Before we proceed to shew that the above view completely reconciles the different statements of the evangelists, it may be well to see if there are not some traces to be found of a party in the Jewish nation in Christ's time who kept their passover as we have argued that the law commanded. We do not rest our argument upon the discovery of such a party: we think it is proved without it.

And in the first place, the undoubted fact that our Lord with his disciples did, according to the testimony of three of the evangelists as compared with St. John, kill his passover about twenty-one hours before the Jews in general killed theirs, and ate it about twenty-four hours before they ate theirs, is, we think, a very clear indication of the existence of such a party. The general passover was only in preparation when Jesus stood before the Roman governor (John xix. 24; xviii. 28). Yet on the previous evening he sat down to a feast which, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he and the disciples with him called and regarded as the true and proper passover (Matt. xxvi. 18; Mark xiv. 14; Luke xxii. 15). Is it not the natural inference that they regarded the time of their observing it as the proper time, or in other words, that there were some among the Jews who thought that the passover should be kept, in order to observe the law, at a time somewhat anterior to that on which it was kept by the body of the nation?

In Joseph of Arimathæa, Dean Alford considers we have an instance of a man who had eaten the passover before the greater number had done so. His words are, "it would appear from Joseph of Arimathæa going to Pilate during the Taρаσкevn παρασκευὴ (Matt. xv. 43), that he also had eaten his passover." If he had done so, it is a very clear proof that there existed such a party as we suppose, for no conceivable reason can be given why he should have eaten his passover before others, except that he thought they were in error as to the time.

The case of Joseph leads us naturally to consider a passage in St. John which has caused a good deal of perplexity, and which the learned Dean of Canterbury thinks to "labour under no small exegetic difficulties" in consequence. The reason why he supposes that Joseph had eaten his passover is his going to Pilate, by which going he would have contracted an uncleanness which would hinder his joining in the passover (John xviii. 28). It was this dread which kept the accusers of Jesus from going into Pilate's judgment hall. The Dean's perplexity arises hence, that he does not think the uncleanness thus contracted

Alford, Com. in Matt. xxvi. 17-19.

Com. in John xviii. 28.

could have kept them from joining in a feast which was not to be celebrated till the beginning of the next day, while the uncleanness itself did not last till the next day. The explanation seems to lie here. Ordinary uncleanness only lasted to the close of the day on which it was contracted (Levit. xi. 24—28); but there was an uncleanness which lasted for seven days. It was contracted by touching the dead body of a man (Numb. xix. 11). Such an uncleanness contracted on the first day of unleavened bread would have prevented the Jews from joining in the feast celebrated on the next day, or from taking any part in the seven days' solemnity (Numb. ix. 7-11). Now the law nowhere, that we know of, made such an act as going into Pilate's judgment hall the cause of such an uncleanness; but we suppose that the Pharisees, in their excessive hatred of the Romans and their bigotry towards all Gentiles, had made it such an act. Gentile contamination was with them equal to the greater defilement of Numb. xix. 11.

We will now shew further evidence of the existence of such a party as we have supposed in page 63. It is based upon the fact, that there was by no means an unanimous opinion as to the time of the day when God commanded (Exod. xii. 6) that the lamb should be slain. There was a controversy, in fact, what was the meaning of the expression there, "between the evenings." Gesenius, when explaining the Hebrew term, says that 'according to the Karaites and Samaritans it was the time between sunset and dark, but according to the Pharisees and the Rabbinists, it was from the time when the sun begins to decline until actual sunset." Kuinoel, in his Greek Testament, tells us that "it is not greatly to be wondered at that the Sadducees and Pharisees differed among themselves on this point (viz., the day of the passover) when they disagreed on very many other points, and disagreed as to the time when the Paschal lamb should be slain, and on the explanation of Exod. xii. 6." The meaning of the command in Exod. xii. 6, "the whole assembly shall kill it between the evenings," was then a disputed matter in our Lord's time: some affirmed that it should be killed between sunset and dark; others, and these the most numerous and influential by far, between the sun's decline and his setting."

But it may be said, suppose this difference to have existed, how does it make out your point? Very clearly, as it appears The Jewish civil day began with one sunset and ended with the next. From sunset to dark was the beginning of this

to us.

Gesenius on . London: Howell and Stuart. 1827.

i Kuinoel, Gr. Test., in Matt. xxvi. 17.

day, from the sun's decline to his setting was its close. All parties among the Jews killed the lamb upon the fourteenth day. If then one party killed it between sunset and dark, this party must have killed it at the beginning of the fourteenth day; and if another party killed it between the sun's decline and his setting, this party must have killed it at the close of the fourteenth day. The fact then of a Jewish controversy in Christ's day upon the sense of the expression, "between the evenings," found in Exod. xii. 6, is proof of the existence of a party who differed from the dominant party, in maintaining that the passover should be killed in the beginning and not at the close of the fourteenth day, and, consequently, eaten in the evening of the fourteenth day, not in the evening of the fifteenth.

We now pass on to shew that, according to the view here taken, there is perfect harmony between the earlier gospels and' that of John. But first it will be necessary to remove one or two objections which have been, or may be, brought against our

view.

