee, like Dr. Eliot, and believed in neither angel, spirit, nor resurrection of the dead. He believed also in turning everything over to the Romans. That is, he aligned himself with what is called the "Herod party," or "Roman party." The patriot Jews hated him. Josephus draws an awful picture of him.

Mr. Salvador, in alleging that Christ was tried according to the forms of Jewish law, forgets that the Jewish law forbade the employment of spies in their criminal trials, and yet they brought Judas. He forgets that Jewish law forbade a man’s being arrested at night – that it forbade any trial of the accused person at night. He forgets that an accused person should be tried only before a regular court. And yet the first thing they did was to bring Jesus to the house of Annas for a private examination, while the guard waited outside at the door till Annas got through with him. On page 190 of the Harmony we have an account of what took place in the house of Annas. The high priest catechised Jesus. Annas is called the high priest as well as Caiaphas. He asked Jesus about his disciples and about his doctrines. Jesus said, "I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the Temple, where all of the Jews came together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them that have heard me." So to conduct an examination of that kind at all; to conduct it at night; to conduct it not in the presence of a full court; to allow the prisoner to be struck, were all violations of the Jewish law concerning the administration of justice.

Notice what the Jewish trial is. Dr. Broadus shows the preliminary examination before Annas; second, the trial before the Sanhedrin that night, in the house of Caiaphas; third, the meeting of the Sanhedrin the next morning. It was not proper that a man should be tried except in the place of meeting, the Sanhedrin, and in this they violated the law. It was not proper that he should be tried at night, as Jesus is tried this night in the house of Caiaphas.

Let us now see what were the developments that night at the house of Caiaphas. "Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together" (John 18:24; Matthew 26:57). That constituted the Sanhedrin – chief priests, elders, and scribes. The chief priests were Sadducees; the scribes were Pharisees. The Sanhedrin, according to a Jewish account, consisted of seventy-two – twenty-four chief priests, twenty-four elders, and twenty-four scribes. The Sanhedrin was the supreme court in matters ecclesiastical and criminal. They had some lower courts that were appointed by the Sanhedrin. Any town of just 100 or 200 population had a court of three. If it was a larger population it had a court of twenty-three, but the Sanhedrin was the high or supreme court in all matters ecclesiastical and criminal. When the Romans conquered Judea, as was usual with the Romans, they took away from the people the right of putting anybody to death by a sentence of their own courts. They refer to this, saying, "We are not allowed by the Romans to put a man to death under sentence of our law." That is, when Pilate had said to them, "Why do you not try him before your own law?" they said, "We are not permitted to put a man to death under our law." That night there were assembled the Sanhedrin, as the record says: "Now the Sanhedrin was seeking [imperfect tense, denoting continued action, not only sought, but were seeking] false witnesses against Jesus." They were seeking these witnesses with a view to putting him to death. They had previously decreed his death; and now they were simply trying to find somebody that would swear enough to justify them. Not even that Sanhedrin, when they heard the multitude of these false witnesses, could find two of them agreed upon any one point. And the Mosaic law solemnly declared that there must be two witnesses to every fact. But at last there came two false witnesses, and here is what they testified: "We heard him say, ’I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’ "

That is the sum of the evidence, and all the other testimony was thrown out as incompetent. Both these men lied. He never said that, but away back in his early ministry, when he first cleansed the Temple, and when he first came into conflict with these people, he had said these words: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again." He was speaking of the temple of his body, but he never said that he would destroy that Temple (of Jerusalem) and in three days build another.

But they were not satisfied with that, so the high priest violated the law by asking Jesus to speak. It was a principle of the Jewish law that one should not be forced to testify against himself. A man might testify for himself) but he is protected by the judge who sits on the bench from giving evidence against himself. Jesus knew all that, so he paid no attention. So the chief priest had to get at that matter in another way He did have a right in certain cases, to put a man on oath before God, and this is what he did: "I adjure thee [which means to swear by the living God, the highest and most solemn form of the judicial oath – put thee on thy oath] before the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." To that Jesus responded.

Under the solemn oath before God he swore that he was the Messiah, and that hereafter that very crowd of people would see him sitting at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven.

I preached a sermon once from this text: "I adjure thee by the living God." A young lawyer was present. He had never heard such a thing before. In the sermon I presented the character of Christ, against whom no man could prove an accusation; the devil himself found nothing in him; all the enemies of the great doctrines of the New Testament admitted the spotless character of Jesus of Nazareth. And yet this Man swore by the living God that he was the Messiah. All of the latent infidelity in the lawyer disappeared under that sermon. To this day he will testify that there got on his mind in the discussion of that single fact that Jesus was the Son of God. Would such a man swear to a false-hood? Is it credible that he would? He knew what "Messiah" meant – that it meant he was the God-anointed One, to be the Prophet, the Sacrifice, the Priest, and the King, and he swore that he was. After his oath they should have tried his claims by the law, the prophets, and the facts of his life.

