shall understand it all hereafter. God's sovereignty and man's responsibility shall appear perfectly harmonious one day. In the meantime, whatever we doubt, let us never doubt Christ's infinite willingness to save.

NOTES. LUKE XIII. 31-35.

31.-[Then came certain...Herod will kill thee.] It is thought by some that this message was an invention of the Pharisees, intended to alarm our Lord, and stop His preaching, and that Herod never really intended to kill our Lord. Yet it seems impossible to reconcile this theory with the message that our Lord in reply sends to Herod in the next verse. It is more

probable that Herod wished to make away with One whose ministry reminded him of John the Baptist, and who publicly testified that John the Baptist, whom Herod had murdered, was a prophet. He had probably expressed this wish publicly to his courtiers, and the Pharisees came to repeat it to our Lord, hoping that the report would silence him.

[Depart hence: or Herod will kill thee.] This expression shows that our Lord was in Galilee at this time. We are expressly told (Luke xxiii. 7) that Galilee belonged to Herod's jurisdiction.

Let it be noted that the literal translation of the Greek here would be, "Herod is willing,-has a will,—wishes,—means,— to kill thee." It is not a future tense merely. It is like "Ye will not come to me." (John v. 40.) 32.-[That fox.] This remarkable expression is variously interpreted. Some think that our Lord did not apply it to Herod at all, but to the Pharisee who brought the message. This, however seems a very unnatural and forced application of the word. The most common opinion is, that our Lord applied it to Herod himself, in virtue of His office as a prophet. Whitby remarks, "To impose this ignominious name on Herod is not contrary to the command 'not to speak ill of the ruler of thy people.' It is the office of prophets not to spare kings when they expose their offences. (Jer. i. 10.) Christ, therefore, uses His prophetical power in giving this tyrant a name suitable to his actions." (Compare Zephan. iii. 3; Ezek. xxii. 27.)

Maldonatus thinks that our Lord purposely called Herod "that fox," in order to show the Pharisees how little He feared him.

One word of caution is needful. The use of this expression by our Lord is no warrant to Christians to employ violent and contemptuous epithets in speaking of the wicked, and especially

of the wicked in high places. He that would use such language about his ruler as Christ here used about Herod, must first prove his prophetical commission, and satisfy us that he has a special mission from God.

[To-day, and to-morrow, and the third day.] This is a difficult expression, and one which has received three different interpretations. The expression in the next verse is only another way of saying the same thing.

Some think that our Lord meant three literal days. Bishop Pearce says, "This, and what follows to the end of the chapter, seem to have been spoken about two or three days before Jesus was crucified." This seems a very improbable and unsatisfactory interpretation.

Some think that by days our Lord meant years, according to the theory which makes prophetic days always mean years. This again seems an unsatisfactory view. According to it our Lord spoke these words in the first year of His three years ministry. Yet it appears more likely that He spoke them in the last.

Some think that this expression is indefinite, and a proverbial form of speech, signifying merely a short space of time :-"I am yet a little time with you, and during that time I shall continue my work, notwithstanding Herod's threats; and at the end of that time, and not before, I shall be perfected, or finish my course by death." Similar modes of speaking occur in Hosea vi. 2; and in the marginal readings of Gen. xxx. 33; xxxi. 2; Exod. iv. 10; xiii. 14; Deut. vi. 20; xix. 6; Josh. iii. 5; iv. 6; xxii. 24; 1 Sam. xix. 7.

I am disposed to adhere to this last opinion, as on the whole the most probable one. Major gives quotations from Euripides and Arrian which justify the interpretation of the three days in a proverbial sense by the usage of profane writers.

[I shall be perfected.] This is a remarkable expression. In the Greek it is in the present tense. The meaning seems to be "I shall be perfected by my death,—I shall finish the work which I came to do." The same word is applied to our Lord in Heb. ii. 10. and v. 9.

33.-[I must walk.] The meaning of this expression seems to be, "I must continue in the course I have begun,-I must go on, (to use a common English phrase,) as I have hitherto." It is the same word which is used in Luke i. 6; 1 Pet. iv. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 10; iii. 3; Jude 16. In each place it is rendered "walk," and in each means "maintaining an habitual course of life."

[It cannot be that a prophet...Jerusalem.] This is a peculiar expression. The Greek word rendered, "it cannot be," is only found here in the New Testament, and means literally "it is im

possible." Yet it is clear that this cannot be our Lord's literal meaning. John the Baptist, to say nothing of other prophets, did not die at Jerusalem. The sense must be, as Euthymius and Heinsius maintain, "it would be an unusual thing,-an exception to a rule,—for a prophet to die in any place but Jerusalem. When I do die, it will be at Jerusalem. But I am not there yet, but in Galilee."

