1843. No. III. p. 393 sq. Compare ibid. p. 550 sq. This was the final war and catastrophe of the Jewish nation under the celebrated and mysterious BarCochba, "Son of a Star." It was a catastrophe far more terrible than that of the destruction of Jerusalem; though the latter, in consequence of the vivid description of it by Josephus, has come to be usually considered as the last act in this great tragedy. Such, however, it was not.

The figurative language of these verses (Matth. 24, 29-31, etc.) is similar to that of many passages in the Old Testament, which refer to civil commotions and historical events, of far less importance than the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Jewish state; see Is. 13,9 sq. 19, 1. 5 sq. 34, 2. 4 sq. Ezek. 32, 2. 7. Ps. 18, 7-14. 68, 1 sq. etc. See also Biblioth. Sac. 1843, No. III. p. 545 sq. Further, Luke 21, 28 shows decisively, that these verses cannot have reference to the general judgment of the great and final day; the language of Luke directly expresses temporal deliverance, and that only. That some near catastrophe is meant, appears also from the limitation to "this generation," in Matth. 24, 34 and the parallel passages.

Matth. 24, 36-42 connects itself directly with what precedes, see v. 36; and refers likewise to the overthrow of the Jewish people and dispensation; comp. Luke 17, 20-37. But with v. 42 of Matthew, all direct reference to the Jewish catastrophe terminates. This appears from the nature of the language; and also further from the fact, that thus far both Mark and Luke give parallel reports; while at this very point their reports cease, and all that follows belongs to Matthew alone. This goes to show, that the discourse of our Lord up to this point is to be regarded as a whole, which is here completed; having reference to his coming for the overthrow of Judaism. At this point a new topic is introduced.

§§ 129, 130. Our Lord here makes a transition, and proceeds to speak of his final coming at the day of judgment. This appears from the fact, that the matter of these Sections is added by Matthew, after Mark and Luke have ended their parallel reports relative to the Jewish catastrophe; and Matthew here commences with v. 43, the same discourse which Luke has given on another occasion, in Galilee; Luke 12, 39 sq § 52. (See Note on § 21.) This discourse in Luke has reference obviously to our Lord's final coming; and that it has here the same reference, is apparent from the appropriateness of the subsequent warnings, and their intimate connection with Matth. 25, 31-46; which latter all interpreters of note agree in referring to the general judgment. See Biblioth Sac. 1. ib. 553 sq.

§ 131. On the fifth day of the week the chief priests and others, after deliberation, came to the formal conclusion to seize Jesus and put him to death; Matth. 26, 3. 4. etc. As the means by which this purpose was aided and accomplished, the first three Evangelists narrate the treacherous intent of Judas; which again Matthew and Mark introduce by describing the circumstances under which it arose during the supper at Bethany. According to Matthew and Mark this supper would most naturally seem to have taken place on the preceding evening; that is, the evening which ushered in, and was reckoned to, the fifth day of the week. John's order would apparently assign it to the evening after the day on which Jesus came to Bethany.

As in the accounts of this supper itself, neither of the Evangelists has specicified any note of time, we are left to infer from other circumstances, whether it more probably took place on the evening after the arrival of Jesus at Bethany, as John seems to imply ; or, on the evening following the fourth day of the week, in accordance with Matthew and Mark, after our Lord had taken his final leave of the temple. The following are some of these circumstances.

1. The formal determination of the chief priests to put Jesus to death, was made early on the fifth day of the week, Matth. 26, 1-5. Mark 14, 1. etc. It was not until afterwards that Judas came to them with his proposal of treachery, which they received with joy, Matth. 26, 14. Mark 14, 10. 11. etc.

