3. "LUKE." Events. 86. The betrayal, xxii. 3. 97. Sent to Herod, 7, etc. 102. Peter" visits empty tomb, 12. 103. Christ meets two disciples, 13, 35. CHAPTER XX. CONCLUDING SCENES OF THE LIFE OF YAISHOOA, "THE CHRIST." CONCLUSION. THE substantial and much closer agreement of the Gospels, as to, at least, the less marvellous details, in this the concluding portion of Christ's story, is evident on a glance at the above table. This was to be expected from the much more public nature of the transactions, occurring as they did in the capital of Judæa. Abundant differences however, making of each of the four an entirely new story, are apparent in the accounts of the miraculous resurrection. Another point at once obvious, is the much fuller detail in the narrative of "John," a complete contrast to the meagreness of his previous history, and indicating that, in this final portion, (rather than elsewhere,) the fourth Gospel enjoyed the advantage of the personal recollections of Andreas and Yohannan. It is remarkable, that in the report, in the fourth Gospel, of the last evening spent by Christ in the company of the disciples, - when Andreas and Yohannan were both present; the former, - (whom we have seen reason to believe to have been Christ's brother-in-law,) being probably in the position of the confidential or "loved" disciple, "lying on the breast," of Yaishooa; we should have no account, (though this Gospel probably owed its details of that evening to these apostles,) — of the words of the Master at the breaking of bread, which have been understood by most Christian sects as the formal setting-up of a most important rite; the "Mass,' or the "Lord's Supper;"words whose varying inter pretations have, ever since, convulsed the Christian world. Andreas and Yohannan seem to have attached so slight an importance to these particular words that they forgot them at the time, or omitted to communicate them to the disciples who were composing the Gospel under their inspiration! As the account of the last conversations with the disciples is so very fully given in this Gospel, the omission can hardly be ascribed to this incident having been already detailed in other accounts, — such as "Luke's." I have heretofore said that it appears to me to have been, in fact, a rather unimportant incident, a mere illustration. On sitting down at the table, the Master broke and distributed the bread as was his custom, and took advantage of the circumstance to give one more illustration, (he had already given many,) of the solemn fact that his body was about to be broken and given, — his blood to be poured out,—for his "brethren." "This is my body," he said, holding up the bread in illustration, "which is given for you: "-then, giving or distributing it, (he added,) "this do- in remembrance of me," ("Luke" xxii. 19); in other words," when you break bread, think of me; think of my broken body given for you.' He then "brake" the bread and "gave unto them," (id.). The same illustration is repeated in pouring out the wine:"This cup is" (a figure of) "the new testament in my blood which is shed for you," said he, suiting the action to the word, in pouring out the beverage. The apostles who inspired this part of the fourth Gospel have omitted altogether the incident, as one of slight importance. This they could not have done had they understood it as being the institution of an important rite. The literal, unimaginative minds of the early church in Europe, understood this illustrative language, on the one hand, as a dogmatic assertion, that the bread and wine actually became the flesh and blood of Christ; and on the other, received it as a command to continue the celebration of the "table," (messis, mensa,) or "Lord's supper," at regular intervals, as a - religious rite, -necessary to "salvation." The "eating of the flesh" of Christ as a spiritual "bread," ("John vi. 51, etc.,) seems also nothing more than a strong Eastern figure of speech, intended to convey the idea that the disciple must spiritually assimilate or combine Christ's nature and spirit with his own, as bread is assimilated or united to the body in taking food. The traitor "Judas" is represented by all three synoptics as partaking of this bread and wine with the Master before "going out" to betray him, thus receiving into his system, according to Romanist interpretation, the holy flesh and blood of Divinity! "John" makes the same. statement, (xiii. 18, 26). The accounts of the actual betrayal do not materially differ in the four Gospels. The service of the traitor, to the priests, seems to have been that of bringing the officers to Christ at a moment when the apprehension could be effected without danger of interference by the populace. In anticipating his betrayal and seizure, Christ, - according to "Luke," seems to have had a moment of re-actionary feeling, when, shrinking from death, he commands his followers to arm for his defence, (xxii. 36, The simple ayánŋ or "love-feast" of the early Ephesian church shows much more correct appreciation of the Master's real meaning. 2 As "Judas" will not again be spoken of, it may be well to mention in passing, that the story of the mode of his death in the earliest Fathers, by them taken from the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" or other primitive and now obsolete histories, - is quite different from those in our Canon, (Matt. xxvii. 5, "Acts" i. 18). The account in the former, the earlier authorities, is, that "Judas" lived to be an old man ; prospered, and grew extremely corpulent. One day, while walking through a narrow alley, he met a loaded wain, and being unable to pass it, from his size, was caught between it and the wall, and so badly injured that he shortly afterward died. This story has naturalness and vraisemblance, and is probably the original form of that in the "Acts;" that he bought a field with the blood-money, and, soon after, fell and "burst asunder in the midst,"'-"all his bowels" gushing out. This slight alteration, neatly made, gives his death the appearance of a Divine judgment, which it had not in the original story. But the "canonical" "Matthew" goes still further, and is certainly very daring, (or else, perhaps, he may not have seen the contradictory version of the story in "Acts,") — for he gives us the dramatic incident of “Judas" throwing the money at the priests' feet, and rushing off and hanging himself, — in direct contradiction to Silvanus' story; —and, with him, it is the priests who buy a field with the blood-money, — not "Judas." 38). This re-action is but momentary. The command however naturally produces its effect in some slight resistance to the officers by Shimon or "Peter," — (Matt. xxvi. 51, "Mark" xiv. 47, "Luke" xxii. 50, “John". xviii. 10,) a resistance gently repressed by Christ, who by this time has through prayer attained complete resignation. The prayer in the garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives is another and most affecting instance of this natural re-action and temporary indecision. It is thoroughly human in its touching weakness, and quite irreconcilable, on any rational theory, with Christ's being a god, of co-ordinate spiritual rank with the Deity to whom the pathetic pleading to be spared the terrible ordeal is addressed. This short, but intense agony being past, his conduct, to the end, shows a grand and heroic fortitude; only giving way, for one other instant, in the very "act of death." In entreating his Father that the "cup," if it be possible, may "pass from" him, (Matt. xxvi. 39,) as well as when he orders his disciples to take their purses and "scrip," and even sell their garments, to buy swords, ("Luke" xxii. 36,) he unquestionably vacillates, and would, if possible, retreat from his high design of self-surrender. If that self-surrender were a right action, this vacillation was a wrong one; a weakness, a fault. The nature, that faltered here, was the man Yaishooa. Even divines will not dispute this. But, they tell us, he had also a higher nature, which was fully God, -a co-ordinate Deity, - the "second Person in the Trinity." He himself, unfortunately, was not aware of being or containing a second or co-ordinate Deity, for, (as we have seen,) he expressly tells us, that that which was Divine in him was "the Father, I The supposition of such co-ordinate rank, such identity with God, would involve the strange consequence, that while Yaishooa was thus agonizing in the garden, the mighty Master of the universe must have been undergoing a similar struggle, similar agonies, in heaven! |