IN this interval of time, from the feast of tabernacles to our Lord's last arrival at Bethany, we encounter one of the most difficult portions of the whole Gospel Harmony.

According to John's narrative, Jesus, after leaving Galilee to go up to the feast of tabernacles in October (John 7. 10), appears not to have returned again to Galilee; but to have spent the time intervening before the festival of dedication in December, probably in Jerusalem, or, when in danger from the Jews, in the neighbouring villages of Judea; John 8. 59; Luke 10. 38, sq. Had Jesus actually returned to Galilee during this interval, it can hardly be supposed that John, who had hitherto so carefully noted our Lord's return thither after each visit to Jerusalem, would have failed to give some hint of it in this case also, either after ch. 8. 59, or after ch. 10. 21. But neither John, nor the other evangelists (unless perhaps Luke in ch. 17. 11), afford any such hint.-Immediately after the festival of dedication, Jesus withdrew from the machinations of the Jews beyond Jordan; whence he was recalled to Bethany by the decease of Lazarus; John 10. 40; 11. 7. He then once more retired to Ephraim; and is found again at Bethany six days before the passover; John 11. 54; 12. 1.

Matthew and Mark contain no allusion at all to the feast of tabernacles; nor do we find any express mention of it in Luke. Yet Luke 9. 51 is most naturally referred to our Lord's journey at that time; and it implies also that this was his final departure from Galilee. Luke and John are therefore here parallel. The circumstances of danger which had induced Jesus during the summer to retire from Galilee in various directions, as well as the approach of the time when "he should be received up," are reasons of sufficient weight to account for his

See Note on § 80.

having transferred, at this time, the scene of his ministry and labours from the north to Jerusalem and Judea, including excursions to Samaria and the country on and beyond the Jordan.

In regard to the transactions during the whole interval of time comprised in this Part, Matthew and Mark are silent, except where they relate that our Lord, after his departure from Galilee, approached Jerusalem for the last time through Peræa and by way of Jericho, where he was followed by multitudes; Matt. 19. 1,2; 20. 29; Mark 10. 1, 46. With the transactions recorded by these two evangelists during this last approach, Luke also has some things parallel; Luke 18. 15-43. The arrival at Bethany is common to the three; and in this they all accord with John; Matt. 21. 1; Mark 11. 1; Luke 19. 29; John 12. 1, 12, sq.

There exists consequently no difficulty in harmonizing Matthew and Mark, and so much of Luke as is parallel to them (18. 15, sq.), with John. But in Luke, from ch. 9. 51, where Jesus leaves Galilee, to ch. 18. 14, where the record again becomes parallel with Matthew and Mark, there is a large body of matter peculiar for the most part to Luke, and relating prima facie to the time subsequent to our Lord's departure from Galilee. How is this portion of Luke's Gospel to be arranged and distributed, in order to harmonize with the narrative of John? difficulty of course does not exist in the case of those Harmonists who, like Calvin, Griesbach, and others, attempt to bring together only the first three evangelists.

The

Those Harmonists who have likewise included John's Gospel have hitherto generally assumed a return of our Lord to Galilee after the feast of tabernacles; and this avowedly in order to provide a place for this portion of Luke's Gospel. But the manner in which it has been arranged,

See Note on § 68.

after all, is exceedingly various. Some, as Le Clerc, insert nearly the whole during this supposed journey. Others, as Lightfoot, assign to this journey only what precedes Luke 13. 23; and refer the remainder to our Lord's sojourn beyond Jordan, John 10. 40." Greswell maintains that the transactions in Luke 9. 51-18. 14, all belong to the journey from Ephraim (through Samaria, Galilee, and Peræa) to Jerusalem, which he dates in the interval of about four months, between the feast of dedication and our Lord's last passover. Wieseler makes a somewhat different arrangement (intermediate between Robinson and Greswell), according to which, Luke 9. 51-13. 21 relates to the period from Christ's journey from Galilee to the feast of tabernacles till after the feast of dedication (parallel to John 7. 10-10.42); Luke 13. 22-17.10 relates to the interval between that time and our Lord's stay at Ephraim (parallel to John 11. 1-54); and Luke 17. 11-18. 14 relates to the journey from Ephraim to Jerusalem, through Samaria, Galilee, and Peræa.

