YALE
DIVINITY SCHOOL
LIBRARY

Gift of
First Ecclesiastical Society
of New Haven

THE

LIFE OF OUR LORD

UPON THE EARTH;

CONSIDERED IN ITS

HISTORICAL, CHRONOLOGICAL, AND GEOGRAPHICAL
RELATIONS.

BY
SAMUEL J. ANDREWS.

FOUETH EDITION.

NEW YORK:
CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO., No. 654 BROADWAY.
1867.

Entered, according to act of Congress, in the year 1868, by
SAMUEL J. ANDREWS,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the State of
Connecticut.

JOHN P. TROW,
PRINTER, STEREOTYPEJl, AND ELECTROTYPER,
43 & 50 Greene Street,
New York.

TO

MY BEOTHEE,

WILLIAM WATSON ANDEEWS,

GUIDE OF MT EAELT,

AlTD COMPANION OF MT LATEE STUDIES,

THIS BOOK 18

Hifniioitaiilg Insiribeir.

PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION.

Sbstce the publication of this work several books
bearing upon its subject have been published, but only
one seems to call for particular notice here ; and this
rather from the sensation it has made in the sceptical
world than from any light it casts upon the earthly life
of our Lord: I mean M. Kenan's "Life of Jesus."
Assuming that the Gospels are not wholly veritable
records but contain a mixture of truth and error, he
attempts to distinguish between these elements, and to
separate the wheat from the chaff. The principle upon
which he proceeds we give in his own words.1 " Criti
cism has two modes of attacking a marvellous narra-
1 See his Essay on the "The Critical Historians of Jesus." Froth-
msrham's translation.

VI PEEFACE.

tion ; for as to accepting it as it stands, it cannot think
of it, since its essence is denial of ihe sugernatwraV
Of course he cannot accept the facts of our Lord's life
as given by the Evangelists, but aims to clear them of
the distortions and perversions that destroy their his
torical character, and thus to give us a true, genuine
biography of the Founder of Christianity. To those,
therefore, who are curious to see what conception a
learned Frenchman of the nineteenth century, who dis
believes in a personal God ' and in all miracles, has of
our Saviour's person and labors, this book has a certain
sad interest ; but so far as the evangelic, narratives and
any true historical criticism upon them are concerned,
it has no value. I do not recall any particular in
which it adds anything to our knowledge of the Gospel
history even in its external features ; much less does it
render us any aid in the understanding of its higher
meaning. The importance of M. Eenan's " Life of Jesus " is

1 I would not attribute to M. Renan any opinion he does not hold, but
that he is a pantheist seems fairly inferrible from the letter, as well as
from the general spirit, of his writings. I quote but one passage, as given
by Frothingham : " The whole question is to know whether God emits
particular acts. For myself, I believe that the true Providence is not dis
tinct from the order, so constant, divine, perfectly wise, just and good,
which reigns in the laws of the universe."

PBEFACE. Vii
chiefly as a sign of the progress in the sceptical world.
Strauss' work was destructive. He left to his readers
only the name of Jesus, a dim shadow, a qloudy phan
tasm. M. Eenan undertakes the task of reconstruc
tion. He will give to the world the real image in flesh
and blood of Him whom so many generations have igno
rantly and superstitiously adored as the Son of God.
He will reproduce Him before us, and show that He
was a natural product of His age, a mere Jewish peas-
ant, with nothing supernatural about Him. Now for
the first time in the mirror of scientific criticism we can
see Him as He was. And what kind of an image does
he present to us ? We see a man, not simply unlearn
ed, uncultured, but a man weak, deluded, the dupe of
others, and of his own fancies ; and more than this, a
deceiver, a man conniving at imposture and falsehood.1.
This is all that M. Eenan can get from the Gospels.,
After rejecting the supernatural features of the narra
tion, this is the highest reality that he can possibly.
frame from the residuum.
And the world is called upon to believe that in such
a man Christianity had its source. Will this satisfy the
unbeliever ? The Christian spurns it from him with
abhorrence. From the poor, tawdry, wax figure, the
t 1 See Life of Jesus, ch. xxii

Vlll PEEFACE.
sentimental enthusiast, the "beautiful" youth, whom
M. Eenan presents to him, he turns away to Him
whom the apostles and martyrs worshipped, in whom
dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, the Image
of God; to Him who was dead and is alive again for
evermore, and who has the keys of death and hell.
The time has now fully come when those who will
not have the Jesus of the Gospels and of the Church,
must construct a Jesus for themselves. They deny the
veracity of the Evangelists ; let them, then, explain the
origin of Christianity, and tell us from what fountain this
mighty river has flowed. All experience and philos
ophy, to say nothing of Christian consciousness, reject
the thought that it could originate in such a man as
M. Eenan describes. Here is the problem for the un
believer. Given Christianity, its creeds, its history for
eighteen centuries, and tell us who was its founder, what
his life, what his character. That M. Eenan has miser
ably failed in his attempt at its solution, even now few
will deny. All instinctively feel that no such feeble
nature as he portrays could have received the homage
of Peter and John and Paul, or become an object of
worship to any noble mind. The cause is not ade
quate to the effect ; the man is not equal to the work.
The problem is yet unsolved for the unbeliever, and

PEEFACE. IX
we may safely say that for him it will ever remain un
solved. Eenan, like Strauss, seeks to substitute an ideal for
the actual Christ. He says : " What matters it to us
what passed in Palestine eighteen hundred years ago ?
How does it concern us that Jesus was born in such or
such a village, that he had such or such ancestors, that
he suffered on such or such a day of the holy week ? "
It is not true that these particulars are unimportant in
the life of Jesus, for they prove the reality of His
earthly history. Time and place are essential parts of
the great Fact of the Incarnation. The Son of God, in
becoming man, must be born at a certain period of the
world's history, in a certain portion of its territory, and
stand in well-defined relations to certain of its inhabit
ants. Such limitations belong to the very essence of
His humanity. These outward facts the Evangelists
do not overlook. It is true that they do not enter into
any great minuteness of detail. Of the external events
of the Lord's life for many years we know very little.
Tet they do not neglect those relations of time and
place which are necessary to convince us of the reality
of His earthly existence, and to give us a distinct pic
ture of His labours.
But it is not facts of this class merely that M. Eenan

PEEFACE.

regards as unimportant. To him the Gospels are as a
fine poem of which Jesus is the hero ; and as we do
not care whether the heroes of Homer had any actual
existence, so is it here. The world may be as much
blessed through the ideal Jesus as through the real.
But let not such language deceive us. Christianity
is a religion of facts, not of ideas. It rests upon the
being of a personal God. It stands or falls with the
reahty of the statements in the Apostle's creed. Its
doctrines are only the explanations of its facts. The
Epistles of the New Testament have no meaning
if the Gospels are not historically true. We cannot-
too steadily keep in mind that Christianity is Christ.
Jesus did not merely originate a spiritual movement.
He is Himself the living, abiding power of the move
ment. We look back to no sepulchre ; we look up to
the Living One in the Heavens, Jesus Christ risen
from the dead, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.
Christianity lives because He lives.
Let then the issue between the sceptic and the be
liever be kept clearly before us. If Jesus is now at
God's right hand, Head over all things unto the
Church, Christianity lives in Him, and must live so
long as He lives. It is because He is. If, as Strauss
and Eenan say, He has no longer any personal exist-

PEEFACE. XI
ence ; if He lives only in history, and as an idea, then
Christianity, like other systems, will yield to time, will
suffer the transmutations of all things earthly. A new
teacher will arise and men will follow him. Already,
indeed, we hear many demanding a new Christ, as an
embodiment of a higher ideal. The Christian Church
takes her stand upon the fact of the present personal
existence of her Head, the man Christ Jesus, who has
now all power in Heaven and earth, and who shall
come again to judge the quick and the dead. He will
in due time vindicate Himself, be His own witness and
avenger. We may wait with patience the appointed
hour. The Life of Jesus by Strauss1 recently published
presents nothing new, and calls for no particular notice
here. 1 Das Leben Jesu fiir das deutsche Volk bearbeitet. 18G4.
Haetfobd, Conn., Oct., 1864.

PREFACE

It may be well to state distinctly here that this
book does not design to enter into any critical in
quiries respecting the text of the Evangelists. In the
few cases where a historical statement is affected by
the different readings, Teschendorf is followed, use being
made of his " Synopsis Evangelica," Lipsiae, 1854. Eef-
erence is also made in such cases to Meyer and Alford,
and occasionally to other authorities. Nor does it de
sign to enter into any questions respecting the author
ship of the Gospels, the time when written, or their
relations to each other. Nor does it discuss the point
of their inspiration, but assumes that they are genuine
historical documents, and statements of facts ; and deals
with them as such. Nor does it aim to explain or
interpret the Lord's parables, or discourses ; or to dis
cuss questions of mere archaeology, or of verbal criti
cism. Those who wish information upon these points
will consult the authors who have written specially
upon them.
The simple purpose of this book is to arrange the

PEEFACE.

events of the Lord's life, as given us by the Evangelists,
so far as possible, in a chronological order, and to state
the grounds of this order ; and to consider the difficul
ties as to matters of fact which the several narratives,
when compared together, present ; or are supposed by
modern criticism to present.
As the necessary foundation for a chronological ar
rangement, the dates of the Lord's birth and death, and
the duration of His public ministry, are discussed in
brief preliminary essays. The geographical discussions
are all limited to the sites of places directly related to
the narratives. No more notice is taken of the general
history of the time, than is necessary to explain the oc
casional references of the Evangelists.
In order not to avoid any points of real difficulty
which the historical statements of the Gospels present,
and, at the same time, not to weary the reader with dis
cussions of the alleged discrepancies which some critics
find, or affect to find, so thickly strewn upon their
pages, I have selected, as the latest exponents of the
Critical tendencies of the times, the Commentaries ofthe
German, Meyer, and of the Englishman, Alford. Both
of these are ready, and over ready, as I think, to admit
mistakes in matters of fact, and to affirm that the Evan
gelists, in certain points, cannot be harmonized ; yet
both admit the supernatural element in the Gospels,
and expose and set aside many of the objections of the
merely negative criticism. To these two commentators,
therefore, very frequent reference is made, and whatever

PEEFACE. XV
difficulties they present, as really such, are for the most
part noticed.
From what has just been said, the reader will not
be surprised that no notice whatever has been taken of
Strauss, and his " Life of Jesus." The principle upon
which he proceeds, in his historical critieism, he thus
states : " No just notion of the true nature of history is
possible, without a perception of the inviolability of the
chain of finite causes, and of the impossibility of mir
acles." If a miracle is impossible, it is plainly a work
of supererogation to refute in detail a history, which,
upon its face, professes to be a record of supernatural
events. After striking out all that is ascribed to im
mediate divine agency, as incredible, the residuum is
scarce worth the trouble of contending for. Besides, an
attentive examination of Strauss' " Life of Jesus " has
made upon my own mind the impression that he deals
With the evangelic narratives in a most unfair, not to
say dishonest, spirit. Everywhere he finds discrepan
cies and contradictions ; and one cannot help feeling,
that whatever the Evangelists might have narrated, he
would find as many objections to their statements as
now. For the same reason that nothing is said of
Strauss, no allusion is made to Hennell, or Bruno
Bauer, or others of that school. The Commentaries of
De Wette, and the Life of Jesus by Hase, have high
literary merits, but the sceptical spirit in which they are
written, gives them only a negative value in these in
quiries.

PEEFACE.

It will be noted that the references are almost ex
clusively to recent writers. This is intentional. To
notice the latest results of modern criticism and inves
tigation, has been my purpose ; but, at the same time, I
have not neglected to examine the more prominent of
the older writers in this department, so far as I have
been able, from Augustine downward. While, in some
cases, and chiefly those pertaining to chronology and
geography, the wider scope of modern scholarship has
given us new materials for judgment, yet it must be
admitted that in regard to internal discrepancies, not
unfrequently the old solutions are the best. No reader,
familiar with their writings, will be surprised to find
Lightfoot, Lardner, Baronius, Eeland, and some others,
here referred to as of high authority, even at this day,
in their respective departments. That so many ref
erences are made to German writers, is owing to the
fact that no other scholars have labored so diligently
and successfully in this field.
That all will find the solutions of alleged discrepan
cies and contradictions here given, satisfactory, is not
to be expected. Nor will the chronological order, or
topographical results, be received by all. But it is a
great point gained, to be able to see just what the
amount of the discrepancy or contradiction, if it really
exists, is. Those readers who have been accustomed
to hear, through sceptical critics, of the numerous
errors and mistakes of the Evangelists, will be sur
prised to learn how few are the points of real difficulty,

PEEFACE. Xvii
and how often these are exaggerated by the misinter
pretation of the critic himself. There are not a few
commentators who. adopt the rigid literalism of Osian
der ; not, like him, to defend the credibility of the Gos
pel narrative, but to destroy it.
In regard to the exact order of events, there is
room for great differences of opinion, and positive
statements are impossible. There are, however, cer
tain well marked lines of division, and the precise ar
rangement of the details is comparatively unimportant,
as not at all affecting the historical accuracy of the
narratives, and must be left to the exegetical tact, or
critical acumen of the student.
It will not be expected that I should present, upon
a subject discussed for so many centuries by the best
minds of the Church, anything distinctively new. Still,
I trust that some points have been set in clearer light,
and that the general arrangement will facilitate the
inquiries of those who seek to know as much as is possi
ble of the external history of the Lord's works and
words, that they may the better penetrate into their
spiritual meaning. I have given considerable promi
nence to the gi'eat divisions of His work, first in Judea,
and then in Galilee, and to the character of His last
journey to Jerusalem; both as explaining some peculi
arities in the synoptical Gospels, and as showing that
His work was carried on under true historic conditions.
There is no fact more important to be kept clearly in
mind in these studies than this, that Jesus was very

XV1U PEEFACE.
man no less than very God. While recognizing the
supernatural elements in the evangelic narratives
wherever they exist, we are not so _to introduce them
as to make these narratives the records of a life neither
human, nor divine. The Lord, in all His words and
works, in His conduct toward the Jews, and His repeat
ed efforts to make them hear and receive Him, acted
as man, under those laws which God at the beginning
established to guide human action. His life on earth
was in the highest sense a human one, and it is this
fact that gives us the key to the Gospels as real historic
records. It may properly here be said, that this work was
ready for the press two years since, and that its publi
cation has been delayed to this time by the troubled
aspect of our political affairs. I cannot regret the
delay, as it has given me the opportunity to examine
several valuable works that have appeared in this inter
val. Among these are Ellicott's " Historical Lectures
on the Life of our Lord ; " vols, fifth and sixth of Sepp's
" Leben Jesu ; " Jones' " Notes on the Scriptures ; " and
Lewin's " Jerusalem." To the first of these, distinguish
ed by its accurate scholarship and reverential tone, and
which happily has been republished in this country, and
is thus accessible to all, I have made frequent references.
I cannot refrain from expressing my obligations to the
Notes of the late Judge Jones, whose deep insight into
the meaning of the Evangelists none can doubt, al
though he may, perhaps, at times be charged with over-

PEEFACE. XIX
subtlety and refinement. I must also make thankful
mention of the Commentaries on Mark and Matthew,
the latter unhappily unfinished, of the late Prof. J. A.
Alexander, who, without any of the parade of learning,
gives us its most solid results. Some recent works, as
that of Tischendorf, " Aus dem heiligen Lande," Leip
zig, 1862, came into my hands too late to be of use.
How poor and unworthy of Him, the external as
pects of whose earthly life I have endeavored in some
points to portray, my labors are, none can feel more
deeply than myself. I can only pray that His blessing
— the blessing that changed the water into wine — may
go with this book, and make it, in some measure, useful
to His children.
Habtfoed, Conn., Oct. 1862.

LIST OF AUTHORS CITED.

Foe the convenience of younger students, and because, in the
notes I have generally, for the sake of brevity, referred to authors
by their names, and not given the titles of their works, I add here
a list of such of the more recent writers as are most frequently
cited, with the titles in full. The elder writers, whose works are
well known, it is not necessary to include in the list.
Alexander, J. A., Commentary upon Matthew and Mark. New York,
1858-1861.
Alford, H., The Greek Testament, vol. I., containing the Four Gospels.
New York, 1859.
Barclay, J. T., City of the Great King. Philadelphia, 1858.
Baumgarten, M., Die Geschichte Jesu. Braunschweig, 1859.
Bleek, F., Beitrage zur Evangelien Kritik. Berlin, 1846.
Bleek, F., Synoptische Erkliirung der drei ersten Evangelien. Leipzig,
1862.
Bloomfield, S. T., Greek Testament, with English Notes. Boston, 1837.
Browne, H., Ordo Sa;clorum. London, 1844.
Bucher, J., Das Leben Jesu Christi. Stuttgart,. 1859.
Clinton, Henry F., Fasti Romani. Oxford, 1845-1850.
De Costa, I., The Four Witnesses. New York, 1855.
De Saulcy, Dead Sea and Bible Lands, Trans. London, 1854.
Ebrard, J. H. A., Wissenschaftliche Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte.
Erlangen, 1850.

XXII LIST OF ATJTH0ES CITED.
Ellicott, C. J. , Historical Lectures on the Life of Our Lord. London,
1860.
Ewald, H., Drei ersten Evangelien. Gottingen, 1850.
" Die Alterthiimer des Volkes Israel. Gottingen, 1854.
" Geschichte Christus und seiner Zeit. Gottingen, 1857.
Fairbairn, P., Hermeneutical Manual. Philadelphia, 1859.
Friedlieb, J. H., Archaologie der Leidensgeschichte. Bonn, 1843.
" Geschichte des Lebens Jesu Christi. Breslau, 1855.
Gams, Jphannes der Taufer. Tubingen, 1853.
Greenleaf, S., Testimony of the Evangelists. Boston, 1846.
Greswell, E., Dissertations upon the Principles of an Harmony of the
Gospels. Oxford, 1837.
Hackett, H. B., Illustrations of Scripture. Boston, 1867.
Hofmann, B., Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen. Leipzig, 1851.
Hug, J. L., Introduction to New Testament. Trans. Andover, 1836.
Ideler, C, Handbuch der Mathematischen und Technischen Chronologic
Berlin, 1825-1826.
Jarvis, S. F., A Chronological Introduction to the History of the Church.
New York, 1845.
Jones, J., Notes on Scripture. Philadelphia, 1861.
Kitto, J., Life of Our Lord. New York, 1853.
Krafft, C. H. A., Chronologie und Harmonie der vier Evangelien. Erlan
gen, 1848.
Lange, J. P., Leben Jesu. Heidelberg, 1847.
Lange, J. P., Bibel Werk: Matthaus, Markus, Johannes. Bielefeld,
1857-1860.
Lewin, Thomas, Jerusalem. London, 1861.
Lichtenstein, F. W. J., Lebensgeschichte des Herrn. Erlangen, 1856.
Lynch, W. F., Exploration of the Jordan and Dead Sea, Philadelphia,
1849.
Messiah, Tbe. London, 1861.
Meyer, H. A. W., Commentar. Die Evangelien. Gottingen, 1855-1858.
Mill, W. H., The Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels. Cambridge,
1861.

LIST OF AUTHORS CITED. XXlll
Milman, H. H., History of Christianity. New York, 1841.
Morison, J. H., Notes on Matthew. Boston, 1860.
Neander, A., The Life of Jesus Christ. Trans. New York, 1 848.
Newcome, Bishop, Harmony of the Gospels, edited by Kobinson. An
dover, 1834.
Norton, A., Translation of the Gospels, with Notes. Boston, 1856.
Oosterzee, J. J., Bibel Werk : Lukas. Bielefeld, 1859.
Osborne, H. S., Palestine, Past and Present. Philadelphia, 1859.
Owen, J. J., Commentaries on Matthew, Mark, and Luke. New York,
1858-1861.
Patritius, F. X., De Evangeliis : Friburgi, 1853.
Paulus, H. E. G., Das Leben Jesu. Heidelberg, 1828.
Paulus, H. E. G, Exegetisehes Handbuch, iiber die drei ersten Evange
lien. Heidelberg, 1842.
Porter, J. L., Handbook for Syria and Palestine. London, 1858.
Baumer, Karl von, Palastina. Leipzig, 1850.
Riggenbach, C. J., Leben Jesu. Basel, 1858.
Robinson, E., Biblical Researches in Syria and Palestine. Boston, 1856.
Robinson, E., Harmony ofthe Gospels. Boston, 1845.
Ritter, Carl, Die Erdkunde von Asien. Band viii. 15th u. 16th Theile.
Schaffter, A., Der achte Lage des Heiligen Grabes. Berne, 1849.
Schwartz, J., Geography of Palestine. Philadelphia, 1850.
Sepp, J. N., Das Leben Jesu. Regensburg, 1853-1862.
Smith, W., Dictionary of the Bible, vol. I. London, I860.
Stanley, A. P., Sinai and Palestine. New York, 1857.
Stewart, R. W., Tent and Khan. Edinburgh, 1857.
Stier, R., The Words of the Lord Jesus. Trans. Edinburgh, 1855.
Strong, James, Greek Harmony of the Gospels. New York, 1854.
Stroud, W., Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. London, 1847.
Thiersch, H. W. J., Versuch fiir die Kritik N. T. Erlangen, 1845.
TniLO, J. C, Codex Apocryphus, vol. I. Leipsic, 1832.
Tholuck, Commentary on St. John. Trans. Philadelphia, 1859.
Thomson, W. M., Land and Book. New York, 1859.
Tischendorf, C, Synopsis Evangelica. Lipsiae, 1854.
Tobler, T., Bethlehem. Gallen u. Berne, 1849.

XXIV JJST OF AUTHOES CITED.
Tobler, T., Golgotha. Seine Kirchen u. Kloster. Berne, 1851.
Die Siloahquelle u. der Oelberg. St. Gallen, 1852.
" Topographie von Jerusalem. Berlin, 1853.
" Denkblatter aus Jerusalem. Constanz, 1856.
" Dritte Wanderung nach Palastina. Gotha, 1859.
Townsend, G., The New Testament, Arranged in Historical and Chrono
logical Order. Revised by T. W. Coit. Boston, 1837.
Van der Velde, C. W. M., Journey through Syria and Palestine. Trans.
Edinburgh, 1854.
Van der Velde. C. M. W., Memoir to accompany Map of Holy Land.
Gotha, 1858.
Westcott, B. F., Introduction to Study ofthe Gospels. London, 1860.
Wichelhaus, J., Geschichte des Leidens Jesu Christi. Halle, 1855.
Wieseler, K., Synopse der vier Evangelien. Hamburg, 1843.
Williams, G., The Holy City. London, 1849.
Williams, I., Narrative of our Lord's Nativity. London, 1844.
Wilson, J., Lands of the Bible. Edinburgh, 1847.
Winer, G. B., Real Wbrterbuch. Leipzig, 1847.
Winer, G. B., Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. Sechste
Auflage. Leipzig, 1855.
Wright, T., Early Travels in Palestine. London, 1848.
Occasional references are made to the valuable articles in the Real
Encyklopadie fiir Protestantische Theologie und Kirche, von Dr. Herzog,
Hamburg, 1854-1862 ; and in the Kirchen Lexicon, oder Encyklopadie
der Katholiseher Theologie; von Wetzer und Welte, Friburg, 1847-1857.

CHKONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.

[In the following Essays, and throughout this work, the dates are given
according to the sera beginning with the building of Rome, or ab urbe con-
dita ; more briefly, u. c. Reckoning backward from Christ, the year 1 of
Borne corresponded to the year 753 b. c. The year of Rome corresponding
to the year 1 of the Christian aera, was 754. Hence, to obtain the year of
Rome after Ohrist, we must add to 753 the number in question : thus the year
30 A. d. would correspond to 753+30, or 783. If we would obtain the year of
Rome before Christ, we" must subtract the number in question from 754 : thus
if Herod died 4 years before the Christian aera or 4 B. c, 754-4 would give
750 of Rome. Always, if not expressly stated to the contrary, the year of
Borne is to be understood.] DATE OF THE LORD'S BIRTH.
We take as our starting point in this inquiry the statement of
Matthew, (ii. 1-9,) that Jesus was born before the death of Herod
the Great. We must, therefore, first ascertain when Herod died.
According to Josephus,1 " he died the fifth day after he had caused
Antipater to be slain ; having reigned since he caused Antigonus
to be slain, thirty-four years, but since he had been declared king:
by the Eomans, thirty-seven." He was so declared king in 714..
This would bring his death in the year from 1st Nisan 750 to>
1st Nisan 751, according to Jewish computation, at the age of
seventy. But the date of his death may be more definitely fixed. Jo
sephus relates* that he executed the insurgents, Matthias and his
companions, on the night of an eclipse of the moon. This eclipse
took place, as has been ascertained by astronomical calculations,3
» Antiq., 17. 8. 1. ' Antiq., 17. 6. 4.
s Ideler, Handbuch Cnronologie, 2. 391.
1

2 CHEONOLOGICAi ESSAYS.
on the night of the 12th and 13th March, 750 ; yet he was dead
before the 5th of April, for the Passover of that year fell upon the
12th April, and Josephus states1 that before this feast his son and
successor Archelaus observed the usual seven days' mourning for
the dead. His death must therefore be placed between the 13th
March and 4th April, 750. We may take the 1st of April as an
approximate date.2
How long before Herod's death was the Lord born? The
Evangelists Matthew and Luke relate certain events that occurred
between His birth and Herod's death, His circumcision upon the
eighth day, 'the presentation at the Temple on the fortieth, the
visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the murder of the Inno
cents. Whatever view may be taken as to the order of these events,
they can scarcely have occupied less than two months. This
would bring His birth into January, or February at latest, 750.
Having thus reached a fixed period in one direction, and ascer
tained that His birth cannot be placed later than the beginning of
750, let us consider the data that limit the period upon the other
side. And the first of these we find in the statement of Luke,
(ii. 1-6,) that He was born after the edict of Augustus that all the '
world should be taxed. In obedience to this edict, his parents
went to Bethlehem to be taxed, and there He was born. If, now,
we can ascertain when this edict went into effect in Judea we have
another fixed period.
' It is known from Suetonius and from the Ancyranian monu
ment, that Augustus three times instituted a census, in 726, 746,
and 767." Of these the second only needs to be considered. But
this seems to have been confined to the Italians or Komans, eines
Romani, and thus a census cimum' and not to have extended to the
provinces.6 It cannot, therefore, have been the taxiDg of Luke.
That Augustus did at different times take a census of the provinces
is well established, but we know not the exact periods. As we
¦ Antiq., 17. 8. 4.
a Almost all chronologists agree in putting Herod's death in 750. So
Browne, Sepp, Wieseler, Ammer, Ewald, Winer, Hales, Meyer. Jarvis puts
it in March, 749 ; Greswell, April, 751 ; Clinton in 750 or 751.
3 Sepp, 1. 139.
' Usher, 10.458 ; Greswell, 1. 536 and 4. 22.
• This, however, is doubted by many. Browne, 45 ; Friedlieb, 53 ; Sepp,
1. 141. See Ewald, 5. 141.

DATE OP THE LOED'S BIKTH. 3
cannot, then, bring the taxing of Luke into any direct and positive
connection with the census of 746, it affords us no certain chrono
logical datum.
Attempts have been made to reach a positive result in another
way. According to Tertullian,1 the census at the birth of Christ
was taken by Sentius Saturninus. Sed et census constat actos sub
Augusto tunc in Judaea per Sent. Satuminum, apud quos genus
ejus inquirere potestis. It is said that this necessarily implies that
Saturninus was governor of Syria. We have then pnly to inquire
when he was thus governor. He, is often mentioned by Josephus.2
There is some difference of opinion as to the length of his adminis
tration. Greswell makes it to extend from 746-750, but most
only to 748.3 If, then, this census was taken by Saturninus as
governor of Syria, it must have been before 748, and consequently
the Lord's birth must be placed as early as 747.4
Against this it may be said that Tertullian stands quite alone in
this statement, and is at variance, not only with St. Luke, but with
many of the early writers, and is not here to be credited.6 Or if
it be admitted as correct, it by no means follows that Saturninus
was governor of Syria at this time ; he may have been a special
commissioner for the purpose.6 The supposition of Browne, (47,)
that the census began under him while governor, and so before
748,. is not probable. Patritius, iii. 168, makes Saturninus to
have been governor and Cyrenius legate extraordinary, and both
to have assisted in the work ; but this conflicts with Luke's state
ment that the latter was governor of Syria. In either case we
fail to fix the time for the taxing through its connection with him.
We now turn to the statement of Luke (ii. 2) : " This taxing
was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." This lan
guage is susceptible of various constructions, which will be here
after fully considered. We are concerned with it here only in its
chronological bearing as connected with Cyrenius. If it be read
"this taxing was before he was governor," or "this taxing first
took effect when he was governor," it gives us no aid in our in-
1 Adv. Marc, 4. 19.
2 Antiq., 16. 10. 8 ; 16. 11. 3 ; 17. 1. 1 ; 17. 2. 1 ; 17. 3. 2. War., 1. 27, 2 ;
1. 29. 3.
a Ideler, Zumpt, Sepp, Ammer, Browne.
* Patritius and many. = So Friedlieb, 54. " So Ammer, 18.

4 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
quiry. We learn from Josephus1 that after Archelaus was de
posed, and Judea annexed to Syria, Cyrenius was sent by tbe
Eoman emperor as governor of this province, and then instituted a
census. But this was not earlier than 758 or 760, and of course
cannot be the taxing mentioned by Luke ; for the Lord was born,
as we have seen, before Herod's death in 750. If, however, the
right interpretation of the Evangelist's words is that which makes
this taxing to have been the first as distinguished from a second,
and both during his governorship ; or that he was governor when
this very taxing took place, the question arises, was Cyrenius at
any period earlier than 758, governor of Syria ? That he was twice
governor was asserted by Baronius ; " but in this," says Lardner,
" he is deserted hy all learned men." a Kecently, however, the
matter has been more thoroughly discussed by Zumpt in his essay
de Syria Romanorum provincia.3 We shall, therefore, give a brief
outline of the point as it now lies in the light of this investigation.
In Josephus the names of several persons who were governors
of Syria about the time of the Lord's birth are mentioned, but tbey
are mentioned only incidentally, nor is the list complete. Of S.
Saturninus, whose administration ended in 747, we have already
spoken. He was followed by P. Q Varus.* Varus was with
Herod at the trial of his son Antipater, and afterward aided
Archelaus against the insurgent Jews.6 He was therefore in office
at least till the summer of 750. After this time Josephus makes
no mention of him, nor does history give us any positive informa
tion how long he continued in office. Of what took place during
the ten years' rule of Archelaus, Josephus says very little, nor does
he mention the name of any other Syrian governor till Cyrenius,
who began his administration after Archelaus had been deposed
and Judea annexed to Syria." Archelaus was deposed in the tenth
year of his reign,7 or in 759. That Varus did not act as governor
during all this interval, is probable from the fact that it was a
fixed rule with Augustus that no one should govern a province
1 Antiq., 18. 1. 1.
* 1. 336. For a full discussion of the grounds taken by Baronius, see
Spanheim, Dubia Evangelica, Pars Secunda, Dubinin v.
3 In the 2d vol. of his Comment. jEpigr. ad Antiq. Rom. pertinent.
Berol, 1854.
• Antiq., 17. 5. 2. « Antiq., 17. 10. 9 and 10.
6 Antiq., 17. 13. 5 ; 18. 1. 1. » Antiq., 17. 18. 2.

DATE OF THE LORD'S BIETH. 5
more than five years.1 A coin of Antioch proves that in fact in
758 L. V. Saturninus was governor. But by whom was this office
filled from 750-758 ?
It is at this point that the researches of Zumpt have for us
special importance. In his list of Syrian governors, (ii. 149,) ex
tending from b. o. 30 to a. d. 66, we find the interval from 748-
758 thus filled : P. Q. Varus, 748-750 or 6-4 b, o. P. S. Qurinius
(Cyrenius) 750-753 or 4-1 b. o. M. Lollius, 753-757 or 1 b. o. to
3 a. d. CM. Censorinus 757-758 or 3-4 a. d. After Censorinus
follows L. V. Saturninus, already mentioned, from 758-760 or 4-6
a. d., who is succeeded by P. S. Qurinius for the second time. This
second administration extends from 760-765 or 6-11 a. d. If Zumpt
be right in this order, Cyrenius was twice governor of Syria, but
we are now concerned only with his first administration, or that
from 750-753. Upon what ground does this statement rest ?
Our chief knowledge of Cyrenius is derived from Tacitus.2 Ho
was of low origin, a bold soldier, and attained a consulship under
Augustus in 742, and was afterward proconsul in the province of
Africa. After this he conquered the Homonadenses, a rude people
living in Cilicia, and obtained a triumph. He was subsequently
made rector to Caius Cssar when the latter was appointed gov
ernor of Armenia. At what time and in what capacity did ho
carry on the war against the Homonadenses ? The time is thus
determined : He was consul in 742. As it was a rule with Augus
tus to send no one sooner than five years after his consulship as
legate to a province, he could not have been in Africa earlier than
747. But he was made rector to O. Csesar in 753, after the war
against the Homonadenses, so that this war was between 747 and
753. In what capacity did he carry it on ? Probably as govern
or of Syria. It is important to bear in mind that at this time
there were two classes of provinces, the one under the immediate
control of the Emperor, the other under the control of the Senate.
The governors of the imperial provinces were called Legates or
Proprajtors, and continued in office during the pleasure of the
Emperor ; those of the Senatorial provinces, Proconsuls, whose au
thority lasted only for one year. Syria and Cilicia were both
provinces of the former kind, and administered by proprsators.
The Homonadenses were a people living in Cilicia, but Cilicia be-
J Greswell, 1. 507. a Ann., 3. 48.

6 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
longed from 25 b. o. down to the time of Vespasian to the province
of Syria. As Cyrenius had been proconsul in Africa, and as it was
a rule that the same person should not be ruler over more than
one of the consular or prastorian provinces under the care of the
Senate, he could not have been governor of any of the provinces
immediately adjacent; — Asia, Pontus, Bithynia, Galatia ; he must
then have been acting as governor of the province of Syria and as
legate of the Emperor.
We cannot here enter into an investigation of the many intri
cate questions which belong to this point, and which are fully dis
cussed by Zumpt.1 The result of all is that Cyrenius became gov
ernor of Syria as the successor of Varus toward the end of 750, and
continued in office till 753.
It cannot be said that Zumpt demonstrates that Cyrenius was
twice governor of Syria, but he certainly makes it highly prob
able.2 It is indeed possible that he was acting in the East at the
time of the Lord's birth as legate extraordinary, or as head
of the census commission for Syria and the East.8 As, however,
Luke's language seems to mean that he did act as governor of
Syria at this time, and as he is confirmed in this by many of the
earliest Christian writers, the burden of proof lies upon those who
dispute his accuracy. As the case now stands, we may assume that
Cyrenius was so governor from the end of 750 till 753.
But the exact chronological value of this fact, in its bearing
upon the date of the Lord's birth, still remains to be considered.
If, as we have seen, Herod died in the spring of 750, and after
Christ's birth, and Cyrenius was not governor till the autumn of
that year, how can it be said that this taxing took place under him ?
It must be admitted that the census began under Varus, 748-
750, and before Herod's death ; but if in consequence of this death
and of the popular disturbance that followed, it was for a time
suspended and its execution was reserved to Cyrenius, it would
very naturally be connected with his name. It is not improb
able also that so long as Herod lived he appeared as the chief agent
1 Ani abstract of his argument may be found in Fairbairn, Her. Man., 507 j
in Friedlieb, Leben Jesu, 57 ; and a brief notice in Alford, vol. i., Proleg. p. 50.
2 Merivale, however, (Roman Hist., 4. 456,) calls it " the demonstration,
as it seems to be."
3 See Ewald, 5. 140, note ; Browne, 45.

DATE OE THE LORD'S BIRTH. 1
in its execution ; and only after his death did the Eoman governor
take a prominent part. It is also not improbable that, as Herod's
death materially changed the relations in which Judea stood to the
empire, Justin Martyr's1 allusion to Cyrenius as first procurator
of Judea may refer to his more active interference in Jewish
affairs.2 We conclude, then, that the taxing of Luke, and so the
Lord's birth, was in the latter part of 749 or beginning of 750.3
The statement of St.Luke, (iii. 23,) " And Jesus himself began
to be about thirty years of age," is to be considered.4 This pas
sage may be variously interpreted.6 According to some it means,
" Jesus was," at this time of His baptism, " beginning to be about
thirty years of age," i. e., He was almost but not quite thirty.0
Greswell affirms that this was the universal interpretation of the
words by the Greek fathers.7 According to most modern inter
preters the meaning is, " Jesus was about thirty when He began
His ministry." 8 We have, then, taking the latter as the right con
struction, to ask how great latitude is to be given to the expression
" about thirty." According to some it is to be understood as a
round or indefinite number, embracing any age between twenty-
five and thirty-five. But when we consider how short was the
Lord's ministry, this is in the highest degree improbable. Accord
ing to others, it permits a latitude of two or three years.9 But
even this latitude is hardly justified by Luke's use of language.10
The more natural construction is that the Lord was some months
or parts of a year more or less than thirty. He was not just
thirty, nor twenty-nine, nor thirty-one. Still it cannot be posi
tively affirmed that the Evangelist does not use it in a larger sense.
1 Apol. 1, c. 34. ' Friedlieb, Leben Jesu, 60.
3 So Merivale, 4. 457. " It would appear from hence that our Lord's birth
was 750, or 749 at the earliest."
1 The reading of Tischendorf, Km avros nv o Inaovs opxoMe"os »<"<]
&c, does not materially affect the sense. See Wieseler, 123.
5 See Jarvis, 524.
8 So Lightfoot, 3. 35 ; Greswell, 1. 367 ; Bloomfield in loco.
7 See, however, Patritius, iii. 388.
8 So Meyer, Alford, Norton, De Wette, Wieseler, Tischendorf, Robinson.
• So Ammer, Alford.
io \ye give for comparison all the passages where meet is used by him in
connection with numerals : Gospel, i. 56 ; ix. 14 ; ix. 28 ; xxii. 59 ; xxiii. 44 ;
Acts of Apostles, i. 15; ii. 41; iv. 4; v. 36; x. 3; xix. 7.

8 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
The argument that He was thirty at this time, because the
priests at this age began their ministry,1 has little force. The law
(Num. iv. 3) has reference only to Levites, and the age when the
priests began to serve is not known.2 Besides, Jesus was not a
priest, although the Baptist was.3
If we assume that the Lord was about thirty at the beginning
of His ministry, we must, to make this datum useful in our present
inquiry, ascertain in what year this ministry began. This, it is
said, we are able to do through the words spoken by the Jews at
Jerusalem in reply to His parable respecting the temple of His
body, (John ii. 20.) " Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was
this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days ? "
This building, or rather rebuilding, of the temple was begun by
Herod in the eighteenth year of his reign, or during the year from
Nisan 734 to Nisan 735.4 The forty-sixth year following was
from Nisan 780-781. It is admitted that the temple was not fin
ished till 818.6 But from what point of time are the forty-six
years to be reckoned backward ? The words may be rendered as
by Lightfoot, " Forty and six years hath this temple been in build
ing." * Up to this time, the Passover, when the words were spoken,
the work had continued and was not yet ended. But is the forty-
sixth year to be taken as current, or as completed ? If the latter,
the Passover was that of 781 ; 7 if the former, it was that of 780.8
Some, however, understand the words, " In forty and six years
was this temple," all that is yet finished, " built." Tholuck (in
loco) observes, " We may suppose that at this time, probably after
the completion of some main part of the edifice, a cessation in the
building had taken place." * If this interpretation be right the
passage loses all its chronological value, as it is impossible to tell
how long the forty-six years had been completed.
All, therefore, that this passage gives us is a probability that
the Lord's first Passover was that of 780 or 781. The former is to
be preferred. If, then, he was about thirty at this time, but not a
year more or less, his birth would be about 750. The Passover of
780 fell upon the 9th April. His baptism was a few weeks earlier
i So Lightfoot, Jarvis. ' Winer, 2. 269. » Gres., 1. 374.
4 Josephus, Antiq., 15. 11. 1. 6 Josephus, Antiq., 20. 9, 7.
¦ So Greswell, Norton, Bloom. ' So Meyer, Wieseler, Tisch., Lange.
8 So Lardner, Licht., Friedlieb. " So Olshausen, Ewald.

DATE OE THE LORD'S BLETH. 9
than this, for there intervened the temptation of forty days, His
return to Jordan, His visit to Oana and to Capernaum, and journey
to Jerusalem. Allowing two or three months for all this, His bap
tism was in the last of 779, or beginning of 780. If we suppose
Him to have been just thirty at His baptism, His birth must be
placed in the last of 749, or beginning of 750. If, then, for reasons
already given, we cannot interpret " about thirty " as a wholly in
definite expression, but must understand it as meaning that He was
some months more or less than thirty, we cannot place His birth
earlier than the middle of 749.
Still another datum is the visit of the Magi. This, as we learn
from Matthew, (ch. ii.,) was before the death of Herod, and so
before April, 750. How long an interval elapsed between their
coming and his death is matter of inference. Their arrival at Je
rusalem cannot, however, well be placed later than February, 750.
At this time Herod was there, (Matt. ii. 1-7,) but at the eclipse of
the moon,1 March 12-13, he was at Jericho, where he subsequently
died. If, then, the Magi came in February, the Lord's birth must
have taken place some time earlier, as early at least as the be
ginning of 750.
The cause of the coming of the Magi to Jerusalem was the ap
pearing of a star, which in some way, whether by astrology, or
tradition, or by direct divine revelation, they knew to indicate the
birth of the King of the Jews. If this star were a real star, sub
ject to the ordinary laws which rule the heavenly bodies, and the
time of its appearing could be determined astronomically, we should
find in it a most valuable chronological aid. But many regard it
as wholly supernatural, a luminous body like a star specially pre
pared by God for this end ; and others as a new star, that, after
shining awhile in the heavens, totally disappeared ; and others
still, as a comet.2 If either of these suppositions be correct, it
gives us no chronological datum. But a considerable number of
modern commentators are inclined to regard it as a conjunction of
planets, and its time thus capable of determination. This hypoth
esis was first advanced by Kepler, whose attention was turned to
the matter by a similar conjunction at tbe close of 1603, a. d. In De-
1 Josephus, Antiq., 17. 6. 4.
" Winer, 2. 523. Trench, Star of the Wise Men, 28. Spanheim, Dubia
Evangelica, Pars Secunda. 1*

10 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
cember of that year Saturn and Jupiter were in conjunction, and
to them in the spring following Mars was added. In the autumn
of 1604, a new star of distinguished brilliancy appeared, which,
however, soon began to fade, and finally, at the end of 1605, van
ished from sight. His attention thus aroused, Kepler found by
computation that during the year 747 of Eome, the planets Jupiter
and Saturn three times came into conjunction. These computa
tions, as corrected by Ideler,1 show these conjunctions to have
taken place on 20th May, 27th Oct., and 12th Nov. of that year,
all in the sign of Pisces. At the first conjunction they were only
one degree removed, in the two latter were so near that both
planets appeared to a weak eye as one.2 In the spring of 748, to
these conjunctions Mars was added, and from some Chinese astro
nomical records it has been affirmed that a comet was visible from
February to April, 749, and again in April, 75 0.3
Those who regard these planetary conjunctions as the star of
Matthew, are by no means agreed as to their chronological bearing.
Kepler placed the Lord's birth in 748, reckoning from the con
junction of the three planets in the spring of that year, or from
the supposed appearance of a new star in the autumn, whilst the
two planets were still in the immediate neighborhood of each other.
Ideler, rejecting the new star of Kepler and looking only to the
conjunctions, puts His birth in 747. Ebrard, though adopting the
same date, supposes with Kepler that the star of Matthew was a
new star which appeared at the same time. Wieseler makes it to
have been the Chinese comet which appeared in 749 and 750, and
therefore places His birth early in 750.
It is not consistent with our present purpose to enter into a
discussion of the many questions connected with the star of the
wise men. The fact that such conjunctions should have taken
place so near the time when we know from other sources that the
Lord was born, and in that sign Pisces, which, according to the
Jewish Eabbi, Abarbanel, who wrote half a century before Kep
ler,4 was of special significance to the Jews, is in itself remarkable,
but leads to no definite chronological results. It is at best doubt
ful whether any conjunction of planets could answer to the state
ments of Matthew respecting the star. Ideler's assertion that the
1 Handbuch Chronologie, 2. 406. " Ideler, 2. 407.
3 See Wieseler, 69. « Amsterdam, 1547.

DATE OE THE LORD'S BIRTH. 11
two planets were so near together as to appear as one, is denied
by Eev. C. Pritchard.1 " Mr. Pritchard finds, and his calculations
have been verified and confirmed at Greenwich, that this conjunc
tion occurred not on Nov. 12, but early on Dec. 5 ; that even with
Ideler's somewhat strange postulate of an observer with weak eyes,
the planets could never have appeared as one star, for they never
approached each other within double the apparent diameter of the
moon." Alford, on the other hand, assuming that, on the last two
conjunctions, " the planets were so near that an ordinary eye would
regard them as one star of surpassing brightness," proceeds to show
bow they may have guided the Magi on their journey. " Suppos
ing the Magi to have seen the jtrst of these conjunctions, they saw
it actually 'in the East,' for on the 20th May it would rise
shortly before the sun. If they then took tlieir journey, and ar
rived at Jerusalem in a little more than five months, (the journey
from Babylon took Ezra four months,) if they performed the route
from Jerusalem to Bethlehem in the evening, as is implied, the
November conjunction, in 15° of Pisces, would be before them in
the direction of Bethlehem, coming to the meridian about eight
o'clock p. ir. These circumstances would seem to form a remark
able coincidence with the history in our text." If these observa
tions were well founded, the Lord's birth must be placed in 747.
In this result Alexander agrees, (On Matt. ii. 2.) " The concur
rence is in this case so remarkable, and the explanation recom
mended by such high scientific authority, that it would probably
have been universally adopted but for the foregone conclusion in the
minds of many that the birth of Christ took place in a different
year. But that assumption is so doubtful, and the views of the
best writers so discordant, that it can scarcely be allowed to decide
the question now before us, but may rather be decided by it."
Notwithstanding the weighty names that may be cited in sup
port of this explanation, it must, we think, be admitted that the
whole tenor of Matthew's narrative points strongly to some extra
ordinary luminous appearance in the form of a star, which, having
served its purpose of guiding the Magi to Jesus, vanished forever.
That the use of ao-r-np rather than ao-rpov indicates a single star
is apparent.2 But these conjunctions did not appear at any time
as a single star, nor can we well apply to them the language which
i See Smith's Bible Diet., 1. 1072. ' See Meyer.

12 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
the Evangelist uses of the movements of his star, (ii. 9.) If this
be the correct interpretation of the narrative, it does not, however,
exclude the astrological value of these conjunctions. The Magi
were students of the heavens, and such remarkable phenomena
would naturally attract their observation. Precisely what signifi
cance they would ascribe to them we cannot say, but doubtless in
their astrology they indicated some remarkable event. Perhaps,
also, the meeting of the planets in Pisces turned their attention
especially to Syria and Judea. We may thus at least suppose that
through the planetary conjunctions their attention was arrested,
and they prepared to watch the heavens with deep interest for
further signs, and to note the new star so soon as it appeared.
How they knew it to be the star of " the King of the Jews," does
not here concern us. All this still leaves undetermined the time
of the appearing of the star, but indicates that it must have been
after the conjunctions, or subsequent to Dec. 747. Yet it was
some time before Herod's death in 750.
Many have found a more definite chronological datum in the
statement of Matthew (ii. 16) that Herod, after the departure of the
Magi, slew all the children of Bethlehem " from two years old and
under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of
the wise men," (see v. 7.) It is said that the first appearing of the
star marked the Saviour's birth ; that the command to slay the
children " from two years old and under," shows that more than a
year had elapsed since its appearing ; and that, consequently, He
must have been at that time in His second year.1 But this is by
no means conclusive. It is not certain that the appearing of the
star marked the Saviour's birth. It may have preceded it and
marked the Incarnation, which the early church connected with
the Annunciation, not with the Nativity. If so, the star may
have been seen in 747, yet His birth have been in 748 ; or the star
in 748, and His birth in 749. Nor does the fact that Herod slew
all the children from two years and under, give us any exact result.
This expression is in itself remarkable, and indicates that two years
was the extreme beyond which the kiDg did not think it necessary
to go, and that in all probability Jesus was much younger. " This
does not imply that Jesus was just two years old at this time, but
rather that He was not, as appears from the word under." * He
> So Meyer. a Alexander.

DATE OF THE LORD'S BIETH. 13
would be sure that the child should not escape, and therefore en
larged the time, taking in those of greater age than he had any
reason to suppose Him to be. It is plain that he did not learn
from the Magi the date of His birth, or any close approximation
to it, for if He had just been born, why kill the children of two
years, and if He were now more than a year, why kill all of a less
age? Thus from this expression we may infer that Jesus was
only recently born.1 This is confirmed by the scope of the narrative
which implies that the Magi came soon after bis birth. If we
suppose that the star announcing the Incarnation appeared to the
Magi early in 749, and place their visit in the beginning of 750,
Herod, ignorant what relation the time of its appearing had to
Christ's birth, might well have ordered that all the children of
Bethlehem born in 749 and up to this time in 750, should be slain ;
and this would correspond to the " two years and under " of the
Evangelist. Whilst, then, we cannot reach any precise chronological results
from the visit of the Magi, we may perhaps say that the conjunc
tions of the planets define the earliest period at which the Lord's
birth can be placed. We thus gain the two termini between which
He was born : the planetary conjunctions in 747, and the death of
Herod in 750.
Still another datum on which some rely is the existence of
general peace throughout the world at the Lord's birth. This
peace is supposed to have been foretold by the prophets, and its
realization announced by the angels in their song on the night of
the nativity, (Luke ii. 14,) " Glory to God in the highest, and on
earth peace, good will toward men." With this is joined the closing
of the temple of Janus by Augustus, the sign of peace throughout
the Eoman Empire. It is known that this temple was twice closed
by him, in 725, 729, and probably also a third time, though the
year is not certainly determined. " We know no more concerning
it than this : that 744 sub finem, it was intended to have taken
place, but was delayed a little longer by some unimportant com-
1 Greswell, 2. 135, would understand by children of two years those of
thirteen months only. All older than this were exempt. But this is doubt
ful, and is unnecessary. Browne, Ordo Saeclorum, 52, explains Herod's or
der from the fact the star appeared two years before the nativity.

14 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
motions among the Daci and Dalmatse." 1 In the absence of exact
information, we can say no more than that there was a period of
general tranquillity throughout the Eoman world for five or six
years, 'or probably from 746 to 752, during which period the Lord
was born. We cannot, without building on conjecture, reach any
more exact result.
To sum up the results of our inquiries, we find that the birth
of the Lord was not later than April, 750, and probably not later
than January. The time in this direction is limited by the death
of Herod in April of that year, and the events immediately pre
ceding it. On the other hand, if we give to the conjunction of planets
in 747, as connected with the visit of the Magi, any chronological
value, we cannot put his birth earlier than that year. Again, if
Cyrenius was governor of Syria from the autumn of 750-753, we
must put it as near as possible to the beginning of his administra
tion. And as He was about thirty years of age at the beginning
of His ministry, and the date of His first Passover after its begin
ning was 780, we reach the year 749. We have thus to choose
between the years 747, 748, 749, and the beginning of 750. The
probabilities are in favor of 749, and in our further examinations
we shall assume this as the year of His birth.
We add the opinions of some of the leading chronologists and
commentators.2 For the year 747, Sanclemente, Wurm, Ideler,
Munter, Sepp, Jarvis, Alford, Patritius, Ebrard ; for 748, Kepler ;
Lardner hesitates between 748 and 749 ; for 749, Petavius, Usher,
Noris, Tillemont, Lichtenstein, Ammer, Friedlieb, Bucher, Browne ;
for 750, Lamy, Bengel, Wieseler, Greswell, Ellicott. Clinton finds
the earliest possible date the autumn of 748, the latest that of 750.
The years 751, 752, and 753 have also their supporters, but not
among the more recent writers, with one or two exceptions.
We proceed to inquire in what part of the year the Lord was
born. The only direct datum which the Gospels give us, is found
in the statement of Luke, (i. 5,) that Zacharias " was of the course
of Abia." It is known that the priests were divided into twenty-
1 Greswell, 1. 469. See Patritius, iii. 165. Accordingto Sepp and Browne,
it was closed from 746-752; to Ammer and Greswell from 748 or 749-752 or
753 ; to Jarvis from 746-758. Wieseler makes the order to shut it to have
issued in 743, but its execution to have been delayed till 752.
' See Friedlieb, Leben Jesu, 91 ; Wieseler, 485.

DATE OP THE LORD'S BIETH. 15
four classes, each of which officiated at the temple in its turn for
a week.1 This order, originally established by David, was broken
up by the captivity. The four classes that returned from Babylon
were divided anew by Ezra into twenty-four, to which the old
names were given. Another interruption was made by the inva
sion of Antiochus, but the old order was restored by the Maccabees.
Of these courses that of Jehoiarib was the first, that of Abia the
eighth. We need therefore only to know a definite time at which
any one of the courses was officiating to be able to trace the suc
cession. Such a datum we find in the Talmudical statements, sup
ported by Josephus,2 that at the destruction of the temple by
Titus on the 5th August, 823, the first class had just entered on
its course. Its period of service was from the evening of the 4th
August, which was the sabbath, to the evening of the following
sabbath, on the 11th August. We can now easily compute back
ward, and ascertain at what time in any given year each class was
officiating. If now we take the year 749 as the probable year of Christ's
birth, the appearance of the angel to Zacharias announcing John's
birth must be placed in 748. In this year we find by computation
that the course of Abia, or the eighth course, officiated during the
weeks from the 17-23 April and again from the 3-9 October.3
At each of. these periods, therefore, was Zacharias at Jerusalem.
If the annunciation of the angel was made to him during the for
mer, the birth of John may be placed near the beginning of 749,
and the Lord's birth about six months later, or near the middle of
749 ; if the annunciation was made during the latter, John's birth
was near the middle of 749, and the Lord's birth near its end.
The fact that we do not know how soon after the completion
of the ministry of Zacharias the conception of John is to be placed,
prevents any very exact statement of dates. Luke (i. 24) uses only
the general expression " after those days his wife Elisabeth con
ceived." Yet the tenor of the narrative leads us to believe that it
was soon after his return to his home, and may be placed in either
of the months April or October. Counting onward fifteen months
1 1 Chron., 24. 1-19 ; Lightfoot, 9. 44. 2 War, 6. 4. 5.
3 So Wieseler, 143; Licht., 76; Friedlieb, 80; Brswne, 35. Greswell, 1.
434, Sept. 30— Oct. 7.

16 CHEONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
we reach June and December, in one of which the Lord's birth is
thus to be placed.
In choosing between these periods, some weight is to be given
to the statement of Luke (ii. 8) that in the night when the Lord
was born, shepherds were in the field keeping watch over their
flock. Does not this rather point to the summer, than to the win
ter, to June than to December ? To answer this we must make
some inquiries respecting the climate of Judea. Travellers in
Palestine differ widely in their meteorological accounts, nor is this
to be wondered at, as the seasons vary greatly in different years,
and each traveller can speak only of what falls under his own per
sonal observation. Instead, therefore, of trying to reach some
general conclusions from such isolated accounts, we shall take the
statements of those who, having resided some time in Jerusalem,
give us the results of their observations for several successive
years. And we select as authorities Schwartz1 and Barclay.2
The year is divided into two seasons, summer and winter, or
the dry and the wet. The winter rains begin to fall in tbe latter
part of October or beginning of November. Tbe most rainy
month is February. During the months of December, January,
February, and March, there is no entire cessation of rain for any
long interval ; " yet an interregnum of several weeks' dry weather
generally occurs between the middle of December and the middle
of February, somewhat distinguishing the former rains of the
season from the latter." 3 " The average monthly temperature
during four years from 1851 was, for November, 63° 8' ; December,
54° 5' ; January, 49° 4' ; February, 54° 4' ; March, 65° 7'." ' " The
temperature of Palestine averages during the winter 50° to 53i°." B
Of the month of December, the following account is given : " The
earth fully clothed with rich verdure. Wheat and barley still
sown, also various kinds of pulse. Sugar-cane in market. Cauli
flowers, cabbages, radishes, lettuce, lentiles, &c. Ploughing still
continues at intervals." * " Temperature same as preceding month.
The sowing of grain in the field has already commenced. Although
the oranges and kindred fruit have been long since ripe, they
continue to mature on the trees till toward April and May." 7
i Descriptive Geography of Palestine, 825-331.
3 City of the Great King, 414-429.
3 Barclay. ' Barclay. 6 Schwartz. « Barclay. » Schwartz.

DATE OP THE LOED'S BIETH. 17
January is the coldest part of the year, and fires are used
by the Frank population, though little by the natives, and snow
and iee are occasionally seen.
These statements are confirmed in general by the highest au
thorities.1 Although they may have in part more special reference
to Jerusalem, they apply equally well to Bethlehem, the climate
of which is not unlike that of Jerusalem, though milder.2 There
seems then, so far as climate is concerned, no good ground to
affirm, that shepherds could not have been pasturing their flocks
in the field during' the month of December. As we have seen,
Barclay states that in this month the earth is fully clothed with
rich verdure^ and that there is generally an interval of dry weather
between the middle of December and the middle of February.
Schubert 3 says that the period about Christmas is often one of the
loveliest periods of the whole year. Tobler says, the weather
about Christmas is favorable to the feeding of flocks, and often
most beautiful. " On the 27th December, 1845, we had very
agreeable weather." * It is during this month that tbe wind be
gins to blow from the south or southwest, which, according to
Schwartz, " brings rain and betokens warm weather," and thus
hastens forward vegetation.
Unless, then, the climate of Judea has become in the lapse of
years much warmer than of old, the flocks may have been feeding
in the fields of Bethlehem in the month of December. But accord
ing to Arago,6 there has been no important change for the last
three thousand three hundred years. Nor do the incidental notices
of Scripture conflict with this. The Lord's words, " Pray that
your flight be not in the winter," are easily understood when we
remember that winter is the rainy season, and most unfavorable
for journeying. That a fire was made at a much later period of
the year, (John xviii. 18,) is plainly an exceptional case, and for
this reason mentioned. " Strong, and at times cold winds prevail
in April." 6
There remains to be noticed a saying of the Talmudists, that
the flocks were taken to the fields in March and brought home in
November. But this had reference to those pastures that were
1 Winer, 2. 691 ; Raumer, 77 ; Robinson, 2. 428 ; Tobler, Denkblatter, 3, &o.
' Tobler, Bethlehem. 3 Quoted by Wieseler, 148.
» SoBitter.Theil 16. 480. « In Winer, 2. 692. « Schwartz.

18 CHEONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
found in the wilderness far away from the cities or villages, and
were resorted to by the shepherds during the summer months.
" The spring coming on, they drove their beasts into wildernesses,
or champaign grounds, where they fed them the whole summer.
The winter coming on, they betook themselves home again with
the flocks and herds." l That the flock was near. Bethlehem
would therefore show, that this was a winter rather than a sum
mer month ; and the autumnal rains beginning to fall in No
vember, there would soon be abundance of grass. The inference
drawn by many 2 that, the flock being kept through the night in
the fields, it could not have been so late in the year as December,
is without basis. How generally during the winter months the
cattle were stalled, we cannot tell, but doubtless in this tbe shep
herds were governed by the peculiar character of the season.
If, then, we have to choose between the months of December
and June, the balance of probabilities is in favor of the former.
As the spring rains cease in April, the whole country soon be
comes dry and barren. Of May, Barclay (423) remarks : " Vege
tation having attained its maximum, now begins rapidly to de
cline for want of rain ; " and of June, " Herbage becoming parched,
the nomad Arabs begin to move northward with their flocks."
As the early tradition of the Church designated this month as
the, time of the Lord's birth, it has been generally Accepted, but
not universally. Lightfoot makes it to have been in September,
Newcome in October, Paulus in March, Wieseler in February,
Lichtenstein in June, Greswell in April, Clinton in spring, Lardner
and Bobinson in autumn, Strong in August.
If we accept the month of December, the day of the month
still remains undetermined. If we place the ministry of Zacharias
in Jerusalem from the 2d to 9th Oct. 748, and the conception of
John soon after, the sixth month of Elisabeth (Luke i. 36) would
extend from the middle of March to the middle of April. During
this period was the annunciation to Mary, and the Lord's birth
must then be placed between the middle of December, 749, and
the middle of January, 750. A more definite result we cannot
reach, except we receive the traditional date of the 25th of De
cember. . The origin and value of this tradition we proceed to
consider. ' Lightfoot on Luke ii. 8. ' So A. Clarke, Greswell.

DATE OP THE LORD'S EIETH. 19
It is now generally granted that the day of the nativity was
not observed as a feast in any part of the Church, east or west.
till sbme time in the fourth century.1 If any day had been earlier
fixed- upon as the Lord's birthday, it was not commemorated by
any religious rites, nor is it mentioned by any writers. The ob
servance of the 25th December is ascribed to Julius, Bishop of
Eome, a. d. 337-352. It is mentioned as observed under his suc
cessor Liberius, a. d. 352-366. In the Eastern Church till this
time, the 6th January had been observed as the day of the Lord's
baptism, ahd had been regarded also as the day of His birth, it
being inferred from Luke iii. 23, that He was just thirty when bap
tized. It was only by degrees that a distinction began to be made
between the date of His birth and that of His baptism, and that
each began to be observed upon different days. Chrysostom 2 states
that it was only within ten years that the 25th December had been
made known to them by the Western Church as the day of His
nativity, but asserts that through the public records of the taxing
(Luke ii. 1-4) preserved at Eome it had long been known to the
Christians of that city. From this time, about the end of the
fourth century, this day was commemorated as the birthday both
in the east and west.
Thus we have in favor of the 25th December, the fact that the
Eastern Churches were indueed to adopt it, and to transfer to it
the feast which they had before observed upon the 6th of January.
We can scarce think this done without some good chronological
grounds, real or supposed. . But we do not know what these
grounds were. Some 3 ascribe great importance to the state
ments of. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom, that . in the
public archives at Eome a registry existed of the census under
Augustus, by .which the Lord's birthday was conclusively estab
lished. Jarvis supposes Tertullian to give the very words of the
enrolment as he found them in the Eoman archives, in which
Mary is mentioned as the mother of Jesus — Maria ex qua nas-
eitur GAristus. Thus the day being proved by the register at
1 So Clinton. "Not only was the day unknown, but for 300 years after
the ascension nq day was set apart for the commemoration of the birth of
Christ." 3 Antioch, a. d. 386. s So Jarvis, 370 and 537.

20 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
Eome, the knowledge of it gradually spread to the Eastern Churches.
But most chronologists have regarded these statements as of little
value.1 The fact that the tradition, which placed the, Lord's birth on the
25th December, also placed the birth of John Baptist on the 24th
June preceding, the annunciation to the virgin on the 25th March,
and day of Elisabeth's conception on the 24th September, or on
the four cardinal points of the year, has led many to suppose that
these periods were selected with reference to their astronomical
significance, rather than as the real dates « of these events. It
strengthens this supposition that so many of the Christian festivals
were placed upon days remarkable in the Julian calendar. Noting
these facts, Sir Isaac Newton2 inferred that " these days were fixedl
in the first Christian calendars by mathematicians at pleasure,
without regard to tradition, and that the Christians afterward
took up what they found in the calendars." More probable is the '
supposition that these dates were in part selected as the times of
Christian feasts, in order to serve as a counterpoise to the corre
sponding heathen festivals, and in part because of their typical
meaning. It does not appear that the feast of the nativity can be
directly connected with any heathen festival, for tke connection
between this day and the dies natalis solis irkicti, cannot be
proved ; but as the winter solstice its bearings are often typically
interpreted by the fathers.3 Thus the words of John Baptist
spoken of Christ, (John iii. 30) " He must increase but I must de
crease," are applied to the fact that, at "John's birth in June 24th,
or the summer solstice, the days began to decrease in length, but
at Christ's birth, December 25th, the days began to increase.
Thus Augustine * : Hodie natus est Johannes, quo incipiunt de-
crescere dies — eo die natus Christus, quo crescere.
Whilst such typical applications naturally tend to beget doubts
whether the dates so connected with the great astronomical epochs
of the year have any historic foundation, yet on the other hand it
should be borne in mind that if the 25th December were actually
» See Kingsley in New Englander, April, 1847, who says that they are not
referred to by Baronius, or Pagi, or Causabon, or relied on by Usher or
Newcome. 2 Observations upon Daniel and Apoc.
3 Sepp, 1.200. * Homil., 3.

DATE OP THE LORD'S BIRTH. , 21
the Lord's birthday, the events preceding it, the conception of
John, the annunciation to Mary, and the birth pf John, must have
taken place nearly at the times which tradition has assigned. And
it deserves to be considered, that the hour of His birth, who is
Lord of all, was not matter of accident, but divinely appointed.
What season of the year might be most fitting to so great an
event, or whether, astronomically viewed, the winter solstice has
any such fitness, are questions not necessary to be answered here.
It is at least not unreasonable to believe, that the sun, in its course,
may typify Him who is the Sun of righteousness, and the year in
its seasons foreshadow the epochs of His life.
The strongest argument against the 25th December, if the birth
be put in 749, is that it leaves too little space for the events that
occurred before Herod's death. This death was about the 1st of
April, 750 ; we thus have a little more than three months. In
this period were the visit of the Magi, the presentation at the
Temple, the flight into Egypt, and sojourn there. If, according to
general tradition, the Magi came on the 6th January or 13th day
after the Lord's birth, and the presentation was on the 40th, or
early in February, He went down into Egypt about two months
before Herod's death. Those who put the flight into Egypt imme
diately after the coming of the Magi, on the 6th January, and the
presentation upon the return after Herod's death, gain another
month. If, however, we follow the order of most modern har
monists, and put the visit of the Magi after the presentation on the
40th day, the time of the sojourn in Egypt up to Herod's death was
a little less than two months.
Those who put the Lord's'birth in 748 or 747, make the period
spent in Egypt much longer— Tsome three years, some two, some
one, some six months. Those who put the birth later than the
25th December, 749, and Herod's death in April, 750, make the
sojourn but three to four weeks, or less; Wieseler and Ellicott
only about a fortnight. There is nothing in Matthew's narration,
or the circumstances of the case, .that makes it probable He was
there more than a few weeks. There does not, therefore, appear
any good reason why all the events he narrates may not have
taken place between the 25th December and the following 1st of
April. Our inquiries lead us, then, to these general results. We find it

22 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
most probable that the Lord was born near the end of the year
749. At this period all the chronological statements of the Evan
gelists seem most readily to centre and harmonize. In favor of
December, the last month of that year, as much may be said
as in favor of any other, and this aside from the testimony of
tradition. As to the day, little that is definite can be said. The
25th of this month lies open to the suspicion of being selected
on other than historic grounds, yet it is not inconsistent with
any data we have, and has the voice of tradition in its favor.
Still, in regard to all these conclusions, it must be remembered
that many elements of uncertainty enter into the computations*, and
that any positive statements are impossible. It .is well said, by
Spanheim : Sed cum hac de re altum apud Eoangelistas sit silen-
tium, nee Apostolical Hcclesice vel sanctioned, vel praxin legamus,
causa nihil est, cur temere definiamus quod solide definiri non
potest.

DATE OF THE LORD'S BAPTISM.
If we assume, upon grounds stated in th'e essay upon the date
of the Lord's birth, that the Passover following His baptism was
that of 780, we have to determine how long an interval elapsed
between them. Our only data to decide this are the statements
of the Synoptists compared with those of John. The former re
late how Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John, and was
baptized, and bow He was immediately led up of the Spirit into
the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, and was there forty
days. Of His return to the Baptist at the Jordan, they say noth
ing, but John supplies the omission, (John i. 29.) Eeturning after
the temptation to the Jordan, where the Baptist bears witness to
Him as the Lamb of God, He begins to gather disciples, and with
Simon and Andrew and others departs to Cana of Galilee. All this
may have occupied six or. seven days. After the wedding at Cana
He went down to Capernaum, but made there only a brief sojourn,
and then went up to Jerusalem to the Passover, which fell this
year upon the 9th April. Supposing that he reached Jerusalem a
month after the wedding at Cana, we find that the whole interval
between the baptism and the Passover was from two to three

DATE OP THE LORD'S BAPTISM. 23
months.1 If this be admitted, the Lord was baptized sometime in
tbe month of January, 780.
Against this result, a very strong objection is brought, derived
from the relation in which the Lord's baptism stands to John's
ministry. From Luke (iii. 1-2) we learn that the word of God
came to John in the wilderness in the 15th year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar. If this year corresponds, as is said, to the year
782, and marks the beginning of his work, then John could not
have baptized Jesus in 780. Here are two points to be exam
ined : first, what is meant by the word of God coming to John ;
second, from what point of time is the 15th of Tiberius to be
reckoned ?
The obvious and natural interpretation of the Evangelist's lan
guage : " The word of God came unto John in the wilderness,
and he came into all the country about Jordan preaching — as it is
written ; " is that it refers to the beginning of his ministry. But
as Christ's work in Galilee, which only is mentioned by Luke, be
gan after John's imprisonment, it is said that this imprisonment
took place in the 15th year of Tiberius, and that his ministry im
mediately preceding it is that referred to. That it was early so
understood, is said to be shown by Eusebius, (iii. 24,) when he says
that the Synoptists " only wrote the deeds of our Lord for one year
after the imprisonment of John Baptist, and intimated this in the
very beginning of their history." In recent times, the denial that
Luke's words refer to the beginning of the Baptist's ministry, has
been defended by several eminent chronologists.2 Sanclemente3
attempts to show- that the 15th year of Tiberius " non ad initium
ministerii Joannis, non ad baptismum a Christo in Jordane suscep-
tum, sed ad ipsius passionis et crucifixionis tempus ipso evangelista
'duce atque interprete esse referendum." Brown (92) adopted this
• explanation in a modified form. " The heading of St. Luke's third
chapter contains the date, not of the mission of St. John the
* Some chronologists would much enlarge this period. Hales puts the
baptism six months before the Passover ; Usher, says two years and a half be
fore. See Clinton, 2. 234, note. But most agree that it was from two to four
months. 2 So Sanclemente, Browne, Wieseler ; and following the latter, Tischen
dorf and Ellicott.
3 As cited by Wieseler, 196, note.

24 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
Baptist, but ofthe year of our Lord's ministry, especially in refer
ence to the great events with which it closed." Wieseler, (194,)
referring the Evangelist's words to the imprisonment of John,
has defended this view most ingeniously and elaborately. It is ob
vious, that in this way we avoid a great chronological difficulty,
but we meet others as great. The 15th year of Tiberius, counting
from the death of Augustus, on the 19th August, 767, was the year
from August 781 to August 782. Wieseler puts the imprisonment
of the Baptist about the middle of March,. 782, and his death in
April following. Thus the period of his imprisonment is limited
to three weeks, which is manifestly too brief. Again, if tbe state
ments of Luke (iii. 3-18) have reference to a work of John im
mediately preceding his captivity, he must have returned from
JEnon (John iii. 23) to the Jordan, and thus have begun anew
his labors. But this is inconsistent with the fact, that his work
had reached its culminating point at tbe baptism of Jesus. From
that time he began to decrease. It could not be said of him
in the last stage of his ministry, as Luke relates, (iii. 15,) that
" all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the
Christ or not."
We therefore conclude, in common with the great body of
chronologists and commentators, that Luke designs to refer the
15th year of Tiberius to the beginning of the Baptist's ministry.1
We must now turn to the second point, from what period is. the
15th year of Tiberius to be reckoned ? Tiberius was the step-son
of the emperor Augustus, and was formally adopted by him in 757.
After filling several high stations in the civil and military service,
he was associated with him in the general administration of the
empire in 764 or 765.2 Upon the death of Augustus, on the 19th
of August, 767, he became sole ruler. Thus there are two periods
from which his rule or administration may be reckoned : that when
he was associated with Augustus, and that when he began to rule
alone. To which of these periods does Luke refer ? If to the for
mer, the 15th year of his government was that of 779-780 ; if the
latter, from 19th August, 781-782. If we accept the latter date, and
John began his ministry in August, the baptism of Jesus must be
1 So Meyer, Lichtenstein, Ebrard,, Winer, Krafft.
3 According to Greswell, 1. 344, and most, in beginning or middle of. 765.
According to Sepp, 1. 231, in year from Aug. 768-764.

DATE OP THE LORD'S BAPTISM. 25
placed in 782. If He was born in 749 or beginning of 750 He
must have been thirty-two or thirty-three years of age at this time,
which it is difficult to reconcile with Luke (iii. 23) that He was
" about thirty years of age." If born in 748 or 747, He was now
thirty-four or thirty-five, which presents a still greater difficulty.
Hence many have inferred that Luke, who could not well have over
looked the apparent discrepancy, must have reckoned the 15th year
of Tiberius, from the time when he became colleague with Augustus,
The importance of this date, and the many difficulties connected
with it, demand that we give to it a more particular examination.
Three points claim our attention. 1st. The fact of Tiberius' asso
ciation with Augustus in the government of the empire. This fact
is beyond all doubt. The direct evidence is found in Tacitus, Sue
tonius, and Paterculus, and there are incidental allusions to it in
several other writers.1 Tacitus says ' " that on him every honor
was accumulated ; he was adopted by Augustus for his son, as
sumed colleague in the empire, and presented to the several
armies." He relates also that Tiberius, in reply to the request of
the Senate to take the government, said that " Augustus only was
capable of so mighty a charge, that for himself, having been called
by him to a participation of his cares, be had learned by experience
how difficult to bear, and how subject to fortune was the burden of
the general administration " — regendi euncta. In like manner, Sue
tonius ' says that " Augustus ordered that Tiberius should be named
as bis colleague " — collegam suum Tiberium nuncupate jussit. He
mentions also a law promulgated by the consuls, that " Tiberius,
jointly with Augustus, should rule in the provinces and also take
the census " — ut provincias cum Augusto communiter administraret,
simulque censum ageret. Merivale (4. 367) observes : " This commu
nication of proconsular power abroad could hardly admit of any other
interpretation than that the son was thereby formally associated in
the empire with his father." Paterculus, (103,) alluding to his adop
tion by Augustus, represents himself as unable to describe the joy of
that day ; the great concourse of all ranks of the people, and their
hopes and prayers. He. mentions also the triumph 'due him be
cause of his victories in Pannonia and Dalmatia, and which was
celebrated with great magnificence, after the Senate and people
of Eome, on a request being made by his father that he might be
1 See Lardner, 1. 355. » Ann., 1. 3. 3 August., 97.
2

26 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
invested with authority equal to his own — ut mquum ei jus in
omnibus provinciis exercitibusque esset, quam erat ipsi, had passed
a decree to that effect. Paterculus adds, as his own comment, that
it would have been unreasonable if be could not have ruled what
he had secured.
Thus the fact is abundantly established, that Augustus did for
mally associate Tiberius with him in the rule of the empire. At
his request, a decree to this effect was passed by the Senate and
people. Nor was Tiberius a colleague in name merely. Augustus,
very aged, and now sinking under bodily infirmities, was almost
wholly under the control of his wife, the mother of Tiberius, whilst
the latter was in the prime of life, active and energetic. In the
very nature of the case, Tiberius, from the time of his colleague-
ship the recognized successor to the imperial throne, must have
been a most conspicuous and influential person, and, we may per
haps say, the emperor de facto, although the name and prestige re
mained with Augustus till bis death. That upon this event he did
not openly and immediately act as emperor, but paid court to the
Senate, as if the Eepublic still existed, and as if he were irresolute
about assuming the sovereign rule,1 is attributable to the peculiar
political circumstances of the times ; and also to bis haughty tem
per, that chose rather to ascribe his elevation to the voice of the
people, than to the intrigues of his mother, and to the favor of a
weak, superannuated- old man.
2d. When was Tiberius thus made colleague with Augustus ?>
Most chronologists agree in placing the decree of the Senate already
alluded to, near the end of 764 or beginning of 765.2 We may
accept this as the true date. Taking then the year 765, from Jan
uary to January, as the 1st of Tiberius, the 15th is the year 779.
Some time, then, in 779, is the beginning of John's ministry to be
placed. 3d. Is it probable, that Luke would compute the reign of
Tiberius from his colleagueship ? It is said that there is no proof
that this mode of computation was known to any of the fathers,
or that it was ever used by any historians.3 1 Clemens of Alexandria
does, however, mention that, according to one mode of computing,
1 Tacitus, Ann., 1. 7.
3 So. Greswell, Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Robinson.
3 See Browne, 67, note ; Ammer, 75.

DATE OP THE LORD'S BAPTISM. 27
Tiberius reigned twenty-two years, according to another twenty-
six years, which, if it be not a numerical error, indicates a twofold
beginning of his reign. Hofmann1 supposes that in Josephus2 there
is a reference to the colleagueship, where he states that " Tiberius
died after be bimself had held the government twenty-two years "
— o-^cow avros ttjv apxnv. The most obvious construction of this
phrase, is that which refers it to bis sole administration, in contra
distinction to his colleagueship. That such a twofold computation
took place in the case of some of the later emperors, is unques
tioned. A coin exists bearing the inscription : " In the 11th holy
year of the government of the emperor Titus." 3 As he himself
lived only two years after his father's death, the other nine years
must refer to his joint rule with his father as a colleague. And
whether the fathers were ignorant thaf the reign of Tiberius might
be reckoned from two epochs^ is doubtful. Lardner reasons that
they must have known it, because as they almost universally placed
the crucifixion in the 15th year, they must have seen how incon
sistent it was* with Luke, who placed the beginning of John's min
istry in that year.
We cannot, without doing St. Luke great injustice' as a his
torian, suppose him to have been ignorant of a fact so public and
notorious as that of the association of Tiberius with Augustus in
the empire ; and there is no good reason why, if knowing it, he
should not have taken it as an epoch from which to reckon. If
the Italians dated his reign from the emperor's death, that natu
rally follows from the fact that the imperial authority of Tiberius,
during bis colleagueship, was little felt in Italy ; his administration
being especially confined to the provinces. But it gives a good
reason why those in the provinces, especially of Asia Minor and
Syria, should reckon from the time when he became in regard to
them the acting emperor. Whether by the choice of the word
" reign," nyepovia, rather than Bao-ikeia or povapxia, he designed to.
indicate this,4 is uncertain, but the word is certainly applicable to a
government administered by more than one person. The cases in
all eastern countries where the sons of kings were associated
with their fathers in the kingdom were so common, that the
double reckoning of their reigns could not have been any thing
¦ Cited by Lichtenstein, 129. 2 Antiq., 18. 6. 10.
3 Sepp, 1. 230. ' So Sepp.

28 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
unusual. Indeed, the epoch from which to date a reign is often
perplexing, and brings no little confusion into ohronology. Gres
well (1. 336) ascribes the Evangelist's statement to " that scrupulous
regard to truth, which we should have a right to expect from an
inspired historian. He could not deliberately call that year the
13th of Tiberiua whioh he knew to be really bis 15th."
These considerations will, we trust, exculpate the Evangelist
from all charges of historical inaccuracy. It is plain that be might
reckon the years of Tiberius' reign from that time, when, by his
father's desire and the solemnly expressed will of the Senate and
people, he entered upon the exercise of imperial power. But
whether, in point of fact, Luke thus computes, continues to be
matter of dispute.'
To sum up our investigations upon this point, we find three
solutions of the Chronological difficulties which the statements of
Luke present. 1st. That the 15th year of Tiberius is to be reck
oned from the death of Augustus, and extends from August 781 to
August 782. In this year, the Baptist, whose labors began some
time previous, was imprisoned, but the Lord's ministry began in
780, before this imprisonment, and when He was about thirty years
of age. 2d. That the 15th year is to be reckoned from the death
of Augustus, but that the statement the Lord was about thirty
years of age is to be taken in a large sense, and that He may have
been of any age from thirty to thirty-five, when He began His
labors. 3d. That the 15th year is to be reckoned from the year
when Tiberius was associated with Augustus in the empire, and
is therefore the year 779. In this case, the language " He was
about thirty" may be strictly taken, and tbe statement, "the
word of God came unto John," may be referred to the beginning
of his ministry.
Of these solutions, the last seems to have most in its favor ; and
we shall assume that during the year 779, or the 15th year of
1 In favor of the computation from the colleagueship, Usher, Bengel, Lard-
ner, Jarvis, Greswell, Lichtenstein, Sepp, Friedlieb, Bucher, Patritius ; of
the sole reign of Tiberius, Lightfoot, Wieseler, Meyer, Ebrard, Tischendorf,
Ewald, Browne, Ellicott, Ammer. Clinton says, " We, are compelled to con
clude that St. Luke computed the years of Tiberius in a peculiar manner,"
but denies that there is any ground for selecting the year 765 as the year
of the colleagueship.

DATE OP THE tORD'S BAPTISM. 29
Tiberius, reckoned from his colleagueship with Augustus, John
began to preach and baptize. We have next to inquire in what
period of the year his labors began.
From the fact that the Levites were not allowed to enter upon
their full service till the age of thirty, (Numb. iv. 3,) it has been
generally supposed, although there is no express law to that effect,
that the priests began their labors at the same age. At this period
the body and mind were deemed to have reached their full vigor.1
Hence it has been inferred that John must have reached the age
of thirty ere he began his ministry. If this inference be correct,
he began to preach during the summer of 779, bis birth having taken
place, as we have seen, in the summer of 749. We may then con
clude that he entered upon his work near the middle of 779, when
he was about thirty. If so,. be began to preach and baptize about
July or a little later. How long his labors bad continued before
Jesus came to him to be baptized, we can but conjecture. That,
however, he had been active for a considerable period, is apparent
frorn the statements by the Synoptists respecting " the multitudes
that came out to him from Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the
region round about Jordan," (Matt. iii. 5 ; Mark i. 5 ; Luke iii. 7.)
Some months at least must have elapsed ere his fame could have
spread so widely, and so many have been drawn to him. And if
we suppose that tbe larger part of these crowds received the rite
of baptism at his hands, a still longer period is required. A body
of disciples, as distinguished from the multitudes, bad already-
gathered around him. If we add to this, that at Christ's baptism,
his work seems to have reached its highest point, and thencefor
ward began to decline, we cannot well estimate this period as less
than six months in duration.
On the other hand, there are some considerations that prevent
us from much enlarging this period. The general belief of the
Jews that the coming of the Messiah was near, and their earnest
desire for it, would naturally turn their attention to John as soon
as he appeared in public. His ascetic life, his energetic speech,
his boldness of reproof, and the whole character of his teachings,
were adapted to produce an immediate and powerful impression
upon the people at large. And the frequent gathering of the in
habitants from all parts of the land at the feasts, would serve
» Greswell, 1. 377.

30 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
rapidly to diffuse the tidings, that a new prophet had arisen. But
as such a phenomenon as this preacher in the wilderness could not
long escape the notice of the Pharisees and the ecclesiastical rulers
at Jerusalem, so it could not long remain unquestioned. So soon
as his popularity became wide-spread, and multitudes began to re
ceive baptism at his hands, they would seek to know who he "was,
and by what authority he instituted this new rite. But, as appears
from John, (i. 19-28,) no such formal inquiry was made by the
Pharisees of the Baptist till after the baptism of Jesus. Hence
we may infer that his ministry had not yet continued any very
long period. .
We may also add that John's message, " Eepent ye, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand," was plain and easily understood.
He was no teacher of abstract doctrines, but a herald of fhe Mes
siah, and his words took immediate hold of men's hearts. Thus
his mission could be speedily fulfilled.
In view of the above considerations, we conclude that John's
ministry may have continued about six months, when the Lord
came to be baptized.1 If he was already thirty when he began
his work, and his birth be placed in June, 749, six months before
that of the Lord, he began in July, 779, to preach and baptize.
If about six months elapsed ere the Lord came to him at the Jor
dan, His baptism was near the beginning of 780. It confirms us
in this result, that two or three months must have elapsed from the
baptism of Jesus to the first Passover, (John ii. 13.) We rest,
then, in the conclusion, that Jesus was baptized December, 779, or
January, 780.
In the absence of all other data, we must here consider the
tradition that puts His baptism on the 6th of January. It has
already appeared in our inquiries into the date of our Lord's
nativity, that both'His birth and baptism, and also the adoration
of the Magi, were originally commemorated on the same day, and
that this day was the 6th of January. This feast was called the
feast of the Epiphany, emqjaveia (Titus ii. 13), and commemorated
His manifestation to the world. After the Eoman Church had
established the feast of the nativity upon the 25th December, it
still continued to observe the 6th January in commemoration of the
adoration of the Magi and of the baptism, giving, however more
1 So Lightfoot, Newcome, and many.

DATE OP. THE LORD'S BAPTISM. 31
prominence to the former than to the latter.1 The Greek Church,
on the contrary, after it began to observe the 25th December as
the day of the nativity, transferred to it also the adoration of the
Magi, and commemorated only the baptism on the 6th January.
Thus both the Eoman and Greek Churches now agree in the eb-
servance of this day as that of the Lord's baptism.
If we now proceed to ask, on what grounds this day was se
lected as that of the baptism, we obtain no very satisfactory an
swer. The feast of the Epiphany seems to have been originally
commemorative of the baptism as the time when the Lord was first
manifested openly as the Son of God, (Matt. iii. 16-17;) and as He
was supposed, through a too literal interpretation of Luke, (iii. 23,)
to have been just thirty years of age, the day of the baptism was .
also that of the birth. The same feast, therefore, might well em
brace both events. Afterward, other events, coming under the
same general idea of manifestation, were included in the commem
oration ; the adoration of the Magi, the first miracle at Cana of
Galilee, where " He manifested forth His glory," and, later still,
the miraculous feeding of the five thousand.2 As all these events
could not have taken place on the same day of the year, it be
comes doubtful whether any of them can be referred to the 6th of
January. The observance of this day as that of the baptism, is
first mentioned by Clemens, of Alexandria, as existing amongst the
Gnostic Basilidians of that 'city.3 Some have thought that, as the
Egyptians celebrated at this time the feast Inoentio Osiridis, the
Basilidians adopted both the feast and date from them. But, aside
from other objections to this Egyptian origin,4 it is most improb
able that the church at large would have borrowed any feast from
the Gnostics. We may rather, with Neander,6 suppose it to have
originated with the churches in Palestine or Syria. If so, the se
lection of the 6th January may rest upon some good basis. There
can be no question that the baptism, the secunda nativitas, was
commemorated before the nativity itself. Beyond the simple fact
that the Epiphany was put On this day, we have no knowledge.
Sepp, (1. 243,) though in general a defender of tradition, here re
jects it, and Jarvis, (467,) at the close of his investigations into the
1 See Missale Romanum. In Epiphania Domini.
2 See Dorner, Christologie, 1. 284 8 Guericke, Archaologie, 201.
4 See Wieseler, 136. 6 Ch. Hist, 1. 302.

82 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
matter, simply says that, as there is no testimony against it, there
is no impropriety in considering the 6th January as the true date.1
But there is an objection to the month of January drawn from
the climate of Palestine that deserves to be considered. It is said
that such multitudes could not have gathered to John in the mid
winter, nor could the rite of baptism then have been performed in
tne cold and swollen Jordan.2 We must then examine more closely
the climatic peculiarities of Judea.
In* the inquiry into the date of the Lord's birth, we have al
ready had occasion to speak of the general character of the sea
sons. That during the winter, or rainy season, after heavy rains
the travelling is difficult and fatiguing, all travellers testify.3 But
the rains are not constant. Beginning in October or November
they fall gradually and at intervals, but become more copious and
frequent in December, January, and February, and continue into
March and April. It is stated by Barclay, that nine-tenths of all
the rain falls in December, January, February, and March. In
January, there are gushes of rain and sometimes snow, but in the
southern parts of the land the sky clears up and there are often fine
days.4 The fain comes mostly out of the west, or west-north
west, and continues from two to six days in succession, but falls
chiefly at night. Then the wind turns to the east, and several days
of fine weather follow. The whole period from October to March
is one continuous rainy season, during which the roads become
muddy, slippery, and full of holes ; but when the rain ceases, the
mud quickly dries up, and the roads become hard,6 though never
smooth. If, as we have supposed, John began to preach in the summer,
perhaps in July, there is nothing in these statements to lead us to
suppose that he suspended his labors when the rainy season be
gan. During the intervals of clear weather, at least, the people
continued to gather to him. Besides, we cannot tell what was the
character of this particular season. According to Thomson, (1. 129,)
1 So Bucher, Friedlieb, Browne. " About the last half of January," Gres
well. In December or January, Lichtenstein. " In Tisri, about the feast of
Tabernacles," Lightfoot. In November, Usher. In Spring, Clinton. The
7th of October, Sepp. Beginning of December, Patritius.
3 So Robinson, Sepp. s Thomson, 1. 829.
« Winer, 2. 692. . » Herzog's Encyc, 11. 23.

DATE OP THE LORD'S BAPTISM. 33
the climate is " extremely variable and uncertain. I have seen the
rains begin early in November and end in February, but they are
sometimes delayed until January and prolonged into May." We
cannot, in a climate so changeable, undertake to say that John
might not without any serious obstruction continue to preach and
baptize throughout the whole rainy season. Greswell (1. 372) finds
it specially fitting that he should commence his ministry at a time
when water was so abundant, and affirms that " in Judea the win
ter season would be no impediment to the reception of baptism."
So far as regards the valley of the Jordan, be is in this justified by
the statements of travellers. This valley lies so low that the cold
of winter can scarce be said to be felt there at all. Especially is
this true of the lower part of it, where John baptized. Lying
twelve or thirteen hundred feet below the level of the Mediter
ranean Sea, it has a tropical climate. Josephus,1 speaking of the
plain of Jericho, says : " So mild is the climate, that the inhabi
tants are dressed in linen when the ofber parts of Judea are cov
ered with snow." Eobinson also, (1. 533,) writing in May, speaks
in like terms : " The climate of Jericho is excessively hot. In
traversing the short distance of five or six hours between Jerusa
lem and Jericho, the traveller passes from a pure and temperate^
atmosphere into the sultry heat of an Egyptian climate." Porter
describes the air as being " like the blast of a furnace."
It appears, then, that the mere chilliness of the water of the
Jordan running through this deep hot valley, where snow or ice
is never found, cannot be so great as to prevent baptism even in
midwinter, except perhaps in some very rare instances. Nor is
this river usually at its highest stage till April or May. As it was
in Joshua's time so is it now. " Jordan overflowetb all his banks
all the time of harvest," (Josh. iii. 15,) or, as explained by Eobin
son, was full up to all its banks, " ran with full banks, or brim-
full." " Then, as now, the harvest occurred during April and early
in May, the barley preceding the wheat harvest by two or three
weeks. Then, as now, there was a slight annual rise of the river,
which caused it to flow at this season with full banks, and some
times to spread its waters even over the immediate banks of its
channel where they are lowest, so as in some places to fill the
low tract covered with trees and vegetation along its sides." a
¦ War, 4. 8. 3. ' Robinson, J*r540.
2*

34 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
Thomson (2. 453) speaks to the same effect, and explains why the
overflow of this river .should be so late in the season as March or
April after the rains are all over. This explanation he finds in the
fact that its waters come from great permanent springs lying on the
southern declivities of Hermon, and which are not at all affected
by the early winter rains. " It requires the heavy and long-con
tinued storms of midwinter before they are moved in the least ;
and it is not till toward the close of winter that the melting snows
of Hermon and Lebanon, with the heavy rains of the season, have
penetrated through the mighty masses of these mountains, and
filled to overflowing their hidden chambers and vast reservoirs,
that the streams gush forth in their full volume. The Huleh,
marsh and lake, is filled, and then Gennesaret rises and pours its
accumulated waters into the swelling Jordan about the first of
March." That there should be occasional floods in this river after long-
continued rains, before the time of harvest, and during the rainy
season, is to be expected, and will serve to explain the statements
of those travellers who found it swollen during the autumn and
early winter. Thus Seetzen * states, that in consequence of a storm
accompanied with high cold winds, he was compelled to remain
from the 8th to the 14th January on the bank before he was able to
cross. Sepp, (1 . 240,) who bathed in it on the 6th January, 1846, found
the current swift and the water cold. But such occasional floods
do not affect the general rule, that during the winter the water re
mains at its ordinary level, and begins to rise toward March, and
is highest at the time of harvest. " All rivers that are fed by
melting snows are fuller between March and September, than be
tween September and March, but the exact time of their increase
varies with the time when the snows melt." 2
From what has been said, it follows that so far as the climate
is concerned, and the overflowing of the Jordan, no reason exists
why John may not have been baptizing in midwinter. That bap
tisms at this season of the year actually took place in later times,
we learn from the testimony of Felix Fabri.3 He says that the
cloisters of St. John on the banks of the river at the time of the
Abbot Zozima were inhabited by many monks, who about the
i Cited in Bitter, Theil, 15. 517. 3 Smith's Bib. Diet., 1. 1128.
3 Cited in Ritter, Theil, 15. 539.

DATE OP THE LORD'S DEATH. 35
time of Epiphany — the 6th January — kept high festival there.
The Abbot of Bethlehem, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, with many
monks and clergy, walked down to the river in solemn procession,
and after a cross had been dipped in the waters, all the sick
through their baptism were healed, and many miracles wrought
in behalf of the pious. So in the time of Antoninus Martyr and
Willibaldus, "the annual throng of pilgrims to bathe in the Jordan
took place at the Epiphany." ' It is therefore perfectly credible
that John may have baptized many, and with others the Lord, in
the month of January.
We may now sum up the results of our inquiry. The first
Passover after the Lord's baptism was that of 780, and fell upon
the 9th April. The baptism preceded this Passover some two or
three months, and so probably fell in the month of January of that
year. John's ministry began soon after he was thirty years of
age, or about July, 779. Allowing that his labors had continued
six months before the Lord was baptized, we reach in this way
also the month of January, 780. Tradition has selected the 6th
of this month as the day of the baptism, but we have no positive
proof that the tradition is well, or ill-founded. The climatic pe
culiarities of the country offer no valid objections to this date.
Although there is good reason to believe that in December or Jan
uary Jesus was baptized, yet the day of the month is very un
certain.

DATE OF THE LORD'S DEATH.
This point is so closely connected with the length of His min
istry, that we shall consider the two together. And we first in
quire what data do the Evangelists give to determine how long
the interval from His baptism to His death ? It has already been
shown that about three months intervened between His baptism
and the Passover following. This was probably the Passover of
780, and the first during His ministry, (John ii. 13.) Another
Passover is mentioned, (John vi. 4,) and still another, (xi. 55.) It
is universally admitted that the latter was the last Passover. If
there be none other than these named by John, His ministry was
» Robinson, 1. 546. Early Travels, 17.

36 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
of two years' and two or three months' duration. But John speaks
of a feast (v. 1) which he does not name, and which many regard
as a Passover. If so, there would be four Passovers, and conse
quently His ministry embrace a little more than three years.
We have then to determine what feast is meant by John (v. 1.)
This will hereafter be fully discussed. We shall here assume that
it is a Passover. We thus reach the result that the Lord's min
istry, computing from His baptism, embraced three years and
about three months, and that the Passover on which he died was
that of 783.
The day on which the Lord died was Friday, as plainly appears
from the Evangelists. Joseph went to Pilate to obtain the body
of Jesus '' when the even was come, because it was tbe Prepara
tion, that is, the day before the Sabbath," (Mark xv. 42.) " And
that day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on," (Luke
xxiii. 54.) " The Jews, therefore, because it was the Preparation,
that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath
day," (John xix. 31,) &c. That this Sabbath was the regular
weekly Sabbath, appears from Matt, xxviii. 1 ; Mark xvi. 1 ; Luke
xxiii. 56. Jesus was crucified on Friday, and buried the same day ;
was in the grave over the Sabbath, and rose on the morning of the
first day of the week.
If thus the Lord died on Friday, as is almost universally ad
mitted, what day of the month was this ? Here we meet the much
disputed point whether He was crucified on the 14th or 15th Nisan.
This will be fully considered in its place, and we assume here that
it was the 15th. We have then to determine upon what year fol
lowing 780, the 15th Nisan fell on a Friday. According to Wieseler
(389) this was the case only once from 782-786. In 783 the 15th
was upon Friday. To those who make the crucifixion to have been
on the 15th Nisan, the year 783 is therefore the year of His death.
Others, who place the crucifixion on the 14th Nisan, find that in
786 this day was a Friday,1 others still in 782.2 It is admitted
that too many doubtful elements enter these calculations to make
them perfectly trustworthy.3
Some have thought to find a chronological datum in the fact
of the darkening of the sun at the time of the Lord's crucifixion.
1 So Ewald, 6. 136. ' So Browne, 54. 3 Winer, 1. 562.

DATE OP THE LORD'S DEATH. 37
As this was upon the 14th or 15th of Nisan, and so at the time of
a full moon, it could not have been an eclipse. But as mention is
made of an eclipse whioh occurred near this time, some of the
fathers, and some moderns have sought to establish a connection
between the two events. Phlegon, of Tralles, who died about 155
a. d., and who wrote some historical works, of which only a few
fragments remain, relates that, in the fourth year of the 202
Olympiad, or from July 785 to 786, a great eclipse of the sun took
place, greater than any that had ever been known, so that at the
sixth hour it was very dark and the stars appeared. There was
also a great earthquake in Bithynia, and a great part of Nice was
destroyed.1 This statement presents several apparent points of
resemblance to those of the Evangelists, but a brief examination
shows that it cannot refer to the darkness at the crucifixion.
Phlegon speaks of an eclipse ; had he meant an extraordinary or
supernatural darkness, he could scarcely have failed distinctly to
mention it. The time also of this eclipse is uncertain, for some of
those who have reported his statement refer it to the fourth, and
some to the second year of the 202 Olympiad, or to the fourth
year of the 201.3 But the astronomer Wurm has computed that
only one eclipse took place in this Olympiad, and that in Novem
ber 24, 782.3 It seems, therefore, that Phlegon has himself erred
in the date, or that he wrote the first year of this Olympiad, which
has been changed into the fourth. As it is not mentioned at all
by most of the early fathers, it seems that they must have regarded
it as an ordinary eclipse, and therefore without any special rela
tion to the crucifixion.4 Most moderns agree that it is of no
chronological value.6
Some have found ground for a chronological inference as to
the time of tbe Lord's death, in the assertion of the Pharisees be
fore Pilate, (John xviii. 31,) " It is not lawful for us to put any man
to death." Lightfoot (on Matt. xxvi. 3) gives, as a correct tradi
tion of the Talmudists, " Forty years before the Temple was de-

1 For some little differences in the versions, see Jarvis, 420.
2 See Ammer, 41 ; Wieseler, 387.
" Winer, 2. 482. « See Jarvis, 427.
6 Winer, Lichtenstein, Meyer, Jarvis, Greswell. Sepp would prove from
it that the crucifixion was in 782 ; Ammer, that it was in 786.

38 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
stroyed, judgment, in capital causes, was taken away from Israel." "
It is generally agreed that the Temple was destroyed in August,
823. Computing backward forty years, we reach 783, as the year
when the Jews lost the power of inflicting capital punishments.
Hence it follows, that if Christ had been tried by them before the
year 783, they would have had the power of punishing Him with
death, according to their own laws. His crucifixion, therefore,
could not have been earlier than this year.
As we have no knowledge how this judgment in capital cases
was lost to the Jews, whether by the act of the Eomans, or, as
Lightfoot supposes, by their own remissness, we cannot tell how
strictly the " forty years " is to be taken. They may be used in
definitely, forty being here, as often, a round number. Little stress
in this uncertainty can be laid upon this result.
Some find in the parable of the barren fig-tree, (Luke xiii. 6-9,)
an allusion to the length of the Lord's ministry — " Behold, these
three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none." '
It certainly cannot be without meaning that three years are men
tioned. This is ascribed by some to the fact that so many years
must pass after planting before the tree can bear fruit.3 But the
language shows that fruit is sought, not after, but during the three
years. Some refer it to the whole period of grace before Christ.4
But why designate it as three years ? Perhaps some three epochs
in Jewish history may be meant, although it is not clear what they
are. It is not, however, improbable that Christ's ministry is re
ferred to. If we suppose it to have been spoken late in 782, His
ministry beginning in 780, this was tbe third year, and He was not
crucified till 783. But it cannot be said that the tree was actu
ally cut down after the expiration of the one year of grace. As a
chronological datum, the mention of the three years has little value.6
From early times, many have found a prophetic announcement
of the length of the Lord's ministry in the words of Daniel ix. 27,
— " And He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and
in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the obla
tion to cease." Of the fathers, Browne says, (77,) " Others, com
paratively late writers, were led by their interpretation of Daniel's
1 See also Friedlieb, Archaologie, 22.
2 So Bengel, Hengstenberg, Wieseler, Alford. 3 So Bloomfield.
4 So Grotius, McKnight. s So Meyer, Trench.

DATE OP THE LORD'S DEATH. 39
prophecy to assign a term of three and a half years." This inter
pretation has all along to the present day had advocates. Thus
Lightfoot, (3. 39,) " He had now three years and a half to live, and
to be a public minister of the Gospel, as the Angel Gabriel had told
that in half of the last seven of the years then named He should
confirm the covenant." Barnes (in loco) says : " The meaning of
the passage is fully met by the supposition that it refers to the
Lord Jesus and His work, and that the exact thing that was in
tended by the prophecy was His death. Whatever difficulties
there may be about the precise time of our Lord's ministry, it is
agreed on all hands that it lasted about three years and a half,
the time referred to here." It seems also to have been commonly
believed by the ancients that the last week of the seventy includes
the prcedicatio Domini to the Jews for three and a half years
before, and the same length of time after the Passion." 1 Gres
well (4. 406) maintains the same interpretation. Vitringa, with
whom .Hengstenberg agrees,2 says : "His death was undoubtedly
to happen in the middle of the last hebdomad, after the seven and
6ixty-two years had already come to an end." 3
Without denying that the prophecy has reference to the Mes
siah, it is questionable whether it is to be so pressed as to famish
a proof that the Lord's public work continued just three and a
half years. The number of interpretations that have been pro
posed is very great, and there is far from being even now unanim
ity of opinion. Thus Lightfoot makes the Lord's own ministry
to have been three and a half years. Greswell adds to three years
of the Lord's ministry half a year of the Baptist ; Browne to one
year of the Lord's ministry two and a half years of the Baptist.4
We cannot, under these circumstances, attach much chronological
importance to it. — Obscurumnon probatur per obseurius.
Computations as to the year when the seventy weeks ended, as
bearing on the time of the Lord's death, can be but little relied on,
and need not be considered here.
Into the mazes of patristic chronology we are not called to
enter, nor could we thus attain any important results.6 Still a
brief survey of early opinions will not be without its value. We
1 Browne, 385. 2 Christology, 3. 163.
3 See Sepp, 1. 284. 4 See Ammer, 116.
• See the very full investigations of Patritius, iii., Diss. xix.

40 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
find three distinct views prevalent. First. That which makes the
Lord's ministry to have continued but one year, and the whole
length of His life to have been about thirty years. This view first
comes to our notice among the Valentinians, a heretical sect, who
said that there were thirty ^Eons corrresponding to the thirty
years of His life before His ministry, and that He died the twelfth
month after His baptism. Among the orthodox, Clemens, of Alex
andria, (t 220,) is the earliest defender of this view, and gave it
wide currency. Among those who adopted it in substance were
Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, and perhaps Augustine, although
the former is by no means consistent in his statements, Origen is
confused, and Augustine doubtful. It is placed mainly upon Scrip
tural grounds, much stress being laid upon Isaiah lxi. 2, quoted by
the Lord, (Luke iv. 19,) and by some upon Ex. xii. 5.
Second. That which makes His age at His death to have been
between forty and fifty. Of this, Irenaaus (t 202) appears as the
first defender, although it appears from Augustine' that there were
others later that held it. In proof, two passages in John's Gospel
were cited, (viii. 57 and ii. 20.) From the former it was inferred
that He was more than forty, and from the latter that He was just
forty-six, as the temple of His body had been so long in building.
Irenasus, arguing against the Valentinians, shows from the men
tion of three Passovers by this Evangelist, that the Lord's ministry
was more than a year, but how long he does not determine.
Third. That which makes His ministry to have continued from
two to four years, and His whole life from thirty-two to thirty-
four years. Of this view Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome were
the earliest representatives.
If we now ask after the data upon which the early fathers
based their opinions, we find the following the most important.
Till tho time of Tertullian (t 243) there is mentioned no datum for
determining the length of His ministry other than is given by the
Evangelists. If, as is affirmed by some, the church at Jerusalem
had preserved the knowledge of the year by tradition, there. is no
proof of the fact. Tertullian is the first, so far as we know, who
connects the crucifixion with the consulship of the two Gemini.
¦ " He suffered under Tiberius Caasar, E. Geminus, and P. Ge-
minus, being consuls, on the eighth day before the calends of
April," (25th Maroh.) In this statement Tertullian was followed

DATE OP THE LORD'S DEATH. 41
by Lactantius, Augustine, and others, especially of the Latin fa
thers.1 Whence had Tertullian this information ? This is not ap
parent. Some suppose that POate having sent to Eome an account
of the Lord's crucifixion, which was placed in the archives, Ter
tullian thus learned its date. But on whatsoever basis it rested,
this statement soon obtained general currency, and was almost
universally received. If we assume its truth we must consider to
what results it leads us.
The Gemini were consuls during the year beginning January,
782. Thus this consular year was contemporaneous with about
eight months of the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and four months of
the sixteenth year. The fifteenth year of Tiberius, if reckoned,
as it seems to have been, from the death of Augustus, extended
from August 19, 781, to August 19, 782, and the sixteenth to
August 19, 783. But the crucifixion was, according to Tertul
lian, in March, 783, and was not, therefore, during their consular
year, which ended with December, 782. Still, as only about
three months elapsed from the end of their consulship, it might
readily be connected with their names. It is also to be remem
bered that there was a threefold mode of reckoning the Eoman
year — the political, the civil, the historical.2 The first was accord
ing to consulships, and from January to January ; the second, from
March to March ; the third, dating from the time of founding the
city, and from 21st April to 21st April. It is, therefore, possible
that we may explain the discrepancies respecting the time of the
crucifixion in the following manner : The year of the consulship
of the Gemini, 782, reckoned from January to January, is not
wholly identical with 782 of Eome, which was reckoned from
April 21 to April 21, but has about eight months in common
with it. We have thus three years, all bearing on the same event,
the crucifixion, yet differently computed ; first, the fifteenth of
Tiberius from August, 781, to August, 782 ; second, the consular
year of the Gemini from January, 782, to January, 783 ; third, the
year *T82 of Eome from 21st April, 782, to 21st April, 783. It is
apparent how confusion may have arisen from neglect to mark
accurately the dates as connected with these several modes of
computation.8 1 See full citations in Greswell, 1. 451 ; Jarvis, 376.
3 Ideler, 2. 150. » See Greswell, 1. 456.

42 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
That the Lord did not suffer in the fifteenth year of Tiberius,
is plain from St. Luke himself, as in this case John's ministry and
that of the Lord must both have been embraced in the brief period
of twelve months. If, however, His death be placed in the six
teenth year of Tiberius, the Baptist may have begun his labors in
August, 781, the Lord have been baptized in January, 782, and
suffered in April, 783, thus making His ministry to have continued
one year and some months, but in this case He did not suffer in
the consulate of the two Gemini. Greswell remarks, (1. 439,) " I
am persuaded, that during the first two centuries, no Christian
doubted of the fact that our Lord suffered in the fifteenth or six
teenth year of Tiberius."
That no value is to be ascribed to the tradition of the Lord's
death in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, is apparent from the fact,
that it plainly contradicts the statements of John, who mentions
three Passovers ; and it limits His ministry to a year and some
months. Nor is it possible that He died during the consular year
of the Gemini, for then His crucifixion was in the early part of
that year or the spring of 782, which presents the same difficulty.
Nor can this have taken place on the 25th March of that year. He
was crucified on the 14th or 15th Nisan, but these days in 782 fell
on the 16th and 17th of April.1 The designation of the day and
month is necessarily wrong, and this invalidates the accuracy of
the whole tradition. Besides, this tradition was by no means uni
versal- or unquestioned. The early fathers were not wholly un
aware of these difficulties, and several of them state that they had
not the data for a conclusive judgment. Irenaeus says : " We
cannot be ignorant how greatly all the fathers differ among them
selves, as well concerning the year of the Passion as the day."
Again : " Concerning the time of the Passion, the diversities of
opinion are infinite." Augustine says, that except the fact that
He was about thirty at His baptism, all else was obscure and un
certain. Tertullian is inconsistent with himself, and now makes
His ministry to have continued one year, and now three; now
puts His baptism in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and now in the
twelfth. In regard to Tertullian, the bishop of Lincoln, in his
account of his writings,3 observes : " The correct inference appears
' Ideler, 2. 422. 2 London, 1845, p. 147.

DATE OP THE LORD'S DEATH. 43
to be that Tertullian believed that our Saviour's ministry continued
for three years, but mistook the year in which He was revealed for
the year in which He suffered." Some began early to put His death
in the sixteenth, others in the seventeenth or eighteenth, and finally
' in the nineteenth of Tiberius. This tradition, so indefinite, and nev
er finding general reception, has now no claim upon our attention.
From this survey of the several data respecting the time of the
Lord's death, we conclude that none lead us to positive results.
If it were certain that the Friday on which He was crucified, was
the 15th Nisan, there would be strong probability, if not absolute
certainty, that the year was that of 783. If, however, it was the
14th Nisan, as many affirm, this datum fails us, and we have to
choose between the years 782 and 786. The computation of the
length of His ministry, from the number of Passovers, has an ele
ment of uncertainty which forbids a definite judgment ; and the
computations based upon the darkening of the sun at His crucifix
ion, upon the loss of power to inflict capital punishments by the
Jews, upon the parable of the barren fig-tree, upon the prophetic
half- week of Daniel, and upon tradition, are all inconclusive.
We add a brief survey of opinions respecting the duration of
the Lord's public life. The first is that which limits His ministry
to a single year, or a year and some months. As has been said,
this was a very early opinion in the church, many of the fathers
finding in it a fulfilment of Isaiah Ixi. 2, where mention is made
of " the acceptable year of the Lord." 1 This early opinion has
been recently defended by Browne in his Ordo Saxulorum (p. 92.)
He thus meets the difficulties arising from the mention of three
Passovers by St. John. That mentioned in John vi. 4, is not rightly
found there, since it is not mentioned by some of the early fathers,
who, in their notices of this subject, must have alluded to it, had
it been in the text of the first two centuries. The feast (John vi. 1)
was not Passover but Pentecost. Thus but two Passovers remain,
and the following order is obtained: 1. Passover, John ii. 13;
2. Pentecost, v. 1 ; 3. Tabernacles, vi. 4 and vii. 2 ; 4. Dedication,
x. 22 ; 5. Passover of the crucifixion. Thus the whole ministry
extends from one Passover to another.
How insufficient are the grounds upon which the rejection of
1 Others, however, applied this passage not to His whole ministry, but to
the first year of it.

44 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS.
the Passover (John vi. 4) rests is apparent. Nor is it possible
upon any grounds, external or internal, to defend this order, which
thus crowds all the events of the Lord's public life into a single
year. If some find but two Passovers in the sacred history, others
find five, or even six. McKnight supposes that the Lord's public
work may have been prolonged more than five years complete.1
" Nay, it may have been several years longer, on the supposition
that there were Passovers in His ministry, of which there is
neither direct mention made, nor any trace to be found in the his
tory." This opinion has now no advocates, and needs no discussion.
Eejecting the extremes on either side, our choice must lie be
tween a ministry embracing three, and one embracing four Pass
overs. The former has many advocates, but labors under many
difficulties, which will be pointed out as we proceed. On both
internal and external grounds we are led to choose the latter,
and to give to His ministry a duration of a little more than three
years. Placing His death in April, 783, His public life, if it be
dated from the purgation of the Temple, continued just three years,
if from His'baptism, three years and about three months,vor from
January, 780, to April, 783.
We accept, then, as probable conclusions, that the Lord was
born December, 749 ; baptized January, 780 ; crucified April, 7,
783 ; length of ministry, three years and three months. That
the 25th December and 6th January were the days of the nativity
and baptism rests wholly upon tradition.
For comparison, we add the various dates of the Lord's death,
which have found recent advocates : 781, Jarvis ; 782, Browne,
Sepp, Clinton, Patritius ; 783, Wieseler, Friedlieb, Greswell, Tisch
endorf, Bucher, Ellicott, Thomson,Eiggenbach ; 784, Hales, Paulus;
786, Ebrard, Ammer, Ewald. ! Har., Preliminary Obs.

THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.

PAET I.

FROM THE ANNUNCIATION TO ZACHARIAS TO THE BAPTISM
OF JESUS; OR, FROM OCT., 748, TO JANUARY, 780. 6
B.C.— 27 A.D.

3-9 Oct., 748. 6 b.c. ¦
Near the end of the reign of Herod the Great, King of Luke i. 5-22.
Judea, an angel was sent by God to Zacharias, an aged
priest of the course of Abia, whilst ininistering in the Holy
Place, to announce to him the birth of a son, who should be
the forerunner ofthe Messiah.
The chronological value of this statement has been al
ready considered in the essay on the date of the Lord's
birth. Some of the fathers supposed that Zacharias was the
high priest, and that the services in which he was engaged
were those ofthe great day of atonement, upon the 10th of
Tisri.1 But there is no ground for this, Zacharias is called
only a priest, not high-priest, and was a member of one of
the twenty-four courses, which the high-priest was not. He
was also chosen by lot to burn incense upon the golden
altar in the Holy Place ; but the high-priest's duties upon
this day, as at other times, were all prescribed by law, and
could not be given him by lot. Besides, the latter must
1 So Chrysostom, Ambrose; see Williams' Nativ., 23.

46 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
reside at Jerusalem, but the residence of Zacharias was in
some neighboring city.1

Oct., 748— March, 749. 6-5 b. c.
Returning after his course had completed its ministry, to LnxEi. 23-25.
his own house in the hill-country of Judah, his wife Elisa
beth conceived a son, and spent the five months following
in retirement. The home of Zacharias was in " the hill-country," or
mountainous region of Judah, (Luke i. 39 and 65.) But as
the name of the city is not mentioned, several cities have
contended for the honor of John's birthplace. Many have
supposed Hebron to be meant, a city very ancient, and very
conspicuous in early Jewish history.2 A Jewish tradition
also gives this as John's birthplace.3 Aside from this, its
claims rest chiefly upon the fact that it. was a priestly city;
and upon .the form of expression in Joshua, (xx. 7, xxi.
11,) where it is described as being "in the mountain," and
" in the hill-country of Judah."
Some have contended for Jutta, the Juttah of Joshua,
(xv. 55,) regarding Juda (v. 39) IouSa, as an erroneous
writing of Jutta, lovSa, or lovra. This view, first suggested
byReland, (870,) although wholly unsupported by any man
uscript authority, has found many advocates.4 The modern
Jutta is described by Robinson, (ii. 206,) who saw it from
a distance, as " having the appearance of a large Moham
medan town on a low eminence, with trees around." It
is about five miles south of Hebron, and was one of the
priestly cities. (Josh. xxi. 16.) But granting the identity
of the Juttah of Joshua with the modern city, this adds
nothing to the proof that it was John's birthplace ; and the
' Greswell, i. 382 ; Patritius, iii. 8.
' So Barouius, Lightfoot, Ewald, Sepp, Townsend.
¦ Winer, i. 586. Ritter, Raumer, Robinson, Patritius.

ZACHARIAS AND ELISABETH. 47
fact that there is no tradition of that kind amongst the in
habitants, nor any local memorials, seems to make strongly
against it.
Those who made Zacharias to be high-priest, and so
necessarily resident near the Temple, supposed Jerusalem
to be the city meant, but this has now no advocates.
An ancient tradition designates a small village about
four miles west of Jerusalem, as the home of Zacharias.1
It is now called by the natives Ain Karim, and is thus de
scribed by Porter (i. 233) : " Ain Karim is a flourishing vil
lage, situated on the left bank of Wady Beit Hanina. In the
midst of it, on a kind of platform, stands the Franciscan con
vent of St. John in the Desert. The church is large and
handsome, and includes the site of the house of Zacharias,
where St. John Baptist was born. It is in a kind of grotto,
like all the other holy places, and is profusely ornamented
with marble, bas-reliefs, and paintings. In the centre of the
pavement is a slab, with the inscription, Hie Praecursor Do
mini natus est. About a mile distant is the place known to
the Latins by the name of the Visitation. It is situated on
the slope of a hill, where Zacharias had a country house.
Tradition says that the Virgin Mary, on her visit, first went
to Elisabeth's village residence, but not finding her there,
proceeded to that in the country, where accordingly took
place the interview related in Luke i. 39-55. The spot is
marked by the ruins of a chapel, said to have been built
by Helena. About one mile farther is the grotto of St. John,
containing a little fountain, beside which the place is shown
where he was accustomed to rest."
Ain Karim has found a recent supporter of its tradition
ary claim in Thomson, (ii. 537,) who finds no reason " why
the home of the Baptist should be lost any more than the
site of Bethlehem, or Bethany, or Nazareth, or Cana."
Tobler, however, traces these traditional claims of Ain
1 Sde Early Travels, 287 and 461.

48 THE LIPE OF OUR LORD.
Karim only to the beginning of the 16th century. Accord-
ing to Raumer, a still older tradition designated Beth
Zacharias as the place of John's birth. The point is
in itself of very little importance. We need not infer, as
some have done, (so Meyer,) from the Evangelist's silence,
that he was ignorant where Zacharias lived, but only that
he did not think it important to mention it.
That Elisabeth left her own house, and went to some
obscure dwelling, where she might be hidden from all ob
servation for a time, is not improbable ; yet the text is con
sistent with the supposition that, continuing at home, she
withdrew herself from the eyes of visitors.
March — April, 749. 5 b. c.
In the sixth month of Elisabeth's conception, the Angel LtTKEi. 26-38.
of the Lord was sent to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, to a
virgin named Mary, who was betrothed to a man named Matt. i. 20.
Joseph, of the house of David, to announce to her that she
should be the mother of the Messiah.
The most important point that meets us here is the re
lation of Mary to the house of David. Was she of that
royal family ? But before we consider it, let ns sum up
what is known, either from the Gospels or from tradition,
ofthe personal history of Joseph and of Mary.
Joseph is distinctly declared by Matthew to have been
of the house of David through Solomon, and his genealogi
cal register, going back to Abraham, is given. (Matt. i.
1-18.) In his dream the angel addresses him as "the son
of David," (v. 20.) So by Luke (i. 27) he is said to be of
" the house of David," (also ii. 4.) He was thus of royal
descent, though occupying an humble position in society.
His calling was that of a tcktw, or carpenter, or, as the.
word may mean, any worker in wood.1 He was generally
' Thilo, Codex Apoc, 368, note.

THE MOTHER OP THE LORD. 49
believed by the early Church to have been an old man at
the time he was espoused to Mary, and is so represented in
the earliest paintings ofthe Holy Family.1 In later pictures
he is represented as younger, and from thirty to fifty years
of age. According to Epiphanius, he was more than eighty ;
whilst in the Apocryphal Gospel, " Historia Josephi," he is
said to have been ninety, and his age at the time of his death
111 years.2 It is not improbable that he may have been con
siderably older than Mary, as, though alive twelve years after
Christ's birth, (Luke ii. 42,) his name is not afterward men
tioned ; a circumstance most easily accounted for upon the
supposition that he was dead before the Lord began His
ministry. Some have inferred from Luke's words, (ii. 51,)
that He was subject unto His parents, that Joseph lived till
He had reached manhood. Tradition also relates of him,
that he was a widower, and the father of four sons and two
daughters. This point of a prior marriage will be consid
ered when we come to inquire who were the Lord's breth
ren. Of Mary, the Gospels give us even less information than
of Joseph. In Matthew, her name only is mentioned, and
no allusion is made to her family or lineage; In Luke, she
is simply spoken of as a virgin ; and only incidentally is it
mentioned that Elisabeth, the wife of Zacharias, was her
" cousin," or relative, o-vyycviys, (i. 36.) But the silence of
the Gospels is amply compensated by the fulness of tradi
tion.' We thus learn that she was the daughter of Joachim
(Eliachim or Eli) and of Anna, her father being of Naza
reth, and her mother of Bethlehem. They seem, however,
to have resided at Jerusalem, as the church of St. Anne
is said to have been built over the grotto which was the
birthplace of the Virgin.4 Yet another tradition makes
1 Jameson : " Legends of the Madonna."
' Thilo, Codex Apoc, 861, note ; Hofmann, 62.
3 Hofmann, 5. ' Robinson, i. 233.
3

50 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
them to have resided at Sef-furieh, a village a few miles
north of Nazareth.1 Many fables are related ofthe miracle?
heralding her birth, of her education at Jerusalem in the
Temple, of her vow of perpetual virginity, and of her mar
riage to Joseph." That she was young at the time of her
marriage, we may infer from the fact that females were
married in the East at a very early age, generally from
fourteen to seventeen, and often earlier.' The Apocryphal
Gospels make her to have been, some twelve, and some
fourteen, when betrothed to Joseph. The latter was more
generally received in later times, though a few theologians
make her to have been twenty-four or twenty-five when Je
sus was born, ut perfecta mater perfectum filiwm gigneret!
No allusion is made in any ofthe Evangelists to her parents,
or to any brothers, but Mary the Wife of Cleophas is spoken
of as her sister, (John xix. 25,) though this relationship, as
we shall hereafter see, has been called in question.
From the statements of Luke, (i. 26 ; ii. 4,) we naturally
infer that both Joseph and Mary resided at Nazareth at the
time of the Annunciation. But some have maintained (see
Meyer) that this is inconsistent with the statements of
Matthew, (ii. 22, 23,) which show that he then dwelt at
Bethlehem. But there is no real discrepancy. None of the
Evangelists tells us where Joseph lived before he was
espoused to Mary. Matthew, relating the circumstances
connected with the birth of Christ, (i. 18-25,) makes no al
lusion to the place where they occurred. He does not
mention Nazareth or Bethlehem. Afterward, in connec
tion with the visit ofthe Magi, (ii. 1,) he speaks of Bethle
hem as His birthplace, and mentions that Joseph intended
to return thither from Egypt after Herod's death, and that
through divine direction he was made to change his pur
pose, and go and dwell at Nazareth. All this proves
i Robinson, ii. 846. » See Apocryphal Gospels, Baronius, Sepp.
» Greswell, i. 898. 4 Hofmann, 52.

