was subjected to temptation during the forty days. Matthew and Luke specify three instances of temptation, but in a different order. Of these, that founded on our Lord's hunger must have occurred at the end of the forty days; while that which included the promise of all temporal power was obviously the final one. The order of Matthew is therefore the more natural of the two. [Matthew uses terms which indicate direct succession in connection with the second and third temptations, and in v. 11, at the close of his account. Luke is not so definite.]

§ 18. In v. 21 the Baptist declares that he was not Elias; meaning that he was not Elias risen from the dead, whom the Jews expected. In Matt. 17: 12, Jesus says that "Elias is come already;" meaning that John had come "in the spirit and power of Elias;" Luke 1: 17. [The R. V. properly gives the Hebrew name Elijah" in all cases. Comp. also the name of the locality as given in the correct reading of ver. 28.]

66

In v. 33, John the Baptist says he knew not Jesus; though in Matt. 3: 14 (§ 15) he appears to have known who he was. That is to say: John must have been acquainted with the events of his own childhood and that of Jesus; he had now come preaching and baptizing as his forerunner, v. 31; but he knew not Jesus personally before he came to be baptized; at which time God had promised him a sign, by which he might know certainly that Jesus was the Messiah.

§ 20. The third day refers back probably to John 1:44. The journey in returning to Galilee did not require more than two days; the distance being, in any position of Bethania or Bethabara, not over about fifty miles. Cana, now Kâna el-Jelîl, was situated about seven miles north of Nazareth, and about three miles N. by E. of Sepphoris; see Bibl. Res. in Palest. III. p. 204.

PART III.

OUR LORD'S FIRST PASSOVER, AND THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS UNTIL THE SECOND.

§§ 21-35.

[INTRODUCTORY NOTE. THE LENGTH OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY.]

[This is the most convenient place to state the various theories. We may dismiss, as altogether contrary to the four narratives, the view which limits the ministry to a little more than one year, accepting only two Passovers. It is called the Bipaschal theory (see Introductory Note of Dr. Robinson).

1. The view upheld in this Harmony is the Quadripaschal theory, which accepts John 5:1 as referring to a Passover. The ministry is thus regarded as extending over three years, or three years and a few months, if we reckon from the baptism of Jesus. The second Passover is that referred to in John, chap. 5. All are now agreed that the Passover which occurred after the feeding of the five thousand (narrated by all four Evangelists) began the last year of our Lord's life. Dr. Robinson, in his Note on § 36, ably defends the view that John 5:1 refers to a Passover. The reading of the Sinaitic manuscript, accepted by Tischendorf, must be rendered "the feast; see R. V. margin.

2. The Tripaschal theory is held by many scholars (Tischendorf, Lange, Ellicott, Farrar, among others). They usually follow the view of Kepler, who suggested that John 5:1 referred to the feast of Purim. So far as the early part of the ministry is concerned, the advocates of this theory accept in the main the order of events upheld in this Harmony. But the interval between the feast of Purim and the Passover was only about three weeks. If John 5: 1 refers to the former feast, then during these few weeks we must place all the events included in Part IV. Indeed, the Sabbath controversy points to the time of early harvest (Matt. 12: 1; Mark 2:23; Luke 6:1), which was necessarily some little time after Purim ; hence the interval is still further reduced. Moreover, according to this theory, the time during which the twelve Apostles were trained for their public preaching is limited to a few days. They were chosen after this Sabbath controversy, as nearly

all harmonists agree. Nor does this view give time for the growth of the popularity of Jesus as a teacher in Galilee. This popularity reached its height at the time of the feeding of the five thousand, which on this theory was but a few months after the first preaching in Galilee. See further the Notes on § 36.

3. Another form of the Quadripaschal theory has been proposed and defended by Rev. S. J. Andrews (Life of our Lord). Accepting John 5: 1 as referring to a Passover, he places the entire Galilæan ministry, as recorded by the Synoptists, after this (the second) Passover. The imprisonment of John the Baptist, which Dr. Robinson makes the occasion of the journey to Galilee through Samaria (John 4: 4-43), is held by Mr. Andrews to have taken place shortly before the second Passover, the journey mentioned in Matt. 4 : 12; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:14 (§ 24) being after that Passover. The interval between the journey through Samaria (in December, see the Note on § 25) and the second Passover was passed in retirement.

The order of sections, according to Mr. Andrews, would be:

Part III. §§ 21-23, 24 (John 4: 1-3 only), 25, 27. Retirement in Galilee, December to April, A. D. 27, 28.