When he had given that testimony under oath the high priest rent his robe. The law required that whenever they heard a blasphemy they were to rend their clothes, and unless Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; unless God was his Father, while Mary was his mother; unless he was the God-anointed Prophet, Sacrifice, Priest, and King, then it was blasphemy. And therefore Mr. Greenleaf, who is the author of The Law of Evidence, a law book which passes current in all the law books on this continent and in Europe, in mentioning the trial of Jesus Christ, says, No lawyer of any reputation, with the facts set forth in the Gospels, would have attempted to defend Jesus Christ, except on the assumption that he was the Messiah and divine, because all through the Book that is his claim. If he was not divine, he did blaspheme. Therefore when he took that oath, that court should have investigated the character of his claim as the Messiah, but instead of that they assumed the thing that they should have investigated and called it blasphemy.

Another great violation of the law takes place: "What further need of witnesses have we? We have heard the blasphemy; what think ye?" And now they vote that he is worthy of death; they condemned him to be worthy of death. Their law declared that a vote of condemnation should never be taken the day of the trial. There had to be at least three intervening days, and here at night they pass sentence on no evidence but the oath of Jesus Christ, and that without investigating the matter involved. Then they allowed the following indignities: They spat in his face and buffeted him; they smote him with the palms of their hands after they had blindfolded him. Then one would slip up and slap him, saying, "Prophesy who hit you."

I shall omit in my discussion here all this testimony concerning the denial of Peter, because I want to bring all of the history of Peter together. I pass that point for the present. I merely remark that the case of Judas and the case of Peter, connected with the arrest and the trial of Jesus Christ, have an immensity of pathos in the tragedy of the twelve – the first one and the last one on the list.

That is the Jewish trial except this one additional fact: When it was morning, or as soon as it was day, they held their final meeting, and confirmed their night decision. They had a law that the Sanhedrin must come together for a final meeting in a case of this kind, and that if anybody had voted to acquit in the first meeting he could not change his vote, but if anybody had voted to condemn in this meeting he might ratify or he might change his vote and acquit. There were to be three days between these meetings. Having thus finished the Jewish trial, which was in violation of all the forms of the law, as soon as daylight comes they carry Jesus to Pilate.

The first trial of Jesus, then, was before the Jewish Sanhedrin; the accusation against him was blasphemy; the penalty under that law was to be put to death by stoning, but they had not the power to put to death. So now they must bring the case before the court of Pilate. And here Mr. Salvador says that the Jewish Sanhedrin’s condemnation of Jesus Christ on the charge of blasphemy was confirmed by Pilate. There never was a statement more untrue. Pilate declined to take into consideration anything that touched that Jewish law. When he tried him he tried him ab initio, that is, "from the beginning," and he did not consider any charge that did not come under the Roman law. Therefore, we see this people, when they bring the case before Pilate, present three new charges. The other case was not touched on at all, but the new charges presented were as follows: First, "he says that he himself is King"; the second is, "he teaches that Jews should not pay tribute to Caesar"; and third, "he stirreth up the people," which was one of the things that the Roman was always quick to put down anywhere in the wide realm of the Roman world. A man who stirred up the people should be dealt with in a speedy manner. Treason was a capital offense. So they come before Pilate and try him in this court on the threefold charge, viz.: "He says he is King; he forbids this people to pay tribute to Caesar," interrupting the revenue coming into Rome, which was false, for he taught to the contrary; and "he stirreth up the people." We have had, then, the history of his case, so far as his trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin is concerned. In the next chapter we will take up his first trial before the court of Pilate.

QUESTIONS
1. What two facts concerning the arrest of Christ are evident from John’s supplemental story?

2. Why the presence of the Roman legionaries and their participation in the arrest of Jesus?

3. What illustration in Acts of the intervention of the chiliarch to protect a prisoner?

4. What unique and powerful literature on the trials of Jesus is mentioned?

5. What question do they answer?

6. What three books from the viewpoint of the lawyer commended?

7. What are the six distinct parts of Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists?

8. On what one point does the author dissent from Mr. Chandler?

9. What general works on the trials of Jesus commended?

10. Who was the young man spoken of in Mark 14:51-52, and how do the commentators account for his presence and state on this occasion?

11. What noted Scotch preacher preached a sermon on this incident, what was his interpretation of this young man and what the lesson here for the preacher?

12. How did Judas identify Christ as the one to be arrested, what saying originated from this incident and what reference to it in the early history of our country?

13. How do you reconcile Luke 22:22 with Matthew 26:51-55; Luke 22:51; John 18:10-11; John 18:24?

14. Upon Christ’s arrest what prophecy of his was fulfilled?

15. After his arrest where did they lead him, why to him, and what were the characteristics of this man?

16. Of what did the Jewish trial consist?

17. Give an account of what took place at the house of Annas.

18. Where did they take Jesus when they left the house of Annas, by what body was he tried there, of what was that body composed, and what were the limitations of its power under the Roman government?

19. Describe the trial of Jesus before this court.

20. What was the testimony of Jesus under oath, what should have been their course after his oath, what charge did they bring instead, and under what circumstances would their charge have been sustained?

21. What indignities did Jesus suffer in this trial?

22. What two pathetic cases connected with the arrest and trial of Jesus?

23. What the last act of the Jewish trial?

24. After the Jewish trial where did they lead Jesus, how did Pilate try him, what the threefold charge brought by the Jews against Jesus, and what the legal name of these offenses?

25. In what great particulars did the Jews violate their own law in the arrest and trial of Jesus as defined by Mr. Salvador?