MARY OP THE HOUSE OF DAVID. 51
nothing respecting his previous residence at Bethlehem.
Matthew relates only the fact that the child was born
there ; Luke tells us how it happened that this was His
birthplace. Matthew states that it was Joseph's purpose
to return there from Egypt, but unable to do so he went
to Nazareth ; Luke states only that leaving Bethlehem he
went to Nazareth. The only ground for supposing that
Joseph had formerly resided there is found in his purpose
to return thither ; but this is easily explained as springing
from the desire to rear the child of David's line in David's
city. That he had no possessions there is apparent from
Luke's statement respecting the circumstances of Mary's
confinement. The only interest that Matthew takes in
Nazareth or Bethlehem is from the connection in which
these two cities stand to the Messianic prophecies, (ii. 5-6,
and 23.) In itself it was of no moment to him.where either
Joseph or Mary had lived before the birth of Jesus, nor
indeed after it, except so far as their residence was His.
We now turn to the question of the Davidic descent of
Mary. If we set aside* for the present tbe genealogical
table in Luke (iii. 23-38) as of doubtful reference, there is
no express declaration that she was of the house of. David.
The reference to her, (Luke i. 27,) though formerly defended
by many, and lately by Wieseler,1 is very doubtful.2 Some
have supposed that she went with Joseph to Bethlehem at
the time of the taxing, (Luke ii. 5,) because she, like him,
was a descendant of David.3 This journey, however, may
be explained, as will soonrappear, on other grounds.4 This
silence respecting Mary, contrasted with the prominence
1 Stud u Krit, 1845.
• Against it Bengel, Meyer, Patritius, Alford, Pairbairn.
3 So Robinson's Harmony, 186 ; Mill, 2Q9 : " Tbe words distinctly in
dicate that Mary accompanied Joseph for the purpose of being enrolled her
self." 4 Patritius finds in Mary's- supposed vow of perpetual virginity a proof
that she was an heiress, and married to Joseph as a kinsman.

52 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
given to the Davidic descent of Joseph, has led many to
suppose that the Evangelists attached no importance to her
lineage, but only to her conjugal relation to him. As his
wife she became a true member of David's family. Her
child belonged to him according to the principle which lay
at the foundation of marriage amongst the Jews, that what
was born of the wife belonged to the husband. As it had
no human father, and as he adopted it, it became in fact
his, and inherited whatever rights or privileges belonged to
Davidic descent. Since then through His legal relationship
to Joseph Jesus could truly be said to be ofthe house and
lineage of David, it was wholly unimportant to specify the
family of Mary.1 That she was however in fact of David's
line, is maintained by most who regard the fact as in itself
unimportant, or not proved.
When we compare. the very remarkable declarations of
the prophets respecting the Messiah, as the son of David,
with their historical fulfilment as recorded by the Evan
gelists, it may at first appear that they refer to Him rather
as the adopted and legal son of Joseph than as the son of
Mary. Had His descent through His mother been regarded
as the true fulfilment of the prophetic predictions, and of
the covenant with David, would the Evangelists have passed
it by without distinct mention ? We might therefore infer
from their silence respecting Mary's relation to David, that
they regard her royal lineage as not essential to the fulfil
ment of prophecy. Joseph had a good title to the throne;
and Jesus as his son stood in his stead, the rightful Heir of
all the Covenant promises.2
The question of the Davidic descent of Mary thus re
garded becomes one of secondary interest, as no promise
1 So lately Da Costa, Fairbairn.
' So Da Costa, who supposes Mary to have been of the tribe of Levi. See
contra Spanheim, Dubia Evangelica, i. 128, against Antonius, who defends
this view. See also an able paper on this side in Bibliotheca Sacra of April,
1861, by G. M'Clellan.

MART OF THB HOUSE OF DAVID. 53
of God is made dependent upon it. But if we take higher
ground and seek more than a legal relationship, there is
good reason to believe that she was of the royal family,
and that thus Jesus was in every sense the son of David.
Peter upon Pentecost (Acts ii. 30) declared that in Him
was fulfilled the oath which God sware to David " that of
the fruit of his loins according to the flesh He would raise
up Christ to sit on his throne." This language, taken in
connection with the phraseology of the original promise,
(2 Sam. vii. 12,) "I will set up thy seed after thee which
shall proceed out of thy bowels," seems to point to Jesus
as his lineal descendant. The words of Paul readily bear
the same interpretation (Acts xiii. 23) : " Of this man's
seed hath God according to His promise raised unto Israel
a Saviour, Jesus." Again, he says, (Rom. i. 3,) " Which was
also made of the seed of David according to the flesh." (See
also Isaiah xi. 1 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; Heb. vii. 14 ; Rev. xxii. 16.)
In the words of the angel to her, (Luke i. 32,) " the Lord
God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David,"
it is intimated that as her son He was son of David, and so
heir of the throne. (See also Luke i. 69.)
The prominence given by Matthew to the Davidic de
scent of Joseph, and his silence respecting the family of
Mary, finds a ready explanation in the peculiarities of his
Gospel as designed for the Jews. Its very first sentence
gives the clue to its .right understanding: "The book of
the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of Abraham, the
son of David." He aims to show that Jesus is the heir of
the two great Jewish covenants, that with Abraham, and
that with David. To this end he must establish first, that
Joseph, Jesus' legal father, was of David's house and so a
lawful heir of the dignity promised in the covenant ; sec
ond, that Jesus stood in such relation to Joseph as Himself
to have legal claim to all promises belonging to the latter.
He therefore brings prominently forward in the beginning

54 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
of his Gospel the fact that Joseph was of royal lineage, and
cites his genealogical register in proof. To have said that
Mary was of tbe house of David, and to have cited her
genealogy, Would have availed nothing, as it was a rule of
the Rabbins, and one universally recognized, that " the de
scent on the father's side only shall be called a descent ;
the descent by the mother is not called any descent." ' He
could not therefore speak of Jesus as son of Mary, even
had it been generally known that she was of David's line,
for as such he had no royal rights. It was only as the son
of Joseph that he could be the heir of the covenants. Mat
thew must therefore bring forth clearly the legal relation
in which Jesus stood to Joseph as his adopted son, but for
his purpose it was wholly unimportant who his mother was.
Hence he says very little of Mary, mentioning only her
name, and without any explanatory remarks except respect
ing her relation as a betrothed virgin, but says much of Jo
seph. His silence, therefore, so easily explained from the
character of his Gospel, respecting Mary's lineage, proves
nothing against her Davidic descent.
In our examination of this point it should be remem
bered that from the earliest period the testimony of the
Church has been that Mary was of David's family.2 This
was a matter of fact about which the Apostles and early
Christians could not well have been ignorant ; and it is
difficult to see how such a belief, if not well founded, could
have become so early and universally prevalent.
The allusion (Luke i. 36) to kinship between Mary and
Elisabeth determines nothing respecting the family of the
former, as the term used denotes simply kindred, or rela
tionship without defining its degree. As all the tribes
might intermarry, Mary might have been of the tribe of
Judah, though Elisabeth was of the tribe of Levi. It was
early said that the Lord was both of kingly and priestly de-
' Da Costa, 474. ' Meyer on Matthew, i. 17 ;

THE TWO GENEALOGIES. 55
scent, by Joseph on the one side and Mary on the other.1
But this has no foundation.
Thus we find sufficient grounds aside from the genea
logical table of Luke to regard Jesus as the son of David
through His mother. Yet the question, to whom does this
table refer, is one of no little interest, as well as difficulty,
and worthy of our careful examination.
The fact that there should be two genealogies of Jesus
given is in itself a remarkable and perplexing one, and the
most obvious explanation is that presented by the peculiar
circumstances of His birth. As the legal son of Joseph,
the genealogy of His father must be given ; as the son of
Mary and without any earthly father, her lineage becomes
His. Yet in point of fact this explanation in early times
found few, or no advocates ; the general opinion being that
both tables were those of Joseph.2 But how could the
same person have two such differing lines of ancestors ?
The most probable answer is that which refers the table of
Matthew to the legal successors of the throne of David,
and that of Luke to Joseph's paternal ancestors.3 The
former gives those who were the legal heirs to the king
dom. The line of Solomon failed in Jechonias, (Jer. xxii.
30,) and the right of succession then passed over to the
line of Nathan in the person of Salathiel. From Joseph
a younger son of Juda, or Abiud of that line, Joseph, the
husband of Mary, traced his descent. The family of the
elder son becoming extinct, Matthan, Joseph's grandfather,
became the heir. This Matthan had two sons, Jacob and
Heli. The elder Jacob had no son, but probably a daugh
ter, the Virgin Mary. The younger Heli had a son Joseph,
who thus became both heir to his uncle and to the throne.

- Testamentum 12 Patriarchum, in Lardner, ii. 330. Hofmann, 7.
5 Mill, 196, says : " We find no tradition more clear, more perpetual and
universal." 8 So Hervey in Smith's Bible Dictionary, 666.

56 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
Thus Mary and Joseph were first cousins, and the genea
logical tables have equal reference to both.
Both tables were referred to Joseph by Africanus, (220
a. d.,) whose solution of their difficulties is given by Euse
bius, (i. 7.) It supposes that Melchi and Matthan, Joseph's
grandfathers in the two genealogies, the one being of the
family of Nathan, the other of the family of Solomon, had
married successively the same woman, Estha, by whom the
former had Eli, and the latter Jacob. Eli and Jacob were
thus brothers uterine, though by their fathers of different
families. Eli married and died childless, and Jacob accord
ing to the Jewish law married his widow, and had by her a
son Joseph, who was in the eye of the law the son of the
deceased Eli. According to Jewish custom the pedigree
is recorded following both descents, the legal and the natu-'
rai, that of Eli given by Luke in the line of Nathan, and
that of Jacob given by Matthew in the line of Solomon.1
It deserves to be noticed that Africanus affirms that his
account is not an idle conjecture, nor incapable of proof,
but came from the relatives of the Lord, who " gloried in
the idea- of preserving the memory of their noble extrac
tion." Whether his statement respecting the destruction
ofthe Jewish family registers by Herod is historically true
has been often doubted.2 Of this mode of solution by ref
erence to the ancient law of Levirate marriages, Lightfoot
says, (on Luke iii. 23,) "There is neither word, nor reason,
nor indeed any foundation at all."3
But whilst the early Church generally ascribed both
tables to Joseph, many since the Reformation have strenu
ously maintained that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary.
And this view has not a little in its favor. It is not im-
1 Some, in later times, reversed this, making Joseph the natural son of
Eli and legal son of Jacob.
' So Hervey in Smith's Bible Dictionary, 663 ; contra, Sepp, ii. 106.
3 See, however, Mill, 201.

THE TWO GENEALOGIES. 57
probable that the tables given by Matthew and Luke are
to be regarded as copies of family registers to which they
had access, and which they give as they found them. It
is said that there is no reason to believe that they were
guided by the Spirit to make any corrections, for only as
exact copies would the Jews deem them of validity.1 This
must be taken with some limitations. It, however, would
not forbid the insertion of an explanatory clause not affect
ing the order of the descent. Looking at the table in Luke
in this light, we find it thus introduced (iii. 23) : " And Je
sus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as
was supposed) the son of Joseph — of Eli," &c. The text is
thus given by Tischendorf: wv mos, <os 6vo/u£cto, tou loxrrjtp,
&c. — "being son, as was supposed, of Joseph," &c. The
first point to be determined is respecting the explanatory
statement here made by the Evangelist. Is it only " as
was supposed," or rather "as was supposed, son of Joseph"?
If the latter be taken, then the table proper would read,
" being (as was supposed, son of Joseph) son of Eli," &c.
If the former be taken it would read, " being (as was sup
posed) son of Joseph — of Eli," &o.
If now, to determine the construction of this clause, we
consider the general scope of Luke's Gospel, we observe
that he has already stated at length that Jesus was the son
of Mary through the immediate power of God. None of
his readers could therefore suppose that he here speaks of
Joseph as His natural father. If, like Matthew, it was his
purpose to found Christ's Messianic claims upon His legal
relationship to Joseph, he would, like him, give Joseph's
genealogical table. But such does not seem to have been
his purpose. Had he designed to set forth Jesus as the
Messiah he would in some way have designated the cove
nants with Abraham and David, which were the basis of
all Messianic hopes. But no allusion is made to these cove-
i So Morrison.
3*

58 THE LIPE OF OUR LORD.
nants, nor any prominence given to Abraham, or David,
and the genealogy is contmued upward to Adam. We do
not therefore find grounds for believing that Luke had in
view, like Matthew, the proof that Jesus as the legal son
of Joseph was the promised Messiah. What then is his
purpose ? It is one in conformity with the general scope
of his Gospel, which was designed for Gentiles, and takes
little note of the special relations of the Jews to God. After
giving a full narrative of the Lord's miraculous conception
and birth, and a brief mention of His baptism, as prepara
tory to His public ministry, he proceeds to give His gene
alogy on that side only on which it could be really given,
that of His mother. Through her He was made man, and
through her should His descent from Adam be traced.
If upon these grounds we assume that Luke gives the
genealogy of Mary, let us note the force of his explanatory
statement. Why does he insert the clause, " as was sup
posed, son of Joseph"? Is it that, being about to give Jo
seph's genealogy as the legal father of Jesus, he thinks it
necessary to insert a declaration that he was not His true
father ? This in view of the previous narrative seems su
perfluous, for he had already shown Him to be the son of
God. And it is plainly incongruous to assert that He was
not the son of Joseph, and then proceed to give Joseph's
genealogy, unless he would make prominent His legal son-
ship, which, as we have seen, he has not done. If, however,
we suppose that he designs to give the Lord's descent
through His mother, the bearing ofthe parenthetical clause
is obvious. By the Jews at large he was regarded as the
son of Joseph, and some explanation therefore was neces
sary why, contrary to all usage, the mother's, not the
father's, genealogy should be given. This explanation is
made in the statement that He was supposed to be son
of Joseph. " Jesus, generally but erroneously supposed to
be son of Joseph, was the son of Eli, of Matthan, of

THE TWO GENEALOGIES. 69
Levi," &o. That Mary's own name is not mentioned makes
no difficulty, since the mention of female names was contrary
to usage in such tables, and as she had already been dis
tinctly mentioned as His mother, there was no danger of
misapprehension. Her name being omitted, Jesus must be
brought into immediate connection witb her father, His
grandfather. That He is called son, not grandson, is unim
portant, the former term being often used to express the
more distant relationship. That it is not strictly used
throughout the table is apparent from v. 38, where Adam
is called the son of God. That Eli is not expressly said to
be Mary's father is not essential, since the form ofthe table
implies the degree of relationship.1
Some, who regard the table in Luke as that of Mary,
and Eli as her father, suppose that Joseph is brought into
it as his son-in-law or adopted son.8 If it be admitted that
this degree of relationship may be thus expressed, it is
doubtful whether it would, without express mention, find
place in a table in which only the direct line of descent is
given. Jesus, having no earthly father, may well be called
the son of Eli, although strictly grandson, from the neces
sity of the case, but the same reason does not hold in the
case of Joseph.
Thus the two tables given by Matthew and Luke, re
garded as those of Joseph and of Mary, are in beautiful
harmony with the scope of their respective Gospels. Through
that of Matthew Jesus is shown to be the heir of David as
the legal son of Joseph ; through that of Luke, to be of
David's seed according to the flesh by His birth of Mary.
The former beginning with Abraham, the father of the
chosen people, descends through David the king, to Christ
the royal heir, in whom all the national covenants should be
1 That the Jews so regarded him is shown by Lightfoot on Luke iii. 23 ;
Sepp, ii. 8.
' Robinson's Harmony, 185. Alexander.

60 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
fulfilled ; the latter beginning with the second Adam, the
eternally begotten Son of God, ascends to the first Adam,
the son of God by creation. Each Evangelist gives His
genealogy in that aspect which best suits his special pur
pose ; to the one He is the Messiah of the Jews, to the
other the Saviour of the world.
The opinions of modern scholars upon this point are
about equally divided. Among those who regard Luke's
table as that of Mary, not of Joseph, are : Newcome, Rob
inson, Greswell, Lange, Wieseler, Riggenbach, Auberlen,
Ebrard, Krafft, Bloomfield, Alexander, Oosterzee. Contra
— Alford, Meyer, Winer, Bleek, Fairbairn, Da Costa, Fried
lieb, Patritius, Mill, Ellicott, Westcott.
Our purpose does not lead us to consider further the
special features of these genealogies. Regarding them as
copies of family registers, documents for whose accuracy in
every point the Evangelists are not resj>onsible, any real
or seeming discrepancies do not affect their credibility, un
less disproving the fundamental fact of Christ's descent
from Abraham and David. But in this fact both tables
agree, and any minor inaccuracies, if there be such, are un
important.1 That Joseph was the legal heir to the throne of David
his relation to Jesus, the promised Messiah, sufficiently
shows. Whether he and Mary were the only surviving
descendants of David we have no positive data to decide ;
but it is not probable, for if they had been the sole survi
vors, this very fact, which could not have been unknown,
must have made them conspicuous. Hegesippus" makes
mention of the grandchildren of Juda, the brother of the
Lord, who were brought before Domitian, as being of Da-
1 Those who will see the questions respecting the divisions in Matthew's
tables, his abridgments and omissions, and the relations of his table to that
of Luke, will find all points fully treated by Mill, 147. See also Ebrard, 188,
and the Dubia Evangelica of Spanheim, Pars Prima.
3 In Eusebius, iii. 20.

DECAY OP DAVID'S HOUSE. . 61
vid's race. Not improbably there were many in more or
less distant affinity to this royal family. It has been sup
posed by some, that the residence of Joseph and Mary, so
far from their ancestral seat, in despised Galilee and in one
of its most obscure villages, is to be explained by the fact
that they were generally known to be of David's line, and
so exposed to the jealousy of Herod.' But of this there is
no proof. It is rather to be explained as a sign of the fallen
state of that once royal house. Its members were now
amongst the humblest of the people, too humble to arouse
the jealousy of the Idumean usurper. We do not learn
that in the course of his reign he took any precautionary
measures against any of the descendants of David, looking
upon them as claimants of the throne. They seem to have
sunk wholly out of public sight. Yet, on the other hand,
the expectation that the Messiah should spring from the
house of David, was strong and general.2 How can these
facts be reconciled ? If the people were really looking for
a Messiah descended from that family, must not all who
were known to be members of it have occupied a large
space in public attention ?
Perhaps the following may be the just solution of the
difficulty. The promise made to David and his house re
specting the throne of Israel was not absolute. (2 Sam. vii.
12, &c.) Its fulfilment was to depend upon the condition
of obedience. Yet if the condition failed the promise was
not withdrawn. His descendants were not reduced to the
rank of private citizens, but its fulfilment was suspended,
and their kingly claims were in abeyance. After the return
from the captivity of Babylon, the house of David, at first
prominent in Zerubbabel, fell more and more into obscurity.
1 So Bucher.
' According to Mill, (285,) it was with the view to obviate this national
expectation that Herod, two years before his death, imposed an oath of fidel
ity to Ca?sar and himself. This is hardly warranted by the language of
Josephus.

62 THE HFE OP OUR LORD.
Other families began to be prominent. At last, the Macca
bees through their wisdom and valor won the highest
place, and became the acknowledged heads ofthe nation—
both the civil and ecclesiastical chiefs. After their decay
the family of Herod through Roman favor became domi
nant. During these 400 years no one of David's lineage
seems to have been conspicuous, or in any way to have
drawn to himself public attention ; and probably little faith
existed among the people at large that the Divine promise
would have any fulfilment in that house. But the Mes
sianic hopes ofthe Jews had, during the wars of the Macca
bees, and under the usurpation of Herod, been constantly
gaining in depth and strength. Everywhere they began to
turn to their Scriptures, and to read them with new ear
nestness and faith. And as the expectation of the Messiah
became more and more prevalent, it was naturally con
nected with the promise to David. Yet among his descend
ants there was no one to wbom public attention was turned
as in any way likely to fulfil their hopes. Hence, while a
general belief existed that the Messiah should be of that
family, its individual members continued to live in obscu
rity. And as it was also firmly believed that Elijah the
prophet must personally come as the forerunner of the Mes
siah, this belief would naturally prevent any special atten
tion being turned to them till that prophet . actually ap
peared. Thus Joseph, the carpenter of Nazareth, might
have been known to be of David's line, and even the legal
claimant of the throne, and yet live unhonored and unno
ticed. Nazareth and its geographical position will hereafter be
more particularly spoken of. It is disputed where Mary was
'when the angel visited her to announce the Lord's birth.1
The Greek Church affirms that she was not at her own house
when he came, but had gone to the fountain ofthe village,
1 See Hofmann, 74.

MART'S VISIT TO ELISABETH 63
and that he found her there.1 Over this fountain, the source
of the present one, to which its waters are conducted by a
stone aqueduct, the Greeks have built a church which is
called the Church of the Annunciation. The Latins affirm
that the angel found her in a grotto, over which stood the
house that was carried in the thirteenth century by angels,
first to Dalmatia, and thence to Italy, where it still remains.2
The exact places in this grotto where the angel and the vir
gin stood during their interview are marked out by two
pillars. Over this grotto now stands a church, which is
said to be, after that ofthe Holy Sepulchre, the most beau
tiful in Syria.3 Tradition also points out the workshop of
Joseph, now a Latin chapel. The time of Gabriel's appear
ance was, according to Bengel, (in loco), at evening, ves-
peri, utprobabile est. See Dan. ix. 21.
March — April, 749. 5 b. c
Immediately after the visit of the angel Mary left Naz- Luke i. 39-66.
areth, and went to the home of Zacharias in the hill-coun
try of Judah, and remained there about three months.
It has been supposed that Mary remained at Nazareth
several weeks before visiting Elisabeth, and that during
this period the events related by Matthew (i. 18-25) oc
curred-4 But with this, Luke's statement, (i. 39,) that "she
went with haste into the hill-country," is inconsistent ; for
going with haste cannot refer merely to the rapidity of the
journey after it was begun, but to the fact that she made
no delay in commencing it. Hug refers to a traditionary
law that virgins should not travel, and that therefore Jo
seph must previously have taken her home as his wife. Al-
1 See Protevangelium Jacobi, ch. ii.
2 See Baronius, who affirms that no one should doubt respecting the
reality of this miracle. In refutation, Stanley, 439.
' Porter, ii. 361. Stewart, 445. * Ebrard, Alford.

64 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
ford says that " as a betrothed virgin she could not travel,"
but cites no authority. But if any such law were at this
time in force, which is very doubtful, Mary may have jour
neyed in company with friends, or under the special protec
tion of a servant, or with a body of neighbors going up to
the Passover. That no unmarried female could journey
even to visit her friends is incredible. "The incidental
mention of women and children in the great assemblies
gathered around Jesus is true to Oriental life, strange as it
may appear to those who read so much about female seclu
sion in the East. In the great gatherings of this day, at
funerals, weddings, feasts, and fairs, women and children
often constitute the largest portion of the assemblies."1
Ebrard's supposition (222) that Mary continued at Naza
reth till, certain suspicious women, the pronubm, informed
Joseph of her condition, and that then God made known
to him what bad occurred, has nothing in its favor. As
little basis has the supposition that she told Joseph of the
visit of the angel.2" The narrative plainly implies that Mary,
without communicating to him, or any one else, what had
taken place, departed immediately to seek Elisabeth.3 That
under the peculiar circumstances in which she was placed
she should greatly desire to see Elisabeth, was natural, and
it is most improbable that she should wait several weeks,
when all this time she could have no communication with
Joseph except through these pronubse. The whole narra
tive shows that neither Elisabeth nor Mary rashly forestalled
God's . action. Both, full of faith, waited in quietness and
silence till He should reveal in His own way what He had
done. Perhaps the expression, (Luke i. 56) " she returned
to her own bouse," «s rov oikov avnjs, may imply that she
had not yet been taken to the house of Joseph.-
The distance from Nazareth to Jerusalem is about
1 Thomson, ii.84. 2 So Lange.
3 So Tischendorf, Robinson, Lichtenstein.

JOSEPH TAKES MART HOME. 65
eighty miles,1 and if Zacharias lived at Hebron seventeen
miles south of Jerusalem, the whole journey would occupy
four or five days. Several routes were open to Mary. The
most direct was by Nain and Endor, and through Samaria
and southward by Bethel. If for any cause Samaria was to
be avoided, the Jordan could be crossed near Scythopolis,
and the way followed through Perea along its eastern bank.
This was the common route with the Jews in their journey-
ings to the feast,. if they wished specially to avoid Samaria.
Still a third way was by Dor on the sea-coast, passing
through Lydda,and thence over the mountains of Ephraim.
J.une, 749. 5 b. c
A little before the birth of John, Mary returns to
Nazareth ; Joseph, seeing her condition, is minded to put Matt. i. 18-25.
her away privily, but is commanded by God, through an
angel, to take her home as his wife, for that which is
conceived of her is of the Holy Ghost. He obeys the
word, and takes Mary as his wife. Elisabeth gives birth
to a son, who is circumcised on the eighth flay, and nam- Luke i. 57-80.
ed John in obedience to angelic direction.
Whether Mary left Elisabeth before or after John's-
birth, is not expressly stated, but the most natural con
struction of the narrative is that it was before.
The interval that had elapsed between the Annunciation
and Mary's return from Judea, was sufficient to make man
ifest to Joseph her condition. That she at this time inform
ed him of the visit ofthe angel, and of the divine promise,
is not said in so many words, but is plainly implied. The
position in which Joseph was now placed was one of great
perplexity ; and as a just man who desired to mete out to
every one that which was his due, he was, on the one hand,
unwilling to take her under such imputation of immorality,,
yet, on the other hand, unwilling to condemn her where there
1 Kitto, Sepp, 80-90 Roman miles.

66 THE LIPE OP OUR LORD.
was a possibility of innocence. He therefore, determines to
put her away privately, which he could lawfully do, and so
avoid the necessity of exposing her to pubhc disgrace, or
of inflicting upon her severe punishment. Whilst yet in
doubt as to his proper course, the angel of the Lord, in a
dream, confirmed the statement of Mary, and directed him
to call her son by the name of Jesus, as the future Saviour
of His people. Agreeably to the divine commandment,
Joseph takes Mary at once to his own house as his wife.
While these things were taking place in Galilee, John
was born in Judea, and was circumcised at the legal time. •
It was customary to join the giving of the name with the
performance of this rite. This custom seems to have origi
nated in the fact that Abraham's name was changed at
the time he was circumcised.1 (Gen. xvii. 23.) The name
John, given the Baptist by the angel, is of importance, as
showing the purpose of God in his ministry. It means
"the Grace of God," or "one whom Jehovah bestows,"
and indicated that God Was about to begin an economy of
grace, in distinction froim the economy of the law. His
ministry, like that of Jesus, was for mercy, not for judg
ment.
Dec, 749. 5 b. c.
In consequence of an edict that all the world should
be taxed, Joseph and Mary leave Nazareth to go to Beth- Luke ii, 1-5.
lehem, the city of David, to be taxed there.
The chronological and other questions connected with
this taxing are undoubtedly among the most perplexing
which meet us in the whole Gospel narrative. The former
have been already considered, but the latter demand a
careful examination. Before we proceed to consider them,
let us note the character of the Evangelist's statements,
and his general purpose. ' Winer, ii. 133.

THE TAXING OF AUGUSTUS. 67
Turning to' Luke's words, (ii. 1-3,) Ave find that he
speaks in very brief and comprehensive terms. An edict
had been issued bythe Emperor Csesar Augustus, '" that
all the world should be taxed, and this taxing was first
made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." In obedi
ence to this edict, all went to be taxed, each into liis own
city. This is all the information the Evangelist gives. He
does not say when this edict was issued, nor what were its
pecuhar features, nor give any account of its execution,
except in Judea. Its only apparent value to him, and the
only cause that leads him to mention it is, that it was the
occasion that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.
He therefore speaks of it only in the most general way, and
we cannot learn from him whether it was a mere enrolment
of persons, or also a census of property ; whether it em
braced all the provinces of the empire, or but a part ;
whether it was executed at once, or after a lapse of time,
or in various provinces at various times. He is concerned
only with its immediate relations to the birth of Jesus at
Bethlehem, and does not mention even the manner of its
execution in Judea, whether by Herod and his officers, in
obedience to imperial direction, or by a special commissioner
from Rome, or by the governor of some adjoining province.
In the absence of definite statements in the Gospels, we
turn to contemporary history, but here a like silence meets
us. How Httle the historians of those times record of the
period from 750-760, we shall soon see.
In our examination of this subject we shall consider :
1st. The nature and extent of this taxing ; 2d. The proof
that it actually took place ; 3d. Its connection with Cyre
nius. First, the nature and extent of this taxing. The word
translated taxing, arroypatprj, means " properly transcrip
tion, then inscription, both of persons and things." 1 It may
1 Alexander.

68 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
therefore denote simply an enrolment or enumeration of
persons, a descriptio capitum ; or may involve also a regis
tration of property upon which taxes are to be assessed.
For the latter, however, the Greeks had a special word,
airoTifvqa-i^.1 To this corresponded the Latin term census,
whose first object, according to Greswell,2 was to ascertain
the value of property ; but, according to Winer, arroypaxpin
was generally used by Grecian writers upon Roman matters
as equivalent to census. That it is used by Luke in the
latter sense in the only other passage of his writings,
(Acts v. 37,) in which it is found, is plain.
From the term itself, then, no certain inference can be
drawn. • It may have been an enrolment of the people, with
a view to learn the number of the inhabitants of the em
pire, and for general statistical purposes ; or it may have
had direct reference to taxation. If we turn, then, from the
term itself to the context, to ' learn its meaning, it is said
that no census of property can be referred to, as there is no
where in the narrative any allusion to patrimony or inheri
tance, and that Joseph and Mary could have had no posses
sions at Bethlehem.' A more forcible argument upon this
side is the fact that there was a rebellion ofthe Jews against
the attempt to impose taxes upon them under Cyrenius, at
a later period.4 (Acts v. 37.) This implies that there had
been no previous attempt to tax them, and that the regis
tration now in question was one of persons only, with refer
ence to the amount of population.6 On the other hand,
Meyer insists that Luke puts this taxing upon the same
footing as that of Cyrenius, as an enrolment for taxation,
and that not future but immediate. Most, however, take a
middle view, supposing Augustus in his edict to have refer
ence to taxation, but not designing that it should at once
take effect."
' Winer, ii. 398. Ebrard, 169. • i. 541. * Greswell, i. 542.
* Josephus' Antiquities, 18. 1. 1.
8 So Alford, and many. • So Ewald, v. 20.

THE TAXING OP AUGUSTUS. 69
It seems most probable, all things considered, that this
enrolment had reference both to persons and property.
That Augustus, now in the prime of life and undisputed
master of the empire, should desire to establish a general
and uniform system of taxation, finds support in his general
character and policy. But he was far too wise a man to
hasten matters prematurely, or to force disagreeable meas
ures upon disaffected provinces. If, then, this enrolment
was with reference to taxation, in its execution he would be
governed by policy. The first step was to learn the num
ber of the inhabitants, their names, tribes, families, &c,
and together with this, to make a registration of property
as the basis for the assessment of taxes. But considerable
time may, and in many cases must have elapsed between
the enrolment and the subsequent collection of such taxes.
If, therefore, we suppose that Joseph and Mary went to
Bethlehem, not simply to have their names registered, but
also to give account of their possessions, it would by no
means follow that taxes were then and there collected of
them. If this had been so, we may well be surprised that
no disturbance should then have taken place among the
people at large, as did take place a few years later. The
preliminary steps, though pointing to a future exercise of
power in the actual assessment and collection of taxes,
could give no tangible ground of offence.
It has been said by many, that this edict was confined to
the Holy Land, and did not apply to the whole empire.1
But the weight of authority is decidedly the other way.2
The phrase iracra tj oLKovp.evrj, " all the world," when used in
the Gospels, (Acts xi. 28, is in dispute,) beyond question re
fers to tne Roman Empire as embracing at that time the
greater part of the habitable world. But while the edict thus
had application to the whole empire, and may have looked
• See Lardner, i. 267.
' So Meyer, Greswell, Wieseler, Ebrard, Alford.

70 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
forward to some general system of taxation as the final re
sult, yet in a kingdom composed of so many heterogeneous
and discordant provinces, its execution in each must have
been governed by circumstances. A ruler wise as Augus
tus would, in a province like Judear temporize and wait for
a favorable opportunity, rather than meet the perils of re
bellion. It is not improbable, therefore, that years may
have passed before the edict was carried fully into effect.
Second, the proof that such a taxing actually took place
confirmatory of the statement of the Evangelist. It is ad
mitted that there is no express statement in any contempo
rary writer of such a taxing or census at this time, and
embracing the whole empire, whether as a registration of
persons, of property, or for general statistical purposes.
Suetonius1 relates that Augustus three times held a census,
and from the Ancyran monument we learn that these were
held in 726, 746, and 767 ; but it is probable that they
were confined to Italy, and did not extend to the provinces.2
But that the census did at times extend to particular prov
inces, is beyond question. Thus there was one in Gaul, one
in Spain, and Strabo alludes to them as not uncommon.8 If
then Augustus held a census, now in Italy and now in the
provinces, there is nothing improbable in the fact that he
should hold one throughout the empire. And there are
several circumstances mentioned by writers of that period
that confirm this supposition. That there was a geometri
cal survey ofthe Roman Empire, which, if not commenced,
was carried out by Augustus, seems to be well established.4
Of the Roman chorographic maps, Merivale says (iv. 426) :
" They measured, we may believe, not only the roads, but
the areas which lay between them; the labors of a quarter
of a century produced no doubt a complete registration of
the size, the figure, and the natural features of every prov-
1 Aug. u. 27. ' Wieseler, 91. Greswell, i. 535.
a Lardner, i. 263. Greswell, i. 536. * Wieseler, 77-81. Sepp, i. 136.

THE TAXING OF AUGUSTUS. 71
ince, district, and estate throughout the empire." And that
with such a survey a general census should be connected
is antecedently probable. The statement of Suidas, (Lex.
airoypo.<pr),) that " Augustus sent out twenty men of great
probity into all parts of his empire, by whom he made an
assessment of persons and estates," is indeed unsupported
by any other author, but has no intrinsic improbability.1
We know also from Tacitus2 that Augustus had a little
book which he had written out with his own hand, and
which contained accounts ofthe numbers of soldiers, ofthe
taxes, imposts, and the like : Opes publico continebantur.
Quantum civium, sociorumque, in armis ; quas classes, regna,
provincisB tributa, aut vectigalia et necessitates et largi-
tiones, quae cuncta sua manu perscripserat Augustus. This
breviarium imperii is mentioned also by Suetonius and Dio
Cassius, and must have been based upon governmental sur
veys of all parts of the empire. As has been said by Pri-
deaux, it was probably something of the same kind as the
Doomsday Book of William the Conqueror.
If all the facts do not prove with absolute certainty that
Augustus did ever order a general census, they go far, at
least, to make it probable, and thus to confirm the Evangel
ist's statement. Lardner (i. 267) objects chiefly upon the
ground of the silence of the Roman historians. But in the
history of Dio Cassius there is a great gap from 747-757,
the very period in which Luke states this taxing to have
been held. Suetonius is very brief, as also Tacitus. The
argument, therefore, from the silence of contemporary
writers is of little force, and if pushed to its extreme would
compel us to believe that no important event took place in
the long reign of Augustus of which the few historians
whose works remain to us in whole, or in part, have not
made specific mention.3
Third. The connection of this taxing with Cyrenius.
1 Greswell, i. 537. » Ann., i. 11. 3 See Ebrard, 171.

72 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
We have, already, in the essay upon the date of Christ's
birth, examined the point whether. Cyrenius was not twice
governor of Syria, and found strong grounds to believe that
this was the case. If so, his first administration was from
the autumn of 750 to 753, and the taxing now in question
was the first as distinguished from the second, which took
place during his second administration, some ten years later.
But as some degree of doubt, from the scantiness of our
data, must necessarily rest upon this conclusion, let us sup
pose, as has usually been done, that he was not governor
of Syria till 760, and examine Luke's statement from this
point of view.
The first point that meets us is the right construction
ofthe Evangelist's words: "this taxing, was first made
when Cyrenius. was governor of Syria," avrq rj airoypatp-q
irpuiTYj £-vei/£to, riyepLovevovros T17S Supias KvprjvLov. If this be
read, this was the first taxing, in distinction from a second,
and took place under him as governor of Syria, but in fact
he was not so governor till 760, we must construe the term
rjyepzovevovTos, " governing," in its wide sense as applicable
to any one who fills a place of rule. Thus understood, Cy
renius, though not the governor, may have been a joint, or
assistant ruler, as Josephus ' speaks of Saturninus and Vo-
lumnius as the presidents of Syria. Or he may have been
an extraordinary commissioner sent from Rome especially
for this purpose.2 ' In all this there is nothing intrinsically
improbable, and it agrees with the fact that he was about
that time in the East, and engaged in political affairs. It
corresponds also to the statements of the fathers, except
Tertullian, that this taxing was by Cyrenius. Still, on the
other hand, the obvious import of Luke's words is, that
he was then the governor over Syria, not an assistant, and
still less a commissioner appointed to a special service in a
neighboring kingdom.
1 Ant'q- 16- 9- 3 Lardner, i. 329. Wieseler, 113.

TAXING OP AUGUSTUS. 73
According to another construction of Luke's words,
taking Trponr] for Trparrepov, this . taxing was before Cyrenius
was governor of Syria.1 So understood, it was the purpose
of the Evangelist to distinguish between the two taxings,
taking for granted that all knew that the second was under
Cyrenius. But admitting that the Greek will bear this in
terpretation, still had this been Luke's meaning it would
have been more naturally expressed another way.
Most English commentators have preferred the follow
ing construction ; this taxing was first made — i. e. carried
into effect, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.2 The
enrolment was made at the time of the Lord's birth, but its
actual execution was deferred some nine or ten years, or
till Judea was made a Roman province. This is not incon
sistent with Luke's words, since the enrolment was only
preparatory to the assessment and collection of the taxes,
and the latter may have been delayed by political difficul
ties till the time of Cyrenius.
Some, as Lardner, (i. 333,) would make rrye.p.owovTo<s njs
Supias to be merely an official title, and to imply not that
Cyrenius was then' actually governor, but that he had at
some previous period of his life filled the office. Having
been governor, the title continued to cleave to him, and by
it he was generally designated and best known. This, how
ever, is forced.
But some objections still remain to be considered. First,
that. this taxing could not have taken place in Herod's life
time, because inconsistent with the political relations of his
kingdom to the Empire. It still had a nominal independ
ence, and was not converted, into a province till the banish
ment of his son Archelaus. In this, however, is little force.3
The relations between Rome and her dependent kingdoms
* So Usher, Whitby, Tholuck, Wieseler, Ewald, Greswell.
3 Middleton, Hales, Campbell, Norton. So among the Germans, Ebrard,
Lange, Lichtenstein.
s Winer, ii. 399. 4

74 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
were constantly fluctuating ; and what rights and privileges
she should at any time give them, was a matter of policy.1
Judea was well known to Augustus as full of discontent and
sedition, and there can scarce be a doubt that it was his
purpose even before Herod's death to reduce it, so soon as
circumstances permitted, to the rank of a province. Besides,
the personal relations of Augustus and Herod had a little
before this become far from friendly,2 and therefore the
former was not likely to be governed in his actions by mere
considerations of good will. And Herod could offer no
effectual resistance to any measure the Emperor might pro
pose. He was now old and greatly hated by the Jews, and
without Roman assistance could not have been sure of his
kingdom for a day.
If, then, Augustus designed this enrolment as only pre
paratory to taxation, and if Herod looked upon it as an
infringement of his royal rights, he could only submit. Re
sistance would only have brought his own downfall and the
downfall of his family. And it is most probable that the
execution ofthe measure was given chiefly into bis hands.
Two facts are mentioned by Josephus, both of which have
been supposed to have some relation to this taxing. He
speaks 3 of an oath which all the Jews were obliged to take,
giving assurance of their good will to Csssar and to the
king's government, and which was refused by six thousand
of the Pharisees. This is supposed by Patritius (iii. 171)
to refer to the taxing of Luke. But this took place under
Saturninus and before the taxing. He speaks also of an in
surrection a little before Herod's death." This insurrection,
though the ostensible cause of it was the erection of a golden
eagle over the great gate of the temple, doubtless had far
1 As to the tribute actually paid by the Jews to the Romans, see Gres-
well, ii. 375 ; and as to the autonomy of subject provinces, Merivale, iv. 400.
3 Josephus, Antiq., 16. 9. 3.
' Antiq., 17. 2. 4. * Antiq., 17. 6. 2.

TAXING OP AUGUSTUS. 75
deeper roots, and very probably stood in direct connection
with the enrolment, which the ipsurgents, who were zealots
for the law, regarded as only a preliminary step to their
more complete subjugation to Rome.
We find also, in these statements of Josephus, an answer
to a second objection that such an enrolment could not have
taken place without popular disturbances, such as took
place afterward, and are mentioned by Luke, (Acts v. 37.)
Both just before and after Herod's death were commotions
which showed that the people at large were much disquieted,
although there was no general resistance to Roman rule.
" But there was a large party who wished that Judea might
then be made a Roman province,1 and those who were zeal
ous for national independence were now by no means so
numerous as a few years later. The enrolment, therefore,
might have been carried into effect without producing any
general rebellion, however a few excitable spirits may have
been aroused to resistance.
The conspicuous part which Cyrenius played in this tax
ing, so conspicuous that Luke connects it directly with his
name, will surprise no one who considers the peculiar state
of political affairs. Archelaus, the successor of Herod, re
ceived but half of his father's territories, and that not under
the name of king, but of ethnarch. He ruled only by suf
ferance, and was from the beginning both hated and de
spised by the Jews. In this condition of things, it was
natural that the chief direction of public matters should fall
into the hands of the governor of the adjoining province.
Josephus gives ample proof how ready the Romans were
under Varus, to interfere in Jewish quarrels, and with what
contempt the Syrian governors treated the subject kings
around them.5 If, also, as there is good reason to believe,
it was the purpose of Augustus at the first favorable oppor-
> Antiq., 17. 11. 2. » Antiq., 19. 8. 1.

76 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
tunity to depose Archelaus and to reduce Judea to a prov
ince, we shall find no difficulty in beheving that Cyrenius,
as governor of Syria, might then have conducted the taxing.
But how is the silence of Josephus in regard to this
matter to be explained ? Whatever may have been his
motives, we find that, in point of fact, he does pass over the
whole period of the rule of Archelaus almost in silence.
He mentions no governor of Syria from Varus, 750, to
Cyrenius, 760. So he wholly passes over the Parthian war
under Caius Csesar.1 This cannot have been from ignorance.
Wieseler (98) supposes that he concealed, so far as possible,
all that testified to the Messianic hopes of the Jews and
against their submission to Roman domination. His men
tion of Judas of Galilee, who headed the rebellion at the
second taxing, is very brief.2 Lardner, (i. 355,) alluding to
this latter passage, supposes that Josephus avoids the men
tion of these contests between the Jews and Romans, be
cause the principles of Judas were very popular, and he
must offend his countrymen on the one hand, or the Ro
mans on the other. Thus much is plain, that he passes over
as lightly as possible every thing that testifies to the degra
dation of his people.3
Thus, in various ways, the difficulties connected with
the taxing may be met (though it cannot be said that
they are all yet removed), if we assume that Cyrenius was
but once governor of Syria. But we have strong historical
evidence that he twice filled this office. If this shall be
confirmed by further investigations, all doubts as to the
literal accuracy of Luke will be removed.
Why, in Joseph's journey to Bethlehem, Mary should
have accompanied him, is not stated by the Evangelist.
Some have supposed that she was obliged to go, in order
to be enrolled ; but neither, according to Jewish or Romish
' Zumpt, ii. 87. 2 Antiq., 18. 1. 6.
3 See Journal Sac. Lit., vol. vi. 292, &c.

BETHLEHEM. 77
custom, was it necessary that she should be personally pres
ent.1 Others suppose that she possessed a httle inheritance
in Bethlehem, and so must go thither.2 But this is without
proof and against probability ; for, if she had had posses
sions there, she would scarce have been compeUed to go to
the inn. In all likelihood she went with Joseph because, at
this delicate and trying period, she was unwilling to be left at
Nazareth alone. That she was aware of the prophecy that
the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem is not improb
able ; but that she journeyed there with a design thus to
ensure its fulfilment,3 is not consistent with the general
tenor of her conduct.

Dec, 749. 5 b. c
Upon the- arrival of Joseph and Mary at Bethlehem, Luke ii. 6-7
they could find no room at the inn, and took refuge in a
cottage where the babe was born, and laid in the manger.
The village of Bethlehem, " house of bread," lies about
six miles south of Jerusalem on the way to Hebron. There
was another city or village of this name in Zebulon, (Josh.
xix. 15,) whence this is called, to distinguish it, Bethlehem-
Judah. It is not mentioned in the catalogues of the cities
of Judah. In Genesis (xlviii. 7) it is called Ephrath, and in
Micah (v. 2) Ephratah — an epithet given it because of its
fruitfulness. It appears in Scripture chiefly in connection
with the house of David, and seems never to have been a
place of much importance. " The Jews are very silent of
this city ; nor do I remember that I have read any thing in
them concerning it besides those things which are produced
out of the Old Testament." * Micah speaks of it as Httle
amongst the thousands of Judah. It was here that the
1 See, however, Sepp, ii. 68. ' Olshausen, Michaelis. .
3 So Lange. - Lightfoot, iii. 100.

78 THE LTPE OF OUR LORD.
fields of Boaz lay, in which Ruth gleaned, (Ruth, ii. 4 ;)
and here the son of Obed was. born. Hither came Samuel,
and anointed the youthful David to be the successor of
Saul. That the Messiah should be born here was expressly
declared by the prophet Micah, (v. 2 ;) and the Jews seem
to have had no question as to his meaning, nor ever to have
doubted the literal fulfilment of the prophecy. (Matt. ii.
6 ; John, vii. 42.)
Bethlehem lies on the eastern brow of a ridge that runs
from east to west a mile in length, and is surrounded by
hills. From the highest point of the ridge there is an ex
tensive view toward the south and east, in the direction of
Jericho, the Dead Sea, and the mountains of Moab beyond.
There are deep valleys both on the south and north ; that
on the north stretches toward Jerusalem, and in it olives,
figs, almond-groves, and vineyards are found. The village
has one street, broad, but not thickly built. The present
inhabitants are chiefly occupied in .the manufacture of holy
trinkets and relics, beads, crosses, &c., for the pilgrims who
visit Jerusalem.
The exact spot where the Lord was born, has been the
subject of anxious investigation and of zealous controversy.
Al the information upon this point that the Scriptures
give, is contained in the words of Luke, that when Joseph
and Mary arrived at Bethlehem, they could find no place
at the inn, or khan ; and that, when Jesus was born, she
Was compeUed to put the new-born babe in a manger, tparvrj.
From this statement some have inferred that the manger
was in a stall connected with the inn itself;1 but this is
hardly consistent with other features of the narrative.
That the place in which she took refuge was a stall, or room
where cattle were lodged, may fairly be inferred from the
mention of a manger.
The place now shown as the Lord's birthplace is a
' Wilson, Lands ofthe Bible, i. 392; Kitto, Life of Christ, 62.

CAVE OP THE NATIVITY. 79
cave southeast' from the town, and now covered by the
Latin convent. The tradition that connects this cave with
His birth is very ancient.1 Robinson (ii. 416) speaks of it
as " reaching back at least to the middle of the second
century." Justin Martyr (150, a. d.) mentions it ; as also
Origen about a hundred years later. Queen Helena erected
a church over it, (325 a. d.) Here came Jerome, (400 a. d.,)
and dwelt for many years. So far then as early tradition
can authenticate a place, this seems well authenticated.2
Yet there are objections which have led many to deny the
truth of the tradition.3 The point then demands some fur-,
ther examination.
The objection, that Luke says nothing of a cave, is not
important. His purpose is simply to show the humble and
friendless state of the infant child, and this is done by the
mention of the circumstances that there was no room for
his parents in the inn, and that when He was born He was
laid in a manger. Any other particulars were for his pur
pose unnecessary.
A more important objection is that drawn from the
fact, that tradition makes caves or grottoes to be the sites
of so many remarkable events. That, as was long ago said by
Maundrell, " wherever you go, you find almost every thing
represented as done under ground," naturally awakens our
incredulity. Yet, on the other hand, they could not have
been so generaUy selected for such sites, unless there were
some grounds of fitness in the selection. The scriptures,
Josephus, and all traveUers speak of the numerous caves
that are found throughout Palestine. They were used for
' dwellings, for fortresses and places of refuge, for cisterns,
for prisons, and for sepulchres. Travellers used them as
inns, robbers as dens, herdsmen as stalls, husbandmen as
1 See Thilo, Codex Apoc, i. 381, note.
a See a full statement ofthe evidence in Patritius, iii. 293.
3 So Ritter, Robinson.

80 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
granaries. Many of these caves were very large. One is
mentioned (Judges xx. 47) large enough for six hundred
men. Bonar,1 in reference to the cave of Adullam, says :
" you might spend days in exploring these vast apartments,
for the whole mountain seems excavated, or rather honey
combed." Pococke speaks of one large enough for thirty
thousand men.
These caves, so numerous in the light limestone forma
tion of Judea, and easUy wrought into any shape, and always
dry, were naturally thus applied to many uses. We need
not be surprised to find them connected with many remark
able events, and haUowed by sacred associations. The
traditions that connect them with the history of Jesus are
neither to be indiscriminately received, nor mdiscriminately
rejected. Whether a particular event did, or did not, take
place in a grotto is to be judged of according to its intrinsic
probabUity, and the amount of evidence. Whilst no unpre
judiced person will be disposed to put the site of the
Annunciation to Mary, or of the Agony, or of the Ascen
sion, in a cave, yet all recognize the cave as a fitting place
for the sepulchre. Whether a cave was, or not, the birth
place of the Lord, must be judged of by its own merits.
Thus looking upon this tradition, we find no sufficient
reason why it should be whoUy rejected. Probably there
is some measure of truth in it. It is indeed hard to believe
that the present cave, so deep down and inaccessible, could
ever have been used as a stall for cattle. Perhaps the fact
may be that this cave, in its original shape, was connected
with a house forming its rear apartment, and used as a
stable. To this house went Joseph and Mary, when they
could find no room at the inn, and when the child was born,
it was laid in the manger as the most convenient place.
Arculf, (a. d. 700,)2 describing the cave as it was in his
day, says : " At the extreme eastern angle (of the ridge)
1 Land of Promise, 246. » Early Travels, 6.

CAVE OP THE NATIVITY. 81
there is a sort of natural half-cave, the outer part of which
is said to have been the place of our Lord's birth : the inside
is called our Lord's manger. The whole of this cave
is covered within with precious marble." WUlibald (a. d.
722) says : " The place where Christ was born was once a
cave under the earth, but it is now a square house cut in
the rock, and the earth is dug up and thrown from it all
around, and a church is now built above it." Thus the
small cave that originaUy existed in the rear of the dwell
ing, and was used as a stable, has been gradually converted
into its present shape.
This view ofthe matter is defended by Thomson, (ii. 533.)
" It is not impossible, to say the least, but that the apart
ment in which our Saviour was born was in fact a cave. I
have seen many such, consisting of one or more rooms in
front of, and including a cavern where the cattle were kept.
It is my impression that the birth actually took place in an
ordinary house of some common peasant, and that the babe
was laid in one ofthe mangers, such as are still found in the
dwellings of the farmers of this region. That house may
have stood where the convent does now, and some sort of a
cave, either natural or made by digging the earth away for
building, and for the roofs of houses, may have been directly
below, or even included within its court." Elsewhere (ii..
98) he thus speaks of the manger, which he identifies with
the "crib" mentioned by Isaiah (i. 3) — "It is common,
to find two sides of the one room, where the native farmer
resides with his cattle, fitted up with these mangers, and the
remainder elevated about two feet higher for the accommo
dation ofthe family. The mangers are built of small stones
and mortar in the shape of a box, or rather of a kneading-
trough, and when cleaned up and white-washed, as they
often are in summer, they do very well to lay little babes in..
Indeed our own children have slept there in our rude sum
mer retreats on the mountains."
4*

82 THE LIPE OF OUR LORD.
We may then conclude that tradition has not in this
case erred. The site of the Lord's birthplace must long
have been remembered by the shepherds, (Luke ii 16,) and
been generaUy known in the region round. But the pres
ent condition of the cave is doubtless very unUke its
original condition. It has been greatly enlarged and deep
ened, and space made in various directions for the various
accessory grottoes and sepulchres which are now shown.
In this way aU the statements of Luke can be easily recon
ciled with the tradition. Here was the cave in the rear of
the house, and used for cattle. In a manger, as the most
ready and fitting place, the babe was laid. Hither came the
shepherds, to pay their adorations, and here probably stiU
later came the Magi. These remarkable events would not
easily pass from men's memories, and some knowledge of
the spot where they occurred could not weU have escaped:
the early disciples.
The church that now stands over the cave of the na
tivity was built by the Emperor Justinian upon the site of
that built by the Empress Helena, a. d. 330.1 Adjoining it
are the Latin, Greek, and Armenian convents, whose monks
have a common interest in it for purposes of worship. It is
now much dUapidated, though, as the oldest Christian church
in the world, it continues to possess great architectural in
terest. The cave ofthe nativity is 38 feet long by 11 wide,
and a silver star in a marble slab at the eastern end marks
the precise spot where the Lord was born. Here is the in
scription : Mic de virgine Maria Jesus Christus natus est.
Silver lamps are always burning around, and an altar stands
near, which is used in turn by the monks of the convents.
The manger in which the Lord was laid was taken to Rome
by. Pope Sixtus V. and placed in the church of St. Maria
Maggiore, but its place is supplied by a marble one. A few
Tobler's Bethlehem, 104.

THE. ANGEL AND SHEPHERDS. 83
feet opposite, an altar marks the spot where the Magi stood,
The walls are covered with silken hangings.
The usual exaggeration of tradition may be seen in the
many apocryphal sites gathered around the central one.
In adjoining grottoes are shown the chapel of Joseph and
the chapel of the Innocents, where the children murdered
by Herod were buried. A stone is also shown that marks
the spot where, in the firmament above, the star stood still
that guided the Magi in their journey. Of more interest to
the Christian scholar is the cave, now converted into a
chapel, where Jerome lived, studied, and prayed. It is
said by Stanley, (436,) that during the invasion of Ibrahim
Pasha the Arabs took possession of the convent^ and found
by the removal of the marbles, &c, with which it was en
cased, that the grotto of the nativity was an ancient sep
ulchre. If this were so, it is highly improbable that Joseph
and Mary would have entered it. But the statement needs
confirmation. That the Lord was born Very soon after their arrival at
Bethlehem, may be fairly inferred from the- fact that "there
was no room for them in the inn."

Dec,, 749. 5 b. c.
The same night upon which He was born, an Angel Luke ii; 8-20.
of the Lord appeared to some shepherds, who were keep
ing watch over their flOcks, and announced to them His
birth. Leaving their flocks, they hastened to Bethlehem
to see the child, and finding Him, returned praising God.
The bearing of the fact that the shepherds were in the
field watching their flocks, upon the date of the Lord's
birth, has been already examined.
The residence ofthe shepherds is not mentioned, nor do
we know the place where they were keeping watch. It ap
pears to have been in the vicinity of Bethlehem,, and yet some

84 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
little distance removed. There is now, a mUe or more east
from the convent, a plain in which is a little village called the
ViUage ofthe Shepherds. Not far from this village is pointed
out the field where, it is said, they were feeding their flocks,
and here is shown a grotto, called the Grotto of the Shep
herds. In this field a church was built by the Empress
Helena. In its neighborhood stood formerly a cloister, but
now only ruins of a church or cloister are to be found. It is
mentioned by Bernard, a. d. 867.1 " One mile from Beth
lehem is the monastery of the holy shepherds to whom
the angel appeared at our Lord's nativity." Tradition
makes the number of Shepherds three or four, and gives
their names.2

Jan.— Feb., 750. 4 b. c.
Upon the eighth day following His birth, the Lord was Luke ii. 21.
circumcised, and the name Jesus given Him. Forty days
after the birth, Mary presented herself with the child Luke ii. 22-38.
at the Temple in accordance with the law, and after the
presentation returned again to Bethlehem.
The order of events following Christ's birth to the time
He went to reside at Nazareth, is much disputed. The
chief point of controversy is respecting the time ofthe visit
of the Magi. If this can be determined, the other events
may be easUy arranged.
An early and current tradition placed the coming ofthe
Magi on the 6th of January, or on the 13th day after His
birth.3 This day was early celebrated as the Feast of the
Epiphany, or the manifestation of Christ, and originally had
reference to His birth, to the visit of the Magi, and to His
baptism. It is now observed both in the Greek and Roman
Churches with reference to the latter two events, of which
' Early Travels, 29. ' Hofmann, 117.
3 See Thilo, Codex Apoc, i. 885, note.

PRESENTATION OP JESUS. 85
the adoration ofthe Magi is made most prominent. This is
also the case in the English and American Episcopal
Churches. But the tradition did not command universal
assent. Eusebius and Epiphanius, reasoning from Matt.
ii. 16, put the coming of the Magi two years after His
birth. And others have thought the 6th January selected
for convenience, rather than as having any direct chrono
logical connection with the event. The apocryphal gospel
of the birth of Mary puts their coming on the forty-second
day, or after the presentation, but some copies on the
13th.1 (
If we now ask the grounds upon which, aside from this
tradition, the coming of the wise men is placed so soon
after the birth, and before the presentation in the Temple,
the more important are these : first, that the words tov 8e
L/crou yzwrjOevTos, " Now when Jesus was born," (Matt. ii. 1,)
imply that the one event speedUy followed the other, the
participle being in the aorist and not in the perfect ; second,
that directly after the presentation Jesus went with His
parents to Nazareth, (Luke ii. 39,) and that therefore the
presentation must have been preceded by their visit ; third,
that at the coming of the Magi Herod first heard of the birth
of Jesus, but if the presentation at the Temple had pre
viously taken place, he must have heard of it, as it had
been made public by Anna, (Luke ii. 38.) But none of these
reasons is decisive. There is nothing, as asserted, in the use
of yewTnOevTos, " now when Jesus was born," that proves that
they came so soon as He was born, or that an interval of two
months may not have elapsed.2 The opinion of many of
the fathers that they found Him stiUin the manger, or stall,
in spelunca ilia qua natus est, may be true, if the manger
was in a cave in the rear of the house. (See Matt. ii. 11.)
The statement of Luke, that " when they had performed
- Hofmann, 126. ' See Gal. iv. 29, and Meyer, in loco.

86 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned
into Gahlee, to their own city Nazareth," has often been
interpreted as affirming that they went directly from
the temple to Nazareth without any return to Bethle
hem.1 But this interpretation is arbitrary. It is apparent
that Luke .does not design to give a fuU history of Christ's
infancy. He says nothing ofthe Magi, ofthe murder ofthe
children, of the flight into Egypt. Whatever may have
been the motive of this omission, which Alford, in common
with many German critics, ascribes to ignorance, nothing can
be inferred from it to the impugning of Matthew's accuracy.
His statement respecting the return to Galilee is general,
and does not imply any strict chronological connection.
Elsewhere in Luke like instances occur, as in iv. 14, where
Jesus is said to have " returned in the power of the Spirit
into Gahlee.," whence it would appear that this return fol
lowed immediately upon the temptation ; yet we know that
an interval of several months must have elapsed. It is the
fact that His childhood was passed at Nazareth, which Luke
brings prominently forward, not the precise time when He
went thither, which was unimportant. It is not inconsistent
with his language that Jesus should have returned to Beth
lehem from the Temple, an afternoon walk of two hours,
and have gone thence to Nazareth by way of Egypt,
though had we this gospel alone, we could not infer this.
Besides, it is apparent from Matthew's narrative (ii. 22-3)
that Joseph did not design upon his return from Egypt to
go to Galilee, and went thither only by express divine di
rection. Plainly he looked upon Bethlehem, not Nazareth,
as the proper home of the child who should be the heir
of David.2 And finally the fact that Anna " spoke of Him
to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem " by
no means shows that her words came to the ears of Herod.
1 So early, Chrysostom; and now, A. Clarke and Meyer.
3 See Wieseler, 154.

PRESENTATION OP JESUS. 87
The number of those who shared the faith of Simeon and
Anna was doubtless few, and the birth of Jesus was not
an event that they would blazon abroad before the Phari
sees and Herod.
Those who thus place the visit of the Magi before the
purification of Mary and the presentation of Jesus, are by
no means agreed as to the time of the latter events. If the
visit of the Magi was on the thirteenth day after His birth,
and the murder ofthe children and the flight into Egypt
took place immediately after, the purification must have been
delayed tiU the return, and so in any event after the legal
time on the fortieth day.1 To avoid this, some suppose
that, although the suspicions of Herod had been aroused by
the inquiries of the Magi, yet he took no active measures
for the destruction of the child, till the rumor of what had
taken place at the Temple at the time of the presentation
(Luke ii. 27-38) reaching his ears, stirred him up to give
immediate order for the murder of the children.2 Others
still, making the departure to Nazareth to have immediately
foUowed the purification, are compeUed to make Nazareth,
not Bethlehem, the starting point of the flight into Egypt.3
The obvious difficulties connected with this traditional
view of the coming of the wise men on the thirteenth day
after the Lord's birth, have led most in modern times to put
it after the purification on the fortieth day. Some, who hold
that Jesus went immediately after that event to Nazareth,
suppose that after a short sojourn there He returned to
Bethlehem, and there was found by the wise men.4 But
most who put the purification upon the fortieth day, make
the visit ofthe Magi to have shortly followed, and prior to
any departure to Nazareth.6 And this order seems best to
harmonize the scripture narratives. The language of Luke
> Friedlieb, Bucher. » Augustine, Sepp, Alford. 3 Maldonati.
* Epiphanius, and now Jarvis, and Patritius.
» Robinson, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Lichtenstein.

88 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
ii. 22, compared with v. 21, plainly intimates that as the
circumcision took place on the eighth, or legal day, so did
the presentation on the fortieth. TiU this day, the mother
was regarded as unclean, and was to abide at home, and it
is therefore very improbable that the adoration of the Magi,
and especially the flight into Egypt, should have previously
taken place. Doubtless, in case of necessity, all the legal
requisitions could have been set aside, but this necessity is
not proved in this case to have existed. That the purifica
tion was after the return from Egypt, is inconsistent with
Matthew's statements, (ii. 22), that after Joseph had heard
that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, he was afraid to go
thither. If, then, he dare not even enter the king's territory,
how much less would he dare to go to Jerusalem, and enter
publicly into the temple. The conjecture of some,1 that
Archelaus was then absent at Rome, is whoUy without
historic proof.
That Matthew puts the flight into Egypt in immediate
connection with the departure ofthe Magi, (ii. 13.) is plain.2
No interval could have elapsed after their departure, for
it is said, v. 14, that he " took the young child and His
mother by night, and departed into Egypt." He went so
soon as the angel appeared to him, apparently the same
night. We cannot then place the history of the purifica
tion after their departure, and before the flight into Egypt,
as is done by Calvin and many. Nor could Herod, after
his jealousy had been aroused by the inquiries of the Magi
after the new-born King of the Jews, have waited quietly
several weeks tiU the events at the purification awakened
his attention anew. He doubtless acted here with that
decision that characterized aU his movements, and seeing
» So Hug.
' Alford. Ellicott says : " Probably on the same night that the Magi
arrived." Prom the fact that they "were warned of God in a dream,"
it may, however, be inferred that the dream of Joseph was the night fol
lowing.

COMING OF THE MAGI. 89
himself mocked by the wise men, took instant measures for
the destruction ofthe child.
The fact that Mary offered the offering of the poor,
(Luke ii. 24,) may be mentioned as incidentaUy confirming
this view ; for if she had received previously the gifts of the
Magi, particularly the gold, we may suppose that she would
have used it to provide a better offering.1
We thus trace a threefold adoration of Christ : 1st,
that of the shepherds ; 2d, that of Simeon and Anna ; 3d,
that of the Magi; or a twofold adoration of the Jews, and
then the adoration of the heathen.

Feb., 750. 4 b. c.
Soon after the presentation, came the wise men from Matt. ii. 1-12.
the East to worship the new-bom King of the Jews.
This visit excited the suspicions of Herod, who made
diligent inquiries of them, but being warned of God in a
dream that they should not return to him, they departed
to their own country another way.
The time ofthe appearing ofthe star which led the Magi
to seek Jesus, has been already considered ; and in the pre
ceding note the reasons have been given why their coming
should be placed after the purification on the 40th day.
It is not said whence the Magi came, except cra-o avaro-
\w, " from the east." In this phrase Arabia may be in
cluded, though lying rather to the south than east of Judea ;
but its more probable reference is to the regions beyond
the Euphrates. Whether however of these, Persia, or
Chaldea, or Parthia, may be meant, we have no data to
determine. Some have preferred Persia, because this was
the home of the Magian religion ; others Arabia, because
the gifts given were native to that country, and it was
1 The whole subject ofthe coming ofthe Magi is elaborately discussed by
Patritius, iii. 326 aud 340.

QO THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
¦near to Judea, and also because of the prediction of the
Psalmist, (lxxii. 10,) that the kings of Seba and Sheba
should offer gifts.
According to Rawlinson,1 Magism was not the primitive
rehgion of the Persians, but was received among them
from the Scyths. Its chief feature was worship of the
elements. The Magi, distinctively so caUed, were a tribe
ofthe Medes, to whom were intrusted aU the priestly func
tions connected with the practice of that rehgion, holding
a relation to the other tribes similar to that of the tribe
of Levi to the Jews. They were astrologers, and inter
preters of dreams. The name, at first one of honor, lost in
later times its significance, and was applied to aU who made
pretensions to supernatural knowledge, the itinerant con
jurors, wizards, jugglers, often spoken of by the Roman
writers, and mentioned by Josephus and Luke.3
That these astrologers may have had some knowledge of
Balaam's prophecy of a star out of Jacob, (Num. xxiv. 17,)
is not impossible.3 Of the prophecies of Daniel, from the
peculiar relation in which he stood to the wise men of
Babylon, they could scarcely have been ignorant. That a
general expectation pervaded the East that a king should
arise in Judea to rule the world, seems well authenticated.4
At least there were great multitudes of Jews in the East,
and their Messianic hopes could hardly faU to come to the
knowledge ofthe Magi. According to Ellicott," it is most
probable that they had learned of " prophecies uttered in
their own country, dimly foreshadowing this divine mys-
1 Herodotus, i. Essay v.
» See Trench, Star of the Wise Men. It is singular that Lightfoot should
insist that it is used here, as well as elsewhere in the Scripture, in its bad
sense. a See, however, Kurtz, Gesch. des Alt. Bund., 492.
' Suetonius, Vesp., c. iv. ; Tacitus, v. 18. It is," however, asserted by
Giesseler, that both these historians copied Josephus. Neander speaks
doubtingly. , 72> note h

COMING OF THE MAGI. SI
tery." Some suppose these wise men to have been them
selves Jews, but their question, " Where is he that is born
King of the J ews ? " plainly implies that they were not of that
people. Aside, then, from any immediate supernatural reve
lation to them, we may infer that they were in a position
to interpret the appearing of the star as connected with the
fulfilment of Jewish prophecies respecting the Messiah, and
thus could speak of it as " His star." StUl there is good
reason to believe that they were taught of God by special
revelation the meaning of the things they saw.
Of the supernatural character of this star we have
already spoken. The part it plays in guiding the wise men
on their way, its appearing and disappearing and reappear
ing, cannot well be explained by a reference to the conjunc
tions of planets, or to the ordinary movements of the stars.
It has well been said by one : Praiter iUam steUw speciem
qua) corporeum incitavitobtutum,fulgentior veritatis radius
eorum corda perdocuit. And Augustine caUs the star mag-
nifica lingua coeli.
Many traditions have been current in the Church re
specting these Magi.1 They were said to be three in num
ber ; they were kings, one of Arabia, one of Godolia or
Saba, and one of Tharsis : their names Melchior, Balthasar,
Caspar; they were baptized by St. Thomas, their bones
were gathered by St. Helena and buried at St. Sophia in
Constantinople, and were finally removed to Cologne, where
they now lie.*
If the Magi came from beyond the Euphrates, they
probably came by way of Damascus and thence to Jerusa
lem. In returning, they may have gone south ofthe Dead
Sea to Petra, and thence have crossed the Euphrates.
1 Hofmann, 120.
s Hildesheim, die Legende von den heiligen drei Konigen, Hertzog Encyc,
ii. 503. For a full discussion of all these traditions, see Spanheim, Dubia
Evangelica, ii. 271, and Patritius, iii. 318.

92 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.

Feb. — Mat. 750. 4 b. c.
Immediately after their departure, Joseph, warned by MATT.ii. 13-15.
God in a dream, takes Mary and Jesus and goes down
into Egypt. Herod, so soon as he finds himself mocked Matt. ii. 16-18.
by the wise men, gives orders that all the children in
Bethlehem of two years and under be slain. Joseph
with Mary and Jesus remains in Egypt till he hears through Matt. ii. 19-23.
an angelic messenger of Herod's death.' He designs to re
turn to Judea, but is directed by God to go to Nazareth, Luke ii. 39-40.
where the Lord remains during His childhood and youth.
The time of the sojourn in Egypt was not probably of
long duration, although extended by some of the early
writers to several years. In the Gospel of the Infancy it
is stated at three years ; in the History of Joseph at one
year ; in Tatian's Harmony at seven years ; by Epiphanius
at two years. Athanasius makes Jesus four years old when
He came from Egypt ; Baronius eight years. In modern
times those who put the Lord's birth one or more years
before Herod's death, prolong correspondingly the sojourn
in Egypt, some one, some two, some three years.1 But
if his birth be placed late in 749, as we place it, His return
from Egypt must have been in the early summer of 150.
Lardner, (i. 358,) after Kepler, has attempted to show from
the expression of the angel, (Matt. ii. 20,) " they are dead
that sought the young child's life," that Antipater was in
cluded with Herod, and as he had been at enmity with his
father for near a year, that the attempt upon His life, and
the murder ofthe Innocents must have been so long before
Herod?s death. But this is doing violence to the expression.'
Joseph was to remain in Egypt till God should send
him word, and this word was sent apparently so soon as
Herod died. Considering how numerous were the Jews in
'- Patritius, Sepp, Jarvis. ' See Trench, Star, 107 ; Meyer in loco.

JESUS IN EGYPT. 93
Egypt, and the constant communication between the two
countries, the news of Herod's death must soon have
reached him in the ordinary way ; but it was first made
known to him by the angel, and no long interval, therefore,
could have elapsed. Thathe made no delay but hastened
his return, is imphed in the fact that he did not know that
Archelaus was Herod's successor tUl he came to the land of
Israel. We infer, then, that the return was in the summer
of 750, after a sojourn of three or four months.1
Tradition marks out the route which Joseph to6k into
Egypt to have been by way of Hebron, Gaza, and the
desert ; which, as the most direct way, is very likely the
true one. At Hebron is stUl pointed out upon a hUl the
spot where the family rested at night, and a simUar one at
Gaza. Probably near a fortnight was occupied in the
journey. The place of their sojourn in Egypt was the
village Metariyeh, not far from the city of Heliopolis on
the way toward Cairo. An old sycamore is stiU shown
as that under which they rested in their journey.3 It is
probable that many Jews dwelt at this time in the neigh
borhood of Heliopolis, which may explain the choice of a
vUlage in its vicinity as their place of refuge. Another
tradition, however, makes them to have left Metariyeh, and
to have dwelt at Memphis.2 The temple built by Onias
about 150 b.c. at Leontopolis stiU continued to be a much
frequented place of worship to the Egyptian Jews, of
whom Lightfoot says, "there was an infinite number at
this time."
1 According to Greswell, 7 months ; to Lichtenstein, 4-5 weeks ; to Wiese
ler and Ellicott, 2-3 weeks. Patritius, iii. 403, argues that the return was
during the little interval when Archelaus ruled as king, or from the death of
his father to his departure to Rome, whither he went to obtain the confirma
tion of Herod's will. This would make it to have been early in April, 750.
It may, however, be doubted whether the expression of Matthew, ii. 22, that
• " Archelaus did reign," is not pressed too far.
' Kitto, Life of Christ, 139. 3 Thilo, Codex Apoc, 93

94 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
From the nearness of Bethlehem to Jerusalem, Herod
doubtless learned very early after the departure of the
Magi that they had deceived him, and that through them
he could not discover the new-born child. But as he had
already diligently inquired of them what time the star ap
peared^ he thought to accomplish his purpose by ordering
that all the male children from two years old and under, in
Bethlehem and its environs, should be put to death. The
truth of the narrative has been often questioned, and on
various grounds. The only important objection, however,
is that springing from the silence of Josephus, who* it is
said, must have mentioned an event so pecuhar and cruel.1
The common answer to this, that among the many insane
and fiendish acts of cruelty that marked the last days of
Herod, this might be easily overlooked, is amply sufficient.'
The expression, " from two years old and under," is am
biguous. According to Campbell, " Only those beginning
the second: year are included.'" GresweU also Umits it to
the age of thirteen months. If it be thus confined, the
number of the children murdered is much diminished.
But under any circumstances it could not have been large.
Sepp, supposing the whole number of inhabitants of Beth
lehem and its coasts to be 5,000, would make the male
children of this age about ninety ; but this is a large esti
mate. Townsend, making' the inhabitants to be 2,000,
makes 50 children to have been slain. Some would reduce
the number to ten or fifteen.3 Voltaire, after an old Greek
tradition, would make it 14,000. In peaceful times, such
an act as this, even if executed as this probably was, in
secrecy, would have excited general indignation when it
became known ; but now the Jewish people had so long
"supped with horrors," and were so engrossed in the many
perils that threatened their national existence, that this
» Meyer in loco. '¦ Winer, i, 483. * Winer, i. 483 ; Morrison.

MURDER OP THE INNOCENTS. 95
passed by comparatively unnoticed. Such a deed — from a
man, of whom Josephus says, that " he was brutish and a
Stranger to all humanity," who had murdered his wife and
his own chUdren, and wbo wished in his dying rage to de
stroy aU the chief men of his kingdom, that there might be
a. general mourning at his funeral — could have awakened no
surprise.. It was wholly in keeping with his reckless and
savage character ; but one, and by no means the greatest
of his crimes. It is therefore possible that it may never
have come to the knowledge of the Jewish historian, writing
so many years after the event.
If, however, Josephus was aware of this atrocity, it by
no means foUows that he would have' mentioned it. With
the reasons for his sUence we are not particularly con
cerned. It may be, as some say,1 that he purposely avoided
every thing that drew attention to the Messianic hopes of
his people ; or, as others,2 that " he could not mention it
without giving the Christian cause a great advantage."
But whatever his motives, his sUence cannot invalidate the
statement of Matthew, except with those who will not
credit an Evangelist unless corroborated by some Jewish
or heathen author.
There are some3 who think that the sedition of Judas
and Matthias4 occurred at this very time, and was con
nected with the visit of the Magi. The inquiries of these
strangers for the King of the Jews, aroused into immediate
activity the fiery zealots, and a report of the king's
death finding credence,, they attacked at noon day the
golden eagle he had placed over the temple gate. About
40 of them being arrested were burned with fire. Ex
asperated at this bold sedition, and aware of the cause, the
king gave orders for the slaughter of the children at Beth
lehem. Of these two acts of this tragedy, Matthew relates ¦
¦ Lichtenstein, 97: * Eardner, i. 351. s So Eardner, i. 348.
* Josephus, Antiq. 16. 6. 3 and 4.

96 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
only that with which he was concerned, that which took
place at Bethlehem ; and Josephus that which concerned
the general history of affairs. The silence of the one is no
disproof of the other.
The objection of Hase and Meyer, that this murder of
the children was both superfluous and unwise, may be very
true, but does not affect the historic truth of the event.
The silence of heathen historians respecting it is wholly
unimportant. Judea did not hold so high a place in their
estimation that they should trouble themselves about its
internal history, so little intelligible to a stranger. Herod's
name is occasionally mentioned by them in connection with
Roman matters, and there is in one a brief allusion to the
trial and death of his sons, but nothing more. The well-
known jest of Augustus, preserved by Macrobius,1 might
be cited if it could be shown that he had borrowed nothing
from Christian sources. He says : " When Augustus had
heard that among the chUdren under two years old, intra
bimaturn, which Herod had commanded to be slain in
Syria, his own son had been killed, he said it is better to
be Herod's swine than his son." The expression, "two
years old," points too directly to Matthew to allow us to
suppose that it had an independent origin, although the
words of Augustus may be literally given. Most agree
that it is of no historical value.2
It would be strange indeed that while oriental history is
full of such deeds of cruelty, which are believed upon the
authority of a single writer, the statement of the Evangelist
should be disbelieved, though confirmed by aU that we
know ofthe character ofthe chief actor, and ofthe history
of the times. A hke rule applied to general history would
leave not a few of its pages empty.
' Sat., ii. 2.
' So Lardner, Meyer, Trench, Alford. See, however. Mill, 294; Ellicott,
78, note 2.

RETURN FROM EGYPT. 97
When directed to go into Egypt, Joseph was not told
to what place he should return, (Matt. ii. 13,) nor after
ward, when directed to return, was the place designated,
(v. 20.) It is plain, however, that he did not design to re
turn to Nazareth. He evidently regarded Bethlehem, the
city of David, the proper place in which to rear the son of
David. The province of Gahlee was politically of little
weight, and ecclesiastically it was despised ; and Nazareth
was one of its most inconsiderable vUlages, to say nothing
of the bad name it seems to have borne. He naturally
supposed that He who was of the tribe of Judah should
dweU in the land of Judah, the most religious, most sacred
part of Palestine ; and, as the promised Messiah, should be
brought as near as possible to the theocratic centre, where
He might have frequent intercourse with the priests and
rabbins, and be educated under the very shadow ofthe
temple. Only through a special command of God, was he
led to return with Jesus to Galilee ; and that he made his
abode in the obscure vale of Nazareth, can only be explain
ed by the fact, of which Matthew is wholly sUent, that this
had been his earlier residence as related by Luke.
How diverse the opinions of harmonists have been, in
regard to the order of events of the Lord's infancy, will
appear by a comparison of their several arrangements. We
give such as best present this diversity: Epiphanius..
Birth. Circumcision on 8th day. Presentation on 40th.
Departure to Nazareth and sojourn there two years. Re
turn to Bethlehem. Coming of Magi. Flight to Egypt
and sojourn there three years. Return to Galilee. Light
foot. Birth. Circumcision on 8th day. Presentation, 40th
day. Return to Bethlehem and sojourn there till two years
of age. Coming of Magi. Flight into Egypt and sojourn
there three or four months. Return to Gahlee. Chem-
nittus. Birth. Circumcision on 8th day. Coming of Magi
just before the Presentation. Presentation on 40th day.
5

98 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
Flight into Egypt and sojourn there four years. Return to
Galilee. Sepp. Birth. Circumcision on 8th day. Coming
of Magi, 13th day. Presentation, 40th day. FUght into
Egypt and sojourn there two years. Return to Gahlee.
Friedlieb. Birth. Circumcision on 8th day. Coming
of Magi on 13th. Flight into Egypt and sojourn there
three or four months. Return to Judea. Presentation.
Departure to Nazareth. Wieseler. Birth. Circumcision
on 8 th day. Presentation on 40th. Coming of Magi.
Flight into Egypt and sojourn there two or three weeks.
Return to GalUee.
In the village of Nazareth the Lord spent the larger
part of his earthly life, and it therefore deserves our spe
cial notice. His residence here being brought by Matthew
into direct connection with the Old Testament prophecy,
the etymology of the name has been much discussed.1 By
many it is derived from Netser, the Hebrew for sprout, or
twig, either because of so many thickets upon the adjoining
hiUs, or because the village itself was smaU and feeble, like
a tender twig.2 So Jesus is called (Isaiah xi. 1) a Branch.
Others derive it from Notser, that which guards or keeps ;
hence Nazareth, the protecting city.3 Others still derive
it from Nezer, to separate.4 Jerome interpreted it as
meaning a flower. Ibimus ad Nazareth, et juxta interpre-
tationem nominis ejus, florem videbimus Galilai ; refer
ring, as would appear from his language elsewhere, to
Jesus as the Branch, or Flower from the roots of Jesse. It
is noticeable that travellers speak of the great quantity of
flowers now seen there.5 The present name in Arabic is En
Nasirah. Nazareth lies in a small valley a little north ofthe great
> See Meyer in loco. ¦ Winer, ii. 142; Hengst, Christology, ii. 109.
• 3 See Riggenbach, Stud. u. Krit, 1855.
* Lightfoot and Bengel in loco.
6 Stanley, 359. The subject is discussed by Mill, 335.

NAZARETH. 99
plain of Esdraelon, from which it is reached by very rocky
and precipitous paths. Its elevation above the plain is
estimated to be from 300 to 350 feet. Bonar(398) speaks
ofthe main road " as little better than a succession of rocky
slopes or ledges, rugged with holes and stones. Vet this
Was the old road to Nazareth. There could be no other
from this side, so that one traveUing from the south must
have taken it." The valley runs northeast and southwest,
and is about a mile long and a quarter of a mile broad.
Around it rise many small hiUs of no great height, the
highest being on tbe west or southwest. They are of
limestone, and give to the scenery a grayish tint, and are
covered thickly with shrubs and trees. " The white rocks
all around Nazareth give it a peculiar aspect. It appears
dry and tame, and this effect is increased by the trees being
powdered over with dust during the summer season. The
heat was very great, and the gleam from the rocks painful
to the eye."1 "The upper ridges of the hUls were, as is
usual in this worn-out land, gray and bare, but the lower
slopes and dells and hollows were green, sprinkled not
scantily with the olive, the fig, the prickly peaiy and the
karub ; while in the gardens the usual oriental fruit trees
showed themselves." 2
The village itself lies on the western side of the valley
upon the side of the hill. The houses are in general of
stone, ahd more substantiaUy built than most of the towns
Of the region, and from their whiteness it has been called
the white city ; 3 the streets or lanes are, however, narrow
and filthy. Porter (ii. 359) speaks of it " as buUt on the side
ofthe highest hill ; on the north the side ofthe hiU is steep,
and where it joins the plain is seamed by three or four ra
vines, and on the lower declivities ofthe ridges between them
stands the village of Nazareth. This therefore is ' the hill
1 Mission of Inquiry, 306. - Bonar. a See Schwartz, 178.

100 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
whereon the city was bunt,' (Luke iv. 29.) The houses in
some places seem to cling to the sides of the precipices, in
others they nestle in glens, and in others again they stand
boldly out overlooking the vaUey." The present number
of inhabitants is variously estimated : by Robinson at 3,000,
by Porter at 4,000, by Lynch, 5,000, by others much
less. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor
by Josephus, from which we may conclude that it was a
place of no importance. Although so intimately connected
with the life of Jesus, and therefore so prominent in the
Gospels, it is not mentioned by any Christian writer prior
to Eusebius in the 4th century, nor does it seem to have
been visited by pugrims tiU the sixth.1 After this time it
became one of the most famous among the holy places. In
the 7th century two churches are mentioned, one on the
site of Joseph's house, and the other on the site of the
house where Gabriel appeared to Mary.2 During the Cru
sades it was made the seat of a bishopric. It was destroyed
about A. d. 1200, by the Saracens, and for 300 or 400 years
seems to have been inhabited chiefly by Mohammedans,
and very little visited by pUgrims.3 One of the churches
was rebuUt in 1620 by the Franciscans, who added to it a
cloister. Nazareth was for some time, and is now, the
seat of a Greek titular bishop.
AU travellers agree in praising the extent and beauty
of the prospect from the top of the hUl northwest of
Nazareth. It is surmounted by the tomb of a Mohamme
dan saint, and is about 400 or 500 feet above the valley.4
To the north is seen the wide plain of el Buttauf, running
from east to west, having Cana of GaKlee upon its northern,
' Kobinson, ii. 341. a Arculf, Early Travels, 9.
a Early Travels, 46 and 298.
4 So Robinson, ii. 333, note. Schubert makes it 700 or 800 feet above
Nazareth.

NAZARETH. 101
and Sepphoris upon its southern border, and beyond it rise
in parallel ridges the hills, one behind another, to the heights
ofSafeds To the northeast Hermon is. seen, and eastward
the ranges of Bashan beyond the Sea of Gahlee, whUst
Tabor lies between it and the sea. To the southeast
stretch Little Hermon and Gilboa in parallel lines. On the
south lies the great plain of Esdraelon, bounded southward
by the hills of Samaria and the long line of Carmel. Over
the broken ridges that join Carmel to Samaria, is seen the
Mediterranean far to the southwest, and the eye following
the summits westward reaches the high promontory where
Carmel ends upon the shore ; from this point is seen the
unbroken expanse of water many mfles to the north. This
view is said by Porter (ii. 263) to be the richest, and per
haps also the most extensive, which one gets in all Pales
tine, and to surpass that from Tabor.1
That Nazareth, from some cause, had at the time when
the Lqrd resided in it an evil name, appears plainly from
John i. 46.2 The objection of Nathanael was not merely
that it was in GalUee, and that the Messiah could not come
out of Galilee, (John vii. 41,) but he refers specially to
Nazareth. Nor was it that it was a little vihage, for so
was Bethlehem. The obvious import is, that Nazareth
was in Ul-repute throughout the province, and of this Na
thanael, who was from Cana but a little way distant, was
weU aware. This is confirmed by the revengeful and cruel
treatment of the Lord when he first preached to the in
habitants, (Luke iv. 28, 29.)

April 8, 761. a. d. 8.
From Nazareth, at the age of twelve, the Lord goes up Luke ii. 41-52.
for the first time to Jerusalem to keep the Passover. After
the expiration of the feast He remained behind to converse
1 See Kobinson, ii. 336 ; Stanley, 357. » See Kitto, Life of Christ, 27.

'102 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
with the doctors, and was found in the temple three days Luke ii. 41-52.
after by His parents. Returning to Nazareth, He dwelt
there in retirement till the time came that He should enter
upon His public work.
Supposing the Lord to have been born in seven hundred
and forty-nine, the year when He went up with His parents
to the Passover was seven hundred and sixty-one, and the
feast began on the 8th April. His presence at the Passover
at the age of twelve, was in accordance with Jewish custom.
At that age the Jewish boys began to be instructed in the
law, to be subject to the fasts, and to attend regularly the
feasts, and were caUed the sons of the Law.1 This, however,
is caUed in question by Greswell, (i. 396,) who asserts that
boys did not become subject to ordinances, till they had
reached the age of fourteen years, and that the purpose
for which Jesus was now taken up was not to celebrate the
Passover, but to be " made a disciple of the Law, and to
undergo a ceremony, something like to our confirmation."
He sees in this the explanation ofthe Lord's presence in the
midst ofthe doctors. It is not probable that up to this time
Jesus had accompanied His parents to Jerusalem to any of
the festivals. Of all that passed between Him and the Rab
bis, a full account may be found in the Apocryphal Gospel
of the Infancy.2 It needs no proof that on this occasion
He was not taking upon Himself the part of a teacher, nor
asking questions for disputation, but was seeking to learn
the truth from those who were appointed of God to be the
teachers ofthe Law. Where He was sitting with the doc
tors is uncertain. Lightfoot, (in loco,) after discussing the
point, says : " There is nothing absurd in it if we should sup
pose Christ gotten into the very Sanhedrim itself. Thither
Joseph and His mother might come, and seeking Him,
might find Him on the benches ofthe fathers of the coun-
» Meyer in loco ; Sepp, ii. 172. ' See Hofmann, 259.

JESUS WITH THE DOCTORS. 103
cil for that time, they having found Him so capable both
to propound questions and answer them."
The three days that elapsed before His parents found
Jesus, may be thus computed: thefirst,that of their departure
from Jerusalem ; second, the day of their return ; third, the
day when He was found : or, if we exclude the day of de
parture — first, the day of their return ; second, the day of
search in Jerusalem; third, the day when He was found.
Some, with much less probability, count three days from the
day of their return. That He might very easily be separated
from them without any culpable carelessness on their part,
appears from the great multitudes that were present, and the
confusion that would necessarily prevail at such a time.
Tradition makes Beer or El Bireh to have been the place
where His parents spent the first night, and where they
missed their son. " The place where Christ was first missed
by His parents is commonly shown at this day to travel
lers, by the name of Beer, but ten miles from the city." '
As is well known, the first day's journey of a company of
eastern travellers is always short. " On that day it is not
customary to go more than six or eight miles, and the tents
are pitched for the first night's encampment, almost within
sight of the place from which the journey commences." 2
. That, leaving Jerusalem in the afternoon with the crowd of
Galilean pUgrims, Mary and Joseph should have lost sight
of Jesus for three or four hours, and yet not have felt any
alarm, supposing Him to have been somewhere in the com
pany, presents no difficulty.8
How the eighteen years of the Lord's life passed at
Nazareth were spent, we have no means of determining.
The Evangelists have maintained upon this point entire
sUence. It is most probable that He was taught His father
1 Lightfoot. " Hackett, Scrip. 111., 12.
3 As-to the more distinguished Rabbis whom the Lord may have met at
this time, see Sepp, ii. 178.

104 THE LIPE OP OUR LORD.
Joseph's trade, according to the settled custom of the Jews
to bring up their sons to some trade or art.1 This is very
plainly taught in the question of the inhabitants of Nazareth,
" Is not this the carpenter ? " which, as Alford remarks,
" signifies that the Lord had actually worked at the trade
of His reputed father." Justin Martyr (100-150 a. d.)
says that " Christ being regarded as a worker in wood, did
make, whUe among men, ploughs and yokes, thus setting
before them symbols of righteousness, and teaching an
active life." 2 That this was His occupation seems to have
been generally believed by the early fathers. Some in
later times, thinking bodily labor derogatory to Him, made
this time of retirement at Nazareth to have been spent in
contemplation and prayer. The traditions that He made a
journey to Persia to visit the Magi, or to Egypt to visit
her sages, need no notice.3
It is an interesting inquiry, and one that may properly
be considered here, Who constituted the household of Joseph
and Mary at Nazareth ? Was Jesus the only child in the
family circle, or were there other children ? and if there
were, others, in what relation did they stand to Him ?
Reference is several times made by the Evangelists to His
brothers and sisters. (Matt. xii. 46-50 ; xiii. 55, 56 ; Mark
in. 31 ; vi. 3 ; Luke viii. 19 ; John ii. 12 ; vii. 3 ; Acts i. 14.)
St. Paul refers to " the brethren ofthe Lord," (1 Cor. ix. 5 ;)
and calls James " the Lord's brother," (Gal. i. 1 9.) Who are
these ? The answer to this question is confessedly one of
the most difficult that meets us in the whole range of our
inquiries. It has been in dispute from very early times,
and opinions are as much at variance now as ever. All that
can be attempted here is to set the matter in its most im
portant bearings fairly before the reader.
Let us first sum up what we know from the New Testa-
1 See Lightfoot on Mark vi. S. " See contra Mosheim, Com., i. 85.
3 See Hofmann, 264.

THE LORD'S brethren. 105
I
ment of these brothers and sisters ofthe Lord. The names
of the former are given by Matthew xiii. 55, and by Mark
vi. 3, as James, Joses, Simon, and Judas.1 Both Evangehsts
mention His sisters, but neither their number nor names are
given. From the language of the Nazarenes, (Matt. xiii.
56,) "His sisters, are they not all with us?" there must
have been at least two, who were probably married and
resident at Nazareth. His brethren are spoken of as going
with him to Capernaum, (John ii. 12,) and afterward ap
pear in company with His mother again in the same city,
(Matt. xii. 46 ; see also John vii. 3-10.)
In all these references to the Lord's brethren, several
things are noticeable : first, that they are always called
brothers and sisters, aSeXcpot and a8eA<pat, not cousins or
kinsmen, avefioi or o-uyyeras ; second, that they are called
always His brothers and His sisters, not sons or daughters
of Mary ; third, that they always appear in connection with
Mary, as if her children and under her direction.
We may thus classify the various theories respecting
them : First, that which makes them to have been the
chUdren of Joseph by a former marriage, or by adoption,
and so Christ's brothers and sisters. Second, that which
makes them to have been children of a sister of His mother,
and so His cousins-german. Some make them His cousins
by His father's as well as His mother's side. Third, that
which makes them to have been His own brothers and
sisters, the children of Joseph and Mary. Each of these
theories wUl be briefly examined.
First, that they were chUdren of Joseph by a former
marriage or by adoption. That Joseph at the time of his
marriage to Mary was a widower, is often and expressly
said in the Apocryphal Gospels. In the " History of Jo-
1 Tischendorf has in Matthew Joseph for Joses ; in Mark Iwotjtos : so
Alford. As to the bearing of this diversity of readings, see Wieseler, Stud. u.
Krit, 1842, p. 75. 5*

106 THE life of our lord.
seph," ch. ii., the names of his children by his first wife are
given : Judas, Justus, Jacobus, and Simon ; Assia and
Lydia. In the " Gospel of James," ch. ix., Joseph says, " I
am an old man, and I have sons." According to Hofmann,1
it is generally agreed that he had but four sons, but their
names are variously given. There is no general agreement
as to the names, or number of the daughters.2 It is said
by Thiersch3 that this was the only tradition respecting the
parentage of these brothers and sisters of the Lord that
existed during the second and third centuries, and was the
ruling one till the time of Jerome. This father, writing
against Helvidius, first gave currency to the view that they
were cousins of the Lord, and hence is called by Baronius
fortissimus adstipulator, vel potius auctor of this the
ory.4 The object of Jerome, in denying that they were
the children of Joseph, was to exalt celibacy. Not only
had Mary continued all her married life a virgin, but Joseph
also ; and hence his former marriage must be denied, and
another parentage given his reputed children. In the Latin
Church the view of Jerome, supported by Augustine, be
came, and continues to be, the ruling one; but in the
Greek Church, the old tradition still continues current.6
This theory, that makes them the chUdren of Joseph by
a former marriage, has, in itself, nothing intrinsicaUy im
probable ; though regarded by some as a mere fiction,
devised to save Mary's virginity.8 If Joseph had had chil
dren by an earlier wife, these would properly be the Lord's
brothers and sisters, and their presence with His mother
would be readily explained. That they are not called Jo
seph's children, might be accounted for by his death before
they appear in the gospel narrative. But there are still
very weighty objections. If chUdren by a former marriage,
1 Leben Jesu, 4. 2 See Thilo, Codex Apoc, i. 363.
« Versuch., 361 and 431. 4 See Pearson on the Creed, art. iii.
• See Schaff, die Bruder des Herrn., SO; Hofmann, Leben Jesu, 4.
6 So Stier, Greswell.

THE lord's brethren. 107
they must have been born before Jesus, and some of
them been much older, and this seems inconsistent with
their relations to him, and their continued attendance upon
Mary. If also He was not the eldest, but youngest son of
Joseph, how could He be called the legal heir to the throne ?
Nor can it be shown that the tradition, however ancient,
was ever universally received.
There is a modification of this view, which makes the
Lord's brethren to have been the adopted children of
Joseph. Joseph had a brother, Clopas, or Alpheus,1 who
married a certain Mary, not the sister of the Lord's mother,
and had by her four sons and some daughters. Clopas
dying, Joseph took these children to his own house, and
became their father. Thus by birth they were the legal
cousins of Jesus, children of His father's brother, and now
become His brothers and sisters by their adoption. Mary,
their mother, came with them, and was an inmate of Joseph's
house, and a member of the famUy. Thus her presence at
the cross and sepulchre finds a ready explanation, (Matt.
xxvii. 5 6 and 6 1 .) As the adopted sons of Joseph they could
well be called by the Evangelists the Lord's brethren.
Still, being bound by no ties of blood to Mary, His mother,
and having a mother of their own, He could upon the cross
commend her to the care of John, who was her nephew,
the son of Salome, her sister.2 According to Lichtenstein,.
124, the two brothers, Joseph and Clopas, married two
sisters, both named Mary. Clopas dying, Joseph took his
wife Mary and her children into his family. Thus, the chil
dren were the Lord's cousins, both on His mother's and
father's side, and brothers and sisters by adoption.
This explanation, though not without its advantages,
rests upon no certain historic basis. There maybe no good
reason to question the assertion of Hegesippus,3 that Clopas
1 Eusebius, iii. 11. ' So Lange, in Herzog, vi. 409.
" In Eusebius, iii. 11.

108 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
was the brother of Joseph, though it does not appear
whether he uses the term brother strictly, or as meaning
that the two married sisters. And it may also be admitted
that Alpheus and Clopas are one and the same person. But
there is no proof of the early death of Alpheus, nor that
Joseph adopted his children ; and the absence of all allusion
in the Evangelists to Mary, the real mother of these children,
when they are collectively mentioned, is very surprising.
A tradition that makes Joseph to have married the wife
of his brother Alpheus, according to the law regulating
Levirate marriages, to raise up seed to his brother, and
that the fruit of this marriage was four sons and two
daughters, needs no confutation.1
Second, that these brothers and sisters of the Lord were
His cousins, the children of Alpheus and Mary. This view
rests upon the supposition that His mother and Mary, wife
of Alpheus, were sisters. Of this Mary we have little
knowledge. It is generally supposed that she stood in the
relation of wife to Alpheus, though some have questioned
it." She is also spoken of as mother of James the Less, and
of Joses, (Matt, xxvii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40.) Was she also
sister to Mary, mother of the Lord ? This has been gen
erally inferred from John xix. 25 : " Now there stood by
the cross of Jesus, His mother, and His mother's sister,
Mary, wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." But are three
or four persons mentioned . here ? Many maintain that
there are four, the sister of the Lord's mother being a dis
tinct person from the wife of Clopas.3 In favor of this con
struction is the fact that two sisters would otherwise have
the same name.4
i Schaff, 13 j Greswell, ii. US.
2 See John xix. 25. Mapia ri rov KAonra, which some understand to mean
daughter of Clopas. Winer, ii. 58.
3 So Meyer, Alford, Wieseler, Lange, Tischendorf, Da Costa.
« See, on the other side, Ebrard, 555, note 23 ; Stier, vii. 467 ; Olshausen
and Luthardt, in Inso.

THE lord's brethren. 109
In this uncertainty respecting the relationship of Mary,
wife of Clopas, to the Lord's mother, it cannot be positively
affirmed that her chUdren were His cousins, or relatives at
all. If, however, this be admitted, the question remains,
can these sons of Alpheus and Mary be identified with His
brothers? The names of the former were James and
Joses. Two of the latter have the same names. That
James, son of Alpheus, was an apostle is expressly said.
(Matt. x. 3, and elsewhere.) Of Joses we know nothing.1
It is affirmed that beside Joses, Alpheus and Mary had an
other son, named Jude or Judas. In the list of the apostles
as given by Luke, (vi. 16 ; Actsi. 13,) a Judas is mentioned
as standing in some relation, not defined, to a James;
IouSas Ia.Kco/3ou, Judas of James. Many suppose the frater
nal relation to be meant, as in our version, Judas brother
of James.2 Others suppose the paternal relation, Judas
son of James.3 This latter construction finds some con
firmation in the fact that Judas is not anywhere brought
into relationship to Alpheus and Mary. If the latter was
really his mother, why should not his name be mentioned
in connection with that of his brother James, both being
apostles ? She is called the mother of James and Joses,
not of James and Judas. It does not then appear at all
certain that Alpheus and Mary had more than two sons,
James and Joses, of whom the former was an apostle.
The language in the epistle of Jude, where the writer
speaks of himself as " brother of James," decides nothing
till we have learned whether he is the same person as the
apostle Judas. The inference from verse 17 that he was
not an apostle, is not conclusive.
Supposing it, however, to be shown that Jesus had
three cousins german, James, Judas, and Joses, of whom
1 Sepp, ii. 248, would identify him with Barsabas, Acts i. 23, but without
a particle of evidence.
' So Norton, Alford. 3 Meyer, Oosterzee, Ewald.

110 THE life of our lord.
the first two were apostles, can what is said of the Lord's
brethren by the Evangelists be applied to them ? That
they should be uniformly called His brothers, never His
cousins, is, as has been already observed, remarkable, but
not decisive. StiU more remarkable is it that they never
appear in connection with their own mother, but always
with His mother, as if her constant companions, (John u. 1 2 ;
Matt. xii. 46.) A stronger objection to their identity is
found in the fact that the Lord's brothers are spoken of as
not believing in Him till the end of His ministry, or per
haps, till after His resurrection, while two of the sons of
Alpheus and Mary were early called into the ranks of the
apostles. It is difficult to believe that His brethren, who
came with His mother desiring to speak with Him, (Matt.
xii. 46; Luke viii. 19,) could have been at that time apos
tles, and so His constant attendants. Their language at a
later period, as given by John, (vii. 3, 4,) when they de
sired him to go up to Jerusalem, and the express testimony
of the Evangelist, (v. 5,) for " neither did His brethren be
lieve on Him," seem most plainly to disprove their apostle
ship. Moreover, a line of distinction between His dispiples
and apostles, and His brethren, is kept up in the eyangelical
narratives, from the beginning of His ministry tUl its close,
and nowhere appears more marked than after His ascen
sion, (Acts i. 13-14.) It is also recognized by St. Paul
many years later, (1 Cor. ix. 5.)
Upon;the other hand, much stress is placed by many
upon the words of Paul, (Gal. i. 19,) "But other of the'
apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother."1
From these words it is inferred that James, the Lord's
brother, was an apostle and must have been James the son of
Alpheus, as it is agreed that James the son of Zebedee could
i See also ii. 9, where James, Cephas, and John are spoken of as pillars.
Wieseler asserts tbat the James of ch. i. is the Lord's brother, the James of
ch. ii. tbe son of Alpheus. Most, however, maintain that the same person
is meant in both.

THE LORD'S BRETHREN. Ill
not be meant. It follows that the term brother is equiv
alent to cousin, and thus that by the Lord's brethren we are
to understand His cousins, the sons of Alpheus and Mary.
The value of this argument rests upon the grammatical
construction of St. Paul's words. Does he mean to desig
nate James as an apostle, or, on the contrary, to distinguish
him from the apostles ? His language is by no means clear.
It may be read, " I saw none other of the apostles, but only
(I saw) James, the Lord's brother." ' In this way, James is
brought into direct contrast with the apostles. But the
other construction, that identifies James as an apostle, in
the stricter or wider sense, has much in its favor.2 It finds
some confirmation in Acts ix. 27, where mention is made of
" apostles," with seeming reference to Peter and James.
His apostleship appears also to be proved by the mention of
his name (ii. 9)' before those of Cephas and John, who were
undeniably the leading apostles among the Twelve, for could
such a preeminence be given to any one not an apostle ?
It is in this high position given to James, the brother
of our Lord, that we find our strongest argument for his
identification with the apostle James, the son of Alpheus.
There is little doubt that he is the same person mentioned,
(Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18,) and the author of the epistle
bearing his name. From all the Evangelists say of him, it
is plain that he was a man very conspicuous in the Church,
and of great influence and authority. This, however, is
greatly exaggerated by some, who make him the superior
of Peter.3 Some would explain the eminence ascribed to
1 See Winer, Grammatik, 557. Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit., 1842, 92, who
cites Fritzsche : alium apostolum non vidi, sed (ei pn) vidi Jacobum, fratrem
Domini. Schaff, 17 ; Thiersch, Kirchen Gesch., 80 ; Rig'genbach, 296. Com
pare Rev. xxi. 27 ; Matt. xii. 4 ; Luke iv. 26-7. Very early, Victorinus, in his
commentary, in loco, cited by Mill, 252, said : " Paul disclaims James as an
apostle, saying that he saw no other apostle beside Peter, but only James."
s See Ellicott, commentary, in loco, who refers to 1 Cor. i. 14.
3 So Fitch, The Lord's Brother, New Yqrk, 1858, who, although he denies
him to be oneof the Twelve, exalts him to the rank of a Tope, whose word is

112 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
him, and the importance attached to his opinion in all
points respecting the observance ofthe law bythe Gentiles,
to the peculiar position which he occupied as the first bish
op and head of the mother and central church at Jerusa
lem, identifying him with James the Just, of whom Eusebius
speaks, (ii. 1 and 23,) " He was the first who received the
episcopate ofthe church at Jerusalem." It is not, then, ne
cessary to suppose him to have been an apostle, or to have
exercised any special apostolic functions, in order to ex
plain why he should be placed upop an apparent equality
with the apostles. As the Lord's brother, a more than or
dinary degree of respect would naturally be paid him, and
to him, when alone, Jesus appeared after His resurrection,
as he had done to Peter, (1 Cor. xv. 7.) Rigidly observant
himself of the law, and a strenuous defender of the Mosaic
institutions, his counsels had great weight when the rela
tions of the circumcision and the uncircumcision were in
question.1 Into a more particular consideration of this point it
would be foreign to Our purpose to enter. We conclude
that James, the Lord's brother, was not necessarily an
apostle and bishop, but may have been simply bishop, and
therefore is not to be identified with James the son of Al
pheus. If, then, these were distinct persons, the former must
be identified with that James mentioned with Joses, Simon,
and Judas, (Matt. xiii. 55,) as one of Christ's brethren. If
so, there can be little doubt that Judas, the author of the
Epistle, who calls himself brother of James, was also one of
these four brethren, and not a son of Alpheus and Mary.
If then, for the reasons now given, the theory that these
brethren of the Lord were his cousins german, the children
of Alpheus and Mary, be rejected, we come to the third
final : " Paul did not hesitate to speak his mind to Peter ; but however much
Paul or -Peter may differ from James, and they be in the right, when once
James has spoken, never is there a word in reply."
1 See Thiersch, Kirchen Gesch., 80 ; Schaff, 61.

THE LORD'S BRETHREN. 113
explanation — that these were the sons and daughters of
Joseph and Mary, and His own brothers and sisters. But
here we meet dogmatic difficulties. It is an article of faith
with the Roman and Greek Churches that Mary had no
chUdren beside the Lord, and the same opinion rules in the
Lutheran symbols. In the Helvetic confession Jesus is
spoken of as natus ex Maria, semper virgine. A large
number of Protestant writers in all the religious bodies
strongly maintain the perpetual virginity. Pearson1 says
that the Church of God in all ages has maintained that she
continued in the same virginity." It has been well remarked
by Alexander (on Mark vi. 3) " that multitudes of Protes
tant divines and others, independently of all creeds and con
fessions, have believed, or ratlier felt, that the selection of
a woman to be the mother of the Lord carries with it, as a
necessary implication, that no other could sustain the same
relation to her; and that the selection of a virgin stiU more
necessarily implied that she was to continue so. After all,
it is not so much a matter of reason or of faith as of taste
and sensibility; but these exert a potent influence on all in
terpretation, and the same repugnance, whether rational or
merely sentimental, which led fathers and reformers to
deny that Christ had brothers in the ordinary sense, is
likely to produce the same effect on multitudes forever, or
until the question has received some unequivocal solution."'
The early belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary may
perhaps be explained as springing in part from a desire to^
separate Christ, as widely as possible, from other "men. He
had no brothers or sisters ; His mother had no other child. .
Thus, not only in His essential personality, but in the out*
ward circumstances of His life, a broad line of distinction.
was to be drawn between Him and all beside. To suppose'
that He had brothers according to the flesh was to degrade
Him by bringing Him into too close relationship with weak
1 Upon the Creed, art. iii. ' So Mill, 274.

114 THE LIPE OF OUR LORD.
and sinful men. The special honor paid to Him would natu
rally cause high honor to be .paid to his mother. To this
was added the admiration of celibacy springing from Gnos
tic principles, that began very early to prevaU. Both His
parents were thought to be honored by being presented to
the world as virgins. Occasionally from time to time, and
especially for a few years past, the tendency has manifested
itself to bring more distinctly forward the humanity of
Christ, and to give prominence to the truth expressed by
the Apostle, (Heb. ii. 11,) "For both he that sanctifieth and
they who are sanctified are all of one." Not to remove
Him from the pale of human sympathies, but to bring Him
in as many points as possible into contact with the ex
periences of human life, has seemed to many best to corre
spond to the historical statements of the Gospel, and the
doctrinal statements of the Epistles. Hence perhaps there
is now felt less reluctance to regard Him as having been in
the truest sense a member of the famUy, having brothers
and sisters bound f o him by ties of blood, and as a partaker
ofthe common lot in aU the relationships of life which were
possible to Him,-that thus "He might be touched with a
feeling of our infirmities.^' 1
Leaving aU theological considerations on one side, the
more natural and obvious interpretation of the language
of the Evangehsts leads to the belief that the Lord's
brothers and sisters were such in the ordinary mean
ing of the words. In the case of another no hesitation
could be felt. Not only are they always called His brothers,
but are always found in company with His mother. They
are, indeed, not caUed her eons, but this is explainable from
the fact that they are spoken of only in their relations to
Him, who everywhere in the Gospel is the one great cen
tral figure.
The expression in Matt. i. 25, " And knew her not till
1 See Herder, quoted in Schaff, 30, note.

THE LORD'S BRETHREN. 115
she had brought forth her first-born son," ¦ certainly implies
that afterward they hved together as husband and wife.
StUl this is not decisive. Alexander, (in loco,) after referring
to some examples of the use of " till " in other parts of
the .Scriptures, observes : " These examples are sufficient to
establish the position that the inference in question from
the use ofthe word till, however natural, is not conclusive;
or, in other words, that this expression cannot prove the
fact of subsequent cohabitation in the face of cogent reasons
for disputing it." Nor does the term " first-born " (Luke
ii. 7) show that other chUdren were subsequently born. As
primogeniture brought with it under the law certain privi
leges, the term " first-born " acquired a technical meaning,
and was applied to all who had a right to those privUeges,
without regard to the fact that they were, or were not, the
only children of their parents.
The existence of two households having so many names
in common as those of Joseph and Mary, and Alpheus and
Mary, are supposed to have had, is regarded by some as
highly improbable. As we have seen, however, it is not
certain that Mary and Alpheus had but two sons, James and
Joses ; and that these two very common names should be
found among the Lord's brethren is not at least more sur
prising than that, according to the view that makes them
His cousins, the Lord's mother and her sister should both
¦have the name of Mary.* Others regard it as a decisive
proof that Mary had no other son, that Jesus upon the
cross should have commended her to the care of John,
(John xix. 26-27.) But why, if James and Judas were
apostles and His cousins, sons of her sister and long inmates
of her famUy, and it was a question of kinship, did he not
commend her to their care ? If His brethren were at this
1 Tischendorf omits " first-born ; " Alford retains it.
* According to Smith's Bib. Diet., i. 231, Josephus mentions 21 Simons,
17 Joses, and 16 Judes.

116 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
time, as we may suppose, unbelieving, and thus in a most
vital point without sympathy with her, we can weU under
stand why He should give John, the disciple whom He
loved, to be her son, not so much to supply her mere bodily
needs, as to comfort and strengthen her in the pecuhar
trials through which she would be immediately called to

It is evident from this brief survey of the chief opinions
respecting the Lord's brethren and their relations to Jesus,
that the data for a very positive judgment are wanting.1
There can be no doubt that the very general, not universal,
opinion in the church, has been in favof of the perpetual
virginity of Mary. In regard to the Lord's brethren, there
were some in very early times who thought them the chU
dren of Joseph and Mary, but most thought them to be
either His cousins, or the children of Joseph. It is difficult
to teU which of the latter two opinions is the elder, or best
supported by tradition. The words of Calvin on Matt. i.
25, deserve to be kept in mind : Certe nemo unquam hac
de re questionem movebit nisi curiosus y nemo vero perti-
naciter insistet nisi contentiosus rixator.
1 Of the more recent writers, many affirm that they were the children of
Joseph and Mary, and His own brothers and sisters. So Neander, Greswell,
Wieseler, Alford, Stier, Schaff, Meyer, Winer, Ewald, Lechler, Owen ; con-
»a, Lange, Olshausen, Lichtenstein, Friedlieb, Norton, Sepp, Hug, Thiersch,
Alexander, Mill, Ellicott. See upon the subject, Das Verhaltniss des Jacobus
Bruders des Herrn zu Jacobus Alphai, von Philipp Schaf. Berlin, 1842. ,
Wieseler in Stud. u. Krit, 1842. Lange in Herzog, vi. 409 ; Lichtenstein, 100 ;
Alford on Matt. xiii. 55; Winer, i. 525; Smith, Bib. Diet., i. 231 and 920;
Mill, Mythical Interpretation, 219.

PART II.
FROM THE BAPTISM TO THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY
IN GALILEE; OR FROM JANUARY, 780, TO APRIL, 781.
¦ 27, 28 A. D.

