The Life of Jesus Part 34
[Footnote 6: John vi. 65, xii. 6.]
[Footnote 7: John vi. 65, 71, 72, xii. 6; xiii. 2, 27, and following.]
Without denying that Judas of Kerioth may have contributed to the arrest of his Master, we still believe that the curses with which he is loaded are somewhat unjust. There was, perhaps, in his deed more awkwardness than perversity. The moral conscience of the man of the people is quick and correct, but unstable and inconsistent. It is at the mercy of the impulse of the moment. The secret societies of the republican party were characterized by much earnestness and sincerity, and yet their denouncers were very numerous. A trifling spite sufficed to convert a partisan into a traitor. But if the foolish desire for a few pieces of silver turned the head of poor Judas, he does not seem to have lost the moral sentiment completely, since when he had seen the consequences of his fault he repented,[1] and, it is said, killed himself.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 3, and following.]
Each moment of this eventful period is solemn, and counts more than whole ages in the history of humanity. We have arrived at the Thursday, 13th of Nisan (2d April). The evening of the next day commenced the festival of the Pa.s.sover, begun by the feast in which the Paschal lamb was eaten. The festival continued for seven days, during which unleavened bread was eaten. The first and the last of these seven days were peculiarly solemn. The disciples were already occupied with preparations for the feast.[1] As to Jesus, we are led to believe that he knew of the treachery of Judas, and that he suspected the fate that awaited him. In the evening he took his last repast with his disciples. It was not the ritual feast of the pa.s.sover, as was afterward supposed, owing to an error of a day in reckoning,[2] but for the primitive church this supper of the Thursday was the true pa.s.sover, the seal of the new covenant. Each disciple connected with it his most cherished remembrances, and numerous touching traits of the Master which each one preserved were a.s.sociated with this repast, which became the corner-stone of Christian piety, and the starting-point of the most fruitful inst.i.tutions.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvi. 1, and following; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7; John xiii. 29.]
[Footnote 2: This is the system of the synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 17, and following; Mark xiv. 12, and following; Luke xxii. 7, and following, 15.) But John, whose narrative of this portion has a greater authority, expressly states that Jesus died the same day on which the Paschal lamb was eaten (xiii. 1, 2, 29, xviii. 28, xix. 14, 31.) The Talmud also makes Jesus to die "on the eve of the Pa.s.sover" (Talm. of Bab., _Sanhedrim_, 43 _a_, 67 _a_.)]
Doubtless the tender love which filled the heart of Jesus for the little church which surrounded him overflowed at this moment,[1] and his strong and serene soul became buoyant, even under the weight of the gloomy preoccupations that beset him. He had a word for each of his friends; two among them especially, John and Peter, were the objects of tender marks of attachment. John (at least according to his own account) was reclining on the divan, by the side of Jesus, his head resting upon the breast of the Master. Toward the end of the repast, the secret which weighed upon the heart of Jesus almost escaped him: he said, "Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me."[2] To these simple men this was a moment of anguish; they looked at each other, and each questioned himself. Judas was present; perhaps Jesus, who had for some time had reasons to suspect him, sought by this expression to draw from his looks or from his embarra.s.sed manner the confession of his fault. But the unfaithful disciple did not lose countenance; he even dared, it is said, to ask with the others: "Master, is it I?"
[Footnote 1: John xiii. 1, and following.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvi. 21, and following; Mark xiv. 18, and following; Luke xx. 21, and following; John xiii. 21, and following, xxi. 20.]
Meanwhile, the good and upright soul of Peter was in torture. He made a sign to John to endeavor to ascertain of whom the Master spoke.
John, who could converse with Jesus without being heard, asked him the meaning of this enigma. Jesus having only suspicions, did not wish to p.r.o.nounce any name; he only told John to observe to whom he was going to offer a sop. At the same time he soaked the bread and offered it to Judas. John and Peter alone had cognizance of the fact. Jesus addressed to Judas words which contained a bitter reproach, but which were not understood by those present; and he left the company. They thought that Jesus was simply giving him orders for the morrow's feast.[1]
[Footnote 1: John xiii. 21, and following, which shows the improbabilities of the narrative of the synoptics.]
