By Johann Peter Lange
Edited by Rev. Marcus Dods
THE LIFE OF THE LORD JESUS UNFOLDED IN ITS FULNESS,
ACCORDING TO THE VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS.
SECTION XXI. THE PASSION OF JESUS. (Luke xxii. 39-xxiii.) After the institution of the Supper, Jesus went out to the Mount of Olives. And His disciples also followed Him — although He had already announced to them that Satan would silt them as wheat, and although it had already been made sufficiently manifest that they were but poorly furnished with spiritual weapons to meet his assaults. When He was arrived at the place whither He would go. He laid the injunction upon His disciples, 'Pray, that ye enter not into temptation.' He then withdrew from them about a stone's cast, kneeled down, and prayed: 'Father, if Thou be willing to cause this cup to pass from Me yet not My will,1 but Thine, be done.' And there appeared unto Him an angel from heaven, and strengthened Him. And being in an agony. He prayed the more earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.2 And rising up from prayer, He came to His disciples, and found them sleeping for sorrow, and said unto them, 'Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.' The conflict of Jesus appears here as a mighty struggle, increasing more and more in violence, even to mortal anguish, in which He is strengthened by an angel from heaven, and in which, by the utmost earnestness of wrestling prayer. He obtains the victory, whilst in His body signs of the greatest agitation and exhaustion manifest themselves. His prayer is here made in the gentlest expression of a wish cut short. His will is described as a mere willing. All the disciples appear, without an exception, sleepers. They form, indeed, a melancholy contrast to their watching Master, who in mortal anguish wrestles in prayer, until His sweat becomes as blood; and to the angel of God, who comes from the high heavens to strengthen Him, whilst they, in His immediate neighbourhood, have so little sympathy for His sorrow. While the Lord at the close of His conflict was again calling upon His disciples to pray, that they might not enter into temptation,3 behold, a multitude; and the man named Judas, one of the Twelve, went before them. He drew near unto Jesus to kiss Him — in this manner to salute Him. But Jesus said unto him, 'Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss? 'Whilst, however, this disciple betrayed Him, the disciples also around Him, although with good intentions, brought Him under serious suspicion. When they saw what would follow, they said unto Him, 'Lord, shall we smite with the sword? 'And one of them struck at a servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said — to the watch — 'Allow Me only so long.' And He touched his ear, and healed him. The kiss which Judas offered to the Lord is described by Luke as only intended.4 The fault of the other disciples appears in immediate juxtaposition with the crime of Judas, the pointed description of which is contained in the words, 'Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?"5 The wound inflicted on the servant of the high priest is reported with more exactness than in the other synoptists.6 It is not only quite characteristic of the Gospel of humanity that Christ miraculously heals the wound of the servant,7 but also that He does it with this word addressed to His enemies: 'Allow Me only so long! '— allow Me only to be so long free, until I have shown you this last service of love; — and further, that at such a moment He can place Himself in this frame of mind, and with this manifestation of power, between His friends and His enemies, and take the part of the enemies who are injured, against the friends who injure them. The Lord then rebuked His enemies in His own manner, with a word of protestation addressed to the chief priests, captains of the temple-watch, and elders, who had come in the company: 'As against a robber, are ye come out with swords and with staves? I was with you daily in the temple, and ye did not even stretch out your hands against Me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness — that is, your hour is midnight, the hour of robbers, and ye obtain your power in the darkness — which is a symbol of the power of darkness, by which ye are ruled.'8 They, however, took Him prisoner, without heeding this word of rebuke from His mouth, led Him away, and brought Him into the house of the high priest. The house of the high priest was therefore the place in which Christ must be condemned. Peter followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. As he there sat by the light of the fire, a maid saw him, and looking at him intently, she said, 'This man was also with Him.' But he denied Him, and said, 'Woman, I know Him not.' And after a little while, another saw him, and said, 'Thou art also one of them.' And Peter said — in a tone of indignation, — 'Man, I am not.' And again, after the space of an hour, another protested and said, 'Of a truth this man also was with Him; for he is a Galilean.' But Peter answered, 'Man, I know not (do not understand) what thou sayest.' And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. And the Lord turned, and looked on Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, 'Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.' And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. One sees here how, in the falling Peter, the evil conscience gradually awakens. His agitation increases; the expression of denial becomes weaker. Then comes the alarming cry of the cock. But the look of Christ, which in this moment fixes itself upon him in rebuke and pity, completes the awakening of his sleeping heart to repentance. Only Luke tells us of this gracious look: he alone seeks psychologically to sketch a picture of the state of Peter's soul. And the men who held Jesus in custody mocked Him, and smote Him. They blindfolded Him, and struck Him on the face, and asked Him, saying, 'Prophesy, who is it that smote Thee? 