The Divisions of the Lord's Ministry.
In order to understand the scope ofthe Lord's ministry
in its external aspects, as narrated by the Evangehsts, it is
necessary to keep in mind certain great facts that gave it
form and character. We shall thus be prepared to under
stand the significance of particular events, and to assign
them their proper places in the history.
First, The Lord came to a nation in covenant with
God — His elect people. He had chosen for them a land in
which they might dwell apart from the nations, and in a
wonderful manner had given them possession of it. He
had given them laws and institutions, which, rightly used,
should secure their" highest national weU-being. He had
estahhshed His temple in their chief city, in which He re
vealed Himself in the Visible Glory, and which was ap
pointed to be " a house of prayer for all nations." How
highly they had been honored and blessed of God is seen
from His words (Exod. xix. 5-6) : "If ye will obey my voice
indeed, and keep my Covenant, then ye shall be to me a

118 THE LLFE OUR LORD.
peculiar treasure above all people, and ye shaU be unto me
a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." And from among
them should the Great Deliverer, the Seed of the woman,
come. The Messiah should reign at Jerusalem, and from
thence establish justice and judgment throughout the
earth. He was to be of the tribe of Judah, of the family of
David, and His birth-place at Bethlehem ; and many other
things respecting Him had been foretold by the prophets.
To a people thus in covenant with God, and awaiting
the Messiah, Christ came. There was a general expecta
tion that He was about to come, and a general desire for
His coming. The appearing ofthe Baptist, and his message,
gave a new impulse to the common feeling, and doubtless
in the minds of many changed what had been but an in
definite expectation into an assured hope. But how should
the nation discern the Messiah when He came? Should
there be such wonderful signs* attending His birth that it
should at once be known? Or should His infancy and
youth be passed in obscurity? How should His public
career begin? what His acts as Messiah? Here was a
large field for differences of opinion among the people, ac
cording to differences in spiritual character and discern
ment. But the great part ofthe nation, including most of
the ecclesiastical rulers and teachers, seems to have had no
doubt that He was to appear, not primarUy as a religious
reformer, but as a pohtical leader and warrior, and that one
of His first Messianic acts would be to cast off the Roman
yoke and set the nation free. This done, He would pro
ceed to restore the Mosaic institutions to their primitive
purity, and fulfil the prediction that " out of Zion should go
forth the law, and the word ofthe Lord from Jerusalem."
It is apparent that, thus mistaking the character and
work of the Messiah, the very intensity of their desire for
His coming would but the more certainly insure His rejec
tion. They had formed conceptions of Him which Jesus

THE DIVISIONS OF THE LORD'S MINISTRY. 119
could not realize. Their ideal Christ was not the Christ
of the prophets. To be at once received by them, Jesus
must act iu a manner corresponding to their preconceived
opinions, and thus fulfil their expectations. But this He
could not do, since these expectations were based upon
misconceptions of their own moral needs, and of God's pur
pose. They felt deeply their political servitude, but were
unconscious of tbe spiritual bondage into which they had
fallen. They knew not how utterly unprepared they were
for the coming of their Deliverer. Hence it was, that Jesus
could not openly assume the name of Messiah, because it
had become the exponent of so many false hopes, and would
have gathered around Him a body of foUowers, moved more
by political than spiritual impulses.
A second fact to be noted is, the wish and wUl of God
that the Jews should receive His Son. Here, indeed, we
meet the same problem that we meet everywhere in human
history — the foreknowledge and purpose of God, and the
freedom and responsibility of man. According to the eter
nal purpose of God, Christ was " the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the. world," and without the shedding of
blood is no remission of sin. " Known unto God are aU
His works from the beginning of the world." But the
Jews knew not of this purpose, although, as we now see, it
was not dimly intimated in their sacrificial rites. The Jews
knew not that they should crucify their Messiah. They
had not learned this from their prophets. The Baptist said
nothing of His death ; Jesus Himself, tiU near the close of
His ministry, said nothing of it ; the Apostles, down to the
week of His Passion, did not comprehend it. When, there
fore, Jesus presented Himself to the nation as the Messiah,
it acted without knowledge of the secret counsel of God,
and with entire freedom. He desired that they should re
ceive Him. AU that God had done for them from the days
of Abraham was with the intent that they might be a

120 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
people ready for the Lord at His coming. The end of aU
the institutions He gave them was so to develop faith and
holiness in them that they should discern and receive His
Son. And Jesus during His ministry gave them every pos
sible proof of His divine character, and' reproved and warned
and beseeched them, that He might save them from the
guilt of His rejection ; yet aU in vain. " He came unto
His own, and His own received Him not." How touching
are His fareweU words to Jerusalem, (Matt. xxui. 37) :
" How often would I have gathered thy children together,
even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and
ye would not."
StUl a third fact is, that as the covenant of God with
the Jews was a national one, so must also Christ's accep
tance or rejection be. From the beginning of their history
God had dealt with the people as a corporate body. Their
blessings were national blessings, their punishments national
punishments. AU their institutions were so devised as to
deepen the feeling of national unity : one high priest, one
temple, one altar. What was done by the heads ofthe na
tion was regarded as the act of all, and involving common
responsibUity. Only in this way could the purpose of God
in their election to be His pecuhar people, be carried out.
Hence, in this greatest and highest act, the acceptance or
rejection of His Son, the act must be a national one. It
must be done in the name of the whole people by those who
acted as their rightful representatives. If those who sat in
Moses' seat should discern and receive Him, the way for
the further prosecution of His work was at once opened,
and under His Divine instruction the nation might be puri
fied for the glorious kingdom, so often sung by the psalm
ist and foretold by the prophets. But if, on the other
hand, He was rejected by the nation, acting through its
lawfully constituted heads, this national crime must be fol
lowed by national destruction. A few might be saved

THE DIVISIONS OF THE LORD'S MINISTRY. 121
amid the general overthrow, but the people, as such, could
be no more the holy and elect of God.
It was under the condition's imposed by these great his
toric facts that the Lord began His ministry among the
Jews. He came to a people in covenant with God, a peo
ple that God desired to save, and that must as a people,
accept or reject Him. All the details that are given us of
that ministry by the Evangelists must therefore be viewed
in the Ught of these facts.
The first event that meets us in the evangelic narrative,
is the mission of John the Baptist, the forerunner of the
Messiah. His work was threefold. First, he was to an
nounce that the kingdom of God was at hand, and the Mes
siah about to appear. In this announcement he especiaUy
displayed his prophetic character. Second, he was ¦ to
bring the nation to repentance, and " make ready a people
prepared for the Lord." Here he especially manifested
himself as a preacher of righteousness. Of this righteous
ness the law was the standard, and by the law must the na
tion be judged. Hence, John was a preacher of the law.
The burden of. his message was, "Repent, for the king
dom of God is at hand." As a wicked, disobedient people,
they were not ready for that kingdom. True, they were
" Abraham's chUdren," and " sons of the kingdom," but
this did not suffice. They had broken the Holy Covenant,
they had not hearkened to God's voice, and He had pun
ished them terribly in His anger. The Baptist came to
awaken them to a sense of their guUt, to make them see
how by their unbelief and sin they had frustrated the grace
of God ; and thus move them to repentance. Comparing
the promises of God with their fulfilment, they might see
how little He had been able to bestow upon them, how
little they had answered to the end for which He chose
them. How glorious the promises, how melancholy the
history ! Their national independence was gone ; the cov-
6

122 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
enant with the house of David was suspended, and that
royal family had sunk into obscurity. Their high priest
was appointed by the Roman governor for political ends,
and was a mere tool in his hands ; the priesthood, as a
body, was venal and proud ; the voice of prophecy had
long been unheard, and for the teachings of inspiration
were substituted the sophisms and wranglings of the Rab
bis ; the law was made, in many of its vital points, of none
effect by traditions; the nation was divided into contending
sects ; a large party, and tbat comprising some of the most
rich, able, and influential, were infidels, open or secret; some,
aspiring after a higher piety than the observance ofthe law
.could give, whoUy ceased to observe it, and withdrew into
the wilderness to foUow some self-devised ascetic practices;
still more were bigots in their reverence for the letter of
the law, but wholly ignorant of its spirit, and bitter and in
tolerant toward all whom they had the power to oppress.
The people at large stUl continued to glory in their theo
cratic institutions, in their temple, in their priesthood, and
deemed themselves the only true worshippers of God in
the world. They were unmindful that almost every thing
that had constituted the peculiar glory of the theocracy
was lost by sin ; that the Visible Glory that dwelt between
the cherubim had departed, that there was no more re
sponse by the Urim and Thummim, that the ark, with its
attendant memorials, was no more to be found in the Holy
of Holies, that all those supernatural interpositions that
had marked their early history had ceased ; in short, that
the whole nation " was turned aside like a deceitful bow."
To the anointed eye of the Baptist, the unpreparedness
of the nation for the Messiah was apparent. He saw how .
in it was fulfilled the language of Isaiah : " The whole head
is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the
foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in it,, but
wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores ; " and he would,

THE DIVISIONS OF THE LORD'S MINISTRY. 123
if it were possible, awake the people to a sense of their real
spiritual condition. Unless this were done, they could not
receive the Messiah, and His coining could be only to their
condemnation and destruction. Deliverance was possible
only when, hke their fathers in Egypt, they became con
scious of their bondage, and began to sigh and cry for de
liverance, (Exod. n. 23.) And as the elders of the people
gathered themselves together unto Moses and cooperated
with him, so must, now the priests and Levites, and aU who,
by God's appointment, held any office among the people,
be co-workers with Jesus. In this way only was it possible
that the promises ofthe covenant could take effect, and the
predictions of the prophets be fulfilled.
To awaken in the hearts of the Jews a deeper sense
of their sins, and of the need of cleansing, John estab
lished thorite of baptism in the Jordan. He taught that
this rite was only preparatory, a baptism of repentance,
and that the higher baptism of the Spirit they must still
receive at the hands of the Messiah Himself, who was
speedily to come. AU whom he baptized came confessing
their sins. Thus, the extent of his baptism was an index
how general the repentance ofthe people, and consequently
liow general the preparation for the Messiah.
Third, John was to point out the Messiah personaUy to
the nation, when He should appear. This was the culminat
ing point of his ministry, and would naturally come at the
close of the preparatory work.
Let us now survey for a moment the Baptist's ministry
as narrated by the Evangelists, and see how far its purpose
was accomplished. First, he aroused general attention to
the fact that the Messiah was at hand. Second, his preach
ing brought great numbers to repentance. Multitudes
from every part of the land came to his baptism. But of
these it is probable that many did not understand the sig
nificance of the rite, or truly repent of their sins. Perhaps

124 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
with comparatively few was the baptism with water a true
preparation for the baptism with the Holy Ghost. And it
is to be specially noted, that those thus coming to John to
be baptized were mostly, if not exclusively, ofthe common
people, and not of the priests, or Levites, or members of
the hierarchical party. Many of the Pharisees and Saddu
cees came to be spectators of the rite, but only with hostile
intent ; or if some received baptism at his hands, we find
few or no traces of them in the subsequent history, (Matt.
iii. 7; Luke vn. 29-30.) In the hearts of those who sat in
Moses' seat, the spiritual rulers and guides of tbe nation,
no permanent sense of sin was awakened, and they could
not submit to a baptism of which they felt no need. To aU
his exhortations they had the ready, and, as they deemed,
sufficient reply, " We have Abraham to our father." Thus
John did not effect national repentance. The highest proof
of this is seen in the deputation that was sent him from
Jerusalem to ask him who he was, and by what authority
he acted, (John i. 19-27.) It is plain from the narrative
that he was whoUy unable to satisfy the Jewish leaders
that he was divinely commissioned, or that his baptism
had any validity. It followed of course, that they paid
no heed to his prophetic or personal testimony to the
Messiah. , As his last official act, he pointed out Jesus in person
to the nation as the Messiah. He whom he had foretold
was come. Henceforth they must see and hear Him.
Turning now to the ministry of the Lord, let us con
sider it in its relations to that of the Baptist, and as under
those historic conditions that have been already mentioned.
His first work was to present Himself to the Jews as their
Messiah, in whom the covenants of God with Abraham and
David should find their fulfilment, all the predictions ofthe
prophets be accomplished, and for whom the Baptist .had
prepared tbe way. Of His Messiahship He must give

THE DIVISIONS OF THE LORD'S MINISTRY. 125
proof, first and chiefly, by His words, which should show
Him to be the Truth of God ; and second, by His works,
which should show Him to be the Power of God. All the
scriptural expectations created by the announcement of
John were to be realized in Him. Thus, presenting Him
self to the people, and especially to its ecclesiastical rulers,
and having shown by the evidence of His own works and
words, corresponding to the testimony of the Baptist, that
He was the Messiah, He must await the action of the
nation. The obstacles that stood in the way of His acceptance
are obvious. The nation was morally unprepared for Him.
Whilst so many were looking for Him, few were looking
for Him in such a guise. To say nothing of the obscurity
in which He had hitherto lived, and of His supposed birth
at Nazareth, His present conduct in no degree corresponded
to their expectations. His wisdom and eloquence could
not be questioned, nor the fact that He wrought miracles ;
but all this did not suffice. He might be a teacher sent
from God, or a prophet, but the Messiah must be much
more than this. He might perhaps be, as John declared
himself to be, a forerunner of the Messiah. A few, mostly
or whoUy from the ranks of John's disciples, at once re
ceived Him as the Messiah, but, as afterward appeared,
with most imperfect conceptions of His person and work ;
the people at large, and its rulers, discerned Him not. It is
plain, from the account of Nicodemus, (John iii. 1-2,)
that the presentation of Himself at Jerusalem, and His
words and works there, had called forth no response from
the ecclesiastical leaders. Even now their incredulity was
shown in a demand for a sign, which He would not give.
Whatever hostUityhad manifested itself at this His first
public appearing in Jerusalem, stiU there was hope that it
might be removed by greater -knowledge of His character
and work. The Lord, therefore, still remaining in the

126 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
province of Judea, and thus directly under the eyes of the
priests, begins the work of baptizing. Many gather around
Him, and receive baptism at the hands of His disciples.
But it does not appear that any of the Pharisees, or of the
higher and more influential classes, were among them, and
stUl less any ofthe rulers. After a summer thus spent, His
enemies endeavoring to sow- dissensions between His disci
ples and those of John, He gives up His baptismal work, and
retires into GalUee. Near a year had now passed since He
had been pointed out as the Messiah to the nation, and yet
very few' had received Him as such, and all who bore rule,
or certainly most of them, manifested an increasing hostU-
ity. He found no general, much less a national reception.
After a few weeks spent in Galilee, Jesus goes up the
second time to Jerusalem to a feast, and heals the impotent
man at the pool of Bethesda, (John v.) The charge is at
once made against Him that He had broken the Sabbath
by this work of healing, and His defence, based upon His
Divine Sonship, so offended the ruling party that His life
was in danger. This open manifestation of hostility marks
the first great turning-point in the Lord's ministry. It was
now apparent that the rulers at Jerusalem would neither
listen to His words, nor be convinced by His works. So
far from recognizing in Him the Messiah, His acts were
violations of the law, and His defence blasphemy. Hence
forth they stood to Him in an attitude of avowed hostility, ¦
and waited only for a sufficient pretext to arrest Him and
put Him to death. How far in this they represented the
sentiment of the people at large, it is impossible for us to
say, but it appears from the subsequent history, that al
though many came to Christ's baptism, yet that He had not
at any time a large body of adherents in Judea. So far
as appears, the people acquiesced in the decision of their
rulers. Forced to flee from Jerusalem, the Lord goes into Gal-

THE DIVISIONS OF THE LORD'S MINISTRY. 127
ilee. And now the second stage of His ministry begins.
His work in Gahlee seems to have had a twofold purpose.
It was first directed to the gathering of disciples, such as
hearing His words felt their truth, and seeing His works
recognized in them a Divine power. To Him, the true
Light, all who loved the light would come. Thus He gath
ered around Him the most receptive, the most spiritually
minded from every rank and class, and teaching them, as
they were able to hear, the mysteries of His Person and of
His Kingdom, prepared them to be His witnesses unto the
nation. Through the testimony of a body of faithful dis
ciples, the rulers at Jerusalem might yet be led to hearken
to His words, and their own faith be quickened by the faith
of others, and thus the nation be saved. But if this were
in vain, and neither the words of the Baptist, nor the
teachings of Jesus Himself and His works, nor the testi
mony of the disciples, could convince them, these disciples
would stUl serve as the foundation of that new and univer
sal church whieh God would build if the Jews rejected His
Son. If, because of unbelief, the natural branches should
be broken off, and the heathen be grafted in, in that body
of foUowers the Lord had those who could serve Him as
the buUders ahd rulers of the new household of God.
Thus the gathering of disciples, whilst, on the one hand,
it looked toward the acknowledgment by the nation of
Christ's Messianic claims, and regarded such acknowledg
ment as stiU possible, yet, on the other, looked forward to
the hour when He, whom the Jewish builders rejected,
should, be the.corner stone of a church, in whose blessings
Jews and Gentiles should alike participate. Of this future
service the disciples themselves knew nothing, nor could
they tUl Christ had ascended. For the present, he would
teach them such truth as immediately concerned Himself
and His work. He must deliver them from the false and
narrow notions in which they had been educated by their

128 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
Rabbis, and, so far as they had ears to hear, open to them
the purpose of God, as revealed in the Law and the
Prophets. Into the details ofthe Lord's work in Gahlee this is not
the place to enter. Suffice it to say that He gathered many
disciples, and that His fame spread throughout all the land.
But the favor which was showed Him in GalUee did not
propitiate His enemies at Jerusalem. They very early sent
spies to watch His movements, and in concert with the
Pharisees, who were found in greater or less numbers in
aU the villages, they organized a systematic opposition to
the progress of His work. Every thing was done to poison
the mind of the people against Him, as a transgressor of
the law, and even as in aUiance with evU spirits. The fact
that a large number believed in Him as the Messiah, was so
far from proving the reality of His Messiahship, that it only
stimulated them to new efforts for Bis destruction. Thus,
more and more, the hope that the nation, as represented
by its rulers, could be brought to receive Him, faded away.
His journey to the feast of Tabernacles and reception 'at
Jerusalem, showed in tiie plainest way that their hostility was
undiminished, (John, chs. vii.-x.) It was apparent to Him
that the " Kingdom of God must be taken from them and giv
en to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof," and as pre
paratory to this, He began to teach His disciples of His ap
proaching death, resurrection, ascension, and coming again.
The false conceptions entertained by tbe Jews respect
ing the person and work of the Messiah, had to this time
prevented the Lord from publicly assuming this title and
proclaiming Himself as the Son of David and rightful King
of Israel. He spoke of Himself habitually as the Son of
Man. But, as it became evident that His death was deter
mined upon, He wUl not permit the nation to commit so
great sin without the distinct knowledge of His Messiah-
ship. They shall not reject Him as a simple prophet, or as

THE DIVISIONS OF THE LORD'S MINISTRY. 129
a forerunner of the Messiah, but as the Messiah Himself.
In the third, or last stage of His ministry, therefore, wo
shall find His Messianic claims made prominent, both in
His own teachings and in the testimony of His disciples,
who, to the number of seventy, were sent two and two be
fore Him as He journeyed to Jerusalem. In this city only
could He die, for this was " the City of the Great King,"
and His death could not be by lawless violence, or in secret,
but must be in the most public manner, and by a solemn
and judicial act, and here He must announce Himself as the
true King, the Son of David, the long-promised Deliverer.
This He did when He entered the city, fulfilling the pro
phetic word, "Behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an
ass's colt." He accepted, as rightfully belonging to Him,
the homage of the multitude, who spread their garments
and branches of palm trees in the way, and cried, " Ho-
sanna to the Son of David." " Blessed is the King of Is
rael, that cometh in the name of the Lord."
Thus in the Lord's public Ufe we seem to find three
stages distinctly marked. The first is that period extend
ing from the first Passover (John ii. 13) to the feast when
the impotent man was healed, (John v. 1,) and embraced.
about a year. It bdgan with the purgation of the Temple,,
and ended with the attempt of the Jews to kill Him be
cause He made Himself equal with God. During this time
His labors were confined mainly to Judea. Near the close
of this period we may place the imprisonment of the Bap
tist. The second stage is that period following His return
to Galilee immediately after the feast, (John v. 1,) and em
braces the whole duration of His ministry there, or about a
year and six months. This period may be divided into*
two, of which the death of the Baptist wUl serve as the di
viding line. The third stage begins with His final de
parture from Galilee, and ends with His death at Jerusa
lem, and embraces five or six months. The peculiarities of
6*

130 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
these several stages of ministry wUl be noticed more in de
tail as each shall come before us.

The Lord's Mmistry in Judea.
A careful consideration of the Lord's Judean ministry
shows the following characteristics. It was begun by an
open assertion of His Messianic character, in the cleansing
ofthe Temple. In this act He assumed an authority based
upon His relation to God as His Son, (John n. 16,) and in
it He brought His claims directly to the knowledge of the
priests and of aU who had any supervision of the Temple
service. This act he follows by miracles, perhaps wrought
in the Temple, and which could not have been unknown to
the hierarchy. As none of the rulers acknowledge Him,
or perhaps even visit Him, except the doubting Nicode-
mus, He leaves the city, and begins somewhere in the prov
ince the work of baptizing, which He performed by the
hands of His disciples. He does not, so far as we know, go
about preaching in the synagogues ; He works no new mir
acles. AU this is in harmony with His position as one wait
ing for the recognition of the nation. The Baptist had
pointed Him out as the Messiah. In the Temple, before the
priests and elders, in the most open and significant way, He
had asserted His Messianic authority, and given miraculous
proof of His divine commission. He had thus presented
Himself before those whom God had appointed to rule the
nation, and into whose hands it was given to receive or re
ject Him. As He finds no recognition, He stiU seeks to
draw them to His baptism, and thus lead them to a right
knowledge of His work.1 In all that He does during this
period there is apparently no step looking forward to the
abrogation of the Mosaic institutions, and to the formation
' The nature of this baptism, and its relations to the baptism of John, will
be hereafter fully considered.

JOHN BEOINS TO BAPTIZE. 131
of a church on a new foundation. Although assisted in His
work by a few who early discerned in Him the Messiah,
He seems to have organized no body of disciples, and to
have done nothing that indicated a purpose to gather out a
few from the nation at large. The whole Judean ministry
is an appeal to the people to receive Him as the Messiah
through the divinely constituted heads. ,

Summer of' 779. 26 a. d.
In the fifteenth year of the reign oi Tiberius Csssar, Luke iii. 1-18.
John enters upon his -work of preaching and baptiz- Matt. iii. 1-17.
ing. The people throng to him from all parts of the Mark i. 4-11.
land, whom he baptizes, -and to whom he bears witness
of the coming Messiah. After his ministry had continued Johk i. 82-34.
several months, Jesus comes from Nazareth to the Jordan, Luke. iii. 21-22.
and is baptized, and immediately the Holy Spirit descends
upon Him.
The chronological questions connected with this date
have been already discussed in the essay upon the time of
the Lord's baptism. The mention by Luke (iii. 1, 2) of
Pontius PUate as governor of Judea, of Herod as tetrarch
of Gahlee, of his brother Phihp as tetrarch of Iturea and
of Trachonitis, of Lysanias as tetrarch of AbUene, and of
Annas and Caiaphas as high priests, brings before us some
historical points which demand our attention.
The wUl of Herod, dividing his territories amongst his
sons, was, after a time, confirmed by Augustus. Archelaus
became ruler of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria, with title of
ethnarch, and with the promise of the title of king if he
should rule to the satisfaction ofthe emperor.1 Herod An-
tipas became tetrarch of GalUee and Perea ; and Herod
PhUip tetrarch of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, and Paneas.
1 Josephus, Antiq., 17. chaps. 8, 9, and 11.

132 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
The cities of Gadara, Gaza, and Hippo, Grecian cities, were
joined to the province of Syria.
The rule of Archelaus was short. In the tenth year of
his government, (759,) upon the accusation of his brethren,
and of the chief men of Samaria and Judea, he was sum.
moned by the emperor to Rome, and, unable to defend him
self against his accusers, he was, deposed from his dignity
and banished to Vienna in Gaul.1
After the deposition of Archelaus, Judea and Samaria
were united to the province of Syria, of which P. S. Qui-
rinius (Cyrenius) was made president. The immediate di
rection of affairs in Judea and Samaria was, however, given
to an officer caUed a procurator. The powers of this of
ficer were not exactly defined,3 and although subject in
general to the president, yet in districts lying removed
from the main province, large discretionary authority was
necessarily put into his hands. A considerable number of
troops were placed at his command, and in certain cases he
had the power of life and death. The sixth in order of
these procurators, or governors, was Pontius Pilate. He
entered upon his office at the end of 778, or beginning of
779, and was removed 789.9
Herod Antipas ruled over Galilee and Perea for more
than 40 years, (750-791,) and seems to have kept these
districts in comparative peace. After his nephew, Herod
Agrippa, had received from the Emperor Caligula the title
of king, (790,) he was incited by his wife to go to Rome
and seek the same dignity, but instead of obtaining it, he
was banished to Lyons, in Gaul. His territories were sub
sequently given to Herod Agrippa. Nothing is recorded
of Herod Antipas by Josephus that sets him before us in
i Antiq., 17. 13. 2. •> Winer, ii. 276.
" Winer, ii. 261. Greswell, i. 345, makes him to have become governor in
the middle of the summer of 770, and to have continued in office ten years
and two or three months.

HEROD ANTIPAS AND HEROD PHILIP. 133
any very favorable light. After he had been tetrarch a
considerable period, and when well advanced in years, he
feU in love with the wife of his brother, Herod PhUip, who
was living as a private citizen at Jerusalem, (Matt. xiv. 3,)
and married her, his former wife fleeing to her father, King
Aretas. Not only for this act was he reproved by John
the Baptist, " but for all the evil which he had done," (Luke
iii. 19.) By our Lord he was called " a fox." He seems
to have been of an easy, selfish temperament, fond of pleas
ure, unscrupulous, cunning, and superstitious. That he
should have ruled so long in such stormy times shows at
least that he had some pohtical tact, and artfully managed
to keep' on friendly terms with his subjects on the one
hand, and with the Romans on the other. He had a taste
for building, and erected Tiberias upon the site of an older
city, and named it in honor of the Emperor Tiberius. He
rebuilt Sepphoris, a few miles north of Nazareth, and made
it one of the most beautiful cities of GalUee.1
Herod PhUip, to whom was assigned Batanea, Gaulo-
nitis, Trachonitis, and the region around Paneas, was a
prince of mUd character, who devoted himself to the good
of his subjects.3 He reigned thirty-seven years, (750-787,)
and leaving no chUd at his death, his territories were an
nexed to the province of Syria. He also was fond of buUd-
ing, and rebuUt Paneas, and gave it the name of Caesarea,
in honor of the emperor. He enlarged the city of Beth-
saida, upon the sea of Gahlee, and named it Julias, from
Csesar's daughter.3
In connection with Lysanias and the tetrarchy of
Abilene, we meet with some historical difficulties. 'It was
formerly said by some critics that Luke had faUen into
error, and referred to a Lysanias who, according to Jose
phus, had long before died, as contemporary with PUate
1 Josephus, Antiq., 18. 2. 1. » Antiq., 18. 4. 6.
» Antiq., 18. 2. 1 ; War, 2. 9. 1.

134 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
and Antipas and PhUip. The accuracy ofthe Evangehst is
now generaUy admitted ;* but a careful comparison of his
statements with those of Josephus wiU show us why the
name of a ruler is mentioned who did not rule in Palestine,
nor stand in any apparent connection with the Gospel
history. Herod the Great came into possession of his territories
by degrees. He became king in 717 by the conquest of
Jerusalem, but subsequent additions were made to his
kingdom through the good wUl of Augustus, comprising
Trachonitis and the region between it and Galilee. It is
in connection with these additions that mention is made of
one Zenodorus, who had farmed the domain of Lysanias,"
and who ruled over Trachonitis. This Lysanias was son of
Ptolemy, king of Calchis, under Lebanon, and became him
self king about 714. This prince was put to death by
Antony, at the instigation of Cleopatra, about 720, and a
part of his dominions given to her, and subsequently farmed
by her to Herod.3 Other parts were farmed by Zenodorus.
This man, plundering the Damascenes from the district of
Trachonitis, Augustus deprived him of it, and gave com
mand of it to Herod in 724. After the death of Zenodorus,
he also gave to him the region between Trachonitis and
GalUee, and some other of his possessions.4
Ofthe extent of this kingdom of Lysanias, or the names
of its provinces, we have httle knowledge. Calchis seems
to have been its chief city. Robinson identifies this city
with the present Anjar in the Bakaa, south of Baalbek,
where considerable ruins stUl exist. Lichtenstein infers
from a comparison of the several statements of Josephus,
that beside Calchis, the kingdom embraced Trachonitis
Iturea, and Batanea. Whether Abila was also embraced
in it is doubtful, as it is not mentioned by Josephus. This
» See Meyer in loco. a Josephus, War, 1. 20. 4.
3 Antiq., 15. 4. 1. * Antiq., 15. 10. 8.

THE TETRARCH LYSANIAS. 135
city lay upon the Barada, some 20 mUes from Damascus,
and between the latter city and Calchis, and in part upon the
site ofthe present vUlage Es Suk. Robinson (iii. 484) says :
" The site is very definitely assigned by the ancient itin
eraries ; it lay upon one of the great roads from Damascus
to the sea coast ; and the place was marked by ruins, at
testing its ancient splendor, and by a necropohs, perhaps
more extensive and remarkable than any other in Syria."
This position of AbUa between Calchis and Damascus makes
it probable that it was subject to Lysanias, as he is spoken
¦ of as a neighbor to the latter city,1 which would be incon
sistent with the existence of a distinct principality between
it and his own capital.
That part of the territories of Lysanias came into the
possession of Herod, has been already stated. It is certain,
however, that Calchis did not, nor, so far as we can judge,
did Abila. Perhaps the latter and its territory remained
under the rule of the famUy of Lysanias tUl it was made
the seat of an independent tetrarchy. Ofthe formation of
this tetrarchy Josephus gives us no notice. Whether it
took place soon after the death of Herod, when his domin
ions were divided among his sons, or at a later period, is
matter of conjecture. Its existence, however, a little later
than the time spoken of by Luke, is distinctly recognized
by Josephus in connection with Herod Agrippa. This
prince, grandson of Herod the. Great, and the Herod ofthe
Acts of the Apostles, received from Caligula, 790, the
tetrarchy of PhUip, now dead, and also the tetrarchy of
Lysanias.3 Thus these two tetrarchies, only some ten years
after the period of which Luke speaks, had a contempo
raneous existence, and were now brought together under
the rule of Agrippa. Whether the tetrarch Lysanias was
now dead without heirs, or had been deposed, we know
' Josephus, Antiq., 13. 16. 3. ' Antiq., 18. 6. 10.

136 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
not ; but it appears that his territory was at the disposal
of the emperor. Thus Abilene became for the first time a
part of the Jewish kingdom, and continued such for several
years. To the two tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, Cal
igula added that of Herod Antipas, and subsequently
Agrippa received from Claudius, Judea and Samaria, so
that he reigned not only over aU Palestine, but also over
Abilene. As he died early, leaving a son, Herod Agrippa
II., only 17 years old, his kingdom was again reduced to
a Roman province.1 To this Agrippa II. was first given
Calchis, and afterward he was transferred to the tetrarchy
of Philip, comprising Batanea, Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis.
" To these he added the dominions of Lysanias, and tbe
province of which Varus had been president."3 Thus, for
the second time, the tetrarchy of Lysanias became part of
Jewish territory. Of its subsequent history nothing cer
tain is known.
We can now see clearly the reason why Luke, writing
after Abilene had been made a part of the Jewish kingdom,
should have mentioned the fact, having apparently so little
connection with Gospel history, that at the time when the
Baptist appeared this tetrarchy was tinder the rule of
Lysanias. It was an allusion to a former well known po
litical division that had now ceased to exist, and was to his
readers as distinct a mark of time as his mention of the
tetrarchy of Antipas, or of Phihp. This statement respect
ing Lysanias shows thus, when carefully examined, the ac
curacy ofthe Evangelist's information ofthe political history
of his times, and should teach us to rely upon it even when
unconfirmed by contemporaneous writers.5
Having mentioned the civU rulers, Luke proceeds to
mention the ecclesiastical. " Annas and Caiaphas were the
« Josephus, War, 2. 11. 6. s Josephus, War, 2. 12. 8.
3 See, in reference to this point, Wieseler, 174; Lichtenstein, 130 ; Winer,
i. 7 ; Robinson, iii. 482.

ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS. 137
high-priests." 1 Let us, therefore, consider the personal
and ofiicial relations of these two men to each other.
Annas was' made high-priest by Cyrenius, the Roman
governor of Syria, in 760, but was deposed by Gratus 767.
He was succeeded in office by Ismael, by his own son Ele
azar, by Simon, and then by his son-in-law, Joseph Caiaphas.3
The latter was appointed 778, and held the office tiU 790.
Afterward, several other sons of Annas became high-priests,
and one of them, named Ananus, was in power when James,
brother of the Lord, was slain.3
¦It thus appears that although Annas had been high-
priest, yet that Caiaphas was actuaUy such when the Bap
tist appeared, and that he continued in office during all the
public life of Christ. According to the Mosaic institutions
there could be but one high-priest at a time. The office
was hereditary, and was held for life. As was to be ex
pected after the Jews had fallen under bondage to the
heathen nations, the high-priests, though nominally inde
pendent, became tools in the hands of their masters, and
this high dignity was transferred from one to another, both
by Herod and by the Roman governors, as their political
interests demanded. Hence there were often living at the
same time a number who had filled this office, and been de
posed. Probably other ex-high-priests besides Annas were
now living, and upon that ground equally weU entitled as
himself to the name. That he should be distinctively so
called in the passage before us, does not then seem suffi
ciently explained, by the fact that be had been high-priest
some years before, and that he still retained the title among
the people at large. Some ascribe the prominence given
him to the fact that he stood high in popular estimation,
1 Tischendorf reads evi apxkpews hvva iced Kauvpa, "Annas, high-priest,
and Caiaphas." So Alford. Compare Acts iv. 6, where a like form of ex
pression is used. \
' Josephus, Antiq., 18. 2. 2. s. Euseb., ii. 23.

138 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
and still exerted great influence ; or that, as father-in-law
of Caiaphas, he continued to direct public matters. Against
this it may be said that Luke would scarcely have men
tioned him in connection with the emperor, the governor,
the tetrarchs, and the high-priest, unless he also was filling
some high official position.
If, then, we conclude that Annas is not mentioned merely
as an influential private person who had once been high-
priest, what office did he fiU? The word dp^tepeus,. high-
priest, does not decide it, as it is itself of indefinite signifi
cation. Hug (foUowed by Friedlieb)1 supposes both Annas
and Caiaphas to have held office at the same time, and to
have officiated as high-priests in turn, one at one feast and
the other at the next ; or, more probably, one during one
year and the other during the next. For this supposition
there is no good ground, and it implies a tenure of office in
consistent with facts.3 Others therefore make Annas to
have been the Nasi, or president of the Sanhedrim. Others,
the vice-president, the office of president belonging to the
high-priest. Others stUl suppose that he was the sagan, or
vicarius of the high-priest, " in his absence to oversee, or in
his presence to assist in the oversight of the affairs of the
temple, and the service of the priests." a " The vicar of the
high-priest, the next in dignity to him, and the vice-presi
dent of the Sanhedrim." * But the existence of such a
deputy is doubtful.6 Some, finally, as Alford, referring to
the fact that the Law directed the office to be held during
life, suppose that Luke speaks of Annas as the lawful high-
priest, one who, having held it, could not be legally de
posed. Meyer thinks the Evangelist to have been ignorant
who was the real high-priest, and therefore erroneously as
cribes this title to Annas.
It seems, from the manner in which Annas is mentioned,
' Archaologie, 73. s Josephus, Antiq, 18. 2. 2.
3 Lightfoot, ix. 38. * Greswell, iii. 200. » Winer, i. 507.

JOHN BEGINS TO BAPTIZE. 139
not only by Luke but by John, that he did in fact hold
some high official position, and this probably in connection
with the Sanhedrim. This point will be further examined
when we consider the part he took in the trial of the Lord.
That, in times of such general confusion, when the laws of
Moses respecting the high-priesthood were very little re
garded, and offices became important according to the
political capacity of those that filled them, the exact rela
tions of Annas and Caiaphas to each other can be deter
mined, is not to be expected. A like difficulty seems to
qxist in explaining the relations of Ananus and Joshua,
mentioned by Josephus.1
The year during which John began his ministry was
probably a Sabbatic year, (Ex. xxiii. 11.) According to
Wieseler, such a year was that from Tisri 779 to Tisri
780. Greswell makes from 780-781 a Sabbatic year. (He
admits, however, that the received principles of the modern
Jewish reckoning would require him to place it a year ear
lier.) If this year was now observed by the Jews accord
ing to its original intent, it was a most appropriate time
for the Baptist to begin his labors, the people having no
burdensome agricultural tasks to occupy them, and being
thus at liberty to attend upon his instructions.3
It is not improbable that John may have begun his
labors as a preacher of the kingdom some time before he
began to baptize. Some instruction as to the nature ofthe
rite, and some exhortation to convince of its necessity,
would naturally precede its administration. His preaching
then need not have been confined to the banks of the Jor
dan, but may have begun in the wilderness, and only after
he began to baptize did he remain in one place, (Luke iii.
3.) From the expression in Mark i. 4, " John did baptize
in the wilderness," some have inferred that he baptized
1 Life, 38, 2 j War, 4. 3, 9. = Ewald, Alterthumer, 414.

140 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
before he came to the Jordan.1 But the Jordan was in
cluded in the well-known designation " the desert." This
desert, called in Matt. iii. 1 " the desert of Judea," and which
is mentioned in Judges i. 16, seems to have comprised all
the region between the mountains of Judea on the one
side, and the Dead Sea and the lower parts of the Jordan
on the other. According to some, this wilderness of Judah
stretched along on the west side of the Jordan, from the
end of the Dead Sea to Scythopolis.
The place where John baptized was Bethany, on the
east side of Jordan, (John i. 28.) The textus receptus says
Bethabara, but Bethany is generally admitted to be the
right reading.3
The site ofthe place having been early forgotten, Origen
conjectured that Bethabara must be meant, and thus this
reading found its way into the text.3 Some suppose that
at different times the same place may have had both names.
Bethany means, according to some, domus navis, " a house
of ships," or " ferry-house." * Its position is uncertain.
According to Stanley, it was the northern ford near Suc
coth, which is some thirty miles north of Jericho, (Gen.
xxxiii. 17, Judges vii. 24.) It is strangely placed by Light
foot between Lake Merom and the Sea of Galilee. It was
doubtless at one of the fords of the Jordan, not far from
Jericho, and thus in the great eastern line of travel, as
the people came to the feasts. It could not have been"
at the ford nearest the mouth of the river, as the
depth is too great to allow a passage, except by swim
ming ; B but was probably that nearly east of Jericho at
the mouth of Wady Shaib, and which is now the ordinary
ford. Below this is the ruined convent of St. John the
Baptist, near which the Latin pUgrims bathe ; and two or
» So Lightfoot. a So Tischendorf, Alford.
3 See Alford's note in loco; contra, Stanley, 304, note 3.
* Winer, i. 167. s Robinson, i. 156.

PLACE OF THE LORD'S BAPTISM. 141
three miles lower stUl is the bathing place of the Greek
pilgrims. Both affirm that their respective bathing places
were haUowed by the baptism of the Lord, and by the pas
sage of the ark of the covenant.1 Arculf (a. d. 700) says :
" A wooden cross stands in tbe Jordan on the spot where
our Lord was baptized. The river here is about as broad
as a man can throw a stone with a sling. A stone bridge,
raised on arches, reaches from the bank ofthe river to the
cross where people bathe. A little church stands at the
brink of the water, on the spot where our Lord is said to
have laid His clothes when He entered the river. On the
higher ground is a large monastery of monks, and a church
dedicated to St. John." 3 WUlibald also speaks ofthe cross
as " standing in the middle of the river, where there is
small depth of water, and a rope is extended to it over the
Jordan. At the feast of the Epiphany the infirm and sick
come hither, and holding by the rope, dip in the water."
Many in modern times have desired to place the Lord's
baptism at the spot where the Israelites under Joshua
crossed the Jordan, (Josh. iii. 16.) Thus Lightfoot says :
" There is reason to beUeve that John was baptizing in the
very place where the Israelites passed over ; and that our
Lord was baptized in that spot where the ark rested in the
bed of the river." But it is generaUy agreed that it is im
possible to determine the precise spot where they crossed.
Such exact local coincidences are unimportant. It is enough
that the places were not far removed from each other.
Ffoulkes 3 supposes John ta have baptized at three distinct
fords of the Jordan : first, at the lower ford near Jericho,
to which the people of Judea and Jerusalem would natu
rally come ; second, higher up the river at Bethabara, to
which the people of Galilee and the northern parts of the
land came, and where Jesus was baptized; third, still
» Lynch, 255 ; Ritter, Theil xv., 536. ' Early Travels, 8.
3 Smith's Bib. Diet., i. 1127.

142 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
higher up, at JSnon, a ford less frequented^ but where was
abundance of water. It is more likely, however, that an
abundance of water should have been found at the lower
than the upper ford.
The recognition of Jesus by John, when the former
came to be baptized, is to be explained, not by the fact of
prior acquaintance,1 for such acquaintance is by no means
certain,3 but by the immediate revelation of God. John knew
the nature of his own mission, as the herald ofthe Messiah, but
he did not know who the Messiah was, nor when He should
appear. The mark by which he should recognize Him was
one to be given at a fitting time, the supernatural descent
of the Spirit upon Him, (John i. 33.) How far John may
have had knowledge of the events connected with Jesus'
birth, or been brought into personal intercourse with Him,
does not appear.3 It is, however, very much to be ques
tioned, even if he knew Him personally, whether, either
through his own parents, or Joseph and Mary, he had learned
any thing of His miraculous conception, or Divine character.
Such mysteries were too sacred to be prematurely revealed.
It does not follow, as Alford supposes, (Matt. Ui. 14,) "from
the nature of his relationship to the Lord, that he could not
but know those events which had accompanied His birth,"
nor is there any proof that, prior to the time when they
met at the Jordan, John looked upon Him as the Messiah.
At this interview, the whole appearance of Jesus, His de
meanor and language, so manifested His exalted character
to the discerning eye of the Baptist, Ulumined by the
Spirit, that he had an immediate presentiment who He was,
and could say to Him, " I have need to be baptized of
thee." Such supernatural discernment of character was
sometimes given to the old prophets. So Samuel discerned
the future king in Saul, and afterward in David.4 StUl it
1 So Hales, Townsend.
' Ewald, Christus, 162 ; Krafft, 68 ; Ellicott, 107. » Ebrard, 258.
1 1 Sam. ix. 17; xvi. 12. Compare also Luke i. 41, when John, yet a

TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 143
was not tiU John had seen the appointed sign, the descent
of the Spirit, that he could bear witness to Jesus as the
Messiah.1 The placing ofthe Lord's baptism, not at the beginning,
but during or at the end of His Judean ministry,3 is wholly
arbitrary. Some have inferred from Luke ni. 21, that the descent
of the Spirit was in the presence of the multitude, and vis
ible to all.3 But it was a sign peculiar to John, for he was
to bear witness to others, who should receive his witness.
And thus he says, (John i. 32-34,) "I saw the Spirit" —
" And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."
Others were to believe, not because they saw, but because
he bare record.
Jan.— Feb., 780. a. d. 27.
Immediately after His baptism Jesus was led by the Matt. iv. 1-11.
Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted ofthe devil, and Maekl 12, 13.
continued there forty days. After the temptations were Luke iv. 1-13.
ended He returned to the Jordan. Just before His return, John i. 19-28.
John was visited by a deputation of priests and Levites
from Jerusalem, to inquire who he was, and by what au
thority he baptized. In reply, he announces himself as the
forerunner of the Messiah. The next day he sees Jesus
coming to him, and bears witness to Him as the Lamb of
God. The day following he repeats this testimony to his John i. 29-37.
disciples. Two of them follow Him to His home, and,
joined by others soon after, go with Him to Galilee. John i. 38-51.
The Synoptists do not mention the visit of the deputa
tion to the Baptist, nor does John mention the temptation,
but it is plain that the latter preceded the former. The
b>-.be in his mother's womb, leaps for joy at the salutation of the Virgin
Mary. 1 Meyer in loco ; Ebrard, 259. ' So Pilkington and Whiston.
3 So Meyer.

144 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
temptation followed immediately upon the baptism, (Mark
i. 12,) and during the forty days of its continuance John
remained in the same place preaching and baptizing. His
reputation seems now to have reached its culminating
point, and attracted the attention of the Pharisees and
ecclesiastical rulers at Jerusalem. So popular a religious
reformer could no longer be left unnoticed, and accord
ingly, acting 'probably in an official manner as the Sanhe
drim, they sent a deputation of priests and Levites to ask
him certain questions. As he denied that he was " the
Christ," or " Elias," or " that prophet," his answers gave
them no sufficient ground of accusation against him, how
ever much they might have sought it. The next day he
sees Jesus, apparently now returning from the temptation,
and for the first time points Him out as He that should
come after him, the Lamb of God, and Baptizer with the
Holy Ghost. This he could not have done till after' the
baptism, for after it was the sign given, and immediately
after the descent of the Spirit, Jesus departed into the wil
derness. This was, therefore, the first opportunity of the
Baptist to testify to Him personaUy, as the Christ. If tlie
baptism had not taken place before the coming of tho
priests and Levites, there is no room for it in the subsequent
narrative. Some suppose that Jesus had returned from
the temptation before the deputation came, upon the
ground that v. 26 implies His personal presence.1 Most,
however, place His return upon the "next day, (v. 29.)
John's testimony to Jesus was, up to this time, general.
He knew that one should come after him, but who, or
when, he could not say ; and this is the character of his
witness, as given in the Synoptists. But after the baptism
he could bear a definite witness. He had seen and recog
nized the Messiah by the divinely-appointed sign, and could
say, This is the man, he is come, he is personally present be-
1 So Alford in loco.

JOHN'S TESTIMONY TO JESUS. 145
fore you. To whom the testimony (vs. 29-34) was spoken,
is not certain. Perhaps it was spoken before his disciples
only, though the multitude, and also the deputation from
Jerusalem, may have been present. As, however, the
Pharisees generally rejected John's ' baptism, as without
authority, and did not acknowledge his office as a divinely-
appointed herald of the Messiah, it was plainly idle for
him to point out Jesus to them as such, (Luke vii. 29, 30.)
But to his own disciples, and to aU the people who, by be
ing baptized of him, had acknowledged his prophetic char
acter, such a designation of Him was valid, and they would
recognize His Messianic character upon bis testimony.'
The next day (v. 35) John repeats his testimony in the
presence of two of his disciples.3 One of them was An
drew, and there is no doubt that the other was the Evan
gelist himself, though with the reserve that characterizes.
him he does not, mention here, or elsewhere in his gos
pel, his own name, or that of his mother,* or brother. " It
was about the tenth hour" that the two disciples went
with Jesus to His abode, (v. 39.) If we adopt the Jewish
computation, which divides the day from sunrise to sun
set into twelve hours, the tenth hour would be that from
3-4 p. m." This, however, would leave but a brief space
for their interview, and seems inconsistent with the state
ment that " they abode with Him that day." Some, there-
•fore, refer this to the time when Andrew brought his
brother Simon to Jesus. AU the day had the two dis
ciples been with Him, and did not leave Him tiU the tenth
hour. Others say that the two going late in the afternoon
remained with Him during the night. Many, not satisfied;
with these explanations, prefer the Roman computation,.
1 As to the view of Origen, that there were three different missions from
Jerusalem, distinguished in vs. 19, 21, 25, see Williams' Nativity, 264.
3 Sepp supposes these two to have been witnesses of the Lord's baptism,
according to a Jewish law respecting the baptism of proselytes,
5 Winer, ii. 560. 7

146 THB LIFE OF OUR LORD.
which began at midnight. So reckoned, the tenth hour
would correspond to our 10 a. m., and the disciples had
the whole day for their interview.1 Whether, however,
the Roman computation of the hours of the day really dif
fered at all from the Jewish is doubtful ;3 nor, if so, does
the Evangelist seem to have ever used it.3
The finding of Simon (v. 41) by his brother Andrew,
and his coming to Jesus, was upon the same day spoken of,
(v. 35.) It is probable, from the form of expression, " He
first findeth his own brother Simon," that as Andrew
brought his brother Simon to the Lord, so John also
brought his brother James." But Alford explains it as
" implying that both disciples went together to seek Simon,
but that Andrew found him first."
The next day (v. 43) Jesus departs to GalUee. There
seems no good reason to doubt that He was accompanied
by Simon, and Andrew, and John, who had recognized in
Him the Messiah. Some, however, suppose that they re
mained with the Baptist, and did not join Jesus till a much
later period.6 This is intrinsically improbable. Whether
PhUip was called by the Lord before His departure, or upon
His way, is doubtful." Nor is it certain that the caUing of
Philip was founded upon a previous acquaintance with the
Lord : it may have been through the agency of Simon and
Andrew, who were of the same city, (v. 44.) Philip now
brings to the Lord another disciple. Where he found Na-
rthanael is not said, but most probably upon the journey.
» So Ebrard, 276 ; Ewald, Christus, 248.
3 See Becker's Gallus, 315 ; Pauly, Real Encyclopiidie, ii. 1017.
' Against it, Meyer, Lichtenstein, Luthardt, Alford. See the following
passages, iv. 6 and 52 ; xi. 9 ; xix. 14, which will each be examined in their
order. Greswell, ii. 216, admits that the Jewish and Roman modes of com
putation were alike, but supposes John to have used tbe modern — from mid
night to noon, and noon to midnight.
* Meyer, Lichtenstein. <• So author of " The Messiah," 73.
' For tbe former, Meyer, Alford ; for the latter, Tholuck.

PLACE OF THE TEMPTATION. 147
As the home of Nathanael was at Cana of Galilee, (John
xxi. 2,) it has been thought by some that there he was
brought to the Lord.
The place of the Lord's temptation was in the wUder-
ness of Judea already spoken of, and cannot be more par
ticularly designated. Tradition points to a high mountain
a little west of Jericho, overlooking the plain of the Jor
dan, and which was the " exceeding high mountain " from
which .the Tempter showed the Lord all the kingdoms of
the world. This mountain, in allusion to the forty days'
fast, was caUed the Quarantana. Thomson says that " the
side facing the plain is as perpendicular and apparently as
high as the rock of Gibraltar ; and upon the very summit are
stiU visible the ruins of an ancient convent." Robinson
speaks of it as "a perpendicular waU of rock, 1,200 or 1,500
feet aljove the plain." He does not think the name or the
tradition to be older than the crusades, the mountain being
first mentioned by Saewulf about 1100 a. d., and its name
a hundred years later. Stanley makes the scene of the
temptation to have been on the eastern side of the Jordan,
among " the desert hiUs whence Moses had, seen the view
of 'all the kingdoms' of Palestine."1 Au old tradition
makes the trial of Adam and Eve in Paradise to have been
forty days.
Matthew and Luke differ in the order of the three temp
tations ; but on internal grounds, which cannot here be
given, that of Matthew is to be preferred.3
That Jesus returned at once from the wilderness to the
Jordan, is apparent from the whole order of the narrative.
Wieseler, however, (258,) makes a period of 5-7 months to
have intervened, during which nothing respecting Him is
narrated. This is in the highest degree improbable.
1 See Ellicott, 109 ; Greswell, ii. 202. Sepp also puts it on the eastern
shores of the Dead Sea.
2 As to the relation of the fast to the temptations, see Greswell, ii. 206 ;
Williams, Nativ., 244.

148 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.

Feb.— April, 780. a. d. 27.
Arriving at Cana of Galilee, the Lord, at a marriage John ii. 1-11.
feast, changes water into wine. Afterwards He goes down
with His mother, and brethren, and disciples, to Caper- John ii. 12, la
naum, but remains there only a few days, as the Passover
was at hand. From Capernaum He goes up to Jerusalem
to attend this feast.
" And the third day there was a marriage," (v. 1.) It
is disputed from what point of time this third day is to
be reckoned. Some would make it the third day after His •
arrival in Galilee ; * .others, as Alford, the third day from
the calling of Nathanael, but one day intervening; and
others, as Lange, identify it with the day last mentioned, (v.
43.) Blunt3 supposes the Evangelist to have some event in
his mind from which he dates, but which he does not men.
tion. But most count from the day of the departure
to Gahlee, (v. 43.) * The order of events may be thus
given (John i. 19 — u. 1) : the 1st day, verse 19, the visit of
the deputation from Jerusalem ; the 2d day, verse 29, Je
sus returns from the temptation, and John bears witness
to Him ; the 3d day, verse 35, the two disciples visit
Him ; the 4th day, verse 43, He begins His journey to
Galilee ; the 5th and 6th days are spent upon the way.
According to Luthardt, on the third day the two disciples
visit Jesus ; on the fourth Simon is brought to Him ; on
the fifth PhUip and Nathanael; on the 6th He is on His
way ; on the seventh He reaches Cana. Thus, the Lord's
ministry begins as it ends, with seven days, whose events
are specificaUy mentioned. At least two days must have
» So Friedlieb, Leben Jesu, 189 ; Trench, Mir., 83.
' Script. Coincidences, 261.
» So Robinson, Meyer, Lichtenstein, Ellicott.

MARRIAGE AT CANA. 149
been spent on the way, as the distance from Bethabara to
Nazareth was not far from 60 mUes.1
It is probable that the Lord passed through Nazareth
on His way to Cana. Ewald supposes that the famUy of
Joseph had at this time left Nazareth, and were already
settled at Cana.' But it seems conclusive against this that
Philip should speak to Nathanael of Jesus as Jesus of Naza
reth, (John i. 45,) and that Nathanael, who was of Cana,
should know nothing of Him. The mother of Jesus seems
to have been intimate in the family where the wedding took
place, from which it has been inferred that she was a rela
tive of one of the parties. One tradition makes Alpheus
and Mary, the sister of the Lord's mother, to have resided
at Cana, and the marriage to have been that of one of their
sons. According to Greswell, it was the marriage of Al
pheus and Mary themselves. Another tradition, current
among the Mohammedans, and maintained by some in the
Church, makes John the apostle to have been the bride
groom ; another that the bridegroom was Simon the Ca-
nanite, the latter epithet being a designation of his resi
dence, not of his character. As no allusion is made to Jo-
•seph, the most obvious inference is that he was already
dead. From the fact that His disciples were invited with the
Lord, it would appear that they were friends of the mar
ried pair, or that they were present as friends of Jesus.
It is not certain that all the disciples are here included ;
perhaps only Philip and Nathanael went with Him.3 Some,
however, find in the six water pots an allusion to the Lord
and His five disciples.4
The marriage took place at " Cana of Gahlee." • The
name signifies, in Hebrew, a " place of reeds," and is once
1 Epipbanius puts tbe miracle at tbe wedding on the 6th January, but
this is rightly rejected by Baronius.
* So Stanley, 359, note. 3 Trench, Mir., 84.
' See Luthardt, i. 11

150 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
used in the Old Testament as the name of a stream on the
borders of Ephraim and Manasseh, (Josh. xvi. 8,) and of a
city in Asher, (Josh. xix. 28.) With this city of Asher
GresweU identifies the Canaof the Gospels. The addition
" of Gahlee " here seems designed to distinguish it from
some other Cana. There are now two Canas in GalUee ;
one Kana el JelU, north ; the other Kefr Kenna, north-east
from Nazareth, and it is disputed which is meant. Robin
son (U. 347) shows that upon etymological grounds the
former is to be preferred, the present Arabic name Kana
el JelU being identical with Cana of Galilee, whUe Kefr
Kenna " can only be twisted by force into a like shape."
He shows also that the former was by early tradition pointed
out as the true site of the miracle, and that only since the
16th century, and for the convenience of monks and travel
lers, was the latter selected. In this view of Robinson
most now agree.1 De Saulcy, however, (ii. 376,) maintains
the claims of Kefr Kenna, affirming that the present name
of Kana el JelU does not mean Cana of Galilee, but Cana
the great, or iUustrious. He also objects1 that this viUage
is too far from Nazareth, and in the wrong direction, to
answer to the narrative.3 Stanley speaks of the claims of
the two Canas as " being about equally balanced." Thom
son speaks hesitatingly. Making inquiries, when in the
neighborhood, of aU he met, where the water was made
wine, "with one consent they pointed to Kefr Kenna.
Some of. them knew of a ruin caUed Kanna on the north
side of tbe great plain of B"ttauf, but only one had ever
heard of the word ' Jehl ' as a part of the name, and from
the hesitancy with which this one admitted it, I was left in
doubt whether he did not merely acquiesce in it at my sug
gestion. It is certain that Very few, even of the Moslems,
' So Winer, Raumer, Ritter, Meyer, Porter, Van de Velde, Sepp.
» See Robinson's Reply, iii. 108, note. Ewald, Christus, 170, note, decides
against De Saulcy.

SITE OF CANA OF GALILEE. 151
know the full name of Kana el JelU ; and yet I think Dr.
Robinson has about settled the question in its favor." Os
borne says that at Kefr Kenna he inquired its name of his
guides and Arabs, who said it was also called Kenna el
JelU. Also one of the natives =caUed it JeUl. He consid
ered it, however, a new name, devised to preserve the char
acter of the place as Cana of Gahlee.
This viUage lies 12 or 15 miles north of Nazareth, on the
southern declivity of a hUl that overlooks the plain El Biit-
tauf. According to Robinson : " The situation is fine. It
was once a considerable vUlage, of weU-buUt houses, now
deserted. Many of the dweUings are in ruins ; we could
discover no traces of antiquity." Thomson says that there
is not now a habitable- house in the vUlage, though some
of them may have been inhabited within the last fifty years.
There are many ancient cisterns about it, and fragments of
water-jars in abundance, not, however, of stone, but of'
baked earth. Not only is the village deserted, but the
near neighborhood is so wild, that it is the favorite hunting
ground for the inhabitants of Kefr Kenna.
Kefr Kenna lies 4 or 5 miles north-east of Nazareth, in
a smaU valley upon the border of a plain. At the entrance
of the village is a fountain made out of an ancient sar
cophagus, which the inhabitants show as the fountain from
which the water-pots were filled. A Greek church is buUt
upon the site of the miracle, but is a modern structure. In
this church are shown two enormous stone vases, as two
of the six water-pots. De Saulcy maintains that they are
as old as the period at which the miracle took place.
There are some ruins apparently ancient, and among them
is shown the house of Simon the Cananite.
The marriage festivities among the Jews usually con
tinued six or seven days, and it is not certain upon which of
these days the miracle was wrought, but probably toward
the last. At. their expiration Jesus went with His mother

152 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
and brethren and disciples to Capernaum. The occasion of
this journey is not mentioned ; perhaps, because invited by
Peter and Andrew, who seem now to have resided there.
Friedlieb (191) suggests that, as the Passover was now not
distant, they might have desired to join a party of pilgrims
going up to the feast from that city. The fact that He did
not remain there many days, is mentioned as indicating that
His public ministry had not yet begun. There is no inti
mation that He taught, or made any public manifestation of
Himself whUe at Capernaum. Probably His time was spent
in private intercourse with His disciples. Lightfoot, (Ui. 44,)
who makes four months to intervene between the temptation
and first Passover, supposes Him to have spent this inter
val in a " perambulation of Galilee." Of this there is no
hint in the narrative. As the Passover drew nigh, He
went up to Jerusalem. Whether the disciples accompanied
Him is not stated ; but as they would naturally attend the
feast, and as afterward they are found with Him, (John ii.
22,) we infer that they did so.

Passover, April 11-18, 780. a. d. 27.
At this feast Jesus with a scourge drives out of the John ii. 14-22.
temple the sellers of animals for sacrifice, and the money
changers. To the Jews, demanding His authority to do
such things, He replies in a parable. During the feast He JoHNii. 23-25.
wrought miracles whieh led many to believe on Him. He John iii. 1-21.
¦is visited.at night by Nicodemus, to whom he explains the
nature of the new birth. Afterward He departs from John iii. 22.
Jerusalem into the land of Judea, where He tarries with
His disciples, and they baptized. j0HN iv. 2.
This Passover, according to Greswell, was on the 9th
April. Friedlieb makes it to have been on the 11th. We
follow the latter. If the Lord's baptism was, as we have
supposed, early in January, between the baptism and the

FIRST PURIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE. 153
Passover was an interval of some three months.1 The ex
act length of this interval depends, of course, upon the date
of the baptism. With this Passover His public ministry
may properly be said to begin.
This purification of the Temple is plainly a different one
to that mentioned by the Synoptists, (Matt. xxi. 12-16;
Mark xi. 15-19 ; Luke xix. 45-48.) This occurred at the
beginning ; that at the end of His ministry. The act, in all
its essential outward features, must have been the same ;
but its significance varied with the time. As now per
formed, it was a plain and open avowal of His Divine au
thority, and a public reproof of the wickedness of the
priests and rulers, who permitted His Father's house to be
made a house of merchandise. Nothing could have brought
Him more publicly before the ecclesiastical authorities and
the multitudes who thronged to the feast, than this act ;
nor have shown more distinctly the nature and extent of
His prophetic claims. He was the Son of God, jealous of
His Father's honor, and to whom it especiaUy belonged to
see that His courts were not defiled.
As the chief sacrifice, that of the Paschal Lamb, was
offered on the first day of the feast, it is probable that this
purification took place before or on that day. Although
the act must have drawn to Him popular attention, and
awakened general inquiry who He was, no hostile measures
seem to have been taken at this time by the Jewish author
ities. They asked for a sign (v. 18) as a voucher for His
Divine commission, which He declined to give, and an
swered them in an enigmatical manner. StUl He wrought
afterward, during the feast, miracles which caused many
to beheve in Him. But their faith resting merely upon the
exhibitions of power which they saw, not upon any percep
tions ofthe moral character of His works, He did not com-
1 Paschale Chronicon, 76 days; Friedlieb, 87 days ; Greswell, 64 days.
1*

154 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
mit Himself to them, or enter into any intimate relations
with them, as with His disciples from GalUee. But in
Nicodemus, whom Lightfoot calls " one of the judges of
the great Sanhedrim," He found one in whom were the
germs of a true faith, and to whom He could reveal Him
self, not only through work, but through word. That
Nicodemus should come secretly by night, shows that there
was, even now, among the priests and rulers with whom he
had most intercourse, a feeling of dislike to Jesus, and that
some degree of odium attached to all who were known to
visit Him.
After the feast was over, Jesus, leaving the city, went
into some part of the territory adjacent, or into the province
of Judea, as distinguished from its cbief city. The part ofthe
land to which He went is not mentioned, but we may infer
that, as His purpose was to baptize, He went to the Jordan,
or to some one of the streams running into it, Sepp (n.
100) supposes Him to have gone from place to place in south
ern Judea, baptizing at all the principal fountains, which
He could do, as His baptism was by sprinkling, as that of
John Was by immersion. This is pure conjecture. Perhaps
we may infer from John, (iv. 4,) "And He must needs go
through Samaria," that He was at this time in the northern
part of Judea.1 That He began the work of baptizing by
His disciples soon after the feast, and before He returned
to Galilee, seems fairly inferable from the narrative. It
has, however, been said 2 that a considerable interval (from
April to October) elapsed, during which the Lord and His
disciples returned to Galilee, and lived in retirement, en
gaged in their usual pursuits. In support of this it is
claimed that the baptismal activity of Jesus must have been
very brief, since the Baptist's disciples speak of it as recent,
(John in. 26,) and it was given up so soon as His work
¦ See Meyer in loco. a Lichtenstein, 157.

JESUS BAPTIZING IN JUDEA. 155
began to awaken the jealousy of the Pharisees, (John iv.
1-3.) Supposing that the Lord left Judea, upon grounds
to be hereafter stated, in November or December, He
must have been there about six months. We cannot
certainly determine whether He was so long actuaUy
engaged in the work of baptizing. Greswell • makes the
time so spent to have been less than a month ; Norton only
two or three weeks.' But we need not suppose Him to have
commenced immediately after the Passover, though we
have no data to determine the exact time. Nor can we
tell when John left the Jordan and began to baptize at
jEnon, (v. 23.) ' That Jesus had been for some time car
rying on His work before the complaint made by John's
disciples, (v. 26,) appears from the great numbers that
thronged to His baptism.
We see, then, no good grounds for believing that Jesus
after the Passover went into Galilee, and returning after
some months, began to baptize, Yet we may, on the other
hand, admit that His baptismal work was not of very long
duration. There, is nothing in the note of time, (v. 22,)
" after these things," [nera ravra, that forbids us to suppose
that a few weeks may have elapsed between the feast and
the beginning of this work.2
WhUst Jesus was baptizing, John was also prosecuting
his work. He had, however, left the Jordan and gone to
-<Enon, (v. 23.) The site of this place is not known. The
Evangelist speaks of it as near to Salim, and gives as the
reason of its selection that there was " much water," or
" many fountains," vBara woWa, there. The word JEnon
means fountains, but it is doubtful whether it denotes here,
1 See Greswell, ii. 215, who thinks the statement that there was much
water there, " a proof that the rainy season had been some time over, and
water was beginning to be scarce," and thus showing that it was near mid
summer. Little reliance can be placed on this.
' Compare the parallel expressions, John v. 1 ; vi. 1; vii. 1. "The se
quence is uot immediate," Alford in loco.

156 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
a vUlage, or fountains near a vUlage. The latter seems
most likely, as its position is defined by saying that it was
near to Sahm, " Baptizing near the waters of deep-waved
Salim." • But the position of this Salim is also undeter
mined. Jerome speaks of a town called in his day Salem,
not far from Scythopolis, where the ruins of a palace of
Melchizedek were shown. He speaks also of a Salumias,
which he apparently identifies with Salem, as lying in the
plain or valley of the Jordan, eight miles south of Scythop
olis. He places iEnon in the same locality, near Salem and
the Jordan.3 Here it is now placed by Van de Velde, at
the base of Tell Ridghah, where there are some ruins and
a spring.3 If this be Correct, jEnon would have been with
in the bounds of Samaria. But it is difficult to believe that
John, the preacher of the Law, could have entered Sama
ria to baptize, when, at a later period, the Lord forbade the
Twelve to preach in any of its cities, (Matt. x. 5.) Nor is
there any trace, hi the conversation of the Samaritans with
Jesus, of any such ministry ofthe Baptist among them, (see
John iv. 9.) Sahm and JEnon have therefore been looked
for in other directions. Some, as Wieseler, have found
them in the wilderness of Judah, referring to Josh.xv. 32,
where, a city Ain is mentioned in connection with Shilhim.
Lichtenstein (160) finds an iEnon in Wady el Khulil, a little
west of Hebron. Sepp, in Beit Ainun, north of Hebron.
Barclay (558) thinks he finds it in certain fountains in Wady
Farah, six mUes north-east from Jerusalem, of which he
speaks as of aU the fountains in the neighborhood of Jeru
salem, by far the most copious and interesting. One is ca
pable of driving several mills as it gushes forth from the
earth, but is intermittent. The Wady in which they lie he
heard also called Salim, and his guide conducted him to
the site of an ancient city near by. Below, the stream is
4
' Nonnus in Lightfoot, x. 837. * Raumer, 142; Robinson, iii. 383.
3 Memoir, 345 ; so Ellicott.

THE SITE OF iENON. 157
calleH the Kelt, and is generaUy supposed to be " the brook
Cherith that is before Jordan," (l Kings xvii. 1-7.) In his
second journey, Bobinson (in. 298) made special search for
Salim in the Jordan vaUey, but could find no ruins, nor
trace ofthe name. He mentions, however, a plain of Salim
east of Nablous, and a small village of the same name,
which was " said to have two' sources of living water, one
in a cavern, and the other a running fountain." Many, as
Greswell, foUow Jerome.
Among so many discordant opinions, the true site of
JSnon must be left undecided. Most agree in placing it on
the west side of the Jordan, as it is contrasted (v. 26) with
John's former place of baptism at Bethabara. That he
should have gone so far from the earher scene of his labors
as the south of Judea, is improbable. We best meet the
scope of the narrative if we suppose that Jesus and John
were not very far distant from each other, and both in the
region of the Jordan. Some have supposed, a contrast to be
drawn between "the land of Judea," and "^Enon," (vs. 22
and 23,) as if the latter was not in the former.1 But the con
trast was not between the place of John's ministry and that
of Jesus, but between the labors of Jesus in Jerusalem and_
His labors in the country. That John was. not immediately
upon the Jordan is rightly to be inferred from the state
ment that there was much water there, a statement super-
fluous if he had been on the banks of that river.
In the act of baptizing Jesus personally took no part.
It was done by His disciples. The names of these disciples
are not mentioned, but they were doubtless the same whose
names had been already mentioned, (John ch. i.,) and who
came with Him to the Passover from Galilee. As the
former disciples of John, and perhaps his assistants, this
rite was not new to them. Having also been for some time
in company with Jesus, they were prepared by His teach-
> So Winer, i. 34

158 THE LLFE OF OUR LORD.
ings to understand the meaning of the service He required
from them. As yet, however, their relations to Him were
much the same, as their former relations to John, and very
unlike what they afterward became.1
These contemporaneous baptismal labors of the Lord
and of John present many interesting questions, but most of
them lie out of the pale of our inquiry. As the former did
not Himself baptize, it is a question how His time was
spent. Probably He taught the crowds that came to His
baptism, but there is no hint that He healed the sick, or
wrought any miracles. We can scarce doubt that He went
up to Jerusalem to attend the two great feasts during this
period, that of Pentecost and of Tabernacles, and here He
must have come more or less into contact with the priests
and Pharisees. It does not appear, however, that He went
about from place to place to teach, or that He taught in
any of the synagogues. Still it is not improbable that be
fore He began to baptize, or at intervals during His labors,
He may have visited many parts of Judea, and have noted
and tested the spiritual condition of the people. It may
be, also, that at this time He formed those friendships of
which we later find traces, as that with Joseph of Arima-
thea, and that with Mary and Martha.

Dec, 780— March, 781. a. d. 27-28.
The Pharisees sowing dissensions between the disciples John iii. 25, 26.
of John and those of Jesus, the latter gives up His work JoHNiv. 1-3.
of baptizing and goes back to Galilee. The Baptist, in re- John iii. 27-36.
ply to the complaints of his disciples, bears a fresh testi
mony to Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus takes His way to John iv. 4-42.
Galilee, through Samaria, and abides there two days teach
ing, and many believed on Him. Upon reaching Galilee
His disciples depart to their respective homes. He is re- John iv. 43-45
1 See Greswell, ii. 284.

RELATIONS OF CHRIST'S BAPTISM TO THAT OF JOHN. 159
ceived with honor by the Galileans, because of the works
which He did at Jerusalem at the feast. Coming to Cana, John iv. 46-54.
He heals the nobleman's son at Capernaum. He after
ward lives in retirement till called to go up to Jerusalem
at the following feast. John v. 1.
Before entering upon the examination of the several
points which this section presents, it will be well to take a
brief preliminary survey of the several stages of John's
ministry, and their relations to corresponding stages in the
Lord's work.
The first labor of the Baptist was to announce the near
approach of the Messiah, and through the baptism of re
pentance to prepare His way. He demanded of the people
that they should believe in Him that should come after
him, and who should baptize With the Holy Ghost, (Acts
xix. 4.) When, after a considerable time thus spent, and
multitudes from all parts of the land had been baptized,
Jesus appeared and was recognized by him as the Messiah,
his ministry necessarily took a new form. He could no
• longer testify to his auditors of one to come, but must
point out Jesus as the Messiah already come. This he did,
when, in the presence of his disciples and of the people, he
pointed to Jesus as the Lamb of God. This witness to the
personal Christ was the culminating point of his work. It
was now a question for the Jews, how they would receive
and treat Him to whom he had thus borne witness. Jesus
henceforth became the chief figure on the stage, and John
sank to the position of a subordinate.
With the coming of Jesus it might have been supposed
that the mission of the Baptist would cease, its end being
accomplished. As we have seen, however, it did not whol
ly cease, but it changed its form. And it is probably from
this point of view that we are to explain the departure of
John from the Jordan to Miaoa. And as the place of bap
tism was changed, so also in some degree the rite. His

160 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
baptism could no more have a general and indefinite refer.
ence to one still to come. Having declared Jesus of Naz
areth to be the Messiah, the undefined Messianic hopes of
the nation were now to be concentrated upon Him. AU
the teachings and labors of the Baptist pointed to Him,
and all tended to prepare the people to receive Him.
Whether there was any change in the baptismal formula
may be doubted, but the immediate and personal reference
to Jesus as the Messiah was that which distinctively char
acterized the last stage of John's work.
To this form of John's ministry the ministry of Jesus,
at its beginning, corresponded. The former had borne his
witness to Him, and He must now confirm that witness ;
must show Himself to be the Messiah through His own
words and acts. This He does. He gathers a small body
of disciples, to whom He manifests His glory through the
miracle at the marriage in Cana. Afterward, before the
priests and the people, He asserts His Messianic claims by
the purifying of the temple, and the miracles He subse
quently wrought at the feast. But why should He estab
lish, or rather continue the rite of baptism ? In what re
lation did this rite stand to His Messianic character ? The
answer to this question may be found in its nature as the
baptism of repentance. It was an indispensable condition
to the reception of the Christ, the Holy One of God, that
sin should be repented of and put away. Upon this John
had insisted in his preaching, " Repent, for the kingdom of
God is at hand.." But this preaching, and this rite, both
pointing to repentance, were -no less important now that
the Messiah had actually come. Without holiness of heart
they could not receive Him, could not even discern Him
as the Messiah. John had already baptized many into the
hope of His coming, but others had equal need to be bap
tized into the reality of it.
We can now see why John should have continued bap-

RELATIONS OF CHRIST'S BAPTISM TO THAT OF JOHN. 161
tizing after the Lord came, and why Jesus should Himself,
through His disciples, adopt the rite. It was not enough
that He had personally come. Would the Jews receive
Him ? None could do so but the repentant. All those
that, with hearts conscious of guilt, both personal and na
tional, and truly penitent, were waiting for the consolation
of Israel, were wUling to be baptized, confessing their sins;
but the unrepentant, the unbelieving, the self-righteous, all
who justified themselves, rejected the rite, (Luke vii. 29,
30.) Hence it was a most decisive test ofthe spiritual state
of the people. And tried by this test, the nation, as such,
was condemned. Neither the baptism of John, nor that of
the Lord., brought it to repentance. True, great numbers
went at first 'to John, and afterward many resorted to- Jesus,
• and were baptized ; but these were the common people,
those without reputation or authority. Those who ruled
in all religious matters and gave direction to public opinion,
the priests, the scribes and Pharisees, the Sadducees, and
the rich and influential, held themselves almost wholly aloof.
Hence, as regarded the nation at large, the baptismal work
faUed of its end. The true and divinely-appointed repre
sentatives of the people, the ecclesiastical authorities, who
sat in Moses' seat, were not brought to repentance, and.
therefore could not receive the Messiah.
Thus Jesus began His work as the Baptizer with water-
unto repentance. It was this baptism that gave to His:
Judean ministry its distinctive character. It was an at
tempt to bring the nation, as headed up in its ecclesiastical."
rulers, to repentance. Had these come to Him, or to John,.
confessing their sins, His way would have been prepared^ .
and He could then have proceeded to teach them the true-
nature ofthe Messianic kingdom, and prepared them for the1
baptism ofthe Holy Ghost. But as they had " frustrated-
the counsel of God within themselves, being not baptized
of John," so they continued to frustrate it by rejecting the

162 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
baptism of Jesus. To continue, therefore, to baptize was
to expose God's ordinance to contempt, and discontinuing
His labors in Judea, He retired into GalUee. How long
after this John continued to baptize, we are not told. He
must have felt that, as regarded the rulers and the body
ofthe people, Uttle could be done, (John i. 19-25 ; and Ui.
32;) and perhaps he may now have gone from place to
place, seeking out and baptizing aU who had humiUty to
confess their sins, and faith to receive his witness. Not
improbably, as the novelty of his first appearance was over,
his popularity was already on the wane, although the people
at large continued to hold him in high esteem as a teacher
and prophet.
Many have placed the imprisonment of John by Herod
(Matt. iv. 12 ; Mark i. 14 ; Luke Ui. 19 and 20) just before
this departure of Jesus into Galilee, and regard the latter
as determined by the former. But for this there are no
sufficient grounds. There is nothmg in the language of the
fourth Evangelist that implies this ; but, on the contrary,
a fair construction of his words (iv. 1) shows that John was
yet baptizing when Jesus left Judea. " When, therefore,
the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus
made and baptized more disciples than John — He left Ju
dea." Translated more strictly, it would read, " that Jesus
is making and baptizing more disciples than John." This
plainly implies comparison between the two, and therefore
their contemporaneous activity. Both are making and bap
tizing disciples, but more come to Jesus than to John.1
There is, beside, no allusion to Herod, or intimation that
the Baptist's labors were now suspended because of his
imprisonment. Nor, unfriendly as the Pharisees doubtless
were to him, is there mention anywhere made of any overt
.acts of hostility against him. They were satisfied with de-
» So Greswell, ii. 212; Wieseler, 161.

JESUS CEASES TO BAPTIZE. 163
nying his authority to baptize, for his reputation was too
high among the people to permit them to take any active
steps against him. His imprisonment was not their
act, nor do they seem to have had any part in it, (Matt.
xiv. 3.)
But if John was not now imprisoned, why did Jesus
now cease baptizing and retire into Gahlee ? Some ascribe
this to His fear of the Pharisees.1 But there is no proof
that this party was ready at this early period to hinder
Him in His work by any active opposition, much less that
His life and personal safety were endangered. When
a few months afterward they sought to slay Him, because
by heaUng on the Sabbath He had, as they said, broken
the Law of God, (John v. 16,) there was a plausible reason
for their hostility ; but this did not now exist. Others, on
better grounds, ascribe this departure to the fact that the
Pharisees were avaUing themselves ofthe jealousy of John's
disciples to the injury of Jesus.' It appears from John Ui.
25-27, that there was a dispute between the disciples of
John and the Jews, or a Jew, respecting purification. This
may have had reference to the nature of baptism as a puri
fying rite ; to the authority of John to administer it ; or,
more probably, to the respective values of the baptisms of
John and Jesus. That the baptismal work of the latter
gave umbrage to John's disciples, upon some ground, is ap
parent ; for they complain to their master that He was bap
tizing, and that aU the people were thronging to Him.
They seem to have considered this act on His part as one
that needed explanation, perhaps as an interference with
John in his peculiar work, or as unsuitable to His Messianic
character. If, however, we admit that the Pharisees did attempt
to arouse the jealousy of John's disciples to the injury of
1 So Greswell, Alford, Meyer.
* So Lichtenstein, 162; Luthardt, i. 391.

164 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
the work in which he and Jesus were jointly engaged, this
alone does not explain why the latter should have ceased
to baptize. The true reason has been already intimated.
The increasing popularity of Jesus, as shown by the num
bers that came to His baptism, only brought out more
strongly the envy and dislike of the Pharisees, and con
firmed them in their hostUity. To have continued His
work could, therefore, have answered no good end, since
it was not now the gathering of a body of disciples around
Him at which He aimed, but the repentance of the priests
and leaders of the people. We conclude, therefore, that
He now left Judea because the moral conditions for
the successful prosecution of His baptismal labors were
wanting. The only datum we have by which to determine the
time of the year when Jesus went into Galilee, is found in
His words to His disciples when seated by the well in
Sychar : " Say not ye there are yet four months and then
cometh harvest ? behold I say unto you," &c, (John iv.
35.) Some, however, deny that this reference to the har
vest, as yet four months distant, is of any chronological
value, because the expression is a proverbial one, based
upon the fact that there is an average interval of four
months between the sowing and harvesting.1 But the form
of the expression seems to forbid that we regard it as a
proverb, " Say not ye there are yet four months," &c. ;
here. " yet," m, obviously refers to the time when the
words were spoken. From this time, not from the time
of sowing, are four months, and then the harvest." We
are then to determine the time ofthe harvest, and counting
backward four months, reach the time when the words were
spoken. Upon the 16th Nisan, a sheaf ofthe first fruits of
the harvest was to be waved before the Lord in the Temple.
1 Norton, Krafft, Greswell, Alford.
' Lightfoot, Baronius, Lichtenstein, Wieseler, Stier, Meyer, Robinson.

JESUS IN SAMARIA. 165
Till this was done, no one might lawfully gather his grain.1
From this legal commencement of the harvest about the
first of April, we obtain the month of December as that in
which the words were spoken.3 Tholuck (in loco) regards
the expression as proverbial, yet reaches nearly the same
result. " As our Lord points them to the fields, it is highly,
probable that it was just then seed-time, and we are thus
furnished with the date, to wit, that Jesus had remained in
Judea from April, when the Passover occurred, tUl No
vember." s
A very different result is reached by some, who take
the Lord's words : " Lift up your eyes, and look on the
fields ; for they are white already to the harvest," as not
figurative, but literal, and expressive of an actual fact.
The harvest, then, was not four months distant, but just
at hand. Upon this ground Greswell (U. 229) decides " that
the time of the journey coincided with the acme of wheat
harvest, or was but a Uttle before it," and puts it two or
three weeks before Pentecost, or about the middle of May.4
' The direct route from Judea to Nazareth led through
Samaria by Sichem, and was generally taken by the com
panies attending the feasts from GalUee, although the en
mity of the Samaritans to the Jews seems especially to have
manifested itself on such occasions.6 Josephus says " that
it was necessary for those that would travel quickly to
take that route, as by it Jerusalem could be reached in
three days from GalUee. Sychar is regarded by many
as another reading 'for Sychem, (Acts vU. 16,) which
stood upon the site of the present Neapolis, or Nablous,
1 Levit. xxiii. 10, &c. ; Deut. xvi. 9, &c. ; Josephus, Antiq., 3. 10. 5.
5 Lightfoot, Lichtenstein, Meyer, Ellicott.
3 A. Clarke and Stier, putting the harvest in May, make the departure to
have been in January. Stanley, in January or February.
* So Townsend in loco, " The Messiah," 101. Alford regards all chrono
logical inferences built on this passage, as unwarranted.
* Josephus, Antiq., 20. 6. 1. c Life, 52.

166 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
and is often mentioned in biblical history.1 For a time after
the return from the captivity, Samaria (1 Kings xvi. 24)
was the chief city, but Sichem soon gained the ascendency.
The change from Sichem to Sychar is supposed to mark
the contempt of the Jews toward the Sichemites, the latter
word meaning the '¦' toper city," or the " heathen city."
Alexander caUs it " a later Aramaic form." It is not to be
supposed that this change was made by John in his narra
tive to express his own dislike, or that, as said by Stier, " it
was an intentional intimation of the relation and position
of things between Judea and Samaria." Unless the name
Sychar was in common use, we can scarce suppose him to
have employed it ; for, in a simple historical statement, the
intentional use of any mock name or opprobrious epithet
would be out of keeping.
Some make Sychar a vUlage near Sichem, but distinct
from it.2 This was the early opinion. They were distin
guished by Eusebius, and in the Jerusalem Itinerarium.3
Raumer supposes that the village of Sichem was a long
straggling one, and that the east end of it, near Jacob's weU,
was caUed Sychar. There is now a viUage near the well
called El Askar, which some have supposed to be Sychar.
Thomson (ii. 206) says : " This is so hke John's Sychar that
I feel inclined to adopt it." '
Jacob's weU, where Jesus was resting Himself when He
met the Samaritan woman, " is on the end of a low spur
or swell running out from the north-eastern base of Gerizim ;
and is stUl 15 or 20 feet above the level of the plain below." *
It is dug in the solid rock to the depth of 75 or 80 feet, and
is about 9 feet in diameter, and the sides hewn smooth and
regular, and perfectly round.6 The quantity of water in it
1 So Meyer, Weiseler, Raumer, Robinson, Ritter, Alford.
a Hug, Luthardt, Lichtenstein. s gee Raumer, 146, note.
* See contra Robinson, iii. 133 ; see also Wieseler, 256, note.
5 Robinson, iii. 132. • Porter.

THE WELL OF JACOB. 167
greatly varies. Maundrell found it 5 yards in depth. Some
times it is nearly or wholly dry. Dr. WUson (1842) found
so little water in it, that a servant, whom he let down to
the bottom, was able, by means of dry sticks thrown to
him, to kindle a blaze which distinctly showed the whole
of the weU from the top to the bottom. Osborne1 says :
" There was no water at the time of our visit, near the
close of December." " Formerly there was a square hole
opening into a carefully-built vaulted chamber, about 10
feet square, in the floor of which was the true mouth of the
weU. Now a portion of the vault has fallen in, and com
pletely covered up the mouth, so that nothing can be seen
but a shauow pit half filled with stones and rubbish." ' A
church was buUt near this spot, of which few traces
remain. It has been much questioned why a well should have
been dug here, since there are several springs within a httle
distance giving an abundance of water. Some suppose
that earthquakes may have caused the springs to flow since
the well was dug. More probable is the supposition that
Jacob found the springs in the possession of others, who
were unwUling to share the water with him, and therefore,
as matter of necessity, he must obtain it from a weU. Why
the woman should have come to this weU to draw water,
which was so much more easily attainable near by, cannot
now be explained. If the city itself was at some distance,
and the language seems to imply this, (vs. 8, 28-30,) she
may have.Uved in the suburbs, for it is not said that
she resided in the city ; but if she did so, she may have
had special reasons for wishing -the water of this well, be
cause of its. coolness or other qualities ; or as especially
valuable because of its association with Jacob. Porter
(n. 342) speaks of those at Damascus, who send to a par-
1 Palestine, 335. » Porter, ii. 340.

168 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
ticular fountain a mile or more distant from their homes,
although water is everywhere very, abundant.
It was about the sixth hour that Jesus sat on the well.
This, according to Jewish reckoning, would be 12 u. or
noon ; if reckoned according to Roman computation, 6
p. m., or as some say,1 6 a. m. Ebrard (296.) contends
that John always uses the Roman computation, and prefers
the evening here, on the grounds that the noonday was an
unfit time to travel, and that wells were usually visited for
water at evening. But if we remember that this was in
December, traveUing at mid-day will not appear strange.
Noon was not indeed the time for general resort to the
well, but such resort must be determined in particular
cases by individual need ; and that the woman was alone,
and held so long a private conversation uninterrupted,
shows that it was an hour when the weU was not generally
visited. There seems, then, no reason to depart from the
common opinion that it was about noon. At this hour the
Jews were accustomed to take their principal meal.a
The reception which the Lord met with among the Sa
maritans was in striking contrast with His reception in
Judea ; yet among the former He seems to have wrought
no miracles, and to have been received because the truth
He taught was the convincing proof of His Messianic char
acter. Arriving in Galilee, Jesus was honorably received by
the Galileans, for they had been at the Passover, and had
"seen all the things that He did at Jerusalem at the
feast," (John iv. 43-45.) But in face of this honorable re
ception, how are His words (v. 44) to be understood, "that
a prophet hath no honor in his own country," and which
are apparently cited as explaining why He went into Galilee.
There are several interpretations : 1. GalUee is to be taken
» Greswell, ii. 216 ; McKnight. » Winer, ii. 47.

SECOND VISIT AT CANA.- 169
in opposition to Nazareth. In this city, His own country,
Jesus had no honor, but elsewhere in GalUee He was re
ceived as a prophet.1 2. Galilee is to betaken in opposi
tion to Judea. Judea was His birthplace, and so His own
country, and it was also the land of the prophets; but
there He had found no reception, and had been compelled
to discontinue His ministry. In Galilee, on the contrary,
aU were ready to honor Him." 3. Galilee is His own coun
try where, according to the proverb, He would have had
no honor, except He had first gone into Judea and distin
guished Himself there. It was His miracles and works
abroad that gave Him fame and favor at home.3
The last interpretation appears best to suit the scope of
the narrative. The connection between vs. 43 and 44 is
this ; in v. 43 the fact is stated that He went into Galilee,
and in v. 44 the reason is assigned why He went. As, ac
cording tp the proverb, a prophet is without honor in his
own country, by retiring into Galilee He could avoid aU
publicity, and find, retirement. But in v.' 45 the fact is
stated that the Galileans, notwithstanding the proverb, did
receive Him, and the reason is also added, because they had
been at Jerusalem, and had seen what He did there. And
in verses 46-53 a particular instance is given, showing how
high His reputation in GalUee, and what publicity attended
His movements. His arrival at Cana was soon known at
Capernaum, and a nobleman from the latter city, supposed
by many to be Chuza, steward of Herod, coming to Him,
desires that He would return with him, and heal his son.
Without leaving Cana, Jesus heals him. This was His
second Galilean miracle.
From the time of this miracle at Cana, we lose sight of
the Lord till He reappears going up to a feast at Jerusalem
(John v. 1.) If, as we have supposed, He left Judea in De-
1 Lightfoot, Krafft. ' Ebrard, Norton. » Meyer, Alford.
8

170 THE LIPE OF OUR LORD.
cember, this miracle must have been wrought soon after
His arrival in GalUee. As the first feast which He could
attend was that of Purim, in March, an interval of some
two or three months must have elapsed. If this feast were
the Passover, or any of the later feasts, this interval was
correspondingly prolonged. How was this time spent?
Those who make the imprisonment of the Baptist to have
taken place before He left Judea, suppose that He now en
tered upon His Gahlean work. But, upon grounds already
stated, we conclude that John was not yet imprisoned, and
therefore His Gahlean work could not now begin, as the
two are closely connected by the Synoptists, (Matt. iv. 13,
Mark i. 14, Luke iU. 20, and iv. 14.) Several additional
considerations induce us to think that this period was not
spent in any public labors. 1 . When, after the imprisonment
of John, Jesus went into Galilee to teach and to preach,
His disciples were not with Him, and not tUl He had begun
His labors at Capernaum did they rejoin Him, (Matt. iv. 18,
Mark i. 16; Luke v. 2-11.) There was, then, an interval
after He had ended His baptismal labors in Judea, in which
they were His helpers, and before the beginning of His
ministry in GalUee, during which His disciples were sepa
rated from Him, and seem to have returned to their accus
tomed avocations. But if His GalUean work began as soon
as His Judean work ended, there was no time for them to
have thus returned to their homes, and, therefore, no op
portunity to recaU them to His service.
2. The Lord gave up baptizing, as we have seen, be
cause of the hostUity of the Pharisees, and their rejection
of the rite. But, so long as John was able, both in word
and act, to bear witness to; Him as the Messiah, He could
Himself seek retirement, and wait the issue of John's min
istry. He could not, tUl the Baptist was imprisoned and
his voice thus sUenced, finaUy leave Judea and begin His
work in GalUee. To Galilee He went, therefore, as a place

JESUS AT JERUSALEM. 171
of seclusion, not of publicity ; of rest, not of activity. The
proverb, that a prophet has no honor in his own country,
did not indeed prove true in His case. He was honorably
received, and immediately besought to heal the sick. StUl
there is no record that He entered upon any public labors,
that He preached or taught in the synagogues,, or wrought
any miracles. How or where His time was spent, can only
be conjectured. From the fact that no mention is made of
Nazareth, it has been inferred that He purposely avoided
that city, and took another route to Cana.1 That He is
spoken of as being at Cana, gives a show of confirmation to
the supposition already alluded to, that Mary and her chU
dren had now left Nazareth, and were dwelling at Cana.
But we may as readily suppose that He was now visiting
at the house of the friends or relatives, where he changed
the water into wine.

Passover, March 30 — April 5, 781. a. d. 28.
From Galilee Jesus goes up to the feast of the Pas- John v. 1.
sover, and at the pool of Bethesda heals an impotent John v. 2-9'.
man. This act, done on the Sabbath day, arouses the John v. 10-16.
anger of the Jews, who conspire against His life. He John v. 17-47.
defends His right to heal on the Sabbath upon grounds Matt. iv. 12.
that still more exasperate them. At this, time He hears MARKi. 14.
of the imprisonment of the Baptist, and retires to Galilee, Luke iv. 14.
to begin His work there.
" After this there was a feast of the Jews ; and Jesus
went up to Jerusalem." Which feast was this ? Opinions
are divided between Purim in March, Passover in April,
Pentecost in May, and Tabernacles in September. Before
considering the arguments used in favor of each by their
respective advocates, let us examine the statement of John.
1 So Newcome.

172 . THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
There is much doubt as to the true reading, whether a
feast or the feast, eoprq or rj eoprr}. Tischendorf1 retains
the article, Meyer and Alford reject it. The weight of
authority seems against it, and at any rate the reading is
so doubtful that we can lay no stress upon it.* But if it
were "the feast," 17 eoprr/, this would not, of itself, as some
suppose,3 decide in favor of the Passover, as it might refer
either to Passover or to Tabernacles, the two most promi
nent feasts. Of the latter Josephus speaks,4 as u a feast
most holy and eminent ; " and again," as " a festival very
much observed amongst us." But if the article would not
Umit this feast to the Passover, it would certainly exclude
the lesser feasts, as that of Purim.
But, if the article be wanting, it is said that the feast is
still defined by the addition to it of the explanatory words
"of the Jews," ¦jw lovBauov." It is given as a rule of He
brew, and so transferred to Scripture Greek, that the
" noun before a genitive is made definite by prefixing the
article, not to the noun itself, but to the genitive." 7 Thus
the phrase before us should be rendered " the feast of the
Jews," or " the Jews' festival," which must be understood
of the Passover. But the rule is given with an important
qualification by Winer," " The article is frequently omitted,
when a noun, denoting an object of which the individual re
ferred to possesses but one, is clearly defined by means of
a genitive foUowing."9 As there was but one feast of Tab
ernacles, the phrase eoprq twv o-Krrvusv would be properly ren-
1 Synopsis, xxvi., note 2.
a It is found in the newly discovered Sinaitic manuscript, but the value of
that MS. is not yet settled.
3 Hengstenberg, Robinson. * Antiq., 8. 4. 1.
» Antiq., 15. 3. 3. « Hug, Int., 449.
» Robinson, Har., 190. See in the Septuagint, Deut. xvi. 18; 2 Kings,
xviii. 15 ; also Matt. xii. 24; Luke ii. 11 ; Acts viii. 5.
s Gram., 107.
» See "also LQcke in loco, who agrees that only where the governing noun
exists singly in its kind, is it rendered definite by a noun following.

SECOND PASSOVER OF HIS MINISTRY. • 173
dered "the feast of Tabernacles;" but as there were sev
eral feasts kept by the Jews, eopmn rm> IovSauw, " feast of
the Jews," may mean any feast. The passages cited by
Robinson come aU under the above rule.
From the form of the expression, then, nothing can be
determined. We learn simply that Jesus went up to Jeru
salem at one of the Jewish feasts. We do not even learn
whether it was one of the greater or lesser feasts. It seems
to be mentioned only as giving the occasion why He went
up to Jerusalem. He would not have gone except there
had been a feast, but its name was unimportant to the
EvangeUst's purpose.1 Let us then enquire what light is
thrown upon it from the general scope of this Gospel.
It is apparent that John does not design, any more than
the other Evangelists, to give us a complete chronological
outline of the Lord's life. But we see that he mentions by
name several feasts which the Lord attended, which the
Synoptists do not mention at all.' The last Passover aU
the Evangehsts mention in common. But these were by
no means all the feasts that occurred during His ministry.
That of Pentecost is nowhere mentioned, nor does John
say that those mentioned by him were all that Jesus at
tended. During the first year of His labors, or whUst bap
tizing in Judea, there is good ground to believe that He
was present at the three chief feasts, though the Passover
•only is mentioned. On the other hand, one Passover is
mentioned which it is probable He did not attend, (John vi.
4.) Upon examination, we see that the feasts which are
aUuded to stand in some close connection with the Lord's
words or acts, so that it is necessary to specify them. Thus
in n. 13, the mention of the Passover explains the purifica
tion of the temple, or driving out of the seUers of oxen and
sheep ; in vi. 4 it explains how such a great company should
1 See Luthardt in loco.
3 See ii. 13 ; vi. 4 ; vii. 2 ; x. 22.

174 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
have gathered to Him in so lonely a region across the sea ;
in vu. 2 His words take their significance from the special
ceremonies connected with that feast ; in x. 22 His presence
in Solomon's porch is thus explained. In each of these cases
the name ofthe feast is mentioned, not primarily as a datum
of time, but as explanatory of something in the narrative ;
and as the mention of the other feasts was unimportant to
his purpose, John passes them by in silence. But the feast
before us he mentions, yet does not give its name. What
shaU we infer from this ? Some infer that it must have
been one of the minor feasts, for had it been one of the
chief feasts it would have been named. But as he specifies
(x. 22) one of the minor feasts, there seems no sufficient
reason why he should not specify this, had it been such.
AU that we can say is, that there was no such connection
between this feast and what Jesus said or did whUe attend
ing it that it was necessary to specify it. The healing of
the impotent man, and the events that foUowed, might have
taken place at any feast.
The sUence, then, of John determines nothing respect
ing the nature of this feast. We cannot infer because he
has mentioned three Passovers beside, that this was a
fourth ; nor, on the other hand, that he would so specify it
had it been a Passover.
Let us now pass in review the various feasts, and con
sider what may be said in favor of each. We have seen"
that in December the Lord left Judea for GalUee. The
first feast was that of Dedication, which was observed in
Kislev, or about the middle of December. It is generally
agreed that this feast cannot be meant. The next in order
was Purim, which fell in March. That this feast was the
one in question was first suggested by Kepler, but has
since found many eminent supporters.1 But before we con-
1 See Meyer in loco.

SECOND PASSOVER OF HIS MINISTRY. 175
sider the arguments in its favor, let us examine its origin
and history. Purim was not a. Mosaic feast, or of divine
appointment, but one established by the Jews whUst in
captivity, in commemoration of their deliverance from the
murderous plans of Haman, (Esther iU. 7 ; ix. 24.) It is de
rived from " pur," the Persian word for lot. Haman sought
to find an auspicious day for the execution of his design by
casting lots. The lot fell on the 14th Adar. FaUing in his
purpose, this day was kept thereafter by the Jews as a fes
tival. It seems, however, to have been first observed by
the Jews out of Palestine, and eighty-five elders made ex
ceptions against it as an innovation against the Law.1 It is
mentioned in Maccabees (2 Mac. xv. 36) as Mordecai's
day. It is also mentioned by Josephus;11 who says " that
even now all the Jews that are in the habitable earth
keep these days festival.'? It is often alluded to in the Tal
mud.3 Such was the origin of the feast. It was commemo
rated by the reading of Esther in the synagogues, and by
general festivity, with plays and masquerades. Maimon
ides says it was forbidden to fast or weep on this day. It
was rather a national and political, than rehgious so
lemnity,4 and as no special services were appointed for its
observance at the temple, there was no necessity of going
up to Jerusalem, nor does it appear that this was their cus
tom. Each J.ew observed it as a day of patriotic rejoicing
and festivity, wherever he chanced to be.6 Lightfoot (on
Mark i. 38) remarks that if the feast did not come on a
1 Lightfoot on John x. 22. ' Antiq., 11. 6. 13.
¦ Winer, ii. 289. '- Ewald, iv. 261.
8 Of the mode of its observance in this country at the present time, a
recent New York journal gives tbe following account : " The day is devoted
to mirth and merry-making. In the evening and morning the synagogues
are lighted up, and the reader chants the book of Esther. It is a custom
among the Jews on this occasion to visit each other's house in masked attire,
and exchange joyful greetings."

176 THE LTFE OF OUR LORD.
synagogue day, those living in a vUlage where was no
synagogue, need not go to some other vUlage to read the
book of Esther, but could wait tUl a synagogue day.1
From this brief survey of the history, and the manner
of observance of this feast, it is highly improbable that it
is the feast meant by John. It was not one of their di-.
vinely appointed feasts, nor was there any legal obligation
to keep, it. It was not a feast specifically religious, but
patriotic ; a day, making due aUowance for difference in
customs and institutions, not unlike the day that commem
orates our own national independence. There were no
special rites that made it necessary to go up to Jerusalem,
and even those residing in vUlages where was no syn
agogue were not obliged to go to a vUlage where one was
to be found. Why then should Jesus go up from GalUee
to be present at this feast-? It was not a time in which
men's minds were prepared to hear spiritual instruction,
nor could He sympathize with the rude and boisterous, not
to say disorderly and drunken manner in which the day
was kept. Stier, (v. 75,) who defends Purim, admits " the
revengeful and extravagant spirit which animated it," and
" the debauched manner in which these days of excess were
spent." Yet he thinks motives of compassion disposed the
Lord to visit once " this melancholy caricature of a holy
festivity." But we can see no sufficient motive for such a
journey. The tenor of the narrative naturaUy leads us to
think of one of the greater and generally attended festivals.
If it be said of a Jew that he went up to Jerusalem to a
feast, the obvious understanding would be that it was a
feast that he was legally bound to attend, and which could
be rightly kept only at Jerusalem.
The chief argument in favor of Purim is that it is
brought by John into such close connection with the Pass-
i See generally Hengstenberg, Christ, iii. 240 Hug, Int., 449; Wieseler,
222; Brown, Jew. Antiq., i. 574.

SECOND PASSOVER OF HIS MINISTRY 177
over, (vi. 4,) and that if it be not Purim, then a year and
a half, at least, must have elapsed ere Jesus visited Jerusa
lem again, the next recorded visit being that to Taberna
cles,' (John vii. 2.) It, certainly, at first sight, seems im
probable that a year should intervene between v. 1 and vi.
4, as would be the case if the former were a Passover. But
this is not the only instance in which John narrates events
widely separated in time, without noting the interval.
Thus, ch. vi. relates what took place before a Passover, and
ch. vii. what took place at the feast of Tabernacles, six
months later. In like manner, in x. 22, is a sudden transition
from this feast of Tabernacles to that of Dedication. Why
the intervening events are not mentioned finds explanation
in the peculiar, character of this gospel. That Jesus should
have absented Himself for so long a time from the feasts, is
explained by the hostility of the Jews, and their purpose to
slay Him, (John v. 16-18 ; vii. 1.)
On the other hand, if this feast be Purim, and the Pass
over, vi. 4, the first Passover after, or the second of the
Lord's ministry, then the interval between them, about
three weeks, is not sufficient for all the events that must
have taken place. And still less is the interval between
December, when most of the advocates of Purim suppose-
the Lord's Galilean work to have begun, and the following
Passover (vi. 4) sufficient to include all that the Evangel
ists relate. The feeding of the five thousand, as is gener
aUy agreed, and as wiU be hereafter shown, marks the-
culmination of His work' in GalUee; yet this took place,
according to this view, in three or four months after His •
work began, for it was a little before the Passover, (vi. 4.),'
And into this short space are crowded two-thirds, at least,.
of all that He did in GalUee, so far as recorded. This
would be very improbable, even if, as is supposed, His la
bors there extended only through a year. In the highest
degree improbable is the view of Wieseler, foUowed by El-
8*

178 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
Ucott, that for aU this, the httle interval between Purim
and Passover was, sufficient.1
Upon these grounds we think the feast of Purim is to be
rejected. It was a feast which it is not at all probable Jesus
would go up to Jerusalem to attend, and whose introduc
tion here brings chronological confusion into the gospel
history. The next feast in order is that of. the Passover. In
favor of this feast it may be said, that it was one which
Jesus would naturally attend, as having for Him a special
significance. It was also the feast that had the most dis
tinctly religious character, and it was very generally. at
tended by the people, especially the most serious and de
vout. According to Hengstenberg, " it was. the only one
.ait which it was a universal! custom to make a pUgrimage to
.Jerusalem." 2 We may thus infer that He would certainly
go, unless prevented by the open hostility of the Jews.
But no «uch hostUity appears. It was aroused by the heal
ing of the impotent man (John v. 16-18) into activity, but
till .this event He was unmolested.
But the objection is taken that if this be a Passover, and
another is mentioned, (vi. 4,) which apparently He did not
attend, then He was not present at any feast till the feast
of Tabernacles, (vii. 2,) a period of a year and a half.'
This objection has been already alluded to. Whether the
Lord did actually go up to any feast between that of v. 1
and that of vu. 2, cannot be determined.* We know, at
least, that He would not, after the rulers at Jerusalem had
sought to slay Him, needlessly expose His hfe to peril. To
the laws of God respecting the feasts He would render all.
obedience, but with the liberty of a son, not with the ser-
11 See Lichtenstein, 174; Riggenbacb, 406.
= See Luke ii. 41, where this feast is specially mentioned.
» Hug, Int., 448.
• Jarvis, Int., 570-576, makes Him to have attended them all, even that
^iif Dedication. This is in the highest degree improbable.

SECOND PASSOVER OF HIS MINISTRY. 179
vUe scrupulosity of a Pharisee. As He was Lord of the
Sabbath,- so He was Lord of the Feasts, and He attended
them, or did not attend them, as seemed best to Him.
From John, (vii. 21 and 23,) where He refers to a work
which He had previously done at Jerusalem, and which we
must identify with the healing of the impotent man, (John
v. 5,) it appears obvious that He had not, during the inter
val, been publicly teaching there, and therefore had not
attended any feast. StUl the point is not certain, as He
might have been present as a private worshipper, and with
out attracting public attention ; yet this is improbable.1
Another objection to identifying this feast with the
Passover is that John relates nothmg as having occurred
between v. 1 and vi. 4, an interval of a year. This objec
tion has already been sufficiently noticed.,
Pentecost is the feast next in order, and occurred this
year on the 19th May. This feast is not mentioned by any
of the Evangelists. Though it has had some able advo
cates, as Calvin, Bengel, and lately Townsend, and was
adopted by many of the ancients, it has no special argu
ments in its favor. It was not so generally attended as
Passover or Tabernacles, and no reason appears why Jesus
should have omitted Passover and gpne up to Pentecost.
The feast of Tabernacles foUowed upon the 23d of Sep
tember. The chief argument in its favor is that it brings the
feast ofv. 1 into close connection with that of vU. 2, only a
year intervening, and thus best explains his words, vn. 21-
23." But some months more or less are not, under the cir
cumstances, important, for the miracle with its results must
have been fresh in their minds even after a much longer
interval: If He had not in the interval between these
1 See Greswell, ii. 247, who maintains that the five instances recorded by
John " embrace «11 the instances of our Saviour's attendance in Jerusalem at
any of the feasts."
' So Riggenbach, 408.

180 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
feasts been at Jerusalem, as is most, probable, His reappear
ance would naturaUy carry their minds back to the time
when they last saw Him, and recaU both His work and
their own machinations against Him. Lichtenstein (175)
defends this feast, but it is in connection with the view
which we cannot adopt, that our Lord spent the summer
of 780 in retirement.
The great objection to identifying the feast before us
with that of Tabernacles, is that it puts between the end of
chap. iv. and the beginning of chap. v. a period of eight or
nine months, which the Evangehsts pass over in sUence.1
Comparing, these various feasts together, that of the
Passover seems to have most in its favor, and that of
Purim least. Some incidental points bearing upon this
question wUl be discussed as we proceed. We give the
foUowing order as the result of our inquiries : Jesus ceases
baptizing and leaves Judea in December, 780. His disci
ples depart to their homes, and He lives in retirement till
March, 781, when He goes up to this feast, the Passover.
At this time, on His way or after His arrival, He hears of
the imprisonment of John, and returns to GalUee to begin
His work there.
The name of the pool, Bethesda, locus benignitatis,
" house of mercy," indicates that it was a place of resort
for the sick, and that its waters had, naturaUy or super-
naturaUy, healing virtue.' Its position is mentioned as
being near the sheep gate, for so em Ty irpojSartKj; is gen
eraUy understood. About the pool were five porches or
arches, where the sick might be sheltered.
A pool has long been shown at Jerusalem as the pool
of Bethesda. It lies near St. Stephen's gate, albng the
1 Ebrard avoids this objection, but falls into another as great by supposing
nothing recorded between tbe twb. feasts, (John v. 1, and vii. 2), but the
sending of the twelve and the feeding of the five thousand. *
» As to other etymologies, see Herzog, Encyc. ii. 118 ; Riggenbach
< 406, note.

POOL OF BETHESDA. 181
north waU of the Temple, and is 360 feet long, 130 broad,
and 75 deep.1 There are still to be seen at the southwest
corner two arched vaults, one of which Dr. Robinson meas
ured 100 feet westward. He infers that this excavation is
part of the deep trench that once separated the temple
enclosure from the .adjoining hill,2 and that it extended to
the northwest corner of Antonia. It was afterward used
as a reservoir, its walls within being cased over with smaU
stones, and these covered with plaster, but bearing no
special marks of antiquity.3 Ferguson, however,4 affirms
that from '' the curiously elaborate character of its hydraulic
masonry it must always have been intended as a reservoir
of water, and never could have been the ditch of a fortifi
cation.?' 6 The traditional site is defended by Wilhams, and
approved by Ellicott. According to WUson, it was both
the "fosse" and the "pool." De Saulcv, (ii. 285,) following
Jerome and some ofthe early travellers, maintains that the
language of the Evangelist should be understood, " Now
there is in Jerusalem by the Probatica (pool) a pool called
Bethesda," &c. Thus there were two pools, piscince gemil-
lares, "twin fish pools," one caUed Probatica and one
Bethesda, of which the latter is the same as that now
known by this name, and the two were connected together
by the arches stUl to be seen. Stewart, (278) also, supposes
that two separate pools lay along the northern wall of the
Temple enclosure, the sheep gate being between them, one
of which was the Struthius of Josephus, the other the pool
of Bethesda. • Robinson (i. 342 ; iii. 249) would identify the
pool of Bethesda with the present fountain of the Virgin.
The waters of this fountain flow irregularly or intermit
tently, and thus "the moving of the water," v. 3, may be
' Robinson, i. 293. * Josephus, War, 5. 4. 2.
a With Robinson, Porter, i. 115, and Barclay, 324, agree.
* Smith's Bib. Diet., i. 1028.
» See also Idem, art. Bethesda, 200; Stewart, Tent and Khan, 277.

182 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
accounted for. The fountain is thus described by Porter
(i, 139): "The water springs up at the bottom of an arti
ficial cave some 25 feet deep, excavated in the rock of
Ophel. Descending by a flight of 16 steps, we reach a
chamber 18 feet long by 10 wide and 10 high. Thence
going down 14 steps more into a roughly hewn grotto, we
reach the water." Barclay says (516) "the stream ebbs
and flows quite irregularly, but generally three or four
times a'day in Autumn, and oftener in Spring, running from
two to four hours in the twenty-four, ahd appearing per
fectly quiescent during the remainder of the day, although
a little water always runs,." It is plain' that this fountain,
a deep excavation in the rock, difficult of access, and with
out any space in its narrow chamber for the five porches,
cannot have been the place where " lay a great multitude
of impotent folk." Barclay also objects that there is no
proof that it was intermittent in the time of the Lord, and
derives an argument from the sUence of Josephus,. and of
the Bomah writers. The narrative seems plainly to imply
supernatural agency.1 Lightfoot makes the pool of Be
thesda to be that of SUoam. To the waters of SUoam he
ascribes supernatural virtues. In regard to Bethesda he
says (v. 238) : " The general silence of the Jews about the
wondrous virtue of this pool is something strange, who, in
the abundant praises and privileges and particulars of
Jerusalem which they give, yet speak not one syllable, that
I have ever found, toward the story of Bethesda." Bar
clay (326) finds. another site for this pool on the lower side
of the sheep quarter, to the east of the Temple. By some
it has been held to be a tank just north of St. Stephen's
gate. 1 It should, however, be remembered, that verse 4, "For an angel went
down at a certain season into the pool," &c, is of doubtful genuineness. It
is rejected by Tischendorf, Meyer, and Alford, but defended by De Wette and
Stier. See Alford in loco ; Trench, Mir. 203.

HEALING OF THE IMPOTENT MAN 183
As the healing of the impotent man took place oh the
Sabbath, it gave the Jews the desired opportunity of ac
cusing Him of a breach of the law ; and it seems indeed as
if the Lord desired to judge their whole system of legal
righteousness, by an emphatic condemnation of the inter
pretation they gave to one of the most important of the
commandments. Lightfoot (in loco) observes : " It is
•worthy our observation that our Saviour did not think it
enough. merely to heal the impotent man on the Sabbath
day, which was against their rules, but farther commanded
him to take up his bed, which was much more against that
rule." A rigid observance of the Sabbath, even to the
prohibition of the healing of the sick on that day, (Luke
xiii. 14,) was a main element of Pharisaic righteousness, and
therefore on this point He took issue with them. Accord-,
ing to the order we follow, it was the first time that He
had healed on the Sabbath, and the question how such a
work should be regarded, whether as lawful or unlawful,
came before the ecclesiastical authorities at Jerusalem for
their decision. That they decided it tp be unlawful, appears
from the angry opposition which subsequent cases of heahng
on that day called forth.
With this miracle, the healing ofthe impotent man, the
Lord's Judean work, or the first stage "of His ministry,
came to its close. It brought out the enmity of the Jews
at Jerusalem into full manifestation, and showed how un
prepared were the rulers, the priests and scribes, and eld
ers, to receive Him. In vain John bore witness to Him, in
vain He Himself taught and wrought miracles!' They had
neither eyes to see, nor ears to hear. It is apparent that
from the very first they had regarded Him with great sus
picion, arising from His pecuhar relations to John the Bap
tist, whom they disliked and rejected. His assumption of au
thority at the purification of the temple, and the sharp
reproof which that act implied, of their own criminal re-

184 THE LTFE OUR LORD.
missness, must have been in the highest degree offensive to
them ; -nor did any miracle that He subsequently wrought
remove their dislike, or convince them of His divine com
mission. Although they took no active measures to stay
Him in the work of baptizing, yet it is evident that they
were annoyed and angry at the numbers that flocked to
His baptism. But there was yet no sufficient ground for
open opposition, and they seemed to have gained a victory,
in that He had given up His work of baptizing and retired
into GalUee. But now that He comes to Jerusalem,, and
violates the Sabbath by working in public a miracle on that
day, the way is open to proceed against Him as a breaker
of the law. There can be little doubt that He was now
brought before the Sanhedrim, and that the discourse given
(John v. 17-47) was spoken before that tribunal. This ap
pears from His allusion to the deputation from Jerusalem
to the Baptist, (verse 33,) " Ye sent unto John, and he
bare witness unto the truth ; " a deputation sent by those
He was then addressing.1 Whether any judicial action
was now taken, does not appear, but the Evangehst a httle
later explains the fact of His ministry in GalUee, by saying
that He could not walk in Judea, " because the Jews sought
to kill Him," (vii. 1.) From this we may infer that it was
formally determined upon to seize Him and put Him to
death if found in Judea.2 From this province He was
thus, by the act of the ecclesiastical rulers, excluded.
The ground of defence in the Lord's discourse before
the Sanhedrim, based upon His divine Sonship and His
equality with God, only the more inflamed the anger of
His enemies. Not only did He claim to be the Messiah,
but more ; He made Himself equal with God. Regarded
as the last appeal to them to receive Him, the closing words
of His Judean ministry, this discourse has a special signif-
1 So Meyer, Lange, Tholuck. » Compare John" vii. 25-32.

RETURN TO GALILEE. 185
icance. It states first the relation between the Father
and the Son, and the threefold evidence by which His own
mission ¦ was confirmed. The Baptist bare witness ; His
own works, wrought in the power of the Father, bare, wit
ness ; and finally, the Scriptures bare witness.1 But even
this " threefold cord " did not bind them, and nothing now
remained but to turn away from a people that received
Him not, (verse 43,) and enter upon a new stage of His
work in despised Galilee. It is well said by ElUcott, (141,)
" This is the turning point in the Gospel history. Up to
this time the preaching of our Lord at Jerusalem and in
Judea had met with a certain degree of toleration, and in
many cases even of acceptance ; but after this all becomes
changed. Henceforth the City of David is no meet or safe
abode for the son of David; the earthly house of His
Heavenly Father is no longer a secure haU of audience for
the preaching of the Eternal Son."
As Jesus now left Judea and only returned to it after a
considerable interval, and then only for very brief periods
at the feasts, His enemies in that province had little oppor
tunity to arrest Him. We know, however, that in point
of fact they attempted to do so at the very first feast He"
attended, (John vii. 32.) So long as He was in Galilee, aU
they could do was to watch His proceedings there, and
seize upon every occasion that presented itself to destroy
His reputation, and hinder His work. How zealously they
labored to this end wUl appear as our history proceeds.
> See " The Messiah," 153.

• PART III
FROM THE IMPRISONMENT TO THE DEATH OE JOHN THE BAP
TIST ; OR, FROM APRIL, 781, TO MARCH, 782. A. D. 28, 29.,

Upon the Lord's Ministry in Galilee to the Death of
the Baptist.
Of the general character of the Lord's work in Gahlee,
as distinguished from His work in Judea, we have aheady
spoken, when considering the divisions of His ministry. It
is in the light of this distinction that certain remarkable,
and to some perplexing, features of the synoptical Gospels
find their explanation. As is patent upon their narratives,
they relate nothing that the Lord did prior to John the
Baptist's imprisonment. Only from the Evangelist John do
we learn that His field of labor, till the Baptist was impris
oned, was Judea. Here His time was spent from the Pass
over of 780 tUl the December following, and if He resid
ed, in GalUee a few weeks tiU the feast, (John v. 1,) as
He seems to have done, this was in consequence of the
enmity of the Jews, and the time was apparently spent in
seclusion. So far as the narratives of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke go, the beginning of His public labors is to be dated
from the time when, the Baptist being cast into prison, He
went from Judea into GalUee. They aU assume that He

CHARACTER OF THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE. 187
was in Judea up to this time, this being the province to
which His early labors were confined. The reasons why
they pass over in sUence this first year of His ministry, and
why they bring His work in GalUee into sucb close connec
tion with the Baptist, we now proceed to consider.
The sUence of the Synoptists respecting the Judean
work of the Lord, wUl not appear strange if we recall the
purpose and result of that work. As we have seen, John,
after the baptism of Jesus, was visited by a deputation of
priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to whom he bore for
mal witness that the Messiah had come, (John i. 19-28.)
Perhaps, also, he pointed out Jesus to them in person. It
was now a question distinctly before the ecclesiastical rulers,
Would they receive Jesus thus pointed out to them as the
Christ, or reject Him? As they took no steps to seek
Him, thus showing their disregard of the Baptist's testi
mony, He Himself will bring the matter to aa open and
speedy test. At the first feast after this testimony, He ap
pears in the temple, and there, assumes authority as the
Son of God, to purge it. He also works miracles, and
many believed in Him as one sent from God. StUl the '
ecclesiastical rulers did not receive Him. He therefore
begins to baptize ; but they did not come to His baptism ;
and the gathering to Him of the people only augments
their hostility, and they seek to cast impediments in His
way by sowing dissensions between His disciples and those
of John. ' As they will not come to receive baptism, no
further step could be taken in the regular development of
His Messianic work. He therefore ceases to baptize, and
retires from 'Judea. Still the time is not yet come for Him
to begin His work in Galilee, for the Baptist is at liberty,
and through his witness and labors the rulers may yet be
brought to repentance, and the nation be saved. He wiU
wait tiU His forerunner has finished his work in Judea, ere
He commences His work in Galilee. But John's ministry

188 . THE LTFE OF OUR LORD.
comes to a sudden and untimely end, (Mark ix. 13.) He
is shut up in prison, and can bear no further witness. Once
more the Lord presents Himself in Jerusalem, and works a
miracle, but is "called a blasphemer, and His life endangered.
There is now no place for Him in Judea. All the labors
of the Baptist, and His own labors had been unavailing to
turn the hearts of those in authority, and ensure His recep
tion as the Messiah. By their own unbelief, those who sat
in Moses' seat, the priests and Levites; made it impossible
that He could use them in His service, and continuing to
reject Him, they themselves must be rejected. The Mo
saic institutions must be set aside, and their priesthood
cease. It is here that we find the essential distinction between
the Lord's work in Judea and that in GalUee. The former
had reference to the Jewish people in their corporate capa
city, a nation in covenant with God ; and aimed to produce
in them that sense of sin, and that true repentance, which
were indispensable to His reception. The latter was based
upon the fact that the ecclesiastical rulers of the Jews would
not receive Him, and had sought to kill Him, and that
therefore, if they persisted in their wickedness, God was
about to cast them out of their peculiar' relations to Him,
and establish a church, of which the elect of all nations
should be- members, (Matt. viii. 11, 12.) Going into
Galilee, the Lord will gather there a body of disciples, who
shall bear witness to Him before the nation, but who, if.
this testimony is unavailing, shall serve as the foundations
of the new institutions resting upon the New Covenant.
Thus the departure from Judea into Gahlee does not imply
that the Lord regarded this rejection of Himself by the
Jews as final, and that nothing remained but to lay new
foundations and choose a new priesthood. He will leave Ju
dea, but after a time He wUl return. His work in Galilee
stUl has reference to national salvation, through the faith of

CHARACTER OF THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE. 189
those who should believe on Him there. If, however, the
nation wUl not hear them, then from among them He wUl
select those who shall take the place of the. priesthood of
the Aaronic line, and be buUders and rulers under Him, the
Stone which the builders had refused, but now become the
Head of the corner.
Thus, it will not appear strange that the Synoptists,
writing after aU these events had developed themselves,
should pass over in silence the Lord's Judean work. Re
garded in its relations to the Christian Church, its mention
was comparatively unimportant ; and they could well com
mence their narratives with that work in GalUee, which,
looking forward to the future, was already developing itself
so widely and powerfully.1 It was comparatively of httle
moment that their readers should know, in detail, that the
Lord first began His labors in Judea, and that, after a few
months, He was eompeUed to abandon them, through the
enmity of the rulers ; since aU knew that He was finally
rejected by them, and suffered death at their hands. But
the Galilean work was ofthe highest moment, as it marked
where the dividing Une began between the old and the
new, between Moses and Christ. And this may also ex
plain their silence in respect to the feasts which the Lord at
tended while in GalUee. Any transient work at Jerusalem,
1 Some find difficulty in reconciling the Synoptists with John, because the
former say that Jesus went to Capernaum to begin His ministry after the im
prisonment of the Baptist, while John relates two visits to Capernaum and
Galilee before this imprisonment. (John ii. 12 ; iv. 46.) But these visits
they might well pass over in silence, as not at all affecting the general fact
that the field of labor during the first part of His ministry was Judea, and not
Galilee. The first of these visits to.Galilee was before the first Passover, and
of short duration ; the second was after the work in Judea had been inter
rupted, and was also brief, and neither of them was marked by public la
bors. He began to preach in Galilee only when He had ended/or the time
His work in Judea, and this was after the imprisonment of the Baptist and
the attempt of the Jews on His own life. (John v. 18.)

190 THE UFE OF OUR LORD.
addressing itself especiaUy to the hierarchy, had no impor
tant bearing upon the great result.
On tbe other hand, the mention of the Lord's ministry
in Judea by John, and his sUence respecting much that
was done in Galilee, follow from the special purpose of his
Gospel, which is to show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God, (xx. 31 ;) and, as incidental, how faith on the one
side and unbelief on the other were developed among
those who, from time to' time, were brought into contact
with Him. He draws no sharp line of distinction between
what Jesus did in Judea and in Gahlee, nor makes any
particular mention of John's imprisonment. He selects
from the many acts of His life such as wUl best answer his
purpose, wherever they took place, and the events seem,
for the most part, to be narrated that he may give the dis
courses that' stand in connection with them.1 It is thus
incidentaUy and not formally, that he mentions what was
done. in Judea, and it is only by a careful comparison of. his
narrative with those of the Synoptists, that we reach our
general result.
It is to be remembered that GalUee had been spoken
of several centuries before the Saviour's birth, by the
prophet Isaiah, (ix. 1, 2,) as that part of the Holy Land, to
be especiaUy blessed by His labors. It had been the part
least esteemed, not only because in the division of the
kingdom it was joined to Israel in opposition to Judah, but
as also especiaUy exposed to foreign invasion, and which
had in fact been repeatedly conquered. ¦ Here was the
greatest admixture of foreign elements, the natural result
of these conquests, and hence the name, " Gahlee of the
Gentiles." The prophet mentions the two tribes of Zebu
lon and Napthali as peculiarly despised; and within the
i Compare the visit of Nicodemus, the incident at Jacob's well, the visit
to the feast, (v. 1,) the feeding ofthe five thousand, the visit at the Feast of
Dedication, and many others.

CHARACTER OF THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE. 191
bounds of the first was Nazareth, and within the bounds
of the second was Capernaum. How wonderfully this
prophecy, so dark in its literal interpretation, was fulfilled,
the history ofthe Lord's ministry shows. His own in Judea
and Jerusalem would not walk in His light, and thus it was
that, in "Galilee of the GentUes, the people which sat in
darkness saw great light."
To this prediction of Isaiah, the Evangelist Matthew,
according to his custom, calls the attention of his readers,
and affirms that in GalUee, thus propheticaUy marked out,
the preaching of the Lord actuaUy began, (iv. 17.) " From
that time," that is, from the imprisonment of John, and the
departure into GalUee, that immediately foUowed it, "Jesus
began to preach," &c. " His earUer appearance in Judea,
though full of striking mcidents and proofs of His divine
legation, was preliminary to His ministry or preaching,
properly so called, which now began."1 Luke seems plainly
to intimate that the first teaching of the Lord in the syna
gogues was tbat which he records at Nazareth. That His
enemies at Jerusalem regarded His labors as first taking
positive form and character'in Galilee, appears from their
accusation, (Luke xxiii. 5,) " He stirreth up the people,
teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from GaUlee to
this place." (See also the words of Peter, Acts x. 37,
" That word which was pubhshed throughout aU Judea,
and began from Galilee.") And as God had ordered that
Galilee should be the chief theatre of His teaching, so He
providentially overruled the political arrangements of the
time, that there He could labor without hindrance, since
the tetrarch Herod Antipas did not trouble himself con
cerning any ecclesiastical movements that did not disturb
the public peace. And here, also, the people were less
under the influence of the hierarchy, and more- open to
His words. 1 Alexander in loco; so Greswell, ii. 274; Stier on Lukeiv; 18.

192 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
Thus the silence of the Synoptists, respecting the work
of Jesus in Judea, is satisfactorily, explained ; and we also
see why the imprisonment of the Baptist is made so promi
nent in their narratives. It marks the time when He left
Judea for GalUee, and is thus a great turning point in
His ministry. So long as John was free to prosecute his
work of calling the nation to repentance, He could take no
steps looking forward to the establishment of new institu
tions. He could not begin to preach or teach in Galilee.
But John in prison could no more prepare His way, could
no more testify of Him to the nation, or administer the
baptism of repentance. The voice of the forerunner thus
silenced, Jesus, departing to GalUee, can there begin Him
self to- preach, and to gather disciples, and prepare them
for their future work.
As the primary object of the ministry in Gahlee was to
gather disciples, the Lord directs His teachings and works
to that end. Hence His visits to all parts of the land, His
use of the synagogues for preaching, His teachings in the
streets, in the fields, upon the sea-shore, wherever the peo
ple gather to Him. He speaks to all, that whosoever has
ears to hear may hear. Hence, also, His readiness to heal
all who may come unto Him, that the faith which the word
could not draw forth might be drawn forth by the work.
Thus by degrees He gathered around Him the most spirit
ually minded and receptive of the Galileans, and of the
•adjacent regions. From these He chooses a small body
whom He keeps near Himself, and to whom He explains
what is obscure in His public discourses, as they are able to
hear ; and these, after He had instructed them, He sends
forth to be witnesses to the people at large.
This work of Jesus in GalUee, gathering and educating
His disciples, continued from the Passover of 781 till the
Feast of Tabernacles in 782, or a period of about one year
and six months. The death of the Baptist, which we place

THE BAPTIST'S IMPRISONMENT. 193
in the spring of 782, had an important bearing upon His
labors, and divides this Galilean ministry into two parts,
which are easUy distinguishable from each other. The
grounds of this distinction -wUl be noted hereafter. Our
present period ends with the Baptist's death. The impor
tant events that mark its progress wUl be noticed as we
proceed.

April. 781. a. d. 28.
Hearing whilst in Jerusalem of the imprisonment of Matt. iv. 12.
John the Baptist, the Lord leaves Judea and goes into Maekl 14, 15.
Galilee to begin His ministry there. In His progress He Luke iv. 14, 15.
comes to Nazareth and teaches in it3 synagogue. His Luke iv. 16-32.
words enraging the people, and His life being in danger,
He leaves Nazareth, and going to Capernaum there takes Matt, iv.12-17.
up his abode.
An important arid difficult point here meets us : When
was John imprisoned ?
We first inquire what data we have bearing upon it,
other than the statements ofthe Evangehsts. In Josephus '
we find mention made of the imprisonment of John by
Herod the Tetrarch, at the castle of Machaarus, where he
was subsequently put to death. This imprisonment and1
death of the Baptist Josephus connects with the defeat of
Herod in battle by Aretas, king of Arabia ; the defeat .
being regarded by many of the Jews as a just punishment
sent by God upon Herod for this act of injustice and crueL-
ty. He does not mention that John reproved Herod for
his marriage of Herodias, and seems to place the arrest ,
solely on political grounds.
It appears, from these statements of Josephus respect*
ing the origin and history of the war, that the death of
i Antiq., 18. 5. 1.
9

194 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
John was before the defeat of Herod by Aretas, and that
this defeat was before the death of Tiberius. This emperor
died in March, 790. It was also probably before the death
of Philip the Tetrarch.1 Thus we reach only the indefinite
result, that John was beheaded before, or in 787. And we
have no data in Josephus to come to any more exact con
clusion. Some have sought to obtain a more definite re
sult by determining the time when Herod made that
journey to Rome in which he met Herodias, but without
success. If, then, only the general conclusion can be drawn from
the statements of Josephus, that John was put to death be
fore 787, let us turn to the Evangelists. We learn from
John, (Ui. 23, 24,) that while Jesus was baptizing in Judea,
John was baptizing at ^Enon. This was during the sum
mer of 780. Jesus discontinued His baptismal work, prob
ably in December of that year, and retired into Galilee.
We have already seen that John continued to. prosecute his
work later. In John (iv. 1) there is no assertion that the
Baptist's work had ended, but rather a plain intimation that
it was stiU in progress, for there is a comparison between
them, and the result is that Jesus is baptizing more than
John." We may then conclude that John was still at
liberty, and engaged in bis work about the beginning of
December, 780.
The grounds upon which the many harmonists and
commentators, who make the cessation of the Lord's bap
tismal work contemporaneous with John's imprisonment,
reach this conclusion, are various and by no means con
cordant. But most agree that the Lord was afraid of a
like imprisonment. Thus Lightfoot, on John iv. 4, says :
" Herod had imprisoned John Baptist under pretence of
his growing too popular. Our Saviour, understanding this,
1 See Greswell, iii. 414. ' Wioseler, 224.

