THE ORDER TO BE PURSUED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCES.
By W. H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN. Let us advance now to an examination of what Matthew has said concerning the matter which is passing in review. It will be found in the twenty-sixth chapter of his Gospel, and reads as follows:— “Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, Is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, 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. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.” Matt. 26:20–30.
The reader will observe that Matthew makes mention of four of the events spoken of by John, and one in addition, of which John does not take notice, i. e., the Lord’s supper. He will also discover the fact that there is nothing that Matthew says which will enable us to locate the “breaking of bread” definitely with reference to the relation which it sustains in point of time to the “washing of feet.” Matthew simply remarks that the bread and the wine of the eucharist were partaken of while they were eating, without particularizing further. His statement must be taken as one that was not designed to be given in chronological order; else his account would disagree with that of Luke; since, if it is given in chronological order, Matthew places the “breaking of bread” after the identification of Judas as the traitor; whereas Luke locates it before that event in the most unqualified manner. Matthew evidently carries his history forward through the passover supper, the washing of feet, the sitting down again of Christ at the table, and the pointing out of Judas as the traitor, and then—in accordance with a custom often followed by the sacred writers—he falls back in his narrative once more in order to bring up the matter of breaking of bread (which he had previously18omitted), in the use of the words, “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,” etc. We are now ready for the parallel passages in Mark, which we give verbatim herewith:— “And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them; and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.” Mark 14:17–26.
What has been remarked of Matthew is equally true of Mark. He also omits the Lord’s supper in his general account, and then falls back in order to mention it in the use of a similar expression to that which Matthew employs; i. e., “And as they did eat, Jesus took bread,” etc. As already remarked, any other interpretation would inevitably lead to inextricable confusion; for, as suggested above, it would leave Matthew and Mark in conflict with Luke; since Luke certainly represents the breaking of bread as having transpired before Christ pointed out Judas as the betrayer. The only objection which could with any show of reason be raised to the interpretation which we have offered, will be found in the suggestion that Matthew and Mark speak of the breaking of bread as having occurred “as they sat and did eat.” This objection, however, we do not regard as valid. It may be met in one of two ways. 1. It is not impossible that the idea which the evangelists meant to convey was simply that the breaking of bread took place while yet they were at the table of the passover supper. 2. It is not incredible, or even improbable, that after the Lord arose and washed the feet of the apostles and sat down a second time to the table, they might have resumed their eating which had been prematurely broken off by the mysterious action of Christ in the washing of their feet. Either of these hypotheses is preferable to a view which would make Matthew and Mark flatly contradict Luke, and at the same time put them out of harmony with John. Should any person still insist that we have erred in reasoning that the accounts of Matthew and Mark do not give in consecutive order the events to which they make reference, then we reply: Should we grant the objector’s desire and concede that they speak of the transactions just as they occurred, and that their accounts should be taken instead of that of Luke, such a concession would not alter the conclusion reached materially; for by reading what they say with the understanding that it is connected history, they will be made to teach that the Lord’s supper followed what the Lord said to Judas about betraying him; this being so, then it must also have followed the feet-washing; since John shows that the washing of feet occurred before they sat down to the table the second time, that event being numbered two in his table, while the declaration of Christ to Judas, in the same table, is numbered four. Thus it has been made to appear that—take whichever horn of the dilemma may please him—the objector will be compelled to admit that feet-washing must have preceded the breaking of bread on the memorable evening on which our Lord partook of his last passover supper. Reconstructing, now, our table of the order of events based upon the account of John, and inserting therein in its proper place—as determined by the record of Luke—the celebration of the Lord’s supper, the reader will be enabled to obtain a consecutive view of the principal occurrences of the evening: 1. Passover supper; 2. feet-washing; 3. Sat down the second time to the table; 4. Lord’s supper (Luke 22:19–21); designated the one who should betray him; 5. Said to Judas, “That thou doest, do quickly;” 6. Judas went out to betray him; 7. Discourse to his disciples; 8. Went out to the Mount of Olives. A brief summary of some of the principal points which have been made in the present article would run as follows:— 1. The supper mentioned in the thirteenth chapter of John was the passover supper. 2. The account given in the thirteenth chapter of John, being the fullest of any furnished by the evangelists, and giving, as it evidently does, the events which it enumerates in consecutive order as it regards each other, furnishes a basis for a table with which to compare the statements found in the other gospels. 3. In such a table it is manifest that the “washing of feet” preceded the pointing out of the traitor. 4. Luke mentions the Lord’s supper, while John omits that supper, and connects it with the pointing out of the traitor; which event is numbered four in the table of John. 5. Matthew’s account is not given in consecutive order, and therefore does not affect the question. 6. Mark’s account also is not given in consecutive order; and, therefore, it does not affect the question. 7. We are left, consequently, to the accounts of John and Luke for the settlement of the whole matter; and as Luke connects the Lord’s supper with the designation of Judas as the traitor, it must be joined with that event, i. e., the one numbered four in the table of John. 8. Uniting the Lord’s supper with No. 4 as found in John’s table, we ascertain that the Lord’s supper must have followed the feet-washing; since “feet-washing” is, in the same table, numbered two. Having now, as we believe, removed all the difficulties which lie in the way of our theory that the feet-washing preceded the Lord’s supper, and having established that theory by a line of argument which is both natural and easy, and which cannot be successfully controverted, we leave the subject with the reader, trusting that what has been said will commend itself to his judgment.