Luke 22 - Introduction

SIXTH PART: THE PASSION, CHAP. 22. AND 23.

The Saviour had taken up a truly royal attitude in the temple. Now this short anticipation of His kingdom, the normal blossoming of His prophetic activity, is over; and limiting Himself to a silence and passivity which have earned for this period the name of the Passion, He exercises that terrestrial priesthood which was to be the transition from His prophetic ministry to His celestial sovereignty.

We find in the fourth Gospel (chap. 12) a scene which must have occurred on one of the days referred to by Luke 21:37-38, the discourse which Jesus uttered in the temple in answer to the question of some Greek proselytes who had desired to converse with Him, and the divine manifestation which took place on that occasion. Then it is said, “ And He departed, and did hide Himself from them ” (Luke 21:36). This departure could not be that of Matthew 24:1 (parall. Luke 21:5). The scene which precedes differs too widely. It took place, therefore, one or two days later; and this supposition agrees with the meaning of the last two verses of chap. 21, which forbid us to believe that after the eschatological discourse Jesus did not reappear in the temple. Thus, if we place the entry into Jerusalem on Sunday afternoon, the purification of the temple on Monday (Mark), the captious questions put to Him on Tuesday, and the prophecy respecting the destruction of Jerusalem on the evening of that day, the temple scene related John 12 may have occurred on Wednesday; in which case, Jesus would pass the last day, Thursday, in His retreat at Bethany with His disciples. If it is alleged, with Bleek, that the entry on Palm Day took place on Monday, each of the events mentioned is put back a day; and the temple scene falling in this case on Thursday, Jesus must, on the contrary, have passed this last day, like all the rest, at Jerusalem. Whatever Keim may say, who alleges two days of complete retirement, Wednesday and Thursday, everything considered, we regard the second supposition as the simplest.

The narrative of the Passion comprehends:

I. The preparation for the Passion (Luke 22:1-46). II. The Passion (Luke 22:47 to Luke 23:46). III. The events following the Passion (Luke 23:47-56).

Conclusion regarding the Day of Jesus' Death.

It follows from the exegesis of chap. 22 and 23, that according to the Syn., as well as according to John, the day of Jesus' death was not the first and great day of the paschal Feast (15th Nisan), but the day before (or preparation), the 14th Nisan, which that year was a Friday, and so, at the same time, the preparation for the Sabbath. Hence it follows also that the last Feast of Jesus took place on the evening between the 13th and 14th, and not on the evening between the 14th and 15th, when the whole people celebrated the paschal Feast. Such is the result to which we are brought by all the passages examined.: Luke 22:7-15; Luke 22:66; Luke 23:26; Luke 23:53-56; Matthew 26:5; Matthew 26:18; Matthew 27:62; Mark 14:2; Mark 15:42; Mark 15:46; so that, on the main question, it appears to us that exegetically there can be no doubt, seeing that our four Gospel accounts present no real disagreement. The fact, therefore, stands as follows: On the 13th, toward evening, Jesus sent the two disciples most worthy of His confidence to prepare the paschal Feast; in the opinion of all the rest, this was with a view to the following evening, when the national Feast was to be celebrated. But Jesus knew that by that time the hour would be past for His celebrating this last Passover. This same evening, therefore, some hours after having sent the two disciples, He seated Himself at the table prepared by them and by the master of the house. There was in this a surprise for the apostles, which is probably referred to by Luke 22:15: “ With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. ” Above all, it was a surprise to Judas, who had resolved to give Him up this same evening. This anticipation on the part of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath and of the whole law (Luke 6:5), involved nothing less than the abrogation of the paschal Feast and of the ancient covenant.

This exegetical result agrees fully with Jewish tradition. In Bab. Sanhedr. 43. 1, it is expressly said (Caspari, p. 156): “Jesus was executed on the eve of the Passover. A public crier had proclaimed for 70 days that a man was to be stoned for having bewitched Israel and seduced it into schism; that he who had anything to say for his justification should present himself and testify for him; but no one appeared to justify him. Then they crucified him on the evening [the eve] of the Passover (בְּעֶרֶבפֶּסַח).” This last expression can denote nothing but the evening preceding the Passover, as עֶרֶבהַשּׁבָת, evening of the Sabbath, never denotes anything but Friday evening.

