believing word of the heathen centurion preceded the first troubled utterance of penitence on the part of the Jews, as henceforth the Gentile should lead the van in conversion to Christ; whilst it had been the mockery of the Jews and their rulers which had excited the Gentile soldiers under the cross to mock the Lord.

There were, no doubt, also nobler Jews at Golgotha, who stood stedfast by the Lord-the elect (see Rom. ix.-xi.) namely, all His acquaintance, and the women from Galilee, who had belonged to the number of His followers. They stood afar off, and beheld all these things.

And, behold, a man named Joseph, a councillor, a good man and a just, who had not consented to their counsel and deed. He was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews; and also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in fine linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn out of the rock, wherein never man before was laid. And it was the preparation-day, and the Sabbath-the hour when the Sabbath began was approaching. And the women also, who had come with Jesus from Galilee, followed after himdown into the tomb1-and beheld the sepulchre, and how His body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments, in order to anoint Him. But they rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment.

The death of Jesus exercised thus a quickening influence on all the disciples of Jesus. Joseph the councillor was now able to stand forth, and give a public testimony of his devotedness to Christ-going into the house of Pilate, and begging the body of Jesus. He was able to take immediate steps to bury the crucified one before the approaching Sabbath-bury Him in a tomb of the rock which was quite new, and which he did not think to desecrate, but to consecrate, by depositing in it the body of Jesus. And so also were the Galilean women emboldened to accompany the eminent councillor of the metropolis: they could, without

1 Κατακολουθήσασαι. The expression κατακολουθειν appears to intimate not the mere following, but the following downwards; as also Acts xvi. 17. For the apostles, whom the woman with a spirit of divination followed, went commonly to the house of prayer on the river (thus downwards), according to ver. 13.

VOL. VI.

Q 6

fear, descend with him into the dark tomb; and even now they would gladly at once have anointed the body, if the Sabbath law had not restrained them. Their hands rested indeed during the Sabbath-day; but in spirit they were already engaged in adórning the body of the Lord, for the kingdom of heroic love, and of freedom in love, had now begun.

NOTES.

1. Luke makes the announcement of the denial of Peter precede the departure of Jesus to the Mount of Olives. He first represents Jesus as going out alone to the Mount of Olives, and then remarks that His disciples also follow Him. Without doubt, he thus indicates that the disciples accompany Jesus without being inwardly prepared for it. He does not mention the place Gethsemane. He does not note the circumstance, that Jesus bids the Twelve remain behind, and takes the three trusted disciples, Peter, James, and John, farther with Him into the depths of the garden. On the other hand, he has the exhortation to the disciples, Pray that ye enter not into temptation; a parallel to the later word addressed to the three in Matthew and Mark, with the addition, For the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. The hastening away from the disciples is described by him as a rushing forth, or a being hurried away from them, about the distance of a stone's cast. In the description of the sufferings of Jesus in Gethsemane, the distinction of the three separate acts of the conflict does not appear. With this also the thrice repeated sleeping of the three confidential disciples is omitted. Had Luke wished to cast a shadow on the character of the most eminent apostles, he would especially have exhibited them as sleepers, and not passed over their falling asleep three successive times; nor would he have added the word of exculpation, They slept for sorrow. The remaining peculiarities of his description of this conflict of Christ have been referred to above.1 The indication that Judas did not altogether succeed with his kiss, is made more prominent. The stronger designation given to the kiss of Judas is also peculiar to Luke. The fault of the other disciples stands in closer contact with this crime. Jesus is surrounded with erring disciples. In mentioning the stroke with

1 The angel who appears to Jesus, and the bloody sweat, give much trouble to several critics. See Schleiermacher, p. 288; Ritschl, p. 114.

the sword, Luke is silent regarding the name of Peter; he also omits the rebuke given to him by Christ. For indeed he does make the disciples appear in all their weakness, but his object is not to blacken them, and least of all Peter. The mention of the circumstance, that Jesus heals the ear of the servant, has been already remarked above. It is worthy of note, that, according to Luke, chief priests, captains of the temple-watch, and elders are present at the apprehension of Jesus (see above, iv. 300). Peculiar to this Gospel is the beautiful word of Jesus, This is your hour, and the power of darkness. On the other hand, it passes by the appeal of Christ to the Scriptures in this passage, and, what once more is specially worthy of remark, the flight of the disciples. It makes, however, an emphatic statement regarding Peter, that he set himself in the midst of the people, who made a fire of coals in the palace of the high priest. But the circumstance that Peter confirmed his denial with an oath, and began to curse and to swear, is narrated only by Matthew, not by Luke. It is to be observed, that according to the record of Luke, the expression of the denials becomes gradually weaker. The first is as follows: Woman, I know him not; the second, Man, I am not; the third, Man, I know not what thou sayest. According to Matthew and Mark, who here seem to give the more exact account historically, this last is the very first form of the denial; and, according to Matthew, it was, on the second and third occasions, I know not the man. It is therefore just Luke who describes the denial in milder terms, whilst the temptation appears in so far stronger, as even the second of the questions was put to Peter by a man. Luke manifestly wished to indicate the gradual awakening of an evil conscience in Peter, which was completed by the crowing of the cock, and by the look of Christ was turned into wholesome penitence.1 Luke not only omits, along with the other synoptists, the first examination of Jesus by Annas, but also the first examination improvised by Caiaphas, which is described by them.2 On the other hand, he narrates