2 Matthew and Mark relate the supper as the occasion which led to the treachery of Judas. Stung by his Master's rebuke, he is represented as going away to the chief priests and offering to betray him. This act would then seem to have been done under the impulse of sudden resentment; and this view of the matter receives also some support from his subsequent remorse and suicide. All this accords well with the order of Matthew and Mark. But if the supper took place on the evening after Jesus came to Bethany, then Judas had already cherished this purpose of treachery in his heart for several days without executing it; and that too while our Lord was daily teaching in the temple, and there was abundant opportunity to betray him. Such a supposition, under the circumstances, is against probability.

3. The language of Matthew, "then Judas went," v. 14, seems necessarily to connect the visit of Judas to the chief priests immediately with the supper, which therefore must have taken place on the preceding evening. On the other hand, it would be very natural for John to anticipate the time of the supper and narrate it where he does, in order there to bring together and complete all that he had to say further of Bethany; which indeed he mentions no more. There is no sufficient reason for supposing, with Lightfoot and others, that the supper in John is a different one from that in Matthew and Mark. The identity of circumstances is too great, and the alleged differences too few, to leave a doubt on this point. Matthew and Mark narrate it as in the house of Simon the leper; John does not say where it took place, but he speaks of Lazarus as one of those who reclined at the table, implying that the supper was not in his own house. It was not, and is not now, customary in the East, for females to eat with the males; and therefore Lazarus, in his own house, would have been the master and giver of the entertainment. In the two former Evangelists, the woman anoints the head of Jesus; in the latter his feet; yet neither excludes the other. Matthew and Mark do not here name Mary; nor have they any where else mentioned her or Martha or Lazarus. Nor do they in this connection name Judas; whom we know as the fault-finder only from John.

§ 132. "The first day of unleavened bread" is here the fourteenth of Nisan ; on which day, at or before noon, the Jews were accustomed to cease from labour and put away all leaven out of their houses; Ex. 12, 15-17. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on Mark 14, 12. On that day towards sunset the paschal lamb was killed; and was eaten the same evening, after the fifteenth of Nisan had begun; at which time, strictly, the festival of unleavened bread commenced and continued seven days. In popular usage, however, the fourteenth day, being thus a day of preparation, was spoken of as belonging to the festival; and there

fore is here called the "first" day. That such a usage was common, appears also from Josephus; who, having in one place expressly fixed the commencement of the festival of unleavened bread on the fifteenth of Nisan (Antiq. 3. 10. 5), speaks nevertheless in another passage of the fourteenth as the day of that festival, B. J. 5. 3. 1. comp. Ant. 11. 4. 8. In this way, further, the same historian could say, that the festival was celebrated for eight days; Jos. Ant. 2. 15. 1.

On this fifth day of the week, as the circumstances show, our Lord, after sending Peter and John to the city to prepare the Passover, himself followed them thither with the other disciples, probably towards evening.

On the Passover in general, see Introd. Note to Part VIII.

PART VIII.

THE FOURTH PASSOVER; OUR LORD'S PASSION; AND THE ACCOM

PANYING EVENTS UNTIL THE END OF THE JEWISH SABBATH.

§§ 133-158.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.-THE PASSOVER.

As the events of our Lord's Passion were intimately connected with the celebration of the Passover, it seems proper here to bring together, in one view, those circumstances relating to that festival, which may serve to illustrate the sacred history. A more complete article upon this whole subject, was published by the author of these Notes in the Bibliotheca Sacra for August 1845, pp. 405436; to which the reader is referred. See also Greek Harmony, p. 211 sq.