'And many other things blasphemously spake they against Him. The entire helplessness of the situation of Christ appears especially in the circumstance, that it was those who guarded Him that thus maltreated Him, and mocked at His prophetic dignity; and the more so, that the final judgment regarding Him was not yet pronounced.9 And as soon as it was day, the presbytery of the people — the body of the elders — and the chief priests, and the scribes, assembled together, led Him up10 into their council, and said, 'If Thou art the Christ, tell us.' But He said unto them, 'If I tell you — simply testify and declare it — ye will not believe. And if I put questions to you — prove it to you controversially in the manner of Scripture discussion — ye will not answer Me, nor yet let Me go.' There remained only one other way, namely, to proclaim to them His victory over them, and their judgment; and this He now did in the words, 'Henceforth shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.' Then said they all, 'Thou art then the Son of God? 'And He said unto them, 'Ye say that I am.' And they said, 'What need we any further witness — the declaration of witnesses? — We ourselves have heard it out of His own mouth.' This was the last of the three examinations which Jesus underwent — the judicial and formal examination, in which the final judgment of the Jewish hierarchy was pronounced against Him. On this the whole multitude of them arose, and led Him before Pilate. And they began to accuse Him, saying, 'We have found this man perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying of Himself, that he is Christ, a king.' Pilate put to Him the question, 'Art Thou the king of the Jews? 'And He answered him, and said, 'Thou sayest it.' Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, 'I find no fault in this man.' But they expressed themselves still more strongly, and said, 'He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee, where He began, to this place.' When Pilate heard speak of Galilee, he asked, 'Is the man a Galilean? 'And when he learned that He belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, as he also was in Jerusalem at that time — having come from Tiberias, as Pilate himself from Caesarea. When Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad; for he had been desirous to see Him for a long time, because he had heard many things of Him, and because he hoped to have seen some miracle done by Him. And so he questioned Him with many words; but He answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes had made their appearance — here also; — and they vehemently accused Him. On the other hand, Herod with his men of war treated Him contemptuously, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a bright white robe, and sent Him again to Pilate. That same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together; for before they had been at enmity between themselves. Pilate saw himself thus under the necessity again to take in hand the matter judicially. For this end, he caused to be called together not only the chief priests and the scribes, but also the people; because he wished to give to the transaction a new direction, in order to which the people had to be present. He made, namely, to those assembled together a proposal, which should in part satisfy the desire for vengeance on the part of the Jewish rulers, and in part, also, his own sense of right. 'Ye have brought,' he said, 'this man to me, as one that perverteth the people. And, behold, I have examined Him before you, and I have found nothing in this man of the offence whereof ye accuse Him: no, nor yet Herod: I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing lies to His charge, which is worthy of death. I will therefore chastise Him, and release Him.' For he was under the necessity of releasing one unto them at the feast. But they all cried out with one voice, 'Away with this man, and release unto us Barnabas.' That was a man who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, had been cast into prison. Then Pilate called to them a second time, desiring to release Jesus. But they cried out, saying, 'Crucify, crucify Him! 'And he said unto them the third time, 'What evil, then, hath this man done? I have found no cause of death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him, and let Him go.' But they assailed him with loud cries, and demanded that He should be crucified; and their cry, and that of the chief priests, prevailed.' And Pilate gave sentence that their desire should be fulfilled. And thus he released him that for sedition and murder had been cast into prison, whom they desired; but Jesus he delivered over to their will. The great guilt of the Jews appears here in the clearest light. They not only accuse Jesus of desiring to be a king, but also of seeking to prevent the payment of tribute to the Emperor; and yet Pilate himself is able to interpret the declaration of Christ, that He was the King of the Jews, as blameless. Pilate is better able to enter into the theocratic idea of the Messiah than they.11 But not only does the heathen judge, the unjust Roman governor, a character like Pilate, decide that Jesus is innocent; but also the murderer of John, the adulterous Idumean Herod, gives forth the same opinion, although Jesus treated him as an incompetent and unworthy judge; and although he, on the other hand, shows his displeasure against Jesus, by a contemptuous treatment and mockery of His person. The sentences of both these judges have all the more significance, as the Jews accused the Lord of being a seditious person, who had commenced His treasonable practices first in