Considerations on the


anointing of our Lord.

[ocr errors]


Qlly. The scene in St. John is the house of Martha, or reading is, Fucilioris sensús causâ; and adds, Verbum Theon. of Lazarus ; in the other Erangelists, that of Simon the servaret, pendet er præterito, cujus vis latet in Des outny, i. e. leper.

Noli reprehendere hunc, quæ unguentum ideo nec vendidit, nec pau" Ans. St. John lays the scene in general at Bethany. peribus dedit, ut, &c. And the common reading is thus rightly

" It seems probable, that Lazarus would not have been explained by Lightfoot, 2.588. ^ If Baronius's exposition do called tis tüv evxx bpe évay, if he had been the lost.

not take, then add this clause--Let her alone ; for this may “ Martha, the sister of Lazarus, might shew Jesus honour | be an argument and sign that she hath not done this vainly, by ministering to him, in any house as well as her own. lururiously, or upon any delicacy spent so costly an ointment

She was Simon's neighbour, and perhaps his relation, Dr. upon me; because she hath reserred it for this time, wherein I Priestly, Harm. p. 102. Our Lord's aflection for Lazarus ilm so near my gruve and funcral, and poured it not on me and liis sister, and the recent miracle wrought on Lazarus, before.' Laruner's comment, ubi supra, p. 312. is applicable were very sufficient reasons for Simon's invitation of such to the three Evangelists. If this ointment were laid out upon neighbouring guests.

a dead body, you would not think it too much. You may con3dly. “ St. John mentions the feet of Jesus as anointed by sider this anointing as an embulming of me.

The words are a Mary, and wiped with her hair; the other Evangelists say, predietion of Christ's death, which was to happen on the that the ointment was poured on Jesus's heail.

third day after; and they are a prediction beautifully taken Ans. It is no where asserted that the unction was of from the occasion. She has done this to embulm me, Matt. Jesus's head only, or of his feet only: both actions are con- She has anticipated the embalming of me, Mark. She hus not sistent; and St. John, in his supplemental history, may very sold this ointment, and given it to the poor, that she might rewell have added the respectful conduct of Mary, that after serve it to this day, which is, us it were, the day of my embalmhaving anointed Jesus's head, she proceeded to anoint his ing, so soon is my burial to follow, John. fect, and even to wipe them with her hair.

“ Dr. Scott, on Matthew, quotes the following passage from 4thly.“ In St. John, Judas alone murmurs: in St. Mat- Theophylact: 1095ñu Toi; Isdaíons pesta pupwvivra Dual Tá Calatay thew, the disciples have indignation; or, as St. Mark ex- ως και οι Αιγύπτιοι εποι&ν, δια το άσηπτα τηρείσθαι, και άνευ δυσωδίας. presses it, some have indignation among themselves.

It was a custom among the Jews, as well as among the Egyp“ Ans. Dr. Lardner says, Serm. vol. II. p. 316. • It is well tians, to embalm the bodies of the dead, as well to keep them known to be very common with all writers, to use the plural from putrefaction, as to prevent offensive smells. number when one person only is intended; nor is it im- “ The expressions therefore of the three evangelists agree possible that others might have some uneasiness about it, in sense and substance. I have explained the more difficult though they were far from being so disgusted at it as Judas , in St. John; leaving every one to his own judgment whether was. And their concern for the poor was sincere: his was it be the true one or not; though I incline to think that the self-interested and mere pretence.'

unusual phrase ought generally to be admitted into the text. “ Grotius's words are : Reprehensa est hoc nomine mulier av · Oilily. In St. John, Mary anoints Jesus; in Matthew and uno discipulorum; nam ita pluralis accipi solet.

Mark, a woman, not named. 5thly. The vindications of the woman by our Lord differ “ Ans. Lardner


supra p.

315. · St. John having be80 much, as to shew that the occasions were different.

fore given the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, it was very " Ans. St. John's words are indeed thus misinterpreted by natural for him, when he came to relate this anointing of our Baronius : Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of Lord, to say by whom it was done. But the two former evanmy burial, alluding to Mark xvi. 1. See Lightfoot, Harm. gelists having never mentioned Lazarus or his sisters in their p. 27. See also Lightfoot, ib. 1. 251. She hath kept it yet, gospels, when they came to relate this action forbear to mention and not spent all; that she may bestow it on a charitable use, any name, and speak only of a certain woman. Luke x. 38– the anointing of my body to its burial.'