If now we examine more closely the portion of Luke in question (9. 51-18. 14), we perceive, that although an order of time is discoverable in most parts, yet as a whole it is wanting in exact chronological arrangement. This indeed is admitted, at the present day, by all Harmonists, except Greswell." It would seem almost as if, in this portion peculiar to Luke, that evangelist, after recording many of the earlier transactions of Jesus in Galilee, in accordance with Matthew and Mark, had here, upon our Lord's final departure from that province, brought together this new and various matter of his own, relating partly to our Lord's previous ministry in Galilee, partly to this journey, and still more to his subsequent proceedings, until the narrative (in ch. 18. 15) again becomes parallel to the accounts in Matthew and Mark. The transactions narrated in ch. 10. 17-11. 13, have marks of chronological connexion; and the scene of them is obviously Jerusalem or its vicinity." The healing of a demoniac and the consequent blasphemy of the scribes and Pharisees in Luke 11. 14, 15, 17, sq., is parallel with the same events in Matthew and Mark, which these two evangelists describe as having occurred in Galilee." With this passage, again, Luke 11. 37-54 is immediately connected by the words and as he spake. The transition to the next chapter (ch. 12) is made by the phrase in the mean time, marking proximity of time. And, further, the words introducing Luke 13. 1, show that the conversation there given (ver. 1-9) immediately followed.-The

9 Harm. Evang. p. 264, sq.

Chron. Temp. N. T. Opp. II. p. 37, 39.
Dissert. xvi. vol. ii.

* Chron. Synopse der 4 Evang. p. 328-330.
u See Dissert. xvi. vol. ii.

See §§ 86-89 and Notes.

remainder of this portion of Luke, ch. 13. 10-18. 14 (with the exception of ch. 17. 11-19, which probably connects itself with the journey in ch. 9.51), contains absolutely no definite notation of time or place; nor any thing, indeed, to show that the events happened in the order recorded, or that they did not take place at different times and in different parts of the country. The only passage to which this remark does not perhaps fully apply is ch. 13. 22-35.

For these reasons Robinson has, like Newcome, distributed Luke 9. 51-10. 16, and 11. 14-13. 9 (as also 17. 11-19) in Parts IV., V., as already specified, among the transactions of our Lord's ministry in Galilee, between his second passover and his journey to the feast of tabernacles. The remainder of this whole portion of Luke, viz. ch. 10. 17-11. 13, and 13. 10-17. 10, as also 17. 2018. 14, remains to be disposed of in the present Part.

With many leading modern commentators, Robinson prefers here to follow the narrative of John, and infers that our Lord did not again return to Galilee after the feast of tabernacles. On this principle, therefore, the present Harmony is constructed. Hence Luke 10. 17-11. 13 is inserted between the feast of tabernacles and that of dedication.*

More difficult is it to assign the proper place for Luke 13. 10-17. 10; the transactions recorded in which all cluster around or follow ch. 13. 22, where Jesus is represented as travelling leisurely through the cities and villages towards Jerusalem. Now, this journey cannot have been the same with that in Luke 9. 51 and John 7. 10; because there Jesus went up privately, while here he is accompanied by multitudes, Luke 14. 25. Nor can it have been a later journey from Galilee; for that in Luke 9. 51 was, probably, the final one. Nor indeed were the Jews accustomed to go up from the country to Jerusalem at the festival of dedication. Besides, Luke 13. 22 stands in connexion with the warning received by our Lord against Herod, ver. 31-33; which under the attendant circumstances cannot well be regarded as having been given in Galilee, and much less in Jerusalem, as Lightfoot supposes. But Herod was lord also of Peræa; and in that province he had imprisoned and put to death John the Baptist. It would therefore be natural that our Lord, who had been less known in that region, and who now appeared there, followed by multitudes, should receive warning of the danger he was thus incurring. Hence this part. of Luke (13. 10-17. 10) is here assigned to that period of our Lord's life and ministry, which

was passed in Perea after the festival of dedication.

