828 ciling the account of the Fourth Gospel with that of the synoptists. In the synoptists the last supper is (apparently) the passover, in which the Lord bequeathes Himself to His disciples as their sacrifice, giving them His body and blood ; in John the last supper, so far as he describes it, is merely the last meal shared by the Master and His disciples, at which He washes their feet, and exhorts them to humility, patience, and peace ; and it is expressly described as being "before the feast of the passover” (John xiii. 1). Again, in the synoptists, Mark places the crucifixion at the third hour (9 A.lI.), and the darkness is made by all the synoptists to last from 12 to 3 P..I. ; but John (who is describing in the crucifixion the sacrifice of the passover, the slaughter of the Lamb of God which was to take away the sins of the world) naturally places the crucifixion later, in order that the Lamb may be slain “between the two evenings,” as prescribed in the law ; and therefore he does not place even the delivery of Pilate’s verdict till the sixth hour, 2'.e., 12 o’clock, and the crucifixion, consequently, later still. The symbol- ism which prevails in the Fourth Gospel may incline us generally to accept the synoptists’ narrative in preference. But there are special reasons why, at a very early date, a slight misunderstanding, among the Gentile churches, of Jewish custom and of the common tradition may have led to an erroneous supposition that the last supper was the passover meal ; and the explanation suggested by Canon Westcott (Introduction to the .S'tml-_z/ of the Gospels, p. 344) seems a very reasonable one. In this case, therefore, the Fourth Gospel must have the credit of dis- sipatiug an error which had very early crept into the synoptic narrative (namely, the insertion of the words “ The first day of unleavened bread,” Mat. xxvi. 17 ; Mk. xiv. 12; Lu. xxii. 7); nor is it at all unlikely that this rectification came from the apostle John himself. But as regards the hour of the crucifixion, it seems more likely that the account of Mark is correct, not only because it leaves more time for the burial before sunset, but also because the later hour implied in the Fourth Gospel appears naturally suggested by th3 same symbolism which after- wards finds in the woundel body of Christ a fulfilment of the two prophecies, “ A Lone of Him shall not be broken,” and “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.” Passing now to those details of the crucifixion wherein the Fourth Gospel differs from the synoptists, we find in almost each case but one motive—to enhance the majesty of the Saviour. Even in the arrest of Jesus this motive appears. The synoptists tell us that He was arrested by a “ crowd ” (éxltos), servants, sent apparently from the houses of (-traps’. Mat. ; dmi .Ik.) the chief priests and elders; and as the moon shone at the full, so brightly that the disciples could discern their Master from some dis- tance (a stone’s cast), and perceive His agony, as well as hear the words of His prayer in the stillness of the night, they do not think it necessary to make mention of “lights” or “ torches.” The Fourth Gospel describes how the “ cohort ” of the citadel of Antonia is called out, together with the servants of the priests, making up in all, if the whole cohort is meant, five or six hundred men; and these approach, not with “ swords and clubs ” (as Il'k.), but with “ torches and lights and arms." Jesus goes forward to meet them, and intrepidly declares that He is the person whom they are (iii. 1l,—“ 'I8oiI €£a1rocr7€AAw -rby li'y'yeA6v ,uou, Kal ¢'1nBAe'ilzs'rat 5801/ -npb 1rporm'v1rou you (John the Baptist), xal éfahpvns -life: els 'ri;y vabu éauvoii mipms fir ope}: (171¢i'-n=,— predicts a “ sudden " coming of the Lord into the temple, following on the steps of his “ messenger." This prophecy is better fulfilled, if the Lord comes to the temple iznnwlzatcly after the preparation of John the Baptist; aml, besides, the “sudden” coming is better fulfilled in the early entry of Jesus (John ii. 14) than by the later entry in the synoptists, which was pre- cede-.l by a. public procession. Tllllfi prophecy, as well as appropriate- ness, might induce an account of an early purification of the