THE BAPTIST'S IMPRISONMENT. 195
and that the Sanhedrim had heard of the increase of His
disciples, withdrew too from Judea into Galilee, that He
might be more remote from that kind of thunderbolt St.
John had been struck with." But the arrest of John was
not because of his baptism, but because of his reproof of
Herod, and there is no reason to beheve that the Pharisees
had any thing to do with it. That Jesus did not fear any
arrest from Herod, is apparent from the fact that He now
leaves a province under Roman rule to go into one ruled
over by Herod himself, and moreover, takes up His abode
in the near vicinity of his capital. Nor, as has been already
shown, was He in any bodily danger from the Pharisees.
So long as Jesus simply permitted his disciples to baptize
He was guUty of no crime, although the validity and value
of His baptism might be denied.
GresweU, (ii. 212,) who admits that the words of the
Evangelist imply, that when Jesus set out on His return to
GalUee, John was not yet cast into prison, (John iv. 1,)
supposes that before He reached there he was imprisoned.
This, however, contradicts the Synoptists, who say that
Jesus was in Judea when He heard of John's imprisonment,
and that this was the cause of bis departure into Gahlee,
(Matt. iv. 12.)
If we compare the account of what followed the return
of Jesus to Galilee, as given by John (iv. 43-54) with that
given by the Synoptists, we find fuU proof that they refer
to different periods. According to the former, Jesus went
to GalUee, not to begin public labors, but to find retire
ment. The prophet, as a rule, having no honor in his own
country, He might well hope to pass the time there in seclu
sion, without attracting public attention, till the issue of
John's ministry was determined. He did not indeed find
the privacy which He sought, because the GalUeans had
been eye-witnesses of what He had done at Jerusalem, and
were favorably inclined toward Him. Very soon after His

196 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
return the nobleman from Capernaum sought His aid ; but
aside from this, there is no indication that He performed
any miracles or engaged in any teaching. No disciples are
spoken of as with Him, nor any crowds of people. Nor
when He goes up to the feast (v. 1) does He appear to have
been attended by any disciples. On the other hand, accord
ing to the Synoptists, (Matt. iv. 12-25 ; Mark, i. 14-21 ;
Luke, iv. 14, 15), so soon as He heard of John's imprison
ment He began His labors in GalUee, very early gathering
again His disciples, and working miracles, and teaching in
all the synagogues. His fame spread immediately through
the whole region, and wherever He went crowds followed
Him. The manner in which John relates what the Lord did in
Galilee up to the time ofthe feast, (v. 1,) shows that he re
garded Judea as the proper field of His labors during this
period, and His works in Galilee as only exceptional. Only
two miracles were wrought in Galilee during this period,
and both at Cana, (John ii. 1 ; iv. 46.) Of the first, the
Evangelist says : " This beginning of miracles did Jesus in
Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His glory." Of the
second : " This is again the second miracle that Jesus did,
when He was come out of Judea into GalUee." Both these
miracles were wrought under peculiar circumstances, and
for special ends, not in the ordinary course of His ministry.
Those wrought by Him in Jerusalem at the first Passover
(John ii. 23, compare iii. 2) are merely alluded to, although
they seem to have been of a striking character ; but these
are specified as wrought by Jesus coming out of Judea, the
proper place of His ministry, into Galilee where His minis
try had not yet begun, John being not yet imprisoned.1
We thus find confirmatory evidence that the Baptist
was not imprisoned till after December, 780. But on the
' See Wieseler, 271, note 2.

THE BAPTIST'S IMPRISONMENT. 197
other hand, this imprisonment was before the feast, (John,
v. 1.) The proof of this we find in the words of the Lord
spoken at this feast, (v. 35,) referring to John, " He was a
burning and a shining light, and ye were wiUing for a season
to rejoice in his light." Here John's work is spoken of as
something past. " He was," and " ye were willing for a
season." Alford remarks, " This ' was,' rjv, shows, as Stier
rightly observes, that John was now cast into prison, if not
executed." Tholuck says, " ' He was,' imphes that John
had already left the stage." But the feast at which these
words were spoken, we have already identified as the Pass
over of 781. Some time, then, between December, 780, and
AprU, 781, the Baptist was imprisoned.
But we may fix the time stiU more definitely. When
Jesus heard of John's imprisonment He was in Judea, and
there is no reason to suppose that, after He gave up bap
tizing and retired into Gahlee, He came again into Judea
till the feast, (v. 1.) It was at this time (April, 781)
that He heard at Jerusalem of John's imprisonment, to
which, as we just saw, He alluded in His address to the
Jews. We may then place this event a little before this
feast, say in March, 781.
St. John, who has been our sole informant in all relating
to the work of the Lord in Judea, narrates nothing that
occurred between the feast (v. 1) and the feeding of the
5,000, (vi. 1 ,) an interval of a year. We must therefore turn
to the Synoptists, whose narrative commences at this point.
By Matthew (iv. 12) it is said that Jesus, "when He
heard that John was cast into prison, departed into Gahlee,
and leaving Nazareth came and dwelt in Capernaum."
This implies that on leaving Judea He went first to Naza
reth and afterward to Capernaum. Mark (i. 14) speaks
only in general terms of His coming into Galilee. Luke
(iv. 14, 15) gives 'a brief outline of His ministry there, that
He taught in their synagogues, that His fame spread abroad,

198 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
and that He was glorified of aU. It is not wholly clear
whether this Evangehst here gives by anticipation a sum
mary of His work and its results, or means to state that
Jesus began preaching in the synagogues of Gahlee pre
vious to His arrival at Nazareth, and was everywhere favor
ably received. The latter is in itself not improbable, but
the former is most in keeping with the narrative. Some
have supposed that He went to Nazareth by way of Ca
pernaum, and that in the latter city He wrought some mir
acles which are not directly mentioned, but to which He is
thought to allude when He speaks at Nazareth of works
which He had done at Capernaum, (Luke'iv. 23.)1
But it is not impossible, as said by Ebrard, that He
refers to the earlier healing of the nobleman's son, who was
sick at Capernaum, though Jesus Himself was at Cana.
This is confirmed by the manner in which the teaching of
the Lord in the synagogue at Capernaum and His miracles
are spoken of, (Mark i. 21-34 ; Luke iv. 31-42,) as if He
then for the first time began His labors there.
As Matthew (xiii. 53-58) and Mark (vi. 1-6) both speak
of a visit of Jesus to Nazareth, but apparently at a later
period, it is a question whether this visit can be identified
with that mentioned by Luke, (iv. 16-30,) or whether they
are to be regarded as distinct." There are several points of
likeness, but not more than would naturally exist in two
visits made under such peculiar circumstances. In both
His words excite the astonishment, not unmixed with envy,
of His fellow-townsmen ; and recaUing to mind His origin,
and His education amongst themselves, and His famUy,
whose members they knew, they are offended at His pro
phetic claims. In both He repeats the proverb, so strikingly
- Krafft, Alford, Riggenbach.
¦' Opinions of recent inquirers are about equally divided. In favor of
their identity are Lange, Alford, Bucher, Friedlieb, Lichtenstein ; against it,
Meyer, Stier, Robinson,- Tischendorf, Wieseler, Krafft, Townsend, Ellicott.

JESUS REJECTED AT NAZARETH. 199
applicable, that " a prophet is not without honor save in
his own countiy ;" but with this difference, that at the sec
ond visit He adds, with apparent reference to His brothers
and sisters, "and among his own kin and in his own
house." On the other hand, the points of difference are
more numerous, and more plainly marked. In the former
visit He is alone .; in the latter He is accompanied by His
disciples, (Mark vi. 1.) In the former He is attacked by
the enraged populace, and escapes through supernatural
aid the threatened death ; in the latter, though He mar-
veUed at their unbelief. He continues there for a time, and
heals a few sick folk. In the former, " passing through
the midst of them He went His way, and came to Caper
naum, a city of Gahlee ; " in the latter He " went round
about the villages teaching." The mention of the healing
of the sick by Mark clearly shows the visits to have been
distinct, for it could not have taken place before His first
teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, and immediately
afterward He was obliged to flee from their rage.
The wrath of the people, so unprovoked, and their ef
fort to kiU Him, seem sufficiently to justify the opinion of
Nathanael in regard to Nazareth. From this incident it
is plain that they were fierce and cruel, and ready from
mere envy to imbrue their hands in the blood of one who
had hved among them, a neighbor and friend, aU His Ufe.
It is not improbable, however, that they may long have
been conscious that, though dwelling among them, He was
not of them, and thus a secret feeling of disUke and Ul-will
have been slumbering in their hearts. This is the only
instance recorded of the Lord's reading in a synagogue,
and He may have been asked so to do as having been for
so many years a member of the congregation, or because
of the reputation He had already acquired. Elsewhere He
preached in the synagogues, permission being everywhere

200 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
given Him, apparently in virtue of His prophetic claims.
(Compare Acts xiu. 15.)
The city of Nazareth, being built upon the side of a steep
hill, presents several precipices down which a person might
be cast. That which has for many years been pointed out
as the place where the attempt was made on the Lord's
life, and caUed the Mount of Precipitation, lies some two
miles from the vUlage. It is a conspicuous object from the
plain of Esdraelon, which it overlooks. Its distance from
the village is a sufficient proof that it cannot have been the
real scene of the event. The cliff which travellers have
generaUy fixed upon as best answering to the narrative
hes just back of the Maronite church, and is some thirty or
forty feet in height.1
A chronological datum has been found by Bengel in the
fact that the passage of Isaiah read by the Lotd (Luke iv.
18, 19) was that appointed to be read on the morning of
the great day of Atonement.3 But it is by no means cer
tain that such was the order at this time ; nor does it ap
pear whether Jesus read the passage appointed for the day,
or that to which He opened intentionally Or under divine
direction. Some of the fathers, from v. 19, where mention
is made of " the acceptable year of the Lord," inferred that
His ministry continued but a single year. That no definite
period of time is meant sufficiently appears, however, from
the context, (Is. lxi. 2.)
Thus rejected at Nazareth, Jesus departs to Capernaum.
We know not whether private and personal reasons had
any influence in the selection of this city as the central
point .of His labors in Galilee. Some, as Lightfoot and
> Robinson, ii. 235 ; Ritter, Theil xvi. 744. Van De Velde, Journey, ii.
3S5, thinks that this cannot be the place, and supposes that the precipice
where the Saviour's life was threatened, has crumbled away from the ef
fect of earthquakes and other causes.
'' See also McKnight, Har. in loco.

RESIDENCE AT CAPERNAUM. 201
Ewald, have supposed that Joseph had possessions there,
and that the famUy, the Lord's mother and brethren, were
now residing there, (John ii. 12.) More probably, in the
selection of Capernaum He was determined chiefly by its
local position and relations. Lying upon the sea of Galilee
and the great roads from Egypt to Syria running through
it, and in the direct line from Jerusalem to Damascus,1 it
gave Him such facilities of intercourse with men as He
could not have had in secluded Nazareth. Not only could
He readily visit all parts of GalUee, but by means of the
lake He had ready access also to the region upon the other
side, and to the towns both north and south in the valley
of the Jordan. From it he could easily make circuits into
Gahlee on the west, into Trachonitis on the north, and into
Decapolis and Perea on the east and south. Besides this
local fitness for His work, it was alsp the residence of Simon
and Andrew, and but a little way from Bethsaida, the city
of Philip. ,
It does not appear from the Gospels whether the Lord
had a house of His own at Capernaum, or dwelt with some
relative or diseiple. His own words, (Matt. vUi. 20,) " the
Son of Man hath not where to lay His head," seem decisive
that He did not own any dwelling, but was dependent upon
others even for a place where to sleep. He is spoken of as
entering the house of Peter, (Matt. viii. 14,) and the form
of expression, (Mark ii. 1,) " it was noised abroad that He
had come home," (compare Ui. 19,) implies that He had a
4ixed place of abode. Norton, in common with many, sup
poses that He resided in the house of Peter ; Alexander (on
Mark i. 29) suggests that Peter may " have opened a house
for the convenience of his Lord and master in the intervals
of His itinerant labors." If, however, His mother was now
living at Capernaum, which is by no means certain, He
' Robinson, ii. 405 ; Ritter, Theil xv. 271.
9*

202 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
would naturally take up His abode with her. " The change
of abode," says Alford, " seems to have included the whole
familyi except the sisters, who may have been married at
Nazareth." Greswell asserts that the incident respecting
the tribute money (Matt. xvU. 24) proves indisputably that
He was a legal inhabitant of Capernaum.
The sea of GalUee is formed by the waters of the Jor
dan, which enter at the northern, and flow out at the
southern extremity. Its shape is that of an irregular oval,
somewhat broadest at the upper part, and is about fourteen
mUes in length, and six or seven in width. The water is clear
and sweet, and used for drinking by the inhabitants along its
shores, many of whom ascribe to it medicinal qualities. It
is 650 feet lower than the Mediterranean, and probably
may fiU the crater of an extinct volcano. The west shores
of the lake are more precipitous than those of the east.
Being surrounded with hUls, those on the east nearly 2,000
feet high, which are seamed with deep ravines down which
the winds sweep with great violence, it is very much ex
posed to sudden and furious storms.1
Nearly midway on the western side of the lake is " the
land of Gennesaret," (Matt. xiv. 34 ; Mark vi. 53.) It is
made by a recession of the hUls from the shore, and forms
a segment of a circle, being about four miles long and three
broad. It begins on the south, just above the vUlage of
Mejdel, or Magdala, and extends northward to the point
where the promontory of Khan Minyeh stretches down to
the water. It is well watered, though better in the south
ern than in the northern part, several fountains arising in
it, large and copious, and several streams from the hUls
westward pouring their waters through it to the lake in
the rainy season."
In or near the land of Gennesaret was the city of Ca-
' See Stanley, 861 ; Robinson, ii. 416 ; Porter, ii. 413.
3 See Josephus, War, 3. 10. 8 ; and Robinson, ii. 402.

SITE OF CAPERNAUM. 203
pernaum. The interest which aU feel in a place which was
so .long the Lord's residence, and the central point of His
labors, leads us to inquire with some minuteness respecting
its site. This has long been the subject of dispute. Nei
ther the statements ofthe Evangehsts, nor of Josephus, nor
of the fathers, are so definite that we can determme the exact
spot ; and modern traveUers who have carefully examined
all probable sites along the lake, are by no means agreed in
their conclusions. AU, therefore, that we can now do is to
give' a summary of the question as it stands in the light of
the most recent investigation. As Bethsaida and Chorazin
were adjacent cities, joined with Capernaum in the same
high privileges and falling under the same condemnation,
(Matt. xi. 20 ; Luke x. 13,) and their sites are also subjects
of dispute, we shaU embrace them in this geographical in
quiry. It is known from the Gospels, (Matt, iv. 13, ix. 1, xiii. 1 ;
Mark ii. 13 ; John vi. 17,) that Capernaum was seated upon
the sea-shore, and it appears from a comparison of John
vi. 17 with Matt. xiv. 34, and Mark vi. 53*, that it was
either in or near " the land of Gennesaret." More distinct
information is given us by Josephus,1 who, speaking of the
plain of Gennesaret, says : " It is irrigated by a highly fer
tilizing spring, called Caphernaum by the people of the
country. This some have thought a vein of the NUe, from
its producing a fish similar to the coracin of the lake of
Alexandria." If, then, Capernaum lay upon or near the
plain, as all admit, the position of this spring must deter
mine its position, for we cannot doubt that the fountain
took its name from the city, and the two were near each
other. But how shall we determine which of the several
fountains watering that plain is the one in question ? Let
us pass them all in review, and test them by the description
of Josephus. ¦ War, 3. 10. 8.

204 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
The southernmost fountain, lying near the western range
of hUls, and a mUe and a half distant from the lake shore,
is that known as the Round Fountain, from a circular in
closure of hewn stones, and is described by Robinson as
" forming an oval reservoir more than fifty feet in diam
eter ; the water is perhaps two feet deep, beautifully limpid
and sweet, bubbling up and flowing out rapidly in a large
stream to water the plain below. Numerous small fish are
sporting in the basin." This, however, cannot be the foun
tain, as no ruins are to be found around it. Robinson, who
made search for them, says, " there was nothing that could
indicate. that any town or village had ever occupied the
spot." In this opinion Thomson concurs.
On the other hand, the claims of this fountain to be the
fountain of Caphernaum are strenuously defended by De
Saulcy, (ii. 423,) who asserts that he found distinct traces
of the ruins of the city upon the adjacent hUls. His facility,
however, in finding ruins is so great, that his judgment
here needs corroboration.1
Aside from the absence of aU indications that a city ever
stood near it, the Round Fountain would answer well to
the description of Josephus. A large stream of water flows
from it to irrigate the plain, and numerous fish are found
in its basin, though it does not appear that they are of a
species different from those found in the lake. It is not
clear how the particular mentioned by Josephus respecting
the fountain Of Caphernaum, that it produced a fish like.
the coracin of -the lake of Alexandria, and hence was sup
posed to be. a vein of the Nile, is to be understood. If the
fish in the lake and in the fountain were the same, it is not
easy to see why the fountain should have been thought a
vein ofthe Nile. This would then imply that there was no
such connection between the fountain and the lake as to
> See Robinson, iii. 850.

SITE OF CAPERNAUM. 205
aUow the fish to pass and repass. The fish in the fountain
were like those in the lake of Alexandria, and unlike those
in the lake of Gahlee. This circumstance points to the
Round Fountain, which is too far distant to allow " fish of
any size to pass between it and. the lake." Robinson, how
ever, draws directly the opposite inference, that the fish in
the fountain and the lake were the same, and that the for
mer must have been on the shore, so that the fish " could
pass and repass . without difficulty." As the language of
Josephus is thus susceptible of such opposite interpreta
tions, no particular stress can be laid upon this circum
stance. Dismissing, then, the claim of the Round Fountain, be
cause of the absence of any ruins in its neighborhood, we
proceed to the next fountain which presents its claim.
This is called Ain et Tin, and rises near Khan Minyeh, at
the point where the western hills approach the lake shore
at the north-eastern extremity of the plain. Robinson thus
describes it, (ii. 403,) " Between the Khan and the shore a
large fountain rushes out from beneath the rocks, and forms
a brook flowing into the lake a few rods distant. Near by
are several other springs. Our guides said those springs
were brackish, but Burckhardt describes the waters of the
main source as sweet. Along the lake is a tract of luxuri
ant herbage occasioned by the springs." And elsewhere,
" The lake, when full, as now, sets up nearly or quite to the
fountain." Thompson speaks of it as "coming out close to
the lake and on a. level with its surface," and of its waters
as not good to drink. Porter says : " From the base of
the cliff, not far from the water line, springs a large fig
tree, which spreads its branches over a fountain called
from this circumstance Ain et Tin, ' the Fountain of the
Fig.' " From these descriptions it seems plain that this
cannot be the fountain spoken of by-Josephus. He says,
" the plain is irrigated by a highly fertilizing spring c%Ued

206 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
Caphernaum." The fact that Ain et Tin lies close to the
lake, and almost upon a level with it, makes it impossible
that its waters could ever have been used for purposes of
irrigation. " It is very improbable," says Norton, " that
Josephus would have spoken in the terms which he uses of #
this latter fountain, the fertilizing effects of which are so
confined." That the few yards or rods lying between it
and the shore should be watered and fertilized, is unim
portant. Nor are there any ruins of importance near
this fountain, such as would naturally mark the site of a
city hke Capernaum. They are thus spoken of by Robin
son : " A few rods south of the khan and fountain is a low
mound or swell, with ruins occupying a considerable cir
cumference. The few remains seemed to be mostly dwell
ings of no very remote date, but there was not enough to
make out anything with certainty." Upon his second
journey the ruins appeared to him more extensive (Ui. 345) ;
" The remains are strewed around in shapeless heaps, but
are much more considerable and extensive than my former
• impressions bad led me to anticipate. Indeed, there are
here remains enough not only to warrant, but to require
the hypothesis of a large ancient place." Thomson (i. 545)
on the contrary speaks of " the few foundations near Khan
Minyeb as not adequate to answer the demands of history.
No one would think of them if he had not a theory to
maintain which required them to represent Capernaum."
Porter (n. 430) speaks of " many vestiges of ruins between
the fountain and the shore, but it requires a careful scru
tiny to find them." Bonar (437) says: "The ruins to the
south of the Khan on a small rising ground are inconsid
erable, so much so that we should not have noticed them
had not our attention been called to them. No large
town surely stood here, else it would have left some traces
of itself." These differing and somewhat conflicting state
ments show at least that, whatever may be the cause,

SITE OP CAPERNAUM. 207
whether by the transportation of the stones to Tiberias or
elsewhere, as said by Robinson, or as the more direct re
sult of the doom spoken against it, almost aU traces of the
city, if it stood here, have disappeared.
If, then, neither the Round Fountain nor that of Ain et
Tin, answers, to the description of Josephus, and are the
only fountains lying in the plain, we must seek it away
from the pjain, and yet so near it that its waters may irri
gate its fields. Such a one Thomson thinks he finds about
15 minutes north of Khan Minyeh, and which is called Et-
Tabiga. The grounds of his opinion will be best shown by
some quotations from Robinson and Porter. In going
northward along the shore from Khan Minyeh, says Rob
inson (Ui. 345), "we struck up over the rocky and precipitous
point of the hill above the fountain, toward the northeast.
There is no passage along its base, which is washed by the
waters of the lake. A path has been cut in ancient times
along the rock, some twenty feet above the water, and we
found no difficulty in passing. One feature of the "excava
tion surprised us, namely, that for most of the way there is
a channel cut in the rock, about three feet deep and as
many wide, which seemed evidently to have been an aque
duct once conveying water for irrigating the northern part
of the plain El-Ghuweir (Gennesaret.) There was no mis
taking the nature and object of this channel ; and yet no
waters were near whieh could be thus conveyed except
from the fountains of Et-Tabighah. The fountains issue
from under tbe hill, just back of the village. We went
thither, and found buUt up solidly around the main foun
tain an octagonal Roman reservoir, now in ruins. Like
those at Ras-el-Ain, near Tyre, it was obviously built in
order to raise the water to a certain height for an aqueduct.
The head of water was sufficient to carry it to the channel
around the point of the opposite hill into the plain El-
Ghuweir ; but whether this was done by a canal around

208 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
the sides of the valley, or whether even it was done at all,
there are now no further traces from which to form a
judgment. The water has" a saltish taste, but is not un
palatable." We add Porter's description (ii. 429) : " Et-
Tabighah is situated in a little nook or bay close upon the
shore. The first thing that attracts attention is the abun
dance of water ; streams, aqueducts, pools, and fountains are
all around us. The large fountains burst out from the base
of the hill, a few hundred yards to the north, and here,
around the principal one, is an ancient octagonal reservoir,
something like those at Ras-el-Ain, near Tyre, probably
constructed to raise the water so that it might be carried
to the plain of El-Ghuweir westward, for irrigation."
Here then at Et-Tabiga, is a fountain sufficiently copious
to irrigate the plain of Gennesaret, and at no great distance.
That its waters were actually used for that purpose appears
from the fact that a reservoir was buUt. to raise them to
the requisite height, and that an aqueduct was cut through
the rock at the north-eastern extremity of the plain to
convey them there. It seems impossible to account for
this reservoir and this aqueduct, except as constructed for
purposes of irrigation, and Robinson speaks of the north
ern part of the plain lying back from the shore as " appar
ently fertUized by water brought by the aqueduct around
the point of the northern hUl."
In this point, then, Et-Tabiga answers fully to the de
scription of Josephus, and the great abundance of. water
bursting out from beneath the hill would much better jus
tify the popular fancy that it was a branch ofthe Nile, than
the lesser fountains already mentioned.
Assuming for the present with Thomson, that at Tabiga
is the fountain Caphernaum of Josephus, let us now look
for the city. But in its immediate vicinity are no ruins of
importance ; the nearest are those of Tell Hum, lying north
easterly upon the shore. " Here," says Robinson, (ii. 246,)

SITE OF CAPERNAUM. 209
" are the remains of a place of considerable extent, cover
ing a tract of at least half a mile in length along the shore,
and about half that breadth inland. They consist chiefly
of the fallen walls of dwellings and other buildings, all of
unhewn stone, except two ruins." Thomson (i. 540) thus
describes them : "The shapeless remains are piled up in utter
confusion along the shore, extend up the hiU northward for
at least fifty rods, and are much more extensive and strik
ing than those of any other ancient city on this part of the
Lake." Keith ' says : " They form no inconsiderable field
of ruins, at least a mile and a half in circumference." Rob
inson does not speak of any ruins as lying between Tabiga
and TeU Hum, a distance of twenty or thirty minutes,.
but Thomson says that "traces of old buildings extend.
nearly all the way along the shore." As there are no in
dications that a large city was ever situated directly at
Tabiga, those who regard this fountain as that of Capher
naum must place the city itself at Tell Hum. Let us con
sider the arguments in favor of this site.
A principal argument is the simUarity of name, the last
syUable being the same in both. Caphernaum is Kefr
Nahum, "the village of Nahum," who was some well-
known person ; or " the village of consolation," vicus con--
solationis? Thomson asserts that it is "a very commonii
way of curtailing old names to retain only the final syl
lable." The substitution of TeU, meaning hUl, for Kefr, vil
lage, he explains by the fact that the viUage became a heap -
of ruins or rubbish, and to such a heap the Arabs apply
the term Tell. Thus Kefr Nahum was changed into TeUi
Nahum, and then abbreviated into Tell Hum.3
Another argument in favor of TeU Hum is drawn from
1 Evidence of Prophecy, 1860, 155.
' Herzog, Encyc, vii. 369 ; Winer, i. 210.
3 Winer, i. 210 ; Wilson, ii. 139 ; Ewald Christus, 257, note.

210 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
the narrative pf Josephus.1 Being bruised by a faU from his
horse in a skirmish near the mouth of the Jordan, he was
carried to a village named Cepharnome. Here he remained
during the day, but was removed by medical direction that
night to Tarichea, at the south end of the lake. From
this the inference may be drawn that Capernaum was the
first city of importance from the entrance of the Jord.in
southward, as the soldiers would not have carried a wound
ed man further than was necessary. Hence Capernaum
was Tell Hum rather than Khan Minyeh.1 This is not im
probable, but as we know not whether special reasons may
not have led Josephus to prefer Capernaum to any other
city on that part of the shore, irrespective of distance, the
argument is not at all decisive.3
In favor of Tell Hum Thomson also appeals to tradition :
" So far as I can discover, after spending many weeks in
this neighborhood, off and on, for a quarter of a century,
the invariable tradition of the Arabs and the Jews fixes
Capernaum at Tell Hum, and I believe correctly."
To this view two strong objections are made : First, that
Tell Hum is too remote from the fountains at Tabiga. The
exact distance is in dispute. Robinson took thirty-five min
utes in passing from the latter to the former. Elsewhere
he speaks of them as an hour apart ; Porter as forty min
utes, Thomson as thirty minutes. The distance must be a
mile and a half or two miles. Robinson insists, in reply to
Ritter, that the city and fountain, both bearing the same
name, must be adjacent to each other. It is doubtless gen
erally true, that the site of the fountain determines the site
of the village, and both lie in close proximity ; but the rule
would not hold in case of those cities which were built
along the lake, and thus amply supplied with water. Here
the selection of a site would naturally be governed by other
1 Life, 72. ' So Stanley, 876, note 2 ; Wilson, ii. «».•
2 Ritter, Theil xv. 340 ; Robinson, iii. 852 ; Van de Velde, Memoir, 301.

SITE OF CAPERNAUM. 211
considerations. We are not then to think it impossible
that a considerable distance should intervene between the
city and its fountains. If the latter were within the terri
tory ofthe former, and their waters used by its citizens for
mills or other purposes, they would naturally be called by
its name. As we have seen, the quantity of water at Et-
Tabiga is very abundant. Robinson speaks (ii. 405) of "a
very copious stream bursting forth from immense foun
tains. The stream drives one or two mills, and double the
same quantity of water runs to waste. Several other miUs
are in ruins." It was not then merely to supply water
for drinking and general domestic uses that these fountains
were valuable. Thomson regards Tabiga as " the great
manufacturing suburb of Capernaum," where were clustered
together the mills, potteries, and tanneries, and other oper
ations of this sort, the traces of which are still to be seen.
" I even derive this name Tabiga from this business of tan
ning." If Tabiga were thus a suburb of Capernaum, we
should naturally expect to find remains of former habita
tions scattered along between them. Thomson states that
" traces of old buildings extend all the way along the shore
from Tabiga to Tell Hum," thus. connecting them together
as city and suburb. Robinson, on the other hand, speaks of
" other fountains and a town " as lying between. In this
we have Thomson's personal assurance that he is in error.1
But the second and more important objection is that
Capernaum, according to the Evangelists, was situated in
the land of Gennesaret, and cannot, therefore, have been
at Tell Hum.' The consideration of this point necessarily
involves a consideration of the site of Bethsaida.
It is said by Luke (ix. 10) that after the return of the
apostles from their mission, and the announcement of the
1 As to the statement of Arculf, Early Travels, 9, see Wilson, ii. 147 ;
Thrupp in Journal Class, and Sac, Phil. ii. 290.
* See Robinson, iii. 849 and 358.

212 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
death ofthe Baptist, the Lord " went aside privately into a
desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida." AU
now agree that this was Bethsaida on the east of Jordan,
or Bethsaida Julias. In this neighborhood took place,
probably within a few hours, the feeding of the five thou
sand. After this, toward night, He sends His disciples
away in a ship, " to go unto the other side before unto
Bethsaida," or over against Bethsaida, (Mark vi. 45.) John
says (vi. 17) that " they entered into a ship and went over
the sea toward Capernaum." Bethsaida and Capernaum,
therefore, lay in the same general direction. The wind
being contrary, they toiled all night, and had made but 25
or 30 furlongs, when in the early morning Jesus came to
them walking upon the sea, and "immediately the ship
was at the land whither they went," (John vi. 21.) This
was the land of Gennesaret, (Matt. xiv. 34 ; Mark vi. 53.)
From this it has been inferred that Bethsaida and Caper
naum were near each other on the shore of the lake, and
both in, or near the land of Gennesaret.
Before examining these accounts of the Evangelists, let
us sum up all that we know from other sources respecting
Bethsaida. In Josephus ' we find mention made of a vUlage
of this name. " Philip the Tetrarch also advanced the viUage
Bethsaida, situate at the lake of Gennesaret, unto the dig
nity of a city, both by the number of inhabitants it con
tained, and its other grandeur, and called it by the name
of Julias, the same name with Caesar's daughter." Else
where he states that it was " in the lower Gaulonitis," ' and
in describing the course ofthe Jordan, he says3 that it " di
vided the marshes and fens ofthe lake Semechonitis; when it
hath run another hundred and twenty furlongs, it first passes
by the city Julias, and then passes through the middle
ofthe Lake Gennesaret." Thus Josephus places Bethsaida
Antiq., IS. 2. 1. " War, 2. 9. 1. » War, 8. 10. 7.

SITE OF BETHSAIDA. 213
at or near the entrance of the Jordan into the Sea of Gah
lee. It is placed, also, by Pliny, upon the east side of the
Jordan, and by St. Jerome upon the shore of Gennesaret.1
No other Bethsaida than this seems to have been known,
down to the time of Reland, — at least no other is men
tioned.' Reland, (653,) pressed by the difficulty of har
monizing the Evangelists, conjectured that there were two
Bethsaidas, one on the east of Jordan, in Gaulonitis, and
one on the west side of the lake, in Galilee, (John xii. 21.)
And this conjecture has been almost universaUy received as
the true solution. But he himself was aware of the improb-
abUity that two towns of the same name should lie upon
the same lake only a few miles apart, and adopted this so
lution only because he had no other to give. Atque ita,
quamvis non sim proclivis ad statuendas duas pluresve urbes
ejusdem nominis, (quodplerumque ad salvendam aliquam
difficultatem ultimum est refugium,) hie tamen puto id neces-
sario fieri oportere. He does not, however, allow that
there is any mention in the Gospels ofthe Bethsaida east of
Jordan. Christus de Bethsaida loquens nonpotuit nisi de
sola Galilaica intelligi.
The grounds upon which is based the view of two Beth
saidas were : 1st. That the Bethsaida of Josephus was in
Gaulonitis, whereas John (xii. 21) speaks of a " Bethsaida
of Galilee." 2d. That from the statements, (Mark vi. 45 ;
John vi. 24-25,) Bethsaida must have been on the west shore
ofthe sea, since, being on the east side, they entered a boat
to cross to the other side.3 We are, therefore, led back to
an examination ofthe accounts ofthe feeding of the 5,000,
and the subsequent crossing ofthe lake.
It is generally agreed that the place in which the 5,000
were fed, was on the east side of the lake in the territory
» See Ritter, Theil xv. 280.
' Raumer, 109, note ; Robinson, ii. 413, note 6.
9 Raumer, 109, note 20.

214 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
of Bethsaida, (Luke ix. 10.) Thomson (ii. 29) thinks he
finds the exact spot at the point where the hUls on the east
side of the plain Butaiha come to the edge of the lake. No
other spot than this answers to all the conditions ofthe nar
rative. From this point the mouth ofthe Jordan Ues three
or four miles north-west, and Tell Hum, nearly directly
west across the lake ; the land of Gennesaret lying to the
south of Tell Hum. The narratives, then, may be thus ex
plained. According to Mark, (vi. 45,) the Lord " con
strained His disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the
other side before unto Bethsaida, while He sent away the
people." They should go before Him unto Bethsaida, and
He would follow after He had sent away the people.1 Here
Bethsaida appears as the point of destination. John says
(vi. 17) that " the disciples entered a ship and went over the
sea toward Capernaum." Here Capernaum appears as the
point of destination. Let us suppose that Bethsaida was, as
stated by Josephus, at the mouth of the Jordan, and that
Capernaum was at TeU Hum, and, as the Lord's own resi
dence, the point at which they aimed. The relative posi
tions of the two places' are such, that to reach Capernaum
from the point where the Lord then was, a boat would nat
urally go in a north-westerly direction, and so pass near
Bethsaida. If the disciples, according to His request, left the Lord
alone at night upon the eastern side, and returned to Ca
pernaum in the only boat they had, how could He follow
them ? They were naturally, therefore, unwilling to leave
Him in that desert place ; but He " constrained " them to
go. They directed their course toward Bethsaida, both as
on their way, for they would naturally row along the north
ern shore,' and as also hoping that after He he had sent the
multitude away, He would rejoin them there.3 But the
1 Alexander in loco. ' Robinson, iii. 354.
3 See Wieseler, 274, note 1. Newcome, 263, who quotes Lamy to the same
effect.

SITE OF BETHSAIDA. 215
wind being contrary, or blowing from the north-east, they
were driven southward, away from the northern shore, and
could not make Bethsaida, and toUed all night, and when
Jesus joined them in the morning, were nearly in the mid
dle of the lake. After He joined them, they came to the
land of Gennesaret, (Matt. xiv. 34,) or " the land whither
they went," (John vi. 21.) This implies that Capernaum,
their point of destination, was near Gennesaret ; but that
they did not land immediately at that city is evident from
Mark vi. 54-56. He seems to have gone thither the same day,
healing the sick by the way.
If there were two Bethsaidas, upon which of them did
the Lord pronounce a woe ? The only " mighty works,"
which are recorded to have been done by Him in any Beth
saida, are the healing of a blind man, (Mark viii. 22,) and
the feeding of the five thousand, (Luke ix. 10.) That this
was the Bethsaida Julias is generally admitted.1 Upon
this, therefore, the woe was pronounced, and not upon the
Bethsaida west of the lake.
Thomson, examining the narratives of the Evangehsts,
upon the very spot where he supposes the Lord to have
stood when He sent away His disciples, finds no necessity
of j)lacing a Bethsaida on the west side of the lake to satisfy
their conditions. The examination made by one so famUiar
with their locahties, and with the sea spread out before him
as a map, and so well acquainted with all the points of diffi
culty involved in the question, may be regarded as turning
the balance of probabUity in favor of a single Bethsaida, and
that situated at the mouth of the Jordan.
But there stiUs remains an objection to be noted ; bow
can Bethsaida at the mouth of the Jordan be called Beth
saida of Galilee ? This may readily be answered if we ac
cept the very probable supposition of Thomson, that the
'- Meyer, Oosterzee, Alford.

216 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
town was built upon both banks of the river, and thus a
part was in Gaulonitis, and a part in Galilee.1 As the river
is narrow, it is almost certain that if the main part of the
city was upon one bank, the other would also be inhabited.
Philip the Tetrarch, in enlarging and ornamenting it, doubt
less confined himself to the eastern side, or that part which
lay in his own dominions, and this would thus become, if it
were not at first, distinctively the city, to which the west
ern side would stand as the suburbs. Philip, the disciple,
living on the west bank, may thus have been from Beth
saida of Galilee, which the Evangelist thus designates in
order to distinguish it.
There are no ruins indicating antiquity by which to de
termine the site of Bethsaida Julias. Robinson places it on
a hUl, two or three miles above the mouth of the Jordan.
" The ruins cover a large portion of it, and are quite exten
sive, but so far as could be observed, consist entirely of
unhewn volcanic stones, without any distinct trace of an
cient architecture." Porter says: "Heaps of unhewn
stones, and a few rude houses, used as stores by the Arabs,
are aU that have hitherto been seen on the spot." Neither
of these travellers speak of any remains at the mouth of the
river. Thomson, however, says that " the only ruins of any
importance are below, along the foot of the hiUs bordering
the vale of the Jordan, and at its debouchure on the west
side." Here he mentions as still to be seen, some remains
of ancient buildings. He supposes that as the city derived
its name from its fisheries — house of fish — " it must have
been located on the shore, and not several miles from it at
the Tell, to which the name is riow affixed."
It would be useless to dwell upon the conjectures that
have been made for the purpose of harmonizing the Evan-
' So Rohr, Palestine, 154. " Bethsaida Julias lay on the north-east shore
of tbe lake near the influx of the Jordan, and probably on both sides of the
river." So Calmet and others.

SITE OF BETHSAIDA. 217
gelical narratives without resorting to the supposition of
two Bethsaidas. The most probable was that of Lightfoot,
who made Galilee to have extended beyond the Jordan so
as to embrace Bethsaida Julias. Recently, De Saulcy, on
the other hand, would make Gaulonitis to have extended
westward of the Jordan, and thus bring Bethsaida within
its limits. If we rest in the conclusion that there was but one
Bethsaidaj and that at the mouth of the Jordan, the ques
tion respecting the site of Capernaum is somewhat simpli
fied. If we place the latter city at Tell Hum, the distance
between them is about three miles. Robinson was an hour
and five minutes from Tell Hum to the banks-of the Jor
dan just at its entrance into the lake. There is nothmg
in the Gospel which makes it necessary to bring them into
close proximity, and their relative positions conform to the
Evangelical notices and to the statements of travellers.
WUlibald, proceeding northward from Tiberias, " went by
the vUlage of Magdalene to the vUlage of Capernaum, and
thence he went to Bethsaida." So Robinson, from a com
parison of Mark vi. 45 and John vi. 17 infers that Beth
saida lay north of Capernaum. As Tell Hum lies about an
hour north of Khan Minyeh, it better fits the narrative,
(Mark vi. 33,) since it was much easier for the crowds, that
followed Him on foot to the desert place on the east side,
to go from the former than the latter.1 The Uttle distance
of TeU Hum from the land of Gennesaret presents no diffi
culty. " The position of Tell Hum seems to us to agree in
every respect with the Gospel narrative, being near, not in
the land of Gennesaret, and not too far from the east side
of the lake to allow people to follow Jesus on foot while
He was crossing the water with His disciples." 2 When,
after the Lord joined them upon that memorable night,
» So Wilson, ii. 145 ' * Van de Velde, Memoir, 302.
10

218 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
they landed upon the plain, it is obvious from the following
statements that they did not land directly at Capernaum,
but some distance southward, and that, going to Caper
naum in the course of the day, He was there found by the
people that followed Him (Mark vi. 53-55 ; John vi. 24.)
We have still to inquire respecting the site of Chora
zin. Two or three miles northwest from Tell Hum are
some ruins called Khirbet Kerazeh. They were visited by
Robinson, who describes them as " a few foundations of
black stones, the remains evidently of a poor and incon
siderable village," and regards them as " too trivial ever to
have belonged to a place of any importance. Chorazin
too, according to Jerome, lay upon the shore of the lake,
but the site is an hour distant, shut in among the hills,
without any view of the lake, and remote from any public
road, ancient or modern." While Robinson thus rejects
Kerazeh as the site of Chorazin, Thomson is equally decided
in its favor. " I have scarcely a doubt about the correct
ness of the identification, though Dr. Robinson rejects it
almost with contempt. But the name Korazyis nearly the
Arabic for Chorazin ; the situation, two miles north of Tell
Hum, is just where we might expect to find it ; the ruins are
quite adequate to answer the demands of history, and there
is no rival site." With Thomson Keith agrees : ' " There
seems no reason for questioning that Korazy is the Chora
zin of Scripture, in which it is not said to stand on the shore
of the lake of Tiberias, as Capernaum and Bethsaida are.
We reached it in fifty-five minutes from the chief ruin of
TeU Hum, from three to four miles distant. It Ues almost
directly to the west of the point where the Jordan flows
into the lake. It retains the name and is known by it stUl
among the inhabitants of the country round, and, as we re
peatedly enquired, especially at Safet, by no other. Ko-
» Evidence of Propbecy, 160.

SITE OF CHORAZIN. 219
razy, of which not a house now stands, consists of fallen
walls lying in heaps of no defined form, intermixed with
lines of ruined buildings, and some squares whose form is
still entire, filled with ruins. A smaU field of tobacco
amidst the ruins was the only sign of industry about it, and,
though in a hilly region, a few poor tents were the only
dwellings near it. The ruins were at least a mile in cir
cumference, possibly more." That the ruins of Kerazeh do
not he directly upon the lake is not in opposition to Jerome.
" Jerome in his translation of Eusebius says that Chorazin
stood at the second milestone from Capernaum, that is,
north of Capernaum, the mUestones being reckoned from
Tarichaea." '
This topographical discussion, extended a3 it is, by no
means exhausts the subject.' Certainty as regards these
sites is at present unattainable, but as the question now
stands it, is most probable that Capernaum was at TeU
Hum ; that there was but one Bethsaida, and this at the
entrance of the Jordan into the lake, and lying on both
sides of the river. Chorazin may be left undetermined,
being but twice spoken of in the Gospel narratives, and only
in connection with its doom. As to the size and population
and business of Capernaum, the Evangelists give us no
definite information. It is, with Bethsaida and Chorazin,
called a city, (Matt. xi. 20,) and often elsewhere. But Nor
ton refers to Josephus, who caUs it a " viUage ; " and to the
statement, (Luke vii. 5,) " For he loveth our nation and he
hath built us a synagogue," as showing that the city had
but one, and that one built by a Roman centurion.
We have thus far left unnoticed the ground recently
taken by some Biblical critics, that " the land of Gennes-
' Norton, notes, 115. See Winer, i. 228 ; Van de Velde, Memoir, 304.
Greswell makes Chorazin the same as Chor Asban. 1 Sam. xxx. 30.
2 The reader who desires to examine it further, will find ample materials
in Robinson, Thomson, Raumer, Ritter, and others.

220 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
aret " is to be identified with the plain El Batihah at the
mouth ofthe Jordan.1 The arguments by which it is sup
ported are briefly these, that the political divisions, which
assigned the Jordan as the eastern limit of GalUee, had no
existence prior to the will of Herod partitioning his do
minions among his sons ; that there was but one Beth
saida, and that Bethsaida Julias at the mouth of the Jor
dan ; that the Scriptures show that Capernaum and Beth
saida were but a step apart, and therefore Capernaum was
in the plain El Batihah ; and that this site best corresponds
to the language of Josephus.' Admitting that there is some
force in these considerations, still they are by no means so
weighty as to lead us to change the position of the land
of Gennesaret from the west to the north of the lake. That
there was but one Bethsaida has been already shown."

April— Mat, 781. a. d. 28.
Arriving at Capernaum the Lord begms to gather Matt. iv. 1 8-22.
about Him His former disciples that they may accom- Mark i. 16-34.
pany and assist Him in His work. He enters the Luke v. 1-11.
Synagogue and there heals a demoniac. Thence he Lcke iv. 33-41.
goes to the house of Peter, and heals his wife's mother Matt. viii. 14-17.
of a fever, and in the evening He heals many sick per
sons who were brought to Him.
The arrival of the Lord at Capernaum, there to take up
His abode, offers us a fitting place in which to speak of His
Galilean work in its general practical features. In many
- For an account of this plain, see Robinson, ii. 409.
3 See article by Tregelles, in Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology,
vol. iii. p. 145. See also article, vol. ii. p. 290, by Thrupp, who regards
Gennesaret as El Batihah, but identifies Capernaum with Tell Hum, and finds
no trace or tradition of a Bethsaida on the western side of the lake.
3 See Ewald, Jahrbuch, 1856, p. 144, who also places Gennesaret on the
north ofthe sea.

CIRCUITS IN GALILEE. 221
points it was very unlike His earlier work in Judea. So
far as we can learn, He did not then go from place to place
baptizing, nor does He seem to have made any use of the
synagogues for the purpose of teaching. Like the Baptist,
He did not seek the people in their cities and villages, but
made the people seek Him, (Matt. iii. 5 ; xi. 7.) In Galilee
the Lord began immediately to visit the people in aU their
cities and viUages, making Capernaum the central point of
His labors, and this He did in a systematic manner. He
went round about the vUlages teaching, (Mark vi. 6.) "In
a circle," says Alexander, " or circuit, that is, not merely
round about, but on a regular concerted plan of periodical
visitation." We have not sufficient data to determine the
local order of these visitations ; but it is natural to suppose
that He would first visit the places near Capernaum, and
then those more remote, (Mark i. 38.) From this city as a
centre He would go forth to preach in the adjoining towns,
and extend His labors to those more distant by degrees.
And His course would be directed rather to the west than
to the east, both because Galilee lay to the westward, and
because of the semi-heathenish character of the people who
lived beyond the lake. It was, in fact, a considerable time,
as we shaU see, ere He visited the regions of Caesarea Phi-
lippi and of Decapolis.
During these circuits we find the Lord journeying from
place to place,, remaining for the most part only a little
whUe in a place. In these journeys He was attended by
His disciples ; at first by those who had before been with
Him^ and whom He recaUed, and then by others, and after-
ward'by the body of the Apostles, who were His constant
attendants. At a later period of His ministry, His mother
and other women accompanied Him in some of His circuits,
(Luke viii, 2,) and He was followed by crowds, who were
drawn to Him by various motives. His common mode of
procedure was apparently this : on entering a city where

222 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
was a synagogue, He availed Himself of the privUege which
His reputation as a rabbi and prophet gave Him, to teach
the people from the Scriptures. This He did upon the
Sabbaths and synagogue days. At other times He preached
in the streets or fields, or sitting in a boat upon the sea ; in
every convenient place where the people were willing to
hear Him. His fame as a healer of the sick caused many
to be brought to Him, and He appears in general to have
healed all, (Markvi. 56 ; Matt. ix. 35.) His sojourn in any
single vUlage was necessarily brief, and therefore those who
had been reaUy impressed by His works or words, and de
sired to see or hear Him more, followed Him to the adjoin
ing towns, or sought Him at Capernaum. The disciples do
not appear to have taken any public part as teachers, but
may privately have aided Him in various ways to dissemi
nate truth among the people. The expenses of these
journeys were probably borne by the contributions of the
disciples, and by the voluntary offerings of the grateful who
had been healed, and of their friends. After the Twelve
had been chosen, one of their number seems to have acted
as treasurer, taking charge of the moneys designed for the
common use, (see John xii. 6.)
A specimen of the daily activity of the Lord may be
found in the narrative of His early work in Capernaum.
He enters upon the Sabbath into the synagogue, and teaches,
filling all His hearers with astonishment at His words. He
then heals a demoniac, probably immediately after the dis
course. Leaving the synagogue, He enters Peter's house
and heals a sick woman, and crowds coming to Him at
evening, He heals many others. The next .morning, after
a time of meditation and prayer, He departs to another
city. Similar, doubtless, in their main features to this,
were His labors upon subsequent Sabbaths. In mentioning
these circuits, none of the Evangehsts give them in regular
order, or relate the events in chronological succession.

CIRCUITS IN GALILEE. 223
Each has his own prmciple of selection and of arrangement,
with which we are not now concerned ; but it is obvious
when we remember how great the Lord's activity, how
many His works and words, that within the Umits of their
narratives only very brief outlines can be given.
The stages of progress in the Lord's labors in Galilee
will be noticed as we meet them. Yet it should be noted
as characteristic of the beginning of His ministry, that we
do not find any open avowal of His Messianic claims. He
wished the people to infer who He was from His words and
works, rather than learn it from any express declarations
of His own. He preached the kingdom of heaven as at
hand, and Ulustrated it by His miracles. If the people had
sufficient spiritual discernment to see the true import of
what He said and did, this was aU the proof that was
needed that He was the Messiah.
We give at this point, for the sake of convenient refer
ence, an outline of the Lord's Gahlean work, divided into
periods of sojourn in Capernaum, and of circuits in the ad
jacent territories. The grounds for the order will be stated
as the particular periods come under consideration.
First Sojourn in Capernaum.
Rejected at Nazareth He comes to Capernaum. In its
neighborhood He calls the four disciples while fishing upon
the lake. On the following Sabbath He preaches in the
synagogue, and heals the demoniac, and afterward heals
the mother of Peter's wife. In the afternoon, after the sun
had set, He heals many others. Early the next morning He
rises to pray, and then departs to preach and heal in the
adjacent cities and viUages. FIRST CIRCUIT.
He visits the "next" villages, probably those lying
nearest Capernaum, as Chorazin and Bethsaida. No par-

224 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
ticulars of this circuit are given, except that He heals a
leper " in one ofthe cities." This being noised abroad, He
is for a time unable to enter any city, and retires to secluded
places, where the people gather to Him.
Second Sojourn in Capernaum.
Crowds begin to gather to Him so soon as it is known
that He is at home. A paralytic is brought to Him, whom
He heals, forgiving his sins. This awakens the anger of
the scribes, who regard it as an assumption of the Divine
prerogatives. He goes forth again by the seaside, and
teaches. Walking along the shore, He calls Levi. He
goes upon a Sabbath through a field in the neighborhood
of Capernaum with His disciples, and on the way plucks
and eats the ears of corn. This is noted by the Pharisees
of the city, who were watching Him. He enters the second
time into the synagogue, and heals the man with a with
ered hand. The Pharisees and Herodians now conspire
against Him. He departs to the seaside, and is foUowed
by crowds. SECOND CIRCUIT.
Leaving Capernaum, He goes to a mountain in the
neighborhood, and after a night spent in prayer, caUs His
disciples, and from them chooses the twelve apostles. Qreat
multitudes now gathering to Him, He delivers the Sermon
on the Mount, and returns, apparently the same day, to
Capernaum, stiU followed by the multitudes.
Third Sojourn in Capernaum.
He heals, immediately upon His return, the Centurion's
servant. The people so throng Him, and His labors are so
incessant, that He has not time even to eat, and His friends
fear for His sanity.

CIRCUITS IN GALILEE. 225
THIRD CIRCUIT.
The day following He goes to Nain, and raises from
death the widow's son. He continues His ministry in the
adjacent region. John Baptist sends a message to Him
from his prison ; to which He replies, and addresses the
people respecting John. He dines with Simon, a Pharisee,
and is anointed by a woman, who is a sinner. He returns
again to Capernaum. Fourth Sojourn in Capernaum.
He heals a blind and dumb possessed ; whereupon the
Pharisees blaspheme, saying that He is aided by Beelzebub.
His mother and brethren come to Him, but He rejects their
claims. He goes to the sea-shore and teaches in parables.
FOURTH CIRCUIT.
The same day at even, He crosses the sea with His dis
ciples, and stills the tempest. He heals the Gadarene de
moniacs, and the devils, entering into, destroy a herd of
swine. The people of the country entreat Him to depart,
and He returns to Capernaum.
Fifth Sojourn in Capernaum.
Here Levi makes Him a feast. He heals the daughter.
of Jairus, and the woman with an issue of blood.
FIFTH CIRCUIT.
He goes to Nazareth, and is a second time rejected^
He teaches in the villages of that part of GalUee, and sends
out the twelve apostles on their mission. About this time
Herod puts the Baptist to death, and now hearing of Jesus
and His miracles, wishes to see Him. Jesus returns to Ca
pernaum, and the apostles gather to Him there.
10*

226 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.

Sixth Sojourn in Capernaum.
No event is narrated as having occurred during this
sojourn. Probably it was very brief — a mere passage
through the city. SIXTH CIRCUIT.
He crosses the sea with the Twelve to seek retirement,
but the multitude immediately follow Him. He feeds the
5,000, and sending away tbe apostles by ship, He rejoins
them the next morning, walking on the sea. Landing on
the plain of Gennesaret, they return to Capernaum.

Seventh Sojourn in Capernaum.
He discourses in the synagogue upon the bread of life.
His discourse causes many of His disciples to forsake Him.
He addresses the Pharisees, and heals the sick.
SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
He goes to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon to find retire
ment. Here He heals the daughter of the Syro-Phcenician
woman. Crossing the northern part of the Jordan, He
goes to Decapolis. He heals a deaf man, and feeds the
4,000, and returns by Dalmanutha to Capernaum.
Eighth Sojourn in Capernaum.
He is tempted by the Pharisees, who seek a sign.
EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
He crosses the sea and visits Bethsaida, where He heals
a blind man. He goes toward Caesarea Philippi, and is.
transfigured. He heals the lunatic chUd, and returns to
Capernaum.

JESUS BEGINS HIS LABORS AT CAPERNAUM. 227

Ninth Sojoitrn in Capernaum.
He pays the tribute money, and discourses to the dis
ciples. His brethren would persuade Him to go up to the
feast of Tabernacles, and work miracles at Jerusalem. He
rejects their counsel. NINTH CIRCUIT.
He goes up in secret to Jerusalem during the feast of
Tabernacles, and teaches the people. Afterward, a woman
taken in adultery is brought before Him. He heals a blind
man, and addresses the people. He returns to Capernaum.
Final Departure from Capernaum and GalUee.

The first notice we have of the Lord, after leaving Naz
areth, (Matt. iv. 18; Mark i. 16; Luke v. 1,) brings Him
before us standing on the shore ofthe lake, and surrounded
by people that pressed upon Him to hear the word of God.
How long an interval had elapsed since He left Nazareth,
we have no data to decide, but this gathering ofthe people
to Him presupposes a period, longer or shorter, during
which He had been teaching. Not improbably He may
have- been several days upon the journey, and His growing
reputation as a prophet, joined to rumors of what had
taken place at Nazareth, would procure Him audience in
whatever viUage He entered. EspeciaUy as He came near
the lake, the numerous cities ahd viUages would furnish
crowds of listeners to hear one who spake as never man
spake. It was as He thus approached Capernaum that He met
upon the lake His former disciples, Simon, Andrew, James,
and John, and cahed them again into His service. We
have already seen that on leaving Galilee, His baptismal

228 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
work ceasing, His disciples left Him and returned to their
homes and usual pursuits. To the feast (John v. 1) He
seems to have gone unattended, nor apparently were any
disciples with. Him at Nazareth. But now that John's im
prisonment had determined the character of His future
ministry, He proceeds to gather around Him those who
had already been workers with Him, that they might enter
upon this new sphere of labor. Heretofore their relations
to Him had been similar to their previous relations to John
the Baptist, involving only a temporary absence from their
famUies and business. " These disciples, hitherto," says
Lightfoot, " were only as private men following Christ."
But now the Lord sought to engage them in a work which
should be life-long, and which was incompatible with other
pursuits. They should now be His constant attendants,
going with Him wherever He went, and thus necessarily
separated from their families and friends. This call to fol
low Him, was not, indeed, as Alford and others suppose, a
call to the apostleship, but to a preliminary service ; and
those thus caUed had as yet little understanding what
labors, dangers, or dignities, it involved.
To one who considers the essentially different character
of Christ's work in Judea and in GaUlee, it will not appear
surprising that, beginning the latter, He should give to
these disciples a new and distinct call. Only neglect to
note this difference permits any one to speak of a want of
harmony between John and the Synoptists upon this,
ground. From the narratives of Mark, (i. 16-35 ; see also Matt.
iv. 18-23,) we should infer that the call of Peter and An
drew, James ancl John, was His first act after the Lord
came to Capernaum. Luke, however, (iv. 31-42,) places
the preachmg in the synagogue, the healing of the de
moniac, and of Peter's wife's mother and others, and His
first circuit, before this call ; which order some follow. But

. CALL OF THE DISCIPLES AT SEA OF GALILEE. 229
we shaU find abundant proof that Luke does not follow the
chronological order, and that nothing decisive can be in
ferred from the fact that he places the call after the miracles
and teaching. Still, as his accounts of this caU differ some
what from those of Mark and Matthew, many have been
led to regard them as distinct, and as happening at differ
ent times.1 The peculiarity of the call in Luke, according
to this view, is, that it was later than that in Matthew and
Mark, and that now " the disciples forsook all, and followed
Him." Now they became fishers of men, (Luke v. 10,) in
fulfilment of His previous promise, (Matt. iv. 1 9.) This in
volved the entire relinquishment of their secular callings,
and to convince them of His abUity to take care of them ¦
and supply every temporal need, the Lord works the
miracle of the draught of fishes. But the words of both
Matthew (iv. 20) and Mark (i. 18) are express that " they
straightway forsook their nets and followed Him." How,
then, should they be found several days after engaged in
their usual occupations ? That, whenever the Lord was at
Capernaum, these disciples were wont to follow their call
ing as fishermen, as said by Alford, is plainly inconsistent
with their relations to Him, and with the service He sought
from them. Certainly they could have had Uttle time for
such labors amidst the pressure of the crowds, which seem
to have ever gathered around Him when He came to Ca
pernaum.' The circumstances attending the call of the disciples, as
related by the several Evangelists, may be thus arranged: As
Jesus approaches the plain of Gennesaret from Nazareth,
teaching by the way, many flock round Him to hear His
wonderful words. Passing along the level and sandy shore,
where the fishermen's boats were drawn up, He sees
amongst them the boats of Simon and Andrew, and of
» So early, Augustine, and recently, Krafft, Stier, GresweU, Alford.
' See Ebrard, 807.

230 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
James and John, who having been fishing, were now wash
ing their nets. As the people pressed upon Him, He re
quests Simon to push off his boat from the shore a little
way, that from it He may teach the multitude as they
stand before Him. After His discourse is ended, He
directs Simon and Andrew, and perhaps also others with
them, to push out into the deep waters and let down the
net. This, after a little hesitation arising from the ill-suc
cess of their labors the previous night, Simon does, and
they take so great a number of fish that the net begins to
break. He now beckons to those in the other boat, James
and John, and their companions, who had doubtless been
•watching the whole proceeding, and who now come to
their help, and both boats are so filled as to be in danger
of sinking. This unexpected success, and aU the attendant
circumstances, make such a powerful impression upon
Simon's mind, that acting with his usual impetuosity he
casts himself at the Lord's feet, saying, " Depart from me
for I am a sinful man, O Lord." All are astonished to see
a Divine hand in what had happened. Soon after this,
probably so soon as they reached the shore, He calls Simon
and Andrew, in whose ship he still was, to foUow him, for
He wUl make them fishers of men. During this time James
and John had gone a httle distance from them, and were
engaged in repairing the net that had been broken. Walk
ing upon the shore He goes to them and caUs them also to
follow Him, and they, leaving their father and servants, fol
low Him.
In this way may we find a natural and easy solution of
the apparent discrepancies between Matthew and Mark on
the one hand and Luke on the other. Luke alone relates
that Jesus spake to the people from Simon's boat, and after
ward directed him to fish, and shows in what relation this
fishing stood to the subsequent caU of the fishermen.
Matthew and Mark omit all but the fact that they were

JESUS TEACHES AND HEALS AT CAPERNAUM. 231
engaged in their usual work of fishing when thus called.
There is then no such opposition in the accounts as to make
it necessary to refer them to different events.1
On the first Sabbath following the caU of the four dis
ciples, he enters the synagogue and teaches. His teaching
excited general astonishment, but not the envy that mani
fested itself at Nazareth. Present in the synagogue was a
man possessed with a devU, whom He heals, and through
this miracle, thus publicly performed, His fame spreads
rapidly through aU Galilee, (Mark i. 28.) It is to be noted
that he did not here, or subsequently, permit evU spirits to
bear witness to His Divine character or Messianic claims,
(Mark i. 34 ; Luke iv. 41.) The ground of this imposition of
silence may have been, that the intent with which such
witness was offered was evU, and that it would also have
tended to evil by awaking premature and unfounded ex
pectations as to His future work.
From the synagogue the Lord proceeds to the house of
Simon and Andrew, where He heals Simon's wife's mother.
As mention is made by John (i. 44) of Bethsaida, as the
city of Peter and Andrew, it has been conjectured that the
house at Capernaum was that of the parents of Simon's
wife ; but against this is the expression " house of Simon
and Andrew," which implies the joint ownership ofthe two
brothers. It is therefore more probable that they had now
left Bethsaida and taken up their residence at Capernaum.'
The healing of Peter's wife's mother seems to have been at
the close of the synagogue service, and before evening, for
at evening all that were diseased and possessed were
brought to Him. The synagogue service closed at or be-
' In this general result agree Lightfoot, Newcome, Townsend, Robinson,
Wieseler, Tischendorf, Lichtenstein, Ebrard. For an answer to objections,
see Blunt, Scriptural Coincidences, 256, note.
' This may be a slight confirmation of the supposition that there was but
one Bethsaida, and that east of tbe Jordan.

232 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
fore noon, and it may be inferred from the fact that she
" ministered unto them," that she served them at the table
at the midday meal. According to Josephus,1 the hour of
this meal was, on the Sabbath, the sixth, or twelve o'clock.
That the sick should wait till the sun was gone down,
(Mark i. 32,) may be referred to the great scrupulosity of
the Jews in regard to the Sabbath.'

May, 781. a. d. 28.
The next mornmg, rising up early, Jesus goes out into Mark i. 35.
a solitary place to pray. Simon and others go out to seek Luke iv. 42.
Him because the multitude waited for Him. He replies,
that He must also preach in the neighboring towns. He Mark i. 38.
goes preaching in the synagogues and working miracles. Luke iv. 43.
This quick departure from Capernaum may perhaps be
explained from the Lord's desire that a period of reflection
should follow the surprise ahd wonder which His words
and works had excited in the minds of the people. Their
astonishment at the supernatural power He manifested, and
their readiness to come to Him as a healer of the sick, did
not prove the possession of true faith. He therefore will
leave them to meditate on what they have seen and heard,
and depart to visit the other cities and villages of Galilee,
probably, as has been suggested, following some fixed order
of visitation. Galilee at that time, according to Josephus,3
was very populous. " The towns are numerous, and the
multitude of villages so crowded with men, owing to the
fecundity of the soil, that the smallest of them contains
above 15,000 inhabitants." Elsewhere he incidentally men
tions4 that there were 204 cities and villages in Galilee,
thus giving a population of more than three miUions. This
1 Life, 54. » See Lightfoot on Matt. viii. 16 ; and xii. 10.
» War, 3. 8. 2. * Life, 45.

FIRST CIRCUIT IN GALILEE. 233
statement is confirmed .in general by Dion Cassius, who
says, that under Hadrian 985 villages ofthe Jews were laid
waste.1 Making all necessary allowance for the exaggera
tion of Josephus in regard to the populousness of each vil
lage, stUl it is apparent that the land was crowded with
people, and that the Lord, with all His activity, could,
during the brief period of His ministry, have visited but a
part of the towns. We see also whence came the multi
tudes who seem to have foUowed Him wherever He
went.' That this, the Lord's first circuit with His disciples, must
have continued some time, appears from the statements of
the Evangelists, (Mark i. 39 — ii. 1 ; Luke iv. 44 ; Matt. iv.
23,) though their language may perhaps describe His gen
eral activity rather than any particular period of it. The
expressions in Mark ii. 1, Si rj/jLepwv " after some days," is
indefinite, and its length must be otherwise determined.
The attempt of Greswell to show, from the number of
places He would visit, and the length of the stay He would
make in each, that the duration of a circuit would never be
less than three months, and probably never less than four,
rests upon no sound basis. EUicott, (168,) going to the
other extreme, makes this circuit to have lasted only four
or five days. It is intrinsically improbable that, as GresweU
supposes, Jesus should have journeyed now wholly around
Galilee, keeping on its boundary lines. What particular
parts of the province He at this time visited, we have no
data to decide, but it is certain that early in His ministry
He visited the cities of Bethsaida and Chorazin, adjacent to
Capernaum, and labored much in them, though of these
labors there is little or no mention, (Matt. xi. 21.) His
fame rapidly spread, and soon the people from the regions
adjacent to GaUlee began to gather to him.
Raumer, 81. ' See Greswell, iv. 486.

234 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
Of His works of healing during the first circuit, no
instance is given, unless the healing ofthe leper (Matt. viii.
2 ; Luke v. 12 ; Mark i. 40) took place at this time.
Matthew places it immediately after the Sermon on the
Mount. Luke introduces it with no mark of time : "And it
came to pass when He was in a certain city," &c. Mark
connects it with the first circuit in Galilee, but with no
mention of place. That this healing is not chronologicaUy
placed by Matthew, appears from the whole arrangement
of chapters viii. and ix. The first verse of chapter viu.
more properly belongs to the conclusion of the history of
the Sermon on the Mount ; verse second begins the narra
tive of healings and other miracles, of which ten particular
examples are successively recorded, but without regard to
the exact order of time in which they occurred. After
healing the leper, Jesus commands him to go and show
himself to the priests, and to say nothing to any one else
of the miracle, (Matt. viii. 4.) This command of silence
plainly imphes that the miracle had been done privately,
and not in the presence of the multitude, and could not
have been, therefore, as He came. from the Mount, for great
crowds then followed him. Nor in the presence of the
people could a leper have approached Him.1 This com
mand to keep silence the leper disobeys, and every where
pubhshes abroad what Jesus had done. This wonderful
cure, for leprosy was deemed incurable, made the people to
throng to Him in such crowds, that He could no more
enter into any city.' He was obliged to retire to the
desert, or uninhabited places, to avoid them ; but even
then they gathered to Him from every quarter.
If then the healing of the leper be placed during this
circuit, it was probably during the latter part of it. As He
' Greswell, ii. 296, note, infers that Jesus was in some house apart when
tbe leper applied to Him, and that his cure took place in private.
» Or into the city— i. e., Capernaum. So Norton.

RETURN TO CAPERNAUM. 235
proceeded from place to place, He healed such sick per
sons as were brought to Him, and the reports of these
cures spreading in every direction, all in every city would
be brought so soon as His presence was known. The
leprosy may have been one of the last forms of disease He
healed, partly because of want of faith on the part of the
lepers, and partly because it was difficult for them, amidst
such crowds, to get access to Him. But why in this case
should silence be enjoined? And why, after He had
wrought so many other cures, should this have aroused so
much attention as to make it necessary for Him to avoid
the cities and go into uninhabited places ? The most prob
able answer is, that the public proclamation of this miracle
gave the people such conceptions of His mighty power
to heal, that aU thronged to Him to be healed, and thus
His teachings, the moral side of His work, were thrust into
the shade. It was the word which He wished to make
prominent, and the work was but subsidiary. He would
not that the people should merely wander after Him as a
miracle worker, but should learn through His works the
true nature ofthe redemption He came to proclaim.

Summer, 781. a. d. 28.
After some time the Lord returns to Capernaum. So Mark ii. 1-12.
soon as it is known that He is returned, the multitudes
begin to gather, bringing their sick, whom He healed. Luke v. 17-26.
The Pharisees and doctors of the law from all parts ofthe
land, came to Capernaum to see and bear the new proph- Matt. ix. 2-8.
et. A paralytic is brought to His house upon a bed,
whom He heals, forgiving his sins. This awakens the in
dignation of the Pharisees, who regard him as a blas
phemer. Leaving the city, He goes to the seaside and Mark ii. 13, 14.
there teaches. Afterward walking on the shore, He saw Matt. ix. 9.
Levi, the publican, sitting at the receipt of custom, whom
He calls to follow Him. Luke v. 27, 28.

236 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
The order of Mark, who places the healing of the para
lytic after the return to Capernaum, is plainly the right
one.1 Matthew, in his grouping ofthe miracles in chapters
viii. and ix., does not follow the order of time. Luke nar
rates it after the healing ofthe leper, but without specify
ing time or place. He mentions, however, the fact, that
there were " Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by,
which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judea,
and Jerusalem ; and the power of the Lord was present to
heal them." It is not wholly clear who these persons were,
or why they were now present. Greswell (ii. 298) cites
Josephus to show that they were " a sort of vUlage school
masters, or a class of inferior municipal magistrates, who
might consequently be met with everywhere." They are
to be distinguished from the scribes, who came down
from Jerusalem at a later period, with evil intent, and who
were sent apparently by His enemies to watch Him, (Mark
iii. 22.) These, on the contrary, came to be healed, or to
see and hear Him whose fame had gone so widely abroad.
There is no distinction taken by the Evangelist between
those from Galilee and those from Judea and Jerusalem, as
if the latter were present from any special cause. At this
period of the Lord's career the nature of His work was
very imperfectly understood ; and many in every part of the
land and of every class, looking for the Messiah, would be
naturaUy attracted to one who showed such wonderful
power in word and deed. But in a little time, as His teach
ings became more distinctly known, His disregard of
merely legal righteousness, His neglect of their traditions,
His high claims as a Divine Person, awakened great and
general hostility. We see here how these scribes, who
came, perhaps hoping to find in Him their Messiah, per
haps to judge by personal observation how far the popular
i So Robinson, Tischendorf, Alford, Greswell.

THE CALL OF LEVI. 237
reports respecting Him were true, were turned into ene
mies and accusers when He said to the paralytic, " Thy sins
be forgiven thee," which was to speak blasphemy, because
implying an equality with God.
There are several allusions to the Lord's teaching by
the seaside. Whether He now stood upon the shore or
entered a boat, does not appear. It was not however till
afterward ( Mark iii. 9) that He commanded that a small
ship should wait on Him. Thomson (i. 548) speaks of the
small creeks or inlets near TeU Hum, " where the ship
could ride in safety only a few feet from the shore, and
where the multitude, seated on both sides, and before the
boat, could listen without distraction or fatigue. As if on
purpose to furnish seats, the shore on both sides of those
narrow inlets is piled- up with smooth boulders of basalt."
The road from Damascus to the cities along the coast
passed by " Jacob's bridge " over the Jordan, and thence
along the shore of the lake. It is probable that the place
of toll, where Levi sat, was upon this road, near its en
trance into the city.1 ' The manner of this call, hke the
caU of Simon and Andrew, and James and John, presup
poses a prior acquaintance of Jesus with Levi. The tax-
gatherer, from his occupation and local position, must have
been aware of all that was taking place in the neighbor
hood, and could not easUy have been ignorant ofthe Lord's
person and work. Not improbably also, he was already a
disciple in the wider sense of the term, this not involving
the giving up of his usual calling. It would appear that
the call was given on the same day in which Jesus taught
the people, and soon after His discourse was ended.'
By some this call to Levi is placed after his election to
the Apostleship. Having been already chosen one of the
1 See Lichtenstein, 230 ; Herzog, Encyc, xv. 161.
' Bleek, Synoptische Erklarung. i. 3S4. As to the identity of Matthew and
. Levi, see Winer ii. 61.

238 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
Twelve, he returns to his ordinary labors ; and now is called
to enter upon his apostolic duties, to leave all and foUow
Christ. But this in itself is exceedingly improbable, and we
shall soon see that the election to the apostleship is later.
The caU of Levi to stand in such intimate relations to
the Lord, must have been a great stumbUng-block to all
the Pharisaic party, and to all those in whose hearts na
tional pride and hatred of foreign rule were ardent. The
occupation of the publican was odious, if not in itself dis
graceful, as a sign and proof of their national degradation ;
and the selection of disciples from this class to be His con
stant attendants, by one who claimed to be the Messiah,
must have strongly prejudiced many against Him and His
work.1 Such selection implies, also, that already the Lord
was turning away from the legally righteous, the Pharisees,
because His words found so little entrance into their hearts,
and was turning to those who, though despised as publicans
and sinners, were nevertheless ready to receive the truth.
Unable to draw the priests into His service, He calls fisher
men; and what He cannot accomplish because of the
unbelief of Pharisees, He will do through the faith of
publicans. Many bring the feast which Levi made for the Lord
(Luke v. 29 ; see, also, Matt. ix. 10 ; Mark n. 15) into im
mediate connection with his caU.' Still there is nothing in
the language of. the Evangelists that implies immediate
sequence, and as Capernaum doubtless continued to be his
residence, and to which he frequently returned, the feast
may with equal likehhood have taken place at a later time,
and be here related, in order to bring together aU that con
cerned him personally.3
i " The Talmud," says Lightfoot, iii. 61, hath this canon : " ' A Pharisee
that turns publican, they turn him out of bis order.' "
- Lichtenstein, Tischendorf, Stier.
s So Lightfoot, Newcome, Townsend, Robinson. Newcome, 259, refers to
the Harmony of Cbemnitius, "where it appears that Levi's call and feast

PLUCKING THE EARS OF CORN. 239
The chronological connection between this feast and
the healing of the daughter of Jairus (Matt. ix. 18-25)
will be examined when we reach this miracle.
Greswell (ii. 397) attempts to show that the feast of
Matthew (Matt. ix. 10) was different from that mentioned
by Mark and Luke ; that the former was later, and not in
the house of Levi ; and that at this feast, only the disciples
of John were present. This view removes some difficulties,
but the arguments in its favor are more ingenious than
convincing.

Summer, 781. a. d. 28.
During this sojourn in Capernaum, the Lord witb His Matt. xii. 1-8.
disciples walked through the field3 upon a Sabbath and Mark ii. 23-28.
plucked and ate the ears of corn. This was observed by Luke vi. 1-5.
some of the Pharisees who were watching Him, and who
complained of it to Him as a violation of the Sabbath. He
answers them by referring to what David did, and asserts
His power as Son of man over the Sabbath. Upon an- Luke vi. 6-11.
other Sabbath He heals a man with a withered hand, Matt. xii. 9-14.
which leads the Pharisees to conspire with the Herodians Mark iii. 1-6.
to destroy Him.
Both the time and place of this event have been much
disputed. It is mentioned by aU the Synoptists, by Mat
thew in one connection, by Mark and Luke in another ; but
by nqne in such a way as to determine its chronological
succession. AU agree that it took place upon a Sabbath,
and Luke (vi. 1) defines this Sabbath by the epithet " sec
ond Sabbath after the first," or " second first " — ev o-a/J/Sara
Sevrepo-TTpaiTa! But what was this second first Sabbath?
were separated in the most ancient harmonies from Tatian in A. n. 170 to
Gerson a. d. 1400."
1 The right rendering is " first after the second." So Campbell, Norton,
Robinson, Greswell. For other renderings see Meyer in loco.

240 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
No certain answer can be given. Many doubt the correct
ness ofthe reading.1 If, however, we receive it as the right
reading, we have no positive key to its meaning, as the
word, so far as is known, is used by no other writer than
Luke. A great number of different interpretations have
been suggested.' That of Scaliger has found many advo
cates.3 We give it as stated by Lightfoot on Matt. xii. 1.
Provision was made by the Law that the sheaf of first-
fruits should be offered on the second day of Passover
week, (Levit. xxiii. 10, 11,) not on the morrow after an or
dinary Sabbath, but the morning after the first day of Pass
over week, which was a Sabbatic day. From the second
day were numbered seven weeks to Pentecost — for the
day of the sheaf and the day of Pentecost did mutually re
spect each other. The offering of the sheaf was supplica
tory, beseeching a blessing on the new corn, and leave to
eat and to put in the sickle into the standing corn. Some
weeks intervened, and the calculation of the Sabbaths was
by numbering them ; o-afiftaTov Sevrepo-TrpuiTov, the first
Sabbath after the second day of Passover ; the second Sab
bath after' the second day ; the third Sabbath after the
second day, and the like. Lightfoot therefore concludes
that this was the Sabbath mentioned John v. 9, or that
next after it.
Wieseler (231) defends the view that the Jewish years
were reckoned by a series, or cycle of sevens, and the first
Sabbath ofthe second year of one of these cycles is meant,
or the first Sabbath in Nisan.4 Others have understood a
Sabbath of the second rank, or. a feast day immediately fol-
1 So Alford, who says : " It is not altogether clear that the word ought
to be here at all." Meyer rejects it, and Lichtenstein, Browne, Bleek ; Tisch
endorf rejected it at first, but restored it in his Synopsis, 1S54. Winer de
fends it.
' See Meyer in loco.
» So A. Clarke, Bloomfield, Robinson, De Wette.
' Witb Wieseler, Tischendorf, Oosterzee, Ellicott; contra, Winer, ii. 848.

PLUCKING THE EARS OF CORN. 241
lowing a Sabbath ; others a Sabbath preceded by a feast
day ; others the first week Sabbath in a Passover week ;
others the first Sabbath of the second month ; others the
first week Sabbath after the great feasts. The last view J
makes the first week Sabbath after Passover to be the first-
first ; the first after Pentecost to be the second-first ; the
first after Tabernacles the third-first. In like manner, we
have now in eommon use the designations, first Sunday
after Epiphany, the first after Easter, the first after Trinity.
Browne (657) remarks : " Of all the explanations known to
me this seems tbe best,, indeed the only likely one." Clin
ton calls it " equally probable " as that first mentioned.'
In this chaos of interpretations; the mention of this Sab
bath as the second-first gives us no chronological aid. The
circumstance, however, that the disciples plucked the ears
of corn and did eat, defines the season of the year as that
when the corn was ripe-. The kind of grain is not men
tioned, whether barley, which was earliest, or wheat, which
was later. Barley harvest was regarded as beginning from
the second- day of the Passover, and hence it has been in
ferred that this incident was after this, as no one was per
mitted to gather any corn tUl the sheaf of first-fruits had
been waved. The wheat harvest was ripe and gathered in
May or June. Robinson speaks of seeing the wheat ripen
ing upon the 9th May ; and he also speaks of the people
near Tiberias as- engaged in gathering the wheat harvest
upon the 1 9th June. We have, then, April, May, and June,,
in either of which months this plucking and eating of the^
corn may have taken place. It is erroneously said by A. .
Clarke that it cannot " be laid after Pentecost, because then
the harvest was fully in." Thomson states that the Syrian.
harvest extends through several months, and "the wheat.
1 Grotius, Hammond, Norton.
1 For a brief statement of opinions, see Winer, ii. 343; also GresweU,,
ii. 300. 11

242 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
is suffered to become dead ripe, and as dry as tinder before
it is cut." Even if the harvest generally was reaped, par
ticular fields may still have been ungathered, or this been
that which was left for gleaners.
Without attaching any importance to a conclusion, con
fessedly so dubious, we are inclined to regard this second-
first Sabbath, as the first after Pentecost, which was this
year the 19th May. If this be correct, the ministry of the
Lord in Galilee had now continued about two months.
Where did this event take place ? It is narrated by all
the Synoptists as occuring just before the healing of the
man with the withered hand, and this healing was in the
synagogue at Capernaum. "And He entered again into
the synagogue," (Mark iii. 1,) that is, the synagogue al
ready mentioned.1 This appears also from the mention of
His withdrawal to the sea after the healing, (Mark Ui. 7 ;
see also Luke vi. 6.) That the field where the ears were
plucked was not far distant from Capernaum, appears from
Matthew xii. 9, for the Pharisees who had blamed
the disciples for that act, are spoken of as members of
that synagogue. " He went into their synagogue." ' They
were, therefore, the Pharisees of Capernaum, and the field
of corn was in the neighborhood of that city, and within
the limits of a Sabbath day's journey.
We may, then, give the foUowing order of events as
one intrinsically probable. The Lord, after His return
from His first circuit, remained some days, or weeks, at
'Capernaum, and upon a Sabbath walked out with His dis
ciples through the fields in the vicinity ofthe city. As He
had already, in the opinion of the Pharisees, broken the
sanctity ofthe Sabbath by healing upon it, (Mark i. 23 and
30,) they followed Him to watch Him, perhaps to note
whether His walk upon that day was longer than the law
Alexander, Meyer. » Meyer, Norton.

HEALING THE MAN WITH A WITHERED HAND. 243
permitted, (Acts i. 12.) Seeing His disciples plucking and
rubbing the ears of corn in their hands, they fancied the
act a violation of the law. It has sometimes been said that
the Pharisees did not think it sinful to pull and eat the
grain, but it was so to rub it in their hands, all prepa
ration of food being forbidden. This is doubtful. Light
foot says : " The plucking of ears of corn on the Sabbath
was forbidden by their canons, verbatim : ' He that reapeth
corn on the Sabbath, to the quantity of a fig, is guUty. And
plucking corn is as reaping.' " ' If done presumptuously,
or without necessity, the punishment was death by stoning,
and hence the Lord's defence of the disciples. His answer
to their complaints could only have angered them stiU more,
and when, therefore, He entered the foUowing Sabbath
into the synagogue, (Luke vi. 6,) it was to be expected
that they would carefully watch all that He did to find
some sufficient ground of accusation against Him. His re
newed violation of the Sabbath by healing the man with a
withered hand, added to their indignation, and they now
began to plot how they might destroy Him.
Luke (vi. 6) defines the time of this work of healing as
" on another Sabbath." Whether this was the Sabbath
immediately foUowing that on which He walked through
the corn-field, is not said, though it is probable.' The aUi
ance of the Herodians with the Pharisees, does not imply
that Herod himself had at this time any knowledge of Je
sus, or took any steps against Him. The Herodians were
those among the people who, though hating the Roman
rule, favored the pretensions of Herod's family to kingly
power. In case of national independence this famUy should

1 See also Meyer on Matt. xii. 1.
' Wieseler (237) conjectures that it was a feast Sabbath and the day fol
lowing that mentioned in verse 1st. This seems to have little or no basis.
Meyer's assertion, that Matthew (xii. 9) puts tbe two events on the same Sab
bath in opposition to Luke, is wholly baseless.

244 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
reign rather than the house ofthe Maccabees, or any other
claimants. They were never numerous, for the great body
of the nation looked upon that famUy as foreigners and
usurpers. " Why the Pharisees and Herodians," says Al
ford, " should now combine, is not apparent." The Hero
dians would, however, be naturaUy jealous and watchful
of any one whom they supposed to be a claimant of the
throne in opposition to the house of Herod ; and the Phari
sees, being angry at Jesus on religious grounds, a union of
the two for His destruction was very easUy made. We
need not suppose that this conspiracy against Him as yet
included others than the Pharisees and Herodians of Caper
naum and its immediate vicinity, (see Matt. xn. 14; Mark
iii. 6.) Doubtless, very soon after this, His enemies here
took counsel with His enemies at Jerusalem, and the con
spiracy against Him became general.
It appears from these narratives that, almost from the
very beginning of His Gahlean work, the Lord encountered
the active hostility of the Pharisees of that province. At
the feast (John v. 1) He had aroused the anger of the
Pharisees at Jerusalem by healing the impotent man on
the Sabbath, (verses 16 and 18;) and at Capernaum He
continued again and again to heal upon that day, and in the
synagogue itself. Their fanatical zeal could not aUow such.
violations of tbe law to pass unnoticed, and as Jesus de
fended them on the ground of His divine right to work,
even on the Sabbath, He seemed to them not only a Sab
bath breaker, but also a blasphemer. At first they plotted
secretly against Him, the people at large being friendly to>
Him. Whilst in the full flush of His popularity they dared
take no steps openly against Him, but waited tiU some im
prudence, or error, or folly on His part, or the fickleness of
the multitude, should put Him in their power. There was
early an active and constant correspondence between the
scribes and Pharisees in GalUee and those in Jerusalem ; and

JESUS WITHDRAWS TO THE SEA-SHORE. 245
at intervals deputations from the latter came down to con
sult with the former, and to devise means to hinder Him in
His work, and to bring Him to punishment. As yet the fact
that He had broken the Sabbath by healing upon it, does
not seem to have turned the popular feeling at all against
Him, nor even the assertion of His power to forgive sins.

Midsummer, 781. a. d. 28.
After healing the man with a withered hand Jesus Matt. xii. 15-21.
withdraws to the sea-shore. Here great multitudes from Mark iii. 7-1 2.
all parts of the land resort to Him, and He heals many. Matt. iv. 25.
As they press upon Him to touch Him, He directs that
a small ship be prepared to wait upon Him. Leaving
the seaside He goes up into a neighboring mountain and Luke vi. 12-16.
spends the night in prayer. In the morning He calls Mark iii. 13-19.
the disciples to Him, and from them chooses tbe twelve
Apostles. The multitudes now gathering to Him He Matt. v. vi. vii.
proceeds to deliver the discourse called the Sermon on Luke vi. 17-49.
the Mount. From Matthew (xii. 15) it would appear that Jesus was
aware of the purpose of the Pharisees, and therefore
avoided them. He would not, except so far as was neces
sary, come into collision with them nor expose His work to
injury through their opposition. It was for this reason that,
having healed all the sick among the multitudes that fol
lowed Him, He charged them that they should not make
Him known, (v. 16.) He was now seeking for the humble
and repentant, all in whom He could discern any sense of
sin or germs of faith, and He would not for their sakes
suffer Himself to be forced into a hostile attitude to the
spiritual leaders of the people. This was the rule of His
conduct, as it had been prophetically laid down by the prophet
Isaiah (xiii. 2) : " He shall not strive nor cry, neither shaU
any man hear His voice in the streets."

246 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
The withdrawal from the city to the sea-shore, (Mark iii,
7,) whilst it had thus for one end, to avoid His enemies,
seems also to have been to find a more convenient place for
teaching and healing. In the city He was exposed to con
stant interruption through the eagerness of the sick and
their friends, who pressed upon Him to touch Him ; and to
secure personal freedom He was compelled to order a boat to
attend upon Him, that He might, when necessary, use it as
a pulpit to address the multitude standing before Him on
the shore, and perhaps also to withdraw Himself wholly
from them by crossing the lake.
The fame of Jesus seems at this time to have reached
every part of the land. Crowds came, not only from
GalUee and Judea, but also from Idumea and- from beyond
Jordan, and from the territories about Tyre and Sidon.
That so great numbers, and from such remote regions, should
gather at Capernaum, shows that He remained at that city-
for some time after His return from His first circuit. It
was, doubtless, not His teachings, but His miracles of heal
ing, that awakened such general attention, and drew such
multitudes after Him. Most came attracted by His repu
tation as a healer of the sick. After making aU allowance
for the degraded condition of the present inhabitants df
Palestine, the following remarks of Thomson (ii. 84) would
not be inapplicable to the Jews ofthe Lord's day: "Should
a prophet now arise with a tithe 6f the celebrity of Jesus
of Nazareth, there would quickly be immense assemblies
about him from GalUee, and from DecapoUs, and from
Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan. Bad,
and stupid, and ignorant, and worldly, as the people are,
their attention would be instantly arrested by the name of
a prophet, and they would flock from all parts to see, hear,
and be healed. There is an irresistible bias in Orientals of
all religions to run after the mere shadow of a prophet, or a
miracle worker."

THE CHOICE OF THE TWELVE. 247
That the choice of the Twelve took place at this time,
appears from the mention in Mark and Luke .ofthe various
parts of the country from which the multitudes came.
According tO Luke, (vi. 17,) they that heard the discourse
upon the mount were from Judea and Jerusalem, and from
the sea-coast of Tyre and Sidon. Mark (in. 7, 8) mentions
GalUee, Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond Jordan, and
about Tyre and Sidon. Matthew, (iv. 25,) who does not
mention the choice of the apostles, but gives the Sermon
on the Mount, speaks ofthe great multitudes that followed
Him from Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond
J ordan. It was at this point, when He had special need of
their services, that He selected twelve out of the body of
His disciples " that they should be with Him, and that He
might send them forth to preach, and to have power to
heal sicknesses and to cast out devils," (Mark iu. 14, 15.)
Whether some particular mountain is designated by the
use ofthe article bythe Synoptists, to opos, "the mountain,"
or generally the ridges of hiUs on the sides of the Lake of
Galilee, as distinguished from the low shores, we cannot
easily decide. The Jews distinguished the face of the
country into mountains, plains and valleys. According to
Middleton,1 by the mountain is here signified " the moun
tain district as distinguished from the other two." ' It is
most natural to refer it to some specific and well-known
locality ; but it is plain that the mountain here is not the
same mentioned in Matt. xiv. 23, Mark vi. 46, John vi.
3, where the five thousand were fed, or that in Matt.
xv. 29, where the four thousand were fed. We may then
rather infer that in each .of these cases the mountain is de
fined by the article, because supposed to be already well
known as the site of the event. Where this mountain was
is now only matter of conjecture. Tradition has chosen
1 Greek article, 103. ' See Ebrard, 849 ; Meyer on Matt. v. 1.

248 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
the hiU known as the Horns of Hattin from its peculiar
shape, and called by the Latins the Mount of Beatitudes.
It is a ridge not far from TeU Hum, about a quarter of a
mile in length, running east and west. At each end rises
a small cone or horn. Its peculiar shape attracts the at
tention of the traveUer, and is probably the cause of its
selection. Robinson contends that there are a dozen other
mountains in the vicinity of the lake which would answer
the purpose just as weU; and that the tradition which has
selected this as the site goes no further back than the 13th
century, and is confined to the Latin Church. As the same
tradition placed here also the feeding of the five thousand,
which is certainly an error, we are the more inclined to re
ject it.1 Stanley, however, (360,) says : " The situation so
strikingly coincides with the intimations of the Gospel nar
rative as almost to force the inference, that in this instance
the eye of those who selected the spot -was for once rightly
guided." We may arrange the events preparatory to the delivery
of the Sermon on the Mount in the foUowing order : the
Lord leaving Capernaum in the evening goes to the mount,
whieh cannot have been at any great distance, and spends
the night alone. Very early in the morning His disciples,
probably according to His direction, came to Him, and
from them He selected the Twelve. By this time the mul
titudes who had lodged in Capernaum or in its neighbor
hood, learning whither He had gone, followed Him, and
then He addresses them.
As Matthew (chs. v., vi., vii.) and Luke (vi. 17-49) in
troduce their reports of the Sermon on the Mount by tbe
mention of differing circumstances, and as their reports
differ in many points, it has been questioned whether both
can refer to the same discourse. The various opinions may
1 Raumer, 32, note.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 249
be reduced to three • 1st. That which regards them as re
ports of discourses wboUy distinct, and spoken at different
times, and perhaps also at different places.1 2d. That
which regards them as reports of distinct discourses, but
spoken successively : the one before the choice of the apos
tles, the other after it ; the one to the disciples, the other
to the multitude ; the one sitting upon the mountain, the
other standing upon the plain.' 3d. That which regards
them as abstracts of one and the same discourse.'-
To determine which of these views is correct, or how
the respective discourses of Matthew and Luke stand re
lated to each other, we must examine in detaU the several
points of likeness and unlikeness. And 1st, the difference
of place. Matthew (v. 1) says: "And seeing the multitudes
He went up into a mountain, and when He was set His dis
ciples came unto Him, And He opened His mouth and
taught them," Luke (vi. 17-20) says, that after the choice
ofthe Twelve " He came down with them, and stood in the
plain, (em towov mStvov,) and the company of His disciples
and a great multitude of people, . . . which came to hear Him
and to be healed of their diseases ; and they that were
vexed with unclean spirits : and they were healed. And
the whole multitude sought to touch Him, for there went
virtue out of Him and healed them all. And He lifted up
His eyes on His disciples, and said," &c. Thus, according
to Matthew, the discourse was delivered by the Lord sit
ting upon the side or top of a mountain; according to
Luke, after He had chosen the Twelve He descended to the
plain, and having healed the sick, addressed those present.
But the latter does not say that the discourse was spoken
on the plain, although He does not mention any re-ascent.
Such a re-ascent is however very probable, for it is said
" that the whole multitude sought to touch Him ; " and as,
Krafft, Greswell. ' Augustine, Lange.
3 Robinson, Tischendorf, Stier.
11*

250 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
when similarly pressed upon the sea-shore, (Mark Ui. 9,) He
entered a boat and taught from it ; so now He would natu
rally ascend to a point where they could not reach Him,
and from which He could easily be seen and heard by aU.'
Some would understand the "plain" of Luke of a level
spot on the side of the mountain, or at its foot, where the
multitude could sit or stand, this plain itself being, in refer
ence to the sea-shore from whence they came, a part of the
mountain. Thus Stanley, speaking of the hill of Hattin,
says: "The plain on which it stands is easily accessible
from the lake, and from that plain to the summit is but a
few minutes' walk. The platform at the top is evidently
suitable for the collection of a multitude, and corresponds
precisely to the ' level place ' mistranslated ' plain,' to which
He would ' come down,' as from one of its higher horns, to
address the people." ' In this way all seeming discrepancy
between Matthew and Luke as to the place, disappears.
The choice of the Twelve was made upon the mountain be
fore the multitude gathered, which choice Matthew does
not mention. As the Lord beheld the people gathering to
Him, He goes down with His disciples to meet them upon
some level place, and after healing the sick, He seats Him
self in a position, probably higher up upon the hUl, where
He can be seen and heard by the great crowds, and pro
ceeds to address them.3
2d. Difference of time. FoUowing his report of the
sermon, Matthew relates (viii. 2-4) the healing of tbe leper
as having immediately taken place. Luke (vn. 2-10) re
lates the healing of the centurion's servant as immedi
ately following. As these events were separated by a con
siderable interval of time, so, it is said by Krafft and others,
> So Robinson, Har. 193.
5 So Tholuck, Sermon on the Mount, 53, " a level place, not a plain."
» See Ebrard, 350 ; Stier, i. 327 ; Lichtenstein, 247. Alford, after Meyer,
finds tbe two Evangelists in contradiction.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 251
must have been the- discourses which they respectively
followed. But we have already seen that Matthew is not
narrating events in chronological order, and that the healing
of the leper took place before the Sermon on the Mount.
We are not therefore obliged to suppose the discourses dis
tinct upon this ground.
3d. Difference of audience. Matthew (iv. 25) describes
the multitudes present as from Gahlee, Decapolis, Jerusa
lem, Judea, and from beyond Jordan ; Luke (vi. 17) as from
all Judea, Jerusalem, and the sea-coast of Tyre and Sidon.
From this partial difference of names Krafft (83) infers that
those who heard the discourse reported by Matthew were
mostly Jews, with perhaps a few Syrians ; but that those
who heard the discourse reported by Luke were mostly
from the eastern side of GalUee and the coasts of Tyre and
Sidon. But this inference is not warranted. In this enu
meration neither of the Evangehsts designs to discriminate
between Jewish and heathen lands. This appears from
Mark, (iii. 7, 8,) who mentions Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem,
Idumea, beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon. If
heathen were present, according to Luke, from Tyre and
Sidon, so might they be also, according to Matthew, from
Decapolis. The Evangelists plainly all intend to say, that
the crowds who were present came from every part ofthe
land ; and any difference in the enumeration of the regions
whence they came is unimportant. On the other hand, the
very particularity of the mention of so many provinces by
each, sufficiently shows that all point to one and the same
period. 4th. Difference of contents. " Of 107 verses in Mat
thew, Luke contains only 30 ; his four beatitudes are bal
anced by as many woes ; and in his text parts of the sermon
are introduced by sayings which do not precede them in
Matthew, but which naturaUy connect with them."1 But
' Alford on Matt. v. 1. See also Greswell, ii. 429 ; Krafft, 83.

252 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
these differences are few when compared with the resem
blances. The beginning and ending of both are the same ;
there is a general similarity in the order, and often identity
ia the expressions. Often in the Evangelists, when their
reports are in substance the same, there are many varia
tions.1 That the two discourses should have so much in
common if they were distinct, spoken at different times and
to different audiences, is most improbable. That many of
the shorter proverbial expressions might be used at various
times is natural, but not that such similarity should prevail
throughout.' The supposition that the Lord first addressed the apos
tles and disciples, which address Matthew gives, and then
the multitudes, which address Luke gives, was advocated
by Augustine, and has been the ruling one in the Latin
Church. It has been also adopted by most of the Lutheran
harmonists, though Calvin caUs this view light and frivo
lous. That there is something esoteric in the former and
exoteric in the latter may be admitted ; but this is owing
mot to the different audiences to whom the discourses were
spoken, but to the different classes of readers for which the
two Gospels were designed. It may be that neither Mat
thew nor Luke gives us the exact discourse as it was
spoken. Without entering into the vexed question of
inspiration, its nature and degrees, we may say that each
Evangelist, writing under the direction of the Holy Spirit,
made such selection of the Lord's words, as well as of the
events in His history, and so arranged them, as best to
meet the wants of those for whom he wrote. That Luke
> Compare the Lord's Prayer as given Matt vi. 9-12, and Luke xi. 2-i ; and
His discourse concerning the Pharisees, Matt, xxiii. and Luke xx. 46.
• Neander's explanation, 224, that tbe original document of Matthew of
Hebrew origin, "passed through the hands of tbe Greek editor, wbo has in
serted other expressions of Christ allied to those in the organic connection of
the discourse, but spoken on other occasions," is one of those arbitrary as
sumptions, whose frequency makes so much of German criticism worthless.

JESUS RETURNS TO CAPERNAUM. 253
should omit those portions of the discourse having special
reference to the Jewish sects, and to the Mosaic laws, was
in accordance with the general scope of his Gospel as de
signed for heathen Christians ; whUst Matthew, on the
other hand, -writing for Jewish Christians, would retain
them. To this Alford and others object that in some cases
Luke is fuller than Matthew, (compare Matt. vii. 1,, 2, and
Luke vi. 37, 38*) But, as has been said, Matthew may not
give the words ofthe Lord in all their fulness ; and it is not
at all inconsistent with the fact of an epitome that certain
thoughts should be more fully expanded than in. the origi
nal, when this original is itself but an epitome.
There is stUl another argument against the identity of
these two discourses, based upon the fact that Matthew
does not relate his own caU (ix. 9) till he had recorded the
sermon. But it is so abundantly established that Matthew
does not follow chronological order, that this is of no im
portance. We conclude, then, that Matthew gives this discourse
substantially, if not literally, as it was spoken, and that
Luke gives the same, but modified to meet the wants of
that class of readers for whom be; especially wrote.

Midsummer, 781. a., d. 28.
After the sermon was ended Jesus returns to Caper
naum, still followed by the multitudes. Immediately Matt. viii. 6-13.
after His return he heals* the centurion's servant. The Luke vii. 1-10.
crowds continuing to fallow Him so- that He has no time Mare. iii. 20, 2 1 .
even to eat, His friends become alarmed at His in
cessant labors, and thinking Him beside Himself, at
tempt to restrain Him.
The form of expression, (Luke vn. 1,) "Now when He
had ended all His sayings in the audience of the people,. He
entered into Capernaum," shows that He was at no great

254 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
distance, and that no long interval elapsed between the
discourse and the entry. Mark, (iii. 19,) after mentioning
the election of the Twelve, merely adds, " And they went
into a house," or more hteraUy, " went home," e« oikov,
that is, to His house in Capernaum.
Matthew (vni. 1) speaks of the great multitudes that
followed Him descending from the mountain ; and Mark
(in. 20) of " the multitude coming together again," as if
after a temporary dispersion, such as was natural in coming
down from the mountain, they had re-assembled in the
city, and doubtless before His dwelling. So earnest were
they to see and hear Him, and to bring to Him their sick,
that He found no time even to eat, (Mark iii. 20.) This
intense activity in teaching and working, without any in
tervals for repose, alarmed His friends. It is not certain
who are here meant by " His friends," oi rrap' avrov. The
translation in the margin, "His kinsmen," is adopted by
many.1 Some suppose His unbelieving brothers to be
especially meant.' Some, as Lichtenstein, make them to
be the disciples other than the Twelve ; and others still, as
Ebrard, the strangers or people of the house, with whom
He was staying. Probably they were His relatives, His
mother and brethren, who, if stUl resident in Nazareth, had
heard of His great labors, and now came to seek Him. Their
affection would naturally make them anxious about Him ;
and their near relationship to Him would permit them to
say, " He is beside Himself," which any of His disciples
would scarcely do. This however does not indicate that
in their opinion He was actually insane, but merely that He
was prosecuting His work with too great zeal and energy.
As expressed by Stier, " He does too much ; forgets aU
moderation — is out of His senses, knows not what He is
1 So Alexander, Stier, Alford.
' Meyer makes them to have recently arrived from Nazareth ; compare
v. 31 ; Lange to be already settled at Capernaum.

JESUS AT NAIN. 255
doing, so that we have to interfere." This language did
not so much refer to the matter as to the manner of His
work. Perhaps they may have had in mind that He had
spent the night alone upon the mountain, and so had been
for a time without food and sleep.
It appears from Luke, (vii. 1) compared with Matt. (viii.
5,) that the healing of the centurion's servant was on the
day of His return from the mount. As the centurion seems
to have been a resident of Capernaum, for he built them
their synagogue, (Luke vu. 5,) it is not improbable that a
Roman garrison was stationed there.1 That the elders
should come to make the request is whoUy in accordance
with oriental usage.' That they were wUling to make this
request, shows that at this time no general hostility had yet
developed itself against Him in Capernaum.
Midsummer, 781. A. d. 28.
The day following the healing of the centurion's Luke vii. 11-17.
servant He goes to Nam, accompanied by the disciples
and many people. He there restores to life the son of
a widow as they were bearing him to the grave. Whilst
continuing His ministry in that part of Gahlee, John the Matt. xi. 2-19.
Baptist, who hears of His works, sends from his prison Luke vii. 18-35.
a message to Him by two of his disciples. Jesus
answers their question, and addresses the multitude
respecting John.
The order of events here wiU depend upon the reading,
Luke vii. 11, whether ev ry eiyj<s, or ev toj efqs, "the day
after," or " afterward." The weight of authority is in favor
ofthe former.'
The Lord gives Himself no rest, but enters immediately
upon new labors. From this time the Twelve were con-
i Trench, Mir. 184. ' Thomson, i. 313.
> Tischendorf, Robinson, Wieseler, Alford ; contra, Meyer, Stier.

256 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
stantly with Him tiU sent forth upon their mission. Beside
them many of the other disciples now accompanied Him, as
well as much people.
Nain lies on the northwest declivity of the hUl of Little
Hermon, commanding an extensive view over the plain
of Esdraelon, and the northern hills. It is now an insig
nificant village, with no remains of any importance. " No
convent, no tradition marks the spot. But under these cir
cumstances, the name is sufficient to guarantee its authen
ticity." 1
As the Jews usuaUy buried the dead upon the same
day they died and before sundown,2 it has been questioned
how He could have reached Nain from Capernaum so early
in the day as to meet the funeral procession. But as the
distance is only about twenty-five mUes, and probably less,
it might be walked in seven or eight hours. As the orien
tals walk rapidly, and commence their journeys early in the
morning, He might have reached Nain by noon, or a little
after. The restoration to life of the widow's son was the first
work of this kind the Lord had wrought, and naturally pro
duced a most powerful impression on aU who heard of it.
All saw in it the mighty hand of God, who alone could
bring the dead to life. The Evangelist mentions (Luke
vii. 16) that " there came a fear on aU, and they glorified
God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us."
No such miracle had been wrought since the days of Elisha ;
the fame of it " went forth through all Judea, and through
out aU the region round about," and thus coming to the
ears of some of John's disciples, was told by them to their
master. Luke says, (vn. 18,) "And the disciples of John
showed him of all these things.?' This may mean that they
told him of all that Jesus had recently done, His works of
' Stanley, 849. » Winer, ii. 16, note 1.

MESSAGE OF THE BAPTIST TO JESUS. 257
healing, the choice ofthe Twelve, the Sermon on the Mount,
as well as of this work at Nain ; and also of His great popu
larity, and of the crowds that continually followed Him.
If we assume that the place of John's imprisonment was
Machaerus,1 a fortress in the southern part of Perea, just on
the confines of Arabia, some days at least must have elapsed
between this miracle and the coming of John's messengers.2
Perhaps our Lord continued during this interval at Nain,
teaching all who had been so impressed by His mighty
work that they had ears to hear ; or He may have visited
the adjacent cities and villages ; or He may, after a brief
circuit, have returned to Capernaum, and hither, as the
place of His residence, John's disciples have come.
Some place this miracle after the raising ofthe daughter
of Jairus, chiefly because the former is a greater exhibition
ofthe powers of Christ. Thus Trench3 says of the three
miracles of raising the dead, that " they are not exactly the
same miracle repeated three times over, but *may be con
templated as an ever-ascending scale of difficulty, each a
greater outcoming ofthe power of Christ than the preced
ing." But this is more plausible than sound. If there be such
" an ever-ascending scale of difficulty," we should find the
Lord's first works of healing less mighty than the later ;
but this is not the case. If we compare the two miracles
of feeding the multitude, the first is the more stupendous.
The impression which the raising of the widow's son made
on all, seems plainly to show that it was the first of its
kind, (Luke vii. 16, 17.)
Perhaps the message of the Baptist may stand in close
connection with the great miracle at Nain. Such a work .
must have convinced him, had he before had any doubts, ,
that Jesus was divinely sent, and that the mighty power of
God was indeed with Him. The question then, " Art thou
i Josephus, War, 7. 6. 1-3. ' See Greswell, ii. 327. 3 Mir. 152.

258 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
He that should come, or look we for another ? " may be an
intimation that Jesus should now put forth in direct act
that resistless power of which He had just shown Himself
to be possessed. Art thou the Messiah ? Act then as the
Messiah. Thou canst raise the dead. Thou canst fulfil all
the covenant promises to the patriarchs and prophets.
Purge thy floor ; gather the wheat into thy garner ; and
baptize with the Holy Ghost.
The answer of the Lord to the messengers meets this
state of mind. He refers to His daily works as being truly
Messianic, and such as befitted Him to perform. Not acts
of judgment, but of mercy, belonged to His office. His
work was now to heal the sick, to preach the Gospel to the
poor, to raise the dead. He adds, as a caution to John,
" Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me."
Blessed is he who shall understand the work I now do, and
not stumble at it.
This question of John gives Jesus an opportunity to
bear His direct witness to him as a prophet, and more,
as the herald of the Messiah, (Matt. xi. 9, 10.) He de
clares also to the people, that if they will receive him, he is
the Elias that was for to come ; and reproaches them that
they would not receive John or Himself in either of their
different modes of working or teaching, (Matt. xi. 16-19;
Luke vii. 31-35.) His testimony to John was weU received
by the people and the publicans, all those who had been
baptized by him ; but not by the Pharisees and lawyers,
who had rejected his baptism, (Luke vii. 29, 30.)
This testimony of Jesus to John as the herald of the
Messiah, was a plain assertion, though an indirect one, of
His own Messianic character. But John was now in prison.
How was this compatible with his being Elias ? How could
he prepare the Lord's way ? Did not this very fact of his
imprisonment conclusively disprove all his claims to be the
forerunner of the Messiah? This tacit objection Jesus

ANOINTING AT THE HOUSE OF SIMON. 259
meets by showing that it depended on them, whether or
no, he was the Elias. If they received him, if they heark
ened to his words, and permitted him to do his work, then
he would be to them that prophet, and fulfil all that was said
of Elias. But they had not so received him ; they had said
of him that he had a devU ; and now he was shut up in
prison ; and thus the Jews were made clearly to understand
the connection between John's ministry and that of Jesus,
and how the rejection of the former involved that of the
latter. Immediately upon these words concerning John, foUows
in Matthew (xi. 20-24) an address to the cities Bethsaida,
Chorazin, and Capernaum. It is given by Luke later, and
in connection with the mission of the seventy disciples,
(Luke x. 13-16.) We shaU discuss its right position when
we consider that mission.

Autumn, 781. a. d. 28.
Jesus dines with a Pharisee named Simon, and while Luke vii. 36-50.
at the table is anointed by a woman who is a sinner.
In reply to Simon's complaint He relates the parable of
the two debtors. He continues His circuit in Galilee Luke viii. 1-3.
with the Twelve, and also accompanied by certain women.
This dining with a Pharisee, and anointing, are men
tioned only by Luke, (vii. 36-50,) and are not to be con
founded with later events of a Uke kind mentioned by Mat
thew xxvi. 6-13, Mark xiv. 3-9, John xii. 2-9. The fact
that both persons at whose houses these feasts took place
bore the name of Simon, is not strange, when we remember
how very common this name was. They are sufficiently
distinguished by the addition in Luke of " Pharisee," and
in the other Evangelists of " leper." Where this Simon
hved is uncertain. Some have supposed at Nain, as the city

260 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
last named,1 others at Capernaum.' Those who make this
Simon the same as Simon the leper, place the feast at Beth
any; Romish tradition, which holds the woman to have
been Mary Magdalene, gives the place as Magdala, where
Jesus was on His return toward Capernaum.3
The identification of this woman, who was a sinner, with
Mary Magdalene (Luke vni. 2) rests upon no sufficient
grounds. Lardner argues4 that Mary was a woman of
quality on the ground that she is twice mentioned before
Joanna, (Luke viii. 3 and xxiv. 10,) who was wife of Her
od's steward. So the first place is often given her by the
Evangehsts, (Matt, xxvii. 56 and 61 ; xxviu. 1 ; Mark xv.
40 and 47 ; but see John xix. 25.) This was noticed by
Grotius, who inferred from it that she was of higher rank
than the other women. She seems also to have been at
the expense of the spices for the Lord's burial. The
mention of her name with those of the other honorable
women who attended the Lord in His journeys, and min
istered to Him of their substance, is inconsistent with
the fact of a previous loose life ; for such an one the
Lord would not have permitted to be an attendant, or the
other women have consented to it. Lardner adds: "I
conceive of her as a woman of fine understanding and
known virtue and discretion, with a dignity of behavior
becoming her age, her wisdom, and her high station." It
is generally admitted that this woman, described as a
sinner, was of unchaste life. The text, as given by Tisch
endorf and Alford, changes somewhat the meaning : " a
woman which was in the city, a sinner." Alford remarks :
" We must either render ' which was a sinner in the city,'
1 GresweU, Wieseler. ' Robinson, Meyer.
3 Friedlieb, 216, note, who supposes that the place of John's imprison
ment was in the neighborhood of Magdala.
' See Lardner's letter to Hanway on Magdalen Houses, vol. x. 237 ; also
Townsend, part iii., note 58.

THE WOMEN WITH JESUS. 261
i. e., known as such in the place, by pubUc repute, carrying
on. a sinful occupation in the place ; or regard it as paren
thetic, ' which was in the city a sinner.' The latter seems
preferable." Lightfoot (in loco) maintains that this woman
was Mary Magdalene, who was the same as Mary sister of
Lazarus. He therefore identifies Magdala with Bethany,
as very near to Jerusalem, and affirms that it was distin
guished for the unchastity of the inhabitants. Thus Mary
Magdalene twice anointed the Lord, now and at the be
ginning of His Passion.1 This is without proof.
Whether the journey (Luke viii. 1-3) made in company
with " the Twelve and certain women,"' was a continuation
of the circuit from Nain is not certain, though most prob
able. If, however, the anointing was at Capernaum, this
may refer to a new circuit. The remark of Ellicott (184)
that " this circuit could not have lasted much above a day
or two after the miracle at Nain," is plainly at variance
with the Evangelist's language, (viii. 1,) that " He went
throughout every city and viUage preaching," which upon
its face implies a circuit of considerable duration.' This
circuit is distinguished from His former ones by the attend
ance of these women, whose names are mentioned : Mary
Magdalene, Joanna, wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and
Susannah, and many others. Nothing is historically known
of any of these persons more than is here related. Their
attendance on the Lord may perhaps be regarded as
marking an onward step in His ministry. Whether from this
time they generally accompanied Him in His journeys is
not stated, but is not improbable. (See Luke xxni. 55.)
1 In favor of the identity of Mary Magdalene with this sinner, see Baro
nius ; Sepp, iii. 243 ; Oosterzee in loco ; contra, Meyer, Winer. For a gen
eral discussion of the point, see Herzog's Encyc, vol. ix. 102.
' It is impossible, without great violence to language, to compress so
much of the Lord's work into the brief interval between Purim and the Pass
over following, as Ellicott is compelled to do by assuming that the feast
(John v. 1) is Purim.

262 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.

Autumn, 781. a. d. 28.
Returning to Capernaum, the Lord heals one pos- Matt. xii. 22-45.
sessed with a devil, blind and dumb. The Pharisees Mark iii. 22-30.
hereupon charge Him with casting out devils by the help
of Beelzebub, and some, tempting Him, ask a sign
from heaven. He replies to their charge, and while
speaking it is announced to Him that His mother and Matt. xii. 46-50.
brethren stand without, desiring to see Him. He points Luke viii. 19-21.
to His disciples, and says, Behold my mother and my Mark iii 31-35.
brethren. There is not a little difficulty in the arrangement of
these events. We have first to inquire whether the heal
ing in Matt. xU. 22 is identical with that in Luke xi. 14 ? ¦
There are two cases of healing of dumb possessed persons
related by Matthew . first in ix. 32, second in xu. 22. These
have much in common, and at both did the Pharisees make
the charge that Jesus cast out devils through the prince of
the devils. There is, however, this important difference,
that in the former the possessed was dumb only, in the lat
ter, both dumb and blind. In the healing related by St.
Luke the possessed was dumb. Some, as GresweU, find
here three distinct cases of healing ; others identify that in
Luke with that in Matt. ix. 32 ; ' but most with that in
Matt. xn. 22. The chief ground for this identity is the
great simUarity of the Lord's reply, as given by the two
Evangelists to the charge that He cast out devils by Beel
zebub. (Compare Matt. xii. 25-45 with Luke xi. 17-36.)
Against this identity is the position in which it is placed by
Luke, as if occurring during the Lord's last journey to
Jerusalem. Matthew also calls the possessed " blind and
dumb ; " Luke only " dumb." But this difference ia un-
' So many, Robinson, Meyer, Lange, Bloomfield,
Krafft, Neander.

HEALING THE BLIND AND DUMB POSSESSED. 263
important. All depends upon the point whether Christ's
reply to the Pharisees is identical in the two Evangelists.
In favor of this is the general simUarity in thought and ex
pression, making it improbable that we have the reports
of two distinct discourses. On the other hand, Luke brings
it into immediate connection with a dinner at the house of
a Pharisee, (v. 37,) which seems upon internal grounds to
have been at a later period.1 Some, however, do not think
this dinner with the Pharisee to have followed immediately
upon the preceding discourse, and render the phrase "And
as He spake," ev Be tu> XaX-qo-ai, as meaning simply, " at
some time when He was teaching," and thus find in it no
chronological sequence.' This is hardly satisfactory. Shall
we then say that all that Luke relates (vs. 14-54) is in
chronological order? It is not impossible that all from
v. 29 may be referred to a later period, as he seems to
bring together, (vs. 15, 16,) the charges of the Pharisees,
which Matthew keeps distinct. Krafft (85) attempts to
show that tbe discourse given by Matthew (xU. 25-45) was
not all spoken at once, nor has reference to the same mir
acle. In chapter ix. 32-34 mention is made of the healing
of a dumb possessed man, when a Uke charge was made by
the Pharisees that He cast out devils through the prince
of the devUs. It is in connection with this miracle that
Krafft would place what Matthew narrates in xii. 38-46.
But this division seems arbitrary. It is by no means im
possible that this healing of the dumb possessed man in
Luke is to be identified with the healing in Matt. ix. 32.'
It is however very difficult to reach any satisfactory con
clusion.

1 See His words to the Pharisees present at the dinner, vs. 39-54, which
indicate that the breach between Him and them was irreparable.
» Norton, notes, 268.
• So Tischendorf, wbo makes Luke xi. 17-26 = Matt. xii. 43-45; Lukexi.
29-36 = Matt. xii. 38-42.

264 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
According to many harmonists, the two Evangelists
refer to two distinct cases of healing, and give two distinct
discourses.1 It is remarked by Greswell that cures of dis
possession were among the earliest and commonest of the
Saviour's miracles, and that Matthew himself gives two
alike in almost every feature, and in both the same charge
of being aided by the prince of the devUs, was brought
against Him. It is not, therefore, to be thought strange
that His reply upon different occasions should be substan
tially the same. There is much force in this, and notwith
standing the strong objection that two distinct discourses
should have so much in common, we shall, in the absence
of all definite data, assume that Matthew and Luke refer to
different cases of healing, and give different discourses.
That the healing of the dumb and blind possessed man
took place at Capernaum, may be inferred from the men
tion of " the scribes which came down from Jerusalem,"
(Mark iii. 22,) and who would naturaUy seek Him in the
place. of His residence. Their presence at this time may
be ascribed to the powerful impression which the raising
of the widow's son at Nain had made upon aU who heard
of it, and the consequent necessity on the part of His ene
mies of taking some steps to counteract it. The cure of
the possessed, it is said, amazed the people, and led them
to ask, " Is not this the Son of David ? " So far as we
know, this was the first time that this speciaUy Messianic
title had been given Him ; nor does it clearly appear what
there was in this miracle that should lead them thus to
speak. It would, however, naturally arouse the jealousy
of the Pharisees, and make them the more eager to oppose
Him. As the fact of the healing was beyond dispute, they
could only assert that it was done through the aid of the
prince of the devils. This ascription of His miracles to
Satanic agency marks a decided progress in Pharisaic hos-
1 McKnight, Greswell.

VISIT OF JESUS' MOTHER AND BRETHREN. 265
tility. Heretofore they had said of Him that He was a
Sabbath-breaker and a blasphemer ; now they say that He
is in league with evil spirits. And this charge reached
much farther than this particular miracle. It was virtually
ascribing aU that He said and did to a diabolical origin,
and made the Spirit of God that rested upon Him to be
the spirit of Beelzebub ; and hence the severity of His lan
guage in reply, (Matt. xU. 34.)
It appears from Mark (Ui. 22) that those who made this
charge were the scribes which came down from Jerusalem.
Luke (xi. 15) uses the indefinite expression, "some of them
said." Matthew (xU. 24) refers it to the Pharisees. These
scribes were doubtless themselves Pharisees, perhaps also
priests, or Levites. Alexander well remarks : " It is a serious
error to suppose that these descriptive titles are exclusive of
each other, and denote so many independent classes, whereas
they only denote different characters or relations, which
might aU meet in one and the same person, as being at the
same time a priest and Levite by descent and sacred office,
a scribe by profession, and a Pharisee in sentiment and
party connection." It is not improbable that they came
as a formal deputation to watch His proceedings, and to
organize His enemies against Him throughout Galilee.
Doubtless their calumny that He was aided by Beelzebub,
was caught up and reiterated by the Pharisees of Ca
pernaum. The visit of His mother and brethren is mentioned by
all the Synoptists ; and that it occurred during, or imme
diately after, the reply to the Pharisees, appears from
Matt. xn. 46. Luke (viU. 19) has it in another connection,
but without any note of time. It is, perhaps, fairly infer
rible that they now resided at Capernaum.1 It is evident
' that Mary and His brethren were presuming too much on
» Greswell, ii. 270, admitting this, still affirms that " they had no house of
their own, or none in which our Lord was living along with them."
12

266 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
their near relationship to Him, and that He wished to teach
them that when engaged in His Father's work, merely hu
man bonds must give place to higher obUgations. Mary
here showed the same spirit that twice before He had re
buked, (Luke U. 49 ; John ii. 4.)

Autumn. 781. A. d. 28.
The same day He left His house and sat by the sea- Matt. xiii. 1-52.
side, and as the multitudes gathered to Him, He entered Mark iv. 1-34.
a ship and taught them in parables. At the close of the Luke viii. 4-15.
day He gives commandment to depart to the other side. Matt. viii. 18-27.
As they were preparing to go, He holds a conversation Lcke ix. 57-60.
witb a scribe, and with one of His disciples about fol- Mark iv. 35-41.
lowing Him. He enters the ship with tbe disciples, and Luke viii. 22-25.
crosses the sea. Upon the way a violent tempest arises ;
Jesus rebukes the wind and waves, and there is a
great calm.
There is no reason why the language of Matthew " in
the same day," ev 17/Aepa eKetvy — should not here be taken
strictly, although sometimes used indefinitely, (Acts viu. 1.)
It was the same day as that on whieh His mother and
brethren visited Him, and on which He healed the blind
and dumb possessed. Mark (iv. 1) has the same order.
Luke (viu. 4-19) narrates the teaching in parables before
His mother's visit. The similarity of statement is so marked
in Matt. vni. 19-22, and Luke ix. 57-60, that we can
scarce doubt that they are describing the same mcidents.
Their repetition is indeed possible, as affirmed by Stier, but
improbable. They seem most fittingly arranged in the or
der in which they are placed by Matthew.
It is a question whether all the parables given by Mat
thew (xiU.) were spoken at once; and if hot, when and where?
Mark, although he gives only those of the Sower and the
mustard seed, implies that there were others, (iv. 2,) "And

FIRST TEACHING IN PARABLES. 267
He taught them many things by parables ; " language almost
the same as that of Matthew, (xUi. 3,) "And He spake
many things unto them in parables." After He had spoken
the parable ofthe Sower, it is said (Matt. xUi. 10) that His
disciples came to ask Him why He spake in parables.
Mark (iv. 10) says : " When He was alone," they asked of
Him the parable. Whether He was yet in the ship, or had
gone to the shore, does not appear. Greswell attempts to
show that the disciples did not ask any explanation of the
parable of the Sower at this time, but only why He spake
in parables at aU. Afterward, when He had gone into the
house, (Matt. xui. 36,) they asked Him the meaning of this
particular parable, and also of the tares. This involves
more difficulties than it removes. Krafft makes the teach
ing in parables to have occupied at least two days. (See
Luke viii. 22, who makes a distinction between the day ofthe
visit of His mother and brethren, and that when He spake
the parable ofthe Sower.) In this case, Mark (iv. 35) refers
not to the day when He went down to the sea-side, but to
the day following. Stier supposes the seven parables of
Matthew to have been spoken on one day ; the first four
to the people on the shore, the last three to the disciples
in the house. After several parables had been spoken,
there was a pause, (Mark iv. 10 ; Matt. xiii. 10,) and then
the questions following were asked.
It must remain doubtful whether this teaching in par
ables did not occupy more than one day. If, however, we
Umit it to one, we may give the following order of
events as a probable one. After Jesus had spoken the
parable of the Sower, He paused for a whUe, perhaps to
give His hearers time to reflect upon it. During this in
terval, the Twelve and other disciples asked Him, first, why
He taught in parables, and second, what this parable was?
Where these questions were asked, is uncertain. Two cir
cumstances only define it : that " He was alone," (Mark iv.

