תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

A.M. 4053. covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

A. D. 29.

An. Olymp.
CCII. 1.

disciples prepare the pass-over.

A.M. 4033. A. D. 29. CCII. 1.

18 And he said, "Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The An. Olymp. 16 And from that time he sought op-master saith, My time is at hand; I portunity to betray him. will keep the pass-over at thy house with my disciples.

17 ¶ Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pass-over?

19 And the disciples did as Jesus had ap pointed them; and they made ready the pass

over.

a Exod. 12. 6, 18. Mark 14. 12. Luke 22.7.

Luke 22. 10-12. Job 14. 14. Heb. 11. 28. 1 Cor. 11. 23.

price for a slave, whether good or bad, male or female. See Tract Erachin, fol. 14. and Shekalim, cap. 1. Each Selad weighed 384 barley corns, the same number was contained in a shekel, and therefore the shekel and the selad were the same. See the notes on Gen. xx. 16. and Exod. xxxviii. 24.

Verse 16. He sought opportunity] Euxaigiav, a convenient or fit opportunity. Men seldom leave a crime imperfect: when once sin is conceived, it meets, in general, with few obstacles, till it brings forth death. How deceitful, how deeply damning is the love of money! Well might a heathen exclaim, while contemplating the grave of a person who was murdered for the sake of his wealth

-Quid non mortalia pectora cogis
AURI SACRA FAMES?

[ocr errors]

VIRG. Æn. iii. 56. "O! cursed lust of gold! what wilt thou not compel the human heart to perpetrate?" Judas is deservedly considered as one of the most infamous of men, his conduct base beyond description, and his motives vile, But how many, since his time, have walked in the same way! How many, for the sake of worldly wealth, have renounced the religion of their Lord and Master, and sold Jesus, and their interest in heaven for a short lived portion of secular good! From John xii. 6. we learn that Judas, who was treasurer to our Lord and his dis- || ciples; (for he carried the bag,) was a thief, and frequently purloined a portion of what was given for the support of this holy family. Being disappointed of the prey, he hoped to have from the sale of the precious ointment, ver. 9. he sold his Master to make up the sum. A thorough Jew!

[ocr errors]

as not to be proprietor of a single house in his whole creation,
to eat the last pass-over with his disciples! This is certainly a
mystery, and so, less or more, is every thing that God does.
But how inveterate and destructive must the nature of sin be,
when such emptying and humiliation were necessary to its de-
struction! It is worthy of note what the Talmudists say, that
the inhabitants of Jerusalem did not let out their houses to
those who came to the annual feasts; but afforded all accom-
modations of this kind gratis. A man might therefore go and
request the use of any room, on such an occasion, which was
as yet unoccupied. The earthen jug, and the skin of the sacri-
fice were left with the host. See Lightfoot, vol. ii. p.
21.

Verse 18. Go-to such a man] Tov dava. It is probable that this means some person with whom Christ was well acquainted, and who was known to the disciples. Grotius observes that the Greeks use this form, when they mean some particular person who is so well known that there is no need to specify him by name. The circumstances are more particularly marked in Luke xxii. 8, &c.

My time is at hand] That is, the time of my crucifixion. Kypke has largely shewn that xaigos is often used among the Greeks for affliction and calamity. It might be rendered here, the time of my crucifixion is at hand.

Verse 19. And the disciples did] The disciples that were sent on this errand were Peter and John. See Luke xxii. 9. They made ready the pass-over] That is, they provided the lamb, &c. which were appointed by the law for this solemnity. Mr. Wakefield justly observes, "that the Jews considered the pass-over as a sacrificial rite; Josephus calls it votar, A SACRIFICE; and Trypho, in Justin Martyr, speaks of #gobator TOU

Verse 17. Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread] As the feast of unleavened bread did not begin till the day after the pass-over, the fifteenth day of the month, Lev. xxiii.ox bus, SACRIFICING the paschal lamb. But what comes 3, 6. Numb. xxviii, 16, 17. this could not have been, properly, the first day of that feast; but as the Jews began to eat unleavened bread on the fourteenth, Exod, xii. 18. this day was often termed the first of unleavened bread. The Evangelists use it in this sense, and call even the paschal day by this name. See Mark xiv. 12. Luke xxii. 7.