Our Lord first withdrew soon after that festival from the plots of the Jews in Peraa. "He went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. And many resorted unto him" and believed; John 10. 40-42. How long Jesus remained in that region before he was recalled by the death of Lazarus, can only be matter of conjecture. 1 In that interval, Lightfoot places all this part of Luke after ch. 13. 22.d In this Robinson does not agree; because the language of John does not necessarily imply that our Lord at this time made any journey or circuit in Peræa itself. At least it could not then and there be said of him in any sense, that "he went through their cities and villages, teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem," Luke 13. 22; for he had just departed from Jerusalem, and was recalled to Bethany by a special message from the sisters of Lazarus, John 11. 3, 7. All this would seem to imply rather, that Jesus remained during this excursion, at least mainly, in the district "where John had baptized;" so that Martha and Mary knew at once where to send for him. It follows also as a natural inference, that this first sojourn beyond Jordan could not well have been a long one, nor probably have occupied more than a few weeks out of the four months intervening between the festival of dedication and the pass

over.

After the raising of Lazarus, Jesus again retired from the machinations of the Jews to "a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples," John 11. 54. The evangelist John records nothing more of his movements, until he again appears in Bethany six days before the passover, John 12. 1. But the expression used by John as to his sojourn at Ephraim (kåkeî Sierpiße, there he passed the time) does not preclude the idea of excursions from that place, nor of a circuitous route on his return to Bethany and Jerusalem at the passover. Now Matthew, Mark, and Luke affirm expressly, that on this return Jesus went up to Bethany from Jericho; and the two former narrate, as expressly, that in thus reaching Jericho he had come "into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of Jordan," where great multitudes followed him, and he healed them and taught them, as he was wont, Matt. 19. 1, 2; Mark 10. 1. With all this the language of Luke 13. 22 agrees perfectly: "And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem;" as does also the mention of the multitudes in Luke 14. 25. With this too accords Luke 13. 31-35, including the warning against Herod and our Lord's reply; as also the touching lamentation

d See Opp. II. p. 39.

over Jerusalem, where Jesus was so soon to perish. With this agrees, further, the fact, that the narrative of Luke subsequent to the portion in question, viz. Luke 18. 15, sq., is parallel with that of Matthew and Mark during the same journey.e

Robinson, therefore, comes to the conclusion that Luke 13. 22, with the transactions and discourses of which it forms the nucleus, is to be referred mainly to a journey of our Lord through the populous region of Peræa, on his return to Bethany, after sojourning in Ephraim. There may also have been excursions from that city to the neighbouring villages of Judea, or even to the Jordan valley. This city Ephraim is considered by Robinson to be probably identical with Ephron and Ophrah of the Old Testament; and therefore apparently represented by the modern Taiyibeh, situated nearly twenty Roman miles N.N.E. of Jerusalem, and five or six Roman miles N.E. of Bethel, on the borders of the desert which stretches along on the west of the Dead Sea and the valley of Jordan. It occupies a lofty site; and from it one overlooks the adjacent desert, the Jordan with its great valley, and the mountains of Peræa beyond, with the Saracenic castle er-Rubůd, near 'Ajlún, in the northern part of Peræa, bearing about N.E. Even at the present day the hardy and industrious mountaineers of this place have much intercourse with the valley, and till the rich fields and reap the harvests of Jericho. It was therefore quite natural and easy for our Lord, from this point to cross the valley and the Jordan, and then turn his course towards Jericho and Jerusalem; while at the same time he exercised his ministry among the cities and villages along the valley and in the eastern region.

Robinson has therefore inserted the whole of Luke 13. 11-17. 10 after the mention of our Lord's sojourn at Ephraim, as belonging naturally to that period and to this return-journey through Perea. And then it only remained to let Luke 17. 20-18. 14 follow directly afterwards; because there is no mark nor authority for placing it anywhere else; and because too it immediately precedes, and thus connects with, that portion of Luke which is subsequently parallel to Matthew and Mark. Not that it is intended by any means to assert that all the events and disconrses of our Lord here given are recorded by Luke in their exact chronological order; for this portion of his Gospel presents very much the appearance of a collection of discourses and transactions in themselves disconnected. Yet, as there are no marks nor evidence, internal or external, by which to arrange them differently, it seems hardly advisable, on mere conjecture, to abandon the order in which they have been left to us by Luke himself.

See Note on § 93.