Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (832 page)

^*
Paulus, 3, b, s. 499
;
Olshausen, 2, s. 294.generally known.* But that it should be the object of an evangelical writing to narrate only the less known, omitting the known, is an idea which cannot be consistently entertained. Written records imply a mistrust of oral tradition; they are intended not merely as a supplement to this, but also as a means of fixing and preserving it, and hence the capital facts, being the most spoken of, and therefore the most exposed to misrepresentation, are precisely those which written records can the least properly omit. Such a fact is the founding of the Lord’s supper, and we find, from a comparison of the different New Testament accounts, that the expressions with which Jesus instituted it must have early received additions or mutilations ; consequently, it is the last particular which John should have omitted. But, it is further said, the narrating of the institution of the Lord’s supper was of no importance to the object of the fourth gospel.† How so? With regard to its general object, the convincing of its readers that
Jesus is the Christ the Son of God
(xx. 31), was it of no importance to communicate a scene in which he appears as the founder of a
new covenant,
k
a
i
n
h
d
i
a
q
h
k
h
? and in relation to the special object of the passage in question, namely, the exhibiting of the love of Jesus as a love which endured unto the end (xiii. 1), would it have contributed nothing to mention how he offered his body and blood as meat and drink to his followers, and thus realized his words in John vi.? But, it is said, John here as elsewhere, only concerns himself with the more profound discourses of Jesus, for which reason he passes over the institution of the Supper, and begins his narrative with the discourse connected with the washing of the disciples’ feet.‡ Nothing, however, but the most obdurate prejudice in favour of the fourth gospel, can make this discourse on humility appear more profound than what Jesus says of the partaking of his body and blood, when instituting the Lord’s supper.

But the main point is that harmonists should show us in what part of John’s narrative, if we are to believe that he presupposed Jesus to have instituted the Supper at this last meal, he can have made the alleged omission — that they should indicate the break at which that incident may be suitably introduced. On looking into the different commentaries, there appears to be more than one place excellently adapted to such an insertion. According to Olshausen, the end of the 13th chapter, after the announcement of Peter’s denial, presents the interval in which the institution of the Supper must be supposed to occur; herewith the repast closed, and the succeeding discourses from xiv. 1 were uttered by Jesus after the general rising from table, and while standing in the chamber.§ But, here, it appears as if Olshausen, for the sake of obtaining a resting place between xiii. 38 and xiv. 1, had resigned himself to the delusion of supposing that the words
Arise, let us go hence,
at which he makes Jesus rise from table and deliver the rest of his discourse standing, are found at the end of the 13th chapter, whereas they do not occur until the end of the 14th. Jesus had been speaking of going whither his disciples could not follow him, and had just rebuked the rashness of Peter, in volunteering to lay down life for his sake, by the prediction of his denial: here, at xiv. 1 ff., he calms the minds of the disciples, whom this prediction had disturbed, exhorting them to faith, and directing their attention to the blessed effects of his departure. — Repelled by the firm coherence of this part of the discourse, other commentators, e.g. Paulus, retreat to xiii. 30, and are of opinion that the institution of the Supper may be the most fitly introduced after the withdrawal of Judas, for the purpose of putting his treachery into execution, since this circumstance might naturally excite in Jesus those thoughts concerning his death which lie at the basis of the institution.|| But even rejecting the opinion of Lücke and others, that
o
t
e
e
x
h
l
q
e
when he went out,
should be united to
l
e
g
e
i
o
I
h
s
o
u
V
,
Jesus said,
it is unquestionable that the words of Jesus v. 31,
Now
is the Son of man glorified,
etc., and what he says farther on (v.
33) of his speedy departure, have an immediate reference to the retiring of Judas. For the verb
d
o
x
a
z
e
i
n
in
the fourth gospel always signifies the glorification of Jesus, to which he is to be led by suffering; and with the departure of the apostate disciple to those who brought suffering and death on Jesus, his glorification and his speedy death were decided. — The verses 31 — 33 being thus inseparably connected with v. 30; the next step is to carry the institution of the Supper somewhat lower, and place it where this connexion may appear to cease: accordingly, Lücke makes it fall between v. 33 and 34. supposing that after Jesus (v. 3 1 — 33) had composed the minds of the disciples, disturbed and shocked by the departure of the traitor, and had prepared them for the sacred meal, he, at v. 34 f., annexes to the distribution of the bread and wine the new commandment of love. But, as it has been elsewhere remarked, ¶
since at v. 36 Peter asks Jesus, in allusion to v. 33, whither he will go, it is impossible that the Supper can have been instituted after the declaration of Jesus v. 33; for otherwise Peter would have interpreted the expression
I go,
u
p
a
g
w
, by the
body given
s
w
m
a
d
i
d
o
m
e
n
o
n
and the
blood shed,
a
i
m
a
e
k
c
u
n
o
m
e
n
o
n
or in any case would rather have felt prompted to ask the meaning of these latter expressions. — Acknowledging this, Neander retreats a verse, and inserts the Supper between v. 32
and 33;* but he thus violently severs the obvious connexion between the words euquV doxasei auton
shall straightway glorify him
in the former verse, and the words
e
t
i
m
i
k
r
o
n
m
e
q
‘
u
m
w
n
e
i
m
i
yet a little while I am with you
in the latter. — It is, therefore, necessary to retreat still farther than Neander, or even Paulus : but as from v. 30 up to v. 18, the discourse turns uninterruptedly

