f

the chief priests would scarcely think of offering to accomplish an object they had so much at heart, some have thought the pieces of silver were the Talmudic mina, each of the value of three pounds; and more especially as it might seem that this sum was sufficient to buy the potter's field. But the field, having been dug up for potteries, and exhausted, was probably of little value. The sum, however, actually paid, might be but an earnest of a larger reward, should he fulfil his engagement. This is the view of Rosenmuller and Michaëlis; and it might be restricted to the thirty pieces of silver by an overruling Providence, in order to fulfil a prophecy, which is quoted in the course of the history by the evangelist, and which will, in its proper place, be considered. See chap. xxvii. 9. The guilty bargain being concluded, from that time he sought, evкaipiav, a favourable opportunity to betray him. Nor was he long in finding what he sought; for occasions of sin soon present themselves to those disposed to sin.

Verse 17. The first day of the feast of unleavened bread.-This was in the morning of the day, in the evening of which the passover was killed before the setting of the sun. The obligation to abstain from unleavened bread did not properly commence till the paschal supper; yet, for fear of offending the law, the Jews put away all leavened bread from their houses on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, before the lamb was killed. This day appears, therefore, to have been popularly called the first day of unleavened bread. As the Jews began their day in the evening, the fifteenth day, when the paschal supper was eaten, commenced on the evening of the fourteenth, according to our mode of computing days. Lightfoot, on Jewish authorities, thus describes the manner of killing the paschal lambs:

"The lambs are killed only in the temple, in the usual court of other sacrifices, on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, after noon, and after the daily sacrifice. The Israelites bring the lambs on their shoulders; the trumpets sound; the priests stand in order; the Israelites kill each a lamb; a priest receives the blood in a silver or golden phial, and gives the full phial to the next, who returns him an empty one. Thus the blood is handed to the altar, and sprinkled or poured out against the foot of it. The lamb is flayed, the fat burned on the altar, and the body carried back and eaten where they sup" It is, however, doubtful whether the priests had this immense labour imposed upon them. Philo, in three places of his works, expressly says, that "by the appointment of the law every Jew was permitted to kill his paschal lamb, and to be so far his own priest, though in no other instance. In this Philo and Josephus appear to be at issue, the latter assigning that office to the priests; and nothing can be clearly gathered from the law on the subject, Exod. xii. 6, 8, and Deut. xvi. 6, but that it was to be killed in the evening of the fourteenth day, and eaten that night, "in that place only where God should place his name;" that is, where the tabernacle was first placed, and then where the temple was erected.

A difference of opinion exists among commentators on the question whether our Lord actually ate this Jewish passover, or instituted the eucharist at a common supper; or anticipated the usual time of the passover by a day; or ate it at the same time as the rest of the Jews. Nothing theologically important depends upon the solution of these points, some of which are certainly attended with a little difficulty. It must, however, be fairly concluded, from the three first Gos

66

pels, that he not only ate the paschal, and not a common supper, but that he did so at the same time in which it was eaten by, at least, the generality of the Jews. It is certain, from St. Matthew's account, that the disciples made ready the passover, previous to the evening on which he instituted his own supper. St. Mark characterises "the first day of unleavened bread," on which the disciples were commanded to prepare the passover, as the day “when THEY," that is, the Jews, "killed the passover; " and St. Luke says, then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed," εν η εδει θύεσθαι το πασχα, Luke xxii. 7. All these three evangelists therefore agree, 1. That on this day, Thursday, the Jews killed the passover. 2. That the disciples of Christ, under his direction, prepared it for him; and, 3. That he supped upon it in the evening, saying, "With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer." The only difficulty, therefore, consists in reconciling this statement with John xviii. 28, where the Jews are said, early on Friday morning, to refuse to go into the judgmenthall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover ;" and to John xix. 14, where the noon of Friday is called “ the preparation of the passover." To explain this, it has been said, that it appears from the Talmud and Rabbinical writings, that, in cases of doubt respecting the time of the appearance of the new moon, from which they commenced their monthly reckoning, the passover was permitted to be holden on both of the days between which the doubt lay; for the Jews did not regulate their months by astronomical calculations, but by the actual appearance of the new moon, which sometimes created disputes; and Dr. Cudworth quotes Epiphanius to show that there was a contention respecting the time of the passover this very year. It is therefore inferred, that though a part, probably the greater part, of the Jews celebrated the passover on the same day as our Lord, yet others, as many of the scribes and Pharisees, did it on the day following. Against this solution there

lie, however, several objections; as, that the senate sat in form to receive the report of witnesses who had seen the new moon, and that by their decision upon their testimony, the feasts were regulated. Nor is there any indication in the Gospels of

any difference of opinion on the subject on the year in question; which negative evidence is probably stronger than the assertion of Epiphanius at so great a distance of time. Nor is the conjecture probable, that, in our Lord's days, on account of the immense numbers assembled at this feast, necessity compelled them to occupy two days. For the law is express as to the day on which the whole assembly were to perform this solemn rite. These obvious objections may not be fatal to the above solution of the difficulty; but they render it less satisfactory. But the passages just referred to in St. John's Gospel are capable of another explanation, which seems fully to meet the case. On the day following the passover, and throughout all the days of unleavened bread, sacrifices of sheep and oxen were daily offered in abundance, and feasted upon. "Thou shalt sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose," Deut. xvi. 2. This passage not only shows that sacrifices from the flock and herd were offered at that season, but the whole ceremonial, including these offerings, is called THE PASSOVER, no doubt because of its immediate connexion with what was properly such. In Numbers xxviii. 18, &c., we find, that, for the day following the proper paschal feast, particular offerings were prescribed, and this day and the seventh are particularly distinguished as days of "holy convocation;" and in the account of the celebration of the passover in the time of Josiah, 2 Chron. xxxv., not only are the "lambs and kids" for the paschal sacrifice, but the " oxen " and other cattle for the offerings on the days of the feast, called "passover offerings." When, therefore, St. John tells us that the Jews entered not into the judgment-hall, "lest they should be defiled, but that they