I. Time of killing the Paschal Lamb. The paschal lamb (or kid Ex. 12, 5) was to be selected on the tenth day of the first month, Ex. 12, 3. On the fourteenth day of the same month, (called Abib in the Pentateuch, and later Nisan, Deut. 16, 1. Esth. 3, 7,) the lamb thus selected was to be killed, at a point of time designated by the expression between the two evenings, as in the marginal reading of our version, Ex. 12, 6. Lev. 23, 5. Num. 9, 3. 5; or, as is elsewhere said, at evening about the going down of the sun, Deut. 16, 6. The same phrase, between the two evenings, is put for the time of the daily evening sacrifice, Ex. 29, 39. 41. Num. 28, 4. The time thus marked was regarded by the Samaritans and Karaites, as being the interval between sunset and deep twilight; while the Pharisees and Rabbinists held the first evening to commence with the declining sun, and the second evening with the setting sun. Hence, according to the latter, the paschal lamb was to be killed in the interval between the ninth and eleventh hour, equivalent to our three and five o'clock, p. m. That this was in fact the practice among the Jews in the time of our Lord, appears from the testimony of Josephus; B. J. 6. 9. 3. The daily evening sacrifice also was offered at the ninth hour or three o'clock, p. m. Jos. Antiq. 14. 4. 3. See Acts 3. 1.

The true time, then, of killing the Passover in our Lord's day, was between the ninth and eleventh hour, or towards sunset, near the close of the fourteenth day of Nisan.

II. Time of eating the Passover. This was to be done the same evening. "And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread, and with bitter herbs shall they eat it," Ex. 12, 8. The Hebrews in Egypt ate the first Passover, and struck the blood of the victims on their doorposts, on the evening before the last great plague; at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born; and in the morning the people broke up from Rameses on their march towards the Red Sea, viz. "on the fifteenth day of the first month, on the morrow after the Passover," Num. 33, 3.

It hence appears, very definitely, that the paschal lamb was to be slain in the afternoon of the fourteenth day of the month; and was eaten the same evening; that is, on the evening which was reckoned to and began the fifteenth day.

III. Festival of unleavened Bread. From Ex. 12, 17. 18, comp. Deut. 16, 3. 4; and from Lev. 23, 6, comp. Num. 28, 17; it appears, that the festival of unleavened bread began strictly with the passover-meal, at or after sunset following the fourteenth day, and continued until sunset at the end of the twentyfirst day. Comp. Jos. Ant. 3. 10. 5.

We have already seen that it was customary for the Jews, on the fourteenth day of Nisan, to cease from labour at or before mid-day; to put away all leaven out of their houses before noon; and to slay the paschal lamb towards the close of the day; see above and Note on § 132. Hence, in popular usage, the fourteenth day very naturally came to be reckoned as the beginning or first day of the festival, Matth. 26, 17. Mark 14, 12; and Josephus also could say, that the festival was celebrated for eight days; see Note on § 132.

It is hardly necessary to remark, that in consequence of the close mutual relation between the Passover and the festival of unleavened bread, these terms are often used interchangeably, especially in Greek, for the whole festival, including both the paschal supper and the seven days of unleavened bread; see Luke 22, 1. John 6, 4. Acts 12, 3. 4. Jos. Ant. 2. 1. 3. comp. B. J. 5. 3. 1.

IV. Other Paschal Sacrifices. 1. In Num. 28, 18-25, it is prescribed, that on the first and last days of the festival, the fifteenth and twenty-first of Nisan, there should be a holy convocation, in which, "no manner of servile work" should be done. And on each of the seven days, besides the ordinary daily sacrifices of the Sanctuary, there was to be "a burnt offering unto the Lord; two young bullocks, and one ram, and seven lambs of the first year;" also a meat-offering, and "one goat for a sin-offering." The first and last days of the festival, therefore, were each a day of convocation and of rest, and hence were strictly sabbaths; distinct from the weekly Sabbath, except when one of them happened to fall upon this latter.

2. On the morrow after this first day of rest or sabbath, that is, on the sixteenth day of Nisan, the first fruits of the harvest were offered, together with a lamb as a burnt-offering; Lev. 23, 10-12. This rite is expressly assigned by Josephus, in like manner, to the second day of the festival, the sixteenth of Nisan; Antiq. 3. 10. 5. The grain offered was barley; this being the earliest ripe, and its harvest occurring a week or two earlier than that of wheat; Jos. ib. Bibl. Res. in Palest. II. p. 99. Until this offering was made, no husbandman could begin his harvest; nor might any one eat of the new grain; Lev. 23, 14. It was therefore a rite of great importance; and in the time of our Lord and later was performed with many ceremonies. See Biblioth. Sacra, ib. p. 408.