Where will thou that we prepare] How astonishing is this, that HE who created all things, whether visible, or invisible, and by whom all things were upheld, should so empty himself,

nearer to the point is this, that Maimonides, one of the most eminent of the Jewish Rabbins, has a particular treatise on the paschal sacrifice, and throughout that piece, speaks of the lamb as a victim, and of the solemnity itself as a sacrifice. And R. Bechai, in his commentary on Lev. ii. 11. says, that the paschal sacrifice was of a piacular nature, in order to erpiate the guilt contracted by the idolatrous practices of the Israelites in Egypt." It was highly necessary that this should be considered as an expiatory sacrifice, as it typified that lamb

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

of God who takes away the sin of the world. For much more the table; and those who were nigh one of these, dipped their on this important subject than can, with propriety, be intro- || bread in it. As Judas is represented as dipping in the same duced into these notes, see a Discourse on the Eucharist, dish with Christ, it shews he was either near or opposite to lately published by the Author of this work. him. If this man's heart had not been hardened, and his conscience seared beyond all precedent, by the deceitfulness of his sin, would he have shewed his face in this sacred assembly, or have thus put the seal to his own perdition, by eating of this sacrificial lamb? Is it possible that he could feel no compunction? Alas! having delivered himself up into the hands of the

hands of the chief priests: and thus, when men are completely hardened by the deceitfulness of sin, they can outwardly perform the most solemn acts of devotion, without feeling any sort of inward concern about the matter.

Verse 20. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.] It is a common opinion that our Lord ate the pass-over some hours before the Jews ate it; for the Jews, according to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but Christ ate his the preceding even, which was the beginning of the same sixth day, or Friday; the Jews begin their day at sunset-Devil, he was capable of delivering up his Master into the ting, we at midnight. Thus Christ ate the passover on the sume day with the Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ kept this pass-over the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day and hour in which the Jews had eaten their first pass-over in Egypt. See Exod. xii. 6-12. And in the same part of the same day in which the Jews had sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz. between the two evenings, about the ninth hour or 3 o'clock, Jesus Christ our pass-over was sacrificed for us: for it was at this hour that he yielded up his last breath; and then it was that the sacrifice being completed, Jesus said, IT IS FINISHED. See Exod. xii. 6, &c. and Deut. xvi. 6, &c. See on John xviii. 28. and the Treatise on the Eucharist, referred to on ver. 19. and see the notes on the 26th and following verses. Verse 21. One of you shall betray me.] Or, will deliver me up. Judas had already betrayed him, ver. 15. and he was now about to deliver him into the hands of the chief priests, according to the agreement he had made with them.

Verse 24. The Son of man goeth] That is, is about to die. Going, going away, departing, &c. are frequently used in the best Greek and Latin writers, for death, or dying. The same words are often used in the Scriptures in the same sense.

It had been good for that man] Can this be said of any sinner if there be any redemption from hell's torments? If a sinner, should suffer millions of millions of years in them, and get out at last to the enjoyment of heaven; then it was well for him that he had been born, for still he has an eternity of blessedness before him. Can the doctrine of the non-eternity of hell's torments stand in the presence of this saying? Or can the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked consist with this declaration? It would have been well for that man if he had never been born! then he must be in some state of conscious

which he is now found.-It was common for the Jews to say of any flagrant transgressor, It would have been better for him had he never been born. See several examples in Schoetgen.

Verse 22. They were exceeding sorrowful] That is, the eleven who were innocent; and the hypocritical traitor, Judas, en-existence, as non-existence is said to be better than that stute in deavoured to put on the same appearance of sorrow. Strange! Did he not know that Christ knew the secrets of his soul? Or had his love of money so far blinded him, as to render him incapable of discerning even this, with which he had been before so well acquainted?

Verse 23. He that dippeth his hand] As the Jews ate the pass-over, a whole family together, it was not convenient for them all to dip their bread in the same dish; they therefore had several little dishes or plates, in which was the juice of the bitter herbs, mentioned Exod. xii. 8. on different parts of

Verse 25. Judas-said, Master, is it I] What excessive impudence! He knew, in his conscience, that he had already betrayed his master, and was waiting now for the servants of the chief priests, that he might deliver him into their hands, and yet he says, (hoping that he had transacted his business so privately, that it had not yet transpired) Master, is it I? It is worthy of remark, that each of the other disciples said

He institutes the

A. D. 29.

[blocks in formation]

A. D. 29.

A. M. 4033. and said, Master, is it I? He said Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and A. An. Olymp. unto him, Thou hast said. brake it, and gave it to the disciples, An. Olymp. this is my body.