temple. GOSPELS [FOURTH oosrsn. seeking, upon which they “recoiled aml fell to the ground.” Nothing of all this is found in the synoptists, ‘ Though John agrees with Luke in the tradition that the servant's ear cut off by Peter was the “right” car,‘ he on- tirely omits Luke's narrative of Christ’s examination before Ilerod ; but this is in accordance with his fixed purpose-- while by no means neglecting graphic and picturesque detail—to ignore all petty local distinctions, and to draw none but large and clear outlines on his canvas. ‘tome and “ the Jews” alone appear round Christ on the stage of his drama; not one of the Herods is so much as once men- tioned from the beginning to the end of it. The irony of providence, by which Pilate is made to proclaim that Jesus is “King of the Jews” (xix. 20), reminds us of the similar irony by which Caiaphas, not speaking “ of himself” but inspired by God, is forced to publish the suffering of the Saviour (xi. 51) ; and both passages are quite in the manner of the Fourth Gospel. So also is the very natural applica- tion of the prophecy, “ And for My raiment did they cast lots,” to the seamless tunie of Christ. Ileinembering what stress is laid by our author’s teacher, Philo, on the high priest’s garments (.l[uses, 14 ; Dreams, 37), which “represent the universe,” we shall readily perceive that while the outer garment of Christ is freely given to the four quarters of the world, the inner seamless tunic (Xt-ru'>v), that which IIe wears next to His heart-, is not to be rent, representing as it does the regenerated world, “those who receive remission of sins through llim” (Dz':([o_r/ue liv.).‘3 The Jfotive of the I"ourth, G'ospel illuslrutetl by the I7z'rst Com. I'.'pz.'.-tle of Jo/m.—-It has been said above that the lst1*=}l'i-*" Epistle of John is most closely connected with the lospel. ‘f.'”.h_t The connexion is so close, in thought as well as in 1:111-331,2, guage, that the former may almost be called a summary of the latter. In the Epistle, even more clearly than in the Gospel, we see the author’s habit of dealing rather with elements than with nations or individuals. Vith the exception of the illustration of “ Cain,” which he possibly borrowed from Philo (who uses Cain and Abel to denote the earthly and the spiritual principle, ‘ate;-1:/ices Qf Cain and Abel, I), he prefers to dispense with personal illus- trations of principles. Ile does not, like Paul, speak of Abraham, or Hagar, or Sinai,,or Isaac, or llelchisedek, or the Jews, or the Gentiles ; but of the world and the flesh, the water, the blood, and the spirit, light and darkness, life and death. In the Epistle, as in the Gospel, we see the rejection of Christ explained, not as a casual outcome of individual cuprice or wickedness, but as an inevitable result of the eternal antagonism between light and darkness. In the Epistle, as in the Gospel, the author insists that the new commandment of Christ to “love one another” is really an old commandment which men have had from the beginning : a commandnient as old as the promptings of the Light which from the beginning has “lighted every man coming into the world,"—an old connnandment only so far made new as it has been broughthome to the hearts of men with a quite new intensity by the manifestation of the incarnate Love of God. In the Epistle, as in the Gospel, it is recog- nized that the antagonism between the world and the spirit, oetween light and darkness, must go on without truce till one has prevailed; and each man must take one or other side, putting away all hope of compromise. There are two principles, says Philo, contrary to and at variance with one anotlier,—the one represented by the God—loving Abel, the 1 Note also t'.:at the Fourth Gospel is the first to give the servant’s name, Malelins. In the same way the Arm l‘iIatL' for the first time give the names of the two thieves, ])_vsnias aml (it-stas. 9 Only the Fourth Gospel thus (listir.,r:nislies between the l,ud'na and the xrrafiv. But compare Lev. xvi. 4. where the xi-r¢}:v ‘F,-y1acr;u'n/as is prescribed as the dress for the high priest on the day of atonement; and see also Philo (I):-at/12.9, 37); and especially note I'hilo's remark
that this xi-rafiu is “not easily rent " (cippa-ye'cr'rcpos).