We suppose that the three earlier evangelists teach that our Lord partook of the true and proper passover in every essential particular as it was originally commanded, killing it at the beginning of the fourteenth day, and eating it that same evening. Every expression found in them is consistent with the idea that they at least considered it such, nor, excepting for what St. John says, would any doubt have ever been entertained on the subject. Dean Alford, however, advances two reasons why, according to him, the feast which they relate could not have been "the ordinary passover of the Jews." "When this," (Exod. xii. 22,) he says, "was eaten, none might go out of the house until morning; whereas not only did Judas go out during the meal (John xiii. 29), but our Lord and his disciples went out when the meal was finished. Also when Judas went out, it was understood that he was gone to buy, which could not have been the case had it been the night of eating the passover, which in all years was Sabbatically hallowed."

We cannot see any force in either of these objections. With regard to the first, every one is aware that between the first passover in Egypt and subsequent passovers there were several circumstantial differences. For instance, the first passover was to be eaten "with loins girded, the shoes on the feet, the staff in the hand, and in haste" (Exod. xii. 11). Later passovers were eaten reclining and at leisure. The difference of

j Alford, Com. in Matt. xxvi. 17-19.

VOL. XIV.-NO. XXVII.

F

the circumstances required such a departure from the first Paschal feast. The prohibition to go out on the night of the first passover was evidently of this kind too. On that night the Lord passed over Egypt to smite those who were not protected by the blood of the Paschal lamb, and therefore all should remain within their tents. But at later passovers such a prohibition was needless, and therefore our Lord did not regard it. With respect to the Dean's second objection, there does not appear anything in Scripture to prevent a man from buying on the first day of the feast. The precept in Exod. xii. 16, is, "in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, no manner of work shall be done in them save that which every man must eat.” There is here evidently a permission to do what was necessary towards the feast upon this day, and doubtless if it was necessary to buy for this purpose, and it was for this Judas was supposed to have gone out, the Lord did not prohibit it. The Dean's objections then to our Lord's passover having been the passover of Scripture do not bear him out. But in addition to. these objections, Dean Alford also says that there are expressions in St. Mark's and St. Luke's gospels which are utterly inconsistent with the idea that according to them "our Lord ate the passover at the strictly legal, the Jews at an illegal, time." A brief reference to the passages will shew that with our view they are entirely consistent, and are in fact confirmatory of it. The passages are, Mark xiv. 12, and Luke xxii. 7. "And the first day of unleavened bread when they killed the passover" (Mark). "Then came the day of unleavened bread when the passover must be killed" (Luke). Alford's comment on this is, that these expressions "denote the ordinary day, when they, (i.e., the Jews) sacrificed the passover." This comment is no doubt correct. Both evangelists imply that the day on which Jesus kept his passover was also the day on which the Jews killed theirs. This is what we have all through insisted on. Our theory is that our Lord and the Pharisees killed the passover on the same day, though at different hours, and the evangelists here imply that it was upon the same day, viz., the fourteenth of Nisan, that both killed it.

But there is an expression in the Gospels themselves which may appear opposed to our theory. We have supposed that our Lord's Passover was killed in the very beginning of the fourteenth civil day, and eaten upon the same night. Now the Evangelists tell us that it was on "the evening" of the first day of unleavened bread that our Lord sat down with the twelve to

* Com. in Matt. xxvi. 17.

the Paschal supper, after all the necessary preparation had been made. This might seem to prove that the preparation had been made before even, i. e., before the commencement of that day on which they ate the Passover, or, in other words, that the lamb had been slain from about three to five o'clock, p.m., of one day, in conformity with the common custom, and eaten on the beginning of the next (Matt. xxvi. 20; Mark xiv. 7). In order to answer this difficulty, it is only necessary to show that, while " evening," where spoken of matters where precision was required, meant the time of sunset, it had, in its popular acceptation, a much wider meaning, and embraced a considerable time previous and subsequent to sunset. In the history of the feeding the 5,000 men in the desert of Bethsaida, we have a good example of the large space of time which this term had in its popular sense (Matt. xiv.; Mark vi.; Luke ix.) The period of time before the miracle is said by Matthew to have been "the evening" (Matt. xiv. 15). From St. Luke's parallel expression, "when the day began to wear away," and from the length of time required for the subsequent proceedings-the consultation with the disciples, the orderly arrangement of the multitude, the feeding of the great body assembled, the gathering up the fragments, the sending away the people-all which took place ere it was dark (John vi. 17), St. Matthew must have intended by "evening" a considerable time before sunset, commencing from the period when the sun began to decline to the west. But after all this had taken place, the period when Christ sat alone on the mountain, and when the disciples were in the ship on the sea, is still called "evening" (Matt. xiv. 23; Mark vi. 47). From St. John's use of the term, indeed (vi. 15-17), we see that it included the whole period of twilight, until darkness covered the earth. The twilight in Syria occupies a considerable time. Mr. Stanley, in his work on Syria and Palestine, speaks of the "long bright glow which succeeds an eastern sunset;" and Aben Ezra mentions that it usually continues light after sunset for an hour and threequarters. It is most likely, therefore, that the time which St. John calls "evening was not far from our ten o'clock, p.m., i.e., that "evening " in its popular use included probably five or six hours. Now, just as in the feeding of the multitude, Matthew and Mark call the time of the day long subsequent to sunset "the evening," so we suppose them to do in their narrative of the Paschal supper. The expressions in both cases are identical. It is in both "when the even was come (ὀψίας γενομένης),

'A. P. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, 2nd edit., p. 351. Lightfoot's Works.