1 Regarding the remaining differences in the history of Peter's denial, see above, iv. 316.

. 2 This also furnishes an explanation why Luke was compelled to omit all mention of the witness which, according to Matthew and Mark, was brought up against Him in the second examination; a circumstance which the Saxon Anonyme would gladly turn to his own account (p. 184).

the final official examination. By this means, the maltreatment which Jesus experienced before this final examination appears in a new light. The mild form in which he represents the condemnation of Jesus at the final examination is to be noted. Equally mild is the representation of the guilt of Pilate. The examination of Jesus by Herod, which Luke only records, possesses, as well in the grounds assigned for it as in its details, all the characters of the strictest historical truth. In this scene, Herod appears entirely as he is otherwise known to us. In the psychologically keen observation implied in the remark, The same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together, we recognise at once the third Evangelist. In like manner, we may regard the circumstance, ver. 13, that Pilate caused the people to be called together, in order to announce the release of Jesus, as a proof of his pragmatic apprehension and handling of Gospel facts. In the thrice repeated sentence of Pilate, and in the threefold gradation observable in His condemnation by the Jews, there lies the stamp of reality and a powerful impressiveness. If, however, Luke makes the guilt of Pilate appear in a mild light, and quite passes by the guilt of the heathen soldiery, the heathen are nevertheless not allowed to go free. Rather does the whole weight of their culpability already appear in the circumstance, that Pilate, after three contrary decisions, pronounces the final sentence, that the desire of the Jews should be gratified, and accordingly that the man found guilty of murder and sedition should be released, whilst he gives over Jesus to the will of His enemies; and later also, in the mocking of the Lord on the cross by the soldiers, and by the superscription. The mention of the weeping daughters of Jerusalem, and of the answer of Jesus, is again peculiarly characteristic of Luke. So likewise are the already mentioned mocking of the Lord on the cross by the soldiers, the conversion of one of the malefactors, and the three last words. Luke has given many points more briefly than the other Evangelists, and several he omits. He alone records the significant fact, that the multitude smote on their breast, in suggestive combination with the believing utterance of the cen

The Saxon Anonyme seeks to find in this fact a symbolical meaning with reference to the reconciliation which the death of Christ effected between Jews and Gentiles, according to Eph. ii. 14, 15. So much understanding has this kind of criticism of the nature of symbols!

turion. Besides the women from Galilee, who beheld the crucifixion, he mentions in general' all the acquaintance of Jesus.' He does not indicate the women here by name, as Matthew and Mark partly do; and in like manner, also, he does not name them when he speaks of the burial. It is a beautiful contrast between the conclusion of the history of the passion in Matthew and Luke, that the former notes how the Jewish rulers broke the Sabbath on the great Sabbath of the Passover, in order to seal the grave of Jesus, although they had rejected the Lord specially on account of the cures performed by Him on the Sabbath; whilst the latter relates that the female disciples of Jesus, whom they had accused of Sabbath profanation, refrained from anointing Him in the tomb on the Sabbath-day, however oppressive the restraint of the law may have been to them in these circumstances. Both features are in their contrast characteristic of the peculiarity as well as of the spiritual unity of both Evangelists.

2. How ludicrously Gfrörer attempts to make the report of the inward sufferings of Christ appear improbable, see p. 337. As only Luke records that Jesus healed the ear of the wounded servant, one must, according to him, dismiss this circumstance, so closely allied to the mythical, as unhistorical.' He maintains that, according to John, Christ, at the commencement of His ministry, really made the declaration which, according to Matthew, was adduced as a false witness against Him. He has thus found no difference between the terms of the declaration of Jesus (John ii. 19) and the false witness of the enemies of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 61), and so on. According to the Saxon Anonyme (p. 184), Luke discovers his enmity to the Jews clearly by the assiduity with which he recklessly, and in total disregard of what is due to shame and self-respect, makes the heads of the Jewish nation to be so zealous for the destruction of Christ.' This illassorted sentence means, indeed, to ascribe to Luke only enmity to the Jews; the shamelessness, on the contrary, to the heads of the Jews, according to Luke's description of them. The author attempts, as is frequently his wont, a little piece of artistic skill, when he shows that, according to Luke (ver. 63), Jesus was smitten by the chief priests and elders, who were the bailiffs that arrested Him, according to vers. 52 and 54.