Galilee, and then had extended them to the metropolis of Judea itself, and as both these rulers, being despotic guardians of the territories now mentioned, had a watchful eye for such transgressions. But although both judges declare the accused to be innocent, the Jews condemn Him notwithstanding; and this, too, with the most aggravating accompaniments. When Pilate, namely, in the third judicial act, declares that he will cause Jesus to be scourged, and then release Him, in order to conform to the custom of the Passover feast, they beg for the release of Barnabas, a man imprisoned for murder and sedition, in order to shut this door of escape against Jesus. And notwithstanding Pilate pronounces the sentence a first, second, and third time, that Jesus was innocent, that He ought to be released, they persist in their request with ever increasing urgency. On the first occasion it is, Away with Him — put Him out, of the way; on the second, Crucify, crucify Him; and on the third occasion, their request becomes a long-continued and increasingly tumultuous cry, that Jesus should be crucified. The special circumstance must also be thrown into the balance, that the death of the cross was a Roman, not a Jewish mode of punishment. A peculiarly appalling contrast lies, moreover, in the circumstance, that Pilate himself, in pronouncing the third sentence, demands of them once more to bring proofs of the guilt of Jesus; whilst they can only answer with a more impetuous cry — a cry in which also the voices of the chief priests mingle.12 Whilst Luke alone informs us of the examination of Jesus by Herod, who mocked Him, putting on Him a white robe (without doubt, as a symbol of His supposed aiming at the theocratic royal dignity), and sending Him back again in it, he passes by the offence of the Roman soldiers, who put on Him a purple robe in derision. By the omission of this act of the soldiers, the fact comes out more conspicuously, that it was at bottom the Jews who led away the Lord for crucifixion, Pilate having delivered Him over to their will. The soldiers, who in Matthew and Mark appear on the foreground as the conductors of Jesus, here stand on the background, as subordinate instruments in the hands of others.13 And as they led Him away — for crucifixion — they laid hold upon one Simon of Cyrene, coming from the field, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus. And there followed Him a great company of the people, and among them also a multitude of women, who lamented and bewailed Him. But Jesus turned Himself round unto them, and said, 'Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days come, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover' us. For if they do these things in the green tree, what shall befall the dry? Thus, the leading away of Jesus to the cross possesses here a peculiar character. Pious women follow behind, weeping, as the Lord proceeds to the cross. But He replies to the expression of their human compassion towards Him with a manifestation of His divine compassion towards them. He tells them, with the deepest sympathy, how much He bemoans the terrible doom which awaits the mothers in Israel and their children, — a doom which must fall heaviest on the poor mothers. Once more we hear the announcement, that the direst judgments are suspended over the city. How often had He, with tender commiseration, declared the destruction of the devoted city!14 And His voice has still in it the purest tone of pity, whilst the Jews, without mercy, are already on their way conducting Him to the cross. At the same time, two others also, malefactors, were led away with Him to be executed. And when they were come to the place, which is called a Skull (κρείων), there they crucified Him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. But Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.' And they parted His garments, and cast lots. And the people stood beholding: and the rulers also with them derided Him, and said, 'He saved others; let Him save Himself, if He be the Christ, the chosen of God.' The soldiers also mocked Him, came to Him, and brought Him vinegar, saying, 'If Thou be the King of the Jews, save Thyself.' There was also— in the same spirit — a superscription over Him, written in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, This is the King of the Jews. And one of the malefactors who hung there reviled Him, and said, 'If Thou be the Christ, save Thyself and us.' But the other answering, rebuked him, and said, 'And thou also fearest not God, who art yet in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.' Then said he to Jesus, 'Lord, remember me when Thou comest in Thy kingdom.' And Jesus said unto him, 'Verily I say unto thee. This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise.'15 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil in the temple was rent in the midst. And Jesus cried with a loud voice, 'Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit! 