صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

appointment (Luke 10: 1-16), evidently by anticipation. Their appointment appears to have been one of our Lord's last acts in Galilee; and they went forth, probably into Peræa and elsewhere, while he proceeded to Jerusalem; see the Note on § 80. Their return to him, at or near Jerusalem, is therefore here placed as late as may be before the festival of Dedication. [It seems better to place this return at an earlier period; see additional Note on § 80, and comp. Andrews (Life of our Lord, pp. 339-345) on the purpose of sending out the Seventy.]

§ 90. With the healing of the blind man the discourse in John 10: 1 sq. stands in immediate connection; see chap. 9: 40. And in the words of our Lord (John 10: 26 sq.) spoken at the festival of Dedication there is a direct allusion to the figurative representation of the shepherd and his sheep in the same discourse. This implies that the same audience was then present, at least in part; and, consequently, that the discourse in question had been delivered not long before. For these reasons the healing of the blind man would seem also to have taken place near the beginning of the festival of Dedication, or at least not long before. [The allusion to the discourse in John 10: 1–18 is not decisive against its having been spoken shortly after the festival of Tabernacles, the interval being at most two months. But three weighty Greek MSS. (and some versions) in John 10: 22 have the reading which is given in the R. V. marg. : "At that time." In any case this shows the very early view of the connection. If the reading is accepted, then we must join John 9: 110: 21 with the festival of the Dedication. The variation, apparently unnoticed by Dr. Robinson, confirms his view.]

§ 91. The festival of Dedication was instituted by Judas Maccabæus to commemorate the purification of the temple and the renewal of the temple-worship, after the three years' profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes. It was held during eight days, commencing on the 25th day of the month Kislev, which began with the new moon of December. See 1 Macc. 4: 52-59; 2 Macc. 10: 5-8. Josephus calls it the festival of lights or lanterns, and speaks of it as a season of rejoicing; Ant. xii. 7, §§ 6, 7. It was celebrated by the Jews, not at Jerusalem alone, like the great festivals of the law, but at home, throughout the whole country, by the festive illumination of their dwellings; see Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on John 10: 22. — According to John's narrative, Jesus was now at Jerusalem, not because the Jews were accustomed to go up thither at this festival, but because he had remained in the vicinity since the festival of Tabernacles; see the Introd. Note to Part VI. p. 177.

The place ["where John was at the first baptizing"] (10: 40) was "Bethany beyond Jordan." [There are several variations in the ancient authorities; see Note on John 1: 28. The R. V. marg. gives the Hebrew form of two: Bethabarah and Betharabah, the latter being found in the Codex Sinaiticus as a correction by a later hand (seventh century). The statement of Origen shows that the variations are older than our oldest manuscripts.] Nothing more is known as to its situation. On our Lord's sojourn here, and also the probable length of it, see the Introd. Note to Part VI. pp. 177, 179.

§ 93. As the Sanhedrin had now determined, in accordance with the counsel of Caiaphas, that Jesus should be put to death, he therefore withdraws from Jerusalem to a city called Ephraim "near to the wilderness; " John 11: 54. This place has only recently been identified with any modern site. There is, however, little reason to doubt that it was the same with the Ephraim or Ephron of 2 Chr. 13:19, and also with the Ephron of Eusebius and Jerome, nearly twenty Roman miles north of Jerusalem. It lay also near the desert; and corresponds, therefore, in all these particulars with the modern Taiyibeh, a most remarkable and commanding site. See Bibl. Res. in Palest. II. p. 121–124.

Indeed, the coincidence of circumstances leaves little room for question that Ephron and also Ophrah of the Old Testament, and Ephraim of the New, were all identical, and are all represented by the modern Taiyibeh. This then was the place to which our Lord withdrew.

For our Lord's sojourn in Ephraim, and his return thence through Peræa to Bethany, see Introd. Note to Part VI. p. 177. For a fuller discussion respecting the identity of Ephraim with Taiyibeh, see Greek Harmony, p. 233, 234, rev. edition.

§ 94. Matthew and Mark, having omitted all mention of our Lord's presence and teaching in Jerusalem at the festival of Tabernacles and that of Dedication, as like

wise of the raising of Lazarus and other events, now resume their narrative by relating that after Jesus had left Galilee he approached Jerusalem, as the Passover drew nigh, by passing through the country beyond Jordan. [The correct reading in Mark 10: 1, properly rendered in the R. V. " into the borders of Judæa and beyond Jordan," leaves it even more doubtful whether the reference is to the last journey to Jerusalem. It seems far more likely that these verses sum up the final movement from Galilee toward Jerusalem, and are strictly parallel with Luke 9: 51 sq. See on pp. 173, 174.] Both Evangelists speak of the great multitudes that followed Jesus.