^*
Lücke, 2, s. 484 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 583, Anm.

^†
Olshausen, ut sup
.

^‡
Sieffert, über den Urspr., s. 152.

^§
Bibl. Comm. 2, s.
330, 381 f.

^||
Paulus, exeg.
Handb. 3, b, s. 497.

^¶
Meyer, Comm. über den Joh., in loc.

^*
L.J. Chr., s. 587, Anm.on the traitor, and this discourse again is inseparably linked to the washing of the disciples’ feet and the explanation of that act, there is no place at which the institution of the Supper can be inserted until the beginning of the chapter. Here, however, according to one of the most recent critics, it may be inserted in a way which perfectly exonerates the author of the gospel from the reproach of misleading his reader by an account which is apparently continuous, while it nevertheless passes over the Supper. For, says this critic, from the very commencement John does not profess to narrate anything of the meal itself, or what was concomitant with it, but only what occurred after the meal; inasmuch as the most natural interpretation of
d
e
i
p
n
o
u
g
e
n
o
m
e
n
o
u
is:
after the meal was ended,
while the words
e
g
e
i
r
e
t
a
i
e
k
t
o
u
d
e
i
p
n
o
u
,
he riseth from supper,
plainly show that the washing of the disciples’ feet was not commenced until after the meal.* But after the washing of the feet is concluded, it is said of Jesus, that he sat down again (
a
n
a
p
e
s
w
n
p
a
l
i
n
v. 12), consequently the meal was not yet ended when he commenced that act, and by the words
lie riseth from supper,
it is meant that he rose to wash the disciples’ feet from the yet unfinished meal, or at least after the places had been taken preparatory to the meal. Again,
d
e
i
p
n
o
u
g
e
n
o
m
e
n
o
u
does not mean:
after a meal was ended,
any more than the words
t
o
u
I
.
g
e
n
o
m
e
n
o
u
e
n
B
h
q
a
n
i
a
(Matt. xxvi. 6) mean:
after Jesus had been in Bethany:
as the latter expression is intended by Matthew to denote the time during the residence of Jesus in Bethany, so the former is intended by John to denote the course of the meal itself.† Hence he thereby professes to inform us of every remarkable occurrence connected with that meal, and in omitting to mention the institution of the Lord’s supper, which was one of its features, he incurs the reproach of having given a deficient narrative, nay of having left out precisely what is most important. — Instead of this highest extremity of John’s account, Kern has recently taken the lowest, and has placed the institution of the Supper after the words,
Arise, let us go hence,
xiv. 37 ; ‡ whereby he assigns to it the improbable and indeed unworthy position, of an act only occurring to Jesus when he is preparing to depart.