42. has an account of our Lord's being entertained at the house " Whiston also, Harm. 129. gives a wrong sense to the of Martha. But he says nothing of this anointing. If he had words. She hath spent but little of it now: she hath reserved related it, I make no question, that he, like St. John, would the main part of it for a fitter time, the day before my delivery have said by whom it was done.' Upon the whole, there is to the Jews; making this a prediction of what passed, no solid objection to the hypothesis that we have three accounts Matt. xxvi. 6—13. Mark xiv. 3–9. It must be observed of the same transaction. But it is incredible that there should that

, John xii. 7. there is a remarkable various reading : be two unctions of Jesus, in Bethany, within four days, not is sis tau nubçar på ivacoas ho tneħon aúró. See Wetstein, plainly distinguished from each other; that the kind and and add Codd. Vercell. and Veron. in Blanchini. Of this price of the ointment should be the same, that the two aca reading we have a sound interpretation in Mill, proleg. xlv. tions should be censured in the same manner; and that words Sine eam ut opportune usa hoc unguento, relut ad sepulturam || to the same effect should be used in defence of the woman meam, jamjam occidendi, illud servâsse ostendatur. And like- who anointed Jesus, within so short a time, in the same place, Wise in Bengelius ad loc. wlio observes, that the common and among the same persons. See Doddridge on John xii. l.

[ocr errors]

hether our Lord ate the


pass-over before he suffered.

As to the precise time of this transaction, it is natural to conclude from the accounts of Matthew and Mark, that it hap- The question considererl, whether our Lord ate the pass-over pened two days before the passover. I had much pleasure in

with his disciples, before he suffered ? observing that Mr. Jebb, in his Harmony, assigns it the same Every candid person must allow that there are great distiorder as I do. I likewise find in Ward's Dissertations, p. 112. culties relative to the time in which our Lord ate the last passthe following remark. John ovly mentions the day when over with his disciples. In the Introduction to my Discourse Jesus came to Bethany, without specifying the time when he on the nature and design of the Holy Eucharist, I have exTas entertained there by Simon the leper; whereas the other | amined this subject at large, and considered the four followtwo evangeli:ts acquaint us with the day when that was done,ing opinions, viz. I. Our Lord did not eat the pass-over on the and what followed upon it, with relation to Judas.' And last year of his ministry. II. Our Lord did eat it that year ; again, Hall says, Critical Notes, v. 3, p. 52. “Wednesday and at the same time with the Jews. III. He did eat it that he seems to have staid at Bethany, and supped there. At year, but not at the same time with the Jews. IV. He did eat which supper, Mary, sister of Lazarus, poured that ointment a pass-over of his own instituting, but widely differing from on his body, which he interpreted to be for his burial.' And that eaten by the Jews. The two first opinions do not appear on John xii. 2. “This seeins to be the same supper which to be solidly supported. The two last are of the most importMatihew and Mark do say was at the house of Simon the leper; || ance, are the most likely, and may be harmonized. I shall for there it was that Mary anointed him. But then we must | introduce a few observations on each in this place. And I. not take it to be the same night that he came to Bethany, but | On the opinion that “ Our Lord did eat the pass-over this two days before the panorer.'

year, but not at the same time with the Jews." That Judas went to the high-priests on the evening or

Dr. Cudworth, who of all others has handled this subject night of our Wednesday, may be collected from Matt. xxvi. || best, has proved from the Talınud, Mishna, and some of the 14-17. and the parallel places in this harmony: and he seems most reputable of the Jewish Rabbins, that the ancient Jews to have acted partly in disgust at what had passed. This is a

about our Saviour's ne, often solemnized as well the passgood argument for fixing the unction for Wednesday. As it overs as the other feasts, upon the ferias next before and after will appear that the other apostles did not suspect his trea- | the sabbaths. And, that as the Jews in ancient times reckoned chery, we may suppose that Judas withdrew himself clandes- || the new moons, not according to astronomical exactness, but tinely, probably after our Lord had retired to privacy and de- || according to the Quors, or moon's appearance : and, as this votion. Our Lord's words, Matt. xxvi. 2. may have led Mary to appearance might happen a day later than the real time, conshew this respect to Jesus, lest no future opportunity should of- || sequently there might be a whole day of difference in the time fer. See Lardner, ubi supra, p. 327. Dr. Priestly thinks that of celebrating one of these feasts, which depended on a par

