Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (833 page)

Thus, viewing the subject generally, there is no conceivable motive why John, if he spoke of this last evening at all, should have omitted the institution of the Lord’s supper; while, on descending to a particular consideration, there is in the course of his narrative no point where it could be inserted: hence nothing remains but to conclude that he does not mention it because it was unknown to him. But as a means of resisting this conclusion, theologians, even such as acknowledge themselves unable to explain the omission of the institution, rely on the observation, that a rite so universally prevalent in the primitive church as was the Lord’s supper, cannot possibly have been unknown to the fourth Evangelist, whoever he

^*
Sieifert, s. 152 ff.

^†
Comp. Lücke, s. 468.

^‡
Die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 72.may have been.* Certainly, he knew of the Lord’s supper as a Christian rite, for this may be inferred from his 6th chapter, and unavoidably he must have known of it; it may, however, have been unknown to him under what circumstances Jesus formally instituted this observance. The referring of so revered an usage to the authority of Jesus himself was an object of interest to this Evangelist; but from unacquauntance with the synoptical scene, and also from a partiality for the mysterious, which led him to put into the mouth of Jesus expressions unintelligible at the moment, and only to be explained by the issue, he effected this purpose, not by making Jesus actually institute the rite, but by attributing to him obscure expressions about the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which, being rendered intelligible only by the rite of the Lord’s supper introduced into the church after his death, might be regarded as an indirect institution of that rite.

As John omits the institution of the Lord’s supper, so the synoptists omit the washing of the disciples’ feet: but it cannot be maintained with equal decision that they were therefore ignorant of this incident; partly on account of its inferior importance and the more fragmentary character of this part of the synoptical narrative ; and partly because, as has been above remarked, the contention for pre-eminence in Luke v.
24 ff. has appeared to many expositors to be connected with the washing of the disciples’ feet, as the inducement to that action on the part of Jesus.† But as regards this contention for pre-eminence, we have shown above, that being unsuited to the tenor of the scene before us, it may owe its position only to a fortuitous association of ideas in the narrator :‡ while the washing of the disciples’ feet, in John, might appear to be a legendary development of a synoptical discourse on humility. In Matthew (xx. 26 ff.
)
Jesus admonishes his disciples that he among them who would be great must be the
minister
d
i
a
k
o
n
o
V
of the others, just as he himself came not to
be ministered unto but to minister
o
u
d
i
a
k
o
n
h
q
h
n
a
i
a
l
l
a
d
i
a
k
o
n
h
s
a
i
;
and in Luke (xxii. 27) he expresses the same thought in the question:
Whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat or he that that serveth?
t
i
V
g
a
r
m
e
i
z
w
n
;
o
a
n
a
k
e
i
m
e
n
o
V
h
o
d
i
a
k
o
n
w
n
;
and adds,
but I am among you as he that serveth,
e
g
o
d
e
e
i
m
i
e
n
m
e
s
w
u
m
w
n
w
V
o
d
i
a
k
o
n
w
n
.
Now it is certainly probable that Jesus might see fit
to impress this lesson on the disciples through the medium of their senses, by an actual
serving
d
i
a
k
o
n
e
i
n
among them, while they played the part of those sitting at meat (
a
n
a
k
e
i
m
e
n
o
i
);
but it is equally probable, since the synoptists are silent respecting such a measure, that either the legend, before it reached the fourth Evangelist, or this writer himself, spun the fact out of the dictum.§ Nor is it necessary to suppose that the above declaration

^*
Hase, L. J., § 133; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, s. 11 ; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, §
31.

^†
Sieffert, s.
753;
Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. For the opposite opinion comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 222, 1, 2, s. 107.

^‡
Vol. II. § 83.

^§
The conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the Probabilia, s. 70 f. is too far-fetched.came to him as having been uttered at the last meal of Jesus, in accordance with the representation of Luke; for it naturally resulted from the expressions
a
n
a
k
e
i
s
q
a
i
(to recline at meat),
and
d
i
a
k
o
n
e
i
n
(to serve),
that this symbolizing of the relation which they denote should be attached to a meal, and this meal might on easily conceivable grounds appear to be the most appropriately represented as the last.