CCII. 1.

a

26 T And as they were eating, and said, Take, eat;

d

CCIL. 1.

* Mark 14. 22. Luke 2. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, 25. Many Greek copies [upwards of 100] have, gave thanks. See Mark 6. 41. 1 Cor. 10. 16.

nugie, LORD, is it I? But, Judas dares not, or will not use this august title, but simply says gaßß, TEACHER, is it I?

Thou hast said.] Ev uzas, or panes pos atun amaritun, "ye have said," was a common form of expression for YES. IT || "When the Zipporenses enquired whether Rabbi Judas was dead? The son of Kaphra answered, Ye have said," i. e. he is dead. See Schoetgen. Hor. Hebr.

TS SO.

225. p. Verse 26. Jesus took bread] This is the first institution of what is termed the LORD'S SUPPER. To every part of this ceremony, as here mentioned, the utmost attention should be paid.

To do this, in the most effectual manner, I think it necessary to set down the text of the three Evangelists, who have transmitted the whole account, collated with that part of St.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, which speaks of the same subject, and which, he assures us, he received by divine revelation. It may seem strange, that although John (chap. xiii. v. 1—38) mentions all the circumstances preceding the holy supper, and, from chap. xiv. 1-36. the circumstances which succeeded the breaking of the bread, and in chapters xv. xvi. and xvii. the discourse which followed the administration of the cup; yet he takes no notice of the divine institu tion at all. This is generally accounted for on his knowledge of what the other three Evangelists had written; and on his conviction, that their relation was true, and needed no additional confirmation, as the matter was amply established by the conjoint testimony of three such respectable witnesses.

LUKE Xxii.

V. 19. And he took bread and gave thanks, (Euxinas, i. e. to God) and brake it, and gave unto them, saying:

This is my body, which is
given for you:
This do in remembrance of

me.

1 Cor. xi.

V. 23. The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread;

V. 24. And when he had given thanks (xai εuxagisnoas, 1. e. to God) he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me.

After giving the bread, the discourse related (John xiv. 1—31. inclusive) is supposed by Bishop Newcome to have been delivered by our Lord, for the comfort and support of his disciples under their present and approaching trials.

[blocks in formation]

After this, our Lord resumes that discourse which is found in the 15th, 16th, and 17th chapters of John, beginning with the last verse of chap. xiv. Arise, let us go hence. Then succeed the following words, which conclude the whole ceremony.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The sacrament of the

CHAP. XXVI.

Lord's supper instituted. From the preceding harmonized view of this important | as the clearest light can discern no stain in, might be diffused transaction, as described by three EVANGELISTS and one APOSTLE, through the whole soul; and, that truth, the law of righteouswe see the first institution, nature, and design of what has been ness and true holiness, might regulate and guide all the actions since called THE LORD'S SUPPER. To every circumstance, as set of life. Had the bread used on these occasions been of the down here, and the mode of expression by which such circum- common kind, it would have been perfectly unfit, or improper, stances are described, we should pay the deepest attention. to have communicated these uncommon significations; and, as Verse 26. As they were eating] Either an ordinary supper, it was seldom used, its rare occurrence would make the emblemor the paschal lamb, as some think.-See the observations at ||atical representation more deeply impressive; and the sign, and the end of this chapter. the thing signified, have their due correspondence and influence. These circumstances considered, will it not appear that the use of common bread in the sacrament of the Lord's supper is highly improper? He who can say, "This is a matter of no importance," may say, with equal propriety, the bread itself is of no importance; and another may say, the wine is of no importance; and a third may say, "neither the bread nor wine is any thing, but as they lead to spiritual references; and the spiritual reference being once understood, the signs are useless." Thus we may, through affected spirituality, refine away the whole ordinance of God; and with the letter and form of religion, abolish religion itself.-Many have already acted in this way, not only to their loss, but to their ruin, by shewing how profoundly wise they are above what is written. Let those, therefore, who consider that man shall live by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God, and who are conscientiously solicitous that each divine institution be not only preserved, but observed in all its original integrity, attend to this circumstance. The Lutheran church makes use of unleavened bread to the present day.