Part IV. §§ 36 (2d Passover), 24 (except John 4: 1-3), 26, 28-35, 37, etc., April,

A. D. 28.

This arrangement affects only four months of the ministry, namely, from the journey through Samaria (in December) to the succeeding Passover in April. It accepts the order in John as continuous up to the end of chap. 5, and places immediately after this the return to Galilee in consequence of the imprisonment of John the Baptist.] § 21. This, our Lord's first Passover, is mentioned only by John; though the language of the other Evangelists implies that he had been again in Judæa; Matt. 4 : 12; Mark 1: 14.

John connects with this first Passover the cleansing of the temple and the casting out of the traders, while the other Evangelists describe a like transaction at his last Passover; Matt. 21: 12 sq.; Mark 11: 15 sq.; Luke 19: 45 sq. The question is raised whether these were different transactions, and whether there is not here a neglect of the order of time, either by John or in the other Gospels. As the language and the note of time in all the Evangelists, in respect to both the instances, is entirely definite and specific, the answer may be said to depend upon a further question, namely, Whether our Lord would be likely to repeat a highly symbolic and important public act, after an interval of two or three years? That he was accustomed to repeat the substance of his discourses, or at least the most striking parts of them, at different times and before different persons is sufficiently obvious. Now if this is true in respect to the discourses of Christ, why might he not just as well have repeated, after a long interval and before different persons, a public symbolical act, so significant in itself, and so expressive of his veneration for the temple and of his character and authority as the Messiah? The Jews, it seems, did not question his right to perform such an act, provided he was a true prophet. They only demanded some sign of his authority; John 2: 18. _This Jesus gave, and had already given, in his mighty works wrought at the same Passover; v. 23; works which drew from Nicodemus, a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin, the admission that he was a teacher come from God;" John 3:2. [The "definite and specific" statements of the Evangelists seem to settle the question. The question of probability need only be considered in the absence of definite statements.]

On the "three days" in John 2: 20, see Note on § 49.

66

§§ 23, 24. The order is here determined by comparing John 3: 24 with Matt. 4: 12; Mark 1: 14. Jesus goes out with his disciples from Jerusalem into the country of Judæa, where he remains until after John is cast into prison. See the next Note. [John 4: 1-3 indicates that the occasion of this withdrawal into Galilee was the jealousy of the Pharisees. The news of the imprisonment of John may therefore have come at a later period.]

§ 25. A specification of time is given in John 4: 35, which is tolerably definite : "Say ye not, There are yet four months, and the harvest cometh?" According to Lev. 23 : 5–7, 11, 14, 15, and Jos. Ant. iii. 10, § 6, the first-fruits of the barley-harvest were presented on the second day of the paschal festival; while the wheat-harvest was two or three weeks later; see Bibl. Res. in Palest. II. P. 99 sq. Hence this journey of our Lord must have been made in the latter part of November or in De

cember, about eight months after the preceding Passover. It follows that the public ministry of John the Baptist had continued for at least a year and six months before his imprisonment. [If we place the imprisonment later, the ministry of John must be estimated as covering nearly two years.]

§ 28. The visit to Nazareth is inserted here on the testimony of Luke 4: 16 sq., which is supported by Matt. 4: 13. The visit mentioned in Matt. 13: 54 6: 1 sq., was later, and took place after the raising of Jairus' daughter.

sq.; Mark

§ 29. That the call of the four Apostles belongs here, in accordance with Mark's order, is obvious; since they were present with Jesus at the healing of the demoniac and of Peter's wife's mother, §§ 30, 31. — The three accounts all evidently refer to the same transaction. Luke relates more particularly the former part, including the putting off upon the lake in Simon's boat and also the miraculous draught; and passes lightly over the latter part. Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, narrate the former part only generally, but the latter part with more detail. In the one part Luke introduces circumstances which the others omit; in the other part Matthew and Mark mention facts which Luke has not noted. The remark of Spanheim is here just "The facts narrated by Luke are not contradicted by Matthew, but only passed over. Nothing is more common than that circumstances omitted by one should be supplied by another; lest the sacred writers should seem to have written by compact, or lest the readers should cleave to one and neglect the others." Dubia Evang. Tom. III. Dub. 72, vii. [The order here given is accepted by nearly all harmonists. The only difference is respecting the general view of the ministry, as fully stated at the beginning of this Part].

PART IV.

OUR LORD'S SECOND PASSOVER AND THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS UNTIL THE THIRD.

§§ 36-66.

§ 36. In John 5, 2, the marginal reading of the English version is adopted, namely, "sheep gate" instead of "sheep market." [So R. V.] We know there was such a gate, Neh. 3:1; 12: 39; but there is no mention of such a market.

On the phrase "a feast of the Jews," John 5: 1, turns mainly the question as to the duration of our Lord's public ministry. John notes distinctly three Passovers, John 2:13; 6:4; 12: 1. If now this festival be another Passover, then our Lord's public labors continued during three and a half years; if not, then the time of his ministry must, in all probability, be reckoned one year less. [On the Tripaschal and Quadripaschal theories, see Note on pp. 155, 156.]