268 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
10,) or separated from the multitude ; and that " the disci
ples came to Him," (Matt. xUi. 10.) All this may have taken
place while He was stUl in the boat, in which with Him were
doubtless the Twelve, and others may have joined them.
By withdrawing a little way from the shore, they would be
strictly alone. GresweU (ii. 440) objects that the multitude
could not be called " those that are without," (Mark iv. 11,)
unless Jesus and the disciples were somewhere within, that
is, in a house ; but the distinction is more subtle than solid.
After His explanations to the disciples, Jesus again teaches
the people, and adds the parables of the tares and wheat,
the mustard seed, and the leaven. At this point, dismiss
ing the multitude, He returns to His house, and His dis
ciples coming to Him, He expounds to them the tares and
wheat, and adds the parables of the hid treasure, the pearl,
and the net. Going again at even to the shore, and the
multitudes gathering around Him, He gives order to pass
to the other side. The disciples, therefore, send away the
people, and take Him as He was in the ship.1
This teaching in parables plainly marks an onward step
in the Lord's ministry. He had now testified of Himself
both in word and deed, had manifested Himself as the Mes
siah ; and it was becoming apparent to Him that the great
body of the people had no discernment of His divine char
acter and mission, and would not receive Him, however they
might for a time be personally attracted to Him, and marvel
at His words and works. The Pharisees, the spiritual
leaders both at Jerusalem and in Galilee, had taken decided
steps against Him ; and though with the common people
His popularity seemed now at its height, He discerned that
there was no root of faith, and that most followed Him
through motives of wonder, or idle curiosity. He could,
therefore, weU speak of them (Matt. xUi. 13-15) as hearing
» See Newcome! Har. 256.

JESUS CROSSES THE SEA OF GALILEE. 269
His words, and yet not understanding them, as seeing His
works and not perceiving their significance. To them He
could not explain the mysteries of the Kingdom. He must
use the form of the parable which, biding its meaning from
the careless and foolish, opened it to the diligent and wise
seeker after truth.
The motive of the Lord in crossing the lake is not stated,
but apparently it was to escape the crowds never satisfied
with hearing Him, and to find rest, (Matt. viii. 18.) His
disciples " took Him as He was in the ship," or without
any preparation for the journey ; which implies that it was
not premeditated, but suddenly determined on, (Mark iv.
36.) It was " even," probably near sundown, when they
left the shore, and wearied by the labors of the day the
Lord soon fell asleep. Whilst thus sleeping a fierce storm
burst upon them. How exposed is the Sea of Galilee, from
its pecnUar position, to these storms, all traveUers have re
marked, but few have had any personal experience of their
fury. Thomson, (U. 32,) however, was for several days upon
its shores during one of them, the character of which he
thus describes : " To understand the causes of these sudden
and violent tempests we must remember that the lake lies
low, six hundred feet lower than the ocean ; that the vast
and naked plateaus of the Jaulan rise to a great height,
spreading backward to the wilds of the Hauran, and up
ward to snowy Hermon ; that the water-courses have cut
out profound ravines, and wild gorges converging to the
head ofthe lake, and that these act like gigantic funnels to
draw down the cold winds from the mountains. And
moreover, these winds are not only violent, but they come
down suddenly, and often when the sky is perfectly clear.
I once went in to swim near the hot baths, and before I
was aware a wind came rushing over the cliffs with such
force that it was with great difficulty I could regain the
shore." Of another storm, when on the eastern side, he

270 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
says : . " The sun had scarcely set when the wind began to
rush down toward the lake, and it continued all night long
with constantly increasing violence, so that when we reached
the shore next morning, the face ofthe lake was Uke a huge
boiling caldron." — " We had to double-pin aU the tent ropes,
and frequently were obliged to hang with our whole weight
upon them to keep the quivering tabernacle from being
carried off bodily into the air."
The attempts to determine at what season of the year
the parables were spoken, through the natural analogies
upon which they are based, as Newton inferred that it was
seed-time, or about November, because of the reference to
the sowing of seed, lead to no substantial result. So also
the storm does not, as said by Newton, define the time as
winter; or as an equinoctial quarter ofthe year, as said by
GresweU. That it was during the late autumn or early
winter is upon other grounds probable.

Autumn, 781. a. d. 28.
After the stilling of the tempest He comes to the Matt. viii. 28-34.
country ofthe Gergesenes. As He landed He was met Mark v. 1-18.
by two men possessed by demons, whose dwelling was Luke viii. 26-39.
in the tombs near by. Beholding Jesus they run to
meet Him, and He casting out the demons permits
them to enter a herd of swine that was feeding near.
The swine so possessed run down the hill-side into the
sea, and so perish, and the inhabitants coming to Him
desire Him to depart from their coasts. After direct
ing the healed demoniacs to proclaim through Decap- Mark v. 19, 20.
olis what had been done for them, He returns to Ca- Matt. ix. 1.
pernaum. As the Lord left the shore at even, and afterward feU
asleep, we may infer that the storm came on in the night.
The landing at Gergesa on the eastern side must then have

THE DEMONIACS AT GERGESA. 271
been the next morning, as there is no mention that He re
turned that night to Capernaum, or landed elsewhere. He
was met by the demoniacs so soon as He came out of the
ship ; and that it was broad dayUght appears from the fact
that He was seen by them afar off, (Mark v. 2-6.) l
The exact spot where Jesus met the demoniacs is un
certain. The first point of difficulty is to harmonize the
various readings of the Synoptists. Without entering into
a discussion upon this point, which could lead to no definite
result, we find mentioned three distinct places, Gadara,
Gerasa, and Gergesa, Of the two former we have some
knowledge. Gadara is mentioned by Josephus' as the
capital of Perea, and as destroyed by Vespasian. It is gen
eraUy admitted that it stood upon the site now known as
Um Keis, where very considerable ruins are stiU visible.
Urn Keis lies some six or eight mUes southeast of the Sea
of Galilee, and about sixteen mUes from Tiberias, and three
south of the Jarmuk, or ancient Hieromax. Gerasa is also
mentioned by Josephus2 as lying upon the eastern border
of Perea, and as captured by a lieutenant of Vespasian.
" In the Roman age no city of Palestine was better known
than Gerasa. It is situated amid the mountains of Gilead
twenty miles east of the Jordan, and twenty-five north of
Philadelphia, the ancient Rabbath Ammon." * Gergesa is
mentioned by Origen as an ancient city lying upon the
Lake of Tiberias, and near the shore, and he adds that the
precipice was stUl pointed out from which the swine rushed
into the sea.6 Alford, however, doubts, whether there ever
was a town named Gergesa near the lake ; still, as he thinks
that " Gergesenes" in the text could not, as a conjecture of
Origen, have found its way into so many ancient versions
i See Greswell, ii. 335. » War, 4. 7. 3.
- War, 3. 3. 3 ; 4. 9. 1. ? Smith's Diet. Bible, i. 678.
» Origen quoted in Alford on Matt. viii. 28 ; see Reland, 806.

272 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
and manuscripts, he adopts it as the true reading.1 He
adds : " We cannot say that a part of the territory of Ga
dara may not have been known to those, who, like Mat
thew, were locaUy mtimate with the shores of the lake, by
this ancient and generaUy disused name."
Regarded merely as a question of topography, Gerasa
must be at once rejected as the place of this meeting with
the demoniacs, because too distant ; unless indeed we sup
pose it to have been the name of a province so large as to
embrace Gadara and aU the region to the lake. So also
Gadara, if the city be meant, is too remote to answer to
the conditions of the narrative, for this plainly implies that
the city was upon, or near the shore. Mark (v. 2) says :
" And when He was come out of the ship immediately there
met Him out of the tombs," &c. Luke (viU. 27) says:
" And when He went forth to land there met Him out of
the city a certain man," &c. These statements cannot weU
be explained otherwise than that the demoniacs met Him,
as observed by Alexander, " as He landed, not merely after
He had done so, which would admit of an indefinite inter
val; whereas the landing and the meeting were simulta
neous, or immediately successive." It is not indeed said
that the place of landing was close to the city, but Jesus
does not seem to have left the spot where the demoniacs
met Him upon the shore, and to which " the whole city
came out to meet" Him ; from which circumstance it may
fairly be inferred that the city was at no great distance.
Besides, although the place where the swine were feeding
is spoken of as " a good way off," yet it was obviously near
the lake, for it is simply said that after their possession they
ran down a steep place into the sea. Thomson (U. 35) sat
isfactorily shows that this city could not be Gadara. " I
' Bleek (Synoptische Erklarung i. 365) thinks Origen's words show that
there was such a place in his day, the traditional site of the miracle, and one
answering to its conditions.

GADARA AND GERGESA. 273
take for granted, what I believe to be true, that Um Keis
marks the site of Gadara, and it was therefore about three
hours to the south of the extreme shore of the lake in that
direction. There is first a broad plain from Khurbet Sa-
rura to the Jarmuk ; then the vast gorge of this river, and
after it an ascent for an hour and a half to Um Keis. No
one, I think, wUl maintain that this meets the requirements
of the sacred narratives, but is in irreconcilable contradic
tion to them. It is true that a celebrated traveller, from
his lofty stand-point at Um Keis, overlooks all intervening
obstacles, and makes the swine rush headlong into the lake
from beneath his very feet. But to do this in fact, (and
the Evangelists deal only in plain facts,) they must have
run down the mountain for an hour and a half, forded the
deep Jarmuk, quite as formidable as the Jordan itself, as
cended its northern bank, and raced across a level plain
several mUes before they could reach the nearest margin
of the lake, a feat which no herd of swine would be Ukely
to achieve, even though they were possessed."
If upon these topographic grounds, which are substan
tially those of Origen, we reject the claims of Gadara, we
turn back to Gergesa. We have already referred to the
testimony of Origen to Gergesa as an ancient city near the
lake, and having a precipice hard by, which tradition in his
day pointed out as the place where the swine ran down
into the sea. Eusebius says that at his day, a vUlage was .
shown upon the mountain near Lake Tiberias, where the-
swine ran down.1 There is then no reason to doubt that
at the time of Origen, and afterward, a town existed by the
name of Gergesa near the lake, and which tradition made-
the scene of this miracle; and the absence of aU later, men
tion of it shows only that it had faUen into decay. The site
of this city Thomson finds on the eastern shore directly
' Raumer, 218, note 331.
12*

274 THE XLFE OF ©UE LORD.
opposite the plain of Gennesaret, and near therpoint where
Wady es Samak enters the lake. Here he found some
ruins, and the name as given him by the Bedouins was
Kerza or Gersa. "It was a small place, but the waUs can
be traced aU round, and there seem to have been consider
able suburbs. I identify these ruins with the long lost site
vf 'Gergesa." — " In this Gersa or Chersa we Shave a position
which fulfils every requirement of the narrative, and with a
name so near 'that in Matthew as to Tse in itself a strong
corroboration of the truth of this identification. It is
-within a few rods of the shore, and an immense mountain
rises directly above it, in which are ancient tombs, out of
some of which tbe two men possessed of the devils may
have issued to meet Jesus. The lake is so near the base of
the mountain, that the swine rushing ^madry down it could
not '.stop, !but would be hurried on into the water and
drowned. The place is one which our Lord would be
Ukely to visit, having Capernaum in fuU ^vlew -to the north,
and GalUee over against 'it, as Luke (viu. 26) says it was.
The name, however, pronounced by Bedouin Arabs is so
similar to Gergesa, Chat to all -my inquiries for this place
they invariably said it was at Chersa, and they insisted that
they were identical, and I agree with them in this opinion.""
Thomson strengthens this Tesult 'by describing the 'topogra
phy of the shore of the lake to the south of Chersa, the
mountains receding from the shore, and the plain between
them becoming broader. " There is no 'bold cliff over
hanging the lake on. the eastern aide, nor indeed on any
other, except just north ©f Tiberias. Everywhere along
the northeastern and eastern shores a smooth beach de
clines gently down to the water. There is no 'jumping
off' place, nor, indeed, is any required. Take your stand a
little *south of this Chersa. A great herd of swine, we wiU
suppose, is feeding on this mountain that towers above it.
They are seized with a sudden panic, rush madly down the

SITE OF GERGESA, 275
almost perpendicular declivity, those behind tumbling over
and thrusting forward those before, and as there is neither
time nor space to recover on tbe narrow shelf between the
base and the lake, tijey are crowded headlong jn-to the
water and perish. AU is perfectly natural just at this
point, and here I suppose it did .actually occur."
This discovery of tbe site of Gergesa removes aU topo
graphical difficulties from tbe sacred narrative.8. It is
therefore unnecessary to mention in detail the other solu
tions that have been proposed, as that of Ebrard, (324,) who
hi answer to De Wette attempts to show that Gadara was
but an hour distant from the sea. Stanley (.372) places
the scene of jtb.e.se events in Wady Feik, nearly opposite
Tiberias. The difficulties .connected witb tbe various readings in
the texts of the Synoptists belong to another department
of .criticism. If, however, " Gergesenes " (Matt. vjM. 28)
was tbe reading of some manuscripts of Matthew before
the time of Origen, we V&7 readUy suppose that this
EyangeUst mentioned the name of theoity, although small,
as one not Uflkuowu to his Jewish readers. The Evange
hsts, Mark and Luke,, mention .only the name of the larger
and more important .city, as more likely to be knowu to
their' distant readers, to wbpni exact topography was un
important.1 We may then thus picture this incident to our
selves. Tbe Lord, leaving Capernaum at even to avoid
the ever-itbronging multitude, directs his course south
easterly toward Gergesa. The storm bursting suddenly
upon tiiem during ,tb.e evening, He, by His word, calms the
sea.. Yery early .in the morning He lands upon tbe coast
of Gergesa, a Uttle way south from the city. Here He is
met, as He lands, by the demoniacs. Upon the steep slopes
ofthe adjacent mountain the swine were feeding, and to
' Meyer in loco; Ebrard, 325; Ewald, Christus, 338 ; Porter, a. SW.

276 THE LTFE OF OUR LORD.
Him upon the shore came out the inhabitants of the city,
beseeching Him to depart fiom their coasts.
Matthew mentions two demoniacs ; Mark and Luke but
one. How shaU this discrepancy be explained? Lightfoot,
(on Mark v. 1,) who supposes that Gergesa was the name
of a district embracing withm it Gadara, which was a
heathen city, makes one ofthe two to have been a Gadarene,
and the other a Gergesene. Matthew mentions both, but
Mark and Luke mention only him from Gadara as a hea
then demoniac, " that so they might make the story more
famous." Some, as Ebrard, make Matthew to have blend
ed this case with that of the possessed healed at Caper
naum, (Mark i. 23.) Da Costa supposes that Matthew knew
that there was in fact but one, but that he might have seen
a man attacked by the demoniac, and so gives the impres
sion upon his mind as if there were two !
The common and most probable explanation is, that
there were indeed two, but that one was much more promi
nent than the other, either as the fiercer of the two, or as
of a higher rank and better known, and therefore alone
mentioned by Mark and Luke.1 That their silence respect
ing one of the demoniacs does not exclude him, Robinson
thus illustrates:' "In the year 1824 Lafayette visited the
United States, and was everywhere welcomed with honors
and pageants. Historians wiU describe these as a noble in
cident in his life. Other writers wiU relate the same visit
as made, and the same honors as enjoyed, by two persons,
viz., Lafayette and his son. WUl there be any contradic
tion between these two classes of writers ? WiU not both
record the truth?" Greswell (i. 210) thinks that one of
those thus healed became a disciple, and that the other did
not. The former being thus better known, and his case
¦ So early, Augustine; and recently, Alexander, Krafft, Stier, Greswell,
Ellicott. • Har., 195.

JESUS RETURNS TO CAPERNAUM. 277
invested with a personal interest, Mark and Luke speak
of him only, and in much detail ; whilst Matthew, who de
sires only to Ulustrate the power of Christ over evU spirits,
mentions the healing of both, but says nothing of their sub
sequent history. He prefers, however, the conjecture based
on Luke vUi. 27, that this one demoniac was an inhabitant,
and probably a native of Gergesa ; but not tbe other.
Meyer, on the other hand, rejects aU attempts to ex
plain away the discrepancy ; and Alford, who supposes that
there was but one demoniac, thinks that perhaps his
words, " My name is legion, for we are many," (Mark v. 9,)
may have given rise to the report of two demoniacs in Mat
thew. The request of the Gergesenes that Jesus would depart
from their coasts, shows how material interests ruled in
their minds, and how unprepared were they to understand
the real significance of His work. The heahng of the de
moniacs, so mighty a miracle, and their restoration to sound
mind, and to their famihes and friends, were of less value
than the loss of their swine.
The direction to the healed to go to their homes, and
proclaim what the Lord had done for them, so contrary to
His general custom, shows that it was His desire to call
attention to Himself in this section of the land ; and, by
making this miracle widely known, prepare the way for
subsequent labors. Perhaps, also, something in the moral
condition of the healed made this desirable for them.

Autumn, 781. a. d. 28.
Immediately upon His return to Capernaum He was Luke viii. 40-56.
surrounded by the multitude, which had been waiting for Makk v. 21-43.
Him. Being invited by Matthew to a feast at his house, Mark ii. 15-22.
He there held conversation with some Pharisees, and Luke v. 29-39.
afterward with some of John's disciples. Whilst yet Matt. ix. 10-17.

278 THE LIFE OF 0UE LORD.
speaking with them, came Jairu9, a ruler of the syna-- Matt, ix, 18-26.
gogue, praying for the healing of his daughter. Aa
Jesus was on His way to the house of Jairus, He heals
a woman with an issue of blood. A messenger meeting
Him announces the death of the girl, but He proceeds,
and, entering the house, restores her to life.
We may put His arrival at Capernaum about mid
day. The crowds that for several days had been foUowing
Hiffly were awaiting eagerly His return, and now gladly re
ceived Him. That the first event foUowing this return was
tiot the heahng of the paralytic, which succeeds in the order
of Matthew's narrative, (Matt. ix. 2,) appears from Mark
(v. 21, 22) and Luke, (viU. 40, 41,) who both narrate the
healing of the daughter of Jairus. Besides, we have seen
that the healing of tbe paralytic is to be placed earlier,
immediately after the Lord's return from His first circuit.
(See Mark ii. 1-12.)
The grounds upon whieb the' feast of Levi is placed im
mediately before the healing of tbe daughter of Jairus, are
found in the statements of Matthew, (ix. 10-19.) From
these we leafn that Jairus came to Jesus whUe speaking
to certain disciples of John : " WhUe He spake these things
unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler," &C.1 Jairus
" came in," as if into a house. It is said also, (v. 19,) " and
Jesus arose and followed Him." These expressions most
naturaUy refer back to the mention of the feast, (v. 10,)
where it is said that " Jesus sat at meat in the house." To
the house of Levi came Jairus, and from it Jesus went
forth with him. That the conversation between Him and
the Pharisees in regard to eating with pubhcans and sinners,
took place at the same time is probable, though not cer
tain. The language of Matthew, " And when the Phar
isees saw it they said," &6., does not prove that they were
' The received text has apxw e\9av; Tischendorf gives apxtov eurtkBtsr,
so Meyer, Alford ; Bleek, after Knapp, apx** *U t\8o>v.

THB FEAST OE LEVI. 27,9
present as spectators, or addressed their, question to the
disciples during the feast. It may have been after the
lapse of days,, or even, weeks. "The very circumstances
related show that, this remonstrance cannot have taken
place at the feast. The Pharisees say the words to the
disciples,, our Lord hears- it. This denotes^ an occasion
when our Lord and the disciples were present, but not
surely intermixed, with the great crowd- of pubUcans.'*1
Nor does the language of Matthewy, " Then came to Him
the disciples of John," determine whether His conversation
with them was at the same time: and place. Alexander,
who supposes that the Phariseea had intruded themselves
upon. Jesus whUe at the feast as spectators or spies,, finds
no ground for- the- presence at the same time of Joint's
disciples- " It by no means foUows from the consecution
and connection of the narratives, even in Luke and Mat
thew,, that the account ©f Matthew's feast is there con
tinued ;, while in Mark another instance of the same kind
seems- to be added,, without any reference to the date of its
occurrence.?' Admitting that none of the Synoptista show conclusively
that the Pharisees,, or the disciples of the Baptist, were pres
ent at Matthew's feast, stiU this is the impression which the
narratives make upon us. We; therefore, place the events
before us in the following order, as taking place upon the
same day : Matthew'* feast ; conversation witb the Phari
sees; conversation with the diseiples of John; coming of
Jairus. It is plain from Mark (v. 21,, 22) and Luke, (viU.
40, 41,) that the healing ofthe daughter of Jairus was after
the return from Gadara i and we therefore put the feast of
Matthew or Levi after the return. As has been already
said, there is nothing to show that Levi made the feast for
Jesus upon the day when he was called to foUow Him ; and
i Alford in loco ; Bleek, Synoptische Erklarung, i. 388.

280 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
we suppose that a few days did elapse between them, during
which several events occurred ; the plucking of the ears of
corn ; the choice of apostles ; healing ofthe centurion's ser
vant ; journey to Nain; return to Capernaum; visit to'
Gadara. Still, it is admitted that the coming of Jairus to
Jesus may have been some time subsequent to the feast
of Levi. It is not clear that the conversation with the
Pharisees took place at the feast ; or if it did 'so, that the
conversation with John's disciples was at the same time ; or
if this was so, that Jairus came during this conversation.
As there is much difference of opinion among harmon
ists, where this feast of Levi and related events should be
placed, we give some of the more probable arrangements.
And first, that which connects together the caU of Levi ; his
feast ; the conversation with the Pharisees and John's dis
ciples ; and the eoming of Jairus.
1st Arrangement. — The Lord teaches in parables; crosses
the sea and heals the demoniacs at Gergesa ; returns to Ca
pernaum ; heals the paralytic ; caUs Matthew ; attends Mat
thew's feast ; heals the daughter of Jairus ; chooses apostles,
and delivers Sermon on the Mount.1 This order is open to
the invincible objection that the teaching in parables pre
cedes the Sermon on the Mount, and the choice of apostles.
2c? Arrangement. — The Lord chooses apostles; teaches in
parables ; crosses the sea and heals the demoniacs ; returns
to Capernaum ; heals the paralytic ; calls Matthew ; attends
his feast ; heals the daughter of Jairus." But it is a strong
objection against this order that the choice of Matthew as
an apostle precedes his call to follow Christ.
3d Arrangement. — This places the healing ofthe daugh
ter of Jairus before the feast of Matthew. Jesus teaches
in parables ; crosses the sea ; returns from Gergesa ; holds
the conversation with John's disciples respecting fasting ;
heals the daughter of Jairus, the woman with an issue of
1 Lichtenstein. Stier.

THE FEAST OF LEVI. 281
blood, the blind, and the dumb possessed, and the paralytic
borne of four ; He caUs Matthew and attends his feast ; He
elects the apostles ; and delivers the Sermon on the Mount.1
Here the conversation with the disciples of John is placed
earUer than the feast of Levi and the conversation with the
Pharisees, and is connected with the coming of Jairus. This
is open to the same objection as the first arrangement, that
it puts the speaking in parables before the choice of the
Twelve and the Sermon on the Mount.
4th Arrangement. — Jesus heals the paralytic ; He caUs
Matthew ; attends his feast ; holds a conversation with the
Pharisees and John's disciples respecting fasting ; plucks the
ears of corn; (passing over the intervening events) He
crosses the lake and heals the demoniacs at Gergesa; returns
to Capernaum and heals the daughter of Jairus.' Here the
coming of Jairus is separated from the conversation with
John's disciples.
5 th Arrangement. — Jesus heals the paralytic ; He caUs
Matthew ; attends Matthew's feast ; holds a conversation
with the Pharisees, but not with John's disciples. Here
foUow many events, the choice of the Twelve ; Sermon on
the Mount ; teaching in parables ; healing of demoniacs at
Gergesa. On his return from Gergesa He meets John's
disciples, and holds the conversation respecting fasting ;
heals the daughter of Jairus. Here the conversation with
John's disciples is connected with the coming of Jairus, but
is separated from the conversation with the Pharisees. Of
all those arrangements that connect the feast of Matthew
immediately with his call, this seems the preferable one.
That order, however, which separates the feast from the
call, and places the former directly after the return from
Gergesa, thus bringing it into connection with the conversa
tions with the Pharisees and with John's disciples, and with
the healing of Jairus's daughter, seems to have most in its
favor. » Ebrard. « Krafft.

2S2 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
The object of this feast,* which was a; great tioey (Luke v.
29;,) seems to have been both to honor the Lordy and to give
Him an opportunity to meet in social intercourse many
of Matthew'* own class,, the publicans and sinners. These
plainly constituted the great body of invited guests ; and for
the Lord thus publiely to eat with them was a high mark
of His regard for them, as it was also an open rebuke of
Pharisaic self-righteousness. It seems, from the question
ofthe Pharisees, " Why eateth your master with publieans
and sinners ? " that this was fhe first instance of the kind
which they had known. It is not probable that any Phari
sees were invited,, nor that they would have accepted an
invitation had one been given them, but with oriental free
dom on such occasions,, may have come in as spectators ; or
the language " seeing, Him eat,?' (Mark n. IS,} may refer
only to1 their knowledge of the fact, and not to their per
sonal observation. We may suppose that some of John's
disciples were present with the Pharisees* and thus the
seeming discrepancy" between Matt, ix, 14, and Luke v. S3,
is eaisUy explained, (see Mark U. 18.) The mention of John's
disciples at Capernaum is to be noted as showing that there
Were some there who did Hot follow Jesus;, and their affinity
with the Pharisees.
The selection of Peter* James, and John, to go with Him
to'the house of Jairus, is the first instance recorded of special
preference of these three above the other nine apostles.
It is hardly to be questioned that this selection was deter
mined by tbe personal peculiarities of these three, that
made them more ready than the others to understand the
real meaning of Christ's words and works, and to sympa
thize with Him ia His trial* and griefs. But why they
should have been selected to be present at this particular
miracle is not apparent. It was not, according to the or
der which we follow,, the first case of raising the dead; and
therefore they were not present, as Trench supposes,, on

HEA'LESG OP TWO BLHO>> MEN. 253
tbis ground. But, Unlike the raising of the widow'** son at
Nain, which was in public, before al the funeral procession*
tie Lord wiU here have no witnesses but His three apos
tles, and the father and mother of the maiden. Nor wiU
He aUow tbe Wonderful work to be proclaimed abroad :
" He charged them strictly that no man should know it."
The grounds of these differences i& tbe Lord's actings are
probably beyond ©UP knowledge, and cannot be explained.

Autumn, 781-782. a. d. 28-29.
Returning homewsted from the house of Jafrus< Se' is Matt. ix. 27-31.
followed by two blind men, saying, " Son of David, have
mercy on us." ^hey enter His bouse' and are healed,.
and He charges them that they should not speak of
what He had done ; but they, going forth, everywhere'
proclaim it. A"# they departed, a dumb possessed was' MaHpt; &. 32-84.
brought to Him, whom He healed, to the astonishment
of the multitude. This gave tbe Pharisees new oocasioffi
to say that He east oat devils through Saltan.
These cases of beating are mentioned only by Matthew,
and by him in immediate connection With the raising to
life of tbe daughter of Jairus. We assume that he here
narrates in chronological order.1 Some 9 identify Matt. ix.
32-34 with Luke xi, 14, 15; and as the healing of the
possessed was immediately after that ofthe blind, place all
these miracles ai a much later period,, and after the sending
ofthe Seventy.
By these bhnd men was Jesus for tbe first time ad-
1 Kobinson, Greswell, Lichtenstein, Lange, Ebrard. Afford, however, ob
serves that uirap* eKatfeV is too vague to be taken as a fixed note of sequence^
for acetity, 'ffietfee,' may mean the house of JairuS, or the town itself, or
even that part of the country, as v. 26 has generalized the locality, and im
plied some pause of thtte."'
» Krafft, Tischendorf.

284 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
dressed as "the Son of David." This shows that His de
scent from that royal house was known and recognized.
Already the people had asked of Him, (Matt. xn. 23,) " Is
this the Son of David ?" and the use ofthe title by the bUnd
men shows their disposition to honor Him whose help they
sought.1 The impression which the miracle of healing the dumb
possessed made upon the multitude, was very great, and ex
plains why the Pharisees should repeat the charge that He
cast out devils through the prince of the devUs.

Wintek, 782. A. D. 29.
Leaving Capernaum Jesus goes, accompanied by Matt. xiii. 63-58.
His disciples, into lower Galilee, and again visits Naza- Mark vi. 1-6.
reth. Rejected here tbe second time, He goes about Matt. ix. 35-38.
through the cities and villages in that region. During Mark vi. 7—11.
this circuit He commissions and sends out the Twelve. Matt. x. 1-42.
In their absence He continues His work. About this Luke ix. 1-9.
time John is beheaded in prison, and the news of his Matt. xiv. 1-12.
death is brought to Jesus by some of John's disciples. Mark vi. 14-30.
Herod now bears of Christ, and expresses a desire to
see Him. Jesus returns to Capernaum, and the Twelve
gather to Him there.
In the order of events we follow Mark : " And He went
out from thence, and' came into His own country ; and His
disciples follow Him." The place of departure was the
house of Jairus, (Meyer,) or Capernaum and its neighbor
hood, (Alexander.) Matthew (xfii. 53-58) narrates this
visit to Nazareth immediately after his account of the
teaching in parables : " And it came to pass when Jesus
had finished these parables He departed thence. And when
He was come into His own country," &c. Here it is not
1 Compare (Matt. xx. 80) the healing of the two blind men at Jericho,
when the same title was used ; as also by the woman of Canaan, (xv. 22.)

second visrr at nazaeeth. 285
said that this coming to Nazareth was immediately subse
quent to the departure after the parables were spoken.
That departure was not to Nazareth, but across the sea to
Gergesa, (Mark iv. 35.) We must then place between vs.
53 and 54 the heahng of the demoniacs, of Jairus's daugh
ter, of the woman with issue of blood, of the two blind
men, and of the dumb possessed. All these may have
taken place on the day of the return from Gergesa ; and
thus, between the teaching in parables and the departure
to Nazareth, only an interval of two days have elapsed.
The grounds upon which this visit at Nazareth is to be
distinguished from the earher one mentioned by Luke, (iv.
16,) have been already stated. The circumstances under
which He now returns to His early home are very unlike
those of that former visit. Then He had but newly begun
His public labors, and was comparatively but little known ;
and great surprise was felt that one, who only a few months
before had been a resident among them, should make so high
pretensions. How could He, whom they had known from
chUdhood up, be a prophet, and possess such powers ? Now
His fame was spread throughout tbe whole land, and His
character as a prophet was established. Crowds followed
Him from all parts of the land. His miracles were famUiar
to all. He had, in the immediate neighborhood of Naza
reth, raised a dead man to life. But His now enlarged and
confirmed reputation did not weaken the feeling of sur
prise. AU His life was famUiar to them, and they could
not believe that He was in aught greater than themselves.
Jesus, therefore, could now weU, and even with greater
emphasis, repeat the proverb, " A prophet is not without
honor but in his own country ; " adding, with reference to
the continued unbelief of His brethren, " and among his
own kin, and in his own house." (See John vn. 5.) The
Nazarenes do not now take any violent measures against
Him, though " offended at Him ; " and after teaching in

286 THE LEPE OF OUB LOED. '
tbe synagogue and healing a few sick folk, He made a cir
cuit through the adjacent vtilages, (Mark vi. 6.) It is prob
able that Matthew (ix, 35-38) has reference to this circuit.
That the sending of the Twelve upon their mission was
during this journey, appears from the order in which it
stands in afi the Synoptists. Matthew i(ix. #5, <fcc.) con
nects it with the journey foUowing the heating of the blind
men, and the dumb possessed; and Mark (vi. 7) with that
foUowing the departure from Nazareth. Luke does not
mention this visit -at Nazareth, but narrates the sending of
the Twelve (ix. 1-6) directly after the healing of Jairus's
daughter.1 How long this circuit contmued, or at what
point in it the Twelve were sent out, we have no data to
determine. That it was extensive and occupied a consid
erable period may be fairly inferred from Matthew's Ian.
guage, (ix. 35,i) that M He went about all the cities and vU-
lages." Nor can we tell from what place they were sent.
GresweU (ii. 342) supposes it to have been Capernaum, and
that therefore tbe sending was just at the close ofthe cirouit.
" It is certain that after their mission they rejoined our
Lord at Capernaum; and it is uot probable that they would
be sent from one quarter and be expected to rejoin Him at
another." On the other hand, Alford observes that no
¦fixed loeaUtycan he assigned to their commission. "It
was not delivered at Capernaum, but on a journey." The
View of Krafft, (99,) that they were sent from Jerusa
lem when Jesus was at the feast of Tabernacles (John v.
1) is in every point of view unsatisfactory, and is refuted
'by the fact that the theatre of His activity was now Gah
lee, and not Judea.
The work of the Twelve in their mission corresponded
in its main features to that of the Lord. He was still en
gaged in going " round about the villages teaching ; " " en-
1 So Tischendorf, Robinson, Alford, Greswell.

THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. 287
tering into all the synagogues, and healing every Sickness
and every disease amongst the people." The work of the
apostles must be correspondent to this. They also must
preach the «Gospel, and iUustrate its nature by -their works.
This they were directed to do, (Matt. x. 1-8,) and this
they did. " And they went out and preached that men
should repent. And they cast out many devUs, and anoint
ed with oti many that were sick, -and healed -them,'" (Mark
vi. 12, 13 ; -see Luke ix. 6.)
Thus their work had the same general character as
that of Jesus. It was not so much to draw attention to
Jesus personally, and to proclaim Him -the Messiah, as to
announce the approach of the Messianic kingdom, and to
teach men its nature, and'to prove it at hand by their mir
acles. Emen had faith in -the words of tbe apostles, they
would soon come to Jesus to be taught by Him. The
powers giver* them were large, and perhaps special to this
mission. There is no mention that up to this time they
had wrought any-miraeles, nor that they did so after their
return, so long as Jesus was with them.1
It is apparent upon:its face that the commission of the
Twelve had a larger scope than -these mere temporary
labors;' It bad prospective reference to their larger work
after the Lord's ascension ; and also in some measure to aU
the missionary work of -the "Church till His -return. Some
directions in it are -plainly temporary, as those not -to visit
the heathen or Samaritans, and to make no provision of
money or -clothing. The prediction of persecutions and
scourgings, on the other band, bad, -at this time, no ful
filment. Where did the Twelve labor ? Luke (ix. 6) -says, "they
departed and went through tbe towns." It has been sup-
1 1See,,b.owever,.Matt. xvii. 19, 20, which implies fthat the power to wo(k
miracles was not withdrawn, but was dependent upon their faith.
' Jones, Notes on Scripture, 100 ; Stier, ii. 2.

288 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
posed that this expression " towns," KO(xas, may be used
here in opposition to cities, implying that the Twelve visited
only the smaller places. But the same expression is used
of the Lord Himself, (Mark vi. 6.) Probably their labors
were confined to Galilee. ' They were forbidden to enter
Samaria, and it is not likely that they would enter Judea,
from which the Lord was excluded. As they journeyed
two by two, this would enable them to visit many towns in
a few days. How long they were absent upon their mis
sion does not appear. Wieseler, followed by Tischendorf,
would limit it to a single day ; ElUcott to two days ; Krafft
extends it to several months; Greswell makes them to have
been sent upon their ministry in February, and to have re
turned in March, an interval of one or two months. That
they were engaged in their labors several weeks at least, is
plainlyimplied in the terms of their commission ; for although
this, as we have seen, had reference also to . their future
ministry, it had more immediate reference to the present.
This is confirmed by the brief statements of their actual
labors. (See Luke ix. 6 ; Mark vi. 12, 13, and 30.)
The commission of the Twelve is remarkable, as contain
ing a much fuller declaration respecting the hatred they
should meet, and the persecutions they should suffer, than
was at any other time uttered by the Lord previous to the
transfiguration. This must have been in striking contrast
to the opinions the apostles were yet cherishing respecting
the reign ofthe Messiah, and His general reception by the
people. By speaking of their sufferings and persecutions,
He announced, by implication, His own sufferings and rejec
tion, although it is apparent that they did not understand
the import of His words.
That Jesus contmued His own personal labors during
the absence of the Twelve, appears from Matthew, (xi. 1,)
that "when He had made an end of commanding His Twelve
disciples, He departed thence to teach and preach in their

DEATH OF THE BAPTIST. 289
cities." In these journeyings He was probably accompanied
by other disciples, doubtless by some of those who were
afterward chosen among the Seventy, (Luke x. 1 ;) and per
haps also by the women who had before been with Him.
If, as is probable, He had given direction to the Twelve to
rejoin Him at Capernaum at some fixed time, He would
now so direct His own course as to meet them there.
It was during the mission of the Twelve that the death
of John the Baptist occurred. Tbe news of it seems to
have been communicated to Jesus by John's disciples,
(Matt. xiv. 12,) but this must have been some days at least
after the event. As the death of John had an important
bearing upon the Lord's work, and to a great degree de
termined its subsequent character, we must examme the
data that define the time of its occurrence.
The chief datum in this inquiry is the statement of John
(vi. 4) that a Passover took place a little after the feeding
of the five thousand. This Passover, the third of our
Lord's ministry, was, as we have seen, that of 782, and fell
on the 1 7th April. The death of John was then a few
days before this. The exact date we cannot tell, as we do
not know how long it preceded the feeding of the five
thousand, nor how long this feeding preceded the Passover.
If John was beheaded at Machaerus, on the southern bor
der of Perea, some days must have elapsed ere his disciples
could bury bis body, and come to inform Jesus. So far as
these data go we may place his death at the latter part of
March, or the beginning of AprU, 782.
Wieseler (292) has attempted to reach a more definite •
result from the statements of Matt. xiv. 6, and Mark vi. .
21, that Herod gave order for the death of John at a feast
held upon his birthday. The word translated " birthday,"
yeveo-ia, is generaUy interpreted in its later and New Testa
ment usage, as meaning birthday festivals, or celebrations.1
1 Bobinson, Meyer, Olshausen.
13

290 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
If it be so used here by the EvangeUsts, it gives us no
chronological datum, since we do not know the time of
Herod's birth. Wieseler, however, after Grotius and
others, would make it refer to the feast kept in honor of his
accession to the throne, and in this way obtains a known
date, the 8th Nisan, or 11th AprU, 782, as the day of John's
execution. Greswell, (iii. 425,) who also supposes that
Herod was celebrating his accession, on the grounds that
" the day of a king's accession was both considered and
celebrated as his birthday ; " and that the magnificence of
his entertainment (Mark vi. 21) shows that he was commem
orating something more than his birthday, reaches the re
sult that John was put to death about the feast of .Taber
nacles, Sept. 22, 781.1 StiU this interpretation of " birth
day " is too uncertain to allow any great weight to be
placed upon it.a
We rest, then, in the conclusion that John was beheaded
in the latter part of March, or beginning of AprU, 782. 3
From Mark vi. 13, 14, and Luke ix. 6, 7, it appears
that it was not tUl after the death of John that Herod
heard of Jesus. But how could He have been so long ac
tive in one of Herod's provinces, followed by great multi
tudes, performing daily the most wonderful works, and His
residence only a very few mUes from Tiberias, where the
king kept his court, and yet His fame never reach the royal
ears ? The most ready explanation would be, that during
His ministry Herod had been absent from Galilee, either
on a visit at Rome, whither he went about this time ; or
had been engaged in hostilities with Aretas, and thus re-
1 Tischendorf, xxxiii., agrees with Wieseler ; so Ebrard, 186 ; Elli
cott, 195.
2 See Alford and Meyer, notes on Matt. xiv. 6.
3 So Guder, Herzog Encyc, vi. 770 ; Lichtenstein, 252 ; Lange. Winer,
i. 590, finds no satisfactory data to determine the time of his imprisonment,
- or execution.

HEEOD'S IGNOEANCE OF JESUS. 291
mained in good measure ignorant of what was taking place.1
There is much probability in this supposition of Herod's
absence, but decisive proof is wanting. If, however, he
were in GalUee during this period, his ignorance of Jesus
finds a sufficient explanation in his own personal character.
We know from Josephus that he was a lover of ease and
pleasure ; and a man who occupied himself more in erectmg
fine braidings than in public affairs. Like aU the Herodian
famtiy, he treated the Jewish retigion with respect as a
matter of policy, but did not interfere with ecclesiastical
matters, except he saw movements dangerous to the pubUc
peace. The disputes of contending sects, or the theological
discussions of the Rabbins, had no attractions for him ; and
provided the Jews were orderly and peaceful, he cared not
to interfere in their religious quarrels. John's ministry
continued a considerable period without any interruption
on his part ; and when he at last imprisoned him, it was on
personal, not on political or religious grounds. Hence we
can understand how Jesus might prosecute His work in
GalUee, in the vicinity of Herod, without the latter learning
any thing definite respecting it, or having bis attention
speciaUy directed to His character or designs. As a new
reUgious teacher, the founder of a new sect, an opponent
of the Pharisees and scribes, the matter was unimportant,
and beneath the royal notice. Unless the pubUc tranquillity
was actually disturbed, or seriously threatened, Herod, tike
GaUio, cared for none of these things.
During the imprisonment of the Baptist, Herod seems
to have had several interviews with him, and learned to
appreciate his bold and fearless honesty, (Mark vi. 20.) He
did many things that John recommended, and heard him
gladly. Hence, when in his drunken revelry he had given
up the Baptist to the maUce of Herodias, he was troubled
in conscience ; and his ears were open to any tidings that
Greswell, iii. 428.

292 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
had connection with the departed prophet. It was a short
time before this that Jesus had sent out the Twelve;
a step that would naturaUy turn public attention to Him,
and which might easUy be misinterpreted. It would arouse
His watchful enemies to action, for it apparently indicated
a purpose to disseminate His doctrine more widely, and to
make disciples in larger numbers. It might thus easUy,
through them, reach the ears of Herod, who would be led
to inquire more particularly into the character and works
of the new Rabbi. But his informants gave him different an
swers, (Mark vi. 14, 15 ; Luke ix. 7, 8.) Some said that He
was EUas ; others that He was a prophet, or as one of the
prophets ; and others stiU, ignorant of His earUer work, said
that He was John the Baptist risen from the dead. This last
account, to the uneasy and superstitious mind of Herod, was
most credible, and explained how He wrought such mighty
works as were ascribed to Him. Returned to life, he could
do what could be done by no one in mortal flesh, (Matt.
xiv. 2 ; Mark vi. 14.) All this awakened in Herod a lively
desire to see Jesus, but no intimation is given us that he
designed to arrest Him, or .to hinder Him in His work.
Thus far the Messianic claims of the Lord had been pur
posely kept in the background ; and there was nothmg in
His teachings or actings, to awaken Herod's jealousy of
Him as a claimant of the throne. At no period does the
king seem to have looked upon Him with any dislike, or
fear, as a poUtical leader. The threatenings of the Pharisees
at a later period, that Herod would kiU Him, (Luke xiii.
31,) seem to have been a device of their own to frighten
Him from His labors.
According to Josephus,1 John was put to death at
Machaerus, a fortress at the southern extremity of Perea
on the borders of Arabia. When the first wife of Herod,
learning his design to marry Herodias, fled from him to her
» Antiq.., 18. 5. 2.

PLACE OF THE BAPTIST'S DEATH. 293
father Aretas, king of Arabia, this fortress belonged to
the Arabians.1 At what period did it come into the hands
of Herod ? Greswell (ui. 423) supposes that John reproved
Herod, when he knew that a marriage with Herodias was
intended, and before its completion. Having imprisoned
John, he departed to Rome, and on his return beheaded
him. According to this order of events, Herod now had
possession of Machaerus, but it very soon fell into the hands
of Aretas, and was in his hands when his daughter fled from
Herod. But the common interpretation of the Evangehsts,
that Herod had taken Herodias as his wife before he was
reproved by John, is most probable. Very soon, therefore,
after his first wife's return home, this fortress must have
been captured by Herod, but when or how we have no
knowledge." It has been questioned whether Herod would
have made a birthday feast at the southern extremity of his
dominions, where it would be difficult for the courtiers and
noblemen of bis court to attend. Still, if we remember
that the Jews generaUy were in the habit of going up from
the most remote parts of the land to Jerusalem, once or
more every year to the feasts, the journey of a few courtiers
to Machaerus wiU not seem strange. Besides, if Herod was
detained there through the war, or other cause, the feast
must follow his pleasure ; and if Machaerus was not conve
nient to his guests from Gahlee, it was more convenient to
those from Perea.
Some, however, have supposed that the feast did not
take place at Machaerus, although John was beheaded
there, but at Tiberias, or at JuUas. But although possible
that the head of the Baptist should have been taken from
Machaerus to Tiberias before the feast ended, yet the ob
vious interpretation ofthe narrative is, that he was beheaded
i Antiq., 18. 6. 1 and 2.
' Gams, der Taufer, 47. This supposed inconsistency in Josephus has led
some to doubt whether indeed the Baptist was imprisoned at Machaerus.

294 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
the same night in which the daughter of Herodias danced
before the king, or at least that no long interval elapsed.
If the feast was not at Machaerus, where most place it,1 it
was most probably at Juhas, as said by Wieseler, which
was at no great distance, and where Herod bad a summer
palace. > Meyer, Alford, Gams.

PART IV.
FROM THE DEATH OF THE BAPTIST TO THE FINAL DE-
PARTTJRE FROM GALILEE, OR FROM APRIL TO OCTO
BER, 782. A.D. 29.

Upon ihe Lord's Ministry in Galilee from the death
of the Baptist till its close.
The connection between the imprisonment of the Bap
tist and the commencement of the Lord's ministry in. Gali
lee, has been already considered. The same moral causes
that determined this connection, make the death of the
Baptist important in its influence upon the subsequent char
acter of that ministry. It appears from the notices of the
Evangelists that when this event occurred, the popularity
of Jesus, if we may use this word, was at its height in Gali
lee. Great multitudes follow Him wherever He goes, and
so throng Him that He has no leisure even to eat. From
every part of the land they come to listen to His teachings
and to be healed. Nor may we ascribe this concourse
merely to curiosity and selfishness. These doubtless ruled
in many ; but that there was also at this period a large
measure of faith in Him as one sent from God, appears from
the fact that " whithersoever He entered, into vUlages or
cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and be-

296 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
sought Him that they might touch if it were but the bor
der of His garment ; and as many as touched it were made
whole." As His healing power seems now to have been
manifested in its greatest activity, so now He performs one
of the most stupendous of His miracles, the feeding of the
five thousand. At no period of His ministry did He stand
in such high reputation with the people at large as a
Teacher and Prophet ; and to the human eye, His labors
seemed about to be crowned With great results.
It was at this stage of His ministry that He hears of
the Baptist's death. To His clear-seeing eye the fate of
His forerunner was prophetic of His own. As the Jews
" had done unto the Baptist whatsoever they Usted, as it
was written of Him," so He knew that He also " must suffer
many things and be set at naught," (Mark ix. 12, 13.)
However weU disposed toward Him individuals among the
people might be, there was no longer hope that the nation,
as such, would receive Him. The more clearly He revealed
His Messianic character in its higher features, the more all
the worldly minded, the unspiritual, turned away from
Him. His popularity rested upon no solid or permanent
basis, as there was no recognition of His divinity, and He
was deemed merely the equal of John or Elijah. From
this time, therefore, He begins to act as in view of His ap
proaching death. More and more He withdraws Himself
from the crowds that foUow Him, and devotes Himself
to the instruction of His disciples. It is not now so much
His purpose to gather new adherents, as to teach those al
ready believing on Him the great mysteries of His person
and work. As yet the knowledge of even the Twelve was
very imperfect ; and He could not be personaUy separated
from them till He had taught them of His divine origin,
and, as subsequent to this, of His death, resurrection, as
cension, and of His coming again in glory.
As the Lord seemed thus to shun public observation, it

LATEE MINISTRY IN GALILEE. 297
was natural that the popular favor which had foUowed Him
should suffer, at least, a temporary diminution ; and that
this should have been the signal for increased activity on
the part of His enemies. As He made no distract assertion
of His Messianic claims before the people at large, and, so
far from assuming royal dignity, seemed rather to take the
position of a mere Rabbi, the fickle multitude was the more
easily affected by the accusations and invectives of His
foes. His teachings also seem to have gradually assumed a
more mysterious and repellent character. He speaks of
Himself as "the bread of life;" ofthe necessity of "eating
His flesh and drinking His blood ; " language so incompre
hensible and so offensive, that many, even of His disciples,
forsook Him. To the scribes and Pharisees He addresses
reproaches of unwonted severity. Up to this time He had
been engaged in gathering disciples, and for their sake He
would not wiUingly array against Himself those whom all
the people had been taught to honor as their ecclesiastical
rulers and teachers. Such open hostUity on their part, and
a corresponding severity of rebuke on His, would have been
a stumbling block to tbe tender conscience, and half enlight
ened mind. But the time is come that the tine of separa
tion must be clearly drawn, and the truth respecting Him
self and His enemies be openly spoken ; and His disciples
learn that to follow Him involves the fierce and persistent
enmity of their spiritual rulers and guides — an enmity which
should foUow them even after His own death.
That which speciaUy characterizes the second part of
the Lord's ministry in GalUee, or that from the death ofthe
Baptist onward, we thus find to be, a gradual withdrawal
of Himself from the multitude and from public labors ; and
tbe devotion of Himself to the instruction of His disciples.
When by these instructions He has prepared them to un
derstand His Divine Sonship and what should befall Him at
Jerusalem, His Galilean ministry comes to its end.
13*

298

THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.

April, 782. a. d. 29.
After the return of the Twelve to Him at Caper- Mark vi. 30-44.
naum, Jesus prepares to go with them across the sea to Luke ix. 10-17.
find seclusion and rest. They desire to go privately, John vi. 1-4.
but the multitudes seeing them departing by ship, fol- Matt. xiv. 13, 1
low them on foot along the shore, and come to the
place where He had gone. He heals their sick, and the
same evening feeds 5,000 men besides women and Matt. xiv. 15-27.
children. Immediately after, He compels the disci- John vi. 5-14.
pies to return in the ship to Capernaum, and remains to Mark vi. 45-53.
dismiss the people. He spends the night alone, and John vi. 15-21.
early in the morning walks upon the sea to rejoin the
disciples who had been driven from their course by the
wind, and were unable to make the land. Having
rescued Peter, who attempts to walk upon the water to Matt. xiv. 28-34.
meet Him, they both enter the boat, and immediately
come to the shore in the land of Gennesaret.

It is not said where Jesus was when the disciples of
John came to Him to announce their master's death, (Matt.
xiv. 12,) but it was natural that they should seek Him at
Capernaum. About the same time the Twelve, who had
been absent on their mission, rejoined Him. Perhaps their
return at this juncture may have been determined by the
tidings of the death of the Baptist, which must very soon
have become widely and generally known. As usual,
whenever Jesus after one of His circuits returned to Caper
naum, the people of the surrounding cities and villages
flocked to see Him, bringing with them their sick " Many
were coming and going, and they had no leisure so much
as to eat," (Mark vi. 31.) Jesus therefore determines to
cross the sea and find repose in the uninhabited hUls upon
the eastern shore. Some attribute this departure to fear of
Herod's hostility, and this has some countenance in the
language of Matt. xiv. 13. But a more careful examination

SECOND CROSSING THE SEA. 299
shows us that this could not have been His motive. Mark
(vi. 31) gives the Lord's own words to- the apostles, "Come
ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest awhUe ; "
adding the explanatory remark that " they had no leisure
so much as to eat." He desired to separate the apostles
from the multitude ; and to give them, after their labors, a
little period of repose, such as was not possible for them to
obtain at Capernaum. Perhaps, also, He Himself desired a
few hours for solitary-communion with God, for the refresh
ment of His own spirit, agitated by the death of John,
whom He mourned as a faithful friend ; and in whose un
timely and violent end He saw the sign and foreshadowing
of His own approaching death.
That the departure across the sea was not through fear
of personal violence from Herod, appears also from the fact
that Jesus tbe next day returned, landing pubhcly upon the
shore of Gennesaret; and thence attended by crowds went
to Capernaum, where He taught openly in the synagogue,
(Mark vi. 53-55 ; John vi. 22-59.) And after this, as be
fore, He continued to make Capernaum His abode, and
was not molested by Herod. Norton suggests that the
death of John had produced a sudden excitement among
the people ; and that public attention began to be turned to
Jesus as one who might avenge his murder, and become
Himself their king. It was to escape the people, rather
than Herod, that He crossed the sea. But the desire to
make Him king, (John vi. 15,) seems to have been rather
the effect of the miracle He wrought than of any popular
indignation because of John's death.
The place to which the Lord directed His course across
tbe sea, was " a desert place belonging to the city called
Bethsaida," (Luke ix. 10.) The position of this city has been
already discussed. According to the conclusion then
reached, it was situated just at the entrance ofthe Jordan
into the sea, and upcn both banks ofthe stream. Upon the

300 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
east side lies the rich level plain of Bntaiha, (Batihah,) form
ing a triangle, of which the eastern mountains make one
side, and the river bank and tbe lake shore the two other.
This plain, with its bordering hills, probably belonged to
Bethsaida. It was at the southeastern angle of this plain,
where the hUls come down close to the shore, that Thom
son (ii. 29) places the site of the feeding of the five thou
sand. " From the four narratives of this stupendous mir
acle, we gather, 1st, that the place belonged to Bethsaida;
2d, that it was a desert place ; 3d, that it was near the
shore of the lake, for they came to it by boats ; 4th, that
there was a mountain close at hand ; 5th, that it was a
smooth, grassy spot, capable of seating many thousand
people. Now aU these requisites are found in this exact
locality, and nowhere else, so far as I can discover. This
Butaiha belonged to Bethsaida. At this extreme south
east corner of it, the mountain shuts down upon the lake,
bleak and barren. It was, doubtless, desert then as now,
for it is not capable of cultivation. In this little cove the
ships (boats) were anchored. On this beautiful sward, at
the base of the rocky hill, the people were seated." '
We see no reason to doubt that Thomson has rightly
fixed upon the site of the miracle. Tradition, indeed, placed
it upon the west side of the lake, near the city of Tiberias.
Arculf (a. d. 700) was shown " a grassy and level plain,
which had never been ploughed since that event." But the
tradition, though old, has no basis."
There is a slight seeming discrepancy in the statements
of Matthew and Mark respecting the meeting of Jesus with
the multitude that followed Him. Matthew relates that
" Jesus went forth and saw a great multitude, and was
moved with compassion," &c. ; implying that He had al-
1 See also Porter, Hand Book, ii. 426.
* It has, however, been receutly defended by Thrupp, Journal of Class.
and Sac. Philology, vol. ii. 290.

THE MULTITUDES FOLLOW HIM. 301
ready reached the place He sought ere the crowds came.
Mark relates that the crowds " outwent them, and came
together unto Him. And Jesus, when He came out," i. e.,
from the ship, " saw much people, and was moved with
compassion toward them," &c. Whether any discrepancy
exists depends upon the meaning of " went forth," eije\6u>v,
in Matthew. Meyer refers it to His coming forth from His
place of retirement.1 In his note on Mark, (vi. 34,) Alford
remarks : " There is nothing in Matthew to imply that He
had reached His place of solitude before the multitudes
came up." There seems to be no good reason why the
" went forth" in Matthew, should be differently understood
from the " came out " of Mark ; the word in both cases being
the same, and in both may refer to His coming out of the
ship. Lichtenstein reconcUes the discrepancy by supposing
that a few came before Jesus reached the shore, but unwtil-
ing to intrude upon Him, waited tUl the others came ; so
that He had a little interval of retirement ere He went forth
to heal the sick and teach.
Some have supposed that John (vi. 4) mentions the fact
that " the Passover was nigh," to explain why so great a
company should have gathered to Him of men, women, and
chUdren. They were 'composed, at least in part, of those
that were journeying toward Jerusalem to keep the feast."
Alexander, on the other hand, objects that, from the fact
that they had nothing to eat, they could scarcely be a caravan
of pilgrims, but were probably just come from their own
homes. It would seem that the people were mostly from
Capernaum and the towns adjacent. (See Mark vi. 33.)
It was, as has already been shown, the Lord's desire to
go privately with the apostles, and thus escape the multi
tudes, but as His preparations to depart were necessarUy
made in public, and the departure itself was in sight of aU,
¦ So Norton, Bengel, Trench.
* So Trench, Mir., 214 j Bengel, Meyer. Alford doubts.

302 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
He could not prevent them from following Him. It strik
ingly marks the strong hold He now had upon the people
at large, that so great a number should follow Him so far.
That they should be able to keep pace with those in the
boat, wUl not appear strange if we remember the relative
positions of Capernaum and Bethsaida, as already defined.
From the former city, which we identify with Tell Hum,
to the entrance of the Jordan, where we place Bethsaida,
is, according to Robinson, one hour and five minutes, or
about two and a half geographical mUes. The distance
from the entrance of the Jordan along the eastern shore to
the point where the mountains approach the lake, is also
about an hour. The whole distance, then, which the people
had to travel, was not more than six or eight mUes, and
from the conformation of the coast, could be as rapidly
passed by those on the shore as those in the boat. Gres
weU,1 who puts this Bethsaida at the southeastern angle
of the lake, supposes that Jesus set out from Capernaum in
the evening, and landed at Bethsaida in the morning, and
that the people, who ran before on foot, traveUed all night,
a distance of about sixteen Roman mUes. This needs no
refutation. The presence of this multitude, that had followed Him
so far, awakened the Lord's compassion ; and receiving them
He " spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed
them that had need of healing," (Luke ix. 11.) From
John's language, (vi. 5,) it would seem that the Lord first
addressed Philip with the inquiry, " Whence shall we buy
bread that these may eat ? " According to the Synoptists,
it was the disciples who proposed to Him that He should
send them away that they might buy themselves victuals.
But none of the Evangehsts narrate aU the conversation
that passed between Jesus and the disciples. Probably the
disciples first proposed to send the people away to get
' ii. 344, note.

FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND. 303
food, and He rephes, " Give ye them to eat," (Mark vi. 35-
37.) This leads to a general conversation in which He spe
cially addresses PhUip, and asks where bread could be
bought. He then directs them to make inquiry how many
loaves they had. After making inquiry, Andrew reports
that there were five barley loaves and two smaU fishes ;
and hereupon He proceeds to feed the multitude. Why
the question was addressed particularly to PhUip, does not
appear, except that the Lord would prove him. As a resi
dent of Bethsaida, he would, however, naturally know how
food could be procured in that region better than the other
apostles. The effect of this miracle upon the minds of those pres
ent was very great. So mighty and wonderful an exhibi
tion of power, reminding them perhaps of the feeding of
their fathers in the wilderness by Moses, led them to say,
" This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the
world." We can scarce doubt from the context that they
meant the Messiah, for so great was their enthusiasm that
they proposed among themselves to take Him by force and
make Him king, (John vi. 14, 15.) Thus the effect of the
miracle was to confirm them in their false Messianic hopes ;
for they interpreted it as a sign and pledge of the highest
temporal prosperity under His rule, who could not only
beal the sick of aU their diseases, but feed five thousand
men with five loaves of barley bread. Hence He must im
mediately dismiss them. It appears from Matthew and
Mark that He sent away the disciples first, perhaps that the
excitement of the multitude might not seize upon them.
That they were unwilling to leave Him, and that He was
obliged to " constrain " them to depart, is not strange if we
remember that they knew no way by which He could re
join them but by a long walk along the shore, and this in
the solitude and darkness of the night, for it was evening
when they left the place. (Compare Matt. xiv. 15 and 23,

304 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
where both evenings, the early and late, are distinguished.)
Aside from their reluctance to leave Him alone at such an
hour, there may also have been fear upon their own part of
crossing the lake in the night, remembering their great
peril, from which He had a httle whUe before delivered
them, (Matt. viii. 24.)
After His disciples had departed, the Lord proceeds to
dismiss the multitude, perhaps now more wilhng to leave
Him that they saw His special attendants had gone. So
soon as aU had left Him, He went up into the mountain
alone to pray — the second instance mentioned. of a night so
spent ; the first being the night prior to the choice of apos
tles, (Luke vi. 12, 13 ;) and both mark important points in
His hfe.
The details of the voyage of the disciples in their
topographical bearings, have been already. considered, and
need not be re-stated here. We assume that the place
where the people were fed, was the southern angle of the
plain of Butaiha, where the mountains meet the . lake.
From this point the apostles, to reach Capernaum, would'
pass near Bethsaida at the mouth of the Jordan ; and as
Jesus, proceeding along the shore, must necessarUy pass
through it, we find no difficulty in supposing that they di
rected their course toward it with the design of stopping
there, and taking Him with them into the boat when He
should arrive. This is plainly intimated by Mark vi. 45 ; 1
and is whoUy consistent with John vi. 17. This latter pas
sage is thus translated by Alford : " They were making for
the other side of the sea in the direction of Capernaum."
He adds : "It would appear as if the disciples were linger-
ing along shore, with the expectation of taking in Jesus ;
but night had faUen and He had not yet come to them,
1 See Wieseler, 274, note 1 ; Newcome, 263. " They were to make Beth
saida in their passage, at which place it was understood that Jesus was to
meet them by land, then embark with them."

JESUS JOINS THE DISCIPLES UPON THE SEA. 305
and the sea began to be stormy." " The great wind that
blew " and the tossing waves made all their efforts to reach
Bethsaida useless. Nor could they even make Capernaum.
In spite of all their endeavors, they were driven out into
tbe middle of the lake and southerly, down opposite the
plain of Gennesaret.
Thomson, (ii. 32,) referring to this night voyage of the
disciples, says : " My experience in this region enables me
to sympathize with the disciples in their long night's con
test with the wind. I spent a night in that Wady Shu-
kaiyif, some three miles up it, to the left of us. The sun
had scarcely set when the wind began to rush down toward
the lake, and it continued all night long with constantly in
creasing violence, so that when we reached the shore next
morning the face of the lake was like a huge botiing cal
dron. The wind howled down every wady, from the north
east and east, with such fury that no efforts of rowers could
have brought a boat to shore at any point along that
coast. In a wind like that the disciples must have been
driven quite across to Gennesaret, as we know they were.
We subsequently pitched our tents at the shore, and re
mained for three days and nights exposed to this tremen
dous wind. No wonder the disciples toiled and rowed
hard all that night, and how natural their amazement and
terror at the sight of Jesus walking on the waves. The-
whole lake, as we had it, was lashed into fury ; the waves-
repeatedly rolled up to our tent door, tumbling on the
ropes with such violence as to carry away the tent pins."*
The width of the sea opposite the plain of Gennesaret is •
about six mUes ; and the disciples, who " had rowed about
five and twenty or thirty furlongs " when Jesus met them,..
were thus something more than half the way over. As this
was " about the fourth watch of the night," (Mark vi. 48,)
or from 3-6 a. m., the disciples must have been struggling
against the wind and waves some eight or ten hours.

308 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
The incident respecting Peter's attempt to walk on the
water to meet Jesus, is mentioned only by Matthew. That
after he had been rescued they entered the ship is expressly
said : " And when they were come into the ship the wind
ceased," (Matt. xiv. 32.) In like manner Mark, (vi. 51 :)
" And He went up unto them into the ship ; and the wind
ceased." But with this John's narrative has been thought
by some to be in contradiction, (vi. 21 :) " Then they wiU
ingly received Him into the ship, vfiekov ow AajSciv avrov ets
to 7rAoiov ; and immediately the ship was at the land whither
they went." It is said that tbe disciples wUled or desired
to take Him into the ship with them, but did not, because
the ship immediately came to the shore.1 Tholuck, how
ever, defends the translation of Beza, " they received Him
with willingness," which is the same as our EngUsh version.1
Some deny that the ship came to the shore by miracle, but
suppose that it came rapidly in comparison with the earlier
part of the voyage, the wind having subsided and the sea
become smooth.3 On the other hand, Luthardt, and we
think rightly, regards it as supernatural.

April, 782. a. d. 29.
The people of Gennesaret, so soon as they knew Matt. xiv. 84-86.
that Jesus had landed upon their coasts, bring unto
Him their sick, who are healed by only touching the Mark vi. 63-56.
hem of His garment. Those whom He had fed, and John vi. 22-59.
who had spent the night upon the eastern shore, now
returning seek Him at Capernaum, whither He goes.
In answer to their question how He came over the sea,
He discourses to them concerning tbe bread of life.
His words are so offensive to many of His disciples John vi. 60-66.
1 So Meyer in loco ; Bleek, Beitrage, 28.
' Alford; see Winer, Gram., 363; Trench, Mir., 228, note.
» Alford, Tholuck.

JESUS IN THE LAND OF GENNESAEET. 307
that they henceforth forsake Him. The Twelve con- John vi. 67-71.
tinue with Him, but He declares that one of them is a
devil. The language of Matthew and of Mark is so express in
connecting these miracles of healing with the return after
the feeding of the five thousand, that there is no room for
doubt that they then took place. It is not, however, neces
sary to regard their statements as descriptive of an activity
confined to that one day, but rather embracing the whole
period after His return tUl He again departed. All the
accounts of this period indicate that He had now come to
the culminating point of His labors. Never was His popu
larity so great, and never His mighty power so marvellously
displayed. He could go nowhere, into country, or vUlage,
or city, that they did not bring the sick into the streets,
that they might at least touch the hem of His garment ;
" and as many as touched were made perfectly whole."
The fact that the men of Gennesaret " sent out into all that
country round about, and brought unto Him all that were
diseased," (Matt. xiv. 35,) indicates their great confidence
in His abUity and wUlingness to heal aU that should be
brought to Him ; and perhaps also that, according to His
custom, He would soon depart to other fields of labor.
Of those who had been present among the five thousand,
some, and probably many, remained in the villages and towns
on the eastern shore during the night. These, knowing that
His disciples had departed the evening before for Caper
naum, and left Him behind, naturally expected to find Him
in the morning somewhere on that side of the lake. Not
finding Him, they take boats, apparently boats that had
been sent over by the boatmen from Tiberias for passen
gers, (John vi. 23,) and go to Capernaum, as His usual resi
dence, to find Him. As He had landed very early upon
the plain of Gennesaret, for it was about the fourth watch
when He met the disciples, He had probably, ere their ar-

308 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
rival, reached the city. The discourse concerning the
bread of life was spoken in the synagogue at Capernaum,
(John vi. 59,) and most probably upon the Sabbath. Sttil>
no certain inference can be drawn from this mention of the
synagogue, as it was used for teaching upon other days
than the Sabbath.1 Wieseler (276) makes the feeding of the
five thousand to have been on the 14th Nisan or 16th AprU,at
the same time when the paschal lamb was eaten at Jerusa
lem ; and this day, therefore, was the 15th Nisan, or the first
feast Sabbath." But this is inconsistent with the notice of
John, (vi. 4,) that the Passover was nigh, which implies that
an interval of a day at least, if not of days, intervened.
This discourse of the Lord so offended many of His dis
ciples that from this time they walked no more with Him.
The answer of Peter to the question addressed to the
Twelve, " WiU ye also go away," marks a crisis in their
relations to Him. Now for the first time, so far as we
know, there was a defection among His disciples. His
teachings were too hard for them, even when confirmed
by such great miracles. But it was His words, not His
works, that held the Twelve faithful. "Thou hast the
words of eternal life," said Peter. The right reading of
the confession of Peter immediately following is, according
to Tischendorf,3 " And we believe and are sure that thou
art the Holy One of God." This confession is to be distin
guished from that made later, (see Matt. xvi. 16,) which
displays a higher knowledge of the mystery of the Lord's
person.
Summer, 782. a. d. 29.
Whilst still at Capernaum, some of the scribes and Matt. xv. 1-20.
Pharisees, who had come from Jerusalem, see His dis- Mark vii. 1-28.
ciples eating with unwashed hands, and find fault.
1 Winer, ii. 549. ' So Tischendorf, xxxiii.
3 So also Meyer and Alford ; Ellicott undecided.

PHARISEES AND SCRIBES PROM JERUSALEM. 309
This leads to a discussion of Pharisaic traditions, and
sharp reproofs of their hypocrisy. Leaving Caperna
um, He goes with tbe Twelve into the coasts 6f Tyre Matt. xv. 21-28.
and Sidon, avoiding all publicity. But He could not be Mark vii. 24-30.
hid ; and a woman of that region coming to Him with
urgent request, He heals her daughter. From thence
He departs to the region of Decapolis, where he heals Matt. xv. 29-39.
many, and one with an impediment in his speech, and Mark vii. 31-37.
afterward feeds a multitude of 4,000 persons. Re- Mark viii. 1-10.
crossing the sea Ho returns to Capernaum.
How long, after the feeding ofthe five thousand, the Lord
continued at Capernaum we cannot tell, but it is plain that
He was found there by the Pharisees and scribes which came
down from Jerusalem. That this was, as Wieseler maintains,1
upon the 15th Nisan, the day when he supposes the discourse
in the synagogue to have been delivered, is highly improba
ble. It is not likely that they would leave Jerusalem till
the Passover was fully over.' Much earlier in the Lord's
ministry, as we have seen, a deputation of scribes had been
sent from Jerusalem to watch and oppose Him. The pres
ence of this new deputation may be ascribed to the reports
that had been borne to that city by the pilgrims going to
the feast, ofthe feeding ofthe five thousand, and ofthe wish
of the people to make Him long. So great a miracle, and its
effect on the popular mind, could not be overlooked ; and
they hasten to counteract, if possible, His growing influ
ence. Arriving at Capernaum, and watchful to seize every
possible ground of accusation against Him, they notice that
some of His disciples did not wash their hands in the pre
scribed manner before eating ; a sign that they were already
in some degree becoming indifferent to Pharisaic traditions.
The words of the Lord in reply to the Pharisees are fuU of
severity, and show that He knew that they were, and would
continue to be, His enemies. Now for the first time He
1 311, note 1. * Tischendorf, Greswell.

310 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
addresses them openly as hypocrites, and reproaches them,
that they set aside by their traditions the commandments
of God. He proceeds to address the people upon the dis
tinction between internal and external defilement ; and
afterward, when He was alone with the disciples, He ex
plains to them more clearly what He had said.
It has been questioned whether the Lord went merely
to the borders of Tyre and Sidon, or actually crossed them,
(Matt. xv. 21 ; Mark vu. 24.)1 Some light may be cast on
this point if we consider His motive in the journey. That
it was not to teach publicly seems plain from Mark's words,
(vU. 24,) " He would have no man know it." He desired
that His arrival should be kept secret. As He had directed
the Twelve, when upon their mission, not to " go into the
way of the Gentiles" to preach, it is not probable that He
would now do so. Nor is there any mention of teaching
or healing, except in the case ofthe woman and her daugh
ter. His motive in this journey obviously was to find se
clusion and rest, which He had sought, but in vain, to find
on the east side of the lake ; and could not find in Caper
naum. He hoped on the remote frontiers of GalUee to
escape for a time popular attention, and to be bid from the
crowds that followed Him. We see no evidence that any
fear of the hostility of Herod or of the Pharisees actuated
Him." It is for the Twelve that He seeks a temporary
retirement, and to them will He address His teachings.
It would not then be inconsistent with His purpose that
He should enter the heathen provinces of Tyre and Sidon.
Here at least He may obtain a little interval of repose.
» In favor of the latter, Alford, Alexander, Bleek, De Wette, Greswell ; of
the former, Stier and Meyer, who refer to Matt. xv. 22, as showing that the
Phcenician woman came out of the coasts of Tyre and Sidon to meet Jesus, so
that He wa3 not within them.
2 Greswell, (ii. 354,) who thinks His motive in this journey was conceal
ment, makes the final end of this concealment to escape the observation of
His pertinacious enemies, the scribes and Pharisees.

JESUS AT TYEE AND SIDON. 311
But He cannot be hid, and after healing the daughter of
the Syrophenician woman in answer to her importunity,
He is compelled to leave that region, and directs His steps
to Decapolis. The route He followed is uncertain. It is
said by Mark, (vii. 31 :) " And again departing from the
coasts of Tyre and Sidon, He came unto the Sea of Gahlee
through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis." "As most
of the cities of the Decapolis were situated near the valley
of the Jordan, south of the Sea of Tiberias, it is not im
probable that our Lord, having gone to the east of Phoe
nicia through Upper GalUee, returned thence, by way of
Lower Galilee through the plain of Esdraelon, to Bethshean,
(Scythopotis,) the only city of DecapoUs which is to the
west of Jordan. Here He would cross the river, perhaps
at the bridge now called Jisr Majumah, then possibly make
a circuit about the district of Pella and Philadelphia to the
south, about Gerasa to the east, and Gadara, Dios, and
Hippo to the north. Thus He would ' come unto the Sea
of GalUee through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.' " '
But according to the reading of Tischendorf,11 " departing
from the coasts of Tyre He came through Sidon to the Sea
of Galilee," Sta SioWos ; He went therefore northward from
Tyre, and, passing through Sidon, probably proceeded
along the Phoenician border line to the Jordan, near Dan,
(Laish,) and journeying along its eastern bank came to De
capolis. He may thus have visited Csesarea PhUippi, and
tbe province of Herod Philip, although no special mention
is made of it. " He went first northward (perhaps for the
same reason of privacy as before) through Sidon, then
crossed the Jordan, and so approached the lake on its east
side."8 What part of Decapolis the Lord visited is not men
tioned by any of the Evangelists. Under this title were
> G. Williams in " The Messiah," 268, note.
» So Meyer and Alford. a Alford ; see Lichtenstein, 284.

312 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
included ten cities, eight or nine of which were on the east
side of the Jordan, and east or southeast of the Sea of
Galilee. It is spoken of by Josephus as a weU-known terri
torial designation, embracing towns and vUlages. After
Syria had been conquered by the Romans, ten cities seem,
on some grounds not well known, to have been placed un
der certain peculiar municipal arrangements, and brought
directly under Roman rule. It is probable that their pop
ulation was chiefly heathen. The names of the ten cities
are differently given. To the original ten cities others were
probably added, though at no time do they seem to have
constituted a distinct province.1
It is impossible to tell where the healing of the deaf
man with an impediment in his speech, took place, (Mark
vu. 32.) If it was one of the cures mentioned by Matthew,
(xv. 29-31,) it was near the sea; but from the fact that
Jesus enjoined silence upon the deaf man and his friends,
we infer that it was wrought before He came to the shore
of the lake. The injunction of silence was not heeded :
" The more He charged them, so much the more a great
deal they pubhshed it." The effect of this was, as related
by Matthew, a great gathering to Him of " the lame, blind,
dumb, maimed, and many others," whom He healed. Both
Matthew and Mark speak ofthe wonder and astonishment
ofthe multitude as they saw these healings, as if they now
saw them for the first time. It is to be remembered that
Jesus had not visited this region at all, except for the few
hours when He healed the demoniacs of Gergesa, and after
ward when He fed the five thousand ; and the great body
of the people now saw Him for the first time. The ex
pression, (Matt. xv. 31,) " they glorified the God of Israel,"
may indicate that part of the multitude were heathen, and
now glorified Jehovah in contrast with their own deities ;
or it may have reference to the Jews as dwelling among
> See Winer, i. 263 ; Smith's Diet, of Bible, i. 419.

FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND. 313
the heathen, who saw in these miracles new proofs of the
power, of their God, before whom aU others were but idols.
Three days this great, concourse of people continued
with the Lord, beholding His works, and listening to His
words. The place where they were assembled was, beyond
question, on the east side of the lake, and some suppose at
the same place where He had fed the five thousand.1 Mat
thew (xv. 29) relates that "He came nigh unto the Sea of
Galilee, and went up into a mountain and sat down there."
The use of the article, to opos, " the mountain," does not
determine the spot, as it may be used to denote the high
land in distinction from the lake shore. It seems, however,
more probable that it was at some point near the south end
of the lake, as several cities of the Decapolis were in that
vicinity. Ellicott * suggests that its site may have been " the
high ground " in the neighborhood of the ravine nearly op
posite to Magdala, which is now called "Wady Semak."
Whilst there are several points of resemblance between this
miracle and that of the feeding of the five thousand, there
are many of difference : as the number of persons fed, the
quantity of food, the quantity of fragments gathered up,
the time the multitude had been with Jesus, and the
events both preceding and following the miracle. It is
probable that many of the four thousand were heathen, or
those who had come from the east side of the sea, whilst
most of the five thousand seem to have followed Him
from the western shore.3
After sending away the multitudes, He took ship, per
haps the ship kept speciaUy for His use, and crossed the
sea. He came, according to Matthew, (xv. 39,) " into the
coasts of Magdala;"4 according to Mark, (vUi. 10,) "into
the parts of Dalmanutha." Magdala is generaUy identified
» So Trench, Mir., 285 ; Greswell, ii. 357.
» 221, note 1. a Trench, Mir., 286.
< For Magdala in the received text, Tischendorf and Alford substitute
14

314 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
with El Mejdel, a miserable vUlage on the south side ofthe
plain of Gennesaret, near the lake.1 Dalmanutha is gener
ally supposed to have been a small town or village in the
neighborhood of Magdala, perhaps in its territory, and upon
the shore. Porter places it about a mUe south of Magdala,
by the fountain Ain-el-Barideh. Thomson (ii. 60) speaks of a
Dalhamia, or Dalmamia, on the east side of the Jordan, a lit
tle below its exit from the Sea of Galilee, which be supposes
may be intended. The matter is in itself unimportant.

Summeb, 782. A.D. 29
So soon as Jesus returns to Capernaum, the Phari- Matt. xvi. 1-4.
sees and Sadducees begin to tempt Him by asking a Mark viii. 11,12.
sign from Heaven. He reproves their hypocrisy, and
declares that no sign should be given them but the sign
of the prophet Jonas. Leaving them, He enters a ship, Matt. xvi. 5-13.
and again departs across the lake toward Bethsaida. MARKviii.13-21.
Upon the way He discourses to the disciples respecting
the leaven of the Pharisees. Arriving at Bethsaida, He Mark viii. 22-26.
heals a blind man and sends him privately home.
It is not expressly said that Jesus went from Magdala
or Dalmanutha to Capernaum, and it is possible that He
may have met Pharisees and Sadducees at either of the
former places ; yet as the latter city was His home, to which
He returned after all His circuits, and was but few mUes
from Magdala, we have no reason to doubt that He went
thither as usual. Here, also, He would more probably
meet the Pharisees and Sadducees, for this meeting does
not seem to have been accidental, but premeditated on their
part. It is the first time the latter are named in conjunc
tion with the former, as acting unitedly in opposition to
Magadan. Magdala is retained by Meyer. Of Magadan, if distinct from
Magdala, nothing is known.
1 Bob. ii., 397 ; Porter, ii. 431. See, contra, Norton, notes, 158.

THE PHARISEES SEEK A SIGN FROM HEAVEN. 315
Him. Apparently as a party, the Sadducees had up to
this time looked upon Him with indifference if not con
tempt. But as His teachings began to expose then* errors
their hostility was aroused ; and from this time they seem
to have acted in unison with the Pharisees against Him.
The peculiarity of the sign which His enemies now
sought from Him, was that it should be from Heaven, or
something visible in the heavens ; perhaps some change in
the sun or moon, or a meteor, or fire, or thunder and
lightning. Denouncing them as hypocrites, who could dis
cern the face of the sky, but could not discern the signs
of the times, He refuses to give them any other sign than
one too late to profit them, His own resurrection.
The departure from Capernaum across the sea seems to
have followed close upon this temptation of the Pharisees
and Sadducees. That the Lord was greatly grieved at this
new instance of their unbelief, appears from Mark viti. 12,
where it is said : " He sighed deeply in His spirit." Alex
ander also observes that the expression, (v. 13,) " 'He left
them,' suggests the idea of abandonment, letting them
alone, leaving them to themselves, giving them up to hope
less unbelief." According to Matthew, He admonishes His
disciples to beware ofthe leaven ofthe Pharisees and Saddu
cees ; according to Mark, ofthe leaven ofthe Pharisees and
of Herod. This slight discrepancy is generally explained by
saying that Herod was a Sadducee. This is in itself prob
able, for none of the Herodian princes seem to have im
bibed the true Jewish spirit; and though fearing the Phari
sees, because of their great influence over the people, yet
favored the Sadducees, and gave office so far as possible to
men of that party. But it may be that the Lord speaks
of hypocrisy in general as leaven, and so the same in what
soever person or party it appeared.
If Bethsaida were, as we suppose, at the mouth of the
Jordan, its position would correspond with all the condi-

316

THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.

tions of the present narrative. From this point He could
easUy reach the town of Caesarea Philippi. Although we
know from the Lord's own words (Matt. xi. 21) that He
had wrought many mighty works in Bethsaida, yet the
healing of the blind man is the only one recorded, except
the feeding of the five thousand which took place upon its
territory- For some reason not stated, (Mark viii. 23,) tbe
blind man was healed without the city. There are many
points of resemblance between this miracle and that of the
healing ofthe deaf man with an impediment in his speech,
(Mark vu. 32-37.) In both the Lord is besought to touch
them ; He takes them aside from the people ; He uses
spittle ; He enjoins sUence.

Summeb, 782. A. D. 29.
Leaving Bethsaida, He goes with His disciples to Mark viii. 27-38.
Caesarea Philippi. Whilst upon the way, He asked them Matt. xvi. 13-28.
" whom do men say that I am? " He then asks them Luke ix. 18-22.
their own opinion of Him, and Peter replies that He is
the Christ, the Son of the living God. This truth He com
mands them to tell to no one ; and now begins to teach
them respecting His approaching rejection by the Jews,
His death, and resurrection after three days. Peter
would rebuke Him for these words, but is himself re
buked. Jesus afterward addresses the disciples and Mark viii. 84-88.
the people, and teaches them what is involved in follow- Matt. xvi. 24-28.
ing Him, and speaks of the rewards He would give to Luke ix. 23-27.
all when He should come again in the glory of His
Father. He adds, that some standing before Him should Mark ix. 1-10.
see Him come in the glory of His kingdom. Six days Matt. xvii. 1-9.
after He goes to a high mountain, taking with Him Luke ix. 28-86.
Peter, James, and John, and is transfigured before
them. It is much disputed whether the journey to Caasarea
Philippi, and the Transfiguration, followed immediately upon
tbe miracle at Bethsaida, or whether an interval elapsed

TIME OP THE TRANSFIGURATION. 317
during which He may have journeyed in other directions.
The connection of the narratives does not decide it. It is
said by Matthew (xvi. 13) that, " When Jesus came into
the coasts of Caesarea PhUippi, He asked His disciples," &c.
This leaves the time of His corning indefinite. Mark (viii.
27) says : " And Jesus went out — e£r)\&ev—a,n& His disciples
into the towns of Cajsarea PhUippi." The phrase " went
out," naturaUy, though not necessarily, refers to a depart
ure from the place before mentioned, which was Beth
saida. " Neither Evangelist assigns the date of this trans
action, even by connecting it expressly with the previous
context as immediately successive. Into the villages or
towns dependent upon this important city, Jesus came with
His disciples ; when or whence is not recorded. ' Went out'
throws no tight upon this point, as it may refer to any
going forth for any purpose, even from a private house,
upon a journey, or from Capernaum as the centre of His
operations on a new official circuit." '
If, then, the Evangelists do not decide the point by
their language, it must be decided by other considerations.
It is said on the one side, that the Transfiguration most fit
tingly finds its place at the end of the Lord's GalUean min
istry, and therefore at a later period. As at His baptism,
when about to begin His work, there was a voice from
heaven, saying : " This is my beloved Son in whom I am
weU pleased ; " so now at its close the Father gives a hke
testimony." The announcement, also, (Matt. xvi. 21,)
that He must go up to Jerusalem to die, implies that His
next journey thither would be His last. Some, therefore,
as Lichtenstein, place the journey to Jerusalem to the feast
of Tabernacles (John vii. 2) after the miracle at Bethsaida,
J Alexander in loco. See the same word, v. 11. " The Pharisees came
forth," whether from their homes, or from the surrounding villages, or from
Capernaum, is matter of conjecture.
9 Hofmann in Lichtenstein, 307.

318 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
and before the journey to the coasts of Philippi. Stier,
who makes Jesus to have returned to Gahlee after the feast
of Dedication, (John x. 22,) places the Transfiguration after
that return. But on tbe other side, the natural inference,
as we have seen from the narratives of Matthew and Mark,
is that the Lord journeyed directly from Bethsaida toward
Caesarea Philippi, and that there was no return to Caper
naum or visit to Jerusalem before the Transfiguration.1
It deserves, however, to be noticed that the Transfigu
ration was, in any event, very near the close of the Lord's
ministry in GalUee. His labors after this, as indeed for
some time previous, seem to have been devoted chiefly to
His disciples, tiU He commenced His last journey, when
they again assumed a public character.
From the direction given to the blind man at Bethsaida,
not to speak of his cure, as well as from the statement
(Mark ix. 30) that He desired to pass secretly through Gali
lee after the Transfiguration, we infer that this circuit, like
the preceding, was not so much to teach the people at
large as to escape the crowds that foUowed Him, and to
find opportunity to teach His disciples."
The apostles, in their answer to His question, " Whom
do men say that Iam?" give the opinions most current
among the people generaUy in Galilee. It is not certain
whether He was, through ignorance, confounded with John
the Baptist, as if the latter were stiU living, or was thought
to be the Baptist raised from the dead. The latter is most
probable, and perhaps reference may be made to the opin
ion of Herod and his party. How intimate was the connec
tion in the Jewish mind between the resurrection, and the
kingdom of heaven and the advent of the Christ, is shown
¦ So most harmonists, Tischendorf, Bobinson, Krafft, Friedlieb, Gres
well, Newcome.
> From Mark viii. 34, Ellicott infers that His object was public teaching
and preaching.

THE CONFESSION OF PETER. 319
by Lightfoot, (on John i.. 25 :) "The Jews believed that at
the coming of the Messiah the prophets were to rise again.
The nearer stUl the ' kingdom of heaven ' came, by so much
the more did they dream of the resurrection of the
prophets." It is to be noted that no important part of the people
seem to have regarded Jesus as the Christ, or else it would
have been mentioned by the apostles. It is apparent that
He was regarded rather as a forerunner ofthe Messiah than
as the Messiah Himself, though public sentiment may have
changed from time to time in regard to His Messianic
claims.1 On the one hand, He had been pointed out as the
Messiah by John, and His mighty works manifestly proved
His divine commission ; yet, on the other hand, He did
not openly avow Himself to be the Messiah, and His whole
course of conduct was in striking contrast to their Messi
anic expectations. Whilst a few here and there said, " He
is the Christ," the general voice was that He was but a fore
runner. After the feeding of the five thousand, there was
a desire to make Him king ; but this does not Bhow any
real belief in His Messiabship. It was the natural effect of
so stupendous a miracle upon the restless Jewish mind,
eager to cast off the Roman and Idumean yoke ; and tbe
next day many of His disciples, and perhaps those most
zealous to make Him a king, repelled by His words, " went
back and walked no more with Him." This confession
of Peter, which was that of all the apostles, was there
fore a great turning point in their history. To others
He was only the Baptist, or Elias, or one of the prophets ;
to them " He was the Christ, the Son of the living God."
This confession involves much more than that at Caper
naum a little earher, (John vi. 69.) The latter was but an
expression, of their belief that " He was the Holy One of
1 Lange on Matt. xvi. 14.

320 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
God." J " This," says Alford, " brings out both the human
and the Divine nature of the Lord." This mystery of the
Lord's person as both Divme and human, was something
not to be known through any exercise of the understanding.
If known, it must be through the revelation of God. That
Peter should have discerned it, Jesus thus ascribes imme
diately to the revelation of His Father in heaven, (Matt.
xvi. 17.)
This truth, so far surpassing all the common Jewish
conceptions of the Messiah, of the united Divinity and hu
manity of the Lord, being known and confessed, Jesus could
begin to open to them other truths tiU this time concealed.
Now He could teach them that His first work in the flesh
was to suffer; that He must be rejected by the Jews and
be put to death ; that He must rise from the dead, and af
terward establish His kingdom. These truths, so new and
strange to the disciples, so foreign to all their modes of
thinking, they could not for a long time comprehend. The
very fact of the Divinity of Jesus made it stiU more incom.
prehensible how He could suffer and die, nor could the
plainest words of the Lord make it intelhgible. How re
pugnant to their feelings was the announcement of His suf
ferings, is graphicaUy shown in the language ofthe impetu
ous Peter, " Be it far from thee, Lord ; this shall not be
unto thee : " language which brought upon him the sever
est rebuke.
From this time the teaching of Jesus to His disciples,
and also to the people at large, (see Mark vm. 34 ; Luke ix.
23,) assumed a new character. Gradually, as they were
able to bear it, He showed them how the great purpose of
God in the Messiah must be effected through His death,
and how His sufferings had been foretold by the prophets.
So far from establishing any earthly kingdom, in which
> Beading approved by Tischendorf, Alford, Meyer.

OBJECT OF THE TRANSFIGURATION. 321
they should have distinguished places, He must be put to
a most ignominious death, and all who received Him as the
Messiah, should do it at the peril of their lives. Yet, as a
counterpoise to the gloomy picture, He speaks of an hour
when He would come again, and then every disciple should
have His reward. Thus He confirmed to them the great
fact that He was to establish a kingdom in power and
glory. To prevent the disciples from seizing upon this
fact, and indulging in dreams of a reign corresponding to
that of earthly kings, the Lord was pleased to show certain
of the apostles, by a momentary transfiguration of His
person, the supernatural character of His kingdom, and into
what new and higher conditions of being both He and they
must be brought ere it could come. The promise that
some then. standing before Him should not taste death till
they had seen " the Son of man coming in His kingdom,"-
(Matt. xvi. 28,) or bad seen " the kingdom of God come
with power," (Mark ix. 1,) was fulfilled when, after six
days, He took Peter, James, and John into a high moun
tain apart, and was transfigured before them. These apos
tles now saw Him as He should appear when, having risen.
from the dead, and glorified, He should come again from
heaven to take His great power and to reign. They saw in,
the ineffable glory of His person, and the brightness around
them, a foreshadowing of the kingdom of God as it should
come with power ; and were for a moment " eye-witnesses
of His majesty," (2 Peter i. 1 6.) Many errors stiU remained
to be removed from their minds, especially respecting the ;
time of its establishment, (Acts i. 6,) but the great fact of
its supernatural character they could not mistake. Hence
forth the phrase " kingdom of God" had to these apostles ,
a significance which it probably had not had to any of the
prophets, and certainly had not to any of the Rabbis or
priests. The three apostles were commanded to tell no one of
14*

322 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
the vision till Jesus had risen from the dead. It therefore
remained for a considerable period unknown to the other
apostles and disciples. It was natural that they should
question one witb another, as they descended the mount,
what the rising from the dead should mean, (Mark ix. 10.)
They had just seen the Lord transfigured. He had not
died, yet had His body been invested witb heavenly glory.
It was not then necessary to die and to rise again in order
to be glorified. What, then, should the death and resur
rection of which He had spoken mean? Not a literal
death and resurrection, but a spiritual death — some act of
suffering, or self-sacrifice, upon which supernatural glory
should follow. And thus the resurrection from the dead,
as a preliminary to the kingdom, became still more incom
prehensible. The statements of the Evangelists do not enable us to
decide where the Transfiguration took place. Matthew and
Mark speak of it as " a high mountain ;" Luke as " the
mountain," to opos. A tradition, dating back to the fourth
century, gives Tabor as the site. So generally received for
many centuries was this tradition, that Lightfoot (Mark
ix. 2) says : " I know it will be laughed at if I should doubt
whether Christ was transfigured on Mount Tabor, for who
ever doubted of this thing." According to Kobinson (ii.
358) the first notice of Tabor as the place of the Transfigu
ration is as a passing remark by Cyril of Jerusalem, and
afterward by Jerome. Before the close of the sixth cen
tury three churches were builded there, and afterward a
monastery was founded. Arculf, a. d. 700,1 says : " At the
top is a pleasant and extensive meadow surrounded by a
thick wood, and in the middle of the meadow a great mon
astery with numerous cells of monks. There are also three
handsome churches, according to the number of taberna-
' Early Travels, 9.

MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. 323
cles described by Peter." Robinson and Stanley think it
conclusive against this tradition, that at the time of the
Transfiguration " the summit of Tabor was occupied by a
fortified city." Thomson, however, (ii. 139,) does not re
gard this as presenting any difficulty. " There are many
secluded or densely wooded terraces on the north and
northeast sides, admirably adapted to the scenes of the
Transfiguration. After all that the critics have advanced
against the current tradition, I am not fuUy convinced."
Admitting that much may be said in favor of Mount Tabor
as " the high mountain" of the Evangelists, still their nar
ratives lead us to place this event in the neighborhood of
Caesarea Phihppi rather than on the west of the lake, and
so near Capernaum. " The Evangelists," says Lightfoot,
" intimate no change from place to place." The expression
of Mark, (ix. 30,) that "departing thence He passed through
Galilee," would imply that He was not then in GalUee.
We are therefore made to look for some mountain in the
vicinity of Caesarea, and Mount Hermon at once rises before
us.1 " Standing amid the ruins of Csesarea we do not need
to ask what that ' high mountain' is. The lofty ridge of
Hermon rises over us, and probably on one or other of
those wooded peaks above us that wondrous event took
place."2 The difference in the computation of Matthew and Mark
on the one side, who say, " After six days He taketh Peter,
James, and John into a high mountain apart," and of Luke,
who says, " About an eight days after these sayings, He
took," &c, is easUy reconcUed if we suppose that the latter
included, while the former excluded, both the day on which
the words were spoken, and the day ofthe Transfiguration.
Some, as Meyer, prefer to take Luke's phrase " about an
eight days" as indefinite, but this is contrary to the use of
1 Lightfoot, Eeland.
2 Porter, ii. 447 ; so Stanley, Lichtenstein, Ritter.

324 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
wo-ei, with numerals by this Evangelist. The six days, ac
cording to Lange, are probably to be counted from the day
of Peter's confession. Others, as Lightfoot, count from the
day the words of Matt. xvi. 28 were spoken. Not improba
bly the days were identical. It is not certain at what pe
riod of the day the Transfiguration took place, but most
probably during the night, or at the early dawn. Dark
ness was not indeed, as some have supposed, necessary that
the glory of the Lord's person might be plainly visible, for
when He appeared to Paul, (Acts xxvi. 13,) it was midday,
yet the light that shone around Him was brighter than the
sun. Nor does the fact that the apostles slept, show that
it was night, for their sleep seems to have been not so much
natural sleep, the result of fatigue, as stupefaction caused
bythe marvellous apparition, (Rev. i. 17.) Nor does tbe
fact that He was at that time engaged in prayer (Luke ix.
29) determine it. But as He did not descend from the
mount till the day following, it is not probable that He
ascended upon one day, was then transfigured, remained
after this during the night, and the next day returned to
the disciples. It is most reasonable to suppose that the
Lord went upon the mount at even, that He was transfig
ured at tbe early dawn, and soon after descended.

Summer, 782. a. d. 29.
Descending from the mount Jesus explains, in an- Matt. xvii. 10-13.
swer to a question from the apostles, how Elias must Mark ix. 11-13.
be the forerunner of the Messiah. At the foot of the
mountain they meet the other apostles surrounded by Matt. xvii. 14-21.
a multitude, among whom were scribes questioning Mark ix. 14-29.
with them. The Lord heals a lunatic child, whom the Luke ix. 37-42.
apostles had not been able to heal.
That Elijah must personally precede the Messiah, was
one of the firmest and most undoubted convictions of the

JOHN THE BAPTIST AND ELIJAH. 325
Jews ; and the fact that the Baptist denied himself to be
Elijah, was a circumstance that went far to discredit his
mission. If he was not Elijah then Jesus could not be the
Christ. If he was a prophet, and so aU the people regarded
him, it by no means followed that the Messiah must imme
diately follow him ; for there might be many, prophets who
should act as forerunners, and yet Elijah alone should pre
pare His way. As we have seen, most of the people seem
to have regarded Jesus Himself only as one of the pro
phetic forerunners of the' Messiah. Educated in the cur
rent belief respecting the office of Elijah, the three apostles
could not reconcile it with his appearance upon the mount.
The Lord clears up this great difficulty by explaining to
them the truth, so strange, that there should be two comings
ofthe Messiah, and so two forerunners. Thus the mystery
of two Elijahs was cleared up so soon as the mystery of
the two comings was known. It is remarked by Alford :
" The double aUusion is only the assertion that the Elias
(in spirit and power) who foreran our Lord's first coming,
was a partial fulfilment of the great prophecy, which an
nounces the real Elias, (tbe words of Malachi iv. 5, 6, wiU
hardly bear any other than a personal meaning,) who is to
forerun His greater and second coming."
The other apostles and disciples had remained at the
foot ofthe mount, probably in some town or vUlage, during
the absence of the Lord. In the morning, before He de
scended, a crowd had gathered around them, doubtless
seeking Him, and in the crowd a man who had brought his
lunatic son to be healed. In the absence of Jesus, he pre
sented him to the disciples, who could not heal him. Among
those present were certain scribes, who, apparently taking
occasion from their ill success, began to question with them,
and plainly with an evU intent. WhUst they are disputing
with the disciples Jesus appears, and is gladly received by
the multitude. In answer to the father's prayer He heals

326

THE LIFE OF OUR LOED

the child, after a severe rebuke of the general unbelief.
The question afterward addressed to Him by the disciples
when alone, "Why could not we cast him out?" shows
that they supposed the power to work miracles, which had
been given the Twelve when they were sent forth upon
their mission, was still continued to them.

Autumn, 782. a. d. 29.
Departing from the place where He bad healed the Mark ix. 30-32.
lunatic child, He passes through Galilee, avoiding, as Matt. xvii. 22, 23.
far as possible, public attention, and giving Himself to
the instruction of His disciples. He repeats the an- Luke ix.. 43-45.
nouncement respecting His death and resurrection,
but they do not understand Him, and are afraid to ask.
After some time thus spent they come to Capernaum ; Mark ix. 83-50.
and He here discourses to them of their equality as Matt, xviii. 1-35.
brethren, and teaches them who shall be regarded as Luke ix. 46-50.
the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter, hav- Matt. xvii. 24-27.
ing declared to the tax gatherer that his master is lia
ble to pay tribute, goes by Christ's direction to the sea,
and finds the tribute money in the mouth of a. fish.
Soon after this Jesus goes up secretly to Jerusalem to John vii. 2-10.
attend the feast of Tabernacles.

If the healing of the lunatic chUd was, as we have sup
posed, in the neighborhood of Caesarea PhUippi, the Lord,
crossing the Jordan near its sources, would enter the north
ern parts of Galilee, and thus journey toward Capernaum.
That this circuit was not for the purpose of public teaching
is expressly said by Mark, (ix. 30 :) " And they departed
thence, and passed through Galilee ; and He would not
that any man should know." And the reason is added why
He would not be known, " for He taught His disciples," &c.
To instruct them more fuUy in the truths He had just
opened to them of His approaching death and resurrection,
now occupied Him, and the presence of large crowds would

AMBITION OF THE APOSTLES. 327
have hindered Him in His purpose. How long this circuit
contmued we do not know, nor what particular parts of
Galilee He visited. Matthew's language, (xvii. 22,) " And
whUe they abode in Galilee," or more literaUy, " while they
were going about in Galilee," implies that some time was
spent there. The continued inabUity of the disciples to
understand the Lord's words respecting His death and res
urrection, will surprise no one acquainted with the Messi
anic expectations of the Jews. They found it impossible
to give a literal interpretation to His words, but they were
afraid to ask Him what He meant.
During these journeyings, and probably just before
their arrival at Capernaum, a dispute had arisen among the
disciples, who should be the greatest in the kingdom.
That He was about to reveal Himself as the Messiah and
set up His kingdom, was a belief still firmly rooted in their
minds, ancl which His mysterious words about His death
ancl resurrection seemed only to confirm. They knew that
some great event was approaching ; what should it be but
this long hoped for manifestation of the kingdom, when
David's son should sit on David's throne ? It, therefore,
naturally became now a question of deep personal interest
to those most ambitious among them, who should fiU the
highest places under the new government. Perhaps the
preference shown by Jesus to the three whom He took
with Him upon the mount, and whom He had before spe
cially honored, may have provoked envy and occasioned
this dispute. It was not till after His arrival at Caperna
um that Jesus took notice of it. From Matthew (xviii. l) it
seems that the incident of the tribute money had some con
nection with the strife, as some ofthe disciples coming to
Him immediately after asked Him directly, "Who is the
greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? " ' In the most ex-
1 Greswell (ii. 462) attempts to show that the question in Matthew to Je-

328 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
pressive way, through a little child, He teaches them that
only those like little chUdren, trustful, humble, unambi
tious, could even enter the heavenly kingdom.
The tax demanded of Jesus was the temple tax, which
all Jews were obliged to pay yearly, (Ex. xxx. 13.) • Some,
as Wieseler, (265,) have understood a civil tax, payable to
the Romans ; but against this is the use of " didrachma" for
the tribute, a sum equal to the half shekel, the legal due.
Besides this, the scope of the Lord's reply shows that the
temple tax is meant. As the Son of God, He was exempt
from the payment to which others were bound for the sup
port of ecclesiastical services. Had it been a civil tax, this
reply would not have been so directly to the purpose."
According to the Rabbins this temple tax was due
between the 15th and 25th Adar.3 This would be about the-
time of the Passover. Greswell, however; maintains, upon
the same authority, that it was paid at each of the three
great feasts. We cannot then determine at what period of
the year this demand of the tax gatherer was made. If
payment was legally due at the Passover, still it may not
have actually been demanded till a later period. It may
be that, being regarded as a prophet, up to this time no
tax at all had been demanded of Jesus, and that now, at the
instigation of His enemies, and for the first time, the de
mand was made.4 Some suppose that the Rabbins were
exempt from taxation ; and the question ofthe tax gatherer
seems to show that he had not previously collected it of
the Lord. That he should ask tbe question of Peter, may
be explained from his prominent position as a disciple, or
because, as a resident in the city, he was well known. The

sus was subsequent to His question to the apostles in Mark (ix. 33) and in
Luke, (ix. 46.)
1 Josephus, Antiq., 18. 9. -.
= Meyer ; Winer, ii. 588, note 3 ; Trench, Mir., 299 ; Alford ; Ellicott, 229.
2 See Winer, i. 4. • See Lightfoot in loco.

JESUS AND HIS BRETHREN. 329
inference of Bengel from the fact, that the Lord paid the
tax for Himself and Peter but for none other of the apos
tles, that the others were too young to be taxed, is wholly
improbable and unnecessary. A better basis has the infer
ence of some early commentators, that the honor here
shown to Peter gave edge to the dispute about preeminence.
It is at this period that we put His journey to Jerusa
lem to the feast of Tabernacles recorded by John, (vii. 2-10.)
By many this journey and that mentioned by Luke (ix.
51-53) are regarded as identical. But a careful compari
son shows so many points of difference that it is very diffi
cult to believe them the same. These will be hereafter
examined. For the present it wUl be assumed that the
journeys are distinct.
In what place Je'sus met His brethren, (John vii. 3,)
and whence He departed to the feast, is not certain, but
most probably it was Capernaum.1 His brethren appear
not whoUy as unbelievers, but as those who, recognizing
His works as wonderful, do not understand His course of
conduct. Sharing the common opinions respecting the
Messiah, they felt that if His Messianic claims were well
founded, there could be no general recognition of them so
long as He confined His labors to Galilee, (see vs. 41 and
52.) In advising Him to go and show Himself in Judea,
their motives were friendly rather than evil. They knew
that Jerusalem was the ecclesiastical centre, and that if He
desired to be received by the nation at large, He must first
find reception there. His works in GalUee, however great
they might be, could avail little so long as the priests and
scribes did not give Him their countenance and aid. The
disciples He had already made were men of no reputation.
Their adhesion gave Him no strength, for they were but
Galilean fishermen and publicans, and, with few exceptions,
1 Greswell, ii. 482.

330 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
poor and obscure people. He must then stay no longer in
that remote province, but go up to Jerusalem, and there in
the temple, and before the priests and rulers, do His
works. If once recognized there, He would be every
where received. Had Jesus been such a Messiah as they
supposed was to come, their advice was good. It is plain
that they did not in any true sense believe on Him, but in
a spirit of purely worldly wisdom attempted to guide Him
in His conduct. Their advice was in its nature a tempta
tion like that of the devil, (Matt. iv. 5 ;) a temptation to
reveal Himself before the time, and in a presumptuous way.
To the counsel of His brethren Jesus replies in sub
stance, that His time is not come ; that they were always
sure of a friendly reception from the world, but Him it
must hate, because He testified against it. Go you up to
the feast. I do not go up to it, for my time is not yet
come. Some think to find a contradiction here, since, say
ing " I go not up to this feast," He afterward went.1 One
solution makes Him to have had no intention at this time to
go, but afterward He changed His mind and went. An
other lays weight upon the use of the present tense, " I go
not," which means " I go not now, or yet;" or, as given by
Alford, " I am not at present going up." Another lays
weight upon " this feast," which it is said He did not in
fact attend, except in its last days. StiU another thus de
fines His words : " I go not up with you, or in public with
the company of pilgrims," or " I go not up in such way as
you think or advise." The matter to one who considers
the scope of Christ's reply to His brethren, presents no
real difficulty. They had said : " Go up to this feast and
manifest thyself. Show thyself to the world, and work thy
miracles in Judea." He replied : " My time to manifest
myself is not yet come. I go not up to this feast with such
' For the reading in the received text, " I go not up yet," ou,ra avafiaiva.
Tischendorf has, "I go not up," ovk avafltavw. So Alford, Meyer.

JESUS AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 331
intent. At some subsequent feast I shall manifest myself."
As He had said so He acted, going up to Jerusalem in a
secret way, avoiding aU publicity, nor arriving there till
the feast was partially past. At the following Passover He
acted in substance as His brethren had advised, showing
Himself to tbe world, and entering the holy city as a King,
amid the shouts of the multitude.
The feast of Tabernacles was preceded by the fast of
the Atonement, upon the 10th Tisri, or the 6th October
of this year, tbe feast itself beginning on the 15th Tisri, or
11th October. The Lord probably reached Jerusalem on
the 12th or 13th October. That He had reached the city
earlier, and only now first showed Himself in the temple,
is not implied in the narrative. We know not whether the
apostles waited for Him, or went up at the usual time, but
the latter is more probable. He went " as it were in se
cret," which may imply not only that He went unattended,
but went by some unusual and obscure route. That there
was anything supernatural in His journey, or in His appear
ance in the temple, as some have supposed, does not appear
in the narrative.

llth-18th Oct. 782. a. d. 29.
During the first days of the feast there was much in- John vii. 11-13.
quiry among the people concerning Jesus, and His prob
able appearance at the feast, but no one spake openly
through fear of the Jews. After His arrival at Jerusa- John vii. 14-31
lem, He went into the temple and taught. His enemies
wish to arrest Him but do not, and many people believe
on Him. Upon a subsequent day of the feast the Phar- John vii. 32-53.
isees make an attempt to arrest Him, but it fails, and the
officers they had sent return declaring, "never man
spake like this man.'' Nicodemus makes an useless ef
fort to induce them to act with equity.

332 THE LIFE OP OUE LORD.
Here, as elsewhere in the Gospel of John, a distinction
is to be noted, although not always preserved, between the
" Jews " and the " people." By the former he means the
nation as headed up in its rulers, and represented by them,
and ever hostile to the Lord. Thus he says, (v. 11,) " the
Jews sought Him at the feast, and said, Where is He ? "
Again, (v. 13,) " no man spake openly of Him, for fear of
the Jews." By the latter He means the people, (literaljy
" crowd," " multitude," o^Xos,) regarded as an assemblage
of individuals, amongst whom there were many differences
of opinion, some favorable and some unfavorable to Jesus.
(See v. 12.) A large portion of the crowd on this occasion
was composed of pilgrims to the feast, and these are distin
guished from the citizens of Jerusalem, (v. 25.) But there
was no public expression of opinion in His favor, all His
friends being afraid of the hierarchy. His sudden appear
ance in the temple at so late a period of the feast sur
prised all ; and the power of His speech, not the truths that
He uttered, made His enemies to marvel. It will serve to
the understanding ofthe present narrative to keep in mind
that at the time of the heahng of the impotent man the
Jewish rulers determined, perhaps formally in full Sanhe
drim, to put Him to death, (John v. 16-18 ;) that this de
termination was known to some at least of the citizens of
Jerusalem ; and that Jesus had not, from that time to the
present, entered Judea. He can now, therefore, refer back
to that miracle, and to the purpose to kill Him, as to things
well known to the rulers and to some of the people, although
some ofthe multitude, doubtless the feast pilgrims, (v. 20,)
were ignorant of this purpose. Thus we readily see why
the citizens were surprised that He should be allowed to
speak at all in the temple.
It is not plain when the Pharisees and chief priests
(v. 32) sent officers to take Him. It was perhaps, as said
by Stier, upon the day following His appearance in the

ATTEMPT TO ARREST THE LORD. 333
temple, and before the last day of the feast. Greswell
supposes that for prudential reasons they deferred the at
tempt till the last day. It was plainly an act not of indi
viduals but of the Sanhedrim, which probably was assem
bled specially for tbe purpose. They were induced to take
this step by the great impression his teachings had made
upon the people. But, if the officers were sent before the
last day, they seem to have waited for a more favorable
hour, perhaps fearing to attempt an arrest, and" contented
themselves with watching Him till the conclusion of the
feast. Upon the last day some of the multitude (v. 44)
would have taken Him, but the officers, who had been
greatly moved by His words, made no effort to do so, much
to the vexation of those who had sent them, and to whom
they now made their report.
It is disputed whether " the last great day ofthe feast "
(v. 31) was the seventh or eighth. Most maintain the lat
ter.1 According to the law, (Numb. 29, 35,) upon the eighth
day a solemn assembly should be held and special sacri
fices offered. This day seems to have become in popular
estimation the great day of the feast. Lightfoot, (in loco,)
after stating the Jewish opinions as to the meaning of the
several sacrifices, adds : " On the other seven days they
thought supplications and sacrifices were offered, not so
much for themselves as for the nations of the world ; but
the solemnities of the eighth day were wholly in their own
behalf. They did not reckon the eighth day as included
within the feast, but a festival day, separately and by it
self."2 It is questioned whether the drawing of water, to
which the Lord is supposed to allude, (vs. 37, 38,) and
which took place upon each of the seven days, took place
also upon the eighth.3 But if it did not, as Alford rightly
» So Meyer, Alford, Tholuck, Lichtenstein; contra, Greswell.
3 See Josephus, Antiq., 3. 10. 4.
* See Winer, ii. 8, note 2 ; Alford in loco.

334 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
remarks, it would not exclude a reference to what had
been done on the preceding days. Many, however, main
tain that water was also poured out on the eighth day ; and
that Christ's words were spoken as the priest who bore it
entered the court.1
The haughtiness of the priests and Pharisees, and their
contempt for all not of themselves, are strikingly displayed
in their remarks upon the return of the officers ; and their
rejection of the manifestly just and legal proposition of
Nicodemus, shows that they were bound by no considera
tions of equity. It is possible that others agreed with
Nicodemus, and that there were internal dissensions in the
council.

Oct. 782. a.d. 29.
The Lord spends the night following at the Mount John viii. 1-10.
of Olives, and returning early next morning to tho tem
ple, teaches the people. An adulteress is brought before
Him, whom He directs to go and sin no more. He an
swers the Pharisees from the treasury, and continues
to speak to the people. Many believe on Him, but John viii. 12-59.
others are angry, and take up stones to cast at Him.
As" He goes He meets and heals a, blind man, who had John ix. 1-12.
been blind from birth, and it was the Sabbath. So soon
as this miracle was reported to the Pharisees, they call John ix. 13-34.
him and his parents, and examine him and cast hun out.
He afterward meets Jesus, and believes and worships John ix. 35-38.
Him. Some Pharisees who are present ask Him a ques- JoENix. 39, x. 18.
tion, to which He replies in the parable of the Good
Shepherd. There is great division of sentiment among John x. 19-21.
the Jews in regard to Him.
The exact order of the events given above is not cer
tain. Many critics reject as not genuine the account of the
1 See Tholuck in loco.

JESUS TEACHES IN THE TEMPLE. 335
adulterous woman.1 If this bo rejected, commencing vU.
53, and extending to viu. 12, there seems ground to sup
pose that the words from viii. 12-20, were spoken in the
treasury upon the last clay of the feast, and perhaps also
the subsequent words to v. 59. If it be not rejected, a day
or more must have elapsed. We give the probable order
in either case. The feast began on the 15th Tisri, and
ended on tbe 21st. The eighth day was the 22d, which
was observed as a Sabbath. We cannot tell whether Jesus
appeared in the temple and taught (vii. 14) on the 17th,
18th, or 19th day. According to Wieseler' (309) it was the
18th, which he makes to have been a Sabbath; according
to Greswell (ii. 491) it was the 19th. It may, with equal
probability, have been the 17th. Assuming that the last
great day of the feast was the 22d, an inteiwal of three
or more days must have elapsed. Upon the first of these
days occurred what is narrated in vii. 14-31, or, as some
prefer, in 14-28. The next event mentioned, (v. 32,) the
sending of officers, was probably on the last day, as on this
day they made their report, (v. 45,) though it is possible
that vs. 45-52 described what had occurred earlier. There
are then two or three days of the feast during which Jesus
was present, of which nothing is related. Upon the last
day He speaks of Himself as giving living water (vn. 37-38.)
Whether His words in viii. 12-20 and 21-59, omitting here
the account of the adulterous woman as not genuine, were
all spoken afterward upon the same day, or upon succes
sive days, it is difficult to decide. Some infer from the men
tion ofthe " treasury," v. 20, and the use of "again," v. 21,
that these words were spoken after the eighth day, and
upon different days." Some, on the other hand, making the
healing of tbe blind man (ix. 1-7) to have taken place on
the last day of the feast, which was a Sabbath, refer all His
« So Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Tholuck, Trench.
' So Meyer.

336 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
words (ch. viii.) to this day. The former is most probable,
and fromviii. 21-59 we find but the events of a single day.
Was the blind man healed on this day ? So say many,
bringing the attempt to stone Him and the miracle into
immediate connection.1 But it is more probable that some
interval elapsed." It is not likely that Jesus, when " He hid
Himself and went out of the temple," was accompanied by
His disciples ; yet they were with Him when He saw the
blind man, (ix. 2.) Nor would they in such a moment be
likely to ask speculative questions respecting the cause of
the man's blindness. We conclude then that the Sabbath
upon which the blind man was healed (ix. 14) was not the
eighth day of the feast, but tbe first week Sabbath fol
lowing. If we include the account of the adulterous woman,
this interview with her was the day after the eighth of the
feast, or upon the 23d Tisri. The healing of the blind
man was then upon the Sabbath foUowing. Against this it
is objected that the Lord had no motive to remain in Jeru
salem after the feast was ended, and that the narrative im
plies that the feast pilgrims were still present.3 But on the
other side, the mention that it was the Sabbath, (ix. 14,)
implies that it was another day, and therefore so distin
guished ; and the Lord may, for special reasons, have re
mained after most of the pilgrims had gone.
The effect of Christ's words (vtii. 21-29) was such, that
" many believed on Him." It is questioned whether these
believers are meant, (v. 33,) and whether to them, in com
mon with others, are addressed the subsequent words, (34-
38.) " The Lord mingles them indiscriminately in the gen
eral mass of the people, in spite of the transient and indis
tinct impulse of faith." ' But it seems more probable that
He speaks to the Jews generally, and does not include
1 Meyer, Luthardt, Trench. » See Alford in loco.
' So Lichtenstein, 299. * Stier ; so Alfo.

THE POOL OP SILOAM. 337
them; for how could those in any sense be said to be
lieve on Him to whom He immediately addresses the re
proach, "Ye seek to kill me because my word hath no place
in you." The attempt to stone Him was the fruit of sudden rage.
It is denied by many, as Meyer and Alford, that the Lord's
escape from their violence involved anything supernatural.
The language may be construed either way ; but, as said by
Winer,1 the supernatural interpretation is to be preferred
as more correspondent with the character of this Evan
gelist. Tholuck does not find the intimation of a miracle
in the strict sense ofthe word, but of a special providence.
The position of the pool of SUoam, where the btind man
was sent to wash, has been much disputed, but most mod
ern writers agree that it lies at the mouth of the valley of
the Tyropoeon, near the base of Ophel." The waters of this
pool come from the fountain of the Virgin, which ties on
the west side of the valley of Jehosaphat, through a sub
terranean passage cut in the rock. It is a current betief
that the water of the fountain comes from a living spring
beneath the temple. Barclay, (523,) however, asserts that
the subterraneous canal derived its former supply of water,
not from Moriah, but from Zion.3 It is still in dispute
whether any of the water of SUoam comes from the.
temple. The effect of this miracle was to make a division among -
the Pharisees. Some said that it was a violation of the •
law, being done on the Sabbath ; others, that no sinner
could do such miracles. At first there was a general dis
position to doubt the reatity of the miracle. As this, how- •
ever, is established by the testimony of his parents, they
revile the man, and cast him out. This may refer to his
Gram., 264 ; see Bengel in loco. » Bobinson, i. 333 ; Baumer, 296.
* See Bobinson, i. 343 ; Porter, i. 138.
15

338 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
being thrust from the room where they were assembled,1
or to the sentence of excommunication." Some suppose
that he was now before the great Sanhedrim ; others, that
he was before the lesser ; others still, that he was not
before any judicial tribunal, but before some of the chief
Pharisees informally assembled. From the manner of the
examination, and their action at its close, it is most prob
able that they were clothed with some ecclesiastical au
thority. How soon after the blind man was cast out the Lord
met him, is not stated. Not improbably, He may have met
him the same day toward evening. The words (v. 39) seem
to be addressed to the disciples, and probably after His
meeting with the blind man, and the words to the Phari
sees immediately foUowed. The effect of these words was
again to work a division of opinion respecting Him, some
saying that He had a devil, others, that neither His words
nor works were those of a man who had a devil.
From Jerusalem the Lord returns to GalUee. Of His
return the Evangelist gives us no information. Many sup
pose that He did not return to Galilee at all, but spent the
interval between the feasts of Tabernacles and of Dedication
at Jerusalem or in its vicinity.3 Some suppose a return to
Galilee after the latter feast. It has been assumed that
the journey to the feast of Tabernacles (John vii. 10) is not
identical with that in Luke ix. 51, but that the latter was
subsequent. A full discussion of the point is reserved to
the Part following.
1 Meyer, Lichtenstein. 2 Alford. Trench embraces both.
= So Meyer, Alford, Tholuck, Bobinson, Tischendorf.

PAET V.
THE LAST JOURNEY FROM GALILEE, AND THE ARRIVAL AT
BETHANY. NOV. 782, TO APRIL, 783. A. D. 29, 30.