Jesus took bread] Of what kind? Unleavened bread, certainly, because there was no other kind to be had in all Judea at this time; for this was the first day of unleavened bread, (ver. 17.) i. e. the 14th of the month Nisan, when the Jews, according to the command of God, (Exod. xii. 15—20. xxiii. 15. and xxxiv. 25.) were to purge away all leaven from their houses; for he who sacrificed the pass-over, having leaven, in his dwelling, was considered to be such a transgressor of the divine law as could no longer be tolerated among the people of God; and therefore, was to be cut off from the congregation of Israel. Leo of Modena, who has written a very sensible treatise on the customs of the Jews, observes, "That so strictly do some of the Jews observe the precept concerning the removal of all leaven from their houses, during the celebration of the paschal solemnity, that they either provide vessels entirely new for baking, or else have a set for the purpose, which are dedicated solely to the service of the pass-over, and never brought out on any other occasion."

To this divinely instituted custom of removing all leaven previously to the paschal solemnity, St. Paul evidently alludes, And blessed it] Both St. Matthew and St. Mark use the 1 Cor. v. 6, 7, 8. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth word uλoynoas, blessed, instead of tuyagıçnoas, gave thanks, the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may ||which is the word used by St. Luke and St. Paul. But instead be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ, our pass-of evλoynoas, blessed, wxagısnoas, gave thanks, is the reading over, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not of ten MSS. in uncial characters, of the Dublin Codex rescripwith old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wicked-tus, published by Dr. Barrett, and of more than one hundred ness, but with the UNLEAVENED bread of sincerity and truth.

others, of the greatest respectability. This is the reading also of Now, if any respect should be paid to the primitive institu- the Syriac and Arabic, and is confirmed by several of the tion, in the celebration of this divine ordinance, then, unleavened, Primitive Fathers. The terms, in this case, are nearly of the unyeasted bread should be used. In every sign or type, the thing same import, as both blessing and giving thanks were used on signifying or pointing out that which is beyond itself, should these occasions. But what was it that our Lord blessed? Not either have certain properties, or be accompanied with certain the bread, though many think the contrary, being deceived circumstances, as expressive as possible, of the thing signified. by the word IT, which is improperly supplied in our version. Bread, simply considered in itself, may be an emblem apt | In all the four places referred to above, whether the word enough of the body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for blessed or gave thanks is used, it refers not to the bread, but to us; but the design of God was evidently that it should not God, the dispenser of every good. Our Lord here conforms only point out this, but also the disposition required in those himself to that constant Jewish custom, viz. of acknowledging who should celebrate both the antetype and the type; and this God as the author of every good and perfect gift, by giving the apostle explains to be sincerity and truth, the reverse of ma- thanks on taking the bread, and taking the cup at their ordinary lice and wickedness. The very taste of the bread was instructive: meals. For every Jew was forbidden to eat, drink, or use it pointed out to every communicant, that he who came to the any of God's creatures without rendering him thanks; and he table of God with malice or ill-will against any soul of man, who acted contrary to this command, was considered as a or with wickedness, a profligate or sinful life, might expect to person who was guilty of sacrilege. From this custom we eat and drink judgment to himself, as not discerning that the have derived the decent and laudable one of saying grace, Lord's body was sacrificed for this very purpose, that all sin || (gratias thanks) before and after meat. The Jewish form of might be destroyed; and that sincerity, xgva, such purity || blessing, and probably that which our Lord used on this occa

[blocks in formation]

Baruch attu ברוך אתה אלהינו מלך העולם המוצא לחם מן הארץ

Lord's supper instituted.

sion, none of my readers will be displeased to find here, though it | the DISTRIBUTION of the bread are necessary parts of this rite. has been mentioned once before: on taking the bread, they say: In the Romish church, the bread is not broken nor delivered to the people, that THEY may take and eat; but the consecrated wafer is put upon their tongue by the priest, and it is generally understood by the communicants, that they should not masticate, but swallow it whole.

Elohinoo, Melech, haôlam, ha motse Lechem min haarets. Blessed be thou our God, king of the universe, who bringest forth bread out of the earth!