The only reasonable ground of doubt in this case is the absence [in most Greek manuscripts] of the article before the word signifying feast, or rather festival. Did the text read "the feast of the Jews," then, as most admit, it would with sufficient definiteness denote the Passover; compare Matt. 26:5; Luke 2: 42; John 4: 45; 11:56, etc. [The article is found in several of the best Greek мss., and is accepted by Tischendorf. The Revised Version properly gives it a place in the margin. If it is accepted, the reference to the Passover seems certain. Even if rejected, the passage may refer to this great festival. The arguments of Dr. Robinson which follow serve to show that even in the absence of the article the passage refers to a Passover, namely, the second in our Lord's public ministry.]

1. The same word without the article is put definitely for the Passover, in the phrase "at the feast," Matt. 27: 15; Mark 15:6; Luke 23: 17. Compare John 18:39. [Similar instances are quite common in New Testament Greek, and also in the Greek version of the Old Testament.]

2. It is not probable that John means here to imply that the festival was indefinite or uncertain. Such is not his usual manner. The Jewish festivals were to him the measures of time; and in every other instance they are definitely specified. So the Passover, John 2: 23; 12: 1; even when Jesus does not visit it, 6:4; and also when it is expressed only by the feast, 4: 45; 11: 56; 12: 12, 20, etc. So, too, the

festival of Tabernacles, 7: 2; and of the Dedication, 10:22. This is all natural in him; for an indefinite festival could afford no note of time.

3. The plucking of the ears of grain by the disciples (§ 37 and note), shows that a Passover had just been kept; which tallies accurately with the visit of our Lord to Jerusalem. [There might have been a few weeks intervening between the Passover and this act of the disciples, as indeed is implied in Andrews' theory. The harvest was not over until some time after the Passover. However, the reference to the grain shows the time of the year, and the harvest could not have been either that of the last year of our Lord's ministry, or that following the first Passover.]

4. This feast could not have been the festival either of Pentecost or of Tabernacles next following our Lord's first Passover. He returned from Judæa to Galilee not until eight months after that Passover, when both these festivals were already past; see the Note on § 25.- That it might by possibility have been the Pentecost after a second Passover not mentioned, and before that in John 6:4, cannot perhaps be fully disproved; but such a view has in itself no probability, and is apparently entertained by no one. At any rate it also would give the same duration of three and a half years to our Lord's ministry.

9.

5. Nor can we well understand here the festival of Purim, which occurred on the fourteenth and fifteenth of the month Adar or March, one month before the Passover; see Esth. 9: 21, 22, 26-28. Against this the following considerations present themselves: (a.) The Jews did not go up to Jerusalem to celebrate the festival of Purim. The observance of it among that people throughout the world consisted solely in reading the Book of Esther in their synagogues on those days, and making them "days of feasting and joy and of sending portions [dishes] one to another and gifts to the poor;" Esth. 9:22; Jos. Ant. xi. 6, § 13; Reland, Antiqq. Heb. IV. But the "multitude," John 5: 13, seems to imply a concourse of strangers at one of the great festivals. — (b.) It is very improbable that Jesus would have gone up to Jerusalem at the Purim, to which the Jews did not go up, rather than at the Passover, which occurred only a month later. His being once present at the festival of Dedication (John 10: 22) is not a parallel case; since he appears not to have gone up for that purpose, but this festival occurred while he remained in or near Jerusalem after the festival of Tabernacles; John 7:2 sq.-(c.) The infirm man was healed on the Sabbath, John 5: 9, which Sabbath belonged to the festival, as the whole context shows; John 5: 1, 2, 10-13. But the Purim was never celebrated on a Sabbath; and when it happened to fall on that day, was regularly deferred; see Reland, 1. c. [See also (Introductory Note to Part III.) the objection to Purim, from the brief interval into which this view compresses the early Galilæan ministry.] 6. The main objection urged against taking this festival as a Passover is the circircumstance that, in such case, as our Lord did not go up to the Passover spoken of in John 6:4, but only at the subsequent festival of Tabernacles, in John 7 : 2 sq., he would thus have absented himself from Jerusalem for a year and six months; a neglect, it is alleged, inconsistent with his character and with a due observance of the Jewish law. But a sufficient reason is assigned for this omission, namely, "because the Jews sought to kill him," John 7: 1; comp. 5: 18. It obviously had been our Lord's custom to visit the Holy City every year at the Passover; and because, for the reason assigned, he once let this occasion pass by, he therefore went up six months afterwards at the festival of Tabernacles. All this presents a view perfectly natural, and covers the whole ground. Nor have we any right to assume, as many do, that our Lord regularly went up to Jerusalem on other occasions besides those specified in the New Testament.