Barradius thinks that our Lord meant, "it is not possible that I, the great prophet, foretold by Moses, can perish out of Jerusalem." This however seems very improbable.

Drusius and A. Clarke say, that a man professing to be a prophet could be tried on that ground only by the great Sanhedrim, which always resided at Jerusalem.

34.-[O Jerusalem, &c.] This remarkable passage is found in St. Matthew's Gospel, (Matt. xxiii. 37.) at the very end of our Lord's ministry, in almost the same words. I cannot see any satisfactory explanation of this circumstance excepting that our Lord must have twice used the same expression about Jerusalem in the course of His ministry on earth.

To suppose that our Lord was at the end of His ministry in this part of St. Luke's Gospel is, on the face of the narrative, utterly improbable. To suppose that St. Luke thrust in this remarkable saying about Jerusalem at this particular point of his Gospel, out of its place and order, and without any connection with the context, is equally improbable.

I see on the other hand no improbability whatever in the supposition that our Lord made use of this remarkable saying about Jerusalem on two distinct occasions during His ministry. I can quite understand that His mighty and feeling heart was deeply touched with sorrow for the sin and hardness of that wicked but privileged city. And it seems to me both likely and natural that language like that before us would fall from His lips on more than one occasion.

[How often.] I cannot think, as some do, that this expression refers to many visits which our Lord had made to Jerusalem, during His ministry. I rather refer it to all the messages and invitations which for many centuries He had sent to Jerusalem by His servants, the prophets.

[Would I,...ye would not!] The Greek word in both these phrases is stronger than appears from our English translation. It is literally, "I willed, and ye willed not."

Few passages in the Bible throw the responsibility of the loss of the soul so distinctly on those who are lost." I would," "ye would not."-Two wills are expressly mentioned, the will of Christ to do good, and the will of man to refuse good when offered.

Let it be noted that our Lord does not say, "thou wouldest not," but "ye would not."-By this mode of speaking, He makes it plain, that He charges the guilt of Jerusalem on its inhabitants, the men and women who dwelt there, and specially on the priests, and Scribes, and Pharisees who governed the city. They were neither willing to be gathered themselves, nor to let others round them be gathered. They neither entered in themselves into the kingdom, nor allowed others to enter. Christ was willing, but they were unwilling.

We must be careful however, not to confine "ye would not," to the Scribes, Pharisees, and rulers. The verse which follows shows clearly that our Lord includes all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

35.-[Your house is left...desolate.] These words mean, "Your temple, in which you glory, your holy and beautiful house, is now deprived of its glory. God has departed from it, and has no longer any pleasure in it."

[Ye shall not see me until, &c.] The meaning of these words, and the manner of their fulfilment, are points on which commentators are not agreed.

Some think that our Lord refers to His own triumphal entry into Jerusalem, when He rode in upon an ass, just before His crucifixion, and all the city met Him, crying" Hosanna!"

Some think that our Lord refers to the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, when the fulfilment of all His predictions would oblige the Jews to confess that He was the Messiah. Bishop Pearce says, "They will then remember what they did to me when I was among them, and will acknowledge that I am the Christ, the person who came in the name of the Lord. Accordingly, Eusebius tells us, that upon seeing that destruction, vast multitudes came over to the faith of Christ."

Some think that our Lord's words are not yet fulfilled, and that they refer to the last times, when the Jews after their last tribulation shall "look on Him, whom they pierced," and believe, at the time of His second advent in glory.

I decidedly adhere to this last opinion. The triumphant entry into Jerusalem was a faint type, no doubt, of the honour which Christ will one day see in Jerusalem. But the Jewish nation, as a nation, never saw our Lord and honoured Him as the Messiah, during the whole period of His first advent. But "when He cometh with clouds every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him." (Rev. i. 7.)

LUKE XIV. 1-6.

1 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

2 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. 3 And Jesus answering spake unto the Lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?

4 And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go;

5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?

6 And they could not answer him again to these things.

LET us mark in this passage, how our Lord Jesus Christ accepted the hospitality of those who were not His disciples. We read that "He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread." We cannot reasonably suppose that this Pharisee was a friend of Christ. It is more probable that he only did what was customary for a man in his position. He saw a stranger teaching religion, whom some regarded as a prophet, and he invited Him to eat at his table. The point that most concerns us, is this, that when the invitation was given it was accepted.

If we want to know how our Lord carried Himself at a Pharisee's table, we have only to read attentively the first twenty-four verses of this chapter. We shall find Him the same there that He was elsewhere, always about His Father's business. We shall see Him first defending the true observance of the Sabbath-day,-then expounding to those who were bidden together with Him the nature of true humility,—then urging on His host the character of true hospitality,—and finally delivering that most apposite and striking parable, the parable of the great supper. And all this is done in the most wise, and calm, and dignified manner. The words are all words in season. The speech is "always with grace, seasoned with