Likewise on taking the cup, they say:

"That the breaking of this bread to be distributed," says

: jean 175 8710 Obiyn qha unbæ 717 Baruch Elohinoo, Dr. Whitby, "is a necessary part of this rite is evident, first, Melech, haôlam, Boré perey haggephen.

by the continual mention of it by St. Paul and all the EvanBlessed be our God, the king of the universe, the creator of gelists, when they speak of the institution of this sacrament, the fruit of the wine! which shews it to be a necessary part of it. 2dly, Christ

The Mohammedans copy their example, constantly saying says, Take, eat, this is my body BROKEN for you, 1 Cor. xi. 24.

[blocks in formation]

Bismillahi arahmani arraheemi.

But when the elements are not broken, it can be no more said, This is my body broken for you, than where the elements are not given. 3dly, Our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of "Eat this bread broken, in remembrance of my body broken on the cross:" now, where no body broken is distributed, there, nothing can be eaten in memorial of his broken body. Lastly, The Apostle, by saying, The bread which we BREAK, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? sufficiently informs us, that the eating of his broken body is necessary to that end, 1 Cor. x. 10. Hence it was, that this rite of distributing bread broken, continued for a thousand years; and was, as Humbertus testifies, observed in the Roman church in the eleventh century." WHITBY in loco. At present, the opposite is as boldly practised, as if the real scrip

In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate.me, i. e.
No blessing therefore of the clements is here intended; they
were already blessed, in being sent as a gift of mercy from
the bountiful Lord; but God the sender is blessed, because of
the liberal provision he has made for his worthless creatures.
Blessing and touching the bread, are merely Popish ceremonies,
unauthorised either by Scripture, or the practice of the pure
church of God; necessary of course to them who pretend to
transmute, by a kind of spiritual incantation, the bread and
wine into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ; a measure,
the grossest in folly and most stupid in nonsense, to which
God in judgment ever abandoned the fallen spirit of man.

And brake it] We often read in the Scriptures of breaking bread, but never of cutting it. The Jewish people had nothing similar to our high raised loaf: their bread was made broad and thin, and was consequently very brittle, and to divide it, there was no need of a knife.

The breaking of the bread, I consider essential to the proper performance of this solemn and significant ceremony; because this act was designed by our Lord to shadow forth the wounding, piercing, and breaking of his body upon the cross; and as all this was essentially necessary to the making a full atonement for the sin of the world; so it is of vast importance that this apparently little circumstance, the breaking of the bread, should be carefully attended to, that the godly communicant may have every necessary assistance to enable him to discern the Lord's body, while engaged in this most important and divine of all God's ordinances. But who does not see that one small cube of fermented, i. e. leavened bread, previously divided from the mass with a knife, and separated by the fingers of the minister, can never answer the end of the institution, either as to the matter of the bread, or the mode of dividing it? Man is naturally a dull and heedless creature, especially in spiritual things, and has need of the utmost assistance of his senses, in union with those expressive rites and ceremonies which the Holy Scripture, not tradition, has sanctioned, in order to enable him to arrive at spiritual things, through the medium of earthly similitudes.

tural rite had never been observed in the church of Christ.

This is my body.] Here it must be observed, that Christ had nothing in his hands at this time, but part of that unleavened bread which he and his disciples had been eating at supper, and therefore he could mean no more than this, viz. that the bread which he was now breaking represented his body, which, in the course of a few hours, was to be crucified for them. Common sense, unsophisticated with superstition and erroneous creeds; and reason, unawed by the secular sword of sovereign authority, could not possibly take any other meaning than this plain, consistent, and rational one, out of these words. "But," says a false and absurd creed, "Jesus meant, when he said HOC EST CORPUS MEUM, this is my body, and HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, this is the chalice of my blood, that the bread and wine were substantially changed into his body, including flesh, blood, bones, yea, the whole Christ, in his immaculate humanity and adorable divinity!" And for denying this, what rivers of righteous blood have been shed by state persecutions and by religious wars! Well it may be asked, Can any man of sense believe, that when Christ took up that bread and broke it, that it was his own body which he held in his own hands, and which himself broke to picces, and which he and his disciples ate?" He who can believe such a congeries of absurdities, cannot be said to be a volunteer in faith; for it is evident, the man can neither have faith nor reason, as to this subject.

[ocr errors]

Let it be observed, if any thing further is necessary on this And gave it to the disciples] Not only the breaking, but also point, that the Paschal Lamb is called the Pass-over, because

« הקודםהמשך »