Upon the Lord's Last Journey from Galilee.
If the views that have already been presented in regard
to the divisions of the Lord's ministry are correct, we are
in a position to judge rightly the statements of the Evan
gelists respecting the period that intervened between the
departure from Gahlee and the commencement of Passion
Week, a period of about five months. In GalUee the Lord
bad accomplished His work. He had gathered about Him
a considerable body of disciples, (1 Cor. xv. 6,) who saw in
Him, witb more or less clearness of vision, the Christ of
the prophets, and Son of the living God ; and there was
also a much larger number, who, unable to see in Him the
Messiah of their hopes, still believed that He was a prophet
sent from God, and heard His words with reverence. Be
sides, there must have been very many in all parts of the
land, who had seen His works, and been more or less im
pressed by them, and yet had not felt the power of the
truths He taught. His labors bad by no means been in
vain, although, as set forth in His own parable, but i:++1"

340 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
of the seed He had so dUigently sown, feU into good
ground. There are two circumstances that seem to have marked,
if not determined, the conclusion of the Galilean ministry ;
first, that the apostles, not to speak of other disciples, had
learned the mystery of the Lord's person as the Son of
God, divine and human ; second, that the machinations of
His enemies at Jerusalem were arousing great hostiUty
against Him in Gahlee, and making the further prosecution
of His labors there fuU of difficulty and danger. Both of
these points demand attention.
It needs no argument to show that the Lord's ministry
must primarily aim at the recognition, on the part of His
disciples, of the great fact that in His person " God was
manifest in flesh." Until they were able to rise above the
ordinary Jewish conceptions of the Messiah, and to see in
Him the Son of God, He could open to them but little of
the divine purpose. He could say nothing to them in dis
tinct terms of His death, resurrection, and ascension. He
must continue with them in person ttil, through their com
munion with Him, they should learn who He was, and
what His relations to the Father. And, as we have seen,
when Peter, in the name of aU the apostles, made the con
fession that He was "the Christ, the Son ofthe living God,"
He for the first time announced to them His approaching
death, (Matt. xvi. 21.) This announcement it was stUl very
hard for them to understand, and perhaps the more that
they now knew Him to be the Son of God, for what had
death to do with Him ? But, however imperfectly held,
the germ of this great truth of His divinity was in their
hearts, and they were now in a state to receive those teach
ings of Jesus which had reference to a heavenly kingdom,
and implied His divine nature. Thus the foundation was
laid of that high knowledge of God's purpose in Him,
which they needed in their subsequent work, and for which

JESUS REJECTED BT THE GALILEANS. 341
they were further prepared, first by the teachings of the
Lord Himself after His resurrection, and then by the de
scent of the Spirit at Pentecost.
Thus we see that the recognition on the part of His
disciples of His divine Sonship, and the consequent an
nouncement to them of His approaching death, mark the
end of His Galilean ministry. Yet a Uttle time must elapse,
that these truths might get more firmly rooted in their
faith, ere the terrible hour of His sufferings should come.
That, as His disciples grew in knowledge and love, the
darkness and bitterness of His enemies should increase,
was but what Jesus Himself had foretold. All who loved
the light gathered around Him, the true tight. His words
were the test by which the thoughts of all hearts were re
vealed ; and as His ministry was prolonged, and the truths
He taught were more distinctly apprehended, the line of
separation between His friends and His enemies became
more and more marked. His popularity among the people
seems to have been at its height about the time of the Bap
tist's death. Immediately after the feeding of the five
thousand, many wished to take Him by force and make
Him a king. But the nature of His teachings soon repelled
not a few who had been counted among His disciples,
(John vi. 66 ;) and the Pharisees at Capernaum, and else
where in Galilee, became daUy more open and virulent in
their opposition. GraduaUy the great crowds, that at first
thronged around Him, diminished ; the novelty of His first
appearance passed away ; His caUs to repentance were by
most disregarded ; His miracles, wonderful as they were,
were not of a kind to satisfy the populace that He was the
expected Messiah ; His enemies were active and unscrupu
lous in representing Him as a blasphemer ; His nearest and
most trusted disciples were uninfluential and obscure men,
publicans, fishermen, and the like. It is not, therefore, in
itself at all strange that there was not in GalUee at the end

342 THE LTFE OF OUE LOED.
of His ministry any general belief in His Messianic claims.
Outside of the circle of the disciples He was regarded by
many as a prophet, but not as the Messiah, (Matt. xvi. 14 ;
compare also xxi. 11.) The great body of the GalUeans
turned away from Him. Against those cities which He
had often visited, and where He had wrought His mightiest
works, He pronounced a fearful judgment. Thus in GalUee
as in Judea, Jesus was despised and rejected of men.
But the Lord did not yet forsake His people. He will
make one more, and a final appeal. Up to this time He
had not openly and expressly declared Himself to be the
Messiah, either in Judea or in Galilee. He left the Jews
to judge for themselves, from His teachings and His works,
who He was. But they did not for tbe most part discern
Him. Their preoonceived opinions of the Messiah prevented
them from recognizing Him in the obscure, humble, peace
ful Gahlean, mighty as were His miracles, and subUme as
were His teachings. Yet, while thus not answering to the
popular apprehensions of the Messiah, He seemed in His
discourses to claim higher rank and power than even the
Messiah could claim ; a mysterious relationship to God
which was blasphemous. Thus, on the one side, His sUence
respecting His Messiahship caused many, who were aston
ished at His works and words, to look upon Him only as a
prophet ; and on the other, His repeated allusions to His
divine Sonship drew upon Him the enmity of many as a
blasphemer. But while it was the wUl of God that His people should
be left at first to recognize His Son by His words and
works, yet He wiUed also that there should be borne clear
and full testimony to His Messianic character, that all might
be without excuse. Such testimony John the Baptist had
borne, and to this was now added that of all His disciples,
who in the very fact of their discipleship proclaimed Him
to be the Messiah. He had not indeed permitted the apos-

JESUS PRECEDED BV THE SEVENTY. 343
ties to proclaim Him by name, (Matt. xvi. 20,) because He
then for their sake avoided pubUcity. But the time had
now come when His Messianic character must be pubUcly
asserted, that the whole nation might know that He was
the Christ, the Son of David, the King of Israel ; and if re
jected, He must be rejected as such. The people should
not be left in doubt whether He asserted Himself to be
more tban a simple prophet, or, like the Baptist, a forerun
ner of the Messiah. He will go up to Jerusalem ; for if it
cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem, how much
more is this true of the Son of God ; and He wUl go with
every circumstance of pubUcity, to be received or finaUy
rejected by those whom God had set to be the heads of
the people. It must be a national act, and cannot be done
in ignorance. In Judea, He had testified of Himself as the
Son of God, but in vain. Now He will return thither, and
His disciples shall bear witness to Him, if perchance the
nation wiU hear them. To this end His messengers shaU
go before Him into every place where He designed to go,
and announce the kingdom of God at hand in the person
ofthe King.
Here, then, we find the grand peculiarity of the Lord's
last journey to Jerusalem. As He knew, and had declared
to His apostles, He went up to die ; but to the Jewish peo
ple the issue of His journey was not known, and the secret
purpose of God did not hinder this last appeal to them to
repent and receive their Lord.
It is thus the mission of the Seventy, who were sent
" two and two before His face into every city and place
whither He Himself would come," that gives to this last
journey its distinctive character. Going before Him, they
announced that He was about to foUow them on His way
to Jerusalem, and thus prepared all who heard them to see
in Him, not a mere prophet, the risen John, or Elijah, or
any other ; but the Christ. They were His heralds or fore-

344 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
runners, and their work was to announce His approach, and
to prepare His way.
This large deputation, seventy in number, thus preced
ing Him, must of necessity have given great publicity to aU
the Lord's movements, and gathered crowds around Him
in the various places He visited. As they were to confirm
their message by healing the sick, this also would excite
general interest and attention. It necessarily foUows that
He pursued some fixed order in the journey, going only
where His messengers had preceded Him, and where they
had found reception. As they were to go two and two, it
follows also that the visitation of these cities must have
occupied considerable time on His part, and that the jour
ney may have been very circuitous, though always having
Jerusalem as its goal. Being the last journey, and so the
last opportunity to address those whom He met, His teach
ings would adapt themselves to the time ; and the purpose
for which He sought pubUc attention through His heralds,
would naturally give, a peculiarly Messianic character to aU
His discourses. This fact would also arouse, in a marked
degree, the jealousy of His enemies, who would not fail to
see in His conduct fresh proof of His ambition, and new
grounds of fear. Thus the Lord would be brought more
and more into collision with them, and His reproofs become
more severe as they displayed more openly their hate.
How far the last journey from Galilee is marked by
these characteristics, we shall see, when we come to the
examination of the several evangehc narratives. It wtil
not, however, be questioned by any one who attentively
examines them, and especially that of Luke, whieh is most
full, that He was attended by multitudes ; that He came
very often into collision with the Pharisees ; that His re
proofs of their hypocrisy were very severe ; that His teach
ings to the people made prominent the need of self-denial
on the part of those who would become His disciples ; that

THE FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE. 345
His parables taught very clearly the approaching rejection
of the Jews, the appointment of new stewards, His depart
ure to His Father, and His return in glory ; and that He
aimed to keep His approaching death clearly before the
eyes ofthe apostles.
If the character ofthe Lord's last journey to Jerusalem
be correctly stated, it is apparent that to the mission ofthe
Seventy a much greater importance must be given than
has usually been done by commentators and harmonists.
Perhaps the fact that Luke alone mentions this mission, has
led many to think it unimportant. But when we read the
terms of their commission, and remember that it has had
no other fulfilment than that here recorded, that there has
never been, so far as we know, any body of men since to
perform such a work ;' we cannot believe that their duty
was trivial, and its results insignificant. The labors of the
Seventy must have been of an importance corresponding
with the breadth and dignity of their commission, and have
exerted a powerful influence upon the people in this last
stage ofthe Lord's ministry.

Nov. 782. a. d. 29.
The time when He should be received up approach
ing, the Lord prepares to go to Jerusalem. He sends Luke ix Gl-66.
messengers before Him, who, entering into a Samaritan
village, are rejected by the inhabitants. He reproves
His angry disciples James and John, and departs to
another village. He replies to one who proposes to Luke ix. 61, 62.
follow Him. He now sends out seventy of His dis- Luke x. 1-24.
ciples, to go two and two into every city and place
where He Himself would come. They depart, and re-
' Some, indeed, have affirmed, that as bishops answer to apostles, so do
presbyters to the Seventy ; but this view has found no general reception.
15*

346 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
turn from time to time as they fulfil their commission. Matt. xix. 1, 2.
He follows in their steps, journeying through Perea to- Mabk x. 1.
ward Jerusalem.
To reconcile the various statements of the Evangelists
respecting the Lord's final departure from Gahlee, and the
course of His journeys till He reaches Bethany, six days
before the Passover, is one of the most difficult tasks that
meet the harmonist. That we may see clearly the points
of difference, it wUl be weU to consider, first, the state
ments of each Evangelist separately ; and as John gives us
the most distinct notices of time, we begin with his account.
Jesus goes up, " not openly, but as it were in secret,"
to the feast of Tabernacles, (vii. 1-14,) and continues at
Jerusalem till the end of the feast, and perhaps longer, (vii.
14 — x. 21.) He is present in the temple at the feast of Ded
ication, (x. 22-39.) He goes from Jerusalem beyond Jor
dan, and abides there and teaches, (x. 40-42.) He returns
to Bethany, near Jerusalem, at the request of Mary and
Martha, and raises Lazarus from the dead, (xi. 1-46.) He
retires from Bethany to Ephraim to escape His enemies,
and " there continued with His disciples," (xi. 54.) He
leaves Ephraim, and reaches Bethany six days before the
Passover, (xii, 1.) It thus appears that John does not
mention any return to Galilee after Jesus left it for the
feast of Tabernacles. Still, his narrative does not exclude
it. If such a return took place, it may have been in the
interval from Tabernacles to Dedication, a period of about
two months, of which he gives no account ; or it may have
been after Dedication, and before the return to Bethany for
the raising of Lazarus ; or after tbe sojourn at Ephraim,
and before the last arrival at Bethany.
In Matthew we find but a very brief mention of the
departure from Galilee, (xix. 1, 2 :) "And it came to pass
that when Jesus had finished these sayings, He departed
from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea beyond

THE FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE. 347
Jordan: and great multitudes followed Him, and He
healed them there." The language of Mark (x. 1) is very
simUar : " And He arose from thence, and cometh into the
coasts of Judea by the farther side of Jordan ; and the
people resort unto Him again, and as He was wont He
taught them again." ' The direction of this journey is plain.
Leaving GalUee, Jesus crosses the Jordan, and passing
southward through Perea, thus comes to the borders of
Judea, probably near Jericho. That the place of depart
ure was Gahlee, appears from its express mention by Mat
thew, and also from the "thence" in Mark, which obvi
ously refers to Capernaum, mentioned ix. 33." That this
was the final departure, appears from the fact that no other
is mentioned after it. Indeed, it is the only departure
mentioned by them.
In Luke (ix. 51) we find mention made of a journey,
which, upon the face of it, seems to have been the last to
Jerusalem. " And it came to pass,' when the time was
come that He should be received up, He steadfastly set His
face to go to Jerusalem." That reference is here made to
His ascension into heaven, ttjs avaXrji^ews auro-u, admits of no
reasonable doubt.3 We cannot, from the phrase, " when
the time was come," ev tco avpv7rXrjpovo-9ai ras r/fnepas, infer
that the ascension was immediately at hand. It is well
translated by Norton : "When the time was near for His
being received into heaven." The end of His earthly ca
reer, His death, His resurrection, and His ascension, were

1 For the Sia toi; rrepav rov lopSavov, Tischendorf has Kai irepav rou
lopSavov. So Alford, Meyer.
' Meyer, Alexander.
a So Meyer, Robinson, Lichtenstein, Alford. The view of Wieseler, (324,)
followed by Lange, that His being received up, refers to His favorable recep
tion by the Galileans ; and that the meaning of the passage is, when He no
longer found Himself received in Galilee, He left that province and went up
to Jerusalem to labor there, is very arbitrary, and finds no general sup
port.

348 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
now constantly before Him. " He steadfastly set His face
to go to Jerusalem." This was the goal of His journey.
If He visited other cities, it was only transiently, and on
His way thither. And the great object of His journey, as
revealed unto Himself, was not to teach in the temple, or
be present at a feast, but to finish His work, to die, and
then ascend to God.
These words, then, seem plainly to refer to a final de
parture from Galilee. They are inconsistent with the sup
position that the Lord returned again, to resume His labors,
after a brief visit at Jerusalem. But here great difficulties
meet us. Is all that Luke narrates, from ix. 51 to xviii. 15,
when his narrative meets those of Matthew and Mark, an
account of one and the same journey to Jerusalem ? This
seems to be so, because there is no mention of any other
departure from Galilee, and Jerusalem is everywhere men-
tioned as the goal toward which His steps are steadily
directed. It is said, in the only distinct notices of His
movements during this period, (xiii. 22,) that " He went
through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying
toward Jerusalem." Again, (xvii. 11 :) "And it came to
pass, as He went to Jerusalem, that He passed through the
midst of Samaria and Galilee." This express mention of
the fact that He was going to Jerusalem, taken in connec
tion with the earlier statement, (ix. 51,) that " He stead
fastly set His face to go to Jerusalem," strongly implies
that the same journey is meant. If this be so, it is plain
that the Evangehst does not follow a chronological order,
as, early in the narrative, (x. 38,) He enters the village of
Martha and Mary, which we know was Bethany, in Judea,
and very near to Jerusalem.1 StiU later in the narrative,
» The elaborate dissertation of Greswell, (ii. 545,) to show that this'was
not Betbany, but some village of Galilee not named, is far from convincing.
The main argument is drawn from a " singular idiom in St. John, affecting
the use of the prepositions mro and c( ; " but the distinction taken is not
generally recognized. See Meyer in loco ; Winer, Gram. 326, note 1.

THE LAST JOURNEY AS NARRATED BY LUKE. 349
(xvii. 11,) the Lord appears passing through the midst, or
along the border tine, of Samaria and GalUee. These local
notices show that two or three distinct journeys are em
braced ; or that if one only be meant, and that continuous
from Galilee to Jerusalem, the Evangelist arranges its
events -by another order than that of time. Both these
suppositions have their advocates, and we wUl consider,
briefly, each of them.
First. Does Luke here include several distinct journeys ?
Many harmonists find three, but are not wholly agreed as
to the way in which these several journeys of Luke should
be connected with those mentioned by the other Evange
lists. The first of these is, according to some, that men
tioned in ix. 51 to the feast of Tabernacles, whose starting
point was GalUee, and the same mentioned in John vii. 10.
The second is that mentioned in xtii. 22, when He went up
some two months later to the feast of Dedication, whose
starting point was Perea, and to be placed in John x. be
tween vs. 21, 22. The third is that mentioned in xvii. 11,
when He went up to the last Passover, whose starting
point was Ephraim, (John xi. 54.) Wieseler (321) makes
Luke ix. 51 identical with John vii. 10 ; Luke xiii. 22, with
John xi. 1-17 ; and Luke xvti. 11, with the last journey to
the Passover, beginning at Ephraim, John xii. 1, and
referred to by Matt. xix. 1, Mark x. 1. Krafft (107) iden
tifies Luke ix. 51 with John vn. 10. After the feast of Tab
ernacles, Jesus sends out the Seventy from Jerusalem, and
follows them Himself, in a circuit through GaUlee and back
to Jerusalem, before the feast of Dedication. To this cir
cuit the notices in Luke xiii. 22 and xvii. 11 refer. To
Luke xvU. 11, correspond Matt. xix. 1 and Mark x. 1. Rob
inson (Har. 198) also identifies Luke ix. 51 with John vu.
10, but refers aU, from xiii. 22 — xix. 1, to the last Passover
journey, beginning at Ephraim, and to this journey refers
Matt. xix. 1, and Mark x. 1.

350 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
As we see, all of these suppositions identify Luke ix.
51 and John vU. 10. But this is at best very doubtful.
Let us note some of the points of difference : 1st, In Luke,
Jesus leaves GalUee for the last time, going to Jerusalem
to suffer. In John, He goes thither to a feast, some six
months before His death. 2d, In Luke, He goes with an
unusual degree of pubUcity, accompanied by the apostles,
and sending messengers before Him to make ready for Him.
In John, He " went up unto the feast, not openly, but as it
were in secret." 3d, In Luke, He goes slowly, and appar
ently made a wide circuit, passing through many vUlages.
In John, He goes rapidly and directly, not leaving GalUee
till His brethren had gone, nor showing Himself in Jerusa
lem till " about the midst of the feast." The only impor
tant argument in favor of their identity is, that according
to Luke, Jesus proposed to go through Samaria, which is
supposed to explain John's statement that He went up " as
it were in secret." It is said that tbe common route was
through Perea on the east side of Jordan, and He therefore
went on the west side, through Samaria.1 But Josephus3
says expressly, that it was the custom of the Galileans to
pass through Samaria on the way to the feasts. No infer
ence, therefore, that this was a secret journey, can be drawn
from this fact. We conclude, then, that Luke and John
refer to different journeys.3
If not the journey to the feast of Tabernacles, to what
subsequent journey mentioned by John does Luke refer ?
Was it to the feast of Dedication, a few weeks later ?
(John x. 22.) As nothing is said by John of any return
to Galilee after the feast of Tabernacles, it is inferred by
many4 that He must have remained tiU Dedication at
' Wieseler, 320. ' Antiq., 20. 6. 1.
3 So Meyer, Alford, De Wette, Eiggenbach, Greswell, Neander, Baum
garten. • Robinson, Meyer, Alford. The latter, however, expresses himself doubt-
ingly

THE LAST JOURNEY AS NARRATED BY LUKE. 351
Jerusalem, or in its vicinity. But this sUence respecting a
return to GaUlee by no means shows that none took place.
The Evangelist is not giving a chronological outline of
events, but the Lord's discourses, and adds only those his
torical facts that are necessary to explain them.1 It is said
again, that at the feast of Dedication (John x. 26) He al
ludes to His words spoken at an earlier period, (x. 1-5,)
from which it is inferred that no long interval could have
elapsed, and that His auditors must have been in both
cases the same." But two months is not so long an inter
val that His words could have been forgotten, especially if
He had immediately after left the city; and His auditors at
both feasts were in part the inhabitants of Jerusalem.3
There seems, then, no need to suppose that His discourse
respecting the sheep (x. 1-18) was spoken just before the
feast of Dedication, and that He had therefore continued at
Jerusalem since Tabernacles.
Against the supposition that He spent this interval in
Jerusalem or in Judea, is the statement (John vU. 1) that
" He would not walk in Jewry because the Jews sought to
kill Him." The hatred of the Jews did not permit Him to
remain in Judea to teach ; and on this ground He appears
to have passed by several of the feasts. It is highly im
probable, then, that after the reception He had met at the
feast of Tabernacles, when a formal attempt was made to
arrest Him, and the populace had taken up stones to stone
Him, He should have remained in Judea tUl the next feast,
exposed to their machinations.4
Again, the Lord carried on no public work in Judea
after He left it to begin His Gahlean ministry. So far as
we learn, He had not yet entered it for any purpose since
the feast, (John v. 1.) That He had not been into Judea
and manifested Himself there, was the basis of the com-
¦ Riggenbach, 421. * Stier, v. 4S5 ; Meyer.
s See Luthardt in loco • Luthardt, ii. 74; Lichtenstein, 299.

352 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
plaints of His brethren, (vn. 3, 4.) He did indeed teach
the people at the feasts of Tabernacles and of Dedication,
but, so far as appears, only in the temple. If, then, Judea
was not now the scene of His labors, and nothing is said of
any work now done in Perea, we conclude that He re
turned to Galilee, where His work was not yet fuUy ended.
If, then, Jesus returned to GalUee after the feast of
Tabernacles, and the journey of Luke (ix. 51) was subse
quent to this feast, can we identify it as the journey to the
feast of Dedication ? But before this point can be consid
ered, it wtil be necessary to examine what is said of the mis
sion ofthe Seventy, (Luke x. 1-17,) in its bearings upon the
Lord's own labors during this last journey.
We are told that, " After these things the Lord ap
pointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two
before His face into every city and place, whither He Him
self would come." This plainly shows that they were to
act as His forerunners or heralds upon the journey He was
about to undertake ; and this journey can be no other than
that mentioned, (ix. 51,) or His last journey from GalUee.
It shows, also, that the route was determined upon ; for
where He designed to come, they should precede Him, and
whither they went and found reception, there He should
foUow them. Thus their movements were arranged with
reference to His. As they were to go two and two, they
could easily in a short time visit a large number of cities.
If each couple visited but one, this would make thirty-five,
and it therefore foUows that His journey, foUowing on their
Steps, must have occupied a considerable period of time.
The end for which this large deputation was sent forth,
was, as expressed in their commission, to heal the sick, and
to proclaim the kingdom of God at hand ; and thus prepare
the way for the Lord, who was to foUow them. But what
was the significance of this proclamation ? Was it merely
a repetition of what had been preached by John the Baptist,

MEANING OF THE MISSION OP THE SEVENTY. 353
by the Lord, and by the apostles ? Did it not rather de
rive a peculiar character from the relations in which the
mission stood to the Lord's subsequent journey ? They
were not to go to every part of the land, but only to those
cities " where He Himself would come." We may, there
fore, weU infer that they did not merely announce in gen
eral terms the Messianic kingdom, but made specific men
tion of Jesus, who was to follow them, as the Messiah.
" They were only to give notice that the Messiah was com
ing, and that in those places only to which He was to
come." ' It was not merely the proclamation of the king
dom, but also the proclamation of the King. Jesus was
Boon to follow on His way to Jerusalem, and thus the eyes
of all were turned to Him, not as a great Teacher, or
Prophet, but as the long promised Son of David and Re
deemer of Israel.
Some, however, have questioned whether this sending.
of the Seventy can be brought into immediate chronologi
cal connection with the journjy of Luke, (ix. 51.) It is
said that the latter refers to His journey to the feast of
Tabernacles, and that the Seventy were not sent till after
His return from this feast to GalUee. But this is wholly
untenable. We cannot suppose that after the Evangelist
had said in so emphatic a' manner, that He steadfastly set
His face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before
Him, he should pass over in entire silence its further prose
cution, His arrival at Jerusalem, and His return to Galilee,.
and then, without the least hint of it, begin tbe recital of
another journey. We conclude, then, that the sending of
the Seventy was very soon after the rejection of the mes
sengers whom He had sent into Samaria.
t We may now ask what light this mission easts upon
the direction and time of the Lord's last journey. And
1 Lightfoot in loco.

354 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
first, as to its direction. Where were the Seventy sent ?
Some say to Samaria.1 This destination has some support
in the fact that they, unlike the Twelve, were not forbidden
to enter Samaria and the heathen cities ; and also that the
number seventy may have had some symbolic reference to
the heathen nations. But it is, nevertheless, intrinsically
improbable. It was to give the largest publicity to His
own Messianic claims that Jesus now sent them forth.
They were simply to announce the kingdom of God at hand,
and thus the very nature of their mission limited it to those
who were already familiar with the ideas which that an
nouncement involved. Besides, He had been already re
jected in Samaria by the rejection of His former messen
gers, (Luke ix. 53,) whose office it was not, indeed, to
preach or to heal, but who had preceded Him, as servants pre
cede a prince, to see that all is ready for His fitting reception.
Did He send them into Judea ? This is in itself very
probable. Although for a considerable period He had not
walked in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kUl Him, yet '
this would not prevent Him from now sending to that
province His messengers, that perchance it might yet re
pent. If His life had been repeatedly threatened at Jeru
salem, still other cities might be more favorably disposed,
:and through the proclamations of His heralds, the way be
prepared for Himself. The number seventy, also, seems
to have some symbolio reference to the seventy elders of
.Israel, (Ex. xxiv. 9 ; Num. xi. 24,) implying a general visi
tation. Still, it is not said by any of the Evangelists that
He visited any part of Judea except that lying between '
the Jordan and Jerusalem. It may be that His purpose at
first was to enter Judea by Samaria, but being rejected
upon the border, He journeyed into Perea, designing thus
to enter it ; but His Ufe being endangered when He reached
1 Wieseler, 326, note 1 ; Lange.

WHITHER THE SEVENTY WERE SENT. 355
Jerusalem, He turned back again to Perea. In the ab
sence of all definite statements, great uncertainty rests upon
the point whether any of the Seventy actuaUy visited
Judea ; and if they did so, what reception they met, and
whether they were foUowed by the Lord.
Did He send them into GalUee ? This is possible, if we
suppose Him to have sent them from Capernaum, and in
such direction that, in following them, He should be going
toward Jerusalem. Most parts of Galilee, however, He had
doubtless already visited, and that He did not design to visit
them again may be inferred from the woes He pronounced
upon Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, (Luke x. 13-
15 ;) nor is there mention made of any GalUean vUlage.
That the chief scene of the labors of the Seventy was
in Perea, is apparent.1 This province was under the juris
diction of Herod, and here was offered them the same free
dom of action that Jesus had had up to this time in GalUee.
It was also a part of the country that He had but Uttle visit
ed, and the road along the Jordan was a much-travelled
thoroughfare to Jerusalem.
The names of none of the cities visited by the Seventy,
and afterward by the Lord, are given, and we cannot there
fore tell how wide a circuit He may have taken. It is
probable that they were sent to the larger towns, perhaps
to those lying nearest the ordinary route to Jerusalem.
' Second. When were the Seventy sent ? Many, identi
fying Luke ix. 51 and John vU. 10, say, just before the feast
of Tabernacles, and before Jesus had left GaUlee.3 Others,
after He had left Galilee and while on His way to Jerusa
lem to this feast.3 But, as we have seen, the character of
that journey to tbe feast of Tabernacles forbids that He
could have been preceded by such a deputation; some,
1 So Lichtenstein, Robinson.
» Newcome, Townsend, Robinson, Strong.
'» Lightfoot Friedlieb, Wieseler.

356 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
therefore, would make them to have been sent from Jeru
salem, or from Judea, soon after the feast of Tabernacles,
and before that of Dedication. But this implies that the
interval between tbe feasts was spent in Judea, which is
untenable ; nor is it at aU consistent with the object of the
mission that the Lord should follow them away from Jeru
salem. Many, who make Him to have returned to Galilee
after the feast of Tabernacles, place the sending before the
following feast of Dedication, and while He was on the
way to Jerusalem through Perea.1 This period has much
in its favor. The last journey was through Perea, (Matt.
xix. 1 ; Mark x. 1.) He was attended by great multitudes,
(Matt. xix. 2 ; Luke xti. 1.) He resumed there the work
of teaching the people, which for a time He had suspended,
(Mark x. 1.) He goes not directly forward, but in a circuit
through cities and viUages, yet always making progress
toward Jerusalem, (Luke xiii. 22.) Reaching the borders
of Judea as the time came to celebrate the feast of Dedica
tion, He goes up to Jerusalem. His appearance there
seems to have been unexpected, perhaps from the fact that
it was winter, when few journeyed from a distance ; but the
rumor that He was now 'more openly presenting His Mes
sianic claims through the mission of the Seventy, had ap
parently reached the Jews, for they immediately demand
of Him that He should tell them plainly whether He is the
Christ. They would learn it from His own lips. Forced
to flee from their wrath, He recrosses the Jordan, and in
that part of the district of Perea, where John at first bap
tized, He took up His abode. As many had followed Him
upon His journey, so many resorted to Him here, tUl He
was caUed to Bethany, near Jerusalem, by the death of Laz
arus. After the resurrection of Lazarus, He is compeUed
to hide Himself at Ephraim tUl the Passover came. Thus
1 Tischendorf, Lichtenstein, Neander, Alford, Milman, Oosterzee, Riggen-
bach.

TIME WHEN THE SEVENTY WERE SENT. 357
this last journey was not whoUy continuous. It was inter
rupted by a period after the Dedication" spent in Perea
which, however, seems to have been a period of activity,
and later by a sojourn at Ephraim, where He apparently
devoted Himself wholly to His disciples. But leaving
Ephraim as the pilgrims begin to gather to attend the Pass
over, He joins them in the neighborhood of the Jordan,
and the journey ends with the same publicity with which it
began. Attended by the multitude, He enters Jericho,
and from hence He goes to Jerusalem in triumphal pro
cession. Thus the last journey of the Lord preserves
its uniformity of character, from the commencement to the
close. Some, however, would place this journey after the feast
of Dedication. But when, after this feast, did Jesus return
to Galilee ? Was it when, the Jews having sought to take
Him, He escaped out of their hand ? (John x. 39.) ' When,
however, we consider how continuously the narrative pro
ceeds, there is no place for a return to GaUlee. The Evan
gelist says : " He escaped out of their hand, and went away
again beyond Jordan, into tbe place where John at first
baptized, and there He abode." To insert between this
escape and the departure beyond Jordan, a journey to Gal
Uee and a return, is very arbitrary ; and the more, that the
syntax suggests immediate chronological sequence, the verb,
v. 40, finding its subject in v. 39. It was not from GalUee
that He went away beyond Jordan, but from Jerusalem,
so far as appears from the narrative. Beyond Jordan He
abides, till summoned by the sisters of Lazarus to Bethany.
Immediately after the miracle there He retires to Ephraim.
Can we, then, place this last journey after the sojourn in
Ephraim, as is done by Greswell ? We are told that "He
there continued with His disciples," (John xi. 54.) The
1 Stier, Baumgarten.

358 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
retirement of Jesus thither being to escape the notice of
the chief priests and Pharisees, who had determined to put
Him to death, (vs. 47-54,) and who " had given a com
mandment that, if " any man knew where He were, he
should show it, that they might take Him," there is a strong
improbability that He would attract pubtic attention to
Himself by making excursions to teach, or to heal. While
nothing is said of the nature of the Lord's labors in Ephra
im, the mention of the fact that He continued there with
His disciples, intimates that to them was His time devoted.
It is not distinctly said when He left Ephraim for Jerusa
lem, but the impression made by the narrative, is that it
was a very short time before the Passover. Of the route,
the Evangelist says nothing, except that six days before
the Passover He came to Bethany, (xii. 1.) If, however,
He went first to Galilee, and then, sending out the Seventy,
awaited their return, and followed upon their steps through
Perea to Jericho and Bethany, He must have left Ephraim
a considerable time before the Passover. Greswell (ii. 529)
finds in this no difficulty, as he supposes Him to have
reached that city about the end of December, and to have
remained there a month, or to the end of January. Two
months would thus remain for the, last journey.1
Against this attempt to show that the Lord went from
Ephraim back to Galilee, the language of Luke (ix. 51-53)
forms a strong objection. The Samaritans " did not receive
Him because His face was as though He would go to Jeru
salem." The answer, that this does not refer to the direc
tion of His journey, but to His purpose in undertaking it,
is forced and unsatisfactory. It is plain that He was in
Galilee when He sent messengers to the Samaritan village.
He must, then, previously have left Ephraim, and gone
into Galilee, of which journey nothing is said. This is not
1 See also Robinson, Har. 202.

THE JOURNEY FROM EPHRAIM TO BETHANY. 359
impossible, but it does not find any support in John or
Luke. If, then, we cannot, with Greswell, put all the Lord's
last journey, beginning witb Luke ix. 51, after the sojourn
at Ephraim, can we thus put any part of it ? Robinson
here inserts aU foUowing Luke xiii. 10. But this arrange
ment, which he supposes to be presented, " perhaps, for the
first time," meets none of the difficulties arising from the
neglect of chronological order by Luke ; nor is there any
thing in the narrative that leads us to suppose any such
change of place. The view that Luke (xvU. 11) refers to
His departure from Ephraim, is much better supported.
The statement of the Evangelist : " And it came to pass
as He went to Jerusalem that He passed through the midst
of Samaria and Galilee," may be variously interpreted.
Jerusalem was the goal, but what was the starting point ?
If the language means that He passed across these prov
inces, first Samaria and then GalUee, journeying northward,
He could not have been in Galilee, or in Perea, or in Sa
maria ; He must then have been in Judea. But to reach
Jerusalem from Judea, why pass through Samaria ? If we
make Ephraim the starting point, ancl assume that this city
was near the south border line of Samaria, we can suppose
that He passed northward till He reached the frontier
pf Galilee, and proceeding along the frontier eastward,
crossed the Jordan, and entered Perea.1 In this case the
Lord did not travel in GalUee, or perform any ministry
there, so that His former departure (ix. 51) may be said to
have been the last. But can this passage along the fron
tier be identified with that departure, of which Matthew
(xix. 1) and Mark (x. 1) speak? From the very definite
notice of place which the latter gives, " And He arose from
i That the expression, "Through the midst of Samaria and Galilee,"
Sia p.eo-ov 2ap.apeias km ra\i\oioj, may be thus understood, is generally
admitted. So Bengel, Meyer, Norton, Alford, Lichtenstein, Trench.

360 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
thence," we infer that this departure was from Capernaum,
not from Ephraim. Jesus must then have gone from
Ephraim back to Capernaum, and thence have commenced
His journey. But the language (Luke ix. 51) implies that
He then left Galilee for the last time. The words, also, of
Matthew and Mark plainly intimate, that the Lord had con
tinued His labors in Galilee down to the departure of which
they speak. Thus, we conclude that Luke ix. 51 (not xvii. 1 1)
is parallel with Matt. xix. 1, and Mark x. 1. The latter Evan
gelists, omitting most that took place during the journey,
come again (Matt, xix. 13 ; Mark x. 13) into unison with
Luke, (xviti. 15 ;) and from this point the narratives men
tion, for the most part, the same particulars. If we make
Matt. xix. 1, and Mark x. 1, parallel with Luke ix. 51, it
is not, however, necessary to refer the narratives ofthe for
mer to what took place in the beginning of the journey.
All that they tell us, may have taken place after the Lord
left Ephraim, and while in Perea.
We come, then, to the conclusion that Luke's words,
(ix. 51,) "He steadfastly set His face to go up to Jerusa
lem," refer to the Lord's final departure from GalUee ; and
that most of the events he relates from this point to chap.
xviii. 15, where his narrative becomes parallel with those
of Matthew and Mark, took place during this journey.
We find no ground to believe, that after this departure He
again visited Galilee. He did not, indeed, go directly to
Jerusalem, as He was preceded by the Seventy, and His
course was determined by the reception they met; nor,
when He reached Jerusalem, could He abide there, but was
forced to flee, first to Perea, and afterward to Ephraim.
These flights tbe Synoptists do not mention, and we learn
from them no more than that He went to Jerusalem by
way of Perea.
If, then, all of Luke's account refers to one and the
same journey, it follows that he does not relate in exact

JESUS SENDS MESSENGERS INTO SAMARIA. 361
chronological order ; nor does it appear by what principle
be is governed in his arrangement. The various theories
which have been presented, we must here pass by. That
in the main the order is historical, is probable.
Comparing Luke with the other Evangelists, we mark
the foUowing points of identification : Luke ix. 51, and
Matt. xix. 1, and Mark x. 1 ; Luke xvii. 11, and the journey
from Ephraim, John xi. 55. Where, in Luke's account, the
visit to the feast, of Dedication (John x. 22) is to be placed,
is not apparent. In the absence of all definite data, we
shall assume that his statement (xiti. 22) is to be referred to
the period immediately preceding this feast, and that all
from chap. xiv. to xvii. 10 may have taken place after Jesus'
return to Perea, (John x. 40.)
What determined the Lord to take the route through
Samaria rather than through Perea, upon this His last jour
ney, we cannot tell. Perhaps it may have been the favor
able reception which He had before met from the Samari
tans, (John iv. 39-42,) or that He desired to take the most
direct route into Judea. That He should send messengers
before Him, is to be explained from the fact that this jour
ney was of great pubhcity. Whether " to make ready for
Him," eToijxao-aj. aurci), means simply to prepare lodgings for
Him, as most suppose, may be questioned. It seems much
more to have had reference to the announcement that the
Messiah was at hand, and that the inhabitants of the vU
lage should prepare themselves to receive Him with all the
external marks of respect that befitted His high dignity.
But a Messiah going up to Jerusalem, was a stumbling-block
to the Samaritans, and they would not receive Him, ovk
eBetjavTo avrov. (Compare John iv. 45.) This rejection of
Himself in the persons of His messengers, was perhaps a
divine intimation to Him that He should not go to Jerusa
lem through Samaria, but through Perea.1 Who these
1 See Lichtenstein, 316.
16

362 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
messengers were, is not known. The anger manifested by
James and John, has led some, as A. Clarke, to suppose
that Jesus bad sent them, and that they felt the rejection
as a personal insult; but for this there is no sufficient
ground. The lofty and impetuous language of the two,
"WUt Thou that we command fire to come down from
Heaven and consume them ? " clearly intimates, however,
that a new stage in the Lord's work had come ; and that
these disciples, elated with the hope that He was now
about to assert His kingly claims, were ready to punish
in the severest manner all who refused Him Messianic
honors. From this village they went to another, (Luke ix. 56.)
It is not wholly clear whether the latter was in Samaria, or
Galilee. The presumption is that it was in GalUee.1 There
is no mention of any new messengers, nor any further allu
sion to the Samaritans. The village wbere He was rejected
is conjectured by Lichtenstein (318) to have been Ginnea
or Jenin, situated upon the border of Samaria and GalUee,
and overlooking the plain of Esdraelon. It is mentioned
by Josephus.2 From thence the Lord would pass eastward
to the Jordan, and thus enter Perea.
Luke (vs. 57-60) mentions, in connection with this
journey, the incidents which Matthew (viU. 19-22) men
tions as taking place just before the journey to Gergesa ;
and adds also another of like kind. As it is very improbable
that events, so remarkably similar, should have occurred
twice ; and as it is impossible to tell which of the Evangel
ists relates most accurately,3 we have followed the order of
Matthew in regard to the incidents which he and Luke

1 Meyer, Lichtenstein. ' Antiq., 20. 6. 1.
a In favor of Matthew most, as Meyer, Bleek, Lange, Lichtenstein ; of
Luke, Tischendorf; Alford, undecided. That the followers of Jesus here
spoken of were Judas Iscariot, Thomas, and Matthew, is a mere fancy of
Lange.

JESUS JOURNEYS IN PEREA. 363
relate in common, and insert here what Luke alone relates,
(vs. 61, 62.)

Nov. 782. a. d. 29.
During the journey through Perea, the Lord is at- Matt. xix. 2.
tended by great multitudes, whom He teaches and heals. Mark x. 1.
Upon the way He is tempted by a lawyer, who asks Him Luke x. 25-37.
how he shall inherit eternal life. In reply, He relates the
parable of the good Samaritan. One of His disciples asks Luke xi. 1-13.
for a form of prayer. He gives Him the form, and adds
some remarks on tbe right method of prayer.
It is not improbable, as has been already observed, that
the popularity of the Lord had somewhat diminished in
GalUee before His final departure, in part through the
open and active hostUity of the Pharisees, in part that the
novelty of His appearance had passed by, and in part
through the increasingly repellent character of His teach
ings. But He was now entering upon a field of labor al
most new, and yet prophetically foretold — rrepav rov Jop-
Bavov, " beyond Jordan." Comparatively few in Perea, we
may believe, had seen or heard Him ; and the announce
ment of the Seventy that He was about to follow them,
would naturaUy call general attention to His movements,
and gather great crowds around Him. It is apparent, also,
that the pecuhar character of this journey gave new im
pulse to the prevalent Messianic expectations. It is men
tioned by Matthew, (xix. 2,) in general terms, that He healed,
but no specific cases are given. Mark speaks only of
teaching.- We have no data to determine when the inquiry of the
lawyer was made. It may have been early in the journey,
whilst the Lord was yet on the border of Samaria ; and His
reply derives a special significance from the fact that He

364 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
Himself had just been rejected by the Samaritans. StiU, the
bitter hostility of the Jews to the Samaritans would have
given point to the parable, wherever He may have been.
Luke (xi. 1) introduces the request for a form of prayer,
with the remark, that " as He was praying in a certain
place, when He ceased, one of His disciples said unto Him,"
&c. From this it has been inferred by some, as Oosterzee,
that the incident stands here in its historical connection,
and is inserted by Matthew out of its place in the Sermon
on the Mount, (vi. 9-13.) It certainly appears more prob
able that it should be given in answer to a disciple than
to the multitude ; and if it had been spoken on that occa
sion, it might have simply been referred to here. StUl,
many, as Meyer, make it to have been original in Matthew,
and repeated here ; and others, as Alford, that it Stands in
close connection with what goes before in both Evangehsts.
Tholuck takes the distinction, that in the first instance it
was generally given, but in the latter as a specific form.
.The difference of expression in the two cases is explained
by the fact that Luke gives here, as often, a less complete
report of Christ's words. .

Nov.— Dec. 782. a. d. 29.
The Lord heals a dumb possessed man. The Phari- Luke xi. 14-26.
see3 accuse Him of casting out devils through Beelzebub.
He replies to them, and while He is speaking a woman
in the crowd blesses Him. He continues to discourse to " xi. 27-36.
the multitude on the desire for signs. He dines with a
Pharisee, and sharply rebukes Pharisaical hypocrisy. " xi. 37-54.
The Pharisees are greatly enraged, and He proceeds to " xii. 1-12.
address the disciples, admonishing them to beware of
the leaven of the Pharisees, and to fear God only. One " xii. 13-22.
of those present desires of Him that He will make his
brother divide the inheritance with him. He denies his

JESUS DINES WITH A PHARISEE. 365
request, and speaks the parable of the rich fool. He Luke xii. 22-53.
admonishes the disciples to watch for the coming of the
Son of Man, and, after answering a question of Peter,
proceeds to address the people respecting their inability " xii. 54-59.
' to discern tbe signs of the times.
The relation of this miracle of the dumb possessed, and
of the discourse foUowing it, to the healing mentioned by
Matthew, (xii. 22,) and the discourse there given, has been
already discussed. Most agree that Luke has placed them
here out of their historical connections.1 Tischendorf
identifies this healing with the miracle in Matt. ix. 32-34,
but regards it rightly placed here. GresweU strongly in
sists that this account is whoUy distinct from those in Mat
thew and Mark. It being impossible to come to any cer
tain result, we shaU follow Luke's order, assuming that
Matthew relates other cases of healing and another dis
course. In regard to the rebukes of the Pharisees by the
Lord, spoken at the house of a Pharisee, (vs. 37-52,) we
cite the just observation of Alford, that He " spoke at'
this meal parts of that discourse with which He afterward
solemnly closed His public ministry."
That Jesus should have been invited by a Pharisee to
dine with him, or rather to breakfast with him, when the
sect in general was so hostUe to Him, may have been owing
to the desire to have one so famous for a guest, or perhaps
to a true impulse of hospitality. The severity of His
language seems directed rather against Pharisaism than
against the individuals then present, except so far as their
consciences should compel a self-application. The sins are
rebuked which were characteristic of that party. The
lawyer (v. 45) seems to make a distinction between his
class and the Pharisees in general, as if the former were a
kind of higher order, a learned aristocracy. That the Lord
> So Bobinson, Alford, Lichtenstein.

S66 THE LIPE OF OUE LORD.
touched his hearers to the quick, is apparent from their
vehement attempts to entangle Him by their questions.
It would seem that immediately after the rebuke of the
Pharisees, the Lord admonished His disciples to beware of
their hypocrisy, and added other injunctions, (xii. 1-12.)
But as His words are given by Matthew in Other relations,
which seem historicaLwe must suppose either that He repeats
sayings earlier spoken, or that Luke connects them with
this occasion, disregarding the order of events. This re
mark also applies to aU from v. 22 to the end of the chapter.1
The request of one ofthe company, that the Lord should
speak to his brother to divide the inheritance with him,
and the foUowing parable of the rich fool, are mentioned
only by Luke. The request shows how much the attention
of men was turned to Jesus as the Messiah, and this fact
doubtless greatly inflamed the hostility of the Pharisees.

Nov.— Dec. 782. a. d. 29.
Being told of the murder of the Galileans by Pilate, Luke xiii. 1-9.
He replies, and adds a parable respecting the fig tree.
Whilst teaching in the synagogue upon the Sabbath, He Luke xiii. 10-17.
heals a woman who had been sick eighteen years. He
is rebuked for this by the master of the synagogue, but
puts him to shame. He continues His journey toward
Jerusalem, and replies to the question of one who asked Luke xiii. 22-35.
Him, Are there few that be saved ? The same day He
is warned by certain Pharisees against Herod.
Of these GaUleans, so murdered by Pilate, we have no
other mention, and cannot tell when the event occurred.
There can be little doubt that it was at Jerusalem, and
during a feast.3 The relations of Pilate to the Jews were
1 See Oosterzee in loco j also Alford.
> See analogous cases in Josephus, Antiq. 17. 9 and 10.

JESUS HEALS AN INFIRM WOMAN. 367
such as to make this act of cruelty highly probable. He
was no respecter of places, and did not hesitate upon occa
sion to violate the sanctity of the temple. Some have
supposed these GalUeans to be the followers of Judas of
Galilee, (Acts v. 37,) but without any good grounds.
Probably it was some sudden outbreak at one of tbe feasts,
and -they, perhaps taking part in it, perhaps only mere
spectators, were slain by the Roman soldiers in the outer
court. That the event was recent, and that it excited
great indignation, are apparent from the narrative. The
attempt of Greswell (iii. 26) to connect it with the sedition
of Barabbas, (Luke xxiii. 1 9,) and to. place it at tbe begin
ning of the last Passover, and thus to find in it a note- of
time, is more subtle than forcible. Hengstenberg,1 suppos
ing the parable of the fig tree was spoken a year before the
Lord's death, makes the murder of these GalUeans to have
been at the last Passover but one, or that mentioned in
John vi. 4, which the Lord did not attend. Ofthe tower
that fell in Siloam, we have no knowledge.
The parable of the fig tree has been regarded by
many as giving a chronological datum to determine the
length of the Lord's ministry." Some refer the three years
to the wbole period before Christ, during which God was
waiting for the Jews ;3 some to the three polities, judges,
kings, and high priests. But it is doubtful whether it has
any chronological value.*
The healing of the sick woman is mentioned by Luke,
without any mark of time or place, except generally, that it
was in a synagogue and upon the Sabbath. The decided
manner in which the ruler of the synagogue expresses him
self against tbe lawfulness of healing on this day, indicates
that the Pharisaic party had determined to treat such
works of heaUng as a violation of its sanctity. There is no
i Christ, iii. 249. " Bengel, Krafil, Wieseler, Stier.
¦> Grotius. ' So Meyer, Lichtenstein, Trench.

368 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
expression of sympathy with the woman, of sorrow at her
sickness, or joy at her recovery. That in this condemna
tion of the Lord's act he was supported by others, appears
from v. 17. Such a literal adherence to the law, and viola
tion of its spirit, awaken Christ's just indignation, and He
denounces him as a hypocrite. Perhaps, the parable of the
mustard seed and leaven may have been repeated here.1
The account of the Lord's progress, (v. 22,) that " He
went through the cities and vUlages, teaching, and journey
ing toward Jerusalem," is too indefinite to determine what .
stage of His journey He had now reacbed. Some would
refer it to His going up from Perea to Bethany at the
resurrection of Lazarus, (John xi. 1-17.) " Some support is
thought to be found for this in the Lord's words, (vs. 32, 33 :)
" Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day, and to
morrow, and the third I shall be perfected. I must walk
to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following." The three
days are said to refer to the time necessary to go up from
Perea to Bethany, and are to be Uterally taken. The
meaning of His words then is, " In three days I perfect this
part of my work, and not tiU then do I leave Herod's do
minions." But even if the language is capable of this in
terpretation, it is certain that v. 22, which speaks of a jour
ney to Jerusalem, would not be applied to a journey to
Bethany, which was rather a turning aside from His fixed
route, in answer to a special request.
The time when the Pharisees came to Him, to warn Him
to depart or Herod would kUl Him, is designated as the
same day when the question was asked Him, " Are there
few that be saved ? " This was one of the. days during
which He was teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem,
(v. 22.) That Herod should be spoken of, shows that Je
sus was now either in Gahlee or Perea, and so under his
jurisdiction and exposed to his anger. Meyer supposes
1 McKnight, Meyer, Alford. ° Wieseler, Oosterzee.

THE PHARISEES WARN JESUS OF HEROD. 369
Him to be still in Galilee, and that His reply to the Phari
sees (v. 32) is to be understood : " I have yet three days in
which to labor in Galilee and to complete my work of cast
ing out devUs and of heating, and then I must go up to
Jerusalem." On the third day He comes to the border, as
related in xvii. 11. But are the Lord's words to be under
stood of three literal days ? l This Uteral interpretation is
not to be pressed. There is no good reason why the lan
guage may not be understood as a general statement, that
His labors must be continued till He should perfect them
at His death in Jerusalem.3
The motive of the Pharisees in thus warning the Lord
to depart, is not clear. It is possible that they were His
friends, and that their message was based upon some infor
mation which they possessed of the purposes of Herod, who
may have been in Perea, at Livias, or Machaerus. Had
he been, the great publicity with which the Lord jour
neyed, could scarcely have failed to draw the king's atten
tion to Him, and to awaken some suspicion of His designs.
If not His friends, some suppose them to have been sent by
Herod in order to frighten Him from his territories.3 This,
supposition finds some support in His reply, " Go ye andi
tell that fox," &c. Less probable is tbe supposition that
they feign themselves to be Herod's messengers, in order to
drive Him into Judea, where He can be more readily ar
rested by the priests and rulers. Perhaps the simpler expla
nation is that, without being sent by Herod, or having any
special knowledge of his plans, they gratify their malice by
uttering the threat that he will kill Him if He does not de
part. The apostrophe to Jerusalem (vs. 34, 35) is found also in:
¦ So Meyer, Alford. This, however, makes it necessary to render
TeKetovfiat, " I perfect my works ;'.' not, as in our version, " I shall be per
fected." ' So Lichtenstein, Stier, Owen. » McKnight, Meyer, Alford.
16*

370 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
Matt, xxiii. 87-39, where it was spoken after the Lord left
the temple for the last time. From its nature, and from the
connection in which it stands in both Evangehsts, it is
probable that it was twice spoken.1 Most who think it to
have been spoken but once, find its most fitting place in
Matthew.8 It has been questioned how the words, " Ye shall not
see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he
that cometh in the name of the Lord," are to be under
stood. The most obvious meaning is, that they are to be
taken in the large prophetic sense, and refer to His depart
ure into Heaven, and to His joyful reception by tbe nation
when He should come again in His kingdom. And this
also best fits the connection of the thought. No prophet
could perish out of Jerusalem. There He must die, and af
terward ascend to God, to be seen no more till the hearts
of the people should be made ready for Him. TUl then
their house was left unto them desolate. The supposition
that He foretold His purpose to go up to the coming Pass
over, and that it there found its entire fulfilment,3 is er
roneous. That some ofthe people did then say, (Luke xix.
38,) " Blessed be the king that cometh in the name of the
Lord," was no general, much less national, acceptance of
Hiln, and no real fulfilment of His words. Still, some allu
sion to the shouts ofthe multitude at His triumphal entry.
need not be denied.4
Dec. 782. a. d. 29.
From Perea He goes up to Jerusalem, to be present John x. 22-24.
at the feast of Dedication. Upon the way He passes ,
through the village of Bethany, and visits Mary and Mar- Luke x. 38-42.
tha. Beaching Jerusalem, the Jews demand that He
declare plainly whether He is, or is not, the Messiah.
' So Stier, Alford, Ellicott » Meyer, Lange, De WetU.
* Wieseler, 821. * Meyer in loco.

THE FEAST OF DEDICATION. 371
He answers them by referring to His past words and John x. 25-42.
works. The Jews, thinking His answer blasphemous,
take up stones to stone Him. He continues His dis
course to them, but as they seek to arrest Him, He es
capes from them, and goes beyond Jordan to Bethany,
(Bethabara,) and abides there. Many resort to Him,
and believe on Him.
It is at this point that we would insert tbe narrative of
John, (x. 22-42,) embracing the visit to the feast of Dedi
cation, and the return to Perea. These events are omitted
by the Synoptists, as not falling into the scope of their nar
ratives, which leads them to mention no visit at Jerusalem
but tbe last.
That the visit at Bethany, mentioned by Luke only,
took place at this time, cannot be positively affirmed, but
it cannot weU be put earlier, Not improbably it is placed
by the Evangelist in its present position in the narrative
upon other than chronological grounds.
The journey, as it has been traced, brings Him into the
neighborhood of Jerusalem. His presence at tbe feast of
Dedication is often ascribed to the fact of His proximity to
the city, rather than to any design, on leaving GalUee, to be
present.1 It is not indeed probable that He would go up
simply because of the feast, which He might have observ
ed elsewhere. The three great feasts, says Lightfoot,
"might not be celebrated in any other place; but the
Encenia was kept everywhere throughout the whole
land." As one of the minor feasts, His presence impUes
some special motive. May we not find this in the character
ofthe Lord's last journey? For a considerable period He
had avoided Jerusalem; at the feast of Tabernacles, He
went up secretly. Now He seeks publicity. Wherever
the Seventy go they proclaim Him, ancl all understand that
He appears as the Messiah. Perhaps, as has been already
1 Lichtenstein.

372 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
intimated, He may have designed to send His messengers
into Judea ; and if they found a favorable reception, to fol
low them. There is then no reason why He should longer
avoid Jerusalem. He will present Himself before the' priests
and scribes and rulers, that they may show forth what is in
their hearts ; show whether they can yet recognize in Him
the Messiah. And the feast of Dedication had special sig
nificance as the time of such a visit. It was appointed in
commemoration of the national deliverance by the Macca
bees from the oppression of the Syrians, (e. c. 164,) and of
the cleansing ofthe temple and restoration of the appointed
worship.1 It should not only have reminded the Jews of
the sins that brought them under the tyranny of Antiochus
and of the goodness of God in their deliverance, but have
taught them the true cause of their present bondage, and
awakened in them hopes of a more glorious deliverance
through the Son of David. Had the Lord found them con
scious of sin, and humbUng themselves under the punish
ments of God, the way would have been opened for a new
cleansing of the temple, and the bringing in of a new and
nobler worship. But the feast served only to feed their
pride, to foster their hate of Roman rule, and to turn their
hearts away from the true deliverer. A Judas Maccabeus
they would have welcomed ; but Jesus, whose first work
must be to deliver them from sin, found no favor in their
eyes. It is possible that some of the Seventy may have
preceded Jesus at Jerusalem, announcing His coming.
The manner in which the Jews gather around Him, and
the character of their question, "How long dost thou make
us to doubt? If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly,"
clearly indicate that in some way their attention had been
especially drawn to Him as something more than a prophet,
as indeed the Christ. If we compare this language with
» 1 Mace. iv. 62-59.

JESUS IN THE TEMPLE ANSWERS THE JEWS. 373
that uttered but two months earlier at the feast of Taber
nacles, it appears evident that His Messianic claims had
now become prominent. That the Jews asked the question
with the intent to make an affirmative answer the basis of
accusation,1 is not improbable ; but it may also have been
an honest expression of doubt. It is to be noticed that no
mention is made of any preliminary teaching or healing,
nothing to call forth the question. He is sUent till it is ad
dressed Him by the people, and this was as soon as He
appeared in the temple.
The Lord's reply, " I told you, and ye believed not,"
must refer to the general sentiment and scope of His teach
ings ; for we nowhere have on record any express avowal
to the Jews that He was the Messiah. Such an avowal
He seems purposely to have avoided. His own words were :
" If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There
is another that beareth witness of me," (John v. 31, 32.) In
conformity to this general rule, He here refers the Jews to
His works. " The works that I do in my Father's name,
they bear witness of me ;" and that this evidence was not
sufficient He ascribes to their unbelief. This was not what
they wanted, and they must have thought it very remark
able, that if He were the Christ, He did not explicitly and
openly affirm it. They did not consider that " with the
heart man beUeveth unto righteousness," and that the evi
dence that was convincing to a Nathanael, was wholly un
satisfactory to a Caiaphas. That in thefr question they had
no other than the current conceptions of the Messiah, ap
pears from the effect of His reply upon them. So soon as
He began to speak of His relations to God as His Father,
and said,- " I and my Father are one," they sought to stone
Him. This was open blasphemy, and the blasphemer must
be stoned. His reference to the figure of the sheep, (v. 26,) as it
1 So Meyer after Luther.

374 THE LLFE OF OUR LOED.
had been used by Him at the feast of Tabernacles, (x. 1-18,)
is not strange, for probably most of those now present,
priests, scribes, and Pharisees, were residents in Jerusalem,
and had heard His words at that time. The interval was
but two months, not so long that they could have forgotten
what He then said, especiaUy if they had not heard Him
since. This attempt to take His life, compared with that at the
feast of Tabernacles, (viu. 59,) may perhaps show less of
hasty passion, but indicates a fixed purpose to destroy Him.1
The attempt to take Him (v. 39) may have been with de
sign to keep Him in custody tUl He could be formally tried ;
or that removing Him from the Temple, they might imme
diately stone Him. That His escape was miraculous, is not
said, though so regarded by many.' If He had designed to
send His messengers into Judea, this new manifestation of
hostility may have prevented it ; for if His life was in danger
at Jerusalem, He could not have journeyed safely into other
parts of the province. No other place of refuge was open
to Him than Perea. Thus the Seventy may but partially
have completed their intended circuit, Judea being shut
against them ; and this will explain why their labors are so
briefly noticed by the Evangelist.
The Lord, now leaving Judea, goes beyond Jordan,
" into the place where John at first baptized." There is
no doubt that this was Bethabara or Bethany, (i. 28.) Its
position has already been considered. The motives that led
to its selection are whoUy conjectural. That He sought it
merely as a place of safety from the Jews, is possible ; but
here, on the other hand, He was exposed to the anger of
Herod, (Luke xiii. 31, 32.) Aside from considerations of
His personal safety, there is much significance in this return
to the place of His baptism. He might expect to find there,
1 Luthardt, ii. 190. ' So Luthardt ; contra, Meyer.

JESUS RETURNS TO PEREA. 375
as He did, many whose hearts had been prepared by the
teachings and baptism of John for the reception of His own
words. It is said that " there He abode." This impUes
that He made no long circuits through the surrounding
towns. He abode in the town or district of Bethany, where
many resorted unto Him, and where Mary and Martha
sent to Him during the sickness of Lazarus.1 How long
He sojourned here ere He went up to Bethany, near Jeru
salem, to raise Lazarus, does not clearly appear. It is in
ferred by some, from the language of His disciples, after
He had proposed to return to Judea, (xi. 7, 8,) "The
Jews of late sought to stone Thee " — vw e^rrrow, &c, that
He had but just come from Jerusalem.* Much stress, how
ever, cannot be laid on this. (See Acts vii. 52.) From the
feast of Dedication to the Passover was about four months,
and it is not improbable that half of this, or more, was spent
" beyond Jordan," in the neighborhood of Bethany. Many
would place during this time much that Luke relates.
Upon grounds already stated, we shall assign to this period
all from chap. xiv. to xvU. 10.

Dec. 782. a. d. 29.
The Lord is invited to feast with one of the chief Luke xiv. 1-6.
Pharisees on the Sabbath day, and there heals a, man
who had the dropsy, and defends the lawfulness of the
act. He addresses the guests, reproving them for " xiv. 7-14.
choosing the highest seats, and reminds His host of bis
duty to the poor, and speaks the parable of the great " xiv. 15-24.
supper. As He journeyed on, great multitudes went " xiv. 25-35.
witb Him, and He addresses them upon the self-denial
required in disciples. Publicans and sinners coming in " xv. 1-32.
> As to the use of " abode," /xeveiv, see John ii. 12 j iv. 40 ; vii. 9 ; xi. 6.
2 Meyer.

376 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
large numbers to hear Him, the scribes and Pharisees Luke xv. 1-32.
murmur that He should receive them, and eat with them.
He, therefore, utters several parables, that of the lost
sheep, of the lost piece of silver, and of the prodigal
son ; and to His disciples that of the wasteful steward, " xvi. 1-13.
adding admonitions against covetousness. The Phari- " xvi. 14-31.
sees deriding Him, He rebukes them, and utters the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus. He addresses the " xvii. 1-10.
disciples upon oCfences, and forgiveness, and faith.
The Pharisee by whom the Lord was invited to eat
bread, is described as " one of the chief Pharisees." This
may denote that he was of high social position, but prob
ably includes some official distinction, as that he was chief
of a synagogue, or member of the Sanhedrim. His motive
in thus seeking the Lord's society, does not clearly appear ;
and it is possible that, unlike most of his sect, he wished to
show him some mark of respect, perhaps as a prophet, per
haps as the Messiah. Still the Lord's words (v. 12) imply
that he made the feast in a self-seeking, ostentatious spirit,
and under the pretence of hospitality he may have hidden
an evU design. It appears that there were many invited,
and that they were of the richer and better class. It was
customary for the Jews to entertain their friends upon the
Sabbath, although they cooked no food. " The Jews' tables
were generally better spread on that day than on any
other.1" The appearance of the dropsical man at such a feast, it
is not easy to explain. He could hardly, if severely ill,
have been invited as a guest ; and it is said that after the
Lord had " healed him He let him go," as if he were only
accidentally present. Nor is it probable that he came
merely as a spectator, although eastern customs permit
strangers to enter houses at all hours with great freedom,
and they are often present at feasts merely to look on.
'- Lightfoot ; see Trench, Mir. 263.

HEALING OF A MAN WITH THE DROPSY. 377
Some have therefore supposed that he was intentionally
brought in by the Pharisees, to see if the Lord would heal
him on that day.1 But it is more probable that he came in
faith to be healed, and unable, perhaps, to approach the
Lord before He entered into the house, now forced himself
into the room where He was. Had he been a mere tool in
the hands of the Pharisees, it may well be doubted whether
the Lord would have healed him.
McKnight supposes the parable of the great supper to
be the same as that mentioned by Matt. xxii. 2-14, and to
have been spoken a second time in the temple. But the
parables are wholly distinct, as a comparison of the details
plainly shows.
As the end of His ministry drew nigh, and the hostility
of His enemies became more open, the Lord's words became
more and more plain in showing how much of self-denial
was involved in becoming one of His disciples. The same
remarks in substance He had before made, (Matt. x. 37 ;)
but He here adds new illustrations. He compares Himself
to a man who wishes to build a tower, His Church ; ancl to a
king who goes to make war with another king, with the
prince of this world ; and they who would aid Him in this
building, or in this warfare, must be ready to sacrifice all.
The great concourse of publicans and sinners to Him
cannot be explained from any thing in His language (xiv.
25-35) as especially applicable to them, nor as springing from
their exclusion from the feast. It rather marks the fact
that, now that His words had become more sharp against
the Pharisees, and the breach between them and Him more
apparent, this class rallied around Him and thronged to
hear Him. Much to the disgust of the Pharisees, He did
not disdain even to eat with them. Such an act they
deemed in the highest degree unbecoming in one who
claimed to be the Messiah ; and it was also a keen reproof
' McKnight, Oosterzee, Stier.

378 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
to themselves, who so scrupulously excluded aU pubUcans
and sinners from their society.
It is disputed whether the parable of the lost sheep, as
here given by Luke, is the same as that given by Matt.
xvUi. 12, 13. From the relation in which it stands to the
other parables which Luke has recorded, we cannot well
doubt that it was spoken at the same time. But such an
Ulustration, so natural and apt, may have been used more
than once, and been spoken earlier in Galilee, as Matthew
relates. Perhaps, both in form and in meaning, some dis
tinction may be drawn between them.
The parables of the lost sheep, of the lost piece of silver,
and of the prodigal son, seem to have been aU uttered at
once to the Pharisees and scribes, who murmured at His
reception of publicans and sinners. That which immediately
follows, of the unjust steward, was spoken to the disciples ;
but whether immediately or after a Uttle interval, we have
no data to decide.
It is not easy to see how the words addressed to the
Pharisees in v. 18, respecting divorce and adultery, are to be
connected with the verses immediately preceding ; but the
parable that follows, of the rich man and Lazarus, has plain
reference to that sect. Whether the words to the disciples
(xvii. 1-10) followed at once upon tbe parable, we cannot
determine.

Jan.— Feb. 783. a. d. 30.
Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, being sick, John xi. 1-46.
they send a messenger to the Lord in Perea to inform
Him of his sickness. After receiving the message He
abides still two days in the place where He was. Tak
ing the disciples with Him, He then goes to Bethany and
raises Lazarus from the dead. Many of the Jews present
believed on Him, but others departing to Jerusalem tell

THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS. 379
what had occurred to the Pharisees. A council is sum- John xi. 47-57.
moned, and Caiaphas the high priest advises that He be
put to death. Jesus, learning this, goes with His dis
ciples to a city called Ephraim, and His enemies give a
commandment, that, if any man know where He is, he
should show it, that they might take Him.
At this point in Luke's narrative we insert the account
given by John of the journey of Jesus to Bethany to raise
Lazarus, and of His subsequent departure to Ephraim and
sojourn there. The Lord waits two days after receiving the
message of the sisters ere He departs for Bethany. It is
not certain how long after the death of Lazarus He arrived
there. It is said (v. 17) that " when He came He found
that he had lain in the grave four days already." We
may then count as the first, that on which the message was
sent and received ; the two following days of waiting, and
on the fourth He departs from Perea and arrives at Bethany
If we suppose Lazarus to have died on the same day that
the message was sent, and to have been buried the same
day, as was customary, (see Acts v. 6 and 10,) the day of
the Lord's arrival was the fourth after the interment.
Reckoning a part of a day as a whole, we have thus tbe four
days. Lardner ' supposes that his burial was tbe day fol
lowing his death. "If be died on the first day of the
week, he was buried on the second, and raised on the fifth.
He had been dead four days complete, and buried four
days incomplete."
Tholuck (in loco) thinks it improbable that Jesus could
have made the journey (perhaps 23-29 miles) in one day,
and yet arrive in Bethany in season to do all that is re
corded of Him. He must have spent parts of two days
upon the road. He supposes, therefore, that Lazarus died
the night foUowing the arrival of the messenger and was
buried the next day, and that Jesus reached Bethany the
i Works, x. 26, note.

380 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
fifth day. The first day was that of the burial ; the second
and third were spent in waiting ; the fourth in journeying ;
on the fifth He reaches Bethany and raises Lazarus.
Some place the death of Lazarus on the last ofthe two
days of waiting, referring in proof to Christ's words vs. 1 1
and 14.1 He had waited till the death should take place,
ancl, so soon as it did, He announced it to the disciples, say
ing, " Lazarus is dead." Thus He is made to reach Beth
any on the sixth day."
That the Lord, after He commenced this journey, went
directly to Bethany, lies upon the face of the narrative.3
Yet, some suppose that much related by the Synoptists
finds here its proper place. Krafft (117) identifies the be
ginning of the journey with Mark x. 17 : " And when He
was gone forth into the way," &o. ; and Mark x. 32, Matt.
xx. 17, and Luke xviii. 31, with its progress. An enumer
ation of the events which he here brings together will
show the great improbability of his arrangement : the dis
course upon the danger of riches, the reward of the apos
tles, the third announcement of His approaching death, the
strife of the apostles for supremacy, the entrance into Jer
icho attended by crowds, healing of the blind men, inter
view with Zaccheus, parable of the pounds ; aU this on the
Way to Bethany. Ebrard does not follow Krafft, yet sup
poses that, as He was two or more days on the way, He may
have made several circuits. All suppositions of this kind
are wholly untenable. The Lord went to Bethany for a
special purpose, attended only by His foUowers, and with
out publicity.4
1 Bengel, Krafft.
' See Greswell, ii. 513 j Ebrard, 456 ; Stud. u. Krit., 1862, p. 65.
' So Meyer, Tischendorf, Lichtenstein, Robinson.
* The arrangement of McKnight is extraordinary. Placing Bethany,
where He was sojourning, on the Jordan in northern Perea, he supposes Je
sus to have gone through Samaria and Galilee, and on the way to have
healed the ten lepers, (Luke xvii. 11,) and thence to Jerusalem, and from
Jerusalem to Bethany of Judea.

VILLAGE OF BETHANY. 381
A very slight examination shows that Krafft's order
is without basis. It is scarcely possible that the Lord,
going up to Bethany for a special purpose, and this a con
siderable period before the Passover, should have taken the
Twelve, and said unto them :. " Behold, we go up to Jerusa
lem, and all things that are written by the prophets concern
ing the Son of man, shaU be accomplished," (Luke xviii.- 31.)
Did the great multitude that foUowed Him from Jericho
go on with Him to Bethany ? (Matt. xx. 29.) It is besides
apparent that the journey through Jericho, made with such
publicity, had Jerusalem as its goal, and that there was no
delay, save for a few hours at Bethany, preparatory to the
triumphal entry, (John xii. 1-12.)
Bethany lies on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives,
some fifteen furlongs (one and a half miles) southeast from
Jerusalem. The etymology of the name is uncertain. Ac
cording to some it means " a low place," locus depressionis,
as lying in a littl e valley ; according to others, a " house of
dates," or "place of palms," locus dactylorum! It is not
mentioned in the Old Testament. Its chief interest to us is
in connection with Lazarus and his two sisters. Its prox
imity to Jerusalem, and its retired position, made it a conve
nient and pleasant resting place for the Lord upon His jour
neys to and from the feasts, although there is mention made
but once of His presence there (Luke x. 38-42) prior to the
resurrection of Lazarus. It is now a small vUlage of some
twenty houses, occupied by Bedouin Arabs. " A wild
mountain hamlet, screened by an intervening ridge from the
view of the top of Olivet, perched on its broken plateau of
rock, the last collection of human habitations before the
desert hills which reach to Jericho — this is the modern viU
lage of El-Lazarieh." * Little that is ancient is now to be
found. A tradition, that dates back to an early period,
points out the sites of the houses of Simon and of Lazarus,
i Lightfoot, x. 85; Winer, i. 61. ' Stanley, 186.

382 THE HFE OF OUR LOED.
and the sepulchre of the latter. "This," says Porter,1 " is a
deep vault, partly excavated in the rock, and partly lined
with masonry. The entrance is low, and opens on a long,
winding, half ruinous staircase, leading down to a small
chamber, and from this a few steps more lead down to an
other smaller vault, in which the body of Lazarus is sup
posed to have lain. This situation of the tomb in the centre
ofthe -village scarcely agrees with the Gospel narrative, and
the masonry of the interior has no appearance of antiquity.
But the real tomb could not have been far distant." Thom
son says, (ii. 599 :) " By the dim light of a taper we de
scended very cautiously by twenty-five slippery steps to the
reputed sepulchre of Lazarus, or El-Azariyeh, as both tomb
and viUage are now called. But I have no description of it
to give, and no questions about it to ask. It is a wretched
concern, every way unsatisfactory, and almost disgusting."
Robinson denies that the sepulchre now shown could have
been that of Lazarus.
The impression which the miracle of the resurrection of
Lazarus made upon the people at large, was very great;
It was in all its circumstances so public, and so well authen
ticated, that it was impossible for the most sceptical to deny
it, even if it did not lead them to faith in Jesus. It is said
(vs. 45, 46,) " Then many of the Jews which came to Mary,
believed on Him. But some of them went their ways to the
Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done."
From the grammatical construction, Meyer infers that those
who went to the Pharisees were of those who believed, and
that they went that they might testify to them of the mir
acle.* As all did not believe on Him, it is more probable
that some of these unbelievers went to the Pharisees, and
that their motive was evil. The ecclesiastical rulers felt that
it was now hjgh time that something should be. done, and
' Hand Book, i. 188.
' See, contra, Luthardt and Alford in loco.

THE COUNSEL OF CAIAPHAS. 383
they proceed at once to call a council to determine what
steps should be taken. Their deliberations ended with the
resolve that He should be put to death. This may be re
garded as the decisive and final rejection of Jesus by the
Jewish authorities. Much earlier the Jews at Jerusalem
bad sought to slay Him as a Sabbath breaker and blas
phemer, (John v. 16-18 ;) the Pharisees and Herodians in
Galilee had taken counsel how they might destroy Him,
(Mark iii. 6 ;) the Sanhedrim had agreed to excommunicate
any one who should confess that He was Christ, (John ix.
22 ;) on one occasion officers had been sent to arrest Him,
(John vii. 32 ;) and there was a general impression that
His enemies would not rest till He was removed out of the
way, (John vii. 25.) But it does not appear that to this
time there had been a determination of the Sanhedrim, in
formal session, that He should die. The miracle at Bethany,
and its great popular effect, brought the matter to a crisis.
The nation, in its highest council, presided over by the
high priest, decided in the most solemn manner that the
public safety demanded His death. All that now remained
to be done was to determine how His death could be best
effected. It is to be noticed how, in tbe deliberations of the San
hedrim, truth and justice were made wholly subservient to
selfish policy. That Jesus had wrought a great and won
derful miracle at Bethany, was not denied. Indeed it was
admitted, and made the basis of their action against Him:
" If we let Him thus alone, all will believe on Him." But
on what ground rested their fear that " the Romans would
come and take away both their place and nation " ? It
seems plain that they did not look upon Jesus as one who,
under any circumstances, would fulfil their Messianic hopes,
and establish a victorious kingdom. Even if all were to
believe on Him, and He should set up Himself as King,
He could not resist the Romans. His undeniable miracles

384 THE LIPE OP OUR LORD.
could not authenticate His Messiahship. This strikingly
shows how little the impression made by the character of
Jesus, His works and teachings, corresponded to the preva
lent conceptions of the Messiah. It was to the Pharisees
impossible that He, the teacher, the prophet, should be
come the leader of armies, the assertor of their national
rights, the warrior Uke David. They felt that in Him their
hopes never could be fulfilled. His growing popularity
with the people, if it led to insurrection, could only bring
upon them severer oppression. In this point of view, it
was better that He should die, whatever might be His
miraculous powers, than that all through Him should
perish. •
If, as the narrative plainly implies, the Sanhedrim held
its session as soon as possible after the knowledge of the
resurrection of Lazarus reached it, the Lord's departure to
Ephraim could not have been long delayed. He could
not remain in Bethany without each hour putting His Ufe
in peril. That He went secretly to Ephraim, appears from
the commandment given by the chief priests and Pharisees
that " if any man knew where He were, he should show
it, that they might take Him." Yet tbe Twelve seem to
have accompanied Him, or, which is more probable, to have
gathered to Him there. It is not improbable that others,
also, may have resorted to Him. Of the city Ephraim, in
which He took refuge, little is known, and different sites
have been assigned it. In 2d Chronicles xiii. 19, mention
is made of an Ephraim in connection with Bethel and
Jeshanah. Josephus1 speaks of Ephraim in connection
with Bethela, or Bethel. It was a small town lying in
the mountainous district of Judah, and conquered by
Vespasian. Eusebius mentions an Epbron as lying eight
Roman miles north of Jerusalem. Jerome,2 who mentions
» War, 4. 9. 9. a Raumer, 171.

SITE OF EPHRAIM. 385
the same place, puts it at twenty mUes. Lightfoot iden
tifies the Ephraim of Chronicles, of Josephus, and of the
text.1 That the Ephron of Eusebius and Jerome is the
same plaee, can scarcely be questioned ; and their conflicting
statements as to its distance from Jerusalem may be ex
plained, as Robinson does, by the supposition that the lat
ter corrects the former. Wieseler maintains that Euse
bius is right. Proceeding upon these data, Robinson thinks
that he finds the site of Ephraim in the modern Taiyibeh,
which is situated about twenty Roman mUes northeast of
Jerusalem, and some five or six miles northeast of Bethel,
upon a lofty hUl, overlooking all the vaUeys of the Jordan.
This identification is accepted by many.1 Ebrard, however,
denies that the Ephraim of Josephus can be identified with
that of the Evangelist, and places the latter southeast from
Jerusalem ; because that Jesus, on His way from it to Jeru
salem, passed through Jericho. Sepp places it in the land
of Gilead ; Luthardt regards its position as doubtful.

Feb.— March, 783. A. d. 30.
In Ephraim the Lord abides with the disciples till John xi. 54-57.
the approach of the Passover. A little before the feast,
many went up out of the country to Jerusalem, to
perform the necessary purifications, and there was
much discussion as to the probability of His presence.
He leaves Ephraim, and begins His journey toward Je
rusalem, passing along tbe border line of Samaria and
Galilee. Upon the way He meets and .heals ten Luke xvii. 11-19:.
lepers. Being asked by the Pharisees when the king- Luke xvii. 20-37.
dom of God should come, He replies, and adds the
parable of the unjust judge. To certain self-righteous Luke xviii. 1-14.
persons He spake the parable of the Pharisee and
1 So Tischendorf, Wieseler.
» So Ritter, Porter, Lange, Lichtenstein, Smith's Diet, of Bible, Ellicott.
17

386 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
publican. He replies to the question ofthe Pharisees Matt. xix. 3-12.
respecting divorce. Little children are brought to Make x. 2-12.
Him, whom He blesses. As He is journeying, a young Matt. xix. 13-15.
man follows Him, to know how he may inherit eter- Makk x. 13-16.
nal life. Jesus bids him sell all that. he has, and Luke xviii. 15-30.
•follow Him, and proceeds to address the disciples Matt. xix. 16-30.
upon the dangers incident to riches. In answer to Mark x. 17-31.
Peter, He speaks of the rewards that should be given
the Twelve, and to all faithful disciples. He adds the
parable of the laborers in the vineyard. Matt. xx. 1-16.
Supposing the Lord to have gone to Bethany, beyond
Jordan, immediately after the feast of Dedication, or in
the latter part of December, and that He remained there
several weeks before He heard that Lazarus was sick, we
may put His departure to Ephraim in the latter part of
February, or early in March. Here He continued till the
Passover, which fell this year on the seventh of April. He
was thus at Ephraim about six weeks. How was this time
spent ? It is said by some,1 that He may have made ex
cursions to the neighboring viUages, or even to the Jordan
valley. But, as His object in seeking this secluded spot on
the edge of the wUderness, was to avoid the observation
of His enemies, till the appointed hour had come, how could
He go about the country, teaching and preaching ? The
place of His retreat must thus have come very speedily to
the knowledge ofthe Pharisees. How Uttle the people at
large, knew where He was, appears from the fact that those
who went up early to the feast, sought Him at Jerusalem.
Besides the position of Ephraim, though well fitted for seclu
sion, was not so for teaching. We conclude, then, as the
narrative plainly implies, that He was spending the few days
that remained to Him, not amidst crowds, nor renewing in
some scattered viUages the labors of His early ministry ; but
in the society of His disciples, teaching them such truths
as they could receive, and preparing them for their labors,
» So Robinson, un- ""¦•

JESUS DEPARTS FROM EPHRAIM. 387
after He should Himself be taken from them. Doubtless
also, this period gave Him many opportunities of solitary
communion with His Father.
The fact that He had been present at the last two feasts
in Jerusalem, led the people to expect that Jesus would
also be present at tbe Passover. But, on the other hand,
as He bad withdrawn from public observation, and as the
Jews had endeavored to learn the place of His concealment
in order to arrest Him, it was doubtful whether He would
dare to come and brave their enmity. That many should
assemble before the feast, was made necessary by the laws
respecting purification.1
Identifying Ephraim with the modern Taiyibeh, the dis
tance to the border line of Galilee and Samaria was not
great. If He left the former early in the morning, He may
have reached the latter in the afternoon. That He was
accompanied by others than the Twelve, appears from the
statement (Matt. xx. 17) that "He took them apart in the
way ; " and from the mention of Salome, (v. 20.) As the
time for concealment was now past, and it was His purpose
to enter Jerusalem with all publicity, it is probable that He
directed His course to the Jordan with a view to meet the
pUgrims from GalUee, who took this way to the feast. So
soon as He came into the valley of the Jordan, He would
meet the larger processions that came from the neighbor
hood ofthe Sea of Galilee, by the road down the west bank
of the river ; and in the neighborhood of Jericho would
meet those who crossed the ford from the eastern side.
What multitudes attended the feasts, especially this feast,
appears from Josephus.2 From actual count, it appears that
at a given Passover 256,500 paschal lambs were slain ; and,
allowing ten persons to each lamb, which was the smallest
allowable number, the participants amounted to 2,565,000
1 See Numbers ix. 10, and Ainsworth's note ; 2 Chron. xxx. 17.
3 War, 6. 9. 3.

388 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
persons. Admitting that this number is greatly exagger
ated, there is no question that immense multitudes were
always present ; and all the roads leading to Jerusalem, for
several days before and after the feasts, were thronged with
passengers. As to the name or position of the viUage where the ten
lepers met Him, we know nothing more than that it was on
the border of Samaria. It would seem, from the gathering
together of so many lepers in one place, that the Lord's
journey was widely known. The title by which they ad
dress Him, " Jesus, Master," indicates faith in Him as a
prophet rather than as Messiah.
When or where the question of the Pharisees (v. 20)
respecting the coming of the kingdom of God, was
addressed to Him, we have no data to determine. The
point of the question concerns' the time : When wilt
thou, announcing thyself as the Messiah, visibly set up
thy kingdom? Probably it was asked in mockery; but,
if honestly meant, it could not be answered as a matter of
mere chronology. His words that follow, to the disciples,
(vs. 22-37,) contain many expressions almost identical with
those afterward employed by Him in His discourses re
specting the destruction of Jerusalem, (Matt. 24,) giving
some reason to believe that they are here recorded out of
their order.
The parable of the unjust judge stands in obvious con
nection with the discourse immediately preceding; but
that of the publican and Pharisee may have been spoken
later. The question concerning divorce is found both in Mat
thew and Mark, and is the first event related by them in
their account of the last journey from Galilee to Judea.
Whether it should be inserted here, or took place earlier,
we have no data to determine. Being mentioned, however,
by them both just before the incident ofthe blessing ofthe

JESUS ON THE WAY TO JERUSALEM. 389
children, which Luke also mentions, this seems the most
fitting place. Perhaps this question may refer to the dis
putes ofthe Jewish schools, one of which permitted divorces
for many causes, even very slight ones ; the other only for
adultery.1 AU the Synoptists mention the blessing of the children.
It is plain that their parents were those who honored the
Lord, and valued His blessing. Perhaps it may point to
His near departure from this scene of labor.3 Tbe demand
of Jesus upon the young ruler to seU aU that he had and
give to the poor, was something unexpected. Such a de
mand was totally at variance with the popular conceptions
of the Messianic kingdom, in which all Jews confidently be
Ueved that every form of temporal blessing would abound.
The question of Peter radicates how much his thoughts
were engrossed with the rewards and honors of that king
dom, which aU now thought to be near at hand.

March, 783. A. d. 30.
Upon the way to Jerusalem, the disciples were Mark x. 32-34.
amazed and filled with fear, beholding Jesus going Matt. xx. 17-19.
before them. He announces to the Twelve privately Luke xviii. 31-34.
His approaching death and resurrection, but His words
were not understood. Afterward James and John, Matt. xx. 20-28.
with their mother Salome, come to Him, asking for Mark x. 35-45.
the seats of honor in His kingdom. He denies their
request. The jealousy of the other apostles.
Upon the way, and probably soon after reaching the
valley of the Jordan, He took the Twelve apart, and an
nounced to them, for the third time, His approaching death,
i Lightfoot on Matt. v. 31, and xix. 3.
' See Oosterzee on Luke xviii. 15.

390 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED,
but with greater particularity than before. He now speaks
of the mode of His death : that it must be by crucifixion ;
that He should be dehvered into the hands of the GentUes,
and by them be mocked and scourged. That this announce
ment was made early in the journey, appears from the use
of the present tense : "Behold we go up to Jerusalem." '
Mark adds, " And Jesus went before them ; and they were
amazed ; and as they followed they were afraid." As this
amazement and fear were previous to His informing them
what was about to befall Him, it indicates that there was
something unusual in His manner, something that awed and
appalled them." Luke informs us that, notwithstanding the
Lord's words were so plain and express, " they understood
none of these things, and this saying was hid from them,
neither knew they tbe things which were spoken." An
undefined sense that some great and awful event was im
pending, seems for. a little while to have had possession of
their minds ; but, even now, of its real nature they had no
just conceptions. They knew why He had sought refuge
in Ephraim, and that to go to Jerusalem was to expose
Himself to the malice ofthe Pharisees, (John xi. 8 and 16,)
and momentary doubts of the result troubled and depressed
them. Yet, on the other hand, they had seen so many
proofs of His mighty power in Galilee, and the resurrection
of Lazarus was so fresh in their memories, that they could
not believe that His life could be taken by violence, or
against His wUl. That He should voluntarily yield Him
self up as a victim, was wholly inconceivable , and His
plainest words could not change their long preconceived
and deeply-rooted opinions as to the nature of the Mes
sianic kingdom. All His predictions respecting His suffer-
1 See Lichtenstein, 3T0.
- Meyer, following a different reading, makes two parties : some who re
mained behind in their amazement, and others who followed Him, but with
fear. The received text is followed by Tischendorf and Alford.

AMBITION OF JAMES AND JOHN. 391
ings and death, though explicit in the letter, they so inter
preted as to harmonize with a victory over aU His enemies,
and a triumphant reign.
A striking commentary upon Luke's statement, that the
disciples understood none of the Lord's words, is found in
the request of Salome, that her two sons, James and John,
might fiU the highest places in His kingdom. It has al
ready been noted, that the sending out of the Seventy, and
the pecutiar character of this jouniey to Jerusalem, had
awakened'very strong expectations that the day was very
near when He would openly and successfully assert His
claims to the throne of His father David. Perhaps Salome
and her sons may have had in mind His promise, spoken
several months earher, (Matt. xix. 28,) that the twelve
apostles should sit in the regeneration on twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel ; and believed that the
time for its fulfilment was near. The request was made by
her in person, but her sons were also present, and the
Lord's reply was addressed to them. Probably it was
made some few hours after He had spoken to the Twelve
of His sufferings and death ; perhaps when they were draw
ing near to Jericho, and had already been joined by troops
ofthe pilgrims on their way to the feast. The excitement
of the occasion, the tumult of the multitude, and the joy
and honor with which the Lord was greeted, would natu
rally drive from their minds the sombre impression of the
earlier part of the journey. What the expectations of
most of those who accompanied Him were, clearly appears
from Luke's words, (xix. 11:) "They thought that the
kingdom of God should immediately appear." Under
these circumstances, it was not strange that Salome and
her sons should present their request.

392 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.

March, 783. a. d. 30.
As in company with the crowd of pilgrims He ap- Luke xviii. 35-43.
proaches Jericho, two blind men, sitting by the way Matt. xx. 29-34.
side begging, address Him as the Son of David, be- Mark x. 46-52.
seeching Him to restore their sight. He heals them,
and they follow Him. Entering Jericho, He meets Luke xix. 1-10.
Zaccheus, and goes to his house, where He remains
during the night. In the morning, when about to de
part, He speaks to the people the parable of the Luke xix. 11-28.
pounds. He leaves Jericho, and the same day
reaches Bethany, near Jerusalem.
The account of the healing of the blind men is differently
related by the Synoptists, both as to the place and the
number of persons. Matthew and Mark make it to have
taken place as Jesus was leaving Jericho ; Luke, as He was
entering it. Matthew mentions two blind men ; Mark and
Luke mention but one. Of these discrepancies there are
several solutions :
1st. — That three bUnd men were healed ; one mentioned
by Luke, as He approached the city ; two mentioned by
Matthew, (Mark speaks only of one,) as He was leaving the
city.1 Some, as Osiander, make four to have been healed.
2d. — That tbe cases of healing were two, and distinct ;
one being on His entry into the city, the other on His de
parture.' According to this solution, Matthew combines the
two in one, and deeming the exact time and place unim
portant, represents them as both occurring at the departure
of the Lord from the city.
3d. — That two were healed, and both at His entry ; but
1 Kill o, Augustine, Morrison.
2 Lightfoot, Ebrard, Krafft, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Greswell, Bucher, Lex,
Neander.

HEALING OP BLIND MEN AT JERICHO. 393
one being better known than the other, he only is men
tioned by Mark and Luke."
4th. — That one of the blind men sought to be healed
as the Lord approached the city, but was not ; that the
next morning, joining himself to another, they waited for
Him by the gate, as He was leaving the city, and were
both healed together. Luke, in order to preserve the unity
of bis narrative, relates the healing of the former, as if it
had taken place on the afternoon ofthe entry.'
5 th. — That only one was healed, and he when the Lord
left the city. Matthew, according to bis custom, uses the
plural where the other Evangelists use the singular.3
%th. — That Luke's variance witb Matthew and Mark, in
regard to place, may be removed by interpreting (xviii. 35)
" as He was come nigh to Jericho," ev ™ eyyi£eu> avrov as
IepiX", bi the general sense of being near to Jericho, but
without defining whether He was approaching to it, or de
parting from it. Its meaning here is determined by Mat
thew and Mark : He was leaving the city, but still near to
it. ' Luke, tike Mark, mentions only the more prominent
person healed."
Other solutions of tbe discrepancy in regard to place,
have been given, as by Newcome," that Jesus spent several
days at Jericho, that He went out of the city, as mentioned
by Matthew and Mark, for a temporary purpose, and that
on His return He healed the blind men ; by McKnight,8
that there were two Jerichos, old and new ; and the bUnd
men, sitting on the road between them, were healed as the
Lord was departing from one and entering the other ; by
' Doddridge in loco. Newcome, Lichtenstein, Friedlieb.
- Bengel, Stier, Trench, Ellicott. See a modification of this view in
McKnight, and another in Lange on Matt. xx. 30.
» Oosterzee on Luke ; Da Costa.
* Grotius on Matt. xx. 30 ; Clericus, Diss, ii., Canon vi. ; Pilkington, cited
in Townsend v. 33 ; Bobinson, Jarvis, Owen.
« Har., 275. • Har., ii. 93.
17*

394 THE LIPE OF OUE LOED.
Paulus, (Ui. 44,) that there was a multitude of pUgrims with
Jesus, and that the front ranks ofthe procession were leav
ing the city as He was entering it.
Olshausen and Biggenbach decline to attempt to har
monize the accounts, regarding the differences as unimpor
tant. Meyer and De Wette suppose the Evangehsts to
have followed different traditions, and find the discrepancies
invincible. With them Alford agrees in substance : " The
only fair account of such differences is, that they existed in
sources from which each Evangelist took his narrative."
The supposition that two were healed separately, or that
there were two distinct miracles combined by Matthew in
one, he characterizes as " perfectly monstrous ; and would
at once destroy the credit of Matthew as a truthful re
lator." Norton (ii. 302) observes : " The difference in the
accounts of the Evangelists is entirely unimportant, except
as serving to show that they are independent historians ;
and it is idle to try to make them agree by the forced sup
positions, to which some commentators have resorted."
It is most probable that two were healed, though one only
is mentioned by Mark and Luke.
None of the Evangelists state at what time of the day
Jesus reached Jericho, but it was probably in the after
noon. The distance to Jerusalem, and the nature of the
country through which the road passed, may have made it
difficult or impossible to go on to Bethany that night, and
there Was no intervening viUage where they could encamp.
That Jesus did spend the night at Jericho, appears from
His words to Zaccheus, (Luke xix. 5,) " To-day I must
abide at thy house ; " and from the murmurings ofthe peo
ple, (v. 7,) " That He was gone to be a guest, (KaraXva-ai,)
with a man that is a sinner." * This visit ofthe Lord to the
house of a publican, although a chief among his class, and
• For this usage of KaraKvffai, see Luke ix. 12 ; se Meyer, Alford, Gres
well, Lichtenstein.

JESUS AT HOUSE OF ZACCHEUS. 395
rich, did not escape strong animadversion. It was regarded
by the people at large, and perhaps also by some- of His
own disciples, as an act unworthy of His high claims. In
popular estimation, pubUcans, whose caUing so odiously re
minded them of Roman domination, were no fit hosts for
Him whom they fondly believed to be now on His way to
Jerusalem to proclaim Himself the king. The conversation
between the Lord and Zaccheus (vs. 8-10) apparently took
place in the court of his house, or near the entrance, where
the crowd had foUowed. Olshausen supposes it to have
been on the morning of His departure, but there is no good
ground for this. It is not certain where the parable of the
nobleman (vs. 11-27) was spoken, but it would seem from
the connection that He was stiU standing by the door of
Zaccheus' house.1 Some, who suppose that He merely
passed a few hours with Zaccheus, and then journeyed on
toward Bethany the same day, make all from vs. 8-27 to
have been spoken at His departure.' We need not, how
ever, understand v. 28 as meaning that, immediately after
He had uttered the parable, He went up to Jerusalem.
Of Zaccheus tittle more is known than is here related.
He was not, as some have said, a heathen ; but, as appears
both from his name and from v. 9, of Jewish descent.' He
was a chief publican, or head coUector of the taxes, having
the other pubUcans of that region under him. Jericho was
rich in balsams, and therefore much toll was collected here.
According to tradition, Zaccheus became bishop of Caesa
rea. A tower, standing in the modern village of Riha, is
stUl shown as the "house of Zaccheus."
i So Meyer, Lichtenstein. ' Oosterzee in Ioeo; Stier, iv. 318.
8 So Meyer, Alford.

PART VI.
FROM THE ARRIVAL AT BETHANY TO THE RESURRECTION;
OR FROM MARCH 31st (8th NISAN) TO APRIL 9th (17th NISAN)
783. A.D. 30.

Friday, 31st March — Saturday, 1st April.
Arriving at Bethany, He abides there for the night. John xii. 1-9.
The next day He sups with Simon, a leper, — Lazarus, Matt. xxvi. 6-13.
Martha, and Mary being present. Here He is anointed Mark xiv. 3-9.
by Mary, while Judas and others are angry at so great
waste. At even, many come out of Jerusalem to see
Him and Lazarus. The rulers in the city hearing this, John xii. 10, 11.
consult how they may put Lazarus also to death.
The date of the arrival at Bethany is to be determined
from the statement of John, (xii. 1,) that He came " six days
before the Passover." But how shall these six days be
reckoned ? Shall both extremes, the day of His arrival and
the Passover, be included, or both excluded ? or one inclu
ded and one excluded ? The latter mode of computation
is more generaUy received. Adopting this mode, we reckon
from the Passover exclusive to the day of arrival inclusive.
But here a new question meets us. What day shall be
reckoned as the Passover, the 14th or 15th Nisan? The

ARRIVAL AT BETHANY. 397
language of Moses is express, (Levit. xxiii. 5,) "In the
fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's
Passover." Counting backward from the fourteenth and
excluding it, the sixth day, or the day of the arrival at Beth
any, was the 8th Nisan.1 What day ofthe week was this?
If the fourteenth feU on Thursday, the eighth was on Fri
day preceding ; if on Friday, the eighth was on Saturday,
or the Jewish Sabbath.
Owing to these differences in the modes of computation,
very different results are reached by harmonists. Robin
son, including both extremes, and counting from the four
teenth, or Thursday, makes Him to have arrived on Satur
day the ninth. Strong, computing the same way, but
making tbe fourteenth to fall on Friday, makes the arrival
on Sunday the tenth. Greswell, including one extreme,
and placing the Passover on Friday, makes it to have been
on Saturday. Luthardt, counting Thursday the 15th as
the Passover, makes it to have been on Sunday. Most,
however, making the fourteenth Thursday, place it on Fri
day the eighth.2 And this seems, on other grounds, the
most likely. That Jesus would, without necessity, travel
on the Sabbath, we cannot suppose ; much less that He
would go on that day from Jericho to Bethany, a distance
of twelve or fifteen miles.3 Some, as Robinson, suppose
that He went on that day only a Sabbath day's journey ;
but that He should have come on Friday so near, and then
have encamped, to finish the journey after sunset of the
Sabbath, is not probable. The supposition of GresweU,
that He spent that night at the house of Zaccheus, who
lived between Jericho and Bethany, and went on to Beth
any the next day, is wholly without proof, and, besides,
does not meet the difficulty. We infer that He did journey
1 So Meyer, Alford.
» Friedlieb, Bucher, Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Tholuck.
• Wieseler, 378.

398 THE LTFE OF OUR LORD.
directly from Jericho to Bethany • first, from the fact that
the whole intervening country is a wUderness, without city
or vUlage, where no one would, without necessity, spend
the night ; second, that He was with the crowd of pilgrims,
whose course was direct to Jerusalem, and who would nat
uraUy so arrange their movements as to reach it before the
Sabbath. We can easily understand why the Lord should desire
to stop at Bethany rather than go on to the city. Here
He found repose and peace in a household, whose members
were bound to Him by the strongest ties ; and here, in se-
elusion and quiet, He could prepare Himself for the trials
and anguish of the coming week ; and here continued to be
His home tiU His arrest.
The distance from Jericho to Jerusalem is, according to
Josephus,1 a hundred and fifty furlongs ; and from the Jor-
dan to Jericho, sixty. Porter estimates the former at five
and a half hours, and the latter at two hours. From Jeri
cho to Bethany is about fifteen miles ; and all travellers
agree in describing the way as most difficult and dreary.
It is much disputed when the supper was made for
the Lord. John merely says : " Then Jesus, six days be
fore the Passover, came to Bethany — there they made Him
a supper." This does not determine whether the supper
was upon the day of His arrival, or the next, or even later ;
still the more obvious interpretation is, that it was that day
or the next. He also gives us another note of time, in v.
1 2 : " On the next day much people . . . took branches of palm
trees," &c. But to what is this " next day " related ; to
the events immediately preceding (vs. 9, 10) the visit of
many of the Jews to Bethany, and the consultation of the
chief priests, or to the day of His arrival at Bethany ? If to
the latter, as by Meyer, the supper must have been in the
evening of the day of His arrival ; if to the former, as by
' War, 4. 8. 3.

SUPPER AT BETHANY. 399
Friedlieb, it is left undetermined. Those who put His arrival
at Bethany on Saturday, or Sunday, put the supper on the
evening ofthe same day ; but most of those who put the ar
rival on Friday, put the supper on the foUowing evening, or
the evening of the Sabbath. And this seems most prob
able ; for the language, " there. they made Him a supper,"
implies that it was a feast given specially in His honor, and
not an ordinary repast.1 The presence of the Jews from
Jerusalem, at Bethany, is thus, too, most easily explained ;
the sojourn of Jesus over the Sabbath giving ample time
for His. arrival to become known, and for all who wished to
visit Him.
That the supper mentioned by Matthew (xxvi. 0-13)
and Mark, (xiv. 3-9,) is identical with this of John, has
been questioned, but without good grounds." But if iden
tical, why do the former place it in such direct relation to
that assembling of the chief priests which took place two
days before the Passover ? From this relation many have
inferred that Matthew and Mark narrate it in chronological
order, and that John mentions it by anticipation.3 If so, it
was upon the evening following Tuesday. But the argu
ments for this order, are not convincing. A close exami
nation of Matt. xxvi. and Mark xiv., shows us that the ac
count of the supper is brought in parenthetically. Two
days before the feast of the Passover, the chief priests and
elders hold a couneU at the palace of Caiaphas, the high
priest, and consult how they may kUl Jesus. They dare
not arrest Him openly, and with violence, but will do it by
subtlety ; yet, even this they fear to do during the feast.
The result of their consultation thus was, that the arrest
be postponed till the feast was past. But the Lord had
» As to feasts upon the Sabbath, see Luke xiv. 1 ; Winer, ii. 47 and 346.
2 Lightfoot, Clericus, A. Clarke, McKnight, Whitby, make them distinct
See, contra. Michaelis in Townsend, part v. note 37.
» Bynaeus, Newcome, Robinson, Da Costa, Wichelaus, Owen.

400 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
declared, that after two days was the Passover, and then
He should be betrayed to be crucified. Matthew and Mark,
therefore, proceed to show how the Lord's words were ful
filled through the treachery of Judas, and the priests ancl
elders made to change their resolution. This apostate,
coming to the priests, offers to betray Him into their hands,
and will do it so soon as an opportunity presents. Thus
the matter is left between Judas and them, and they await
his action.
.Turning now to the account of the supper, we ask why
it is thus interposed between the consultation of the priests
and the action of Judas ? Plainly that it may explain his
action. He was offended that so much money should be
wasted at the anointing of the Lord, and in his covetous-
ness, as here revealed, we find the explanation of his subse
quent treachery. But it is said that neither Matthew nor
Mark make any special mention of Judas at the supper,
and, therefore, give no explanation of his treachery. They
say only that certain of the disciples were displeased. It
must be admitted, that had we not the narrative of John,
it would not be obvious why they should mention this sup
per in this connection. There may be some reason, un
known to us, why they omit the name of Judas, as the one
chiefly offended. Yet, even with this omission, an impar
tial reader could hardly faU to infer that Matthew and Mark
design to say that Judas, the one of the Twelve who went
to the priests to betray Jesus, was one of those that had
indignation ; and that to the supper at Bethany we may
trace the immediate origin of the treachery they relate.
Some, however, think the supper to be mentioned here
upon other grounds.1 There is nothing in the language
of Matthew or Mark, which necessarUy implies that this
supper took place two days before the Passover ; for the
1 Ebrard, 474; Strong, Har., note 51.

SECOND ANOINTING OF JESUS. 401
statement ofthe former, (v. 14,) "Then Judas . . . went unto
the chief priests," does not connect the time of his visit
with the supper, but witb their council, (vs. 3-5.) All be
tween vs. 5-14, comes in parenthetically as an explanatory
statement. But against this it is objected,1 that Judas
would not have cherished a purpose of treachery four days
in his heart without executing it. But the betrayal of his
Lord was not a hasty, passionate act, done in a moment of
excitement. It was done coolly, deliberately ; and this is
what gave it its atrocious character. Greswell remarks (iii.
129) that " this history is divisible into three stages, each
of which has been accurately defined ; the first cause and
conception of his purpose ; the overt step toward its exe
cution ; and lastly, its consummation. The consummation
took place in the garden of Gethsemane ; the overt step
was the compact with the Sanhedrim ; the first cause and
conception of the purpose, if they are to be traced up to
any thing on record, must be referred to what happened at
Bethany." Although Matthew and Mark speak of Jesus as being
in the house of Simon the leper, yet many have supposed
that the supper was made by the family of Lazarus,
principaUy from the fact that " Martha served." But
against this is the fact that Lazarus appears not as the;
master of the feast, but as a guest. According to some, it .
was a feast prepared in common by the disciples and
friends of the Lord at Bethany, and held at the house
of Simon. Of Simon we have no knowledge ; but it is
probable that he was a leper, and had been healed by the.
Lord. One tradition makes him to have been the father
of Lazarus.2 Another makes him to have been the husband
of Martha.3 We may readily believe that, although the
supper was at the house of Simon, Martha and Mary may
i Bobinson, Har. 210. » See Ewald, v. 401, who defends it.
a Winer, ii. 464

402 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
have been active helpers in its preparation. It is not
necessary to suppose any kindred to explain Martha's ser
vice, for she would gladly honor her Lord, to whom she
was so deeply indebted, by every act of personal attention
it was in her power to render.
How often the Lord was anointed, and by whom, has
been much discussed by harmonists and commentators from
the earliest times. Some have affirmed that Luke (vii. 37)
mentions one anointing ; Matthew (xxvi. 7) and Mark
(xiv. 3) another; and John (xn. 3) a third. But most have
affirmed two anointings ; some identifying the narratives of
Luke and John,1 but more identifying that of John with
those of Matthew and Mark.3 A few, as Grotius, affirm
that He was but once anointed, making the narratives of
the Evangelists all to refer to the same event. It is now
generally held that there were two anointings ; that men
tioned by Luke, and that mentioned by the other Evan
gelists.3 In regard to the persons by whom the Lord was
anointed, there has been like difference of opinion. It is
plain from John, (xi. 2,) that Mary the sister of Lazarus
anointed Him once ; and we cannot doubt that she is the
person alluded to by "John, (xii. 3,) and by Matthew and
Mark. By whom was He anointed upon tbe occasion
mentioned by Luke ? Many affirm that this was also done
by the same Mary.4 This opinion is the ruling one in the
Romish Church, being sanctioned in her ritual. The Greek
Chureh, on the other hand, holds them to be different per
sons.6 We can scarcely believe that the sister of Lazarus,
a member of that family whose society the Lord seems

1 Jerome, chiefly because both mention the anointing of the feet.
* Augustine, Calvin, Bynaeus.
' So Newcome, Trench, Tischendorf, Robinson, Meyer.
' So Augustine, who refers to John xi. 2, as showing that Mary would not
be thus spoken of had there been another person who had done a like act.
5 Origen and Chrysostom.

ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. 403
often to have sought, whom He loved, and whose name is
associated in our minds with His words of praise, (Luke
x. 42,) could have been ever a professed harlot, for such it
would appear was " the sinner " of whom Luke speaks, (vii.
37.)' As the anointings must be distinguished from each
other as to time and place, there is also no sufficient reason
why the persons anointing should be identified.'
We give the following as the probable order of events.
Jesus, leaving Jericho on the morning of Friday, reaches
Bethany in the afternoon, perhaps about sunset. He leaves
tbe pilgrims with whom He has journeyed, and who go on
to Jerusalem, and with His apostles, stops till the Sabbath
should be past ; they being probably received by some of
His friends, and He Himself doubtless finding a home in
the dwelling of Lazarus and his sisters. The next day,
being the Sabbath, is spent at Bethany, and in the after
noon Simon the leper makes Him a supper, at which His
disciples, and Lazarus and his sisters, were present. During
the afternoon the Jews of Jerusalem, who had heard through
the pUgrims of His arrival, go out to see Him and Lazarus,
and some of them beheve on Him. This, coming to the
ears of the chief priests, leads to a consultation bow Lazarus
may be put to death with Jesus.

Sunday, 2d April, 10th Nisan, 783. A, d. 30.
Leaving Bethany, He sends to Bethphage for an ass Matt. xxi. 1-11.
upon which to ride, and sitting upon it He enters Jeru- Mark xi. 1-10.
salem amidst the shouts of His disciples, and of the Luke xix. 29-44.
populace. As He looks upon the city from the Mount John xii. 12-19.
of Olives He weeps over it. All the city is greatly
moved, and the Pharisees desire Him to rebuke His
1 See note upon this passage, p. 259,
3 As to the opinion of some that this Mary is the same as Mary Magda
lene, see page 260.

404 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
disciples. He visits the temple; but, after looking Maek xi. 11.
around Him, leaves it, and goes out with the Twelve
to Bethany, where He passes the night.
Placing the Lord's arrival at Bethany on Friday, the
supper and anointing on Saturday, His solemn entry into
the city took place on Sunday.1 As to the hour of the
entry nothing is said, but from Mark xi. 11 it appears that
it was late in the afternoon when He entered the temple ;
and, as no events intermediate are mentioned, the entry
into the temple seems to have been soon after the entry
into the city. It was, then, probably near the middle of
the day when He left Bethany. Luthardt, who puts the
supper on Sunday, makes the entry to have been still later
upon the same' day ; but this would have brought it to
the verge of evening. GresweU puts His departure from
Bethany about the ninth "hour, or 3 p. m. ; his arrival in
the temple before the eleventh, His departure before sun
set. The position of Bethphage, " house of figs," which is
mentioned by the Synoptists in connection with Bethany,
is much disputed. It may be inferred from Mark, (xi. 1,)
" And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage
and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives," and the like expression
in Luke xix. 29, that they were two distinct yet adjacent vil
lages; buttheir relative positions to each other arenot defined.
From the fact, however, that Bethphage is first mentioned,
the journey being from Jericho to Jerusalem, or from east
to west, it is supposed that it was first reached, and there
fore east of Bethany.3 Others, however, maintain that the
Evangelists in their narratives take Jerusalem as the cen
tre, and mention Bethphage first, because first reached by
1 So Lichtenstein, Robinson, Wieseler, Bucher, Friedlieb, Wichelhaus,
Meyer. s Winer, i. 174 ; Kobinson, Meyer.

BETHPHAGE AND BETHANY. 405
one going to the east.1 Another reason for this order is
given by Greswell, (Ui. 75 :) " Bethphage lay upon the di
rect line of this route, but Bethany did not ; so that one
traveUing from Jericho would come to Bethphage first, and
would have to turn off from the road to go to Bethany."
Lightfoot, (x. 76,) relying upon Talmudical authorities, would
put Bethphage just under the city walls, and ascribe to it
the same privileges as if actuaUy within them. " The first
space from the city, toward the Mount of Olives, was caUed
Bethphage." He also speaks of " Bethphage within the
walls and Bethphage without the walls." In tike manner
Alford speaks of it : "A considerable suburb, nearer to
Jerusalem than Bethany, and sometimes reckoned part of
the city." ' A late tradition marks its site as about 100
paces below the top ofthe Mount, toward the east ; but no
traces of ruins, according to Robinson, exist there. Some
suppose that Bethphage and Bethany are only designations
for different parts of the same viUage.'
In his recent investigations in the neighborhood of
Jerusalem, Barclay (65) found a site which be imagines to
answer all the demands of the narrative. It is upon " a
spur of Olivet, distant rather more than a mUe from the
city, situated between two deep valleys, on which there are
tanks, foundations, and other indubitable evidences of the
former existence of a village." This seems to be the same
.site to which Porter refers, upon the projecting point of a
ridge, and marked by "scarped rocks, cisterns, and old
stones." Without attempting to define the exact position of
Bethphage, we may thus arrange the circumstances con
nected with the Lord's departure from Bethany : Leaving
this vUlage on foot, attended by His disciples and others,
- Lichtenstein, Ellicott. ' So Wieseler, 435, note.
» So Porter, (i. 188,) who refers to the similarity of then- names, "house
of figs" and "house of dates."

406 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
He comes to the place where the neighboring viUage of
Bethphage is in view, over against them, perhaps separated
from them by a valley. At this point He arrests His march,
and sends two of His disciples ; to find and bring to Him an
ass tied, and ber colt with her. When her owners de
manded of them why they took the ass, they had only to
say that the Lord had need of it, and the sight of Jesus,
with the attendant crowds, would at once explain why He
needed it. It is not, therefore, necessary to suppose that
the owners were His disciples ; much less that any previous
arrangement had been made with them. Some would
make the vUlage where tbe ass was found, a vUlage in the
vicinity, distinct from Bethphage.1 But there is no neces
sity for this. The animal being brought to Him, He is
seated upon it, and, amidst the acclamations of the multi
tude, ascends to the top of the Mount.
As both the ass and her colt were brought, it has been
questioned upon which the Lord rode. But Mark and
Luke are express that it was the colt.8 The multitude that
accompanied the Lord was composed, in part, of those
going up to the city from the neighborhood, and ofthe pU-
grims from GaUlee and Perea on their way thither ; and, in
part, of those who, hearing of His coming, had gone out
from the city to meet Him, (John xU. 12, 13.) It is prob
able that most of the latter were pilgrims, not inhabitants
of the city, and are spoken of by John as " people that were
come to the feast." The priests, and scribes, and Pharisees,
stood as angry or contemptuous spectators, and not only
refused to join in the rejoicings and hosannas, but bade
Him rebuke His disciples, and command them to be sUent,
(Luke xix. 39.)
The road by which the Lord passed over Olivet was
probably the southern or main road, which passes between
> Ebrard, 477 ; Greswell, iii. 78.
J See Ebrard, 4130 ; Meyer in loco.

TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. 407
the summit which contains the Tombs of the Prophets, and
that called the Mount of Offence. This was the usual road
for horsemen and caravans ; a steep footpath leads over
the central peak, and a winding road over the northern
shoulder, neither of which could He have taken. Stanley
(187) thus describes the procession : " Two vast streams of
people met on that day. The one poured out from the
city, and, as they came through the gardens whose clusters
of palm rose on the southeastern corner of Olivet, they cut
down the long branches, as was their wont at the feast of
Tabernacles, and moved upward toward Bethany with
loud shouts of welcome. From Bethany streamed forth
the crowds who had assembled there the previous night.
The road soon loses sight of Bethany . . . The two streams
met midway. Half of the vast mass, turning round, pre
ceded ; tbe other half followed. Gradually the long pro
cession swept up over the ridge where first begins ' the
descent of the Mount of Olives ' toward Jerusalem. At
this point the first view is caught of the southeastern cor
ner of the city. The temple and the more northern por
tions are hid by the slope of Olivet on the right ; what is
seen is only Mount Zion ... It was at this precise point, ' as
He drew near, at the descent ofthe Mount of Olives,' (may
it not have been from the sight thus opening upon them ?)
that the shout of triumph burst forth from the multitude :
' Hosanna to the Son of David ! Blessed is He that
cometh in the name of the Lord ! ' Again the procession
advanced. Tbe road descends a slight declivity, and the
glimpse of the city is again withdrawn behind the inter
vening ridge of Olivet. A few moments, and the path
mounts again; it climbs a rugged ascent; it reaches a
ledge of smooth rock, and in an instant the whole city
bursts into view. It is hardly possible to doubt that this
rise and turn of the road, this rocky ledge, was the exact

408 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
point where the multitude paused again ; and ' He, when
He beheld the city,' wept over it."
Tradition makes tbe Lord to have crossed the summit
of the Mount of Olives, and puts the spot where He wept
over the city about half-way down on its western slope.1
This entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, " the city of the
great king," was a formal assertion of His Messianic claims.
It was the last appeal to the Jews to discern and recognize
His royal character. He came as a king, and permitted
His disciples and the multitude to pay Him kingly honors.
He received, as rightly belonging to Him, the acclamations,
" Hosanna to the Son of David ! Blessed is He that cometh
in the name of the Lord." " Blessed be the kingdom of our
father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord.''
"Blessed be the king that cometh in the name of the
Lord : peace in heaven and glory in the highest." " Ho
sanna ! Blessed is the King of Israel, that cometh in the
name of the Lord." He was the Son of David, the King
of Israel, coming in the name of the Lord. But, although
this triumphal entry excited general attention — " all the
city was moved," (Matt. xxi. 1 0,) yet it is plain from the
question put by the citizens, " Who is this ? " that, as a
body, they had taken little part in the matter. " And the
multitude said, This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of
Galilee," (v. 11.) This multitude, thus distinguished from
the citizens, consisted doubtless of those who had escorted
Him from Bethany, and who were mostly GalUeans ; and
their answer, as remarked by Meyer, seems to show a kind
of local pride in Him as from Galilee, their own prophet.
But this very answer was peculiarly adapted to set the
people of Judea against Him. (See John vU. 52.)
The visit to the temple, and its purification, are put by
Matthew (xxi. 12) as if immediately foUowing the entry;
' See Van de Velde's Map of Jerusalem ; Ellicott, 288, note 1.

JESUS RETURNS TO BETHANY. 409
but Mark (xi. 11) states that He merely entered the tem
ple, and, looking around Him, went out because tbe even
had come, and returned to Bethany with the Twelve.
Luke (xix. 45) gives us no mark of time. The statement
of Mark is so precise, that we cannot hesitate to give it the
preference.1 Some suppose the Lord to have twice purified
the temple ; on the day of His entry, and again the next
day.2 Others, that He began it on one day and finished it
on the next, cleansing first the inner and then the outer
court. Patritius makes Him to have healed the blind and
lame, to have answered the priests and scribes, (Matt. xxi.
14-16,) and to have heard the request of the Greeks, (John
xii. 20-22,) on this first entry. Alford's supposition,3 that
Mark relates the triumphal entry a day too soon ; that
Jesus, in fact, first entered the city privately, noticed the
abuses in the temple, and, returning to Bethany the next
day, made His triumphal entry ; has no good basis. A pri
vate entry before the public one conflicts with the whole
tenor of the narrative.
After looking about the temple, (" round about upon
all things," Mark,) as if He would observe whether all was
done according to His Father's wUl, He goes out, and re
turns to Bethany. Greswell (Ui. 100) remarks : " It is prob
able that the traders, with their droves of cattle and their
other effects, had already removed them for the day."
But, if so, He saw by plain marks that His Father's house
was still made a house of merchandise. There can be Uttle
doubt that He spent the nights during Passion week in this
village, and probably in the house of Lazarus. Matthew
says, (xxi. 17:) "He went out ofthe city, into Bethany,
and He lodged there." Luke, speaking in general terms,
says, (xxi. 37 :) "And in the day-time He was teaching in
1 Wieseler, Lange, Alexander, Robinson, Tischendorf, Bucher, Meyer,
Ellicott. ' Lightfoot, Townsend ; see Greswell, iii. 99. 3 Note on Matt. xxi. 1.
T O

410 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
the temple, and at night He went out and abode (lodged)
in the mount that is called of Olives." Probably Bethany
is here meant as a district embracing a part of the mount,
for He could not well, at this season ofthe year, without a
tent, lodge in the open air. Alexander supposes that Luke
would suggest, that " a part of these nights was employed
in prayer amidst the solitudes of OUvet." Some would put
the request of the Greeks to see Jesus, and His answer to
them, (John xii. 20-36,) upon this day ; but it may better
be referred to Tuesday, upon grounds to be there given.
Many would bring this visit of Jesus to the temple on
the 10th Nisan into connection with the divine command to
choose this day a lamb for the paschal sacrifice and supper,
(Ex. xn. 3-6,) and thus find in it a mystical significance.
He was the true Paschal Lamb, and was now set apart for
the sacrifice.1

Monday, 3d April, 11th Nisan, 783. a. d. 30.
Jesus, leaving Bethany early with His disciples, was Matt. xxi. 18, 19.
hungry, and beholding a fig tree by the way which had Mabk xi. 12-14.
no fruit, He pronounced a curse against it. Proceed
ing to the city, He enters the temple and purifies it. Matt. xxi. 12-16.
He heals there the blind and lame, and the children Mark xi. 15-19.
cry, " Hosanna to the Son of David." His reproofs Luke xix. 45-48.
enrage the priests and scribes, who seek how to destroy
Him. In the evening He departs, and returns to
Bethany. Both Matthew and Mark relate that the Lord was hun
gry as He returned into the city ; but upon what ground
He had abstained from food that morning, does not appear.
It could not well have been from the early hour of His
departure from Bethany, but was probably a self-imposed
' Whitby, Greswell, Alford, Wieseler.

SECOND PURIFICATION OP THE TEMPLE. 411
fast. It has been inferred from this circumstance that He
could not have spent the night with His friends. It may
have been spent in soUtude and prayer.
Into an examination of the supposed moral difficulties
connected with the cursing of the fig tree, we cannot here
enter.1 It is plain that this miracle is narrated because
of its symboUc teachings. The fig tree was the type of
the Jewish people, (Luke xiti. 6-9.) They had the law,
the temple, all rites of worship, the externals of righteous
ness ; but bore none of its true fruits. Christ found noth
ing but leaves.
Matthew relates the withering of the fig tree as if it
took place, not only on the same day on which it was cursed,
but within a few moments, (vs. 19, 20.) Mark, on the
other hand, speaks as if the withering was not seen by the
disciples tiU the next day, (xi. 20.) Greswell, who sup
poses that the malediction instantly took effect, and that
the tree began at once to wither, would make Matthew and
Mark refer to two distinct conversations between the Lord
and the disciples ; one that day, and the other upon the
next. More probably, Matthew brings together all that oc
curred upon both days, in order to complete his narrative.2
That this purification of the temple is distinct from that
at tbe beginning of His ministry, (John ii. 13-17,) has been
already shown. That the latter was passed over by the
Synoptists, is explained from the fact that they begin their
account of Jesus' ministry with His departure to GalUee
after John the Baptist's imprisonment. That John should
omit the former, is wholly in keeping with the character of
his Gospel. The first cleansing and rebuke had wrought
no permanent results, and the old abuses were restored in
fuU vigor.
After cleansing the temple, or that part of the court of
1 See Trench on Miracles, p. 346.
a So Alford, Trench, Krafft, Wieseler.

412 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
the GentUes called " the shops," where every day was sold
wine, salt, oU, as also oxen and sheep,1 He permits the blind
and lame, probably those who asked alms at the gates, to
come to Him, and He healed them. These healings, and
the expressions of, wonder and gratitude which they called
forth, joined to the remembrance of the acclamations
that bad greeted Him the day before, led the chUdren in
the temple, who may have been members of the choir of
singers employed in the temple service, to cry, " Hosanna
to the Son of David," greatly to the displeasure of the
priests and scribes. It is remarkable that children only are
mentioned, and may indicate that already the multitude,
overawed by the firm and hostUe bearing of His enemies,
had begun to waver, and dared no more openly express
their good will. (See, however, Mark xi. 18.)
Some, from tbe fact that the chUdren are here mentioned
as crying Hosanna, and that in the temple, make it to have
been on the day of the Lord's entry.8 But there is no dif
ficulty in believing that the children might now re-echo
what they had heard a few hours before.3

Tuesday, 4th April, 12th Nisan, 783. a. d. 30.
Returning into the city in the morning with His dis- Mark xi. 20-26.
ciples, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots, and Matt. xxi. 20-22.
this leads Jesus to speak to them respecting faith. As
He entered the temple, the Pharisees ask Him by what Matt. xxi. 23-46.
authority He acts. He replies by a question respecting Mark xi. 27-33.
the baptism of John, and adds the parables of the two Luke xx. 1-18.
sous and ofthe wicked husbandmen. The Pharisees Mark xii. 1-13.
wish to arrest Him, but are afraid of the people. He Matt. xxii. 1-14.
speaks of the parable of the king's son. The Pharisees MATT.xxii.15-46.
and Herodians propose to Him the question concern- Mark xii. 13-40.
1 See Lightfoot on Matt. xxi. 12. ' Alford, Newcome, Robinson.
- Krafft, Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Ellicott.

LAST TEACHING IN THE TEMPLE. • 413
ing the lawfulness of tribute to Csesar. The Sadducees Luke xx. 19-47.
question Him respecting the resurrection of the dead ;
and a lawyer, Which is the chief commandment in the
law ? He asks the Pharisees a question respecting the
Messiah, and puts them to silence, and addressing the Matt, xxiii.
disciples and people denounces their hypocrisy.
'After this He watches the people casting in their Mark xii. 41-44.
gifts, and praises the poor widow who casts in two Luke xxi. 1-4.
mites. Some Greeks desiring to see Him, He prophe- John xii. 20-36.
sieB of His death. A voice is heard from heaven. He
speaks a few words to the people and leaves the tem
ple. As He goes out, the disciples point out to Him the Mark xiii. 1-37.
size and splendor of the buildings, to whom He replies Luke xxi. 5-36.
that all shall be thrown down. Ascending the Mount Matt. xxiv. xxv.
of Olives He seats Himself, and explains to Peter, James,
John, and Andrew, the course of events till His re
turn. He adds, that after two days was the Passover, Matt. xxvi. 1-5.
when He should be betrayed. He goes to Bethany, and Mark xiv, 1, 2.
the same evening, His enemies hold a council and agree Mat.xxvl14-16.
with Judas respecting His betrayal. Mark xiv. 10, 11.
The withering of the fig tree seems to have begun as
soon as the Lord had spoken the curse agamst it. Matthew
says, " presently the fig tree withered away." Mark says,
" it was dried up from the roots." In twenty-four hours it
was completely dead. That the disciples did not at even
ing, upon their return to Bethany, see that it had withered,
may be owing to the late hour of their return, or that they
did not pass by it.
Tbe people assembling at an early hour in the temple,
Jesus goes thither immediately upon His arrival in the
city, and begins to teach. Very soon the chief priests and
elders ofthe people, and scribes, came to Him, demanding
by what authority He acted. It seems a question formally
put to Him, and probably by a deputation from the Sanhe
drim.1 It differs essentially from the question put to Him
after the first purification, (John ii. 18,) " What sign shew-
1 So Alexander, Meyer.