[7. We only add that the parable of the barren fig-tree (Luke 13: 6-9) has been used in support of the three years' ministry. In itself it is not conclusive, though urged by able commentators; yet it adds another probability to the many named above.]

In this instance, the most ancient view is that which interprets the festival as a Passover. So Irenæus in the third century; and the same view was adopted by Eusebius, Theodoret, and others; and in later times has been followed by Luther, Scaliger, Grotius, Lightfoot, Le Clerc, Lampe, Hengstenberg, etc. [Jerome, however, distinctly states the Tripaschal view.] Cyril and Chrysostom held to a Pentecost; and so, in modern times, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, etc. The festival of

Purim was first suggested by Kepler; and at the present day this is the only view, aside from the Passover, that finds advocates. Those who hold it, as Hug, Neander, Olshausen, Tholuck, Meyer (Lücke and De Wette leave the question undecided), regard John 6:4 as having reference to the second Passover during our Lord's ministry; which thus becomes limited to two and a half years. [For a full discussion for and against Purim, see Lange's Commentary, John. Dr. Lange defends Purim, and Dr. Schaff gives the other side. See also Andrews and McClellan, for the reference to the Passover; and against it the authors cited in the Introductory Note to Part III., p. 165.]

66

sec

§ 37. The circumstances here narrated show that a Passover had just been celebrated; see the Note on § 25. The "second sabbath after the first " "[literally ond-first sabbath," see R. V. margin], in Luke 6: 1, was probably the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover or of unleavened bread; that is, the first of the seven Sabbaths reckoned between that day and Pentecost. Our Lord would seem to have hastened away from Jerusalem; for which a reason is found in John 5: 16, 18. [Both the reading and the interpretation are doubtful. The authorities against the term would be regarded as decisive in ordinary cases: but here the word is so difficult that its very difficulty becomes a strong argument in favor of its genuineness. Besides, many Fathers refer to it directly. It seems, however, to have arisen from a marginal note made to distinguish this from the Sabbaths mentioned in Luke 4 : 31, and 6: 6. The interpretations are many, and that given above by no means a necessary one. Yet as far as the entire occurrence is concerned the date is fixed as immediately before or during the harvest, which would be after the Passover, in all probability. This remains the strongest positive proof of the three years' ministry.] § 40. The appointment of the Twelve follows here, according to Mark and Luke. Matthew gives their names in 10: 2-4, as having been already appointed. Lebbæus, called also Thaddeus by Matthew and Mark, is the same as Jude the brother of James in Luke. [Tischendorf reads "Lebbæus" in Matthew; Westcott and Hort, "Thaddeus"; the received text combines the two, but without sufficient authority.] The epithet Zelotes, Zealot, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Cananæan, Zealot. [The R. V. in Matt. 10: 4; Mark 3: 18, renders " Cananæan," giving "Or, Zealot" in the margin.] Nathanael, who is mentioned with the Apostles in John 21: 2, was probably the same as Bartholomew, who elsewhere also is coupled with Philip; see John 1: 45 sq.

§ 41. The Sermon on the Mount follows here, in accordance with the order of Luke. The correctness of this order, so far as it respects Matthew, depends on the question: Whether the discourse as reported by the two Evangelists is one and the same, and was delivered on the same occasion? This question is answered at the present day by interpreters, with great unanimity, in the affirmative; and mainly for the following reasons:

1. The choice of the Twelve by our Lord, as his ministers and witnesses, furnished an appropriate occasion for this public declaration respecting the spiritual nature of his kingdom, and the life and character required of those who would become his true followers. Luke expressly assigns this as the occasion; and although Matthew is silent here and elsewhere as to the selection of the Apostles, yet some passages of the discourse, as reported by him, seem to presuppose their previous appointment as teachers; see Matt. 5: 13, 14; 7: 6.

2. The beginning and the end of both discourses, and the general course of thought in both, exhibit an entire accordance one with the other.

3. The historical circumstances which follow both discourses are the same, namely, the entrance into Capernaum and the healing of the centurion's servant. The main objection which has been felt and urged against the identity of the two discourses is the fact that Matthew's report contains much that is not found in Luke; while, on the other hand, Luke adds a few things not found in Matthew, as vv. 24-26, 38-40, 45; and, further, his expressions are often modified and different, as in vv. 20, 29, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46. But this objection vanishes, if we look at the different objects which the two Evangelists had in view. Matthew was writing chiefly for Hebrew Christians; and it was therefore important for him to bring out, in full, the manner in which our Lord enforced the spiritual nature of his dispensation and doctrine, in opposition to the mere letter of the Jewish law and the teach