if the verses that contain this story in Matt. xxvi. 6–13. be ticular day of the month; the days of the month being counied considered, they will be found to stand very awkwardly in their from the çaors, or appearance of the new moon. As he depresent situation, where they interrupt an account of a con- cribes the whole manner of doing this, both froin the Babysultation among the Jews about putting Jesus to death.' || lonish Talmud, and from Maimonides, I shall give an extract Harm. p. 100. But it seems to me, that the story has a re- from this part of his work, that my readers may have the markably apt connexion with the preceding and subsequent | whole argument before them. history. The Jewish rulers consult how they may take Jesus “ In the great or outer court there was a house called Beth by craft, and without raising a tumult among the people. An Yazek, where the senate sat all the 30th day of every month, accident happens which offends one of Jesus's familiar attend- to receive the witnesses of the moon's appearance, and to exants; who immediately repairs to Jesus's enemies, and re- amine them. If there came approred witnesses on the 30th ceives from them a bribe to betray him in the absence of the day, who could state they had seen the new moon, the chief multitude.” Newcome's Harmony, Notes, p. 39, &c. man of the senate stood up, and cried wipo mekuddash, it is

I have added the above, not from a conviction that the point sanctified; and the people standing by caught the word from is so elucidated, as to settle the controversy, but merely to place him, and cried, mekuddash! mekuddash! But if, when the before the reader both sides of the question. Still, sub judice | consistory had sat all the day, and there came no approved lis est, and any man may doubt, consistently with the most witnesses of the plasis, or appearance of the new moon, then genuine piety, whether the relations given by the evangelists they made an intercalation of one day in the former month, concerning the anointing of our Lord, should be understood and decreed the following one and thirtieth day to be the caof two different unctions, at two different times, in two differ- | lends. But, if after the fourth or fifth day, or even before the ent places, by two different persons ; or whether they are not || end of the month, respectable witnesses came from far, and diilirent accounts, with some varying circumstances, of one testified they had seen the new inoon, in its due time: the seand the same transaction. I incline, at present, to the former nate were bound to alter the beginning of the month, and opinion ; but it would be rash to decide where so many emi- reckon it a day sooner, viz. from the thirtieth day. pently learned and wise men have disagreed,

As the senate were very unwilling to be at the trouble of Whether our Lord ate


the pass-over before he sufferret.

a second consecration, when they had even fixed on a wrong | day, for the Jews began their day at sun-se!ting; we at midday, and therefore received very reluctantly the te timony of night. Thus Christ ate the pass-over the same duy with the such witnesses as those last mentioned, they afterward: made Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ, therefore, kept this a statute to this effect That whatsoever sime the senute should pass-over the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day conclude on for the culends of the month, though it were certain

in which the Jews had eaten their first pass-over in Eript: they were in the wrong, yet all were bound to order their feasts cee Exod. xii. 6—-12. And in the same part of the sanie day according to it.This Dr. Cudworth supposes, actually took in which they had sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz. beplace in the time of our Lord, and “ as it is not likely that tween the two evenings, i. e. between the sun's declining west our Lord would submit to this perversion of the original cus- and his setting, Jesus our pass-over was sacrificed for us. For tom, and that following the true 0a5ıs, or appearance of the it was the third hour, in the course of between Savd 12, Mark new moon, confirmed by sufficient withesses, he and his dis- xv. 25. that Christ was nailed to the cross: and in the course of ciples ate the pass-over on that day; but the Jews, following the ninth hour, between 12 and 3 in the afternoon, Matt. xxvii. the pertinacious decree of the Sanhedrin, did not eat it till the 46. Mark xv. 34. Jesus knowing that the antetype had accomday following." Dr. C. further shews from Epiphanius, that plished every thing shadowed forth by the type, said, “it is tie there was a contention, OoquBos, a tumult, among the Jews || NISHED, TETENETTO.1, completed, perfected, and having thats said he about the pass-over, that very year. Hence it is likely, that bowed his head, and dismissed his spirit. See on Johın xix. 14, 30. what was the real paschal day to our Lord, bis disciples, and Probably there is but one objection of any force that lies many other pious Jews, who adopted the true quris phasis, against the opinion, that our Lord ate his passorer some hoits was only the preparation or antecedent evening to others, who before the Jews in general ate theirs; which is, that, if our acted on the decree of the senate. Besides, it is worthy of Lord did eat the pass-over the evening before the Jews, int genote, that not only the Karaütes, who do not acknowledge neral, ate theirs, it could not have been sacrificed according to the authority of the Sanhedrin, but also the Rabbins them- the law; nor is it at all likely that the blood was sprinkled at selves grant, that where the case is doubtful, the pass-over the foot of the altar. If, therefore, the blood was not thug should be celebrated with the same ceremonies, tiyo days toge- sprinkled by one of the priests, that wlrich coustituted the ther: and it was always doubtful, when the appearance of the very essence of the rite, as ordained by God, was lacking it Dew moon could not be fully ascertained.