Luke 13: 10-21 is inserted here, because it precedes, and is connected with, the notice of our Lord's journeying towards Jerusalem in Luke 13: 22; see § 95 and Note. § 95. For the reasons why Luke 13: 22 is arranged in this connection, see the Introd. Note to Part VI. pp. 176–179. For the appropriateness of this arrangement, so far as it respects vv. 31-35, see the same Note on p. 176, 177.

The lamentation over Jerusalem in v. 34 arises naturally from the mention of that city in v. 33. In Matt. 23: 37 sq. the same lamentation is repeated in connection with our Lord's denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees in Jerusalem. Luke's phrase, "Ye shall not see me," etc., is explained by the like phrase of Matthew, "Ye shall not see me henceforth," etc., implying that he was now about to withdraw from the world, and that Jerusalem, which then rejected him, would not again behold him, and enjoy the privilege of his presence, until compelled by his glorious manifestation to acknowledge him as the true Messiah.

§§ 96-103. These sections are placed here for the reasons assigned in the Introd. Note to Part VI. p. 178.

§ 104. This section properly comes in here before § 105, where Luke is again parallel with Matthew and Mark.

§ 107. This transaction properly occurred in Peræa; as Jesus had not yet arrived at Jericho. The expression to go up is used of any journey to Jerusalem or Judæa; see Luke 2:4; John 7:8; 12: 20; Acts 18: 22.

§ 108. In Matthew it is the mother of James and John who makes the request ; in Luke it is the two disciples themselves; see the Note on § 42.

§ 109. Mark and Luke here speak of one blind man : Matthew of two. The case is similar to that of the demoniacs of Gadara; see the note on § 57. [The R. V. accepts many corrections in the text, especially of Mark, who gives the most exact account.]

More difficult is it to harmonize the accounts as to the place where the miracle was wrought. Matthew and Mark narrate it as having occurred when Jesus was departing from Jericho ; while Luke seems to describe it as happening during his approach to the city. Several ways of solving this difficulty have been proposed.

1. The language of Mark is: "they come to Jericho." This, it is said, may be understood as implying that Jesus remained some days at least in Jericho, where he would naturally visit points of interest in the vicinity; as, for example, the fountain of Elisha, a mile or more distant. The miracle therefore may have been wrought, not when he was finally leaving Jericho for Jerusalem, but when he was occasionally going out of, and returning to, Jericho. So Newcome, Harm. Note on § 108. [The most probable solution is that Luke 18: 35 refers to the first approach to Jericho, with which Luke, in a general way, connects the miracle; that Matthew and Mark tell more exactly that it occurred "as they were going out," on some excursion during the stay in that city; while Luke 19:1 refers to the final passage through Jericho. This does least violence to the grammatical sense; for "as he drew nigh" is less specific than the statements of Matthew and Mark.]

2. The Greek verb here rendered to draw nigh, it is said, may signify not only to draw nigh, but also to be nigh or near. Hence, the language of Luke may include also the idea expressed by Matthew and Mark, that is, while he was still near the city. So Grotius, Comm. on Matt. 20:30. [This explanation is very generally rejected, and the extended lexical remarks of Dr. Robinson upon it are omitted. Luke does, quite often, carry on a narrative along one line, and then go back to take up another part of the history; but among New Testament writers he is most exact in his use of verbs referring to travelling, and the expression used in 19: 1 (R. V.: ". was passing through") compels us to connect the story of Zaccheus with that verse. Now

the view of Grotius does not meet the difficulty, unless Luke 19:1 is placed in order of time before 18: 35. Many harmonists overlook the force of the tense in 19: 1, intimating that Zacchæus lived out of the city, or that Luke anticipates.]

3. Less probable than either of the above is the solution of Lightfoot and others, who assume that Jesus healed one blind man before entering the city, and another on departing from it.

[4. Still another view is that two different sites are referred to, the ancient one and that occupied in the time of Christ (so Farrar and others). This is possible, but does not seem probable. See Schaff's Bible Dictionary, p. 430.]

[§ 110. This section in all its details points to the final departure from Jericho to Jerusalem. The journey referred to in ver. 28 took place, as is now generally held, on Friday, the 8th of Nisan, one week before the crucifixion. The supper took place (see Notes on § 111) on Saturday evening, the 9th of Nisan, and the public entry to Jerusalem on Sunday, the tenth. The latter date was accepted by Dr. Robinson in his earlier editions, and is restored in this. This affects the entire schedule of days given in Part VII., Introductory Note.]

§ 111. The phrase "out of the country," John 11: 55, does not refer to the region of Ephraim; for those coming from that vicinity would hardly have made such inquiries. The phrase therefore signifies from the country generally, as distinguished from Jerusalem; compare in Luke 21 : 21.