'And with these words He gave up the ghost. The heathen soldiers appear also here as copartners in the guilt of the crucifixion of Christ. The Jews mock; the rulers of the Jews themselves mock; finally, the heathen soldiers also mock. They do it in their own rude manner, whilst offering the vinegar to the Lord. Pilate likewise shared in the mockery, by the terms of the superscription. Alongside of these statements, it is peculiar to the narrative of Luke, that one of the malefactors is converted to Christ, and finds grace. So likewise are three of the seven last words: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do! — Verily, I say unto thee, This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise! — Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit! Thus, the word of universal love to man, in its intercession for the blind, sinful world; the word of grace, in its majesty, reconciling the malefactor in the hour of death; and the prayer of perfected childlike peace.16 When the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, and said, 'Certainly this was a righteous man.' And all the people, who had come together to that sight, when they beheld the things which had taken place — how the sun was darkened, and the heavens became black over the dying Christ — smote on their breasts, and returned home. This last circumstance, which Luke alone records, was, so to speak, the first gentle token of the future conversion of Israel, in which the whole people — according to Paul, Rom. xi. — shall smite on the breast. It is remarkable that here already the believing word of the heathen centurion preceded the first troubled utterance of penitence on the part of the Jews, as henceforth the Gentile should lead the van in conversion to Christ; whilst it had been the mockery of the Jews and their rulers which had excited the Gentile soldiers under the cross to mock the Lord. There were, no doubt, also nobler Jews at Golgotha, who stood stedfast by the Lord — the elect (see Rom. ix.-xi.) — namely, all His acquaintance, and the women from Galilee, who had belonged to the number of His followers. They stood afar off, and beheld all these things. And, behold, a man named Joseph, a councillor, a good man and a just, who had not consented to their council and deed. He was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews; and also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in fine linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn out of the rock, wherein never man before was laid. And it was the preparation-day, and the Sabbath — the hour when the Sabbath began — was approaching. And the women also, who had come with Jesus from Galilee, followed after him — down into the tomb17 — and beheld the sepulchre, and how His body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments, in order to anoint Him. But they rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment. The death of Jesus exercised thus a quickening influence on all the disciples of Jesus. Joseph the councillor was now able to stand forth, and give a public testimony of his devotedness to Christ — going into the house of Pilate, and begging the body of Jesus. He was able to take immediate steps to bury the Crucified One before the approaching Sabbath — bury Him in a tomb of the rock which was quite new, and which he did not think to desecrate, but to consecrate, by depositing in it the body of Jesus. And so also were the Galilean women emboldened to accompany the eminent councillor of the metropolis: they could, without fear, descend with him into the dark tomb; and even now they would gladly at once have anointed the body, if the Sabbath law had not restrained them. Their hands rested indeed during the Sabbath-day; but in spirit they were already engaged in adorning the body of the Lord, for the kingdom of heroic love, and of freedom in love, had now begun. ───♦─── Notes 1. Luke makes the announcement of the denial of Peter precede the departure of Jesus to the Mount of Olives. He first represents Jesus as going out alone to the Mount of Olives, and then remarks that His disciples also follow Him. Without doubt, he thus indicates that the disciples accompany Jesus without being inwardly prepared for it. He does not mention the place Gethsemane. He does not note the circumstance, that Jesus bids the Twelve remain behind, and takes the three trusted disciples, Peter, James, and John, farther with Him into the depths of the garden. On the other hand, he has the exhortation to the disciples, Pray that ye enter not into temptation; a parallel to the later word addressed to the three in Matthew and Mark, with the addition, For the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. The hastening away from the disciples is described by him as a rushing forth, or a being hurried away from them, about the distance of a stone's cast. In the description of the sufferings of Jesus in Gethsemane, the distinction of the three separate acts of the conflict does not appear. With this also the thrice repeated sleeping of the three confidential disciples is omitted. Had Luke wished to cast a shadow on the character of the most eminent apostles, he would especially have exhibited them as sleepers, and not passed over their falling asleep three successive times; nor would he have added the word of exculpation, They slept for sorrow. The remaining peculiarities of his description of this conflict of Christ have been referred to above.18 The indication that Judas did not altogether succeed with his kiss, is made more prominent. The stronger designation given to the kiss of Judas is also peculiar to Luke. The fault of the other disciples stands in closer contact with this crime. Jesus is surrounded with erring disciples. In mentioning the stroke with the sword, Luke is silent regarding the name of Peter; he also omits the rebuke given to him by Christ. For indeed he does make the disciples appear in all their weakness, but his object is not to blacken them, and least of all Peter. The mention of the circumstance, that Jesus heals the ear of the servant, has been already remarked above. It is worthy of note, that, according to Luke, chief priests, captains of the temple-watch, and ciders are present at the apprehension of Jesus (see above, iii. 229). Peculiar to this Gospel is the beautiful word of Jesus, This is your hour, and the power of darkness. On the other hand, it passes by the appeal of Christ to the Scriptures in this passage, and, what once more is specially worthy of remark, the flight of the disciples. It makes, however, an emphatic statement regarding Peter, that he set himself in the midst of the people, who made a fire of coals in the palace of the high