that celebrated by our Lord. Bishop Pearce supposes, that it was lawful for the Jews to To this it is answered—First, we have already seen that, eat he paschal lamb at any time, between the evening of in consequence of the immense number of sacrifices to be Thursday, and that of Friday; and, that this permission was offered on the paschal solemnity, it is highly probable the necessary, because of the immense number of lambs which Jews were obliged to employ two days for this work. It is were to be killed for that purpose: as in one year, there were

not at all likely that the blood of 256,500 lambs could be sent not fewer than 256,500 lambs offered. See Josephus, War, b. and sprinkled at oné altar, in the course of one day, by all vii. c. 9. sect. 3. In Matt. xxvi. ver. 17, it is said, Now the the priests in Jerusalem, or indeed in the floly Land; since first day of the feast of unleavened bread, (on to main tw they had but that one altar wirere they could legally sprinkle a vav) the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where the blood of the victims. wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pass-over? As Secondly, we have also seen that, in cases of doubt relative the feast of unleavened bread did not begin till the day after to the time of the appearance of the ner moon, the Jews the pass-over, the fifteenth day of the month, Lev. xxiii. 5, 6. were permitted to hold the pass-over both days; and that it is Numb. xxviii. 16, 17. this could not have been properly the probable such a dubious case existed at the tiine in question. first day of that feast : but as the Jews began to eat unleavened || In any of these cases, the lamb might have been killed and bread on the fourteenth day, Exod. xii. 18. this day was of its bloodl sprinkled according to the rules and ceremonies of the ten termed the first of unleavened bread. Now it appears, that Jewish church. the Evangelists use it in this sense, and call even the paschal Thirdly, as our Lord was the true paschal larnb, who was, day by this name, see Mark xiv. 12. Luke xxii. 7.

in a few hours after this time, to bear away the sin of the world, At first view, this third opinion, which states that Christ, he might dispense with this part of the ceremony, and act did eat the pass-orer with his disciples that year, but not in as Lord of his own institution in this, as he had done before the same hour with the Jews; and that he expired on the in the case of the subbuth. At any rate, as it seems procross the same hour in which the paschal lamb, was killed, bable that he ale the pass-over at this time, and that he died seems the most probable. For it appears, from what has already abont the time the Jews odléred theirs, it rıny be fully prebeen remarked, that our Lord and his disciples ate the passe ' sumed that he left nothing undone towards a due performance orer some hours before the Jews ate theirs; for they, accord of the rite, which the present necessity required, or tlie law ing to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but of God could demand. Christ appears to have eaten his the preceding evening, which The olnjection, that our Lord and his disciples appear to was the beginning of the same sixth day of the week, or Fri- i have set or reclined at table-:ll the time they ate what is sup

[ocr errors]

Whether our Lord ate


the pass-over before he suffered. posed above, to have been the pass-over, contrary to the pas- || ish month Nisan, could not commence that thirty-third year chal institution, which required them to eat it standing, with sooner than the setting of the sun on Friday, March 20th ; their staves in their hands, their loins girded, and their shoes and consequently, that Friday, April 3d, on which Christ on, cannot be considered as having any great weight in it; for, died, was the 14th of Nisan, (not the 15th) the day appointthough the terms avexeito, Matt. xxvi. 20. and Ovento!, Luke ed by the law for the celebration of the pass-over. All these xxii. 14. are used in reference to their eating that evening, points he took care to have ascertained by the nicest astronoand these words signify reclining at table, or on a couch, as is mical calculations, in which he was assisted by a very emithe custom of the Orientals, it does not follow that they must nent astronomer and mathematician, Bullialdus (Mr. Bouilnecessarily be restrained to that meaning; nor does it appear leau.) that this part of the ceremony was much attended to, perhaps These two last opinions, apparently contradictory, and not at all, in the latter days of the Jewish church.

which alone, of all those offered on the subject, deserve conThe second opinion which we have to examine is this: Our | sideration, may be brought to harmonize. That Jesus ate Lord did eat a pass-over of his own instituting, but widely the pass-over with his disciples the evening before the Jews different from that eaten by the Jews.