h

head of his disciples, as his family; for though it was properly a family office to be performed by the natural head, yet when the family was small, two or more were united, and in other cases individuals agreed to make up a passover company, who stood in no natural relation to each other. In this case one presided, as though he had been master of the house. My time is at hand.-Those who think that this expression indicates that our Lord ate the passover at a different time from the rest of the Jews, a time of his own appointing, forget that this is pre. cisely the mystical phrase which he often used to intimate his death and passion. Neither his disciples, nor the master of the house, can be supposed to have at that time comprehended its import.

Verse 19. They made ready the passover. -They purchased one of the lambs which were on sale, and which had previously undergone the inspection of the priests, had it killed, and the blood sprinkled at the foot of the altar, brought it to the house, provided the bread, wine, bitter herbs, the sauce in which the herbs were dipped, and all other necessary things for the due celebration of the rite.

Verse 20. He sat down.-He reclined, AVEREITO; for the recumbent posture at meals, and even at the paschal supper, had long been introduced, although the Israelites were at first commanded to eat it standing, with staffs in their hands, as persons setting out on a journey. The

h Psalm xli. 9.

Rabbins justified, and indeed enjoined, this departure from the original institution, on the ground that this recumbent posture was symbolical of that rest in the land of Canaan, to which the Israelites at first were but setting out, but which they had attained.

With the twelve.-Judas, having transacted his infamous bargain with the chief priests, had now returned, and taken his place with the rest, little reflecting that he and all his secret negociations were well under the eye of his omniscient Master.

Verse 21. One of you shall betray me. That he said this in a very solemn and impressive manner, appears not only from the effect produced upon all except Judas, but from the words of St. John, chap. xiii. 21,-" He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me."

Verse 22. They were exceeding sorrowful.-Sorrowful that he should be betrayed; more so that the traitor, whoever he might be, should be one of themselves. Each, save Judas, appears to have been thrown back upon himself, searching himself whether he could be capable of so great a wickedness; and every one of them, Judas not excepted, but he hypocritically, began to say, Lord, is it I?

Verse 23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish.-The custom of taking food by the hand out of the same dish is

still practised in eastern countries where knives and forks are not in use. This was the case at common meals; but the paschal feast was not prepared to be eaten in this manner. It is true that there were several small dishes served up containing a peculiar kind of sauce, non, into which they dipped unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs used with the passover; and it was into one of these that our Lord dipped the sop he gave to Judas, by which act he pointed out the traitor to the other disciples; but this was done subsequently, and the text is to be understood generally to intimate, that some one who familiarly ate with him should be his betrayer, which agrees with the words of St. Mark, And he answered and said, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish." Thus Judas was not yet particularly pointed out; but, as we learn from St. John, Peter after this prompted the disciple "whom Jesus loved," to ask of whom he spoke; and when this disciple, who was St. John himself, and was lying on Jesus's breast," that is, reclining on the same couch and next to him, said, "Lord, who is it?" Christ answered, and probably in an under voice, “He it is to whom I shall give a sop," a portion of the unleavened bread, "when I shall have dipped it" in the sauce provided as usual for the paschal supper. It was after this, that Satan, whose influence had already been exercised upon Judas,-who now had added to all his former wickedness, that of playing the hypocrite on this occasion, by affecting to be sorrowful, as well as the rest of the disciples, at the news of Christ being about to be betrayed, and had inquired like them, "Lord, is it I?"—more fully possessed that unhappy man, who had willingly surrendered himself to his power; and then, impelled by Satan through his own passions, Judas went out to perpetrate his villany, having proba

bly first learned that Christ, after the supper, intended to retire to the Mount of Olives, a favourable solitude for his apprehension.

Verse 24. The Son of Man goeth as it is written of him, &c.-He goeth, vayel, that is, to death, he departs, an euphemisin for dying; and that this is the sense here, appears from the reference made to the prophetic writings which speak of that event. It was predicted that he should die; and designed designed that he should die, but this did not excuse or palliate the acts of the instruments of his death. They followed freely their own will, and gratified their own malignity, and were therefore guilty of the most aggravated crime of religious persecution and murder which ever was or could be committed. Hence our Lord adds with respect to Judas, But woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed; for the foreknowledge of God cannot any more influence human actions as foreknowledge, than afterknowledge. To know, is one thing; to influence and compel, another. St. Chrysostom therefore well observes, that "Judas was not a traitor because God foresaw it; but God foresaw it, because Judas would be so."

It had been good for that man if he had not been born.-It had been better for him, (the positive being used for the comparative,) never to have had an existence, than to be doomed to eternal shame and punishment. This passage is conclusive against Judas's repentance and forgiveness in this life, and equally cogent to prove the doctrine of the eternity of future punishment. For if all lapsed intelligences are to be restored to happiness, then Judas must be amongst the number; and if so, since, however long the punishmay be, it is but temporary, and the ultimate felicity, eternal; it could not be said that it had been better for him not to have existed.