priest. But the circumstance that Peter confirmed his denial with an oath, and began to curse and to swear, is narrated only by Matthew, not by Luke. It is to be observed, that according to the record of Luke, the expression of the denials becomes gradually weaker. The first is as follows: Woman, I know Him not; the second, Man, I am not; the third, Man, I know not what thou sayest. According to Matthew and Mark, who here seem to give the more exact account historically, this last is the very first form of the denial; and, according to Matthew, it was, on the second and third occasions, I know not the man. It is therefore just Luke who describes the denial in milder terms, whilst the temptation appears in so far stronger, as even the second of the questions was put to Peter by a man. Luke manifestly wished to indicate the gradual awakening of an evil conscience in Peter, which was completed by the crowing of the cock, and by the look of Christ was turned into wholesome penitence.19 Luke not only omits, along with the other synoptists, the first examination of Jesus by Annas, but also the first examination improvized by Caiaphas, which is described by them.20 On the other hand, he narrates the final official examination. By this means, the maltreatment which Jesus experienced before this final examination appears in a new light. The mild form in which he represents the condemnation of Jesus at the final examination is to be noted. Equally mild is the representation of the guilt of Pilate. The examination of Jesus by Herod, which Luke only records, possesses, as well in the grounds assigned for it as in its details, all the characters of the strictest historical truth. In this scene, Herod appears entirely as he is otherwise known to us. In the psychologically keen observation implied in the remark, The same day Pilate and Herod "were made friends together, we recognize at once the third Evangelist.21 In like manner, we may regard the circumstance, ver. 13, that Pilate caused the people to be called together, in order to announce the release of Jesus, as a proof of his pragmatic apprehension and handling of Gospel facts. In the thrice repeated sentence of Pilate, and in the threefold gradation observable in His condemnation by the Jews, there lies the stamp of reality and a powerful impressiveness. If, however, Luke makes the guilt of Pilate appear in a mild light, and quite passes by the guilt of the heathen soldiery, the heathen are nevertheless not allowed to go free. Rather does the whole weight of their culpability already appear in the circumstance, that Pilate, after three contrary decisions, pronounces the final sentence, that the desire of the Jews should be gratified, and accordingly that the man found guilty of murder and sedition should be released, whilst he gives over Jesus to the will of His enemies; and later also, in the mocking of the Lord on the cross by the soldiers, and by the superscription. The mention of the weeping daughters of Jerusalem, and of the answer of Jesus, is again peculiarly characteristic of Luke. So likewise are the already-mentioned mocking of the Lord on the cross by the soldiers, the conversion of one of the malefactors, and the three last words. Luke has given many points more briefly than the other Evangelists, and several he omits. He alone records the significant fact, that the multitude smote on their breast, in suggestive combination with the believing utterance of the centurion. Besides the women from Galilee, who beheld the crucifixion, he mentions in general 'all the acquaintance of Jesus.' He does not indicate the women here by name, as Matthew and Mark partly do; and in like manner, also, he does not name them when he speaks of the burial. It is a beautiful contrast between the conclusion of the history of the passion in Matthew and Luke, that the former notes how the Jewish rulers broke the Sabbath on the great Sabbath of the Passover, in order to seal the grave of Jesus, although they had rejected the Lord specially on account of the cures performed by Him on the Sabbath; whilst the latter relates that the female disciples of Jesus, whom they had accused of Sabbath profanation, refrained from anointing Him in the tomb on the Sabbath-day, however oppressive the restraint of the law may have been to them in these circumstances. Both features are in their contrast characteristic of the peculiarity as well as of the spiritual unity of both Evangelists. 2. How ludicrously Gfrörer attempts to make the report of the inward sufferings of Christ appear improbable, see p. 337. As only Luke records that Jesus healed the ear of the wounded servant, 'one must, according to him, dismiss this circumstance, so closely allied to the mythical, as unhistorical.' He maintains that, according to John, Christ, at the commencement of His ministry, really made the declaration which, according to Matthew, was adduced as a false witness against Him. He has thus found no difference between the terms of the declaration of Jesus (John ii. 19) and the false witness of the enemies of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 61), and so on. According to the Saxon Anonyme (p. 184) Luke discovers 'his enmity to the Jews clearly by the assiduity with which he recklessly, and in total disregard of what is due to shame and self-respect, makes the heads of the Jewish nation to be so zealous for the destruction of Christ.' This ill-assorted sentence means, indeed, to ascribe to Luke only enmity to the Jews; the shamelessness, on the contrary, to the heads of the Jews, according to Luke's description of them. The author attempts, as is freqently his wont, a little piece of artistic skill, when he shows that, according to Luke (ver. 63), Jesus was smitten by the chief priests and elders, who were the bailiffs that arrested Him, according? to vers. 52 and 54.