ate theirs, seems pretty clearly proved from the text of St. Mr. Toinard, in his Greek Harmony of the Gospels, strong. Luke, and the arguments founded on that text. ly contends, that our Lord did not eat what is commonly called All that is assumed there, to make the whole consistent, is, the pass-over this year, but another, of a mystical kind. His that the Jews that year held the pass-over both on the 13th chief arguments are the following:

and 14th of Nisan, because of the reasons already assigned ; It is indubitably evident, from the text of St. John, that and that therefore Peter and Jolin, who were employed on the night on the beginning of which our Lord supped with this business, might have got the blood legally sprinkled by his disciples, and instituted the holy sacrament, was not that the hands of a priest, which was all that was necessary to the on which the Jews celebrated the pass-over; but the preceding legality of the rite. evening, on which the pass-over could not be legally offered. But, secondly, should it appear improbable that such douThe conclusion is evident from the following passages : John ble celebration took place at this time, and that our Lord xiii. 1. Now before the feast of the pass-over, Jesus knowing, could not have eaten the pass-over


with his disciples, &c. Ver. 2. And supper (not the paschal, but an ordinary as he died on the very hour on which the paschal lamb was supper) being ended, &c. Ver. 27. That thou doest, do quick- slain, and consequently before he could legally eat the passly. Ver. 28. Now no one at the table knew for what intent he over; how then can the text of St. Luke be reconciled with spake this. Ver. 29. For some thought, because Judas had the this fact? I answer, with the utmost ease; by substituting bag, that Jesus had said unto him : Buy what we have need of a pass-over for the pass-over, and simply assuming, that our against the feast, &c. Chap. xviii. 28. Then led they Jesus | Lord at this time instituted the holy EUCHARIST, in place of from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment, and it was early; and the PasCHAL LAMB: and thus it will appear, he ate a pass-over they thenselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should with his disciples the evening before his death, viz. the mysbe defiled, but that they might eat the pass-over. Chap. xix. 14. tical pass-over, or sacrament of his body and blood : and that And it was the preparation of the pass-over, and about the this was the pass-over which he so ardently longed to eat with sirth hour. Now as it appears, that at this time the disciples his disciples before he suffered. This is the opinion of Mr. thought our Lord had ordered Judas to go and bring what Toinard, and, if granted, solves every difficulty. Thus the was necessary for the pass-over, and they were then supping | whole controversy is brought into a very narrow compass : together, it is evident that it was not the paschal lamb on Our Lord did eat a pass-over with his disciples some short which they were supping; and it is as evident, from the un- time before he died :--the question is, what pass-over did he eat. willingness of the Jews to go into the hall of judgment, that the regular legal pass-over, or a mystical one? That he ate ce they had not as yet eaten the pass-over. These words are pass-over is, I think, demonstrated : but whether the literal or plain, and can be taken in no other sense, without offering mystical one, is a matter of doubt. On this point, good and them the greatest violence.

learned inen may innocently hesitate and differ : but on either Mr. Toinard, having found that our Lord was crucified on hypothesis, the text of the Evangelists is unimpeachable, and the sixth day of the week, (Friday) during the paschal solem- all shadow of contradiction done away: for the question then nity, in the thirty-third year of the vulgar æra, and that the rests on the peculiar meaning of names and words. On this paschal moon of that year was not in conjunction with the hypothesis, the preparation of the pass-over must be consisun till the afternoon of Thursday the 19th of March, and dered as implying no more than-1. Providing a convenient that the new moon could not be seen in Judea until the follow

2. Bringing water for the baking on the following ing day, (Friday) concluded, that the intelligence of the Qacis, day, because on that day the bringing of the water would or appearance of the new moon, could not be made by the have been unlawful. 3. Making inquisition for the leaven, witnesses to the beth din, or senate, sooner than Saturday morn- that every thing of this kind might be removed from the ing, the 21st of March. That the first day of the first Jew. house where the pass-over was to be eaten, according to the