At the time, this repast struck no one; and apart from the apprehensions which the Master confided to his disciples, who only half understood them, nothing extraordinary took place. But after the death of Jesus, they attached to this evening a singularly solemn meaning, and the imagination of believers spread a coloring of sweet mysticism over it. The last hours of a cherished friend are those we best remember. By an inevitable illusion, we attribute to the conversations we have then had with him a meaning which death alone gives to them; we concentrate into a few hours the memories of many years. The greater part of the disciples saw their Master no more after the supper of which we have just spoken. It was the farewell banquet. In this repast, as in many others, Jesus practised his mysterious rite of the breaking of bread. As it was early believed that the repast in question took place on the day of the Pa.s.sover, and was the Paschal feast, the idea naturally arose that the Eucharistic inst.i.tution was established at this supreme moment. Starting from the hypothesis that Jesus knew beforehand the precise moment of his death, the disciples were led to suppose that he reserved a number of important acts for his last hours. As, moreover, one of the fundamental ideas of the first Christians was that the death of Jesus had been a sacrifice, replacing all those of the ancient Law, the "Last Supper," which was supposed to have taken place, once for all, on the eve of the Pa.s.sion, became the supreme sacrifice--the act which const.i.tuted the new alliance--the sign of the blood shed for the salvation of all.[1] The bread and wine, placed in connection with death itself, were thus the image of the new testament that Jesus had sealed with his sufferings--the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ until his advent.[2]
[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 20.]
[Footnote 2: 1 _Cor._ xi. 26.]
Very early this mystery was embodied in a small sacramental narrative, which we possess under four forms,[1] very similar to one another.
John, preoccupied with the Eucharistic ideas,[2] and who relates the Last Supper with so much prolixity, connecting with it so many circ.u.mstances and discourses[3]--and who was the only one of the evangelists whose testimony on this point has the value of an eye-witness--does not mention this narrative. This is a proof that he did not regard the Eucharist as a peculiarity of the Lord's Supper.
For him the special rite of the Last Supper was the washing of feet.
It is probable that in certain primitive Christian families this latter rite obtained an importance which it has since lost.[4] No doubt, Jesus, on some occasions, had practised it to give his disciples an example of brotherly humility. It was connected with the eve of his death, in consequence of the tendency to group around the Last Supper all the great moral and ritual recommendations of Jesus.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 19-21; 1 _Cor._ xi. 23-25.]
[Footnote 2: Chap. vi.]
[Footnote 3: Chaps. xiii.-xvii.]
[Footnote 4: John xiii. 14, 15. Cf. Matt. xx. 26, and following; Luke xxii. 26, and following.]
A high sentiment of love, of concord, of charity, and of mutual deference, animated, moreover, the remembrances which were cherished of the last hours of Jesus.[1] It is always the unity of his Church, const.i.tuted by him or by his Spirit, which is the soul of the symbols and of the discourses which Christian tradition referred to this sacred moment: "A new commandment I give unto you," said he, "that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
These things I command you, that ye love one another."[2] At this last moment there were again evoked rivalries and struggles for precedence.[3] Jesus remarked, that if he, the Master, had been in the midst of his disciples as their servant, how much more ought they to submit themselves to one another. According to some, in drinking the wine, he said, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."[4] According to others, he promised them soon a celestial feast, where they would be seated on thrones at his side.[5]
[Footnote 1: John xiii. 1, and following. The discourses placed by John after the narrative of the Last Supper cannot be taken as historical. They are full of peculiarities and of expressions which are not in the style of the discourses of Jesus; and which, on the contrary, are very similar to the habitual language of John. Thus the expression "little children" in the vocative (John xiii. 33) is very frequent in the First Epistle of John. It does not appear to have been familiar to Jesus.]
[Footnote 2: John xiii. 33-35, xv. 12-17.]
[Footnote 3: Luke xxii. 24-27. Cf. John xiii. 4, and following.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18.]
[Footnote 5: Luke xxii. 29, 30.]