414 THE LIFE" OF OUE LORD.
est thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things ? " Now it
is, " By what authority doest thou these things ? And who
gave thee this authority ? " Then, they desired that He
should work miracles as signs or proofs of His divine mis
sion. But His miracles had not been sufficient to convince
them. Now, he must give other vouchers. He must show
himself to be authorized by those who, sitting in Moses'
seat, were alone able to confer authority. But they had
not authorized Him, and He was therefore acting in an
arbitrary and iUegal manner. To this question He replies
by another respecting the baptism of John. The Baptist
had borne his testimony to Him when, three years before,
they had sent a deputation to him, (John i. 26.) If John
was a prophet, and divinely commissioned, why had they
not received his testimony? This was a dUemma they
could not escape. They could not condemn themselves ;
they dare not offend the people ; they must remain silent.
Although thus repulsed, yet, His enemies continuing in
the temple, He begins to speak to them in parables, (Mark
xn. 1 ;) " tbe second beginning," says Stier, " as before in
Gahlee, so now in Jerusalem." It is to be noted that now,
for the first time, the Lord utters plainly the truth in the
hearing of the Pharisees, that they shaU kiU Him, and
that in consequence the kingdom shall be taken from them.1
The point of these parables was not missed by the Pharisees,
but they dare not arrest Him.
The parable ofthe marriage ofthe king's son is related
by Matthew only, for that in Luke (xiv. 16-24) was spoken
much earlier.2 It set forth more distinctly than the para
bles preceding, the rejection of the Jews, those bidden of
old ; the bidding of others in their place ; and the destruc
tion of their city.
» See Matt. viii. 11, 12. These words seem to have been spoken to tho
disciples. 2 Meyer, Alford, Robinson, Tischendorf, Lichtenstein, Trench.

THB PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES TEMPT HIM. 415
Stung by these parables, so full of sharp rebuke, the
Pharisees now consult together bow " they may entangle
Him in His talk." Never were their craft and inveterate
hostility more strikingly shown, than in these attempts to
draw something from His own mouth which might serve as
the basis of accusation against Him. The first question
would have been fuU of perU to one less wise than Himself,
for it appealed to the most lively political susceptibilities of
the people. No zealous Jew could admit that tribute was
rightly due to Csesar, and much less could one who claimed
to be the Messiah admit this ; for it was to confess that He
was the vassal of the Romans, a confession utterly incom
patible with Messianic claims. Yet if He denied this, the
Herodians were at hand to accuse him of treason, an accu
sation which the Romans were always quick to hear: But
He avoided the artfully contrived snare by referring the
question to their own discernment. God had chosen them
for His people, and He alone should be their king, and
therefore it was not right for them to be under heathen
domination. Yet, because of their sins, God had given
them into the hands of their enemies, and they were now
under Roman rule. This fact they must recognize, and in
view of this they must fulfil all duties, those to Csesar as
well as those to God.
The question of the Sadducees was in keeping with the
sceptical, scoffing character of that sect. Apparently, it was
not so much designed to awake popular hatred against Him
as to cast ridicule upon .Him, and also upon their rivals,
the Pharisees, by showing the absurd consequences of one of
their most cherished dogmas, the resurrection of the dead.
Perhaps, also, they were curious to see how He would meet
an argument to which their rivals had been able to give no
satisfactory answer.1
The question of the lawyer seems to have been without
' See Meyer in loco.

416 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
any mahcious motive on his part.1 It referred to a disputed
point among the schools of the Rabbis, and which he, ad
miring the wisdom of Jesus, wished to hear solved. Some,
however, suppose (see Matt. xxii. 34) that the lawyer was
sent by the Pharisees, who had gathered together to de
vise a new attack.' But these two views are not reaUy incon
sistent. The lawyer, a man of abUity and reputation, and
on these grounds chosen to be their representative and
spokesman, may have had a sincere respect for that wis
dom that had marked Christ's previous answers. He pro
poses this question respecting the comparative value of the
' commandments, rather to test His knowledge in the law
than to array tbe people against him. Had the answer
been erroneous, doubtless advantage would have been taken
of it to His injury, although it is not obvious to us in
what way ; but it so commended itself to the inteUigence of
the lawyer, that he honestly and frankly expresses his ap
probation. (See Mark xii. 32-34.)
All his adversaries being silenced, the Lord proceeds in
His turn to ask a question that should test their own know
ledge, and inquires how the Messiah, could be the Son of
David, and yet David caU Him Lord ? Their inability to
answer Him shows us how Uttle the truth that the Messiah
should be a divine being, the Son of God, as weU as Son of
man, was yet apprehended by them ; and how aU Christ's
efforts to reveal His true nature had faUed, through their
wickedness and unbelief.
It is questioned whether the Lord's words to the
scribes (Mark xn. 38-40 ; Luke xx. 45-47) are to be dis
tinguished from those recorded by Matthew, xxiU. Gres
weU (iii. 121) gives ten reasons for distinguishing between
them, which, however, have no great weight. Most re
gard them as identical.3 Wieseler (395) supposes Mat-
' Greswell, Alford. ' Meyer, Ebrard.
» Ebrard, Meyer, Alford, Robinson, Krafft.

STERN REBUKES OF THE PHARISEES. 417
thew to have included the address to the Pharisees, record
ed by Luke xi. 39-52. The attempts of the Pharisees to
entrap Him, their malice and wickedness veiled under the
show of righteousness, awaken the Lord's deepest indigna
tion, and explain the terrible severity of His language.
They had proved that " they were the chUdren of them
which killed the prophets;" and as the old messengers
of God had been rejected and slain, so should they reject
and slay those whom He was about to send. Thus should
all the righteous blood shed upon the earth come upon
them. It is not certain who was the " Zacharias son of Bara-
chias," to whom the Lord refers as slain between the
temple and the altar. Many identify him with the Zech
ariah son of Jehoiada, who was " stoned with stones, at the
commandment of the king in the court of the house ofthe
Lord," (2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21.) In this case, Barachias may
have been another name of Jehoiada, as the Jews had often
two names ; or Barachias may have been the father,, and
Jehoiada the grandfather; or, as it is omitted by Luke
xi. 51, some, as Meyer, infer that it was not mentioned by
Christ, but was added from tradition, and erroneously
given, perhaps confounding him with tbe Zechariah son of
Berechiah, (Zech. i. 1.) But if this Zacharias was meant,
why is he called the last of the martyrs, since there were
others later? The explanation given by Lightfoot is at
least probable, that it was the last example in the Old Tes
tament as the canon was then arranged, and therefore the
Lord cites the first, that of Abel, and this as the last. Both
have also another circumstance in common ; a caU of the ¦
murdered for vengeance. " The requiring of vengeance is-
mentioned only concerning Abel and Zacharias. ' Behold
the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me,' (Gen.
iv. 10.) 'Let the Lord look upon it and require it,'"
18*

418 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
(2 Chron. xxiv. 22.1) Others make this Zechariah to be pro
phetically spoken of, and identify him with the Zecharias
son of Baruch mentioned by Josephus,* who was slain by
the Zealots in the midst of the temple, and the body cast
into tbe vaUey of the Kidron. But the Lord does not
speak of blood to be yet shed, but of that which had been
shed ; and as the death of Abel was a weU-known historical
event, so also was that of Zacharias. Others refer to a
tradition that Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, was
murdered by the Jews.3
Many make this discourse to the Pharisees to have been
spoken just before He left the temple, and His last words
there. " It is morally certain," says Greswell, " that our
Lord immediately left the temple, and never returned to
it again." But most follow the order of Mark, (xii. 41-44,)
who places the visit of Jesus to the treasury after this
discourse.4 Seating Himself by the treasury, or treasure
chests in the court of the women, in which offerings were
placed, He watches those who come to bring their gifts.
The visit of the Greeks to Him is mentioned only by
John, (xU. 20-36.) Some place it upon the evening ofthe
triumphal entry." But the Lord's language fits better to
the final departure from the temple than to the time of
the entry. Beside, if He was now in the court of the wo
men, it explains tbe request of tbe Greeks to see Him ; for
if He had been in tbe outer court, all could have seen Him;
'but into the inner court they could not come. Upon these,
and other grounds, it is placed here by many." It is not
1 So Meyer, Alford, Lange ; see Winer, ii. 711. " War, 4. 5. 4.
8 Thilo, Codex Apoc. i. 267 ; Hofmann, Leben Jesu, 134 j Jones on the
-Canon of the N. Test., ii. 134. According to the latter, this tradition was
very generally credited in early times, as by Tertullian, Origen, Epipbanius.
See also Baronius, who defends it.
' Krafft, Friedlieb, Robinson, Wieseler, Ellicott, Tischendorf.
6 Greswell, Krafft, Ebrard, Townsend, Stier.
5 Robinson, Lichtenstein, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Ellicott.

THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN. 419
certain whether these Greeks did actually meet the Lord.
His words (vs. 23-27) were not addressed directly to them,
but they may have been within bearing. Their coming is
a sign that His end is nigh, and that the great work for
which He came into the world, is about to be fulfiUed.
Stier sets this visit of the Greeks from the west, in contrast
to the visit of the Magi from the east ; the one at the end,
the other at the beginning of His hfe.
In reply to the Lord's prayer — " Glorify Thy name," (v.
28) — there "came a voice from heaven, I have both glori
fied it, and wUl glorify it again." These words, according
to most interpreters, were spoken in an audible voice. It
is said by Alford, " This voice can no otherwise be under
stood than as a plain articulate sound, miraculously spoken,
heard by all, and variously interpreted." This would imply
that all present heard the words plainly articulated. But
this is not said. They heard a voice ; yet some said, " It
thundered ; " and others, " An angel spake to T3j.m ; " which
could not have been the case if the words had been dis
tinctly spoken.
Probably, the capacity to understand the voice was
dependent upon each man's spiritual condition and recep
tivity. To Jesus, and, perhaps, to the apostles and disciples,
it was an articulate voice ; to others it was indistinct, yet
they recognized it as a voice, perhaps of an angel; to
others stUl, it was mere sound, as if it thundered.1 Town-
send would make it an answer to the Greeks who desired
to see Jesus, or, at least, spoken in their hearing. We find,
however, its true significance if we compare it with those
other testimonies of the Father to Him at His baptism and
at His transfiguration. (Matt. iii. 17 ; xvii. 5.)
After Jesus had finished His words in the temple, He
" departed, and did hide Himself from them," (v. 36.) His
departing and biding are not to be understood of a night's
1 See Luthardt in loco.

420 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
sojourn in Bethany, but of His final departure from the
temple, and His sojourn in retirement tUl His arrest. His
pubUc work was over. He appears no more in His Father's
house as a preacher of righteousness. Henceforth all His
words of wisdom are addressed to His own disciples. The
statements (vs. 37-43) are those of the Evangelist. But
when were the Lord's words (vs. 44-50) spoken ? Most
regard them as a citation by the Evangehst from earlier
discourses, and introduced here as confirming his own
remarks.1 The aUusion of the disciples to the size and splendor of
the temple buildings, seems to have been occasioned by
His words to the Pharisees foretelling its desolation, (Matt.
xxUi. 38.) That so substantial and massive a structure could
become desolate, was incredible to them, for they had as
yet no distinct conception that God was about to cast off
His own covenant people, and bring the worship He had
appointed to an end. This manifestation of incredulity led
Him to say, with great emphasis, that the buildings should
be utterly destroyed, not one stone being left upon another.
This was literally fulfilled in the destruction of the temple,
though some of the walls enclosing it were not wholly cast
down. It was a prediction that, made public, would have
greatly angered the Jews, and hence the apostles came to
Him " privately " to learn its meaning.
It was probably at the close of the clay, perhaps in the
twUight, that He sat down on the Mount of Olives over
against the temple. Tbe city lay in full view before Him.
Mark (xui. 3) speaks of only four of the apostles, Peter
and James, and John and Andrew, who asked Him pri
vately when these things should be. Matthew (xxiv. 3) states
that " the disciples came unto Him privately ; " Luke (xxi.
7) that " they asked Him." There can be little doubt that
1 Lichtenstein, Meyer, Alford, Tholuck, Tischendorf. Luthardt and Wiese
ler make them to have been spoken to the disciples.

CONSULTATION OF THE PRIESTS AND ELDERS. 421
Mark gives the more accurate account, and that these four
only were present.1 The remainder of the Twelve may have
preceded Him on the way to Bethany. Alexander supposes
that aU were present, and that " the four are only mentioned
as particularly earnest in making this inquiry, although
speaking with and for the rest."
If His words were spoken to these four only, it implies
that the predictions He uttered could not at that time be
fittingly spoken to the body of the apostles.
The announcement to the disciples (Matt. xxvi. 1, 2)
that " after two days was the Passover, when the Son of
man should be betrayed to be crucified," was probably
made- soon after His discourse upon the Mount of Olives,
and so upon the evening of Tuesday. Perhaps, He wished
distinctly to remind them that His coming in glory must
be preceded by His death and resurrection. Whether it
was made to all the disciples or to the four, is not certain,
but probably to all. ' Alford thinks that " it gives no cer
tainty as to the time when the words were said : we do not
know whether the current day was included or otherwise."
If, however, Thursday was the 14th Nisan, or the Passover,
according to the rule already adopted, excluding one of the
extremes and including the other, the announcement was
made on Tuesday.3 The meeting of the chief priests and
the scribes and elders at the palace of Caiaphas for consult
ation, was upon the same evening. This may be inferred,
at least, from Matthew's words, (xxvi. 3,) " Then assem
bled together," &c, the assembly being on the same day
when the words were spoken, (v. 2.)3 From the fact that
the council met at the palace of Caiaphas, and also that
its session was in the evening, we may infer that it was an
1 Lichtenstein, Alford, Lange, Greswell.
* Meyer, Lichtenstein, De Wette.
3 Meyer; Ellicott places it on Wednesday.

422 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
extraordinary meeting, held for secret consultation.1 It
may readily be supposed that the severe language of the
Lord had greatly enraged His enemies, and that they felt
the necessity of taking immediate steps against Him. But
they dared not arrest him during the feast, because of the
people, and determined to postpone it tUl the feast was
past. Thus, it may be, at the same hour when Jesus was
foreteUing that He shaU suffer at the Passover, His enemies
were resolving that they would not arrest Him during the
feast.3 But the divine prediction was accomplished in a
way they had not anticipated. Judas, one of the Twelve,
coming to them, offers, for money, to betray Him into their
hands. They at once make a covenant with him, aud he
watches for an opportunity. Still it does not appear that
he designed to betray Him during the feast ; and his action
on the evening following the Paschal supper was, as we
shaU see, forced upon him by the Lord. Whether Judas
presented himself to the council at their session, is not said ;
but it is not improbable that, hearing the Lord's rebukes of
their hypocrisy, and seeing how great was their exasperation
against Him, he had watched their movements, and learned
of their assembly at the high priest's palace. This gave him
the wished-for opportunity to enter into an agreement with
them. Some, as Elhcott, put this visit of Judas to the
priests and elders on Wednesday.
1 Tradition makes the bargain with Judas to have been eutered into at
the country house of Caiaphas, the ruins of which are still shown upon the
summit of the Hill of Evil Counsel. The tradition is not ancient; but it is
mentioned, as a singular fact, that the monument of Annas, who may have
had a country-seat near his son-in-law, is found in this neighborhood. Wil
liams, H. C. ii. 490.
2 Some understand that they proposed to arrest Him before the feast. So
Neander, Ewald; see, contra, Meyer in loco.

peter and john prepare the passover. 423
Wednesday, 5th April, 13th Nisan, 783. a. d. 30.
During this day the Lord remained in seclusion at Bethany.
The Lord left the temple for the last time on Tuesday
afternoon. His public labors were ended. There remained,
however, a few hours before the Passover. How was this
period spent ? We can well believe that some part of it
was spent alone, that He might enjoy that free communion
with God which He had so earnestly sought in the midst of
His active labors, and which was now doubly dear to Him
in view of His speedy death. Some part of it, also, was
doubtless devoted to His disciples, giving them such coun
sel and encouragement as was demanded by the very pecu
liar and trying circumstances in which they were placed.
That Wednesday was spent in retirement, is generally ad
mitted.1
Thursday, 6th April, 14th,Nisan, 783. a. d. 30.
From Bethany He sends Peter and John into the Matt. xxvi. 17-19.
city to prepare the Passover. He describes a man Mark xiv. 12-16.
whom they should meet, and who should show them Luke xxii. 7-13.
a room furnished, where they should make ready for
the supper. He remains at Bethany till toward even- Matt. xxvi. 20.
ing, when He enters the city, and goes to the room Mark xiv. 17.
where the supper was to be eaten. Luke xxii. 14.
At this feast the Jews divided themselves into com
panies, or households, of not less than ten nor more than
twenty persons ; and these together consumed the paschal
lamb.5 One of the number, acting as the representative of
1 Wieseler, Robinson, Ellicott.
' Exod. xii. 3, 4 ; Josephus, War, 6. 9. 3.

424 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
all, presented the lamb in the court of the temple, and
aided the Levites in its sacrifice. The victim was then car
ried away by the offerer to the house where it was to be
eaten, and there wholly consumed. On this occasion Peter
and John acted as the representatives ofthe Lord and of His
apostles at the temple, and provided the bread, wine, bit
ter herbs, and all that was necessary for the proper cele
bration of the feast. It appears that, up to this time, the
disciples did not know where the Lord would eat tbe Pass
over, and, as the hour drew nigh, inquired of Him, (Matt.
xxvi. 17.) According to Mark and Luke, the two apostles
were to go to the city, and a man should meet them bearing
a pitcher of water, whom they should follow into whatsoever
house he entered. There they should find a guest-chamber,
furnished and prepared, which the master of the house
should place at their disposal. Matthew says nothing of
their meeting the man with the pitcher, but makes the two
to have gone, directly to the house. Meyer supposes that
Matthew follows the early tradition, which represents the
master ofthe house as a disciple of Jesus, who had, earlier
in the week, arranged with Him for the use of the guest-
chamber ; and that Mark and Luke follow a later tradition,
which represents the Lord as ignorant of the man, but giv
ing directions to the two through prophetic foresight.
There is no need of thus supposing two traditions. Mat
thew passes over in silence the incident of the man with the
pitcher, upon what grounds we cannot state, (Alford sup
poses, perhaps from ignorance ;) but this silence is no way
inconsistent with the statements of the other Evangelists.
From Mark and Luke it is apparent that no agreement had
been made by the Lord for the room ; else He would not
have given such directions to the two apostles, but have
sent them directly to the house.1 Whether the master of
the house were an entire stranger to Jesus, or a concealed
1 Alford, Alexander.

DID JESUS EAT THE TEUE PASCHAL SUPPER ? 425
disciple, like Joseph or Nicodemus, or an open foUower, is
not certain.1 The Lord's message to him, " My time is at
hand. I will keep the Passover at thy house, with my dis
ciples," seems; however, to presuppose some previous ac
quaintance ; as also the phrase, " the Master saith." This,
however, is not necessary, if, as said by Alexander, " the
whole proceeding be regarded as extraordinary, and the
result secured by a special superhuman influence."
It is at this point that we meet the difficult questions
connected with the last Passover. For the sake of brevity
and clearness, we shall pursue the following order in our
inquiries : I. State the real or supposed discrepancies be
tween the statements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the
one hand, and of John on the other. II. Give an outline
of the various attempts to harmonize them. III. State the
results. I. We consider the real or supposed discrepancies be
tween the Synoptists and John. The day on which the
Lord sent Peter and John to prepare the Passover was,
according to Matthew, (xxvi. 17,) "the first day of the
feast of unleavened bread." Mark and Luke use similar
language. From these statements, it appears that Jesus
partook of the paschal supper at the same time with the
Jews in general, and at the time appointed in the law,
which was upon the evening foUowing the 14th Nisan.
Upon the next day, Friday, the 15th, He was crucified.
If we now turn to John, we find that he speaks as if the
paschal supper was legally upon the evening of Friday;
and that, consequently, the Lord, who ate it upon the
evening of Thursday, ate it before the time. Referring
(xviii. 28) to the unwillingness of the Jews to enter the
judgment hall on the day of the crucifixion, he says : " They
themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should
1 See Bynaeus, i. 430, who gives an account of early opinions.

426 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." From
this it follows that, if the Passover was yet to be eaten,
and upon the day of His crucifixion, the supper eaten by
Jesus and His disciples the evening previous, was not the
legal paschal supper. Friday, as the day when the lamb
was slain, was the 14th Nisan, and Thursday was the 13th.
So, also, John (xix. 14) calls the day on which He was cru
cified, not the Passover itself, but " the preparation of the
Passover," from which it follows that the Passover was
yet to come.
It is admitted on all sides, upon grounds to be hereafter
stated, that Jesus died on Friday, in the afternoon.1 The
eating of the supper, on the evening previous, was, there
fore, on Thursday evening ; His resurrection was on the
Sunday following. The point in question is respecting the
clay of the month: Was Friday the 14th or 15th Nisan?
It is said that John asserts the former, the Synoptists the
latter. We give the discrepancy in tabular form :
St. John. Synoptists.
Supper eaten, evening of Thursday, Evening of Thursday, 14th
13th Nisan. Nisan.
Jesus crucified, Friday, 14th Nisan. Friday, 15th Nisan.
Was in the grave, Saturday, 15th Nisan. Saturday, 16th "
Resurrection, Sunday, 16th Nisan. Sunday, 17th "
This difference as to the time of the paschal supper
eaten by the Lord, was early noted by Christian writers.2
Modern criticism has brought it very prominently forward,
and attached to it great importance, and it demands, there
fore, our careful attention.
H. The attempts to harmonize the Synoptists and John.
1st. That the Jews kept the Passover on two distinct
days, both of which were legal. It is said by some that
'- See, however, Westcott, 320. 5 Wichelhaus, TB7.

DAT OF THE PASSOVER, HOW DETERMINED. 427
there were two ways of determining the first day of the
month, and consequently the day ofthe feast, by astronom
ical calculation and by ocular observation ; and thus the
paschal lamb might be slain on the 14th Nisan of real, or
the 14th of apparent time. One of these modes was foUowed
by the Sadducees, and the other by the Pharisees, and thus
the discrepancy between the Synoptists and John is ex
plained. Jesus, with the Sadducees, kept the true day ;
the Pharisees and most of the Jews tbe apparent day. If,
however, such a difference in the mode of computation did
actuaUy exist between the Rabbinites and Karaites after the
destruction of Jerusalem, there is no proof that it did before.1
The only way of determining the beginning of the month
practised by the Jews before the capture of the city by
Titus, a. d. 70, was the appearance ofthe new moon. Thus
there could not have been, during the Lord's ministry, two
legal days for the observance of the Passover ; and the
supposition that He, with one part of the Jews, rightly
observed Thursday, as astronomicaUy correct, and that
another part rightly observed Friday, as determined by
the appearance of the new moon, is without any founda
tion. A modification of this view has lately been presented by
Serno.2 He supposes, that, as the moon in some sections
of the country might be seen at its first appearance, and in
others be hidden by the clouds, and thus a difference in
computation arise, the first day of the feast was doubled,
and the paschal supper was lawfully eaten on either. But
of this there is no proof. When the authorities at Jerusa
lem had determined the first of the month, all succeeding
days were reckoned from it ; and if a Jew from any distant
part of the land had mistaken the day ofthe month through
ignorance of the appearing of the moon, he must make the
' Winer, ii. 150 ; Paulus, iii. 486. " Berlin, 1859.

428 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
feast days to conform to those fixed upon by tbe Sanhedrim.
Even if the latter had erred, their decision was final. There
is not the least evidence that the Passover could be, or
ever was, observed upon two successive days.
It has been said by Cudworth,1 that, the Jews having
erred in the day, placing it. too late, the Lord corrected
the error, and directed the supper to be prepared at the
legal time, on Thursday evening. He, also, affirms that it
was " a custom among the Jews, in such doubtful cases as
these, which oftentimes fell out, to permit the feasts to be
solemnized, or passovers killed, on two several days to
gether." He quotes Scaliger to the same effect. But aU
this is without any historic basis. The language of Mark,
(xiv. 12,) "And the first day of unleavened bread, when
they killed the passover," &c, plainly implies that He
ate the paschal supper on the same day as the Jews in
general.3 It has been said, also, that, according to the law, the
Passover should be killed on the evening following the
13th, or at the beginning of the 14th Nisan. Jesus, in com
mon with a few of the Jews, kept the law ; but most of
them killed it on the afternoon, or at the close of the 14th,
twenty-four hours later than tbe legal time. This rests
upon an untenable construction of the law.
We find, then, no good grounds for believing that the
Jews recognized two distinct days as equally legal for the
paschal solemnities ; or that, through error of computa
tion, they observed the wrong day, and the Lord the right
one. 2d. That the Lord kept the Passover on Thursday, at
the appointed time, but that the Jews purposely delayed it.
The ground of this delay is found in the fact, that when
the 15th Nisan, the first day of the feast, and so a sabbath,
1 True Notion of the Lord's Supper, ii. 528. ' Wichelhaus, 205.

THE LEGAL DAT OBSERVED BT THE JEWS. 429
(Lev. xxui. 7, 8,) fell upon Friday, and thus two sabbaths,
the feast sabbath and week Sabbath, would immediately
foUow each pther, the Jews united them in one, and the
sacrifice ofthe paschal lamb on the 14th was postponed to
the 15th. Thus the Lord, according to the law, ate the
paschal supper on Thursday- evening, but the Jews on
Friday evening.1 But this explanation has no sufficient
basis, as there is no room for doubt that such changes of
the feasts, and the rule forbiddmg that the Passover should
faU on Friday, were posterior to the destruction of Jerusa
lem, probably about 400 a. d."
Another ground of delay was given early by Eusebius
and others, that the Jews were so busy with their accusa
tions against Christ, that they postponed the feast till His
trial and crucifixion should be over. This is so intrinsically
improbable that it now finds no defenders. A modification
of this is still supported by some : that those most active
against Him, and who are specially alluded to (John xviii.
28) as not willing to enter the judgment hall, did delay
their paschal supper on this account." This view will be
hereafter noticed.
We do not thus find any proof that the Jews delayed
the Passover after the legal time.
3d. That the Lord anticipated tbe day and ate, not the
true paschal supper, but one of a sacramental character,
and corresponding to it. That He anticipated the day, was
very early affirmed by some of the fathers, supposing, that
as the true Paschal Lamb, the Antitype, He must . have
suffered at the hour when the typical lamb was slain, and so
upon the 14th Nisan. The supper He observed must,
1 So Calvin, on Matt. xxvi. 17, who remarks that the Jews affirm that this
was done by them after their return from Babylon, and by God's express di
rection. ' Wichelhaus, 203; Paulus, iii. 487, note; Cudworth, ii. 524.
3 Fair bairn, Her. Mam., 332.

430 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
therefore, have been on the evening following, the 13th.
This point had in the first days of the church a special im
portance, because of the controversy with some of the
Christian Jews in regard to the binding force ofthe Mosaic
laws. It was asserted by them, that as Jesus kept the legal
Passover, the paschal sacrifice and supper, these were still
binding, and to be kept in the Church. In reply, it was
asserted by many ofthe Christians that He did not eat the
paschal supper, but, as the true Paschal Lamb, was slain at
the hour appointed for the sacrifice ofthe Passover. In the
Greek Church this became by degrees the ruling opinion,
and is generally defended by her writers.1 In the Latin
Church, on the other hand, it was generaUy denied ; but in
neither is it made an article of faith. The question as to
the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist,
may have had some influence upon the matter ; tbe Greeks,
using the former, were led to say that the Lord used it at
the institution of the rite, and that, therefore, it was not the
true paschal supper, at which only unleavened bread was
used. The Latins, using unleavened bread, maintained that
the Eucharist was instituted at the true paschal supper.
This view, that the Lord anticipated the paschal supper,
has, besides its antiquity, much in its favor, and is now
supported by many.3 But the objections against it are
very strong. First, the language of the Synoptists leaves
little room to question that the Lord kept the Passover at
the same time with the Jews in general. " The first day
of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover ; " " the
day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be kill
ed." Second. It is difficult to believe that the Lord, who
said that He came not to destroy, but to fulfil the law,
should have set it aside. If He observed the Passover at
¦ Wichelhaus, 190.
s So Krafft, 129 ; Greswell, iii. 133 ; Ellicott, 322 ; J. Mailer, in Herzog' 3
Real. Encyc, i. 22 ; Clinton, ii. 240 ; The author of " The Messiah."

THE PASSOVEE NOT ANTICIPATED. 431
all, He would observe it at the legal time. In this, most
Protestant writers agree witb the Latins.1 Third. Such a
sacrifice would not have been permitted by the priests.
They would not have aided in the sacrifice of the lamb
upon a day which they did not recognize as the legal one.
To avoid this difficulty, Greswell quotes PhUo, (Ui. 146,) to
show that each man was then his own priest, and could
slay the lamb, if he pleased, in his own dweUing. But the
weight of authority is against him. The lamb must be
slain in the temple, and the blood be sprinkled on the
altar. By some, however, it is said that the supper of Thurs
day evening was not the true paschal supper, but such an
one as the Jews, who could not be present at the feast,
observed at their own homes, when all the forms of the
Passover were kept, except the eating of the lamb.2 But
such a supper could only be eaten out of Jerusalem, and
upon the legal day, not in the city, and upon the day
previous. Nor is there any evidence that this Memorial
Passover was ever observed till after the destruction of
Jerusalem, when it became impossible that the lamb could
be slain in the temple, and the supper was necessarily
Umited to unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
We do not then find sufficient grounds to believe that
the Lord anticipated the Passover.
Some peculiar solutions, that have found no general re
ception, need only be mentioned. Such is that of Bauch,3
that the paschal lamb was legally slain, not on the 14th,
but on the 15th Nisan. And of Schneckenburger,4 that
Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, and was four days in
the grave.
If none of these solutions satisfies us, we are compelled
either to admit that the statements of the Synoptists are
1 Wichelhaus, 202. ' So Grotius on Mitt. xxvi. IL
5 Bib. Repertory, Jan., 1834. ' Wieseler, 338.

432 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
irreconcilable with those of John, or to deny, what we
have hitherto assumed, that a discrepancy really exists.
Let us therefore examine the point as to the existence
of any discrepancy between the Synoptists and John. And
before considering the statements ofthe several Evangelists,
it will be well to keep before us tbe origin and design of
the Passover, and the pecuUarities of its observance.
1st. Its origin and design. It was instituted in com
memoration of the deUverance ofthe Jews in Egypt from
the destroying angel, when all the first-born of the Egyp
tians were slain, (Exod. xn. 14, &c.) This remarkable dehv
erance was ever afterward to be commemorated by a
feast. This was introduced by the paschal supper. The
people being divided into households or families, of not less
than ten or more than twenty, a lamb was slain for each
family, and eaten immediately after with unleavened bread
and bitter herbs. Now followed a feast of seven days' con
tinuance, during which only unleavened bread was eaten.
There is no reason for attributing to this feast any earlier
origin than the historical deliverance it commemorated.1
2d. The manner of its celebration. The lamb or goat
was to be selected on the 10th Nisan, a male without blem
ish. On the 14th, "between the evenings," it must be
slain, (Exod. xii. 6 ; Lev. xxtii. 5 ; Num. ix. 3.) The expres
sion " between the evenings," was generally understood by
the Jews of the period from the decline of the sun to its
setting, or from 3 to 6 p. m. This was, without doubt,
the ruling mode of computation.2 The Karaites and Samar
itans, however, referred it to the period between sundown
and dark, or from 6 to 7 p. m.3 Wieseler refers it to a
period a little before and a little after the going down of
the sun, say from 5 to 7 p. m., citing Deut. xvi. 0 in proof.
1 See Bahr, Symbolik, ii: 640; Ewald, Alterthurmer, 391.
3 Josephus, War, G. 9. 3 ; Antiq., 14. 4. 3. • Winer, ii. 198.

THANK OFFERINGS OF THE PASSOVER. 433
Ewald makes it to include three hours before and three
hours after the sun set.
The paschal lamb was originally slain by the head of
each family, (Exod. xii. 6 ;) but this seems later to have been
done by the Levites, and always in the court of the temple
where stood the brazen altar, (Ezra vi. 20; Deut. xvi.
2-6.) After the sacrifice came the supper. This was upon
the evening foUowing the 14th Nisan, or, as the Jews began
the day at sundown, upon the beginning ofthe 15th. The
lamb was to be whoUy consumed before morning, either by
eating or by fire.
Besides the paschal lamb, other offerings were made,
which were eaten at the paschal supper and upon the fol
lowing day. These are mentioned (Deut. xvi. 2) " as the
Passover of the flock and herd," and embraced the sacrifices
of sheep or bullocks voluntarily added, and called by the
Jews, chagigah, or feast-offering. Concerning these, Mai
monides (quoted by Ainsworth in loco) says : " When they
offer the Passover in the first month, they offer it witb
peace-offerings on the 14th day, ofthe flock and of the herd,
and this is called the chagigah, or feast offering, ofthe 14th
day. And of this it is said, (Deut. xvi. 2,) that thou shalt
sacrifice the Passover to the Lord thy God ofthe flock and
the herd."
To understand the relation of the chagigah to the Pass
over in general, we must remember that this feast was the
commemoration of a great national deliverance, and, as
such, to be kept witb thanksgiving and joy. The paschal
supper, strictly speaking, seems to have had much less of
the joyous element in it than the rest of the feast. As said
by Lightfoot, " the eating of the lamb was the very least
part of the joy ; a thing rubbing up the remembrance of
affliction, rather than denoting gladness and making mer
ry." The lamb, which constituted the chief part of the
supper, reminded them of that fearful night when aU the
19

434 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED,
first-born of Egypt died ; the bitter herbs with which
it was eaten, reminded them of the bitterness of their
Egyptian bondage ; and all the attendant circumstances
would tend to beget seriousness and reflection. The fes
tival character of the season appeared much more plainly
upon the succeeding day, when the peace offerings volun
tarily presented to God in token of thankfulness, were
eaten, (Exod. xxiii. 15.) That these peace offerings were
sometimes offered on the 14th Nisan, and eaten at the
paschal supper, appears from Maimonides ; but, according
to Lightfoot, (on John xviii. 28,) only when the lamb was
not sufficient for the company. The usual time for the
chagigah was on the 15th, and with these offerings the re
joicing was more directly connected.
We thus see that no sharp tine of distinction can be
¦taken between the paschal supper and the feast of un
leavened bread. The former served as the introduction to
the latter, but had peculiar to itself the eating ofthe lamb
-and ofthe bitter herbs. Still it was but the beginning of
the feast, for none but unleavened bread was used during
its continuance, (Exod. xii. 18.)
The ceremonies ofthe second day of the feast, the 16th
¦Nisan, were peculiar, and important to be noted. Upon
this day the first fruits of the barley harvest were brought
to the temple, and waved by a priest before the Lord, to
eonsecrate the harvest ; and not tiU this was done might
any one begin his reaping, (Lev. xxUi. 10— 12.)1
The removal of the leaven from their houses, the prep
arations for the paschal supper, and the sacrifice of the
lamb, taking place on the 14th Nisan, this day was popu
larly called the first day of the feast, thus extending it to
eight days.8 The Evangelists follow this popular usage,
1 Josephus, Antiq., 3. 10. 5. As to the connection of this rite with the
Passover, see Winer, ii. 201 ; Bahr, ii. 638.
9 Josephus, Antiq., 2. 15. 1.

OBSERVANCE OF THE FEAST SABBATH. 435
(Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 7.) Upon each
ofthe seven days of the feast was offered a sacrifice for the
whole people, (Num. xxviti. 19-24.) The first and last
days of the feast, or the 15th and 21st, were ho)y days, or
sabbaths, (Lev. xxiii 7, 8.) But these feast sabbaths do
not seem ever to have been regarded as equal in sacredness
to the week Sabbaths. And it is important that the dis
tinction between them should be clearly seen, as it has
an important bearing upon several points to be hereafter
discussed. Besides the weekly Sabbath, there were seven days of
the year that had a sabbatical character: the first and
seventh of the feast of unleavened bread ; the day of Pen
tecost ; the first and the tenth of the seventh month ; and
the first and eighth of the feast of Tabernacles. - Of these,
one, the tenth of the seventh month, the day ot atone
ment, was put on the same footing as the weekly Sabbath
in respect to labor. No work at aU could be done upon
it ; but on the other six feast sabbaths they could do no ser
vile work, (Lev. xxUi. 3-39.) These were caUed by the
Talmudists " good days." It is not whoUy clear what kind
of work was not servile, but tbe preparation of food was
expressly permitted, (Exod. xii. 16.) Maimonides (quoted by
Ainsworth) says: "All work needful about meat is lawful,
as ktiting of beasts, and baking of bread, and kneading of
dough, and the like. But such work as may be done in
the evening of a feast day they do not on a feast day, as
they may not reap, nor thrash, nor winnow, nor grind the
corn, or the like. Bathing and anointing are contained
under the general head of meat and drink, and may be
done on the feast day." The penalty for doing servUe
work on these days was, according to Maimonides, to be
beaten ; but the penalty for working on the Sabbath was
death, (Num. xv. 32-35.)
To these feast sabbaths we find few allusions in Jewish

436 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
history. They are not mentioned at all in the Gospels.
AU the violations of the Sabbath with which the Lord was
charged were those of the weekly Sabbath. Nor is there
any distinct aUusion to them in the Old Testament, or in
Josephus. * Before the weekly Sabbath was a time of prep
aration, because no labor of any kind could then be done,
but it is not probable that there was such a period of prep
aration before the feast sabbaths, as then aU labor but ser
vile labor was permitted. This point, however, will be
hereafter more particularly examined.
A special mark of distinction was shown to the weekly
Sabbath in the doubUng the usual offerings, (Num. xxviii.
9,) and the renewal ofthe show bread, (Lev. xxiv. 8.)
Thus we find in the paschal festival three distinct so
lemnities :• 1st. The killing of the paschal lamb on the after
noon ofthe 14th Nisan, and the eating of it the evening fol
lowing. 2d. The feast of unleavened bread, beginning with
the paschal supper, and continuing to the close ofthe 21st
day of Nisan. 3d. Tbe offering of the first fruits of the
barley harvest on the 16th Nisan, or second day of the
feast. To the latter no distinct allusion is made by the
Evangehsts. With these preliminary observations upon the origin
and observance of the Passover, we pass to the considera
tion of the terms applied to it, first in the Old Testament
and then in the New. The Hebrew pesach, or Aramaic
paseah, refers primarily to the paschal lamb. " Draw out
and take you a lamb, and kUl tbe Passover," (Exod. xU. 21.)
To kUl the Passover, and to eat the Passover, is to kill and
eat the paschal lamb, (see Exod. xU. 11; Num. ix. 2-6;
2 Chron. xxx. 15.) But, as has been said, often with the
flesh of the lamb the flesh of other sacrifices offered as
peace offerings was eaten; and hence, naturally, the term was
made to embrace these also ; and then the whole seven days
of the feast. " Thou shalt sacrifice the Passover to the

THE TERM PASSOVER IN OLD TESTAMENT. 437
Lord thy God ofthe flock and the herd; thou shalt eat no
leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat un
leavened bread therewith," (Deut. xvi. 2, 3.) That the
Passover is here used as a general term, embracing the
sacrifices of both flock and herd, is generaUy admitted.1
" They did eat the feast seven days offering peace offer
ings," (2 Chron. xxx. 22.) In the days of Josiah he and his
princes gave smaU cattle and oxen for passovers — pesachim,
(2 Chron. xxxv. 7-9; see also xxx. 17, where the same
word seems to be Umited to. paschal lambs.) Thus made
to include all the special sacrifies of the feast, it became a
designation of the feast in general. " To keep the Pass
over," was to observe all the solemnities of the feast with
out distraction of specific acts, unless through the force of
the context the meaning must be limited to the paschal
supper. It is thus used Deut. xvi. 1 ; 2 Kings xxUi. 21 ;
2 Chron. xxx. 1 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 1 ; Ezek. xiv. 21.
From this examination of the terms in the Old Testa
ment, we find that there is no exact discrimination in their
use. Sometimes the Passover and the feast of unleavened
bread are expressly distinguished, and the former limited
to the paschal supper, (Lev. xxiii. 5, 6 ; Num. xxvUi. 16,
17.) At other times they are used interchangeably. The
precise meaning in each case must be determined by the
connection in which it stands.
We proceed to consider the usage of these terms in the
New Testament. And first their usage by the Synoptists.
Here also the term Passover, to irao-xa, is used in its nar
rowest sense, of the paschal lamb. Thus in Mark xiv. 12,
" when they killed the Passover ; " in Luke xxn. 7, " when
the Passover must be killed." It is used in the large sense,
including both the sacrifice of the lamb and the supper,
Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 14; Luke xxii. 11. It is used
' So Bleek, Beitrage, 111. See other constructions in Cudworth, ii. 522.

438 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
as a designation of the feast in its whole extent, Matt. xxvi.
2 ; Luke xxti. 1. (See also Mark xiv. 1.) That the phrase,
" feast of unleavened bread," to o^a, embraced the pas
chal supper, appears from Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12;
Luke xxn. 7.
Turning from the Synoptists to John, it is at once ap
parent that he generaUy uses the term Passover, to irao-^a,
in its largest sense, as embracing the whole feast. So U. 13
and 23 ; vi. 4 ; xi. 55 ; xii. 1 ; xiii. 1. So in the references
to it as the feast, eopry, iv. 45 ; xi. 56 ; xii. 12 and 20 ; xiu.
29. In xviii. 28 and 39, and in xix. 14, its meaning is in
dispute. We are now prepared to enter upon a more particular
examination of the statements of the Evangehsts; and
first, those of the Synoptists. Their language is very ex
press: "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread
— Ty Be Trpwry twv a^u/iuv — the disciples came to Jesus, say
ing, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the
Passover?" (Matt. xxvi. 17.) "And the first day of un
leavened bread — Kai ry rrpwry rj/iepa row atpiunv — when they
kUled the Passover, His disciples said unto Him," &c,
(Mark xiv. 12.) "Then came the day of unleavened bread,
when the Passover must be kUled," — rj rjiiepa row a&fwv,
(Luke xxii. 7.) That this was the 14th Nisan seems beyond
reasonable doubt, for on the afternoon of this day the
paschal lamb was slain, and all preparations made for the
feast that began at evening with the paschal supper. As has
been already remarked, this was not, strictly speaking, the
first day ofthe feast, for this began with the 15th, but was,
in popular language, so called ; and the circumstance that
the lamb was yet to be slain, sufficiently determines what
day was meant. (Compare Exod. xii. 18.)
The attempts so to interpret these statements as to
make them refer to a supper on the 13th Nisan, are very
forced and unsatisfactory. Krafft (129) bases his interpre-

THE FIEST DAT OF THE FEAST. ¦ 439
tation upon the Jewish mode of beginning the day at sun
set. The 13th Nisan was from the eve of Wednesday to
the eve of Thursday; the 14th, from the eve of Thursday
to the eve of Friday. The Synoptists thus count the 14th,
beginning at sunset of Thursday, as the first of the feast.
Upon Thursday, the 13th, the Lord gave directions that
the Passover should be prepared, and the lamb was kUled
the same afternoon, and eaten during the evening follow
ing, or at the beginning of the 14th. GresweU (in. 17'l)
presents the same view: "From sunset on Thursday to
sunset on Friday was considered, and might be called, the
first day of unleavened bread. We have but to suppose
that the disciples came with their inquiry at sunset on
Thursday, and were sent at that time accordingly, and the
assertion would be strictly correct." * The great, and as it
seems, insuperable objection to this, is, that the Lord must
then have kUled and eaten the Passover twenty-four hours
earlier than the Jews in general. Krafft (130) admits
this of most of the Jews, but supposes, from the language
of the Synoptists, and from the multitude of sacrifices to be
offered, that some of them must have eaten the supper on
the 13th, at the same time with the Lord. But there is no
proof that it was ever eaten by any portion of the people,
except on the evening following the 14th. The arguments
that the Lord did so, drawn from the language of the
Synoptists, are by no means conclusive. From the message
sent by him to the master of the house, (Matt. xxvi. 18,)
" My time is at hand, I will keep the Passover at thy
house," it has been inferred, that " the Passover about to
be celebrated was something out of course," or before the
usual period.' But this is not a necessary inference. " My
time is not ' the time of the feast,' but my time, i. e. for
suffering." a This interpretation is much the most obvious
> See also Journal Sac. Lit., Oct. 1861. ' Greswell, iii. 144.
3 Alford in loco.

440 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
and natural. Some, as ElUcott, have inferred from His
words at the beginning of the supper, (Luke xxti. 15,)
" With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer," that He designs to designate the Pass
over as a peculiar one. But its peculiarity did not neces
sarily consist in its being celebrated earUer than was usual,
but in the fact that it was the last.
None of the advocates of this view meet in any satisfac*
tory way the statement of Luke, " Then came the day of
unleavened bread, when the Passover must be kiUed;"
and of Mark, " And the first day of unleavened bread when
they killed the Passover, His disciples said," &c. We can
not, without doing great violence to this language, make it
refer to the 13th of Nisan, since neither according to the
law nor to usage, was the paschal lamb slain on that day.
And the difficulty is increased since, according to the law,
(Deut. xvi. 5, 6,) the lamb could not be sacrificed anywhere
else than in the temple.1 It is incredible that the priests
would have permitted the time to have been anticipa
ted by a day in this single instance. The supposition of
EUicott,' that the time specified for killing the lamb, vizs,
" between the evenings," may be understood to mean be
tween the eves of Nisan 14th and Nisan 15 th, is wholly
without proof.' The whole tenor of the synoptical narra
tives makes irresistibly upon us the impression, that the
disciples prepared, and the Lord ate, the Passover, at the
same time when it was prepared and eaten by the people at
large. The truth is well expressed by Robinson : * " Their
language is full, explicit, and decisive, to the effect that our
Lord's last meal with His disciples was the regular and
ordinary paschal supper of the Jews, introducing the festi
val of unleavened bread on the evening after the 14th
day of Nisan."
1 See Ainsworth in loco ; Friedlieb, Arch. 47. « 322, note 3.
s See Godwyn, Moses and Aaron, 108; De Wette, Archaologie, 224;
Ewald Alterthurmer, 897. « Har. 214.

THE SUPPEE MENTIONED BT JOHN. 441
Taking, then, as established, that the Synoptists make
the supper eaten by the Lord to have been the true paschal
supper, let us consider in detaU the statements of John
that bear upon the point. The first of these we find in xiii.
1 : " Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus
knew that His hour was come," &c. The chronological
value of this passage depends upon the relation in which
the clause, " before the feast of the Passover," stands to
the supper subsequently mentioned, at which the Lord
washed the feet of the disciples. But before we can exam
ine this point, we must consider the opinion of those who
make this a supper previous to the paschal supper, and
one not mentioned at aU by the Synoptists.
The chief arguments urged by those who would make
the supper of John distinct from the paschal supper of the
Synoptists, are, 1st, that it is not described by him as a
paschal meal ; 2d, that it is said to have been " before the
feast of the Passover ; " 3d, that the interpretation of the
Lord's words to Judas, (v. 29,) by the disciples, shows that
the Passover was still future ; 4th, that the language of
Jesus at this supper, (xiv. 31,) "Arise, let us go hence,"
refers to His departure to Jerusalem to keep the feast upon
the foUowing day ; 5th, that the act of washing the feet
was incongruous with the paschal supper; 6th, that the
statement, (John xiii. 27,) that Satan, after the sop, en
tered into Judas, is identical with Luke's statement, (xxii.
3,) and must therefore have been previous to the paschal
supper.1 But those, who, upon the above grounds, deny
tbe supper of John to be the paschal meal, are by no means
agreed when it took place. Some put it upon Wednesday
evening.' Lightfoot puts it on Tuesday evening, identify
ing it with that supper at Bethany when the Lord was
1 See Bengel in loco ; Krafft, 125 ; Jarvis, 442 ; Wichelhaus, 154.
' So Bengel, Krafft, Wichelhaus. See Bynaeus, De Morte Jesu Christi, i.
386, for an elaborate defence of this view.
19*

442 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
anointed, (Matt. xxvi. 6,) which he distinguishes from that
in John xii. 2.
Upon tbe other hand, it is said that this supper was the
paschal supper, and so to be identified with that of the
Synoptists, upon the foUowing grounds : 1st. Through the
designation of Judas by the Lord as he that should betray
Him. (Compare John xiU. 21-30 with Matt. xxvi. 21-25,
Mark xiv. 18-21, Luke xxii. 21-23.) 2d. Through the
prophecy that Peter should thrice deny Him, and of the
crowing of the cock. (Compare John xui. 38 with Matt.
xxvi. 34, Luke xxti. 34.) 3d. Through the connection be
tween the Lord's words recorded in John, chaps, xiv. xv.
xvi., showing that they were all spoken at once. ,4th.
Through the statement, (Luke xxii. 24,) that at the -paschal
supper there was a strife among them, who should be ac
counted greatest, and which serves to explain His conduct
in washing His disciples' feet. (Compare John xui. 13-17).
Upon these grounds most of the modern commentators
have arrayed themselves in favor of the identification of
this supper in John with the supper of the Synoptists.1 A
careful examination of the arguments justifies this conclu
sion. That the supper is not expressly named as the
paschal supper, does not show that it was a common meal.
Rather it is supposed to be something well known and
familiar to the reader ; the supper by way of eminence.
Returning now to the interpretation of John xiU. 1-4,
we ask to what does the introductory chronological notice,
" before the feast of the Passover," refer ? Our answer
must depend upon the relation in which v. 1 stands to the
verses following. That it forms a sentence complete in it
self, and grammatically independent upon what foUows, is
generaUy admitted.' If so, the words, " before the feast of
1 Tholuck, Greswell, Alford, Meyer, Tischendorf, Robinson, Friedlieb, and
others. ' Meyer, Lange, Robinson, Alford, Tischendorf.

THE SUPPEE OF JOHN THE PASCHAL SUPPER. 443
the Passover," would seem to qualify either the participle
«So)s, or ayamjo-as. If the former, the meaning would be,
that Jesus, knowing before the feast that His hour was
come, and, having loved His own, continued to love them
to the end ; and at the feast, i. e. the paschal supper now
present, gives them a new proof of His love. This inter
pretation is in perfect harmony with the whole narrative.
Before Jesus left GalUee, He announced His departure as
at hand, (Matt. xvii. 22,) and again after He left Ephraim,
(xx. 17.) Two days before the feast, He repeated that at
the Passover He should be betrayed, (Matt. xxvi. 2.) And
now the feast had come, and with it " His hour." He,
knowing all this, gives at this introductory supper of the
feast, a new and last proof of the love with which He had
loved them. With the fuU knowledge that tbe hour of His
arrest and death had come, and that He no more should
thus meet His disciples, He shows them, in the most ex
pressive way, how great and unchangeable His affection
for them. In this way the abrupt' and incidental mention
of the supper (v. 2) is readily explained ; and that it was
the paschal supper follows from the whole connection of
the thought.
The meaning is thus given by Norton in his translation :
" But Jesus, before the feast of the Passover, knew that
the hour had come for Him to pass from the world to the
Father ; and having loved His own who were to remain in
this world, He loved them to the last." '
If we connect the clause, " before the feast of the Pass
over," with a-ya7njo-as, the meaning is, Jesus, having loved
His own down to this time, or to the Passover which was
now come, and knowing that the hour of His death was at
hand, continues to love them, even to the end ; and now
gives a fresh proof of it at the paschal supper. Here, as
before, it is implied that this supper, at the beginning of tbe
1 See also Luthardt, ii. 274.

444 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
feast, was the last opportunity He should have of manifest
ing His love. In this construction the antithesis between
"before the feast" and "to the end," is most clearly
brought out. The love which He had felt to His own be
fore the feast, continued firm to the end, and was shown in
the act of washing the disciples' feet.1 StiU, the former ex
planation is to be preferred.
This clause is, however, said by many to qualify the
whole narrative, and not to belong to ei&as or aycwnjo-as ;
thus making the supper, and aU that then took place, to
have been before the Passover.* It is said that it could
not have been the paschal supper on the evening foUowing
the .14th Nisan, but a supper probably on the previous
evening, or that following the 13th.a But of this, Norton
(note in loco) justly says : " It is a very forced interpreta
tion to regard the words ' before the feast of the Passover,'
as intended to fix the date of what foUows. Supposing the
night to which the succeeding narrative relates not to be
the night of the Passover, St. John has in the second verse
abruptly introduced the mention of a supper in a manner
in which it cannot readily be believed that any writer
would." From the preposition "before," irpo, we con
clude, then, that nothing definite in regard to the time of
the supper can be determined. Supposing aU between
v. 1 and v. 4 to be stricken out, and the statement to read,
" Now before the feast of the Passover, &c, He riseth from
supper and laid aside his garments," it would still remain
probable that the paschal supper was meant. The pre
sumption is very strong, that this meal, thus incidentaUy
• See Wieseler, 879 ; Tholuck in loco ; Robinson, Har. 217.
' Meyer and Alford.
' That the form of expression, " Before the feast of the Passover," denotes
the day before the Passover, pridie Paschatis, is affirmed by Bynaeus ; who,
however, does not make this the Paschal supper. See Wieseler, 879, who
denies that the expression can be thus understood.

THE SUPPER OF JOHN THE PASCHAL SUPPER. 445
mentioned, must have been that so prominently and in
separably associated with the feast.
An additional proof that this was not the paschal sup
per is found by many 1 in the fact mentioned, (John xiii.
29,) that none of the disciples knew what the Lord had
said to Judas at the table, but some of them supposed He
had told him to buy what was necessary for the feast, or to
give something to the poor. It is said, if the disciples were
now eating the feast, no one could have thought that Judas
went out for this purpose. Besides, the day foUowing the
paschal supper, or 15th Nisan, was a feast sabbath, when
nothing could be bought ; nor could any purchases be
made upon that evening, as aU shopkeepers would be en
gaged keeping the feast ; nor could gifts then be given to
the poor. Thence it foUows that this supper was previous
to the beginning of the feast. But this inference is not
well grounded. The feast continued seven days, and em
braced various sacrifices and offerings other than the paschal
lamb. It is not at all improbable that a master of a
family, speaking at this first meal, should thus refer to the
provision to be made for the further keeping of the feast.
Judas, as the treasurer of the body of apostles, was in this
case the person to make such provision. And the fact, that
he went out immediately after the Lord had spoken to
him, would naturaUy suggest to others that something
necessary to the feast was to be at once procured. The
statement that nothing could be purchased upon a feast
sabbath, is by no means certain. It appears rather, that
the purchase and preparation of food were aUowable on aU
feast days, though not on the fast ofthe Atonement.2 That
Judas should go out, as some supposed, to give something
to the poor, indicates a special urgency, which may be best
1 Meyer, Bleek, Alford.
' Tholuck in loco ; Wieseler, 344 and 366 ; Luthardt, ii. 286.

446 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
explained as referring to some gifts to be sacrificiaUy used
on the morrow, and therefore to be made at once.
A careful examination of this passage seems rather to
prove that this was the paschal supper, than to disprove it.
The disciples heard the Lord say to Judas, "That thou
doest do quickly." He immediately arises and goes out,
and " it was night." Supposing this to have been a supper
on the night of the 13th Nisan, and a fuU day before the
paschal supper, would they connect his departure with any
preparations for the feast ? The next day would give him
abundant time to buy aU that was necessary. Why hasten
out at that hour of the night ? So also he had then ample
time to give to the poor. But if we suppose that this was
the paschal supper, and that the next day, the 15th, was
the first day of the feast, we can readily explain their con
jectures as to the cause of Judas' sudden departure. What
he was to do must be done at once.
The next passage in John, and that most relied on to
prove that the Lord could not have eaten the paschal sup
per, is found xviU. 28 : " Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas
unto the haU of judgment ; and it was early ; and they
themselves went not into the judgment haU lest they should
be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." This, it
is said, plainly proves that the Jews had not yet eaten the
Passover ; and that the supper which Jesus had eaten on
the previous evening, could not have been the paschal sup
per, as the Synoptists state.1
Two solutions of this difficulty are given : First, that
those who would not go into the judgment haU, were those
Scribes and Pharisees who had been engaged during the
night, whUo the other Jews were keeping the feast, in
directing the proceedings against Jesus, and thus had had
no time to partake of the paschal supper. Second, that
John uses the expression, " eat the Passover," in its larger
1 Meyer, Bleek, Alford.

USE OF TERM PASSOVER BT JOHN. 447
meaning, not referring to the paschal lamb, but to the
offerings eaten on the second day ofthe feast. The former
of these solutions has never found many defenders, though
not in itself impossible. So great was the hate against
Jesus, and so little scrupulous His enemies, that we cannot
doubt, that to compass His death, they would have post
poned for a time the paschal supper, or even have neg
lected it altogether. There are, however, other obvious
difficulties, which this explanation does not fuUy meet.
We must then consider the second of these solutions.
It is admitted, that as the Synoptists use the phrase " to eat
the Passover," tpayeiv to irao-xa, it always means to eat the
paschal supper, (Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12 and 14;
Luke xxii. 11 and 15.) If John uses it in the same sense,
then the paschal supper was eaten by the Jews on the day
when Jesus was crucified, and He must have anticipated it.
But the usage 6f the Synoptists does not decide the usage
of John. We must determine its meaning from the way in
which he uses the phrase elsewhere, and from the general
character of his writings. It has already been shown, that
out of the nine times in which he uses the word mvrxa,
Passover, in six it is applied to the feast generaUy, and not
to the paschal supper only. The meaning in the other three
passages is in dispute. Only in the passage before us does
the phrase " eat the Passover " occur. The simple point
is, does John here use it in its wider or narrower mean
ing? Some considerations, drawn from the character of John's
Gospel, as influenced by the period of time at which he
wrote, may serve to show how this marked distinction in
the use of terms between him and the Synoptists, is to be
explained. John wrote toward the close of the century,1
and after the destruction of Jerusalem. To him the Jews
were no more the holy people of God. Rejecting Jesus,
i Meyer, about 80 A. n.

448 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
and afterwards His apostles, they had themselves been
rejected. Everywhere he speaks of them distinctly as
" The Jews," formerly the Church of God, but now cut off,
and standing in a hostUe attitude to Christ, and to that
new, universal Church, composed both of Jews and Gen
tiles, of which He was the Head.1 Jewish institutions had,
in his eyes, been emptied of their significance and value,
since Christ, in whom aU the law was fulfilled, had come.
Hence he speaks of them commonly as the institutions of a
people between whom and himself was a broad line of dis
tinction. Their purification is spoken of as that " of the
Jews ; " the Passover as " a feast of the Jews ; " Nicodemus,
as " a ruler of the Jews." Tbe Synoptists, on the other
band, writing before the total rejection of Judaism, and
whilst it stUl stood side by side with Christianity as of
divine authority and sanctity, show, by their mode of allu
sion, that no such line of distinction then existed. To them,
the Jews are not as ahens, but stUl the chosen people of
God. Placing ourselves in the position of John, we shall
readUy understand why he speaks in such general and in
definite terms of Jewish rites, as of things now superseded.
Since Jesus, the true Paschal Lamb, had been slain, the
true paschal supper was kept only in the Christian church.
To Christians he could say, with Paul, (1 Cor. v. 7, 8,)
" Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us ; therefore, let us
keep the feast," &o. The Jews, in their Passover, had
only the sheU or shadow ; the Church had the kernel or
substance. Hence, it is not to be expected that he would
refer to any rites of the Jews at this feast with the care
that marks the Synoptists. He does not distinguish, as do
they, its several component parts, but speaks of it only in
general terms, as one of the Jewish feasts. There is not,
> See Meyer on Johb i. 19 ; Bleek, 247.

USE OF TERM PASSOVEE BT JOHN. 449
in the many times in which he mentions the Passover, any
clear proof that he means to distinguish the paschal supper
from the solemnities of the following days. Why, then, in
the passage before us, are we forced to beheve that the Pass
over which the Jews were to eat on the day of the cruci
fixion was the paschal supper, and that only ? Why may
he not mean the subsequent sacrifices? Standing, as he
does, to the. Jews, in a position so unhke that of the Synop
tists, it seems most arbitrary to assert that he must use
language witb precisely the same strictness ; and that " to
eat the Passover " must mean to eat the paschal lamb.
As has been said, upon the first day of the feast, or the
the 15th, thank offerings of the flock and herd were slain
and eaten. There is certainly no intrinsic reason why John.
may not have meant these. At the time of Hezekiah, (2
Chron. xxx, 22,) "they did eat the feast seven days, offering
peace offerings." But it is said in reply,1 that if the phrase
" to eat the Passover " may be used of the other offerings,
inclusive of the paschal lamb, it cannot be exclusive of it.
But this is by no means obvious. Passover, with John, is a
term denoting the whole festival ; and why, if the paschal
supper was past, might he not employ it to designate the
remaining feasts? To affirm that he could not is mere
affirmation. Norton,2 referring to the oft-repeated remark;
that the term Passover is never used " absolutely " to de
note the thank offerings considered apart from the paschal'
supper, observes: "This remark has been repeatedly praised'
for its acuteness by Kuinoel and Strauss. But, in fact, it
only implies a forgetfulness of a very common metonymy, ,
by which the name of a whole is given to a part. If, when',
the paschal festival were half over, it had been said that-
certain Jews desired to avoid poUution, that they might
keep the Passover, every one perceives that the expression
i Meyer and others, after Mosheim. ' Notes 2, 466.

450 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
would be unobjectionable, though no one would think of
applying the name Passover ' absolutely ' to the last three
or four days ofthe festival."
The exact nature of the defilement to which the Jews
would be exposed by entering the judgment hall does not
appear. (See Acts x. 28.) In the law, defilements are
mentioned which were only for a day, and which could be
cleansed by ablution, (Lev. xv. 5-11, and xxii. 5-7.) It
is supposed by some that contact with the heathen was of
this class, and that, therefore, if the day of the crucifixion
had be'en the 14th Nisan, the Jews could stiU have cleansed
themselves by evenmg, and been ready to eat the paschal
supper. If, however, it was the 15th, during which day the
thank offerings were sacrificed and eaten, they could not
have partaken of them. Hence it is inferred that the
thank offerings, rather than the paschal supper, were
meant, and that this day was the 15th rather than the
14th.1 Much stress, however, in the present state of our
knowledge of Jewish customs, cannot be laid upon this ar
gument'.' This passage, then, affords no data for the final deter
mination of the question as to the time ofthe paschal sup
per. If any think that John could not have used the phrase
" to eat the Passover " in any other sense than the Synop
tists used it, such must admit a chronological difference
between him and them which we find no satisfactory way
to reconcile. But if, on the other hand, we find it not only
possible, but also probable, -that he should thus speak ofthe
festival apart from the supper, the supposed difference dis
appears. The next important passage we find xix. 14 : " And it
was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth
hour ; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King." A
» So Bynaeus, iii. 18. ' See Friedlieb, Arch. 102; Bleek, 118.

THE DAT OF PREPARATION. 451
different punctuation of this passage has been proposed,
making it to read thus: "And it was the preparation.
The hour of the Passover was about the sixth." ' Though
some plausible reasons may be given for this change, yet it
involves considerable difficulties. We shall follow the gen
erally received punctuation.
Our first inquiry relates to the meaning of the term
"preparation," irapao-Kew]. It occurs in the Gospel five
times besides the text : Matt, xxvii. 62, Mark xv. 42, Luke
xxiii. 54, John xix. 31, John xix. 42. In aU these cases
there is no doubt as to its meaning. It was, as Mark ex
plains it, " tbe day before the Sabbath ; " or the day in
which preparation was made for the Sabbath. Such prepa
ration, though not expressly commanded in the law, was
yet made necessary by the strictness of the commands re
specting the Sabbath, which forbade aU labor,, even to pre
pare food, on that day. (Compare Exod. xvi. 5.) Hence it
became the habit ofthe Jews to observe Friday afternoon,
from three o'clock, as a time of getting ready for the Sab
bath, which began at sunset.2 Ad they came more and
more under bondage to that legal spirit which so charac
terized the Pharisees, and the rigor of the original Sabbath
laws was augmented by burdensome additions, of which
many examples are to be found in the Evangehsts and in
Josephus, this period of preparation became more and more
important. Thus, by degrees, Friday, or the irpocrafifiaTov,
became known as the irapao-Kevri, or preparation ; as Satur
day, the day of rest, was known as the Sabbath, all other
days being distinguished only as the first, second, third, &c.
As the preparation was made in the afternoon of Friday, or
during that part of it which was known as " the evening,"
this term was generally applied to it in Hebrew and Chal
dee, as by the Germans the day before the Sabbath is
1 So Hofmann, followed by Lichtenstein, 359.
1 Josephus, Antiq., 16. 6. 2.

452 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
caUed Sonnabend, or Sun-evening. Thus the sixth day of
the week received its current name from its peculiar rela
tions to the Sabbath ; and irapao-Kevq became equivalent to
Friday, and is uniformly so rendered in the Syriac.1
From this origin of the term, and from the fact that it
was generally used to designate the sixth day of the week,
and that it is so used both by the Synoptists and by John,
we are disposed to infer, that in the passage before us, it
means the preparation day before the Sabbath, or Friday.
But it is said, on the other hand, that this is here inadmis
sible, because it is not simply said, " it was the preparation,"
but it was " the preparation ofthe Passover." It must, there
fore, denote a day of preparation, not for the Sabbath, but
for the feast ; and this day must have been the 14th Nisan,
as the first day of the feast was the 15th.* This of course
imphes, that there was a preparation day for the feasts as
weU as for the Sabbath. And this first demands our atten
tion. It is admitted by aU that the proofs of such a preparation
day are very indistinct. To meet the difficulty, that there
is no mention in Jewish writings of such a preparation day
in connection with any of the feasts, some would confine it
to those feast days that had a sabbatical character, in this
case, the first and seventh.8 As such, preparation was to
be made for them as for the weekly Sabbath. But the
main reason that made a time of preparation necessary for
the weekly Sabbath, was, that on that day no food could be
prepared, whereas it could be upon a feast sabbath. Nor
anywhere in Jewish history does the latter appear as equal
to the former in sanctity and dignity. AU labor but ser-
vUe labor was then lawful. There seems, then, no good
reason why every feast sabbath should have had its day of
preparation ; nor is there any proof of the fact. If there
' Michaelis, 44. a So Meyer, Alford, Winer, Bleek.
0 Bleek, Beitrage, 120.

THE DAT OF PREPARATION. 453
was, on the afternoon of the 14th Nisan, a period thus set
apart and designated as " the Passover eve," Robinson '
maintains that the expression did not " arise untU after the
destruction ofthe temple, and the consequent cessation of
the regular and legal Passover meal, when of course the
seven days of unleavened bread became the main festival."
To such a Passover eve the expression in tbe text, " prep
aration of the Passover," could not apply.
Thus we reach the result, that the term " preparation,"
TrapatTKevrj, is never appUed, so far as we know, to any day
preceding a feast, but is applied by the Evangelists, by
Josephus, and by the Rabbis, to the day before tbe Sabbath.
Recurring weekly, this would readUy become the current
designation ofthe sixth day, and equivalent to its proper
name, or to our Friday.
But we have still to meet the grammatical difficulty.
It is insisted that the nature of this preparation is expressly
defined by the addition " of the Passover," and cannot
therefore refer to the weekly Sabbath. • But ifirapao-Kevrj is
used as equivalent to Friday, it would simply mean, this
was tbe Friday of the Passover, or the preparation day for
that Sabbath that occurred during the paschal week. It is
thus translated by Campbell : " Now it was the preparation
of the paschal Sabbath ; " by Norton : " The preparation
day ofthe paschal week." The latter observes, "that the
14th of Nisan, whenever it began and ended, was tbe day
of tbe Passover ; that it was ordained to be so in the Old
Testament; that it is so designated by Josephus; that
there is no question that it was universaUy recognized as
such ; that it was consequently so recognized by John ;
and that therefore it is utterly incredible that be should, in
this sohtary instance, have gone out of his way to caU the
14th of Nisan, the proper day for the Passover, by the
name of the * preparation for the Passover,' even if any
» Har. 220.

454 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
ground can be imagined for giving it that name." There
is much force in these observations. The law (Exod. xU.
18) says, " In the first month, on the fourteenth day ofthe
month, at the evening, ye shall eat unleavened bread," &c.
If then the 14th was universaUy regarded as the Passover,
(see Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 12,) how could John speak
of it as the day of preparation for the Passover ? This
expression would lead us rather to look upon it as the 13th,
which only could be properly caUed the day before the
Passover.1 Some tight may be gained by asking what was the
object of the Evangelist in mentioning, that it was "the
preparation of the Passover " when Jesus was brought be
fore PUate. Was it chronological simply ? This is possible ;
but he seems to have had a higher purpose. It was the
time when the Jews should have been engaged in making
themselves ready for the holiest services of God, in His
temple ; but their preparation consisted in putting His Son
to the shameful death of the cross. The incongruity of
their labors with the character of the day, is thus brought
into the clearest contrast.'
The phrase, " preparation of the Passover," as used by
John, does not then, we conclude, compel us to regard the
day ofthe crucifixion as the day before the Passover.
StUl another passage is found, (John xix. 31 :) " The
Jews, therefore, because it was the preparation, that the
bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath
day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day, fieyaXrt,) be-
' Wieseler; 335, note 3 ; contra, Bleek, 122.
' An attempt has been made to show (Journal Sac. Lit., July, 1850) that
irapair/cei),) means properly " preparation time," and comprises the interval
between mid-day or the sixth hour, and sunset or the twelfth. Translated
according to this view, the passage before us would read : " For about the
sixth hour, the preparation time on Passover day commenced." This makes
it necessary to read apa fieri) with the iota subscript. This is hardly satis
factory.

WHT SABBATH OF PASSION WEEK A HIGH DAT. 455
sought Pilate," &c. The ground upon which this Sabbath
is designated as a high day, is supposed by many 1 to be,
that the first day of the feast, or 15th Nisan, which was a
feast sabbath, (Exod. xU. 16,) fell upon the weekly Sabbath,
and thus it was a double Sabbath, and " an high day." This,
in itself considered, would be a sufficient and satisfactory
explanation. But no weight can be attached to it, as show
ing that this was actually the case. If the weekly Sabbath
fell upon the 16th Nisan, or the second day of the feast,
a day distinguished from the other days as the time for tbe
waving ofthe sheaf of first fruits, it would, witb equal pro
priety, be called a high day.' "It was an high .day, first,
because it was the Sabbath ; second, it was the day when
aU the people presented themselves in the temple; third, it
was the day when the sheaf of first fruits was offered." '
There are no data for a positive decision of the question ;
and whether the weekly Sabbath feU on the 15th or 16th
Nisan, it might in either case be caUed an high, or great
day. In point of fact, this question is always decided ac
cording as the day of the crucifixion, for other reasons, is
placed upon the 14th or 15th Nisan. ^udworth's assertion,
that " great day," in the Greek ofthe HeUenists, is used for
the first or the last day of every feast, in which there was
a holy convocation to the Lord, is not sustained by the pas
sage to which he refers, (Isa. i. 13.) Every weekly Sabbath,
as weU as every feast sabbath, there was a holy convocar
tion, (Lev. xxUi. 3.)
Having now examined all the disputed passages in John
usually cited to show that he puts the crucifixion upon the
14th Nisan, let us notice some of the objections made to
the 1 5th. 1st. The improbability of such a trial and execu
tion upon a feast sabbath. It is said, that, according to
Rabbinical precepts, tbe Sanhedrim could not upon that
'- Meyer, Alford, Bleek. ' So Wieseler, Bobinson, Lichtenstein.
9 Lightfoot in loco. '

456 THE LTFE OF OUB LOED.
day have held a session ; that they could not have sent
armed men to arrest Jesus ; that no judicial proceedings
were lawful, nor any public execution.1 All here depends
upon the degree of sanctity that was ascribed to a feast sab
bath. It appears upon the face of it very remarkable, that
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, whom we cannot suppose to
have been ignorant of Jewish customs, should have so ex
pressly put these events on a feast sabbath, if they were so
clearly forbidden by the Rabbis. They could not but
know that aU their Jewish readers would at once perceive
the inconsistency. The very fact, then, that these Evan
gelists do place the arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus
upon a feast sabbath, together with the judicial sessions of
the Sanhedrim and the subsequent purchase of spices and
preparations for His embalming, gives the strongest pre- .
sumptive proof that these were not incompatible with the
character of the day. As against their statements, any
Rabbinical precepts of a later age cannot be considered as
decisive. But, in point of fact, it does not appear from the
Rabbins themselves, that Jesus could not have been cruci
fied on that day. BJeek (140) admits that criminals were
often arrested on the Sabbath, and of course, if necessaiy,
by men bearing arms.' That the Sanhedrim held its ses
sions on feast days and Sabbaths, is proved from the Gamara;
and also, that on those days sentence of death could be
passed,3 That the execution of criminals was purposely
reserved tiU the feasts, in order to produce a greater im
pression upon the people, appears from Maimonides, quoted
by Ainsworth, on Deut. xvii. 13 : " They put him not to
death in the judgment hall, that is, in his city, but carry
him up to the high Synedrion in Jerusalem, and keep him
untU the feast, and strangle him at the feast, as it is said,
1 Ebrard, Bleek.
a See Winer, ii. 537 ; also John vii. 32 ; Acts xii. 3.
• See the citations in Lightfoot, and in Tholuck in loco.

EXECUTIONS AT THE FEASTS. 457
' all the people shall hear and fear.' " It seems, also, to have
been the custom of PUate and of other governors, who al
ways went up to Jerusalem at the feasts, then to try and
punish criminals ; and thus it was that the two malefactors
were crucified at the same time with Jesus. The crucifixion
itself was performed, not by the Jews, but by PUate and his
soldiers. The following observations of Tholuck seem well
founded : " We consider it, therefore, as certain, that judi
cial proceedings were also held on the feast days, perhaps
under certain legal provisos, and that this very period, when
large assemblages ofthe people came together, was, for the
reason mentioned Deut. xvii. 13, selected for the execu
tion of notorious criminals."
But if we admit that, as a rule, the Jews did not arrest,
and try, and execute, criminals during the feasts, stUl the
case of Jesus may have been an exception. How great
was the hate of the Pharisees and chief priests and elders
to Him, we have already had abundant opportunities to
observe. They stuck at nothing, if they could but accom
plish His death. Here, if ever, the end would in their eyes
have justified the means ; and when the long-desired op
portunity of getting their dreaded enemy into their power
came, they were not likely to be prevented from using it
by any conscientious scruples respecting the sanctity of the
day. That even the sanctity of thet weekly Sabbath was
no barrier agamst popular passion, appears from Luke
• iv. 16-30, where the inhabitants of Nazareth attempted to
put Jesus to death on that day. So also the Jews at
Jerusalem, at the feast of Dedication, attempted, first to
stone Him, and afterward to arrest Him, (John x. 22-39.)
Upon the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, " the great
day ofthe feast," the Sanhedrim was in session, and officers
were engaged in the attempt to take Him, (John vii. 37-
52.) Upon the weekly Sabbath the chief priests and Phar-
20

458 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
isees did not hesitate to go to PUate to take measures for
sealing the sepulchre, (Matt, xxvu, 62-66.)
2d. It is said, that no one after the paschal supper could
leave the city tiU the next morning, and that therefore
Jesus, upon this evening, could not have gone to the gar
den of Gethsemane. (See Exod. xii. 22.) It seems evident,
however, that this direction was not designed to .be per
manently observed, any more than the command (v. 11) to
eat it standing, with loins girded, shoes on the feet, and
staff in the hand. We know, in point of fact, that the Jews
in the Lord's time did not observe these and other direc
tions, regarding them as peculiar to its first institution.
3d. It is said, that the preparation of spices and oint
ments for the Lord's embalming, upon the afternoon of the
day of the crucifixion, (Luke xxUi. 56 ; John xix, 38-40,)
implies that it was not a feast sabbath. Here, also, all de
pends upon the strictness with which the Jews observed
the feast sabbaths. As we have seen, Maimonides men
tions bathing and anointing, as things that might be done
on the feast days ; and, in the very nature ofthe case, every
thing necessary to prepare the dead for burial would then
be permitted. That purchases could be made even on the
Sabbath, is shown by Tholuck, (on John xiti. 1,) if the price
was not agreed upon, and no money paid. But with what
soever strictness the feast sabbath was usually observed,
we cannot question that both Joseph and Nicodemus would
have regarded themselves as fully warranted to perform,
during its hours, the last offices of love to one who had
taught them in express words, and shown by His example,
that He was Lord ofthe Sabbath.
That Luke (xxiii. 54) should designate the day foUow
ing the crucifixion as a Sabbath", " And that day was the
preparation, and the Sabbath drew on," has been explained
as showing that the day of the crucifixion could not

"SANCTITT OF A FEAST SABBATH. 459
have been a feast sabbath.1 But it proves only that the
Evangelists, in conformity with Jewish opinion, regarded
the weekly Sabbath as more sacred than the feast sabbath.
4th. It is said that the account given of Simon of Cy-
' rene, (Mark xv. 21 ; Luke xxiti. 26,) who, coming out of
the country at tbe time Jesus was on His way to tbe place
of crucifixion, was compeUed to bear His cross, is additional
evidence that this was not a feast sabbath, he having prob
ably been at work. But if this were so, we have stUl to
inquire respecting the nature of the work. Lightfoot sup
poses him to have come from the field, bearing wood, which
was lawful on a feast day. But it is not said that. he had
been out in the fields at work, nor that he had travelled
any distance ; and to come from the country into the city
upon a feast sabbath was no violation of any law. For
aught that we know, he was a resident of Jerusalem, who
was casuaUy without the wall, and was entering the gate
when he met Jesus ; or he may have been a pilgrim, who
had come up to the feast.
5th. It is said that the Synoptists, in their mention of
the day of crucifixion, give no hint that it had a sabbatical
character. It is true that they do not do this in express
terms, but they plainly imply it. According to them, the
Lord ate the Passover at the legal time, on the 14th Nisan ;
the day therefore of His death was the 15th, or the first
feast sabbath. That they designate it as the preparation
day, without making prominent its sabbatical character,
simply shows what great importance they attached to the
fact that the Lord died and' was buried before the weekly
Sabbath began. This was of far more moment to them, as
illustrating the Telation of the Jewish Sabbath to the
Christian, than to make prominent the sabbath character
of the first day of the feast.
We thus reach the result that there is no real discrep-
. > So Meyer.

460 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
ancy between the Synoptists and John. The Lord ate the
true paschal supper at the appointed time — the time when
it was eaten by the Jews in general, on the evening follow
ing the 14th Nisan.

' Thursday Eve, 14th Nisan, 6th April.
As the disciples are about to take their places at Luke xxii. 24-30.
the table, Jesus observes a strife among them for
precedency and seats of honor. To rebuke them, He John xiii. 2-20.
arose and girded Himself, and proceeded to wash their Luke xxii. 15-18.
feet. Afterward, while they were eating, He declares Matt. xxvi. 20-24.
that one of them should betray Him. The declara- Mark xiv. 18-21.'
tion creates great excitement among the apostles, Luke xxii. 21-23.
and they begin to ask anxiously, Is it I ? The Lord John xiii. 21 , 22.
describes the traitor as one that was eating with Him,
but without designating him further. Peter makes a John xiii. 23-30.
sign to John to ask Him who it was, which he does,
and Jesus gives him privately a sign ; and dipping
the sop, gives it to Judas, who asks, Is it I? Jesus Matt. xxvi. 25.
answers him affirmatively, and he immediately goes
out, to the surprise of those apostles who do not un- Matt. xxvi. 26-29.
derstand the cause. After the departure of Judas, Mark xiv. 22-25.
the Lord proceeds to the institution of the eucharistic Luke xxii. 19, 20.
supper. It is very difficult to arrange the events of this supper
in a chronological order, as no one of the Evangelists has
so narrated them. There are four points that especially de
mand our attention : the strife, for precedency ; the washing
of the disciples' feet ; the announcement of Judas' treachery
and his departure ; and the institution of the eucharist.
Luke alone mentions that there was "a strife among
them, which of them sbould be accounted greatest." When
during the supper did this occur? This Evangelist nar
rates in the following order : first the Passover and institu
tion of the Lord's supper ; second, the announcement of

EVENTS OF THE PASCHAL SUPPER. 461
Judas' treachery ; third, the strife for precedency. Many
of the earlier harmonists follow thi3 order as the chrono
logical one, and some of the moderns.1 But this has great
intrinsic difficulties. It is scarce possible that, after the
discovery ofthe treason of Judas, and with the solemn im
pression which the Lord's words respecting the traitor
must have made upon them, and after they had eaten His
sacred supper, any such strife could have occurred. And
the improbability is increased if, before this, He had taught
them humiUty by washing their feet. Upon these grounds
most affirm that Luke's order is not chronological." ShaU
we then place, the strife at the beginning of the feast ?
This is most probable; though some, as Calvin, would
identify it with the incident mentioned in Matt. xx. 24,
and suppose it related here out of its place. The strife
may have arisen" respecting their places at the table, each
wishing to be as near the Lord as possible ; the degree of
nearness being an index of rank in the future kingdom."
Luke does not mention the feet washing, nor John this
strife ; but the two accounts combined form a- consistent
whole. The Lord, after rebuking the disciples in words,
proceeds to teach them in a symbolic manner in what their
real greatness should consist, by girding Himself, and tak
ing a towel to wash their feet. Both events are thus to be
placed at the beginning of the feast. Some, however,
would place the washing ofthe feet at the close ofthe sup
per, and this has a seeming support in our English version,
John xiU. 2 : " And supper being ended, He riseth," &c.4
1 Patritius, Alford. s Calvin, Newcome, Ebrard, Oosterzee.
5 Lightfoot supposes the strife to have been between Peter, James, and
John, and that Peter began it. As to the degrees of honor attached to the
various places at the table, see Becker's Gallus, Eng. trans., 472.
* The text is disputed. The received text is Searvov yevojxevov ; so Al
ford. Tischendorf has yivopevov ; so Meyer. It is rendered by Norton,
"during supper; " by Campbell, "while they were at supper;" by Alford,
"supper being prepared, or going on,"

462 THE LTFE OF OUE LOED.
There can be httle doubt that the commencement of the
meal is meant. Some, however, would put the feet wash
ing at the close of the paschal supper, and before the
eucharistic supper ; and others stUl after the eucharist.
That it was at the close of the meal is affirmed by Thom
son, (i. 183,) on the ground of oriental usage, it being cus
tomary to wash the hands and mouth after eating. " The
pitcher and ewer are always brought, and the servant, with
a napkin over his shoulder, pours water on your hands.
If there is no servant, they perform this office for one an
other." In this case, however, Jesus must have washed
both hands and feet ; but it is plain from Peter's words,
(v. 9, compare v. 5,) that He washed their feet only. It
has been said that washing of the feet before a meal was
an act of customary cleanliness, and that, no servant being
present to perform it, each shrank from doing it, as imply
ing inferiority.1 The references, however, to the Old Tes
tament show only that it was customary to wash the feet
after a journey, and not always before a meal. The hands
were usually washed three times during the paschal supper :
after the first cup of wine ; after the bitter herbs and the
second cup ; and after the eating of the lamb. It is pos
sible that. the feet were washed after the first cup, (Luke
xxii. 17.)
It does not appear with what disciple the Lord began
the feet washing. " If He did observe any order," says
Lightfoot, "He began witb Peter, who sat in the next
place immediately to Himself." This commentator sup
poses that He washed the feet of Peter, James, and John
only, thus avoiding the washing of Judas. Chrysostom
affirms that He began with Judas ; Greswell that He began
with Peter and ended with Judas. It seems evident from
vs. 5 and 6 that Peter was not the first, and from vs. 10
and 11 that the feet of Judas were washed.
1 Bengel, Ebrard, Da Costa.

THE TREACHEET OF JUDAS EXPOSED. 463
Some have found proof that this was not the paschal sup
per in the fact that Jesus " sat down with the Twelve," and
did not eat standing, as directed, (Exod. xii. 11.) Calvin,
who regarded this command as binding, supposes, there
fore, that He ate the Passover standing, and afterward sat
down. But, as there is no doubt that the Jews generaUy
sat at this feast, either because this was the posture of free
men, or because they regarded the command of Moses as
limited to its first observance, there is no good reason why
He should not have followed the general custom.1
The third point is the announcement by the Lord of
the treachery of Judas, and the departure of the traitor.
In His reply to Peter, (John xiii. 10,) He had said, " Ye
are clean, but not aU." Probably no one then knew the
meaning of these words but Judas. Afterward, v. 18, He
spoke more' openly; still His words do not seem to have
made any special impression upon their minds. He, there
fore, soon after declares in plain words that one of them
should betray Him, (Matt. xxvi. 21 ; Mark xiv. 18; John
xiti. 21.) This at once attracts their deepest attention, and
they aU begin to ask Him, " Lord, is it I ? " In reply, He
says that it is one ofthe Twelve, and one who was then eat
ing with Him, (Matt. xxvi. 23 ; Mark xiv. 20 ; Luke xxii. 21.) •
In this designation of the traitor, He does not seem to
refer to any present act- of eating, but to the fact that he
was sitting and partaking with Him at the same table.
From these words, therefore, the apostles could not tell
which of them was , meant.2 . It is to the fulfilment of the
prophecy (Ps. xU. 9) that He has special reference : " Yea,
mine own famiUar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat
of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." (See
John xiii. 18.) This prophecy was now finding its accom-
1 As to the early customs ofthe Jews in this respect, see Bynaeus, i. 204.
' Some would render Matt. xxvi. 23 : "He that dippeth his hand," "He
that has dipped his hand." So Meyer, Conant.

464 THE LDJE OF OUR LORD.
plishment in one sitting and eating at the same table with
Him. The same truth is expressed by Luke : " Behold, the
hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table."
Some, however, find in the language of Mark, xiv. 20,
" One of the Twelve that dippeth with me in the dish," a
specific designation of Judas. " The expression seems to
describe the traitor as particularly near to Christ at table,
and in some pecuhar sense partaking with Him." ' It is
possible that Judas may have been sitting near to Jesus,
and both have dipped in the same dish ; but, if so, it is
plain that the others did not yet know who was meant.
At this point, when aU had doubtless suspended eating,
and their anxiety was at its height, and all were looking
upon one another, doubting of whom He spake, and ask
ing, Is it I ? Peter beckons to John to ask Him who it was.'
To John's question, "Lord, who is it?" which, probably,
from bis position as lying on Jesus' breast, was unheard by
the others, He rephed, " He it is to whom I shall give a
sop when I have dipped it." 3 It is not probable that this
reply was heard by any one but John. Taking a piece of
the bread and dipping it in the broth, He gives it to Judas,
and thus he is revealed as the traitor to John, but to none
of the others. It may be that, on receiving the sop, Judas
saw that his treachery was known not only to Jesus but
also to John ; and, knowing that all longer concealment is
useless, he now asks, as the rest had done, but mockingly,
"Lord, is it I?" (Matt. xxvi. 25.) To his question the
1 Alexander in loco ; Meyer.
' The text, as given by Tischendorf, (John xiii. 24,) makes the question to
have been addressed by Peter to John, vevei ovv rovrcp 'Si/iuv Xlsrpos Kai
Aeyet avrcp, Erne tis eariv rrepi ov Twryei. So Alford, Meyer. The received
text is defended by Stier. Peter first beckons to John to gain his attention^
and then asks him, supposing that he may know, but he, being ignorant, aska
Jesus. " Then Simon Peter made a sign to this disciple, and said to him,
Tell us who it is of whom He speaks ? " Norton's trans.
3 Tischendorf and Alford read fiafia, Meyer 0wj/as.

DEPARTURE OF JUDAS FROM PASCHAL SUPPER. 465
Lord replies, " Thou hast said," or in other words, Thou
art the man.
There is some difficulty in determining when Judas
asked this question and the Lord replied, from the fact that
when the former went out none of the apostles seems to
have known the cause of bis departure, (John xiU. 28, 29.)
Grotius supposes it to have been asked before Peter beck
oned to John, the Lord's reply not being heard- by him ;
and Friedlieb puts it before tbe sign of the sop given to
John. In the general agitation and confusion the Lord's
reply was unnoticed.. According to Ebrard, (518,) the Lord
answered John's question, " Who is it ? " openly, so that all
knew who was meant, and then Judas asks, " Ia it I ? "
According to some, as Stier, all heard the question -of
Judas, but none speciaUy marked it, as all had asked the
same, and no suspicion seems to have attached to him in.
particular. The. difficulty, however, is not with the ques
tion of Judas, which might easUy have passed unnoticed,
but with the Lord's reply, which, if heard, was too direct
to have been misunderstood. If Judas had been thus
openly designated as the traitor, how could the other
apostles suppose that he was sent out to execute some
official commission? Some, therefore, suppose that both
question and reply were in a whisper, or very low tone of
voice, and inaudible to the others. This is possible if Ju
das was very near tbe Lord, perhaps upon one side as John
was upon the other, as some have inferred from Mark xiv.
18. In this case what was said might easUy have escaped
the ears of the other apostles ; and it seems that Judas
must have been near Him when he received the sop. Ac
cording to some, both question and reply were not by
words, but by signs^ Others stUl suppose that both were
heard and understood by aU present, but that the apostles,
looking forward to the betrayal as not imminent, did not
imagine that His words, spoken immediately after,, " That
20*

466 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
thou doest, do quickly," (John xtii. 27-29,) had any refer
ence to the execution of his treacherous project. This
is not intrinsically improbable. Notwithstanding the
express terms in which He had spoken of His betrayal and
death at this Passover, none of the disciples seems to have
taken His words literally ; and thus the designation of Ju-.
das as the betrayer by no means aroused them to a just
apprehension of the treachery he was meditating — much
less that it was to take effect that night.1 They might,
therefore, suppose that Jesus had given him soine command
connected with his official position as -the treasurer of the
band of apostles.
Before considering when, during the meal, the Lord in
stituted the eucharist, it will be necessary to have before
us the order of the paschal supper.2 1. The supper opens
with a glass of wine mingled with water, preceded by a
blessing, and foUowed by washing of the hands. 2. Giving
of thanks, and eating of the bitter herbs. 3. Bringing in
of the unleavened bread, the sauce, the lamb, and the flesh
of the chagigah, and thank offerings. 4. Benediction. The
bitter herbs dipped in the sauce are eaten. 5. The second
cup is mixed, and the father explains to his chUdren the
origin of the feast. 6. The first part of the HaUel (Psalms
cxiii. and cxiv.) is sung, prayer offered, and the second cup
drank. 7. The father washes his hands, takes two loaves
of bread, breaks one and blesses it, takes a piece, and, wrap
ping it in the bitter herbs, dips it in the sauce, and eats it
with thanksgiving. Giving thanks, be then eats of the
chagigah, and, again giving thanks, eats of the lamb. 8. The
meal continues, each eating what he pleases, but eating
last of the lamb. After this was consumed, no more was
eaten. 9. He washes his hands and takes the third cup,
1 Lichtenstein, 404 ; Luthardt, ii. 283.
* For this, see Lightfoot and Meyer on Matt. xxvi. 26 ; Friedlieb, Arch.
.61 ; Brown, Antiq. i. 450.

ORDER OF THE PASCHAL SUPPER. 467
after giving thanks. 10. Tbe second part of the HaUel
(Psalms cxv.-cxvni.) is sung. 11. The fourth cup is taken,
and sometimes a fifth. 12. The supper Concludes with
singing the great HaUel, (Psalms cxx.-cxxvti.)
Upon several of these points there is dispute among the
Jewish writers, but the order, as here given, is substantiaUy
according to the paschal ritual ofthe Talmudists. Whether
this order was generaUy followed in our Saviour's time, is
very doubtful ; nor, if so, is it by any means certain that
He strictly foUowed it.
The order may be most clearly seen in its relation to
the evangelical narratives, if we consider it in connection
with the several cups of wine. " Four cups of wine," says
Lightfoot, "were to be drank up by every one." The
first introductory with thanksgiving. This was foUow
ed by the bringing in of the bitter herbs and eating of
them ; the bringing in of the bread, the sauce, the lamb,
and the chagigah ; the explanation of the meaning of the
feast ; and the first part of the HaUel. The second cup,
followed by the eating of the unleavened bread, of the
chagigah, and ofthe lamb. The third cup, commonly call
ed the cup of blessing, and the second part of the Hallel
sung. The fourth cup drank. If the great Hallel was
sung, a fifth cup. All that took place between the first
and second cups was introductory to the meal. The feast
proper began with the second cup and ended with the third.
Except the partial eating of the bitter herbs, the object of
which was to awaken the interest of the chUdren prepara
tory to their instruction, nothing was eaten before the
second, and nothing at aU was eaten after the third. The
singing ofthe second part ofthe HaUel, and the fourth cup,
generaUy closed the feast.
If we now turn to the Evangelists, we find that Luke
only (xxii. 17 and 20) mentions two cups of wine. "To
which of the four customary cups of the paschal surraer

468 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
shall these be referred ? Many identify tbe first of Luke
with the first of the supper.1 But against this, are the
Lord's words, ys. 16 and 18', that He would no more eat or
drink ofthe Passover till the kingdom of God should come,
which imply, that He had already eaten and drunken, and
that the paschal supper was over." The words, however,
may mean no more than that He would partake of no
Passover after- the present. Meyer insists that the words,
" Take this and divide it among yourselves ; for I say unto
you, I wtil not drink ofthe fruit of the vine untU the king
dom of God shall come," show conclusively that He did not
Himself drink of the cup ; which abstinence^ if this were
the first cup, is most improbable, and that therefore these
words, which were later spoken, (Matt. xxvi. 29,) Luke, has
erroneously inserted here. But it is by no means certain
that the words, " Take this and divide it among yourselves,"
do exclude His own participation in the cupk He greatly
desired to eat the Passover with them, and it is not ques
tioned that He did so. Why then should He not partake
of the wine, which, though not divinely commanded, was
yet regarded as a regular part of the supper ? Luke's lan
guage does not at aU forbid the suppositiofl that He had
Himself partaken of the cup ere He gave it, to the dis
ciples.' The similarity of Matt. xxvi. 29 and Mark xiv. 25 with
Luke xxU. 18, may best be explained by supposing that
the latter was spoken in reference to the paschal supper,
the former in reference to the eucharistie supper. He kept
the Passover with His disciples according to the law, and
thus fulfilled it. He would no more partake of it, till it
should be observed in its new and higher form in the king
dom of God. He established the. eucharistic supper, and
» So Robinson, Stier, Alford.
1 So Paulus in loco, who makes this the fifth cup.
> See Alford in loco.

INSTITUTION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 469
henceforth would no more partake of it, tiU ati should be
made new in the kingdom. It may be, that in this are
references to two distinct ordinances in the age to come :
that cf the paschal supper for the Jews, and of the Lord's
supper for the Cburch.
Some, however, make the first cup of Luke to have been
the third of the paschal supper.1 The supper was then, so
far as eating the Passover was concerned, fuUy over ; and
His words, " With desire have I desired to eat this Passover
with you before I suffer," refer to His own supper, which
He was about to estabUsh. Bucher (742) refers. these words,
vs. 15-18, to the paschal supper just ended ; but Matt. xxvi.
29, and Mark xiv. 25, to the eucharistic supper.
, The second cup of Luke (v. 20) was that " after sup
per," /xera to Searvyaut, (see also 1 Cor. xi. 25,) and is the
same as that mentioned by Matt. xxvi. 27 and Mark xiv.
23. To which ofthe four cups of the supper does this cor
respond ? Many refer it to the third.2 Of this cup, Brown
remarks : " It was emphatically cahed ' the cup of blessing,'
because, whUe it stood before them, the president did what
we commonly do at the end of a feast — he returned thanks
to the Father of aU for every temporal and spiritual bless
ing, but especiaUy that of the Passover." To this some
suppose St. Paul to refer, (1 Cor. x. 16 :) " The cup of bless
ing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood
of Christ ? " If this be correct, then, after the eating of the
paschal lamb was ended, and the law had thus been fulfilled,
and the supper finished, Jesus, before proceeding to take
the cup after supper, the cup of blessing, takes bread, prob-
ably the unleavened bread upon the table, and gives thanks,
and declaring it to be His body, gives them to eat. It had
been a rule that the paschal lamb should be the last thing
eaten ; but He now sets this aside, and gives them the flesh
» Brown, Antiq. 465.
3 So Lightfoot, Lange, Bobinson, Lichtenstein.

470 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
of " the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." He
now takes the cup, and giving thanks, gives it to them, that
aU might drink. By thus placing the taking of the eucha
ristic bread immediately after, and in connection with, the
eating of the paschal lamb, we best meet the statements of
Matthew and Mark, that " as they were eating, eo-diovrtav
avTtav, He took bread," &c.
Some, however, make this to have been the fourth cup.1
The chief argument for this is, that if it was the third cup,
the fourth cup must have been wholly omitted, which is
not probable. Of this fourth cup, Brown remarks : " We
are not particularly informed whether it immediately suc
ceeded the third, or that a certain interval was between
them. But we know that it was cahed the cup of the Hal
lel, because the president finished over it the HaUel which
he had begun over tbe second cup." a StUl, as this obser
vance respecting the four cups of wine was not command
ed in the law, Jesus might not have regarded it, and have
sung the hymn after- the third. If, however, a cup was
taken after the sacramental cup, which is not probable, it
is not mentioned.
It has been a point much discussed, whether Judas de
parted before or after the institution of the eucharist.
Matthew, (xxvi. 25,) who alone relates his question, " Mas
ter, is it I ? " and the Lord's reply, " Thou hast said," says
nothing of his departure, but mentions the eucharistic sup
per as taking place after the question and reply. John,
(xiii. 26-30,) who mentions his departure immediately after
receiving the sop, says nothing of the eucharistic supper.
The Evangelists Mark and Luke do not speak of Judas by
name. Where then, in Matthew's narrative, shaU we insert
his departure ? Probably between vs. 25 and 26. From
the expression, v. 26, " And as they were eating, Jesus took
1 Meyer, Brown. Bynaeus hesitates between the third and fourth.
3 See Friedlieb, Arch. 58.

PRESENCE OF JUDAS AT THE LORD'S SUPPER. 471
bread," &c, some infer the presence of Judas, the paschal
supper not being yet ended.1 But the expression may mean
no more than that, whUe yet at the table, Jesus took bread ;
or if the eating was even of the lamb, of which all were
bound to partake, the pecuhar position of Judas would
justify his exclusion. The argument from the Lord's words,
v. 27, " Drink ye all of it," as implying that Judas was to
drink with the others, is thus stated by Alford : " It is on
aU accounts probable, and this account confirms the prob-
abitity, that Judas was present, and partook of both parts
of this first communion. The expressions are such through
out as to lead us to suppose that the same persons, the
Twelve, were present." But Matthew uses the ¦ same ex
pression : " All ye shaU be offended in me this night,"
(v. 31, so vs. 33 and 35,) when only eleven, were present.
According to many, this command that all should drink, is
a prophetic warning against the custom of the Romish
Church in withholding the cup from the laity.2 Perhaps
the right explanation may be that given by Buxtorf,8 who
says, that it is the law among the Jews, that all who were
present at the paschal supper, should drink ofthe four cups,
whether men or women, adults or chUdren ; and especially
ofthe fourth or last cup.
If we turn to the narrative of John, we read that, after
Jesus gave Judas the sop, Satan entered into him, and " he
went immediately out." Some have attempted to deter
mine, from the mention of the " sof," to what period of
the meal this event is to be referred. But it is uncertain
whether this sop, u/oj/uov, Uterally bit, or morsel, was of
flesh or bread.* If of bread, as is most probable, it may
have been given immediately after the second cup, when
» Bengel ; ergo Judas aderat. ' Calvin, Alexander.
» Cited by Bynaeus, i. 624.
* The opinion of Origen and others, that this was the bread consecrated
to be the Lord's body, and now given to Judas, is refuted by Augustine.

472 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
each ofthe company, wrapping a piece of unleavened bread
in bitter herbs, dipped it in the sauce and ate it. This was
before the paschal lamb was eaten. But, as both the bread
and sauce continued on the table to the end of the meal,
the Lord may have given him the sop at a later period,
and no definite inference can be drawn from this circum
stance. If Judas went out immediately after receiving the sop,
and yet were present at the Lord's supper, this supper must
have been prior to the dipping of the sop. But where in
John's narrative can it be placed ? According to Stier, it
may find place between vs. 22 and 23. But there is the
greatest intrinsic improbabihty, that after Jesus had sol
emnly announced to them, " VerUy, verUy, I say unto you,
that one of you shaU betray me," and " aU were looking on
one another, doubting of whom He spake," He should have
proceeded at once to the institution of this holy rite. It is
to be noted, also, that in announcing the treachery of
Judas, v. 21, "He was troubled in spirit," but that after
the departure of Judas, v. 31, He said, " Now is the Son
of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him." There
seems to be in John's narrative no possible place for insert
ing the institution of the eucharist prior to the departure
of Judas. Where, after that, it is to be placed is disputed.
Some place it between vs. 30 and 31 ; some between vs. 32
and 33; some after v. 33; some after v. 38; and others
find no place wholly Satisfactory.
Some would make a distinction between the two parts
of the Lord's supper, an interval elapsing between the con
secration of the bread and that ofthe wine.1 Hence it is- said
that Judas partook of the bread, but went out before the
distribution of the cup. There is no sound basis for this
distinction. * Greswell, iii. 181. " The bread was ordained during the supper, the use
ofthe cup was prescribed after it."

JESUS FORETELLS PETER'S DENIALS. 473
Upon these grounds, we conclude that Judas left the
paschal supper before the Lord instituted the eucharist.
This point has been connected with questions respecting
the spiritual efficacy of the sacrament, into which it would
be foreign to our purpose to enter. The weight of author
ity down to recent times, is in favor of the view that he
was present, and partook with the other apostles of the
bread and wine.1

Evening following Thursday, 14th Nisan,
6th April.
After the supper Peter makes protestations of Luke xxii. 31-38.
fidelity, but the Lord announces to him that, before John xiii. 36-38.
the cock should crow he should deny Him. He Matt. xxvi. 30-35.
teaches the disciples of the perils that await them, Makk xiv. 26-31.
and they bring to Him two swords. He. proceeds to
address to them words of encouragement, and an- John xiv. 1-31.
swers questions of Thomas and Philip. He adds
the promise of the Comforter, and calling upon
them to arise and depart with Him, He continues
His address to them as they stand around Him, and Joes xv., xvi., xvii.
ends with a prayer.
Matthew and Mark narrate the Lord's conversation
with Peter, as if it took place after they had left the supper
room, and were upon their way to the Mount of Olives ;
Luke and John, as taking place before they had left the
* Wichelhaus (257) enumerates as its defenders, Cyprian, Jerome, Augus
tine, Chrysostom, the two Cyrils, Theodoret ; and later, Bellarmine, Baronius,
Maldonatus, Gerhard, Beza, Bucer, Lightfoot, Bengel. Calvin is undecided.
Probdbile tamen esse non nego Judam affwsse. It is affirmed by the Luther
ans, but denied by the Reformed. Of the later commentators affirming it,
are McKnight, Krafft, Patritius, Stier, Alford ; denying it, Meyer, Tischen
dorf, Robinson, Lichtenstein, Friedlieb, Bucher, Ebrard, Lange, Wieseler,
Biggenbach, Ellicott. For an interesting discussion of the point, see By-
naeus, i. 443.

4.74 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
room. Hence, some suppose that the conversation began
before they left it, and was renewed by the way ; and that
His declaration respecting the crowing of the cock was
twice spoken : once as recorded by the former, and once as
recorded by the latter.1 Others, however, who agree with
these, that Jesus twice uttered the prediction respecting
the denials of Peter, would identify Matthew, Mark, and
Luke. Luke does not narrate in. chronological order. This
identification is defended on internal grounds, and especially
that the Lord's words to Peter, as given by Luke,' " When
thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," seem plain
ly to point to His words respecting aU the apostles, as
given by Matthew and Mark, " All ye shaU be offended
because of me this night."2 That the prediction respecting
Peter's denials was twice spoken; is intrinsically probable,
and whoUy in accordance with Peter's character. Jesus
had said (John xUi. 33) that He must go whither His dis-*
ciples could not follow Him. This leads Peter to ask
whither He was going, and why he could not now follow
Him ; and he adds, " I wUl lay down my life for thy sake."
Now the Lord declares to him, that ere the cock crow he
¦ shall deny Him thrice. (At this time, probably, were
also spoken"tbe words given by Luke xxii. 31-34.) Later,
perhaps as they were approaching the garden of Geth-
semane, Jesus, addressing them as a body, declares that
" they aU shaU be ofiended in Him this night." This leads
Peter to repeat his protestations of fidehty, and to affirm
that though all others should be offended, yet he, would
not. The Lord therefore repeats, and more emphatically,
" Verily I say unto thee, this day, even in this night, before
the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice."
According to some, the Lord three times predicted
Peter's denials, once as given by John, once by Luke, and
1 Meyer, Aifbrd, Oosterzee. « See Bynaeus, ii. 9.

THE TWO COCK-CROWINGS. 475
once by Matthew and Mark.1 Others still make but one
prediction, which John and Luke relate in its place, and
Matthew and Mark by retrospection.3 Townsend ¦ makes
two predictions, of which one occurred at the paschal sup
per, and one on the way to the Mount of Olives."
The words the " cock shaU not crow," may be under
stood as referring, not to a literal cock, but to that watch of
the night known as the " cock-crowing," (see Mark xtii.
35,) or •the third watch, that from 12-3 a. m. "Within
.the time of cock-crowing," says Lightfoot, " the short space
of time between the first and second crowing." This would
be equivalent to saying, before early dawn thou shalt deny
me. But the Lord seems to include the actual crowing of
the cock, as the event shows, (Mark xiv. 66-72.) The
second crowing was probably about 3 a. m. That Mark
should say, " Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny
me thrice," whUe the other EvangeUsts say, " Before the
cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice," makes no real dis
crepancy. The latter speak generally of the cock-crowing
as a period of time within which the three denials should
take place ; Mark more accurately says, that during this
period the cock should not crow twice ere the denial's were
made.4 The -assertion that no cocks were permitted at
Jerusalem has no basis.*
The aUusion to the swords is found only in Luke. Some,
as Stier, make this incident to have taken place on the way
to Gethsemane, and just before tbe entrance into it. As,
however, it seems to be directly connected with the words
spoken to Peter, it m&y have occurred in the supper
room.' » So Augustine, Greswell. ' Newcome, Robinson, Riggenbach.
8 So substantially Patritius.
' See Friedlieb, Archaol. 79 ; Greswell, iii. 211.
« See Alford on Matt. xxvi. 34. '.' It is. certain that there, were cocks at
Jerusalem as well as at other places." Lightfoot.
* So Da Costa, Ebrard, Oosterzee.

476 ' THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
After thus warning His disciples of the twofold danger
from invisible temptation and external violence, and en
couraging them to trust in Him, and giving them the prom
ise of the Comforter, He offers His fareweU prayer, the
hymn is sung, and the paschal solemnity ended. We may,
however, connect this hymn with His words, (John xiv. 31,)
" Arise, let us go hence," or place it before the discourse.
Norton supposes that He rose from the table to pray, but
continued for a time His address. That the discourse in
chaps, xv. and xvi., with, the prayer in chap, xvii., was spoken
in the supper room, appears very clearly from chap. xviu. 1,
where it is said, " When Jesus had spoken these words He
went forth — efyXOe — with His disciples over the brook
Cedron," which can scarcely refer to a departure from any
other place, although referred by some to His going out of
the city. It appears, also, from this, that after His words,
" Arise, let us go hence," no change of place is mentioned
till the prayer is ended ; and from the improbability that
such a discourse would be spoken by the way. We con
clude, therefore, that the Lord, after the disciples had arisen,
and whUe stUl standing in the room, continued His dis
course and ended it with the prayer.1 Many, however,
suppose it to have been spoken on the way to Gethsemane.1
Conversation with His disciples while journeying with them
was indeed not unusual, but that He should deliver so long
a discourse at night, and under these circumstances, is most
improbable. Those who deny this supper in John xiii. 2
to be the paschal supper, but make it one previous at Beth
any, place its close at xiv. 31, when Jesus arose to go to
Jerusalem. Bynaeus finds three distinct discourses: the
first, John xUi., at the supper on the evenmg of Wednesday
preceding the paschal supper; the second, John xiv., on
Thursday, just before Jesus left Bethany to go to Jerusa-
1 Meyer, Stier, Alford, Norton, Tholuck, Ellicott
' Lange, Da Costa, Ebrard, Patritius.

JESUS GOES TO GETHSEMANE. 477
lem to the paschal supper; the third, John xv. xvi. xvitt
on the night foUowing the paschal supper-

Evening following Thursday, I4th Nisan,
6th April.
After His prayer was ended,, Jesus went with His John xviii. 1, 2.
disciples over the brook Cedron to the garden of Geth- Matt. xxvi. 36.
semane, where He would await the coming of Judas. Luke xxii. 39.
¦ This apostate, after leaving the supper room, had gone Makk xiv. 32.
tp the priests, and with them made arrangement for John xviii. 3.
the immediate arrest of the Sord. Coming to the gar
den, Jesus takes, with Him Peter and James and John, Matt. xxvi. 37-46.
and retires with them to a secluded spot. Here He Mabk xiv; 33-42.
begins to be heavy with sorrow, and, leaving the three, Luke xxii. 40-46.
goes alone to pray. Beturning, He finds them asleepj
Leaving them, He again prays, and in His agony sweat?
a bloody sweat, but is strengthened by an angel. Again
returning to the three disciples, He finds them asleep.
He goes a third time and prays, and returning, bids
them sleep on, but, soon announces the approach of
Judas. The hour when Jesus left the supper room to go to
Gethsemane,. cannot be exactly determined. Lichtenstein
(411) puts it at midnight ; first, because usuaUy at this hour
the supper was ended; second, because if He had left
earlier, there would have been too great delay at Geth
semane. GresweU puts it between eleven and twelve o'clock ;
Morrison at nine or ten ; Fairbaira at eight or nine ; Jar
vis at eight. Supposing the paschal supper to have com
menced about 6 p. m., or sundown,, the several incidents of
the feast, and tbe Lord's- discourse ahd prayer,, must have
occupied them tUl near midnight. The only datum of time
bearing on it is the crowing of the cock (Mark xiv. 68 and 72,)
and this gives no definite result. Ofthe situation of tbe

478 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
house where the supper was eaten, we know nothing. Gres
weU supposes it to have been in the eastern part of the
city ; and, wherever it was, it could not have been very far
distant from the garden.1 We cannot be far wrong if
we suppose the Lord to have reached Gethsemane about
midnight. The garden of Gethsemane, "valley of oil," or "oil
press," to which the Lord went, was a place He was accus
tomed to visit, (John xviii. 2,) and a Uttle way out of the
city. It seems to have been an ohve orchard, and not
connected with any private residence. If, however, this
was a private garden, still, as at the feasts aU the houses
and gardens were thrown open to the'pubhc, Jesus could
visit it at this time without hindrance, or attracting to
Himself any special attention. GresweU hints that the
family of Lazarus might have had possessions there. From
a comparison of Luke xxi. 37 with xxii. 39, it appears that
the Lord had spent some part of the previous nights there,
perhaps alone in prayer.
Whether the site of the modern Gethsemane is to be
identified with the ancient garden, is doubtful. It is first
mentioned by Eusebius as .at the Mount of Ohves, 'and
afterward more definitely by Jerome as at the foot of tbe
Mount.8 Several of the most recent inquirers are disposed
to deny the identification. Thomson (U. 483) says : " The posi
tion is too near the city, and so close to what must have al
ways been the great thoroughfare eastward, that our Lord
would scarcely have selected it for retirement on that dan
gerous and dismal night." He finds a better site several
¦hundred yards to the northeast, on' the Mount of Olives.
Barclay (63) thinks it evident that the present enclosure, from
its narrow dimensions, can occupy only in part the site of
1 As to the traditional site of the " Upper Boom," now shown in the pile
of buildings surrounding the tomb of David, see Williams, H. C, ii. 507.
- Robinson, i. 235.

GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE. 479
the ancient garden, and finds a better position higher up in
the valley. Stanley (415) is undecided. But whether the pres
ent garden occupies precisely the old site or not, it is cer
tain that it must be near it. It hes a tittle east of the val
ley of Cedron, at the intersection of two paths, both lead
ing in different directions over the Mount of Olives. De
scending from St. Stephen's gate into the vaUey, and cross
ing a bridge, it is easUy reached, being distant but nine or
ten rods from the bridge. Formerly it was unenclosed,
but recently the Latins have buUt a high waU around it.
There are within eight venerable olive trees, undoubtedly
»of great age, their trunks much decayed, but branches flou
rishing. " The most venerable of their race on the face of
the earth," says Stanley, " their gnarled trunks and scanty
foliage wtil always be regarded as the most affecting of the
sacred memorials in or about Jerusalem." The Greeks,
envious of the Latins, have recently enclosed a piece of
ground a little north, beside the Virgin's tomb, and con
tend that this is the true garden.1 .
The words of Jesus at the paschal supper, (John xiii.
27,) " That thou doest, do quickly," forced Judas to do at
. once what he had apparently not designed to do tUl the
feast was over. . Perhaps he feared that U the arrest was
was not made the same night, Jesus would next day leave
the'city. Ofthe movements of Judas after he left the sup
per, none oi the Evangelists give us an account till he re
appears at the garden of Gethsemane ; but we can readUy
picture them to ourselves in their outline. Going immedi
ately to Caiaphas, or to some other leading member of the
Sanhedrim, he informs him where Jesus is, and announces
that he is ready to fulfil his compact, and at once to make
the arrest. It was not, as we have seen, the intention to ¦
arrest Him during the feast, lest there should be a popular
tumult, (Matt. xxvi. 5 ;) but now that an opportunity of-
i Porter, 1. 177

480 ' THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
fered of seizing Him secretly at dead of night, when aU
were asleep or engaged at the paschal meal, and therefore
without danger of interference or uproar, His enemies
could not hesitate. Once in their hands, the rest was easy,
A hasty trial, a prejudged condemnation, an immediate ex
ecution, and the hated Prophet of GaUlee was forever re-
moved out of their way. AU perhaps might be done by
the hour of morning prayer and sacrifice.1 With great
despatch aU the necessary arrangements are made. Some
soldiers the Sanhedrim had under its own direction, the
guards of the temple, commanded by " the captains of the
temple," or, as translated by CampbeU, "officers of the«
temple guard," (Luke xxii. 52 ;) and to these they added
some of their own servants, armed with staves. But they
must be attended by Eoman soldiers, in case a disturbance
should arise ; and to this end PUate was persuaded to place
at their command the cohort, or a part of it, under its cap
tain, x^-"*px°s, that during the feast was stationed at Fort
Antonia for the preservation of order." Some of the chief
priests and elders were also themselves to be present, to di
rect the proceedings, and if necessary to control the people.3
The soldiers, or some portion of them, were to be provided
with lanterns and torches, probably to search the garden
if any attempt were made to escape. That at this time the
moon was at the fuU presents no objection. " They would,"
says Hackett, (140,) " need lanterns and torches; even in a
clear night and under a brUUant moon, because the western
side of Olivet abounds in deserted tombs and caves."
It is possible that they thought to surprise Him asleep. It
was agreed that Judas should precede the others, and, ap
proaching Him in a friendly way, kiss Him, and thus make
Him known. This indicates that no resistance was antici
pated. ¦ Lichtenstein, 414. » John xviii. 3 and 12. See Meyer in loco.
a Luke xxii. 52. Lichtenstein, 415.

THE AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 481
Of the events at Gethsemane prior to the arrival of
Judas, John says nothing. Luke is brief, and, omitting the
choice of the three apostles to accompany Jesus, mentions
but one prayer. On the other hand, he alone mentions the
bloody sweat and the presence of the angel, (xxU. 40-46.)
In Matthew and Mark we find the fullest detaUs.
Whether aU the apostles entered the garden does not
appear ; but if so, all, except Peter, James, and John, re
mained near the entrance. How long time He was witb
the three in the recesses of the garden, can but be conjec
tured, for the words given by Matthew, xxvi. 40, " What,
could ye not watch with me one hour ? " do not imply, as
said by Greswell, that this was the time actually occupied
in His prayer, but are a proverbial* expression, denoting a
brief interval. Some place the visit of the angel between
the first and second prayer, to strengthen Him for that
more terrible struggle when He sweat drops of blood.1
Others make the agony and bloody sweat to have taken:
place before the appearatace of the angel, and its cause,.
although narrated after it. That the grief and heaviness
were greatest during the first- prayer, may be inferred
from Matthew and Mark. The language of Luke does not
permit us to think of sweat falling in large, heavy drops
like blood, but of sweat mingled with blood.2
The Lord's words to the three apostles, after His last,
return to them, (Matt. xxvi. 45 ; so Mark,) " Sleep on now, .
and take your rest," are understood by some as giving them.
permission and opportunity to sleep, and thus refresh them
selves to meet the coming peril. "The obvious objection j
to this explanation is that in the same breath He tells them
to awake ; but even this is not unnatural, if taken as a sort.
of after thought, suggested by the sight or sound of the
- Meyer, Alford.
' Meyer, Alford, De Wette. For cases having points of similarity, see
Stroud on Death of Christ, 85, and note iii.
21

482 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
approaching enemy." ' Others understand them as ironi-
cally spoken." Others stUl, as interrogatively : " Sleep ye
on still, and take ye your rest ? " 8 The first explanation
is to be preferred. " The former words," says EUicott,
" were rather in the accents of a pensive contemplation —
the latter in the tones of exhortation and command." It
was the sudden appearance of Judas and his band that
caused the words, " Rise, let us be going ; behold, he is at
hand that doth betray me," and explain their apparent ab
ruptness.4 Hackett (254) connects them with the local posi
tion ofthe garden, from which Jesus could survey at a glance
the entire length of the eastern wall, and the slope of the
hill towakl the valley. " It is not improbable that His
watchful eyes at that moment caught sight of Judas and
his accompUces, as they issued from one of the eastern
gates, or turned round the northern or southern corner of
the walls, in order to descend into the valley."

Evening following Teursdav, 14th Nisan,
6 th April.
Upon the arrival of Judas and those with him, Je- John xviii. 3-12.
sus, accompanied by the apostles, goes forth from the Matt, xxvi 47-56.
garden to meet him. Judas, coming forward before the Mark xiv. 43-52.
others, kisses Him as a sign to them. Addressing Ju- Luke xxii. 47, 48.
das, with the words, " Betrayest thou the Son of man
with a kiss," He advances to the multitude and de
mands of them whom they seek ? At their reply, " Je
sus of Nazareth," He answers, "I am He," and they
go backward and fall to the ground. Again He asks
the same question, and receives the same reply. He
1 -Alexander. See Lichtenstein, 414. ' Calvin, Campbell, Meyer.
3 Greswell, iii. 194; Robinson, Har. 151. The former would refer Luke
xxii. 45, not to the three disciples, but to the eight whom He found also asleep
near the entrance ofthe garden. There seems no basis for this.
* See Mark xiv. 41. " It is enough; " i. e., " Te have slot cni"."V

APPROACH OF JUDAS WITH SOLDIERS. 483
now requests that the apostles may go free. As they Luke xxii. 49-53.
proceed to take and bind Him, Peter smites a servant
of the high priest, but the Lord heals the wound.
Beholding their Master in the power of. His enemies,
all the apostles forsake Him and flee, and also a young
man who had followed Him. He reproaches the mul
titude that they had come to arrest Him as a thief.
The time spent in the garden was probably more than
an hour, so that, if they entered it about midnight, it was
between one and two in the morning when Judas came.1
The Lord seems to have met him near the entrance of the
garden — whether without it or within it is not certain. " He
went forth," (John xvni. 4 ;) " out ofthe garden," (Meyer ;)
" out of the circle of the disciples," (Lange ;) " from the
shade of the trees into the modnUght," (Alford ;) " from
the bottom ofthe garden to the front part of it," (Tholuck.)
The matter is unimportant. According to his arrange
ment with the priests, Judas, seeing the Lord standing
with the disciples, leaves those that accompanied him a
Uttle behind, and, coming forward, salutes Him with the
usual salutation, and kisses Him. To this Jesus replies,
" Friend, wherefore art thou come ? " (Matt. xxvi. 50.)
" Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss ? " (Luke xxii.
48.) AppaUed at these words, Judas steps backward, and
Jesus goes toward the multitude, who were watching what
was taking place, and who, beholding Him advance, await
His approach. It may be that Judas had advanced so far
before his companions that be was not seen by them to kiss
the Lord, and that they were sttil awaiting the sign. He
asks, " Whom seek ye ? " They reply, " Jesus of Naza
reth." His words, " I am He," spoken with the majesty
that became the Son of God, so overawed them that they
went backward and fell to the ground. After a like ques-
' Jones, Notes, 331, makes, the arrest to have been about 10 p. M., and
Jesus taken to Caiaphas about 11 p. u. It must have been later than this.

484 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
tion and reply, He requests them to let the apostles go
free, thus implying his own wiUingness to be taken ; and
they, thus emboldened, now lay hands upon Him. At this
moment Peter draws his sword and smites one of the band.
Jesus orders him to put up his sword, and declares that He
gives Himself up to them voluntarily, and that, if He need
ed help, His Father would send Him legions of angels.
The healing of the servant's ear is mentioned only by Luke,
(xxU. 51.) He now addresses a few words. to the chief priests
and captains and elders, who had probably to this time been
standing behind the soldiers, and now came forward ; and,
as He finished, the apostles, seeing Him whoUy in the pow
er of His enemies, forsook Him and fled. It does not ap
pear that there was any design to arrest them. If their
Master was removed out of the way, the Sanhedrim doubt
less thought that they would soon sink into obscurity.
There was no attempt to seize them, and in the darkness
and confusion they could easUy escape. , Peter and John,
however, continued lurking near by, watching the progress
of events. The incident ofthe young man " having a linen
cloth cast about his naked body," is mentioned only by
Mark, (xiv. 51, 52.) From the Unen cloth or cloak, Light
foot infers that he was a religious ascetic, and not a disci
ple of Jesus, but a casual looker-on. Lichtenstein (395) makes
him to have been the Evangelist Mark himself, and son of
the man at whose house Jesus ate the paschal supper;
others, John ; others, James the Just.1
The circumstances connected with the arrest are put by
some in another order. The incidents narrated by John,
(xviii. 4-9,) the going forth of Jesus to the multitude ; His
questions to them ; and their prostration ; took place before
Judas approached Him to kiss Him." According to Stier,
. 1 See Alexander in loco. The matter is elaborately discussed by Bynaeus,
ii. 228. 3 So Bobinson, Alford, Stier.