Whether our Lord ate


the pass-over before he suffered. rery strict and awful command of God, Exod. xii. 15—20. absurd to suppose, that under such terrible evidences of the xxiii. 15. xxxiv. 25. These, it is probable, were the acts of divine indignation, any religious ordinances or festive prepapreparation which the disciples were commanded to perform,rations could possibly have taken place. Matt. xxvi. 18. Mark xiv. 13, 14. Luke xxii. 8—11. and My readers will probably be surprised to see the preceding which, on their arrival at the city, they punctually executed. | opinions so dissentient among themselves, and the plausible See Matt. xxvi. 19. Mark xiv. 16. Luke xxii. 13. Thus every reasons by which they are respectively supported, where each thing was prepared, and the holy sacrament instituted, which seems by turns to prevail. When I took up the question, I should, in the Christian church, take place of the Jewish | had no suspicion that it was encumbered with so many diffipass-over, and continue to be a memorial of the sacrifice which culties. These I now feel and acknowledge ; nevertheless, I Christ was about to make, by his death on the cross : for as think the plan of reconciling the texts of the Evangelists, parthe paschal lamb had shewed forth his death till he came, this ticularly St. Luke and St. John, which I have adopted above, death fulfilled the design of the rite, and sealed up the vision is natural; and I am in hopes will not appear altogether unand prophecy.

satisfactory to my readers. On the subject, circumstanced All preparations for the true paschal sacrifice being now as it is, hypothesis alone can prevail; for indubitable evidence made, Jesus was immediately betrayed, shortly after appre- and certainty cannot be obtained. The morning of the resurhended, and in a few hours expired upon the cross. It is rection, is probably the nearest period in which accurate intherefore very likely, that he did not literally eat the pass-over formation on this point can be expected. Je suis trompé, says this year; and may I not add, that it is more than probable, that Bouilleau, si cette question peut être jamais bien eclaircie. the pass-over was not eaten in the whole land of Judea on this I be not mistaken, this question will never be thoroughly unoccasion. The rending of the vail of the temple, Matt. xxvii.derstood.” It would be presumptuous to say, Christ did eat 51. Mark xv. 38. Luke xxiii. 45. the terrible earthquake, Matt. || the pass-over this last year of his ministry : it would be as haxxvii. 51-54. the dismal and unnatural darkness, which was zardous to say he did not eat it. The middle way is the safest; over the whole land of Judea, from the sixth hour (twelve and it is that which is adopted above. One thing is sufficiently o'clock) to the ninth hour, (i. e. three o'clock in the after- evident, that Christ our paschal lamb has been sacrificed for noon) with all the other prodigies which took place on this us; and that he has instituted the holy eucharist, to be a perawful occasion, we may naturally conclude, were more than petual memorial of that his precious death until his coming sufficient to terrify and appal this guilty nation, and totally to again : and they who with a sincere heart, and true faith in his prevent the celebration of the paschal ceremonies. Indeed, passion and death, partake of it, shall be made partakers of his the time in which killing the sacrifices, and sprinkling the most blessed body and blood. Reader, praise God for the blood of the lambs, should have been performed, was wholly atonement, and rest not without an application of it to thy occupied with these most dreadful portents; and it would be | own soul.

CHAPTER XXVII. In the morning, Christ is bound and delivered to Pontius Pilate, 1, 2. Judas, seeing his Master condemned, repents, acknowledges his transgression to the chief priests, attests Christ's innocence, throws down the money, and

goes and hangs himself, 3–5. They buy the potter's field with the money, 6-10. Christ questioned by Pilate, refuses to answer, 11-14. Pilate, while enquiring of the Jews whether they would have Jesus or Barabbas released, receives a message from his wife to have nothing to do in this wicked business, 15—19. The multitude, influenced by the chief priests and elders, desire Barabbas to be released, and Jesus to be crucified, 20—23. Pilate attests his innocence, and the people make themselves and their posterity responsible for his blood, 24, 25. Barabbas is released, and Christ is scourged, 26. The soldiers strip him, clothe him with a scarlet robe, crown him with thorns, mock, and variously insult him, 27-31. Simon compelled to bear his cross, 32. They bring him to Golgotha, give him rinegar mingled with gall to drink, crucify him, and cast lots for his raiment, 33–36. His accusation, 37. Two thieves are crucified with him, 38. He is mocked and insulted while hanging on the cross, 39–44. The awful darkness, 45. Jesus calls upon God, is offered vinegar to drink, expires, 46–50. Prodigies that accompanied and followed his death, 51–53. He is acknowledged by the centurion, 54. Several women behold the crucifixion, 55, 56. Joseph of Arimathea begs the body of Pilate, and deposits it in his own new tomb, 57–60. The women watch the sepulchre, 61. The Jews consult with Pilate, how they may prevent the resurrection of Christ, 62–64. He grants them a guard for the sepulchre, and they seal the stone that stopped the mouth of the tomb where he was laid, 65, 66.

« VorigeDoorgaan »