"Six days before the Passover" is equivalent to "the sixth day" before that festival: see the Note on § 49.

[In his earlier editions Dr. Robinson says: "As our Lord ate the paschal supper on the evening following Thursday (which evening was reckoned in the Jewish manner to Friday), the sixth day before it was Saturday, or the Jewish Sabbath. On that day, then, Jesus came to Bethany; probably after a Sabbath day's journey." In his last edition he substitutes for this reckoning: "The sixth day before it was the first day of the week, reckoning back as usual from Friday itself as one day." concludes that the Jewish Sabbath was spent at Jericho.

He

This latter result can be obtained only by counting Friday as one day, and also the assumed day of arrival as the sixth; thus giving about four days instead of six. This is objectionable as a mode of reckoning, and does not suit the details of the history so well as the view that places the entry into Jerusalem on Sunday (10th Nisan) and the arrival at Bethany correspondingly earlier. Reckoning as the first day the 14th of Nisan, which was Thursday, if our Lord ate the Passover at the regular time (see Introductory Note to Part VIII.), the arrival at Bethany would fall on Friday or Saturday, according to the mode of reckoning. Between these two days there is little to choose.

The objection to Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) arises from the implication that our Lord travelled on that day from Jericho to Bethany. The public entry into Jerusalem could not have taken place on Saturday, hence an objection to Friday. The best solution seems to be as follows: our Lord journeyed from Jericho to Bethany on Friday, reaching there in the evening, probably about the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. Most of the company from Jericho go on to Jerusalem, but he remains at Bethany during the Sabbath. In the evening the supper was made, and the anointing by Mary took place. Andrews suggests: "During the afternoon the Jews of Jerusalem, who had heard through the pilgrims of his arrival, go out to see him and Lazarus and some of them believe on him. This, coming to the ears of the chief priests, leads to a consultation how Lazarus may be put to death with Jesus.” The text of the Harmony has been rearranged in accordance with this view.

Dr. Robinson places the anointing at Bethany on the Wednesday before the crucifixion (§ 131). His reasons are given at this point, and those for accepting the position assigned by John are added.]

According to Matthew and Mark this supper would most naturally seem to have taken place on the following evening: that is, the evening which ushered in, and was reckoned to, the fifth day of the week. John's order would apparently assign it to the evening after the day on which Jesus came to Bethany.

As in the accounts of this supper itself neither of the Evangelists has specified any note of time, we are left to infer from other circumstances, whether it more probably took place on the evening after the arrival of Jesus at Bethany, as John seems to

imply; or in the evening following the fourth day of the week, in accordance with Matthew and Mark, after our Lord had taken his final leave of the temple. The following are some of these circumstances.

1. The formal determination of the chief priests to put Jesus to death was made apparently on the fourth day of the week, Matt. 26:1-5; Mark 16:1, etc. It was not until afterwards that Judas came to them with his proposal of treachery, which they received with joy; Matt. 26: 14; Mark 14: 10, 11, etc.

2. Matthew and Mark narrate the supper as the occasion which led to the treachery of Judas. Stung by his Master's rebuke, he is represented as going away to the chief priests and offering to betray him. This act would then seem to have been done under the impulse of sudden resentment; and this view of the matter receives also some support from his subsequent remorse and suicide. All this accords well with the order of Matthew and Mark. But if the supper took place on the evening after Jesus came to Bethany, then Judas must have cherished this purpose of treachery in his heart for several days without executing it; and that, too, while our Lord was daily teaching in the temple, and there was abundant opportunity to betray him. Such a supposition, under the circumstances, is against probability.

3. The language of Matthew, "then Judas. went," v. 14, seems necessarily to connect the visit of Judas to the chief priests immediately with the supper, which therefore must have taken place on the preceding evening. On the other hand, it would be very natural for John to anticipate the time of the supper and narrate it where he does, in order there to bring together and complete all that he had to say further of Bethany; which, indeed, he mentions no more.

[In favor of the earlier date it may be urged :

1. That John is more chronological in his order than Matthew, and, indeed, than Mark (see Introduction, p. 156); he connects v. 9 with "therefore," and what he narrates in vv. 9-11 must be placed before the public entry into Jerusalem. On the other hand, the accounts of Matthew and Mark do not (as Dr. Robinson suggests) necessarily connect the proposal of Judas immediately with the supper. No Evangelist is less exact in this respect than Matthew (see 3 above), and both seem to introduce the account of the supper parenthetically.

2. The supper was a formal entertainment, and therefore more likely to have occurred during the triumphal progress to Jerusalem than during the week of conflict. Especially unlikely is the position after the long conflict in the temple, and the discourse on the Mount of Olives. The day after (Wednesday) is too late, since both Matthew and Mark imply a longer interval between the proposal of Judas and the betrayal. (The same objection holds against Dr. Robinson's schedule of days in the last edition.)