Comp. Lev. 2, 14-16. Jos. Ant. 3. 10. 5. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on John 19, 31. Reland Antiqq. Sac. 4. 3 8.

3. There was also another sacrifice connected with the Passover, known among the later Hebrews as the Khagigah, or festival; of which there are traces likewise in the Old Testament. It was a festive thank-offering, (Engl. Vers. peace-offering,) made by private individuals or families, in connection with the Passover, but distinct from the appointed public offerings of the temple. Such voluntary sacrifices or free-will offerings were provided for and regulated by the Mosaic law. The fat only was burned on the altar (Lev. 3, 3. 9. 14); the priest had for his portion the breast and right shoulder (Lev. 7, 29-34. 10, 14); and the remainder was eaten by the bringer with his family and friends in a festive manner, on the same or the next day; Lev. 7, 16-18. 22, 29. 30. Deut. 12, 17. 18. 27. 27, 7. These private sacrifices were often connected with the public festivals, both in honour of the same, and as a matter of convenience; Num. 10, 10. Deut. 14, 26. 16, 11. 14. comp. 1 Sam. 1, 3–5. 24. 25. 2, 12-16. 19. They might be eaten in any clean place within the city (Lev. 10, 14. Deut. 16, 11. 14); but those only might partake of them, as likewise of the Passover, who were themselves ceremonially clean; Num. 18, 11. 13. John 11, 55. comp. Num. 9, 10-13. 2 Chr. 30, 18. Jos. B. J. 6. 9. 3.

Such voluntary private sacrifices in connection with the Passover seem to be implied in the Old Testament, in Deut. 16, 2. 2 Chr. 30, 22. 24. 35, 7-9; see more in Biblioth. Sacra, ib. p. 409 sq. Hence, as being a sacrifice, thus connected with a festival, these private free-will offerings were themselves called, at least among the later Hebrews, by the name Khagigah, i. e. festival. The earlier Rabbins connect the Khagigah directly with Deut. 16, 2, as above; Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on John 18, 28. There was, however, some difference of opinion among them, as to the particular day of the paschal festival, on which the Khagigah ought to be offered, whether on the fourteenth or fifteenth of Nisan; but the weight of authority was greatly in favour of the fifteenth day. Yet the later accounts of the mode of celebrating the paschal supper seem to imply, that a Khagigah was ordinarily connected with that meal. Indeed, mention is made of a "Khagigah of the fourteenth day," so called in distinction from the more important and formal ceremonial Khagigah of the passoverfestival; which latter was not regularly offered until the fifteenth day, when the paschal supper had already been eaten. The former was then a mere voluntary oblation of thanksgiving, made for the purpose of enlarging and diversifying the passover-meal. See Lightfoot Ministerium Templi 13. 4. ib c. 14. Reland Antiqq. Sac. 4. 2. 2.

V. The Paschal Supper. For a full account of this meal, both in its original institution and as it was probably celebrated in the time of our Lord, see Biblioth. Sacra, ib. p. 411 sq. That the Jews in the course of ages had neglected some of the original precepts, and also introduced various additional ceremonies, is evident from the manner in which our Lord celebrated the supper, as narrated by the Evangelists. What all these additions were, we have no specific historical account from cotemporary writers; yet the precepts preserved in the Mishnah and Talmud of Jerusalem, (compiled in the third century from earlie. traditions,) probably refer to the most important of them, and serve to throw light upon some of the circumstances connected with the institution of the Lord's Supper. See Lightfoot Minist. Templi c. 13. Hor. Heb. on Matth. 26,