According to Luke’s representation, Jesus on this occasion addresses the disciples as those who had continued with him in his temptations, and as a reward for this fidelity promises them that they shall sit with him at table in his kingdom, and seated on thrones, judge the twelve tribes of Israel (v. 28 — 30). This appears incongruous with a scene in which he had immediately before announced his betrayal by one of the twelve, and in which he
 

Immediately after predicted his denial by another; at a time, moreover, in which the
temptations
p
e
i
r
a
s
m
o
i
properly so called, were yet future. After what we have already observed in relation to the entire character of the scene in Luke, we can hardly seek the reason for the insertion of this fragment of a discourse, in anything else than a fortuitous association of ideas, in which the contention about rank among the disciples might suggest the rank promised to them by Jesus, and the discourse on sitting at table and serving, the promise that the disciples should sit at table with Jesus in his messianic kingdom.*

In the succeeding conversation Jesus says to his disciples figuratively, that now it will be necessary to buy themselves swords, so hostilely will they be met on all sides, but is understood by them literally, and is shown two swords already in the possession of the society. Concerning this passage I am inclined to agree with Schleiermacher, who is of opinion that Luke introduced it here as a prelude to Peter’s use of the sword in the ensuing narrative.†

The other divergencies in relation to the last meal will come under review in the course of the following investigations.

§ 123. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BETRAYAL AND THE DENIAL.

In the statement that Jesus from the beginning knew who would be his betrayer, the fourth gospel stands alone; but all four of the Evangelists concur in testifying that at his last meal he predicted his betrayal by one of his disciples.

But in the first place there is this difference: while according to Matthew and Mark the discourse respecting the betrayer opens the scene, and in particular precedes the institution of the Lord’s supper (Matt. xxvi. 21 ff.
;
Mark xiv. 18 ff
.);
Luke represents Jesus as not speaking of the betrayer until after the commencement of the meal, and the institution of the commemorative rite (xxii.

16
Comp. De Wette, in loc.

17
Ueber den Lukas, s.
275.
21
ff.
);
and in John what relates to the betrayer goes forward during and after the washing of the disciples’ feet (xiii. 10 — 30). The intrinsically trivial question, which Evangelist is here right, is extremely important to theologians, because its decision involves the answer to another question, namely, whether the betrayer also partook of the ritual Supper. It neither appeared consistent with the idea of that supper as a feast of the most intimate love and union, that a virtual alien like Judas should participate in it, nor did it seem to accord with the love and compassion of the Lord, that he should have permitted an unworthy disciple by this participation to aggravate his guilt.‡ So undesirable a view of the facts was believed to be avoided by following the arrangement of Matthew and Mark, and making the designation of the betrayer precede the institution of the Supper: for as it was known from John, that as soon as Judas saw himself detected and exposed, he withdrew from the company, it would thence appear that Jesus did not institute the Supper until after the retirement of the traitor.§ But this expedient is founded on nothing but an inadmissible incorporation of the narrative of John with that of the synoptists. For the withdrawal of Judas is mentioned only by the fourth Evangelist; and he alone needs the supposition of such a circumstance, because, according to him, Judas now first entered into his transactions with the enemies of Jesus, and thus, in order to come to terms with them, and obtain the requisite force, needed a somewhat longer time. In the synoptists there is no trace of the betrayer having left the company; on the contrary, everything in their narrative appears to imply that Judas, first on the general departure from the room in which the repast had been taken, instead of going directly to the garden, went to the chief priests, of whom he at once, the agreement having been made beforehand, received the necessary force for the arrest of Jesus. Thus whether Luke or Matthew be right in the arrangement of the scene, all the synoptists intimate that Judas did not leave the company before the general departure, and consequently that he partook of the ritual Supper.