This view seems also to be that which prevailed in the Church in the most ancient times, as we see from Clement of Alexandria, who lived when primitive tradition was not yet effaced, and who professes without hesitation the same opinion.

It is, moreover, in keeping with the admirable symbolism which is the character of all God's works. Jesus dies on the afternoon of the 14th, at the very moment when the paschal lamb was slain in the temple. He rests in the tomb on the 15th Nisan, a day doubly Sabbatic that year, as being Saturday and the first day of the Feast. This day of rest, so exceptionally solemn, divides the first creation, which is terminating, from the second, which is beginning. Jesus rises on the morrow, 16th Nisan, the very day on which there was offered in the temple the first sheaf cut in the year, the first fruits of the harvest.

Is it not to this symbolism that St. Paul himself alludes in the two passages: “Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7); and: “Every one in his own order; Christ, the first fruits; afterwards they that are His, at His coming” (1 Corinthians 15:23)? It is probable, also, that if St. Paul had regarded the night on which Jesus instituted the Holy Supper as the same on which Israel celebrated the Passover, he would not have designated it simply (1 Corinthians 11:23) as that on which our Lord was betrayed.

The only further question which may yet appear doubtful, is whether the compilers of our three synoptic narratives had a clear view of the real course of events. They have faithfully preserved to us the facts and sayings which help us to make it out; but is there not some confusion in their minds? Was not this last feast of Christ, which had all the features of an ordinary paschal Feast, and in which He had instituted the Supper as the counterpart of the Israelitish rite, confounded in the traditional accounts with the national paschal Feast? And has not this confusion exercised a certain influence on the account of the Syn.? This, at least, is the difference which exists between them and John: they relate simply, without concerning themselves about the difference between this last Supper and the Israelitish paschal Feast; while John, who sees this confusion gaining ground, expressly emphasizes the distinction between the two.

As to the bearing of this question on the paschal controversy of the second century, and on the authenticity of the Gospel of John, it may be explained in two ways: Either the event celebrated by the Asiatics was, as is natural, the death of Christ (Steitz), and not the fact of the institution of the Supper (Baur), and hence it would follow, in entire harmony with the fourth Gospel, that they regarded the 14th, and not the 15th, as the day of the crucifixion (this is the explanation which we have advocated in the Comment. sur Jean); or it may be maintained, as is done by M. E. Schürer (whose dissertation on this question leaves little to be desired), that the Asiatic rite was determined neither by the day on which the Holy Supper was instituted, nor even by that on which Christ died, but solely by the desire of keeping up in the churches of Asia, for the Holy Easter Supper, the day on which the Law ordained the paschal Feast to be celebrated. In this case, the Asiatic rite neither contradicted nor confirmed John's narrative; it had no connection with it.

From this determination of the day of the month on which Jesus died, it remains for us to draw a conclusion regarding the year of that event. The result obtained is, that in that year the 13th Nisan, the preparation for the Passover and the day of the crucifixion, fell on a Friday, and the day of the Passover, 14th Nisan, on a Saturday. Now, it follows from the calculations of Wurm (Bengel's Archiv. 1816, ii.), and of Oudemann, Professor of Astronomy at Utrecht (Revue de théol. 1863, p. 221), whose results differ only by a few minutes, that in the years from 28 to 36 of our era, in one of which the death of Jesus must have fallen, the day of the Passover, 15th Nisan, was a Saturday only in 30 and 34 (783 and 787 A.U.C.). If, then, Jesus was born (vol. i. p. 126) at the end of 749 or the beginning of 750 A.U.C., 3-4 years before our era; if He was baptized in the course of His 30th year (Luke 3:23); if His ministry lasted about 2 1/2 years (John); if, finally, His death took place, as all the evangelists attest, at the feast of Passover: this Passover must have been that of the year 30 of our era (783 A.U.C.). The result of astronomical calculation thus confirms the gospel statements, especially those of John. And we can fix the date of Christ's death on Friday the 14th Nisan (7th April) of the year 30.