|
|
1)
Θέλημα,not θέλησις. — θέλημα is the natural willing, which proceeds
from the natural ebullition of life (ἐνέργεια), the substantial will; θέλησις, on the
contrary, is the will as an act, the moral self-determination. These distinctions are
indispensable to a right estimate of the monotheletic question.
2) See above, vol. iii. 203.
3) Ἐγείρεσθε ἄγωμεν in Matthew and Mark.
4) Which does not contradict the
κατεφίλησεν of the two other synoptists. See
iii. 223.
5) Whilst Matthew has it. Friend, wherefore art thou come?
6) Τὸ οὖς τὸ δεξιόν, according to Luke, is cut off; according to the first
Gospel, τὸ ὠτίον.
7) See above, vol. i. p. 212; and vol. iii. p. 227.
8) See above, vol. iii. p. 229.
9) See above, vol. iii. 243, 244,
10) See above, vol. iii. 244.
11) In which, however, it must be remarked, that the report is here incomplete.
12) According to Von Baur, the Gospel of John seeks to represent Pilate as
guiltless, in opposition to the synoptists. It cannot, indeed, escape a practised Christian
eye, that Pilate, according to the description of all four Evangelists, appears as
guilty; but if one will speak of differences in this respect, he may be regarded as
comparatively less culpable in the representation given by Luke, unless one is disposed
to find the strongest exculpation in the washing of the hands, as recorded by
Matthew. The mitigation of the guilt of Pilate, which lies in the delineation of Luke,
has been remarked by the Saxon Anonyme: but is represented by him in a very exaggerated
form (pp. 188 ff.) He maintains that, according to Luke's account, Pilate was
constrained, in the proper sense of the term, to yield to the power of the Jews. Li
this case, however, there could be no question of any new judgment pronounced by
Pilate.
13) It is nevertheless quite false, when the Saxon Anonyme (192) represents the
death of Christ, according to Luke, exactly like that of Stephen, as a mere
tumultuary act of the Jews, in which the Romans took no share: see vers. 24, 33, 34,
and 35, 36, 38, 47.
14) Vid. chap. xiii. 34, xix. 27, 41 et seq., xxi. 23 et seq.
15) Regarding the meaning of paradise, comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2-4; Rev. ii. 7.
16) According to the Saxon Auouyme, s. 195, Jesus called out, by Matthew's
account, twice 'the comfortless word, My God, My God, &c.' He proves this
from the πάλιν κράξας, ver. 50. Gfrbrer also can understand the cry of Christ
in Matthew's narrative only as comfortless (pp. 350 ff.) Woe be to us, he
exclaims, if it were so in our case! 17) Κατακολουθήσασαι. The expression κατακολουθειν appears to intimate not the mere following, but the following downwards; as also Acts xvi. 17. For the apostles, whom the woman with a spirit of divination followed, went commonly to the house of prayer on the river (thus downwards), according to ver. 13.
18) The angel who appears to Jesus, and the bloody sweat, give much trouble to several critics. See Schleiermacher, p. 288; Ritschl, p. 114.
19) Regarding the remaining differences in the history of Peter's denial, see
above, iii. 240, 241.
20) This also furnishes an explanation why Luke was compelled to omit all mention
of the witness which, according to Matthew and Mark, was brought up against Him
in the second examination; a circumstance which the Saxon Auonyme would gladly
turn to his own account (p. 184).
21) The Saxon Anonyme
seeks to find in this fact a symbolical meaning with reference to the reconciliation which the death of Christ
effected between Jews and Gentiles, according to Eph. ii. 14, 15. So much
understanding has this kind of criticism of the nature of symbols!
|