It seems that, toward the end of the evening, the presentiments of Jesus took hold of the disciples. All felt that a very serious danger threatened the Master, and that they were approaching a crisis. At one time Jesus thought of precautions, and spoke of swords. There were two in the company. "It is enough," said he.[1] He did not, however, follow out this idea; he saw clearly that timid provincials would not stand before the armed force of the great powers of Jerusalem. Peter, full of zeal, and feeling sure of himself, swore that he would go with him to prison and to death. Jesus, with his usual acuteness, expressed doubts about him. According to a tradition, which probably came from Peter himself, Jesus declared that Peter would deny him before the crowing of the c.o.c.k. All, like Peter, swore that they would remain faithful to him.[2]
[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 36-38.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvi. 31, and following; Mark xiv. 29, and following; Luke xxii. 33, and following; John xiii. 36, and following.]
CHAPTER XXIV.
ARREST AND TRIAL OF JESUS.
It was nightfall[1] when they left the room.[2] Jesus, according to his custom, pa.s.sed through the valley of Kedron; and, accompanied by his disciples, went to the garden of Gethsemane, at the foot of the Mount of Olives,[3] and sat down there. Overawing his friends by his inherent greatness, he watched and prayed. They were sleeping near him, when all at once an armed troop appeared bearing lighted torches.
It was the guards of the temple, armed with staves, a kind of police under the control of the priests. They were supported by a detachment of Roman soldiers with their swords. The order for the arrest emanated from the high priest and the Sanhedrim.[4] Judas, knowing the habits of Jesus, had indicated this place as the one where he might most easily be surprised. Judas, according to the unanimous tradition of the earliest times, accompanied the detachment himself;[5] and according to some,[6] he carried his hateful conduct even to betraying him by a kiss. However this may be, it is certain that there was some show of resistance on the part of the disciples.[7] One of them (Peter, according to eye-witnesses[8]) drew his sword, and wounded the ear of one of the servants of the high priest, named Malchus. Jesus restrained this opposition, and gave himself up to the soldiers. Weak and incapable of effectual resistance, especially against authorities who had so much prestige, the disciples took flight, and became dispersed; Peter and John alone did not lose sight of their Master.
Another unknown young man followed him, covered with a light garment.
They sought to arrest him, but the young man fled, leaving his tunic in the hands of the guards.[9]
[Footnote 1: John xiii. 30.]
[Footnote 2: The singing of a religious hymn, related by Matt. xxvi.
30, and Mark xiv. 26, proceeds from the opinion entertained by these two evangelists that the last repast of Jesus was the Paschal feast.
Before and after the Paschal feast, psalms were sung. Talm. of Bab., _Pesachim_, cap. ix. hal. 3, and fol. 118 _a_, etc.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvi. 36; Mark xiv. 32; Luke xxii. 39; John xviii.
1, 2.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; John xviii. 3, 12.]
[Footnote 5: Matt. xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; Luke xxii. 47; John xviii.
3; _Acts_ i. 16.]
[Footnote 6: This is the tradition of the synoptics. In the narrative of John, Jesus declares himself.]
[Footnote 7: The two traditions are agreed on this point.]
[Footnote 8: John xviii. 10.]
[Footnote 9: Mark xiv. 51, 52.]
The course which the priests had resolved to take against Jesus was quite in conformity with the established law. The procedure against the "corrupter" (_mesith_), who sought to injure the purity of religion, is explained in the Talmud, with details, the nave impudence of which provokes a smile. A judicial ambush is there made an essential part of the examination of criminals. When a man was accused of being a "corrupter," two witnesses were suborned who were concealed behind a part.i.tion. It was arranged to bring the accused into a contiguous room, where he could be heard by these two without his perceiving them. Two candles were lighted near him, in order that it might be satisfactorily proved that the witnesses "saw him."[1] He was then made to repeat his blasphemy, and urged to retract it. If he persisted, the witnesses who had heard him conducted him to the tribunal, and he was stoned to death. The Talmud adds, that this was the manner in which they treated Jesus; that he was condemned on the faith of two witnesses who had been suborned, and that the crime of "corruption" is, moreover, the only one for which the witnesses are thus prepared.[2]