3. There is no reason why John should have anticipated, but the two Synoptists might readily postpone mentioning the event until they had occasion to account for the betrayal of our Lord.

4. The argument that Judas acted under the impulse of sudden resentment is invalid. John, more than any of the Evangelists, tells us of the incidents where individual disciples are prominent, giving their names. He alone does so in this case. His accuracy as to persons is a voucher for his accuracy in notes of time, especially when the length of time is an important element in estimating the character of Judas and the nature of his crime. The mention of the greed of Judas tells decidedly against the view that his treachery was a hasty, passionate act.]

There is no sufficient reason for supposing, with Lightfoot and others, that the supper in John is a different one from that in Matthew and Mark. The identity of circumstances is too great, and the alleged differences are too few, to leave a doubt on this point. Matthew and Mark narrate it as in the house of Simon the leper; John does not say where it took place, but he speaks of Lazarus as one of those who reclined at the table, implying that the supper was not in his own house. It was not, and is not now, customary in the East for females to eat with the males; and therefore Lazarus, in his own house, would have been the master and giver of the entertainment. In the two former Evangelists, the woman anoints the head of Jesus; in the latter his feet: yet neither excludes the other. Matthew and Mark do not here name Mary; nor have they anywhere else mentioned her or Martha or Lazarus. Nor do they in this connection name Judas; whom we know as the fault-finder only from John.

OUR LORD'S PUBLIC ENTRY INTO

PART VII.

JERUSALEM AND THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSAC

TIONS BEFORE THE FOURTH PASSOVER.

[blocks in formation]

[In the Notes on Part VII. the dates assigned by Dr. Robinson in his earlier editions have been substituted for those of the last. See Note on § 111. This general statement will obviate the necessity of marking such substitutions with brackets. The same remark holds good in relation to the headings of the sections in the text. Other modifications by the editor are bracketed.]

The Jewish day of twenty-four hours was reckoned from sunset to sunset, as is still the case in Oriental countries. The paschal lamb was killed on the fourteenth day of Nisan, towards sunset; and was eaten the same evening, after the fifteenth day of Nisan had begun : Ex. 12 : 6, 8, and Introd. Note to Part VII. Our Lord was crucified on the day before the Jewish Sabbath, that is, on Friday; Mark 15: 42; and as he had eaten the Passover on the preceding evening, it follows that the fourteenth of Nisan fell that year on Thursday, reckoned from the preceding sunset. Hence, the sixth day before the Passover, when Jesus came to Bethany, was the Jewish Sabbath or Saturday (see the Note on § 111): and the transactions of the following week, comprised in Parts VII. and VIII., may be distributed according to the following Schedule, which agrees in the main with the Schema of Lightfoot; see his Hor. Heb. on John 12: 2.

[blocks in formation]

SCHEDULE OF DAYS.

reckoned from preced. sunset. The Jewish Sabbath. Jesus arrives at Bethany; John 12: 1. [Or probably, having arrived there on Friday evening, remains there, and in the evening is anointed in the house of Simon.]

from sunset. Jesus makes his public entry into Jerusalem; § 112; and returns at night to Bethany; Mark 11:11.

from sunset. Jesus goes to Jerusalem; on his way the incident
of the barren fig-tree. He cleanses the temple; § 113; and
again returns to Bethany; Mark 11 : 19.

from sunset. Jesus returns to the city; on the way the disciples
see the fig-tree withered; Mark 11: 20. Our Lord discourses
in the temple; §§ 115-126; takes leave of it.
from sunset. [During the eve of this day (our Tuesday evening)
our Lord], on the Mount of Olives, on his way to Bethany, fore-
tells his coming to destroy the city, and proceeds to speak also
of his final coming to judgment; §§ 127-130. [Either on the
eve of this day (our Tuesday evening) or on Wednesday the
rulers conspire against Christ, and Judas makes known to them
his plan of treachery.] Jesus remained this day at Bethany.
from sunset. Jesus sends two disciples to the city to make ready
the Passover. He himself repairs thither in the afternoon, in
order to eat the paschal supper at evening.

from sunset. At evening, in the very beginning of the fifteenth
of Nisan, Jesus partakes of the paschal supper; institutes the
Lord's supper; is betrayed and apprehended; §§ 133-143. He
is brought first before [Annas and] Caiaphas, and then in the
morning before Pilate is condemned, crucified, and before sun-
set laid in the sepulchre ; §§ 144-158.

The Jewish Sabbath. Our Lord rests in the sepulchre.
Jesus rises from the dead at early dawn; see § 159 and Note.

« السابقةمتابعة »