JESUS TAKEN TO ANNAS FIRST. 485
(vii. 277,) Judas was with the band, but stood irresolute as
the Lord came to meet them. He with the others feU to the
ground, but, reviving, goes forward to give the kiss. But
why give the kiss to make Jesus known, when He already
avowedly stood before them ? It was not needed as a sign.
Stier affirms that it was given in "the devilish spirit to
maintain his consistency and redeem his word." This may
be so, but the order before given is more probable.1

Friday Morning, 15th Nisan, 7th April.
From the garden Jesus is taken first to the house John xviii. 13— IB.
of Annas, and, after a brief delay here, to the palace
of Caiaphas, the high priest; Peter and John follow- Matt. xxvi. 57, 68.
ing Him. Here, whilst the council is assembling, He Maek xiv. 63, 64.
is subjected to preliminary examination by Caiaphas Luke xxii. 54, 65.
respecting His disciples and doctrine. The council John xviii. 19-23.
having assembled, He'is put on trial. As the wit- 'Matt. xxvi. 59-66.
nesses disagree and no charge can be proved against Mark xiv. 55-64.
Him, He is adjured by Caiaphas to tell whether He
be the Christ. Upon His confession He is condemned Matt. xxvi. 69-75.
as guilty of blasphemy. During this period, Peter, Maek xiv. 66-72.
who had followed Him with John to the high priest's Luke xxii. 66-62.
palace, there denies Him, and, reminded of His words John xviii. 15-18.
by the crowing of the cock, goes out to weep. " 25-27.
That Jesus was led from Gethsemane to Annas first,
and then sent by Annas to Caiaphas, is mentioned only by
John. According to Matthew, He was led to Caiaphas,
the high priest, and in his palace, before the priests and
scribes and elders, the trial took place. Mark and Luke
say merely that He was led away to the high priest, with
out naming him. The preUminary examination mentioned
by John, they all pass over in silence. Our first inquiry
1 So Lichtenstein, Krafft, Ebrard, Luthardt, Meyer, Patritius.

486 THE LTFE OF OUR LORD.
therefore concerns this preUminary examination, before
whom it was held, and its relations to the formal trial.
The Jews led Jesus away to Annas first. Various
causes have been assigned why He should have been taken
to Annas, as that his house was near at hand, and here the
Lord might be kept safely tUl the council assembled ; that
he was president or vice-president of the Sanhedrim, and
so had a legal right to examine Him ; that he occupied the
same palace with Caiaphas ; that he was father-in-law to
Caiaphas, and therefore this mark of respect was shown
him. To this latter relationship the Evangelist gives special
emphasis, (v. 13,) and seems to make it the cause why Je
sus was led before him.1 It is apparent from Josephus," as
well as from the EvangeUsts, that he was for many years a
man of great influence, and virtually the ecclesiastical head
of the nation. It is in this personal reputation and author
ity, that we find the explanation of the fact that Jesus was
taken to him first. As the former high priest, as father-in-
law of Caiaphas, as an experienced and able counseUor, a
wish on his part to see so noted a prisoner, aside from
other reasons, would sufficiently explain why the Lord was
led before him.
But all this stiU leaves undetermined the point whether
the Lord was examined by Annas. If so, he is designated
by John as high priest, (v. 19 :) " The high priest then asked
Jesus," &c. But does he so designate him, or is Caiaphas
meant ? That Annas is so caUed by Luke (Ui. 2, Acts iv.
6) is not conclusive, for the question turns not on this fact,
but on John's meaning. Nowhere in his Gospel does this
Evangehst call Annas the high priest. This office was held
by Caiaphas, (xi. 49 and 51.) That a distinction, based
upon official position, is taken in the passage before us be
tween Annas and Caiaphas, is apparent. Of the latter it is
expressly said that he was high priest, (see also v. 24 ;) of
' Ellicott, 333, 1. * Antiq., 20. 9. 1.

JESUS TAKEN TO ANNAS. 487
the former that he was father-in-law of the high priest.
When he then, immediately after, speaks of the palace of
the high priest, whose palace is meant ? Obviously that
of Caiaphas. This seems the only natural and unforced in
terpretation ofthe language. The remark of Neander, re
peated by Stier, that, by being styled the " high priest of
that year," Caiaphas is not designated as the high priest,
and is distinguished from other high priests, has little
force. The argument that tends most strongly to show that
Annas is called high priest, is drawn from the statement
(v. 15) that Simon Peter was following Jesus with John,
and that they went in with Him into the palace ofthe high
priest. As they led Him to Annas first, it is inferred that
the disciples followed Him thither, and that what is said in
vs. 15-23 must be the account of what there took place.1
But if this visit to Annas was brief, and had no important
bearing on what followed ; and was to gratify his curiosity,
or to get his advice, or to find a place of temporary secur
ity, we can readily see why it is so briefly mentioned, and
why the disciples are not said to have entered his palace.
If we turn to the examination itself, all tbe circum
stances indicate that it was before Caiaphas, the legal high
priest : the mention \>f his palace, the character of his ques
tions, the fact that the Lord answers him, and the conduct
of the officer. But does not the statement (v. 24) that
"Annas sent (aireareiXev) Him bound unto Caiaphas, the
high priest," show that this sending was after the examina
tion previously mentioned ? (vs. 19-23.) AU here depends
upon the point whether aireo-TeiXev can be translated, as in
our version, " had sent." ' It is easily comprehensible that
1 So Luthardt, ii. 385.
* Winer (Gram. 246) leaves the point undecided ; so Buttman, New Test.
Gram. 173. In favor of this translation, Tholuck, De Wette, Krafft, Bobin
son, Norton, Greswell, Campbell.

488 THE UFE OF OUR LORD.
John, not having expticitly mentioned this sending to Caia
phas, should give this supplementary statement. StUl, some
find the key to this verse in the word " bound," as refer
ring back to vs. 22, 23. Annas had sent Him to Caiaphas
bound ; yet the high priest permits Him, thus helpless, to be
smitten in his presence. In this way the statement comes
in parenthetically, and in its right place. " The faot is men
tioned here because this indignity and prejudgment of the
case of Jesus led to, and countenanced, the indignity just
before mentioned." ' Perhaps the more natural position
ofv. 24 would be after v. 13, where some would place it.
If, however, we translate it, "Annas sent Him bound to
Caiaphas," the difficulty of its present position is not thereby
removed. Why is this fact mentioned here ? No account
is given of what took place before Caiaphas, but v.. 25 re
sumes the narrative of Peter's denials in the palace of the
high priest, and v. 28 simply announces that they led Jesus
from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment. In whatever point
of view we regard it, the position ofv. 24 is peculiar ; but
its reference to what had taken place seems best to explain
the narrative.
We reach the same result by comparing the statements
.of the Evangelists respecting the place where Peter was
when he thrice denied the Lord. It was, according to
John, (xviii. 15,) in the palace of the high priest, or, more
properly, in the court — avXrj — where a fire of coals had
been made, (vs. 18 and 25.) Mark (xiv. 54 and 67) men
tions the same court and fire ; and so Luke, (xxii. 55, 56.)
From Matthew (xxvi. 57) it appears that this palace was
that of Caiaphas, and from vs. 69-75 that here Peter made
the denials. If, then, aU these denials were made in the
same court, and this was that of Annas, they must have
been made during the preliminary examination, and before
1 Norton, ii. 463. See also Bengel in loco.

ANNAS SENDS JESUS TO CAIAPHAS. 489
Jesus was led to Caiaphas. But this is in opposition to
Matthew, who makes the court to have been that of Caia
phas. Hence some1 find an irreconcilable discrepancy be
tween Matthew and John. To avoid this difficulty, many
would make this palace, which in aU probabUity was the
high priest's official residence, to have been occupied by
Annas and Caiaphas in common. The first examination
may thus have been before Annas in one apartment, and
the formal trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim in an
other — Peter remaining aU the whUe in the court.2 In
this supposition of a common residence, there is nothing at
all improbable in itself. StUl, the statement that He was
taken to Annas first, and then sent by Annas to Caiaphas
bound, seems to imply more than that He was taken to
their joint residence, and then transferred from one apart-,,
ment to another. We conclude, therefore, that they had
distinct palaces, and that what John relates (xvtii. 15-27)
took place in that of Caiaphas.
The order of those 3 who suppose that Annas and Caia
phas occupied different palaces, and yet that the first ex
amination was before Annas, and that the denials of Peter
were during this examination, and before Jesus was sent to
Caiaphas, cannot be reconcUed with the statements, of Mat
thew; nor can we accept their solution that these state
ments are corrected by John, who saw their inaccuracy.
That, after Jesus was led to Caiaphas, Peter did not remain
behind and complete his denials, appears plainly from Luke
xxii. 61, where it is said that the Lord turned and looked
upon him after the third denial. Jesus must then have
remained in the court of Annas till the second cock-crow
ing. This would put the sending to Caiaphas, and subse-

i Meyer, Bleek.
» So Stier, Lange, Ebrard, Lichtenstein, Alford, Ellicott.
s So Olshausen, Wieseler.
21*

490 THE LIFE OF OUE LOED.
quent proceedings, much later than the tenor ofthe narra
tive warrants.
The assertion of many, that Luke, who does not men
tion his name, intends to designate Annas as the high
priest, (xxn. 54,) has no sufficient basis. That he does
(iii. 2) speak of both Annas and Caiaphas as high priests,
and in Acts (iv. 6) names Caiaphas without any official title,
but calls Annas the high priest, does not show that Annas
is here meant. There is no question that Caiaphas was tbe
legal and acting high priest. As such be is designated by
Matthew and Mark, and as such he takes the lead in all
the, judicial proceedings against Jesus. Of these facts
Luke could not be ignorant. He himself names Caiaphas
high priest. The presumption is therefore very strong
that he aUudes to him here, and that all he relates (vs. 54-
65) was in his palace.
We conclude, then, that Jesus was sent to Annas first,
but not examined by him ; that He was soon sent from An
nas to Caiaphas ; that the two had distract palaces ; that
the examination (John xviU. 19-23) was before Caiaphas;
that to this palace Peter foUowed ; that here were aU his
denials ; and that thus the Evangelists are harmonized.1
We may then arrange these events in the following
order : — Jesus, being arrested, is led first to Annas. Here
He remains but a short period, and is sent by Annas to
Caiaphas, in whose palace the trial was to take place.' Be
cause this sending to Annas had no important bearings on
the trial itself, it is passed over by the Synoptists. But as
some interval necessarily elapsed ere all the members of
the Sanhedrim could be assembled, Caiaphas takes upon
himself to ask Him some questions respecting His disciples
1 Lightfoot, Lardner, Bynaeus, Grotius, Whitby, Newcome,.Norton, Bob
inson, Greswell, Krafft, Friedlieb, Da Costa.
2 As to the traditionary site ofthe palace of Caiaphas, see Porter, i. US]
Barclay, 171 ; Raumer, 258, note 21.

FIRST EXAMINATION OF JESUS. 491
and doctrines. There is nothing here tike a regular judi
cial examination ; the judges are not present, and no wit
nesses are called or testify. StUl, as Caiaphas was the high
priest, Jesus pays him the respect whieh his office demand
ed, and answers him. That his object was evti is apparent.
He would learn from Him how many, and who, had become
His disciples, that he might hereafter use this knowledge
against them. But upon this point Jesus kept perfect
sUence. In regard to His doctrine He had always and
everywhere spoken openly. Let Caiaphas ask those who
had heard Him in the synagogues and temple, and let them
testify. An officer present, declaring that this answer is in
sulting to the high priest, smites Him with the palm of his
hand. Caiaphas seems now to have withdrawn, probably
to meet the Sanhedrim, and to have left Jesus to the mock
ery and abuse of His captors.
Let us now consider more fully tbe three denials of Pe
ter. After the arrest, he, witb " another disciple," foUowed
Jesus to the high priest's palace. It is disputed who this
other disciple was. Most regard it as a modest designa
tion of John himself; others, of some unknown disciple.
A. Clarke approves Grotius' conjecture that it was the
person at whose house Jesus had supped. Some have
thought of Judas. ¦ This disciple, being known unto the
high priest, was permitted to enter with those who were
leading Jesus, but Peter was shut out. Perceiving this, be
turns back, and persuades the woman that kept the door to
admit Peter also. They seem then, or soon after, to have
separated, as no mention is afterward made of the other
disciple. Either before or soon after Peter's entrance, the
officer and soldiers made a fire of coals in the court.
To understand the details that foUow, it is necessary to
have in mind the ordinary construction of oriental houses,
which is thus described by Robinson : J " An oriental house
» Har. 225.

492 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
is usuaUy buUt around a quadrangular interior court, into
which there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the
front part ofthe house, closed next the street by a heavy
folding gate, with a smaller wicket for single persons, kept
by a porter. In the text the interior court, often paved
and flagged, and open to the sky, is the auXi;, (translated
' palace,' ' hall,' and ' court,') where the attendants made a
fire ; and the passage beneath the front of the house, from
the street to this court, is the irpoavXiov or miXaiv, (both
translated ' porch.') The place where Jesus stood before
the high priest may have been an open room or place of
audience on the ground floor, in the rear or on one side of
the court ; such rooms, open in front, being customary."
In Smith's Bible Dictionary, (i. 838,) the writer speaks of
" an apartment called makad, open in front to the court,
with two or more arches and a railing ; and a pUlar to sup
port the waU above. It was in a chamber of this kind,
probably one of the largest size to be found in a palace,
that our Lord was arraigned before the high priest, at the
time when the denial of Him by St. Peter took place."
That the trial of Jesus actually occurred in such an apart
ment seems plain from Matt. xxvi. 69, where Peter is spo
ken of as sitting " without in the palace," e£ <u — ev 177 a.vXy, or
court, implying that the Lord and His judges were in an
inner room.1 Mark (xiv. 66) speaks of Peter as " beneath
in the palace," ev ry auXfl koto), "in the court below."
" Not in the lower story of the house or palace," says Al
exander, " as the English version seems to mean, but in the
open space around which it was built, and which was lower
than the floor of the surrounding rooms."
For convenient inspection, we give the denials of Peter
in tabular form : 1 See Meyer in loco.

the denials op peter.
First Denial.

493

Matthew.

Make.

Luke.

JOHK.

Maid servant.
Indefinite. Court.
"Thou also -wast
¦with Jesus of
Galilee."
"1 know not
what thou say-
est."

Maid servant.
Indefinite. By fire in court.
" Thou also wast
with Jesus of
Nazareth."
"1 know not,
neither under
stand I, what
thou Bayest."

A certain maid.
Indefinite.By fire in court.
" This man was
also with Him."
" "Woman, 1
know Him
not."

Portress.Soon after en

tering.
Court.
"Art thou not
also one of this
man's disci-
,ples ? "
" I am not."
Second Denial.
QuestionerTime 
Place 
Question...
Denial 
Another maid.
Indefinite.Porch.
" This was also
with Jesus of
Nazareth."
With an oath,
I do not
know
The maid.
Indefinite. Porch. " This is one of
them.1' '
He denied it
again.
Uttle
Another.
After a
while.
Indefinite. "Thou art also
of them."
" Man, I am
not."
They.Indefinite.
By the fire.
"Art not thou
also one of His
disciples ? "
" I am not."
Third Denial.
Time 
They that stood
by.
After a while.
Indefinite. u Surely thou
art also one of
them, for thy
speech betray -
eth thee."
With cursing
and swearing,
" I know not
the man."
They that stood
by.
A little after.
Indefinite." Surely thou
art one of
them, for thou
art a Galilean,
and thy speech
agreeth there
to."
" I know not
the man of
whom you
speak."
Another. About the space
of an hour
after.
Indefinite."Of a truth
this fellow also
was with Him,
for he is a Gal
ilean."
" Man, I know
not what thou
sayest."
A servant of the
high priest,
kinsman of
Malchus.
Place 
" Did I not see
thee in the
garden with
Him?"
nied again.
494 THE LIFE OE OUR LORD.
In regard to the first denial there are no special difficul
ties. How soon after Peter entered the court he was ad
dressed by the damsel who kept the door, or portress,
does not appear. It is probable that, as her attention had
been specially drawn to him when he. was admitted", she
watched him as he stood by the fire ; and that something in
his appearance or conduct may have excited her suspicions.
The attention of all who heard her must now have been
directed to Peter, but no one seems to have joined her in
her accusation.
In regard to the second denial, there are several appar
ent discrepancies both as to the persons and the place.
The former are described as " another maid," " the (same)
maid," " another person," " they." But in the several nar
ratives it is plain that.it is not deemed important to specify
who addressed Peter ; the important point is his denials.
The matter may very naturaUy be thus arranged : The dam
sel who first accused him, silenced for the time, but not
satisfied with his denial, speaks to another maid servant,
and points out Peter to her as one whom she knew, or be
lieved, to be a disciple. Seeing him soon after in the porch,
for, in the agitation of his spirit, he cannot keep still, she
renews the charge that he is a disciple ; and the other maid
repeats it. Others, hearing the girls, also'join with them,
perhaps dimly remembering his person, or now noting
something peculiar in his manner. That, under the circum
stances and in the excitement of the moment, such an ac
cusation, once raised, should be echoed by many, is what
we should expect. During the confusion of this question
ing, Peter returns again to the fire, where most were stand
ing, and there repeats with an oath his denial. There is no
necessity for transposing, with Ellicott, the first and second
denials as given by John.
The second denial, so energetically made, seems to have
finally silenced the women, and there is no repetition of the

THE DENIALS OE PETEE. 495
charge for about the space of an hour. During this inter
val, Peter, perhaps the better to allay suspicion, joins in
the conversation, and is recognized as a Galilean by his
manner of speech.1 As most of the disciples of Jesus
were Galileans, this again draws attention to him. Perhaps
the kinsman of Malchus, who had been with the multitude,
and had seen him in the garden, and now remembers his
person, begins the outcry, and the bystanders join with
him ; and the more that his very denials betray his Galilean
birth. The charge, thus repeated by so many, and upon
such apparently good grounds, threatens immediate danger ;
and Peter therefore denies it with the utmost vehemence,
with oaths and cursings.
The exact relations in which the denials of Peter stand
in order of time to the examination and trial of the Lord,
it is impossible to determine. Probably the first denial,
and perhaps also the second — for there seems to have been
but a short interval between them, (Luke xxii. 58) — may
have been during the preliminary examination before Caia
phas, or at least before tbe assembling of the Sanhedrim ;
and the third during the trial or at its close. The incident
recorded by Luke, (xxii. 61,) that immediately after the
third denial, as the cock crew, the Lord turned and looked
upon Peter, is supposed by some to show that Jesus was
now passing from one apartment to another, and, as He
passes, turns and looks upon Peter, who was standing near
by. But, if so, when was this ? Those who put the pre
liminary examination before Annas, and Peter's denials there,
make this the departure to Caiaphas after the examination ;
others, His departure after the trial from Caiaphas to Pi
late ; others still, the change from the apartment in Caia
phas' palace, where He had been examined, to that in which
He was to be tried. But it is by no means necessary to
1 As to the pronunciation ofthe Galileans, see Friedlieb, Archiiol. 84.

496 THE LIFE OP OUE LORD.
suppose any change of place on the part of the Lord. As
we have seen, the Sanhedrim probably assembled in a large
room directly connected with the court, and open in front,
and therefore what was said in the one could, with more
or less distinctness, be heard in the other. There is, then,
no difficulty in beheving that Jesus had heard all the deni
als of Peter ; and that now, as he denied Him for the third
time, and the cock crew, He turned Himself to the court
and looked upon the conscience-stricken apostle. Meyer,
indeed, finds it psychologically impossible that he should
have made these denials in the presence of Jesus.1 Few
will deem such a psychological impossibility, which exists
®nly in the mind of the critic, of much weight against the
word of an Evangelist ; but, in fact, Peter was not in His
presence, though not far removed.
"We have no datum to determine at what hour of the
night these denials took place, except we find it in the cock-
cro wings. Mark (xiv. 68) relates that after the first denial
the cock crew. All the Evangehsts mention the third de
nial in connection with the second cock-crowing. Greswell
(iii. 216) makes the first cock-crowing to have been about
2 a. m., the second about 3 A. m.2 But we do not know
whether this second cock-crowing was at the end of the
first examination, or during the formal trial, or at its close,
and have therefore. no datum to determine when the San
hedrim began its session. We cannot, however, weU place
it later than 3 a. m. How long it continued we shall pres
ently see.
We have still to inquire as to the legality of the
Lord's trial. As to the competency of the court, no reason
able doubt can exist. The Sanhedrim had lawful and ex
clusive jurisdiction in all cases where capital punishment
1 Note, Luke xxii. 61.
* So, in substance, Wieseler, 406 ; Lichtenstein, 422.

LEGALITY OP THE LORD'S TRIAL. 497
could be inflicted ; 1 and among the offences punishable with
death, were false claims to prophetic inspiration, and blas
phemy. Several instances are mentioned in the Acts of the
Apostles, where the disciples were arraigned before it : iv.
5-21; v. 17-40; vi. 12-15 ; xxiii. 1-10. Although its ori
gin cannot easily be traced, it was at this time the recog
nized tribunal for the trial of all the more important
offences.2 That usually the trials were fair, and the judg
ment equitable, there seems no good reason to doubt.
Whilst the Sanhedrim had power to try those charged
with capital offences, it had no power to execute the
sentence of death. It is generally agreed that from the
time Judea became a Roman province, or from the deposi
tion of Archelaus (759) the authority to punish capitally,
the jus gladii, had been taken away from the Jewish tri
bunals. Lightfoot (on Matt. xxvi. 3) gives as a tradition
of the Talmudists: "Forty years before the temple was
destroyed, judgment in capital cases was taken away from
Israel." He elsewhere remarks, (on John xviii. 31:) "It
cannot be denied but that all capital judgment, or sentence
upon life, had been taken from the Jews for above forty
years before the destruction of Jerusalem, as they often
times themselves confess." It seems to have been the
custom ofthe Romans to take into their own hands, in con
quered provinces, the power of hfe and death, as one ofthe
principal attributes of sovereignty.3 That the Sanhedrim
lost this power by its own remissness, 'and not by any act
of the Romans, as affirmed by Lightfoot from the Talmud
ists, is wholly improbable.*
1 Josephus, Antiq. 14. 9. 3.
3 Friedlieb, Archaol. 20 ; Winer, ii. 552.
3 See Dupin, Jesus devant Caiphe et Pilate. Paris, 1855, p. 88.
4 See Winer, ii. 553, note 1. Friedlieb, Archaol., 97. Byhaeus (iii. 19) af
firms that the Jews had judgment in capital cases other than that of treason ;
but, from fear ofthe people, they charged Him with this offence to throw the
odium and danger of His execution upon Pilate.

498 THE LIPE OP OUR LORD.
It has been inferred by some, from Pilate's words to the
Jews, (John xix. 6,) " Take ye Him and crucify Him," that
the right to inflict capital punishment in ecclesiastical cases,
though not in civil, was still continued to them.1 But these
words seem to have been spoken in bitter irony. Cruci
fixion was not a Jewish punishment, nor could they inflict
it.a Krafft (142) explains their language, (John xviii. 30,)
" If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered
Him up unto thee," as meaning that He was guilty of a
civil offence. Were this man a spiritual offender, we would
have punished Him ourselves. They accused Him of civil
crime in order to throw the responsibility of His death
upon Pilate. But against this is the fact that Pilate refused
to punish Him for any such offence, and that the Jews were
at last obliged to charge Him with violation of ecclesiastical
law, (John xix. 7.) It is certain that if they had had power
to punish Him upon this ground, he would at once have
given the case into their hands, and thus thrown off all
responsibility from himself. Their words, (xviii. 31,) "It is
not lawful for us to put any man to death," seem plainly to
cover the whole ground, and to embrace ecclesiastical as
well as civil cases.3 The view supported by some,4 that the
Jews had authority to put Jesus to death, but did not dare
exercise it because of the holiness of the day, and yet did
not dare retain Him in prison lest it should provoke insur
rection, and so sought Pilate's help, seems without any
good basis.
It thus appears that all capital offences must be reserved
to the cognizance of the procurator. The Sanhedrim could
try and convict, but must obtain his assent ere the sentence

1 So A. Clarke, Krafft. a Meyer in loeo.
1 As to the death of Stephen, (Acts vii. 58,) and its bearings on this point,
see Meyer and Lechler in loco, who maintain that it was an act of violence,
*wi illegal : contra, Alexander in loco; Winer, ii. 553, note 2.
* Early by Augustine; see Godwyn, Moses and Aaron, 200.

NATURE OP THE ACCUSATION. 499
could be executed. These reserved cases Pilate seems to
have been in the habit of hearing when he went up from
Caesarea to Jerusalem at the feasts.1 The case of Jesus,
then, must necessarily come before him, and he could con
firm or set aside their verdict as he pleased. " It appears,"
says Lardner, " from the sequel, that Pilate was the supreme
judge in this case, and the master of the event. For he
gives the case a fresh hearing, asks the Jews what accusa
tion they had brought, examined Jesus, and when he had
done so, told them that he found in Him no fault at all.
Thus his conduct is full proof that he was the judge, and
that they were only prosecutors and accusers."
Let us now inquire what was the actual accusation
brought against the Lord before the Sanhedrim. None of
the Evangelists mention specifically of what He was accused.
We are told that the council sought false witness against
Him. But to what did these witnesses testify ? Their
testimony is not given, except in one instance, and that a
perversion of His words, (John ii. 19 :) "Destroy this tem
ple, and in three days I will raise it up." If the statements
of the -witnesses had been concordant and true, this lan
guage could be regarded at most as only a vainglorious
boast ; and if deserving of any punishment, certainly not of
death. So far as appears, no charges were brought against
Him that could be proved, and He was at last condemned
upon His own confession that He was the Christ and Son
of God. This fact is very remarkable, and demands our
attentive consideration.
It is evident, from the Evangehsts, that the rulers of
the Jews were early resolved to put Jesus to death, so soon
as they could find any sufficient ground of accusation. That
He had broken the Sabbath, according to their construc
tion of the law, by the healing ofthe sick, (Luke vi. 6-11,)
i Ewald, v. 16 ; Friedlieb, Archaol. 104.

500 THE LIPE OP OUE LORD.
and perhaps in other ways, and that He had assumed to
forgive sins, which was, by implication, blasphemy, (Matt.
ix. 3,) was beyond question ; but for offences of this kind
they did not dare arrest Him.1 But when they learned
that in His teaching He " made Himself equal with God,"
(John v. 18,) this was a flagrant transgression of the law,
and a capital offence. The first of the ten commandments
was, " Thou shalt have no other gods before me," and for
a man to make himself God, the equal of Jehovah, was a
violation of this command, and a crime of the deepest dye.
It was both blasphemy and treason, and hence the attempt
of the Jews to kill Him upon the spot. A few months
later they " murmured at Him, because He said, I am the
Bread which came down from Heaven," (John vi. 41.)
When, a little later, He said, "Before Abraham was, Iam,"
(viii. 58,) thus implying a divine preexistence,- they took
up stones to stone Him ; and when afterward (x. 30) He
still more plainly affirmed, " I and my Father are one,"
they again sought to stone Him. They expressly declared,
" We stone thee for blasphemy, and because that thou, being
a man, makest thyself God."
There can be little doubt that it was to this point, the
assertion by Jesus of an equality with God, that the testi
mony of the "many false witnesses" was turned. His
other and minor offences were well known and undisputed.
He had wrought many miracles, He had wrought some on
the Sabbath, He had claimed to be the Lord of the Sab
bath, He had assumed the power to forgive sins. All these
things were well known, and witnesses testifying to them
would not have testified falsely. It may be that attempts
were made to prove that He had spoken against Jehovah,
that He had denied the authority of tbe law, that He had
1 In John v. 16, where it is said, " The Jews sought to slay Him because
He had done these things on the Sabbath day," the clause "sought to slay
Him," is omitted by Tischendorf. So Alford, Meyer.

NO LEGAL EVIDENCE AGAINST JESUS. 501
prophesied falsely, that He had been a disturber of the
public peace. But if these charges were made, they must
have been subordinate to the higher one, that, " being a
man, He made Himself God." Could not, then, this charge
be proved against Him ? Probably not. If any witnesses
could be found to report what He had said, still His words
were mysterious, and there was room for great difference
of interpretation. That He did assume to be something
more than man was the current belief, but one by no means
easy to establish by legal evidence.
Whether the mere claim to be the Messiah, if proved
false, was regarded by tbe Jews as a capital offence, is very
questionable ; but if so, there was the same difficulty in find
ing proof against Jesus in regard to His Messianic claims
as in regard to His divinity. In no instance recorded, ex
cept that of the Samaritan woman, (John iv. 26,) did He
avow Himself to be the Christ when other than His disci
ples were present. Nor did He permit evil spirits to pro
claim Him as the Messiah, (Mark i. 34.) To the direct
question of the Jews (John x. 24) He answers by referring
them to His works. He permitted the apostles to confess
their faith' in Him as the Christ, (Matt. xvi. 16,) but He
gave them strict command that they should tell it to no
man, (v. 20.) Probably no two witnesses could be found,
out of the ranks of the disciples, who had ever heard out
of His own lips an avowal of His Messiahship. Had,' then,
such an avowal been blasphemy, they could not on this
ground condemn Him.
It has been said that the Jews found cause to charge
Jesus with blasphemy in that He had wrought miracles in
His own name. " He had performed many miracles, but
never in any other name than His own."1 It is said that
He had thus violated the law, (Deut. xviii. 20,) " He that
i Greenleaf, Test, of Evangelists, 524.

502 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
shall speak in the name of other gods, even that pro'phet
shall die ; " for if to prophesy in the name of another god
deserved death, equally so to perform any miracle or super
natural work in his name. But it may well be questioned
whether, on this ground, He could have been tried for
blasphemy. If He did not work His miracles expressly in
the name of Jehovah, yet He ever affirmed that the power
was not in Himself, but from God. (Compare John v. 19,
viii. 18.) Nor was He ever understood to work them by
virtue of His own deity. Beholding what He did, the
multitudes " marvelled and glorified God, who had given
such power unto men," (Matt. ix. 8.) And at His final en
try into Jerusalem the cry of the people was, " Blessed is
He that cometh in the name of the Lord."
We conclude, then, that upon no ground could the
Jews, through their witnesses, convict Him of any ecclesi
astical offence punishable with death. Neither as the Son
of God, nor as the Messiah, nor as a false prophet, could
He be legally convicted of blasphemy. His violations of
the Sabbath were not such as they could punish with sever
ity, if at all. If He had disturbed the public peace, punish
ment of this offence properly belonged to the Romans.
Thus, upon the rule which He had Himself laid down, (John
xviii. 21,) " Ask them which heard me what I have said unto
them," He could not have been convicted. Only by His
own confession was He brought within the scope of the
law. A Jewish writer, Salvador, in his " Histoire des Institu
tions de Molise," * commenting upon the trial of Jesus, at
tempts to show that He was tried fairly, and condemned
legally. He speaks of Himself as God, and His disciples
repeat it. This was shocking blasphemy in the eyes of the
citizens. It was this, not His prophetic claims, which ex-
» Cited by Greenleaf, Test 529, and by Dupin, Refutation, 41.

JESUS CONDEMNED POR BLASPHEMY. 503
cited the people against Him. The law permitted them to
acknowledge prophets, but nothing more. In answer to
Caiaphas, He admits that He is the Son of God, this expres
sion including the idea of God Himself. " The Sanhedrim
deliberates. The question already raised among the people
was this : Has Jesus become God ? But the senate, having
adjudged that Jesus had profaned the name of God by
usurping it to Himself, a mere citizen, applied to Him the
law of blasphemy, (Deut. xiii., and xviii. 20,) according to
which every prophet, even he who works miracles, must
be punished when he speaks of a God unknown to the Jews
and their fathers ; and tbe capital sentence was pro
nounced." Had the accusation agamst Jesus, as asserted by Salva
dor, had respect simply to His assertion that He was the
Son of God, and He been condemned upon this ground only,
however great the blindness and guilt in not recognizing
His divine character, it could not be said that the court
acted illegally. Such an assertion from the lips of any
mere man was blasphemous. If a false prophet deserved to
die, how much more he who made himself equal with God !
Was it for this that He was, in fact, condemned ? When
nothing worthy of death could be proved against Him by
the witnesses, Caiaphas adjures Him by the living God,
" Tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God."1
We cannot certainly determine how these two expressions,
" the Christ," and " the Son of God," were connected in the
mind of Caiaphas. It may be that he regarded them as of
substantially the same meaning, though it may be ques
tioned how far the title, Son of God, was one of the cus
tomary titles of the Messiah at this time. Still, it had
been so often, and openly, applied to Him, that we can-
1 Matt. xxvi. 63. According to Mark, " Art thou the Christ, the Son of
the Blessed? " This adjuration, according to Jewish custom, was equivalent
to putting the Lord under oath. Friedlieb, Archaol. 91.

504 THE LIPE OP OUE LOED.
not well suppose Caiaphas ignorant of it. At the time of
His baptism, John Baptist testified of His Divine Sonship,
(John i. 34 :) " I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of
God." Very soon after, (v. 49,) Nathanael thus avows his
faith : "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God ; thou art the King
of Israel." Often was He thus addressed by evil spirits
whom He cast out, (Matt. viii. 29 ; Mark iii. 11, v. 7 ; Luke
iv. 41, viii. 28.) After the stilling of the tempest, (Matt.
xiv. 33,) those in the ship said, " Of a truth thou art the
Son of God." So was He addressed by Martha, (John xi.
27,) " I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God."
During the crucifixion, His enemies, mocking Him, cried,
(Matt, xxvii. 40-43,) " If thou be the Son of God, come
down from the cross." At His death the centurion and
guard said, (v. 54,) " Truly this was the Son of God." Only
in one instance, however, did Jesus directly claim for Him
self this title, (John ix. 35-37,) although He often indirectly
applied it to Himself. (So John xi. 4.) In like manner
He repeatedly speaks of God as His Father, (John v. 17.)
Granting that this phrase, " Son of God," was currently
applied to men of great wisdom and piety, still, as Salvador
admits, it could not have been so used by Caiaphas. If it
did not, in its ordinary usage, imply participation of the
Divine nature, it nevertheless was, and was designed to be,
a designation that distinguished Him from all other men.
That the Jews, generally, did not suppose that the Mes
siah was to be a Divine Person, God manifest in flesh, seems
fairly inferable from the perplexity into which the Lord's
question cast them, (Matt. xxii. 42-45,) " What think ye
of the Christ ? Whose Son is He ? " Only a few, as
Nathanael, seem to have had a higher perception of the
truth.1 Hence, when Jesus was presented to Pilate, (John
xix. 7,) as one who " made Himself the Son of God," he
evidently looked upon Him as one of much higher preten-
' Luthardt, i. 344.

JESUS' AVOWAL OP HIS DIVINITY. 505
sions than a mere " king pf the Jews." Perhaps Caiaphas,
in his adjuration, purposely selected both titles, that jn this
way the Lord's own conceptions of His Messianic dignity
might be drawn out, and the way opened for further ques
tions. The answer of Jesus, " Thou hast said," was an
express affirmation, as if He had said, "Iam; " and was re
garded as blasphemy. It could have been so only as it im
plied equality witb God, or an assumption ofthe power and
authority that belonged to Jehovah alone. That the Jews
so understood it, is plain from their language to Pilate.1
But if we admit that the Lord, regarded as a mere man
who claimed equality with God, was justly condemned by
the Sanhedrim, as Salvador affirms, still it by no means fol
lows that the trial was fair and impartial. He had long
been prejudged, and His death predetermined. Almost
from the beginning of His ministry, spies had been sent to
watch His actions ; and afterward it was agreed that if any
man did confess that He was Christ, he should be put out
ofthe synagogue, (John ix. 22.) After the resurrection of
Lazarus, it was determined in council, by the advice of
Caiaphas, that He should be put to death, and that without
regard to His guilt or innocence, (John xi. 47-53.) After
His public entry into Jerusalem, several attempts were
made to entangle Him in His talk ; then a consultation was
held how they might take Him by subtlety and kill Him ;
then one of His apostles was bribed to betray Him ; and at
last He was arrested at dead of night. At the trial itself,
the usual forms were not observed ; no one appeared as ad
vocate for Him, no witnesses were called to testify in His
favor ; and when the witnesses against Him could not agree
in their testimony, He Himself was put under oath.a The
abuse which He suffered, both before and after the trial,
1 As to the argument for the Lord's divine nature, drawn from this trial,
see Whately, Kingdom of Christ, Essay I.
3 See Friedlieb, Archaol. 87 ; Dupin, 75.
22

506 THE LIPE OP OUR LORD.
and in the very presence of His judges, sufficiently shows
how bitter and cruel was their enmity toward Him.

Friday Morning, 15th Nisan, 7th April,
783. a. d. 30.
After the Sanhedrim had pronounced Him guilty
of blasphemy, and so worthy of death, it suspends its
session to meet at break of day. During this interval Matt. xxvi. 07, 68.
Jesus remains in the high priest's palace, exposed to Mark xiv. 65.
all the ridicule and insults of His enemies, who spit Luke xxii. 6S-65.
upon Him, and smite Him. As soon as it was day Matt, xxvii. 1, 2.
the Sanhedrim again assembles, and, after hearing His Mark xv. 1.
confession that He is the Christ, formally adjudges Luke xxii. 66-71.
Him to death. Binding Him, they lead Him away to Luke xxiii. 1.
the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, that he may exe
cute the sentence. Judas Iscariot, learning the issue Matt, xxvii. 3-10.
of the trial, and that Jesus was about to be put to Acts i. 18, 19.
death, returns the money the chief priests had given
him, and goes and hangs himself.
Condemned to death as a blasphemer, Jesus was now
given up by the council to the abuse of His captors and of
the crowd ; and cruel personal violence was added to most
contemptuous speech. Salvador denies that the council
would have permitted Him to be so treated in its presence ;
but it is to be remembered that most of its members cher
ished the most bitter and vindictive feelings against Him,
and in their fierce fanaticism thought that no mercy should
be shown to one guilty of such a crime. (Compare Acts
xxiii. 2.) According to Matthew, the judges themselves
seem to have taken part in this abuse ; but Luke confines it
to those that held Jesus.
It has been inferred from Matt, xxvii. 1, and Mark xv.
1, that there was a second and later session of the Sanhe
drim than that at which Jesus was tried.1 Others suppose
1 GresweU, iii. 203 ; Friedlieb, 326.

SECOND SESSION OP THE SANHEDRIM. 507
that the Sanhedrim continued its session after the trial
proper had ended, having as the special subject of consulta
tion how the sentence pronounced against Jesus could be
carried into effect.1 The language of these two Evangel
ists is not decisive as to the point. That which most im
phes a new and distinct session is the designation of time.
Matthew : " When the morning was come, rrptMas Be yevo/At-
vtjs, all the chief priests," &c. Mark : " And straightway in
the morning," ev9eios em to irpm, &c. This allusion to the
fact that it was morning, seems to have some special signifi
cance, and may refer to the fact that capital cases could not be
legally tried in the night; and hence a morning session
was necessary. " Capital cases were only to be handled by
day." 2 This is affirmed by Salvador, (quoted by Green
leaf:) " One thing is certain, that the council met again on
the morning ofthe next day, or ofthe day after, as the law
requires, to confirm or to annul the sentence ; it was con
firmed." Neither Matthew nor Mark states that the place
of session had been changed, though perhaps their lan
guage may intimate a meeting more largely attended.3
Our decision as to a second and distinct session of the
Sanhedrim will mainly depend upon the place we give to
the account in Luke, (xxii. 66-71.) Is this examination of
Jesus identical with that of Matt. xxvi. 57-68, Mark xiv.
53-65 ? ' Against this identity are some strong objec
tions: 1st. The mention of time by Luke: "As soon as it
was day." This corresponds weh to the time ofthe morn
ing session of Matthew and Mark, but not to the time when
Jesus was first led before the Sanhedrim, which must have
been two or three hours before day. 2d. The place of
meeting: "They led Him into their council," avrj-yayov
1 Meyer, Ellicott, Lichtenstein. « Lightfoot ; see Friedlieb, Arch. 95.
3 Compare Mark xiv. 53 with xv. 1. In the latter case, " the whole coun
cil" being expressly mentioned.
* Meyer, Alford, Lichtenstein, Ebrard.

508 THE LTPE OP OUR LORD.
avrov as to crvveBpiov eavrwv. This might better be ren
dered, " they led Him up into their council chamber," or
the place where they usuaUy held their, sessions.1 Whether
this council chamber was the room Gazith, at the east cor
ner of the court of the temple, is not certain. Lightfoot
(on Matt. xxvi. 3) conjectures that the Sanhedrim was
driven from this its accustomed seat half a year or there
about before the death of Christ. But if this were so, still
the " Tabernaz?' where it established its sessions, were
shops near the gate Shusan, and so connected with the
temple. They went up to that room where they usually
met.' 3d. The dissimilarity of the proceedings, as stated
by Luke, and which shows that this Avas no formal trial.
There is here no mention of witnesses — no charges brought
to be proved against Him. He is simply asked if He is
the Christ ; and this seems plainly to point to the result
of the former session. Then, having confessed Himself
to be the Christ, the Son of God, He was condemned to
death for blasphemy. It was only necessary now that He
should repeat this confession, and hence this question is put
directly to Him : " Art thou the Christ ? tell us." His re
ply, " If I tell you ye will not believe. And if I also ask
you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go," points back
ward to His former confession. To His reply they only
answer by asking, " Art thou then the Son of God ? "
The renewed avowal that He was the Son of God, heard
by them all from His own lips, opens the way for His im
mediate delivery into Pilate's bands.8 4th. The position
which Luke gives (xxn. 63-65) to the insults and abuse
1 See Meyer in loco ; Rob. Lex., Art. awnXptm : here " as including the
place of meeting; the Sanhedrim as sitting in its hall."
2 So Krafft, Greswell. See, however, against this, John xviii. 28, which
implies that Jesus was led, not from the temple, but from the palace of Caia
phas, to Pilate. This would not disprove the fact of a second session ofthe
Sanhedrim, but shows that it was held at the same place as the first.
s See Stier, vii. 336 ; Greswell, iii. 204.

OBJECT OP A SECOND SESSION. 509
heaped upon Jesus. There can be no doubt that they are
the same mentioned by Matthew and Mark as occurring
after the sentence had been pronounced, and before the
second session to ratify it.
From all this it is a probable, though not a certain con
clusion, that Luke (xxii. 66-71) refers to the same meeting
of the Sanhedrim mentioned by Matthew (xxvii. 1) and
Mark, (xv. 1,) and relates, in part, what then took place.
Alford thinks that Luke has confused things, and relates as
happening at the second session what really happened at
the first. This meeting was, then, a morning session, con
vened to ratify formally what had been done before with
haste and informality. The circumstances under which its
members had been convened at the palace of Caiaphas, suf
ficiently show that the legal forms, which they were so .scru
pulous in observing, had not been complied with. The law
forbidding capital trials in the night had been broken ; the
place of session was unusual, if not illegal ; perhaps the at^
tendance, so early after midnight, had not been full. On
these accounts it was expedient that a more regular and
legal sitting should be held as early in the morning as was
possible. At this nothing was to be done except to hear
the confession of Jesus, to pronounce sentence, and to con,
suit in what manner it could best be carried into effect.
One object of this morning session was to consult how
they might put Him to death ; for, although they had con
demned Him, they had no power to execute the sentence.
To put Jesus to death, they must then have at least the as
sent of Pilate. Their plans for obtaining this will appear
as we proceed. Being again bound, He was led early in
the morning before Pilate.
So soon as Judas learned what the Sanhedrim had done,
he knew that the Lord's fate was decided, -and bitterly
repented of his treachery.1 Taking the money, the price
' That this was upon the same day, seems fairly inferable from Matt.
xxvii. 3, Tore tSaiy, &c.

510 THE LIPE OP OUR LORD.
of his crime, he carried it back to the chief priests and el
ders, confessing his sin in betraying innocent blood. It is
not said where he found them, whether at the palace of
Caiaphas or at their own council chamber in the temple.
If the latter was the case, we have a ready explanation of
the fact that " he cast down the pieces of silver in the tem
ple and departed." : That part of the temple in which he
cast them, is denned as ev tu> vao>, which, according to the
uniform usage of the term in the Gospels, cannot mean any
thing else than the inner court, or court of the priests, or
holy place.8 Into this it was not lawful for him to enter ; but
he could approach the entrance and cast the silver with
in ; or, in his remorse and despair, entering the holy place,
he casts it down at the feet of the priests, who, it may be,
were, there, preparing to offer the morning sacrifice. From
thence he departs and hangs himself. But how is this state
ment to be reconciled with that of Peter, (Acts i. 18,)
that, "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst
—Kai rrpyvys yevop.evos eXaKyae /uco-os — and all his bowels
gushed out." De Quincy3 finds here only a figurative
statement that " he came to utter and unmitigated ruin,"
and died of a " broken heart." The language is obviously
to be taken in its hteral sense ; and the bursting asunder of
Judas may readily have happened after he had hung him
self. Such a thing as the breaking of a cord, or a beam,
or bough of a tree, is not unusual ; or, at the moment when
the body was about to be taken down, it may by accident
or carelessness have fallen. Hackett,4 referring to a sug
gestion that he may have hung himself upon a tree over
hanging the valley of Hinnom, says : " For myself, I felt, as
I stood in the valley and looked up to the rocky terraces
which hang over it, that the proposed explanation was a
perfectly natural one. I was more than ever satisfied with
1 See GresweU, iii. 219. « Meyer, Alford.
s Essay upon Judas Iscariot. i 111. Scrip., 266.

DEATH OP JUDAS. 511
it." He found the precipice, by measurement, to be from
twenty-five to forty feet in height, with olive trees growing
near the edges, and a rocky pavement at the bottom, so
that a person who fell from above would probably be
crushed and mangled, as well as killed.1
Meyer finds proof that Matthew, in his statement that
Judas " hanged himself," and Luke, in his report of Peter's
statement that he "burst asunder," followed different tra
ditions, in the fact that, as self-murder was very unusual
amongst the Jews, Peter could not have passed it by in
silence. But, as the falling and bursting asunder were subse
quent to the hanging, and presupposed it ; and as the event
had taken place but a few days before, and was well known
to all present ; there was no necessity that he should give
aU the details.
Probably the money which had been paid to Judas, had
been taken from the treasury of the temple ; and the priests
and elders, unwilling to return to it the price of blood, de
termine to buy a field to bury strangers in. Peter (Acts i.
18) speaks as if Judas had himself bought it : " Now this
man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity." Per
haps he may be here understood as speaking oratorically,
and as meaning only to say that the field was bought, not
by himself in person, but with his money, tbe wages of his
iniquity.2 If so, the actual purchase ofthe field was doubt
less made after the Lord's crucifixion, as the time of the
priests and. eld ers was too much occupied upon that day to
attend to such a transaction. Matthew narrates it as tak
ing place before the crucifixion, in order to finish all that
pertained to Judas. Others make Judas to have purchased
1 As to the various traditional accounts of Judas' death, see Hofmann's
Leben Jesu, 333. Bynaeus (ii. 431) gives a full statement of the various
opinions up to his day. Arculf, (Early Travels, 4,) A. d. 700, speaks of being
shown the large fig tree from the top of which Judas suspended himself.
a Alexander in loco ; Lechler.

512 THE LIPE OP OUR LOED.
a field before his death with part of the money he had re
ceived ; and in this field he hanged himself; and the priests,
after bis death, with the remainder of the money, to have
purchased another.1 Thus there were two fields, both
called " the field of blood," but for different reasons : one
as bought with the price of blood, the other as the place
where Judas hanged himself. It is said that " ecclesiastical
tradition appears from the earliest times to have pointed
out two distinct, though not unvarying spots, as referred to
in the two accounts." Early travellers mention Aceldama
as distinct from the spot where Judas hanged himself.2
Maundrell also (468) mentions two Aceldamas ; one on the
west side of the valley of Hinnom, and another on the east
side of the valley of Jehosaphat, not far distant from Siloa.
To the latter Saewulf (42) refers as at the foot of Mount Oli
vet, a little south of Gethsemane. That two fields are re
ferred to by the Evangelists, is doubtful ; and the former
solution of the discrepancy is to be preferred.
The field of blood is still pointed out in the eastern part
of the valley of Hinnom. " The tradition which fixes it
upon this spot reaches back to the age of Jerome, and it is
mentioned by almost every visitor of the Holy City from
that time to the present day. The field or plat is not now
marked by any boundary to distinguish it from the rest of
the hillside." 3 Hackett 4 observes : " Tradition has placed
it on the Hill of Evil Council. It may have been in that
quarter, at least; for the field belonged originally to a
potter, and argillaceous clay is still found in the neigh
borhood. A workman, in a pottery which I visited at Je
rusalem, said that all their clay was obtained from the hill
over the valley of Hinnom." A charnel house, now in
ruins, built over a cave in whose deep pit are a few bones
> See Greswell, iii. 220 ; Smith's Bib. Diet., i. 15.
' So Manndeville, Early Trav. 175.
' Robinson, i. 354. * 111. Scrip., 267.

MOTIVES OP JUDAS. 513
much decayed, is still shown. Some would identify it with
the tomb of Ananias mentioned by Josephus.1
Our purpose does not lead us to inquire into the mo
tives that impelled Judas to betray his Lord. The theory,
however, advocated by many,2 that, sharing the general
Jewish expectations as to the Messianic kingdom, and fully
believing Jesus to be the Messiah, he had no intention of
imperilling His hfe, but wished only to arouse Him to direct
and positive action, cannot be sustained. If, knowing the
supernatural powers of Jesus, he had no fears that He
could suffer evil from the hands of His enemies ; and deliv
ered Him into the power of the Jewish authorities in order
that He might be forced to assert His Messianic claims, .
why should he bargain with them for thirty pieces of sil
ver ? He could in many ways have accomplished this end,
without taking the attitude of a traitor. The statements
of the Evangelists about his covenant with the chief priests,.
his conduct at the arrest, his return of the money, the words .
of Peter respecting him, and especially the words of the
Lord, " Good were it for that man if he had never been
born," conclusively show that he sinned, not through a mere
error of judgment, while at heart hoping to advance the
interests of his Master, but with deliberate perfidy, design
ing to compass His ruin.3

Friday Morning, 15th Nisan, 7th April,,
783. a.d. 30.
The members of the Sanhedrim who led Jesus to John xviii. 28-33;
Pilate, refuse to enter the judgment hall, lest they
should be defiled ; and thereupon he comes out to them
and asks the nature of the accusation. They charge
1 War, 5. 12. 2. So Barclay, De Saulcy. ' De Quincy, Whately.
8 See Winer, i. 635 ; Ebrard, 524 ; Christian Review, July, 1855.
22*

514

THE LIPE OP OUR LORD.

Him with being a malefactor, and Pilate directs them
to take Him and judge Him themselves. As they
cannot inflict a capital punishment, they bring the Luke xxiii. 2-4.
charge of sedition ; and Pilate, reentering the judg- Mark xv. 2.
ment hall, and calling Jesus, examines Him as to His John xviii. 33-38.
Messianic claims. Satisfied that He is innocent, Pilate MATT.xxvii.il.
goes out and affirms that he finds no fault in Him.
The Jews renewing their accusations, to which Jesus Matt, xxvii. 12-14.
makes no reply, and mentioning Galilee, Pilate sends Mark xv. 3-5.
Him to Herod, who was then at Jerusalem ; but Jesus Luke xxiii. fi-12.
refuses to answer his questions, and is sent back to
Pilate. The latter now resorts to another expedient. Matt, xxvii. 15-18.
He seats himself upon the judgment seat, and calling Mark xv. 6-10.
the chief priests and elders, declares to them that nei- Luke xxiii. 13-17.
ther himself nor Herod had found any fault in Him.
According to custom, he would release Him. But the John xviii. 39, 40,
multitude beginning to cry that he should release Ba
rabbas, not Jesus, he leaves it to their choice. During Matt, xxvii. 19.
the interval whilst the people were making their choice,
his wife sends a message to him of warning. The
people, persuaded by the priest and elders, reject Je- Matt, xxvii. 20-23.
sus and choose Barabbas, and Pilate in vain makes Mark xv. 11-14.
several efforts to change their decision. At last he Luke xxiii. 18-25.
gives orders that Jesus be scourged previous to cruei- Matt, xxvii. 26-31.
fixion. This was done by the soldiers with mockery Mark xv. 15-20.
and abuse ; and Pilate, going forth, again takes Jesus John xix. 1-4.
and presents Him to the people. The Jews continue John xix. 5-12.
to demand His death, but upon the ground that He
made Himself the Son of God. Terrified at this new
¦charge, Pilate again takes Jesus into the hall to ask
Him, but receives no answer. Pilate still strives ear
nestly to save Him, but is met by the cry that he is
Caesar's enemy. Yielding to fear, he ascends the tribu
nal, and, calling for water, washes his hands in token Matt, xxvii. 24-25.
of his innocence, and then gives directions, that He be John xix. 13-16.
taken away and crucified. As He comes forth he pre
sents Him to them as their King. They cry, Crucify
Him, and He is led away to the place of crucifixion.

It is not easily determined whether the Pretorium or
judgment hall, to which Jesus was taken, w.i* ^ +r"> ~«i

•>ce

SITE OP THE PRETORIUM. 515
of Herod the Great, and now occupied by Pilate; or in the
fortress Antonia. That the Roman governors sometimes
used this palace as head-quarters, appears from Josephus,1
where Florus is said to have done so ; and afterward (2.
15. 5) mention is made of his leading out the troops from
the royal residence. The palace of Herod at Caesarea was
used in like manner, (Acts xxiii. 35.) The palace at Jeru
salem was situated on the north side of Mount Sion, and
was a magnificent building of white marble, with which,
according to Josephus, the temple itself bore no compari
son." It is to be distinguished from the palace of Solomon,
which was lower down on the side of the mount, and near
the temple, and where Agrippa afterward built.3 That it
was used by Pilate when he visited Jerusalem is very prob
able.* Those who place the judgment hall at the fortress
Antonia refer in proof to John xix. 13, where it is said that
Pilate " sat down in the judgment seat, in a place that is
called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha." "
This Pavement is supposed to have been between tbe for
tress Antonia and the western portico of the temple, iden
tifying it with one mentioned by Josephus." Pilate was
thus sitting upon the highest point of the large temple area,
where what he did was plainly visible to all present.- But
the fact that the outer court of the temple was " paved
throughout"7 does by no means show that Pilate here
erected his tribunal. Lightfoot (in loco) argues at some
length to show that this Pavement was the room Gazith in
the temple, where the Sanhedrim sat, and, as the Jews
would not go to Pilate's judgment hall, he went to theirs.
1 War, 2. 14. 8. ° War, 1. 21. 1 ; 5. 4. 4.
» Josephus; Antiq. 8. 5. 2 ; 20. 8. 11.
• So Meyer, Winer, Alford, Friedlieb, Lewin. Ewald (v. 14) supposes this
palace to have been reserved for the use of Herod's heirs, when they came to
the capital.
s Wieseler, 407. " War, 6. 1. 8; and 6. 3. 2.
7 Josephus, War, 5. 5. 2.

516 THE LTPE OP OUR LORD.
Greswell observes that " to suppose that the tribunal of
Pilate could- have been placed in any court of the temple
would be palpably absurd." We must then conclude that
this Pavement was a movable one, hke that which Sueto
nius mentions, when he says that Julius Caesar took with
him pieces of marble ready fitted, that they might be laid
down at any place, and the judgment seat be placed upon
them ; or, which is more probable, that it was the open
paved space before the palace of Herod. The latter view
is confirmed by Josephus,1 for Floras, when he had fixed
his quarters in the palace, erected his tribunal in front of
it, and there gathered the chief men of the city before him.
The judge seems to have been at liberty to place his tribu
nal where he pleased, and Pilate on one occasion did so in
the great circus.2 We consider it then most probable that
all the judicial proceedings before Pilate were at the palace
of Herod upon Mount Sion.3
Pilate, being informed that members of the Sanhedrim
had brought a criminal before him, and of their unwilling
ness to enter the palace, goes out to meet them.4 It was
plainly the purpose of the priests and elders to obtain at
once from Pilate a confirmation of their sentence, without
stating the grounds upon which He had been condemned ;
but this plan was wholly baffled by his question, " What
accusation bring ye against this man ? " Whether Pilate
asked this question from a sense of justice, not thinking it
right to condemn any man to death without knowing his
offence ; or whether he already knew who the prisoner was,
and that He had been condemned upon ecclesiastical
' War, 2. 14. 8. » Josephus, War, 2. 9. 3.
a Winer, ii. 29 ; Greswell, iii. 225 ; Tobler, Top. i. 222. Many, however,
place the judgment hall in the castle Autonia ; so Williams, Barclay. The
point is important only in its bearings on the site of the sepulchre, and the
direction of the Via Dolorosa.
* Jones (Notes, 3 and 9 j puts the arrival of the Jews about five o'clock, or
a little before sunrise ; Ewald (v. 483) an hour before sunrise.

JESUS BROUGHT BEFORE PILATE. 517
grounds, we cannot determine. We can scarce doubt,
however, that he had some knowledge of Jesus, of His
teaching, works, and character. Without troubling him
self about ecclesiastical questions, he would closely watch
all popular movements ; and he could not overlook a man
who had excited so much of public attention. If, as is
most probable, he was in Jerusalem at the time of the Lord's
public entry, he must have heard how He was hailed by
the multitude as King of the Jews; and the fact that be
placed a part of tbe Roman cohort at the disposal of the
priests when about to arrest Him, shows that they must
have communicated to him their design. But, however
this may have been, it is plain that he was by no means
disposed to be a mere tool in the hands of the priests and
elders to execute their revengeful plans. Vexed at his
question, they reply, almost contemptuously, " If He were
not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up
unto thee." It is as if they had said, ' We have tried Him,
and found Him to be a malefactor ; there is no need of any
further judicial examination. Rely upon us that He is
guilty, and give us without more delay the power to punish
Him.' It is not certain what force is to be given to the word
" malefactor," ' but apparently His accusers design to desig
nate Jesus as one who had broken the civil laws, and there
fore was amenable to the civil tribunals. By the use of this
general term they conceal the nature of His offence, which
was purely ecclesiastical. They bad condemned Him for
blasphemy, but for this Pilate would not put Him to death
— probably would not entertain the case at all ; and as they
knew not what other crime to lay to His charge, they pre
sent Him as a malefactor. This vague and artful reply dis
pleases Pilate, who is, beside, touched by the cool effront-
• KaKov itouav, Tischendorf, Alford.

518 THE LIFE OP OUE LOED.
ery ofthe council in demanding that he shall, without exam
ination, ratify their sentence ; and he answers tartly, " Take
ye Him and judge Him according to your law." It is as if
he had said, If you can judge, you can also execute ; but if I
execute, I shall also judge. This answer forces them to con
fess that they had no power to put Him to death ; and shows
them that, if they would accomphsh their purpose, they
must bring some direct and definite charge, and one of
which Pilate would take cognizance. They therefore now
begin to accuse him of perverting the nation, of forbidding
to give tribute to Caesar, and of saying that He was Christ,
a king, (Luke xxiii. 2.) These were very serious accusa
tions, because directly affecting Roman authority, and such
as Pilate was bound to hear and judge.
Up to this time Jesus and His accusers, and Pilate, bad
been standing without the Pretorium. According to Roman
law, the examination might take place within the Pretorium,
but tbe sentence must 'be pronounced in public without.
Entering it, Pilate calls Jesus and demands of Him, " Art
thou the King ofthe Jews ? " The Synoptists give simply
this reply : " Thou sayest," or "I am ; " but John relates
the reply in full, in which Jesus describes the nature of His
kingdom, (xviii. 33-38.) The effect of this conversation
upon Pilate was very great. He saw at once that Jesus
was no vulgar inciter of sedition, no ambitious demagogue
or fanatical zealot, and that the kingdom of which He
avowed Himself to be the king was one of truth, and not
of force. At worst, He was only a rehgious enthusiast,
from whose pretensions CaSsar could have nothing to fear ;
and he determines to save Him, if possible, from the hands
of His enemies. Taking Jesus with him, he goes out and
declares to them that he finds no fault in Him. This,
probably unexpected, exculpation on his part only makes
them " the more fierce," and they renew the charge that
He stirred up the people throughout all Judea and Gali-

PILATE SENDS JESUS TO HEROD. 519
lee, (Luke xxiii. 5.) Mark, xv. 3, says : " And the chief
priests accused Him of many things." Galilee may have
been thus mentioned because the Galileans were prone to
sedition. To all these accusations Jesus answers nothing, so
that His silence makes even Pilate to marvel. The inci
dental mention of Gahlee suggests to the governor that he
might relieve himself from responsibihty by sending Him to
Herod, who was then in the city, and unto whose jurisdic
tion, as a Galilean, He rightfully belonged. He accordingly
sends Him to'Herod, and hopes that he is now quit of the
matter ; or, if Herod should decline jurisdiction, that he
would express some opinion as to His guilt or innocence.
The chief priests and scribes follow Him, that they may re
new their accusations before the new judge.
By Herod the Lord was gladly received, as be had long
desired to see Him, and hoped that He would now work
some miracle before him. But to aU the king's questions
He answered nothing, nor did He reply to the accusations
of His enemies. Angry at His continued silence, and doubt
less interpreting it as a sign of contempt, Herod and his
soldiers mock Him with pretended homage, and, clothing
Him in a gorgeous robe, send Him back to Pilate.1 His
return so attired was a very intelligible sign to Pilate that
Herod, who, from his position, must have known His his
tory, had no knowledge of any seditions practices in GaU
lee ; and regarded Him as a harmless man, whose Messianic
pretensions were rather to be ridiculed than severely pun
ished. This sending of Jesus by Pilate to Herod was under
stood by the latter, and probably designed by the former, as
a mark of respect and good will, and was the means of restor
ing friendship between them, which had been broken, per-
1 Some would make this a white robe, such as candidates for office were
accustomed to wear, and chieftains when they went into battle. Thus robed,
He appeared as a candidate for the honor of king of the Jews. So Friedlieb,
Archaol. 109 ;' contra, Meyer. In Vulgate, ¦veste alba.

520 THE LIFE OP OUR LOED.
haps by some question of conflicting jurisdiction.1 Where
Herod took up his residence, when in the city, is not known.
If Pilate occupied the fortress Antonia, Herod would doubt
less occupy his father's palace. It is not probable that both
occupied the latter together, as some suppose.2 Possibly
he made his abode at the old palace of the Maccabees.3 In
either case, the distance was not great, and but little time
was spent in going to and returning from Herod.
After Jesus was brought back to Pilate, the latter calls
together " the chief priests and the rulers and the people,"
(Luke xxiii. 13.) He now designs to pronounce Him inno
cent and end the trial, and therefore seats himself upon his
judgment seat, (Matt, xxvii. 19.) There was a custom that
at this feast a prisoner chosen by the people should be re
leased from punishment. As to the origin of this custom
nothing definite is known. From the language ofthe Synop
tists, Kara eoprrrv, it has been inferred that at each of the
feasts a prisoner was released.4 John, however, confines it
to the Passover, and it might have had some special refer
ence to the release of the people from Egyptian bondage.
No traces of it are to be found in later Jewish writings. It
may possibly have been established by the Romans as a
matter of policy, but more probably it was of Jewish origin,
and continued by the Roman governo -s.s Whether Pilate
had this custom in mind when he took his seat upon the
tribunal, is not certain; but his words (Luke xxiii. 16)
strongly imply this, as well as the fact that he had gathered
the people together with the chief priests and rulers. As
cending the tribunal, he formally declares that, having
examined Jesus, he had found no fault in Him, neither had
Herod, to whom he bad sent Him ; and after chastising
1 Some would trace the origin of this quarrel to the incident mentioned
by Luke xiii. 1. See Greswell, iii. 26.
a Lichtenstein, 432. s Josephus, Antiq. 20. 8. 11.
- Friedlieb, Archaol. 110. " Winer, ii. 202 ; Hofmann, 360.

THE PEOPLE CHOOSE BARABBAS. 521
Him, he will therefore release Him. It seems from the
scope of the narrative that he intended to chastise Jesus,
thus to propitiate the priests, and then to release Him
under the custom without further consulting the people.
In this way, apparently, Pilate thought to satisfy all : the
people, by releasing Him ; the priests and elders, by chas
tising Him; and himself, by delivering Him from death.
But he satisfied none. The people, reminded of their
claim, began to clamor for it, but they did not demand that
Jesus should be released. To satisfy tbe priests and rulers,
His chastisement was far too light a punishment The cry
is raised, " Away with this man, and release unto us Barab
bas." Pilate, who knew how well affected the people at
large had been to Jesus, cannot believe that they will reject
Him and choose Barabbas ; and he therefore accepts the
alternative, and leaves them to elect between the two.
Of this Barabbas, son of Abbas, little is known. Accord
ing to some authorities, the true reading (Matt, xxvii. 16
and 17) is Jesus Barabbas.1 From the statements of the
Evangelists respecting him, it appears that he was one of
that numerous and constantly growing party who detested
the Roman rule, and who afterward gained such notoriety as
the Zealots. In company with others, he had stirred up an
insurrection in the city, and had committed murder, (Mark
xv. 7 ; Luke xxiii. 19.) John speaks of him as a robber also ;
but this crime was too common to attract much attention,
or bring upon its perpetrator much odium. Josephus,2
speaking of Floras, says that "he did all but proclaim
throughout the country that every one was at liberty to rob,
provided he might share in the plunder." It is remarkable
that this man was confessedly guilty ofthe very crime with
which the priests and rulers had falsely charged Jesus — that
of sedition ; and no plainer proof of their hypocrisy could be
1 So Meyer, Ewald ; and, formerly, Tischendorf: contra, Alford.
2 War, 2. 14. 2.

522 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
given to the watchful Pilate than their efforts to release the
former and to condemn the latter. And this it was easy
for them to effect ; for the tide of popular feeling ran very
strong in favor of national independence, and one who had
risen up against the Romans, and had shed blood in the at.
tempt, was deemed rather a hero and a patriot than a mur
derer. On the other hand, Jesus, so far from encouraging
the rising enmity to Roman rule, had always inculcated
obedience and submission — teachings ever unpalatable to a
subject nation. It is probable, too, that most of those pres
ent were the citizens of Jerusalem, rather than the pilgrims
from other parts of the land ; and, if there were some from
Galilee, that they did not dare, in opposition to the rulers,
to express openly their wishes.
Whilst waiting for the people to come to a decision, he
receives the message from his wife mentioned by Matt.
xxvii. 19. Nothing is known of her but ber name, which
tradition gives as Procla, or Claudia Procula.1 This dream
was generally regarded by tbe fathers as supernatural, and
by most ascribed to God, but by some to Satan, who wished
to hinder the Lord's death." This message would naturally
tend to make Pilate more anxious to release " that just
man," even if he did not ascribe to the dream a divine
origin.3 The Synoptists agree that Pilate made three several at
tempts to persuade the people to release Jesus, though the
order of the attempts is not the same in all. The events
may be thus arranged : Pilate presents to the people the
two, Jesus and Barabbas, between whom they were to
choose. A httle interval followed, during which he received
\ Winer, ii. 262 ; Hofmann, 340. * See Jones, Notes, 359.
s Lewin (129) finds in this circumstance a proof that the locality was Pi
late's ordinary residence, the palace of Herod ; and that the charge against
Jesus was brought at so early an hour that he was aroused from his slum
bers to hear it.

THE PEOPLE DEMAND JESUS' CRUCIFIXION. 523
his wife's message. He now formally asks the people whom
they wished to have released, (Matt, xxvii. 21 ; Mark xv.
9 ; Luke xxiii. 16-18.) They answer, Barabbas. Pilate,
hoping that by changing the form of the question he could
obtain an answer more in accordance with his wishes, says,
" What shall I do then with Jesus, which is called Christ ? "
(Matt, xxvii. 22 ; Mark xv. 12. Luke, xxiii. 20, does not
give the question ; but the answer shows that it must have
been the same as in Matthew and Mark.) To this they re
ply, " Let Him be crucified." Alexander (on Mark xv. 13)
suggests that the cry " Crucify Him" arose from the fact
that, as Barabbas, by the Roman law, would have been
crucified, Jesus should now stand in his stead and bear his
punishment. Bynaeus (hi. 118) explains it on the ground
that crucifixion was the usual punishment of sedition, of
which He was accused. Pilate now sees that not only do
the people reject Jesus, but that they insist upon the most
severe and ignominious punishment. He had proposed
chastisement ; they call for crucifixion. He had not antici
pated this, and will reason with them. He therefore asks,
" Why, what evil hath He done ? " (Matt, xxvii. 23 ; Mark
xv. 14.) Luke (xxiii. 22) adds : " I have found no cause of
death in Him ; I will therefore chastise Him and let Him
go." This judicial declaration of His innocence, and at
tempt to substitute the milder punishment, only cause the
people to cry out the louder, " Let Him be crucified."
John (xviii. 39, 40) sums up the narrative very briefly,
and gives no details. He omits the sending to Herod, and
states only the result of the popular election.
The great and rapid change in public feeling in regard
to Jesus which four or five days had brought, would appear
incredible, did we not find many analogous cases in history.
The thoughtlessness and fickleness that characterize a popu
lace, are proverbial. Besides, we here find special causes in
operation to bring about this change. The multitude, that

524 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
shouted " Hosanna to the son' of David " on the day of His
triumphal entry, doubtless expected that He would imme
diately assert His kingly claims, and take a position before
the public corresponding to His high dignity. But so far
from this, He reappears the next day, not as a prince, but
as a teacher ; He does nothing answerrag to their expects
tions ; He passes much of His time in seclusion at Bethany,
and the excitement of His entry dies away. Still, He has a
powerful hold on the popular mind as a prophet and worker
of miracles ; and this is recognized by the rulers in the man
ner in which they effect His arrest, and the haste with
which they press on tbe trial. It was His conviction as a
blasphemer that turned the heart ofthe people against Him.
The chief priests, the elders, the scribes, all those in whom
they trusted, and who guided public opinion, were busy in
declaring that He had blasphemed in the presence of the
whole Sanhedrim. He assumed to be something more than
the Messiah whom they expected— to be even the Son of
God. All His teachings, all His miracles are straightway
forgotten. He is a blasphemer ; He must die.
It may be, also, as has been said, that most of those who
cried " Crucify Him" were citizens of Jerusalem, who, un
der the influence of the hierarchy, had never been well in
clined toward him, and do not seem to have joined in the
hosannas and rejoicings upon the day of His entry.
From the Synoptists it would appear that, after the fail
ure of the attempts to induce the multitude to release Je
sus, Pilate, despairing of success, washed his hands before
the people, and then gave Him up to be scourged and cru
cified. But John (xix. 4-12) relates other and apparently
subsequent attempts to save Him, placing them after and
in connection with the scourging. Was He, then, twice
scourged? This is affirmed by some, who regard the
scourging of John (xix. 1-3) as designed to gratify the elders
and priests, and to excite popular compassion ; but that

THE SCOURGING OP JESUS. 525
mentioned by tbe Synoptists as the scourging usually in
flicted before crucifixion. But this is improbable. That
scourging generally preceded the crucifixion, appears from
Josephus.1 This scourging was excessively severe, the
leathern thongs being often loaded with lead or iron, and
cutting through the flesh even to the bone, so that some
died under it." But the Lord having been once scourged,
there seems no reason why it should be repeated ; nor is it
likely that Pilate would have permitted it.
If, then, Jesus was scourged but once, and the accounts
of the Synoptists and of John refer to the same event, why
did Pilate now permit it ? Was it that, finding himself
unable to save Jesus, and having no further expedient, he
gives up the struggle, and sends Him away to be scourged
as preliminary to His death ? * Or did he permit it, hoping
that through the milder punishment he might awaken pity,
and thus rescue Him from death ? 4 It is not easy to decide
as to Pilate's motives. He had early offered to chastise
Jesus, and then release Him; but this the multitude re
fused, and demanded His crucifixion. It does not, then,
seem probable that He could hope that the mere sight of
Jesus suffering this punishment could so awaken their pity
as to change their determination.6 And why, if this were
his purpose, should Jesus be taken into tbe common hall,
or Pretorium, and subjected to the insults and mockery
of the soldiers? We infer, then, that Pilate, having
yielded to the priests and rulers, sent Him to be scourged
as preliminary to His crucifixion, which was done by the
' War, 2. 14. 9, and 5. 11. 1. See Winer, i. 677 ; Friedlieb, Arch. 114.
2 As to flagellation among the Jews, see Ainsworth on Deut. xxv. 1-3.
8 Bynaeus, Stier, Krafft, Ellicott.
* Meyer, Sepp, Alford, Jones, Tholuck.
' It is not certain whether He was scourged in the Pretorium or without
it. The .words of Matthew and Mark imply the latter; so Meyer, Lange.
But if He was scourged but once, it would seem from John xix. 4 that it was
done in the Pretorium ; so Bynaeus.

526 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
soldiers in their usual cruel way ; that, beholding Him bloody
from the scourge, clothed with the purjile robe, and wear
ing the crown of thorns, his own compassion was awakened,
and he resolved to make one last effort to deliver Him from
death. He therefore leads Him forth, and after an emphatic
declaration for the third time that he finds no fault in Him,
presents Him to the people, saying, " Behold the man." He
hoped that the sight of one so meek, so helpless, so wretch
ed, would touch the hearts of all as it had touched his own.
Stier gives rightly the meaning of his words : " Is this man
a king ? An insurgent ? A man to be feared, or danger
ous? How innocent, and how miserable! Is it not
enough ? " It is probable, as said by Jones, that as He
wore the crown of thorns and purple robe, so He also bore
in His hand the reed. But nothing could touch the hearts
of His imbittered enemies. As they saw Him, the chief
priests and officers raised anew the cry, " Crucify Him, cru
cify Him." It is not said that the people at large joined in
it ; and perhaps for a time, through fear or pity, they were
silent. Angiy at the implacable determination of the rulers
that Jesus should be crucified, Pilate tauntingly responds
to tbe cry, "Take ye Him and crucify Him, for I find no
fault in Him." Lardner (i. 54) paraphrases these words :
" You must crucify Him, then, yourselves, if you can com
mit such a villany, for I cannot. He appears to me inno
cent, as I have told you already, and I have now punished
Him as much as He deserves." The Jews now perceived
that Pilate, knowing that the charge of sedition was base
less, and deeply sympathizing with Jesus, would not put
Him to death ; and are compelled to return to the original
charge of blasphemy. " We have a law, and by our law He
ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God."
This mention of the fact that Jesus made Himself the Son of
God, had a power over Pilate, who now heard of it for the

PILATE YIELDS TO THE THREATS OP THE JEWS. 521
first time, which the Jews little anticipated. Was then his
prisoner, whose appearance, words, and conduct had so
strangely and so deeply interested him, a divine being?
Full of fear he returns to the judgment hall, and commands
Jesus to be brought, and demands, " Whence art thou ? "
His silence at first, and still more His answer afterward, con
firmed Pilate in his determination to release Him ; and he
may probably have taken some open step toward it. But
the rulers will not thus give up their victim. They begin to
threaten that if he release Him he thereby shows that he is
Caesar's enemy, and that they will accuse him before the
emperor. Pilate now perceives the danger of Ms position.
Such an accusation he must, at any cost, avoid. His admin
istration would not, in many respects, bear a close scrutiny ;
and the slightest suspicion that he had shown favor to a
claimant of the Jewish throne, falling into the ear of the
jealous and irritable Tiberius, would have endangered, not
only his office, but his life. Such peril he could not meet.
The shrewd elders and priests, who knew the selfish weak
ness of his character, pressed their advantage, and Pilate
dared do no more. Jesus must be crucified. He now pre
pares to give final sentence. But he will first clear himself
of the guilt of shedding innocent blood. He takes water
and washes his hands before all, to show that he is clean.1
" Then answered all the people, His blood be on us and on
our children." At this moment, about to give sentence,
Pilate could not give up the poor satisfaction of mocking
the Jews in what he knew well to be a most tender point :
their Messianic hopes. He cries out, " Behold your king."
His contemptuous words only bring back the fierce re
sponse, " Away with Him ; crucify Him." Still more bit
terly he repeats, " Shall I crucify your king ? " The answer
: Many place this after the words of the Jews, " We have no king but
CEesar," (John xix. 15;) so Stier. Some before the scourging of Jesus ; so

528 THE LIFE OP OUR LOED.
ofthe chief priests, for the people are not said to have joined
in it, " We have no king but Caesar," was an open renun
ciation of their allegiance to Jehovah, and of the covenant
which He had made with the house of David, (2 Sam. vii.
12.) Thus had the Jews been led, step by step, not only to
reject their Messiah, to prefer a robber and murderer before
Him, to insist mercilessly that He should be put to a most
shameful death, but even to accept and openly proclaim the
Roman emperor as their king. This was the culminating
point of national apostasy.
Some points presented by the narrative demand further
consideration. Brief reasons have been given for supposing
that Jesus was scourged but once. Some, however, would
make the scourging mentioned by John (xix. 1) a kind of
judicial torture, or quaestio per tormenta, for the purpose
of forcing a confession if the prisoner were really guilty.
To this torture by scourging Pilate subjected Jesus, not
that he had any doubt of His innocence, but that if no
confession of guilt were extorted, he might have stronger
grounds for setting Him free.' Torture was customary with
the Romans, (Acts xxii. 24,) and was practised by Herod
the Great.2 But that Pilate should now have recourse to it,
when he himself knew Jesus to be innocent, merely that he
might say to the Jews that He had made no confession, is
most improbable. Sepp (vi. 241) supposes that the soldiers
regarded the scourging as intended to extort a confession,
and acted accordingly, though Pilate had other designs.
The person to be scourged was bound to a low pillar,
that, bending over, the blows might be better inflicted. The
pillar to which the Lord was bound is mentioned by Je
rome and Bede, and others.3 There is now shown in the
church of the Holy Sepulchre a fragment of a porphyry
- Hug, cited by Tholuck; Bucher, 777; Kirchen, Lex. vi. 271 ; Friedlieb,
331. See, however, contra, his Archaol. 116.
' See Josephus, Antiq: 16. 10. 3 and 4. * Hofmann, 365.

.RECORDS AT ROME OP THE LORD'S TRIAL. 529
column called the Column of the Flagellation, and a rival
column is preserved at Rome.
The traditional site in the Via Dolorosa of the place
where Pilate presented Jesus to the people, or the Arch of
the Ecce Somo, has been recently defended by Saulcy, (ii.
291.) This writer makes Pilate to have led Jesus forth
upon the gallery, /817/xa, (John xix. 13,) which was situated
in the Pavement, and there, for the second time, to have
shown Him to the people.
The form of Pilate's sentence is not given. The custom
ary form was, Ibis ad crucem. Friedlieb (Arch. 125) gives
a sentence pretended by Adrichomius to be genuine, but
rightly rejects it. Another sentence, said to have been
found in Aquila in Italy, has been often printed. Another
was found at the same place a few years since.1 Both are
obvious fabrications.
It has been much disputed whether Pilate transmitted
to the emperor at Rome any account of Christ's trial and
death. In itself this is intrinsically probable, for it seems to
have been the custom of governors of provinces to send
thither records of the more important events occurring;
during their administration. Thus Philo speaks of the
" acts," acta, transmitted to Caligula from Alexandria. .
That Pilate did send such records, appears from Justin Mar
tyr's address to the Emperor Pius, in which he appeals to
them as proving Christ's miracles and sufferings. Tertul
lian, in his Apology, also appeals to them. Eusebius, in
his History, (ii. 2,) relates, upon the authority of Tertullian,,
that Tiberius, receiving these acts of Pilate, containing an-
account of the Lord's resurrection, and of His miracles, pro
posed to the senate that He should be ranked among the
gods. If, however, Pilate really sent such an account, we
obtain from it no additional particulars respecting the trial
1 See both, given by Hofmann, 366-369.
23

530 THE LIFE OP OUE LORD.
and death of the Lord. No writer gives any quotation from
it ; from which it may be inferred that none, even of those
who refer to it, had ever seen it. The supposition that Pi
late's records had been destroyed by the senate or emper
or before the time of Constantine, in order to remove this
proof of Christianity, is not very probable.1
Some have attempted to cast additional light upon the
evangehcal narratives by referring to the Apocryphal Gos
pel of Nicodemus. But from it very little of value can be
drawn.5

Friday, 15th Nisan, 783. A. d. 30.
Delivered by Pilate into the hands of soldier's, He John xix. 16-24.
is led without the city to a place called Golgotha, Matt, xxvii. 32-38.
bearing His cross. Falling exhausted under the bur- Mark xv. 21-27.
den, the soldiers compelled Simon of Cyrene, whom Luke xxiii. 26-34.
they met, to bear it with Jesus. To some women
following Him and weeping, He speaks words of ad
monition, and foretells the judgments about to come
upon Jerusalem. After He had been affixed to the
cross, they gave Him wine mingled with gall, but He
would not drink. Two malefactors were crucified
with Him, one on the right hand and one on the left.
As they were nailing Him to the cross, He prays to
His Father to forgive them. The inscription placed
over His head displeased the Jews, but Pilate refused
to change it. The soldiers who kept watch at the
foot of the cross, divide His garments among them-
. selves. It was, according to John, (xix. 14,) " about the sixth
hour," a>pa. Be too-Ei ektjj, when Pilate sat down in the judg
ment seat to pronounce final sentence. But this seems in
; See Jones, Canon N. Test. ii. 330 ; Pearson on Creed, art. 4 ; Jarvis, 375.
' See Tischendorf's Pilati Circa Christum Judicium. Li-Kir."- 1=?5.

HOUR OP THE CRUCIFIXION. 531
direct opposition to Mark, (xv. 25,) " And it was the third
hour, and they crucified Him." Against John's statement,
is that also of all the Synoptists, that there was darkness
from the sixth hour over aU the land till the ninth hour,
(Matt, xxvii. 45 ; Mark xv. 33 ; Luke xxiii. 44.) This
darkness did not begin till Jesus bad been for some time
nailed to the cross. Many efforts have been made to har
monize this discrepancy.1 That change of punctuation
which places a period at the word " preparation," (in John
xix. 14,) and joins " of the Passover " with "hour," mak
ing it to read, " And it was the preparation, and about the
sixth hour of the Passover," has been already spoken of in
another connection. It is forced and untenable. Some
would change " sixth " into " third," and thus bring John
into harmony with Mark, regarding the former as an error
of copyists.9 But the weight of authority is in favor ofthe
present reading.3 Lightfoot finds a solution in his inter
pretation of Mark, who does not say, " it was the third
hour when they crucified Him," but "it was the third
hour and they crucified Him." It notes that the fathers
of the Sanhedrim should have been present at the third
hour in the temple, offering their thank offerings. " When
the third hour now was, and was passed, yet they omit
ted not to prosecute His conviction." This is wholly un
satisfactory. Some would make the "preparation" of
John, Trapao-Kevrj, to denote not the whole day, but that part
of it immediately preceding the Sabbath, or from 3-6 p. m.
Thus John's meaning would be, it was the sixth hour be
fore the commencement ofthe preparation, or about 9 a. m.,
which would agree with Mark. Others would read it,
" about the sixth hour, or noon, the preparation time of
' For a full account of early opinions, see Bynaeus, iii. 178.
' Bynaeus; Robinson, Har. 226, who refers to Griesbach and Wetstein;
Luthardt, Bloomfield.
s Tischendorf, Alford, Greswell, Wieseler, Meyer.

532 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
Passover day commenced." Both these constructions are
arbitrary. Some would make the term hour, upa, to be
used by John in a large sense. The day was divided into
four periods of three hours each, and to each of these
periods was the term hour applied. Thus the first hour
was from 6-9, the third from 9-12, the sixth from 12-3,
the ninth from 3-6. The third hour of Mark was from
9-12. During this period, and probably at the beginning
of it, Jesus was crucified. John, in his statement, refers to
the end of it.1 But this is unsupported by usage. Many
suppose that John reckons the hours according to the
Roman mode, from midnight. Thus his sixth hour would
be 6 a. m. Some, as Jones, so modify this as to make the
sixth hour to continue till nine. In regard to this, New-
come remarks,2 " That the Romans ever reckoned their
hours in the manner that we do, from midnight or from
midday, is destitute of proof. Though other matters were
regulated by the civil computation, the hours were counted
according to the natural day, from six in the morning to
six in the evening, and again from six in the evening to six
in the morning." Wieseler, (414,) who admits that the Ro
mans in general reckoned from sunrise, yet finds an excep
tion in this case, because the 15th Nisan, as distinguished
from the Passover, began at midnight, (Exod. xii. 29.)
Upon this one day John could reckon the hours from mid
night. But this is certainly most improbable, and the
Roman computation being the same with the Jewish,
nothing is gained. Greswell, therefore, after Townson,
makes John to reckon after our own mode, from mid
night ; but this does not fit the other notices of time in
his Gospel, and it is scarcely possible that all could have
been done by so early an hour.3
1 So Godwyn, Moses and Aaron, 81 ; Campbell, notes in loco ; Krafft, 147.
5 Har. notes in loco.
8 See, however, Ewald, (v. 483), who makes Jesus to have been brought

SECOND SESSION OP THE SANHEDRIM. 533
We conclude, then, that the sixth hour of John was
the twelfth hour with us, or midday. But it is to be
noted that he says, "about the sixth hour," ws eK-ry,1
which implies that he gives no exact note of the time.
It is rendered by Norton, "it was toward noon," and
this very well expresses the meaning. Mark's words, " It
was the third hour, and they crucified Him," need not
be taken as a specific designation of the hour when He was
nailed to the cross, but as marking the time when, the sen
tence having been pronounced, He was given up to the
soldiers, and the preparatory steps to the crucifixion began.
Our exact divisions of time were wholly unknown to the
ancients.2 If the Sanhedrim held its second session about sunrise,
as the statements of the Evangelists lead us to suppose, the
events subsequent down to the crucifixion, must have occu
pied several hours. The time when Jesus was led to the
hall of judgment is noted by John, (xviii. 28,) " and it was
early," yv Be trpui. If this denote the fourth watch of the
night, it was from 3-6 A. M. The usual hour for opening
judicial proceedings among the Romans was 9 a. m., and
probably Pilate now a little anticipated the time. The
crucifixion itself was during tbe interval from nine to
twelve. The place of the crucifixion will be hereafter considered
when we inquire where the Lord was buried. From Heb.
xiii. 12 it appears that the cross was placed without the
gate ; and from the Evangelists, that it was called Calvary,
or in the Hebrew, Golgotha, meaning the place of a skull ;
and that it was not far from the public street. Jesus was
conducted thither by the soldiers, Pilate not having lictors,
to whom such duty specially belonged. According to
to Pilate an hour before sunrise, (John xviii. 28, irpat,) the sentence given
at 6 A. m., (John xix. 14,) and the crucifixion at 9, (Mark xv. 25.)
* Tischendorf. 2 See Pauly, Real. Encyc, ii. 1017, art. Dies.

534 THE LIFE OP OUE LORD.
Roman custom, He bore his own cross ; but, wearied by the
labors ofthe night, and faint from the scourging and abuse
of His enemies, He sank beneath the burden. At this
juncture, meeting a man of Cyrene, named Simon, they
compelled him to assist Jesus in bearing it, (Luke xxiii. 26.)
According to some, he bore it alone. Probably he was met
just as they were going out of the city gate, and he was
entering in, (Matt, xxvii. 32.) Of this Simon httle is known,
except that he was a Cyrenian, and the father of Alexander
and Rufus, (Mark xv. 21.) Many suppose him a slave
from the fact that, while so many Jews must have been
present, they were passed by, and he was seized upon to
perform this degrading office.1 The reason, however, of
his selection may simply have been that, chancing to be
close at hand when Jesus sank down from weariness, they
compel him to assist. Others suppose him to have been a
disciple, and on that account selected ; but this fact could
scarcely have been known to the soldiers. That he subse
quently became a disciple is more probable. Following
the Lord upon the way to the place of crucifixion was
" a great company of people and of women, which also
bewailed and lamented Him," (Luke xxiii. 27.) These
women do not seem to have been those who followed Him
from Galilee, but those of the city, or the parts adjacent,
who had seen Him, or heard Him, and now sympathized
with Him.2
1 So Meyer.
3 For a minute account of the Lord's progress from the judgment hall to
the cross, along the Via Dolorosa, and the traditionary incidents, see Hof
mann, 371. " Whether the Via Dolorosa receives a right designation or
not, we do not know. It was up part of its ascent, or that of its neigh
borhood, that, in all probability, Christ bore His cross," (Wilson, i. 425.) .
Robinson finds in the fourteenth century the earliest allusion to the Via
Dolorosa, (i. 233, note.) For full details as to the traditional stations along
this way, see Tobler, Top. i. 262, Ac. But if the trial of the Lord was at
the palace of Herod on Mount Sion, He could not have passed along the
Via Dolorosa.

JESUS IS NATLED TO THB CROSS. 535
It is uncertain whether the cross was placed in the
ground before the victim was nailed to it, or after ; but the
former is most probable.1 With Jesus were crucified two
malefactors, respecting whom we know nothing, but who
may have been companions of Barabbas.3 An early tradition
makes them to have been two robbers, named Titus and
Dumachus, whom Jesus met in Egypt ; and it is said that
He then predicted that both should be crucified with Him.8
His position between the two was probably owing to the
malice of the priests ; though tbe soldiers may have done it
in mockery of his kingly claims. Greswell, (iii. 246,) from
John xix. 32, 33, conjectures that the crosses of the two
malefactors looked to the west, but that of Jesus to
the east. Tradition makes His to have looked to the
west." The offering of vinegar mingled with gall (Matthew
and Mark) seems to have been before the nailing to the
cross. The object of this was to stupefy the victim, so that
the pain might not be so acutely felt. This, however, was
a Jewish, not a Roman custom, though now permitted by
the Romans.' Lightfoot (on Matt, xxvii. 34) quotes from
the Rabbins, " To those that were to be executed they
gave a grain of myrrh, infused in wine, to drink, that their
understanding might be disturbed, or they lose their senses,
as it is said, ' Give strong drink to them that are ready to
die, and wine to them that are of sorrowful heart.' " This
mixture the Lord tasted, but, knowing its purpose, would
not drink it. He would not permit the clearness of His
mind to be thus disturbed, and, in tbe full possession of
consciousness, would endure all the agonies of the cross.
Meyer and Alford find a contradiction between Matthew
1 Friedlieb, Arch. 142 ; Greswell, iii. 245.
2 As to the abundance of thieves and robbers at this time, and its causes,
see Lightfoot on Matt, xxvii. 38.
3 Hofmann, 176. * Hofmann, 376. 6 Friedlieb, Archaol. 140.

536 THE LD7E OP OUR LORD.
and Mark, because the former speaks of " vinegar mingled
with gall;" the latter, of " wine mingled with myrrh." But
it is well said by Alexander, that " as the wine used by the
soldiers was a cheap sour wine, httle, if at all, superior to
vinegar, and as myrrh, gall, and other bitter substances
are put for the whole class, there is really no difference in
these passages." '
Lightfoot supposes that it was not the usual mixture,
wine and frankincense, or myrrh, but, for greater mockage,
and out of rancor, vinegar and gall. Townsend 2 supposes
that three potions were offered him: the first, vinegar
mingled with gall, in malice and derision, which He refused ;
then the intoxicating draught, which He also refused ;
then the sour wine, or posca, which He drank. Another
supposition is, that benevolent women gave him the wine
and myrrh, and at the same time the soldiers brought the
vinegar and gall.
Crucifixion was a punishment used by the Grecians,
Romans, Egyptians, and many other nations, but not by
the Jews. It was indeed permitted by the law to hang a
man on a tree, but only after he had been put to death,
(Deut. xxi. 22, 23.) Upon this, Maimonides, quoted by
Ainsworth, remarks : " After they are stoned to death, they
fasten a piece of timber in the earth, and out of it there
crosseth a piece of wood ; then they tie both his hands one
to another, and hang them near unto the setting of the
sun." The form of the cross varied. Sometimes it was in
the shape ofthe letter X- This was called crux decussata.
Sometimes it was in the shape of the letter T. This was
called crux commissa. Sometimes it was in the form follow
ing : -J-. This was called crux immissa. Tradition affirms
that the cross on which the Lord suffered was of the latter
1 That x»^V> gall, is used in the Septuagint for various kinds of bitter
stuffs, see Winer, i. 350 ; Friedlieb, Arch. 141.
» Part vii. note 23

CIRCUMSTANCES OP THE CRUCIFIXION. 537
kind ; and early painters have so represented it.1 The up
right post, or beam, was by no means lofty, generally only
so high as to raise the person a few inches from the ground.
Midway upon it was a httle projection, sedile, upon which
the person sat, that the whole weight of the body might
not fall npon the arms, and they thus be torn from the
nails. The arms were sometimes tied with cords, perhaps
to prevent this pressure upon the nails, or that the nailing
might be the more easily effected. The head was not
fastened. Whether the feet were generally nailed, has
been much disputed.2 That the Lord's feet were thus
nailed, may be inferred from Luke xxiv. 39, 40. Ap
pearing to the Eleven upon the evening following His
resurrection, He said to them: "Behold my hands and
my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see, for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And
when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and
His feet." This showing of the hands and feet could not
be simply to convince them that His body was a real body,
and not a mere phantasm ; but had also the end to convince
them of His identity. " It is I myself; and in proof of this,
look at the prints of the nails remaining in my hands and
' my feet." John (xx. 20) says, "He showed unto them
His hands and His side." From both narratives, it follows
that He showed them the wounds in His hands, His side,
and His feet. That, at his second appearing to the Eleven,
He spake to Thomas only of His hands and His side, is
to be explained as giving all the proof that that sceptical
apostle had demanded, (v. 25.) Alford gives a httle differ
ent explanation : " He probably does not name the feet,
' Hofmann, 372. See Bynaeus, (iii. 225,) and Didron's Christian Iconogra
phy, (Trans, i. 374,) for a discussion of the various forms of the cross.
2 In neg., see Paulus, (Handbuoh, iii. 669,) who discusses this point at
great length'; Winer, i. 678; aff., Friedlieb, 144; Meyer on Matt, xxvii. 35.
Alford, " not always, nor perhaps generally, though certainly not seldom."

23

*

538 THE LIFE OP OUE LORD.
merely because the hands and side would more naturally
offer themselves to his examination than the feet, to which
he must stoop." That the feet were nailed, has been the
current view of commentators.1
It has been questioned whether the feet of the Lord
were separately nailed,- or one nail was used for both.
According to Hofmann, most of the painters have repre
sented the feet as lying one over the other, and both pene
trated by the same nail.3 Didron (Christian Iconography)
observes : " Previous to the thirteenth century, Christ was
attached to the cross by three or four nails indifferently.
After the thirteenth century, the practice of putting only
three nails was definitively in the ascendant." On the
other hand, early tradition speaks of four nails.3 It is pos
sible that the crown of thorns remained upon His head, as
represented by the painters. Matthew and Mark, who both
speak of taking off the purple robe, say nothing of the
soldiers removing the crown of thorns.
The prayer, " Father, forgive them, for they know not
what they do," given only by Luke, (xxiii. 34,) was prob
ably spoken while the soldiers were nailing him to the
cross, or immediately after. It doubtless embraced all
who took part in His crucifixion — not only the soldiers, who
were compelled to obey the orders given them, but the
Jewish priests and elders, and the Roman governor — all
who had caused His sufferings. The garments of the cru
cified belonged to the soldiers as their spoil. After the
four appointed to this duty had divided His garments, they
sat down to watch the body.
It was customary among the Romans to affix to the
cross an inscription, tit\os, airia, in order to point out to
all the nature of the offence. Whether it was borne before
» Tholuck, Stier, Lange, Ebrard, Ewald, Olshausen.
3 See, however, Friedlieb, Archaol. 145, note.
3 See Winer, i. 678; Sepp, vi. 333; Ellicott, 353.

THE ENEMIES OP JESUS DERIDE HIM. 539
the criminal, or upon his neck, or was attached to the
cross, is uncertain ; but, on reaching the place of execution,
it was set up over his head. As this inscription is differ
ently given by the Evangelists, it has been conjectured that
it was differently written in the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.1
Pilate, who as judge prepared the inscription, took occa
sion to gratify his scorn of the Jews, who had so thwarted
him ; and his short and decisive answer, when he was re
quested by them to change it, shows the bitterness of his
resentment. ' Jones sees in this a providential acknowledg
ment of Jesus, by public authority, as King of the Jews.
Greswell supposes this request may have been made before
the arrival at Calvary.

Friday, 15th Nisan, 7th April, 783. A. d. 30.
While hanging upon the cross, the multitudes, Matt, xxvii. 39-44.
as they passed by, reviled and derided Him. In Mark xv. 29-32.
this mockery the high priests and scribes and elders, Luke xxiii. 35-43.
and even the two malefactors, joined. From the
cross, beholding His mother standing near by with John xix. 25-27.
John, He commends him to her as her son, and her
to him as his mother ; and John takes her to his
own house. Darkness now overspreads the land Matt, xxvii. 45-56.
from the sixth to the ninth hour, and during this Mark xv. 33-41.
period He suffers in silence. Afterward drink is Lttke xxiii. 44-49.
given Him, and after He had drunk He commends John xix. 28-30.
His spirit to God, and dies. At this moment the
veil of the temple is rent, the earth shakes, the rocks
are rent, and graves opened. The centurion bears
witness that He was the Son of God, and women of
Galilee go home smiting their breasts. i
The place of crucifixion being near the city, and great
multitudes being gathered at the feast, it was natural that
» See Pearson on Creed, art. 4; A. Clarke on Matt, xxvii. 37.

540 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
many should' come to look upon Him, whom all knew by
reputation, and most in person. From the time of the
crucifixion to the time when the darkness began, sufficient
time elapsed to allow His enemies, who hastened to the
spot, to behold Him upon the cross. Matthew (xxvii.
39-44) divides those who reviled Him into three classes : the
rabble, or passers by ; the chief priests, elders, and scribes ;
and the malefactors. (So Mark xv. 29-32.) Luke says,
that " the rulers with the people derided Him," which im
phes that the rulers began the mockery. He adds, that
the soldiers also " mocked Him, coming to Him, and offer
ing Him vinegar." Some, as Stier, would identify this
with the offer to Him of the mixed wine as He was about
to be nailed to the cross ; some, as Lichtenstein, to the
giving of vinegar just before His death. Most probably,
however, it is to be distinguished from these, and refers to
something done a httle before the darkness began ; perhaps,
as the soldiers were eating their dinner near the cross.1
The vinegar was doubtless the sour wine, or posca, which
they usually drank. Their offers were in derision, no wine
being actually given.
It is not certain whether both of the malefactors reviled
Him, or but one. Matthew and Mark speak of both ; Luke
of but one. According to some, both joined at first in the
general derision ; but, beholding the godlike patience and
forbearance of Jesus, and knowing on what grounds He
was condemned, one repents, and begins to reprove his
more wicked companion.3 The obvious objection, however,
to this is, that the first act of one so converted could
scarcely be to reprove in another what he had but a few
moments before been guilty of himself. This, perhaps, is
more plausible than sound. Most, after Augustine, sup
pose that Matthew and Mark speak in general terms of
> Greswell, Alford. a So, early, many; recently, Lange.

JESUS COMMENDS HIS MOTHER TO JOHN. 541
them as a class of persons that joined in deriding Jesus, but
without meaning to say that both actuaUy derided Him.1
At what time the words were spoken by the Lord to the
penitent thief, we are not told. Most place them before
His words to His mother and to John, (John xix. 25-27.) 2
They were thus the second words spoken from the cross.
We cannot determine whether the mother of Jesus, or
any of the women that foUowed Him from Galilee, or any
of the apostles, were present at the time He was nailed to
the cross; but if not there, some of them soon after came,
doubtless hoping to comfort Him by their presence. For a
time, they would naturally stand at a distance, tiU the first
outbreaks of anger and mockery were past, and His chief
enemies, satiated with the spectacle, had withdrawn. The
statement ofthe Synoptists, (Matt, xxvii. 55, 56 ; Mark xv.
40, 41 ; Luke xxiii. 49,) that His acquaintance and the
women that followed Him from Galilee stood afar off,
seems to refer to a later period, and after the darkness ; per
haps, to the moment of His death. The incident narrated
by John may thus have been a Uttle before the darkness
began ; and after this the disciples, terrified by it and the
signs that attended His death, did not dare approach the
cross. Krafft, however, (150,) supposes that it was after
the darkness that His mother and John, with the other
women, approached Him, and that the Synoptists refer to
an earher period.
According to many, John at once took Mary to his
home, or the house he was occupying during the feast;
for it does not appear otherwise that he had any house in
Jerusalem of his own.3 A confirmation of this is found in
1 Ebrard, Da Costa, Lichtenstein. Meyer finds two traditions ; and Al
ford, that Matthew and Mark report more generally and less accurately than
Luke. For a statement of opinions, see Bynaeus, iii. 367.
3 Ebrard, Stier, Da Costa, Greswell.
s Townson, Greswell, Stier, Meyer.

542 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
the fact that the Synoptists do not mention her name
among those that beheld afar off at the hour of His death.
It has, therefore, been inferred that Jesus, in his compas
sion, would spare her the pain of seeing His dying agonies,
and so provides that she be taken away.1 But it may be
questioned whether the words, " And from that hour that
disciple took her unto his own house," mean any more
than that ever after this she was a member of John's
household, and was treated by him as a mother.3 But it
John then led Mary away from the place of crucmxion, he
must afterward have returned, as he declares himself to
have been an eye-witness of the piercing of the side, and
the flowing out ofthe blood and water, (xix. 35.) Whether
he was the only apostle present at the Lord's death, is
matter of conjecture. This is supposed by Stier ; but there
is no good reason why others, if not daring to approach
near, should not have looked on from a distance.
That the darkness was no natural darkening of the sun,
but a supernatural event, is recognized by all who do not
wholly deny the supernatural element in the Gospel nar
ratives. The attempt to bring it into connection with the
eclipse mentioned by Phlegon of Tralles, has been already
mentioned ; and that it could have been caused in such a
way is disproved by the fact that it was then full moon.
The attempt of Seyffarth to show that the Jews might then
have kept the Passover on the 25th March, finds no de
fenders.3 Some, however, would connect it with the earth
quake, and explain it as the deep gloom that not unfre
quently precedes such convulsions of nature.* But this
supposes that the earthquake was a mere natural event,
whereas this also was plainly extraordinary. The darkness
began at the sixth hour, or twelve a. m., and continued tiU
the ninth, or three p. m. The forms of expression, " over
' Bengel. 3 Luthardt, ii. 421 ; Lichtenstein, 448.
3 See Winer, ii. 482. * Paulus, Handbuch, iii. 764.

DARKNESS OVER ALL THE LAND. 543
all the land," irao-av ryv ¦y^r, (Matthew,) " over the whole
land," oXyv ryV y^v, (Mark and Luke,) do not determine how
far the darkness extended. Many would confine it to the
land of Judea, as our version does, except in Luke, where
it is -rendered, " over aU the earth." 1 If, however, it ex
tended beyond Judea, the phrase " whole earth " need not
be taken in its most Uteral sense, but is to be regarded as
a general expression, embracing the countries adjacent.*
Some, however, would extend it over all that part of the
earth on which the sun was then shining.3
That during this period of darkness many of the by
standers should have left the place of crucifixion and re
turned to the city, is probable, though not stated. Stier,
however, affirms, " No man dares to go away, aU are laid
under a speU ; others, rather, are attracted to the place."
But when we consider that the Lord's enemies would
naturally construe this darkness as a sign of God's anger
against Him, if they gave it any supernatural character,
any such fear can scarce be attributed to them ; nor does it
appear in their subsequent conduct. That some of the
spectators remained, appears from Matthew's words, (xxvii.
41,) that there were some standing there when He caUed
for Elias. (See also Luke xxiii. 48.) It is probable, though
not explicitly stated, that the darkness dispersed a few
moments before the Lord's death, and that the returning
light emboldened His enemies to renew their mockeries.*
The cry of Jesus, " My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me ? " was about the ninth hour ; either a little
before the cessation of the darkness,6 or just after its cessa
tion.6 So far as appears, during the three hours of gloom,
1 So Ebrard, Olshausen, A. Clarke; Norton, who renders it, "over the
whole country."
8 Meyer, Lange.
3 So Alford, who makes the fact of the darkness at Jerusalem all that the
Evangelists testify to as within their personal knowledge.
1 Stier, Lichtenstein. B Stier, Ellicott-. • Greswell.

544 THE LIFE OP OUR LOED.
the Lord was silent, and doubtless all were sUent around
Him. But by whom were His words understood, as a call
for Elias ? From the similarity of sound, the Roman sol
diers might have so misunderstood Him; but it is not
probable that they knew much of the current Jewish ex
pectations respecting Elias as the forerunner ofthe Messiah.
Lightfoot explains it, that the word " EU " is not properly
Syriac, and thus was strange to the Syrian ear, and de
ceived the standers by. But such a misunderstanding on
the part of the Jews, whether they were from Judea or
from other lands, is not easUy credible. Some, however,
affirm that the Jews, terrified by the darkness, now began
to fear that the day of God's judgment was actually at
hand; and, in their superstitious terror, naturally inter
preted Christ's words as a call for him, the prophet, whose
coming was closely connected in their minds with the great
day of God.1 But this is not consistent with what foUows.
The general view, therefore, seems to be the right one,
that they wilfully perverted His meaning, and made the
cry of distress an occasion of new insult and ridicule.2
In immediate connection with the words of the by
standers, " this man caUeth for Elias," one of them is said
by Matthew and Mark to run and, taking a sponge and
filling it with vinegar, to give Him to drink. This act, .
which in those Evangelists seems unexplained, may have
foUowed from His words, which are recorded only by
John, (xix. 28,) "I thirst." We may thus arrange the
events: Immediately after His exclamation, "My God,
why hast thou forsaken me ? " He adds, " I thirst." One
of those present, perhaps a soldier, perhaps a spectator,
moved by a sudden feehng of compassion, prepares the
vinegar, which was at hand, and makes ready to give Him
to drink. Whilst doing this, the others call upon him to
» Olshausen, Lange, Jones.
3 Meyer, Alexander, Alford, Friedlieb, Ellicott.

JESUS BOWS HIS HEAD AND DIES. 545
wait a little, that they might see whether Elias would come
to save Him, (Matt, xxvii. 49.) He, however, gives Jesus
the drink, and then, having satisfied his compassionate im
pulse, mockingly adds, " Let alone, now we will wait for
EUas," (Mark xv. 36.) Thus the words of Matthew wiU be
those of the spectators ; those of Mark, the words of the
giver of the drink. John (xix. 29) omits this mockery,
and merely says, in general terms, " they filled a sponge
with vinegar," &c. Luke (xxiii. 36) may be referred to
earlier mockeries.1
After Jesus had received the vinegar, He cried out
with a loud voice, " It is finished." The Evangelist adds,
" And He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost," (John
xix. 30.) Luke (xxiii. 46) narrates that " When He had
cried with a loud voice, He said, Father, into Thy hands I
commend ray spirit : and having said thus, He gave up the
1 ghost." Matthew and Mark both mention that He cried
with a loud voice, but clo not relate what He said. There
can be Uttle doubt that His words given by John, " It is
finished," were spoken before those given by Luke,.
" Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit." 3 Having
taken the vinegar, which gave Him a momentary relief
from His thirst, He says, feeling that the end was at hand,
" It is finished." He now turns to God, and, addressing to
Him His dying prayer, bows His head and dies.
The order of the words spoken by our Lord from th®'
cross may be thus given: — Before the darkness: 1st. His
prayer for His enemies. 2d. His promise to the penitent
thief. 3d. His charge to His mother and to John. During
the darkness : 4th. His cry of distress to God. After the
1 See Stier, viii. 14-18 ; Alexander in loco. As to the kind of drink given
Him, and the motive with which it was given, see various suppositions in
Bynaeus, iii. 423. As to the hyssop branch on which the sponge was put,
see Royle, Jour. Sac. Lit., Oct. 1849.
3 Meyer, Stier, Da Costa, Alford.

546 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
darkness : 5th. His exclamation, " I thirst." 6th. His de
claration, that "It is finished." 7th. The final commenda
tion of His spirit to God.1 Ebrard would thus arrange tbe
first three : 1st. His prayer for His enemies. 2d. His charge
to His mother and John. 3d. His promise to the penitent
thief. Krafft's order is as foUows : 1st. His prayer for His
enemies. 2d. His promise to the penitent thief. 3d. His
cry of distress to God. 4th. His charge to His mother and
John. 5th. His exclamation, " I thirst." 6th. " It is fin
ished." 7th. Commendation of His spirit to God.
The quaking ofthe earth, and the rending ofthe veil of
the temple and of the rocks, appear from Matthew and
Mark to have been at the same instant as His death. Luke,
(xxiii. 45,) who mentions only the rending ofthe veU, speaks
as if it took place when the sun was darkened ; but his lan
guage is general. Meyer's interpretation of the statement
that "there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth
hour," as denoting only a partial obscuration of the sun,
but that at the ninth hour it " was darkened " and whoUy
disappeared from sight ; and that at the same moment the
veil ofthe temple was rent, has little substantial in its favor.
Darkness, in which the sun was still visible, could scarcely
be so called. The first statement, v. 44, is the effect ; the
second, v. 45, the cause.3 Perhaps the darkness may have
deepened in intensity to its close. That the rending of the
veil could not be ascribed to an earthquake, however vio
lent, is apparent. There were two veils, one before the
holy and one before the most holy place, (Exod. xxvi. 31-
36.) It is generally agreed that the latter is here meant.
The account given by Matthew only (xxvn. 52, 53) of
the opening of the graves and appearing of many bodies of
the saints, some, as Norton, have rejected as an interpola
tion. There is, however, no doubt as to the genuineness of
1 Stier, Greswell, and many. ' Oosterzee in loco.

GRAVES OP THE SAINTS ARE OPENED. 547
the text. The graves seem to have been those in the
immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. That those who arose
are caUed " saints," aywi, does not determine who are
meant ; whether some who had died recently, perhaps since
Christ began His ministry, or some who died long before,
and had been buried there, perhaps patriarchs and proph
ets. From the fact that they appeared to many, the pre
sumption is, that they had not long been dead, and thus
were recognized by those to whom they appeared. That
their resurrection was after Christ's resurrection, although
the opening of their tombs was at His death, best harmo
nizes with the scope of the narrative. This, however, is
questioned by Meyer, who supposes the Evangelists to say
that they came out of the graves at His death, but did not
enter the holy city tiU after His resurrection.1 After He
had arisen, they appeared openly, their resurrection thus
giving force and meaning to His. But it was the Lord's
resurrection, not death, that opened the gates of Hades.
Dying, the rocks were rent and the doors of the sepulchres
were opened ; but, rising, He gave life to the dead.3 Da
Costa (429) places, however, the opening of the graves
also subsequent to the resurrection. Whether those thus
raised were raised in the immortal and incorruptible body,
and soon ascended to heaven ; or whether, like others, they
died again, we have no means of determining. In favor of
the former is the language, they " appeared unto many,"
eve<pavi.cr6yo-av toAAois ; which impUes that they, like the Lord
Himself, after His resurrection, were not seen by all, but
only by those to whom they wished to manifest them
selves.3 The impression made upon the centurion by aU the
1 So Bynaeus.
' Calvin, Lightfoot, Whitby, A. Clarke, Calmet, Greswell, Krafft, Ebrard,
Bengel, Alford.
3 For early opinions, see Calmet, translated in Journal Sac. Lit. 1848,
vol. i. See also Lardner, ix. 328 ; Sepp, vi. 401.

548

THE LIFE OP OUE LORD.

wonderful events accompanying the Lord's death, was such
that be openly testified his conviction, as given by Matthew
and Mark, that Jesus was " the (a) Son of God ; " as given
by Luke, " Certainly, this was a righteous man." The lat
ter words are explained by Alford thus : " Truly, this man
was truthful ; " that is, He had asserted Himself to be, and
He was, the Son of God. Thus the expressions of the
Evangehsts are made identical. More probably He ut
tered at different times both expressions.

Friday, 15th Nisan, 7th April, 783. A. d. 30.

Soon after the Lord's death, the chief priests came
to Pilate, requesting that the bodies might be taken
down before sunset, because the next day was the
Sabbath. 0 btaining their request, the legs of the two
malefactors are broken to hasten their death ; but Je
sus, being found already dead, is pierced with a spear
in the side. At this time, Joseph of Arimathea goes
to Pilate, and informing him that Jesus was already
dead, asks His body for burial ; and Pilate, after satis
fying himself that He was actually dead, orders the
body to be given him. Aided by Nicodemus, Joseph
took the body, and winding it in linen cloths with
spices, laid it in his own sepulchre, in a garden near
the cross ; and shut up the sepulchre. Some women
beheld where He was laid, and, returning home, pre
pared spices and ointments, that they might embalm
Him after the Sabbath was past. During the Sabbath
the council obtains permission from Pilate to seal up
the sepulchre and to place a watch, lest the disciples
should steal the body.

John xix. 31-37.

Matt, xxvii. 67-60.
John xix. 38-42.
Mark xv. 42-46.
Luke xxiii. 60-54.

Luke xxiii. 55, 56.
Matt, xxvii. 61.
Mark xv. 47.
Matt, xxvii. 62-66.

It was the custom of the Romans to permit the body to
remain on tbe cross tUl it was consumed by the birds and
beasts, or wasted by corruption.1 But it was an express

1 Pearson on Creed, art. 4.

THE LEGS OP THE MALEFACTORS BROKEN. 549
command of the law, (Deut. xxi. 23,) that the body should
not remain all night upon the tree, but must be taken down
and buried the 6ame day.1 Aside from this command of
the law, it was probably thought desirable by the rulers,
that the body of Jesus should be, as early as possible,
removed from public sight. It is not certain whether the
Jews who came to Pilate knew that He was actually dead;
but their request that the legs of the crucified might be
broken, implies that they did not. If so, they must have
come to Pilate about three p. m., or a Uttle before His death.
If, however, they did know that He was dead, as is not im
probable from the marked circumstances that attended the
act of dissolution, their request had reference to the two
malefactors, who were still living ; and perhaps also was de
signed to make the death of Jesus certain.3 That the natural
effect of the breaking of their legs would be to hasten death
is plain, and this -was the end the Jews sought. Usually
the Romans did not in this, or any other way hasten it ;
though sometimes the crucified were subjected to personal
injuries, as pounding with hammers or breaking of hmbs, in
order to increase their sufferings. The term crurifragium,
though literaUy appUcable only to the breaking of the legs,
and which sometimes constituted a separate punishment,
seems to have been applied to various other acts, which
tended to increase the pain, and so to shorten hfe ; and
may have included the use ofthe spear. The Jews wished
not to increase their sufferings, but to hasten death ; and
we may weU suppose that the soldiers were directed, if
the breaking of the legs should not prove sufficient, to use
other means.3 Whether, in addition to the breaking of the
legs ofthe two malefactors, other violent means were used,
is not certain ; but the narrative does not imply it.
The object of piercing the Lord's side was not so much
1 Josephus, War, 4. 5. 2 ; Josh. x. 26. > So Meyer.
3 Friedlieb, Archaol. 164.

550 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
to cause death as to make sure that He was already dead.
Which side was pierced, is not said ; and the painters, as
weU as commentators, have been divided in opraion : most,
however, suppose the left side. With what intent does the
apostle mention the flowing out of the blood and water ?
Does he mention it as a simple physiological fact, and in
proof of the Lord's death ; or as a supernatural event, to
which some special significance is to be attached ? As this
point has an important bearing upon the question respect
ing the physical cause of the Lord's death, it deserves our
consideration. Lying at the basis of aU inquiries respecting the Lord's
death, physiologically regarded, is the question whether He
died as other crucified persons died, death being the nat
ural consequence of His physical sufferings; or whether
He gave up His hfe by an immediate act of His own wiU,
or by an immediate act of His Father in answer to His
prayer. The latter opinion seems to have prevailed in the
early Church, though by no means universaUy.1 Of recent
writers may be mentioned Tholuck : " By an act of power
the Redeemer actually separated His spirit from His body,
and placed it, as a deposit, in His Father's keeping." Al
ford : " It was His own act, — ' no feeling the approach of
death,' as some, not apprehending the matter, have com
mented, but a determined delivering up of His spirit to the
Father." Stier : " He dies, as the act of His wiU, in full
vigor of Ufe." 2 If this opinion be correct, and Jesus died
by His own act, it is not easy to see how it can be said
that He was slain by the Jews. His death was in conse
quence of His own volition, and not of any sufferings in
flicted upon Him by His enemies. We therefore conclude,
that though He voluntarily gave Himself to death, and sub
mitted to be nailed to the cross, yet that death came to
1 See Stroud, Physical Cause of Christ's Death. London, 1847, p. 47.
3 In like way speak Greswell, Alexander, Jones, Baumgarten.

PHYSICAL CAUSE OP THE LORD'S DEATH. 551
Him as to the two malefactors, naturaUy, not supernatu-
rally ; and was the consequence of His physical sufferings,
aggravated by mental distress.1
Many, however, have found difficulty in explaining, in
this way, the quickness of the Lord's death. He was not
upon the cross, at the longest, more than six hours ; wMle
it is well known that the great majority of the crucified
live at least twelve hours ; many, one or two days ; and
some, three or four days. But there seems no vaUd reason
why we may not attribute this speedy decease to the great
physical weakness caused by His previous bodily and men
tal sufferings, superadded to the ordinary agonies of cruci
fixion. That those sufferings were most intense we know
from the account given of the hour passed at Gethsemane ;
and that the Lord, already exhausted by His great spirit
ual conflicts.with the power of darkness, by the excitement
and fatigue of that awful night, and by the scourging
inflicted upon Him, should have died so much sooner than
was usually the case, can excite no surprise. Nor do the
objections of Stroud, based upon the natural vigor and
healthfulness ofthe Lord's body ; tbe short duration of His
mental agony in the garden ; and the proof of unabated
physical strength shown by the loudness of voice with
which He uttered His last words upon the cross, seem of
much weight.3
Those who regard the Lord's death as a natural event,
yet one whose quick consummation is not adequately ex
plained by the pains attendant upon His crucifixion, are
forced to give another explanation. Of these, several have
been presented. One is that of Stroud, that the immediate
physical cause was rupture of the heart, caused by the
great mental suffering He endured, (pp. 74 and 143.)
1 So, in substance, Pearson, Bloomfield, Stroud, Ellicott.
3 As to the pains of crucifixion, and their natural effects in destroying
life, see-Richter in Friedlieb, Archaol. 155.

552 THE LIFE OP OUE LORD.
Another, that attributes His death to the piercing of tbe
spear, is so directly at variance with the evangehcal nar
rative, that it may be at once dismissed, (John xix. 30 and
33.) As the incident ofthe flowing ofthe blood and water
from His side furnishes the chief ground upon which
Stroud rests his explanation, we turn to its considera
tion. The first question that arises is, does the Evangehst nar
rate here a natural or a supernatural event ? That he at
tached some special importance to it, is apparent from His
words, (v. 35,) which seems to refer chiefly to it,1 though
the reference may be to aU related, vs. 32-34. Commen
tators are by no means agreed in opinion.3
If the former view be correct, and the flowing of the
blood and water was without any miraculous features, why
is it here mentioned ? Some reply, to prove the reahty of
the Lord's body as against tbe Docetas.3 But the reaUty
of His body had been proved, in a thousand ways, during
His life ; and if His body, sensible to touch and sight, was
a phantasm, so might much more easily be this seeming
blood and water. According to Alford, it was to show
that the Lord's body was a real body, and underwent real
death, " not so much by the phenomenon of the water and
blood, as by the infliction of such a wound." But the
EvangeUst had distinctly stated that Jesus was dead before
this wound was inflicted ; and none ofthe other Evangehsts
mention the piercing, though all speak of His death. But,
granting this to be the intention of St. John, how is the
reality of His death thus shown ? Are proper blood and
1 So Meyer.
3 On the one side may be mentioned Calvin, who says, BaUueinati sunt
quidam, miraculum hia fingentes ; A. Clarke, Tholuck, Ebrard, Ewald, Al
ford ; on the other, Lightfoot, Bengel, Greswell, Luthardt, Meyer.
3 So Coleridge in Stroud : " The effusion showed the human nature. It
was real blood, composed of lymph and crassamentum, and not a mere celes
tial ichor, as the Phantasmatists allege."

PLOWING OP THE BLOOD AND WATER. 553
water here meant, aqua pura et vera, sanguis purus et
verus, as said by Bengel ? No, for this would remove it
into the region of tbe supernatural. Have we, then, in
these terms, merely a hendiadys for reddish lymph, or
bloody water? This is inadmissible. Does the apostle
then mean blood that had decomposed, and was thus re
solved into crassamentum and serum, or the thick red part
of the blood and the aqueous transparent part ? This is
the view taken by many ; and it is said that we have in this,
conclusive proof not only of His death, but that He had
also been some time dead, since the blood had begun to de
compose. Thus Neander says : " I must beUeve that John,
as an eye-witness, meant to prove that Christ was reaUy
dead from the nature of the blood that flowed from the
wound." Admitting, for the moment, that the blood and water
were the constituent parts of blood now decomposed,
whence came they ? According to Stroud, from the peri
cardium, into which, through the rapture of the heart,
there was a great effusion of blood, and which was there
decomposed. Tbe pericardium, being pierced by the spear,
it flowed in crassamentum and serum, " a full stream of
clear watery liquid, intermixed with clotted blood, exactly
corresponding to the clause of the sacred narrative."
Ebrard" (563) supposes it to have been extravasated blood,
that, flowing into some of the internal cavities ofthe chest,
there decomposed, and these cavities being opened by the
spear, the constituent parts made their escape.
Against aU these explanations which are based upon
the eoagulation ofthe blood, and aside from the physiologi
cal objections to which they are open, we find an invinci
ble difficulty in the words of the Psalmist, that God would
not suffer His Holy One to see corruption; and in the
declaration of St. Peter, that " His flesh did not see cor
ruption." His body was not to see corruption ; or, in other
24

554 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
words, the usual processes of decay were not to commence
in it. Decomposition of the blood can soarcely be consid
ered as other than the initial step of corruption. The full
separation of His soul and His body must take place ; but,
after this, he " that had the power of death " had no more
power over the Holy One.
The explanations of the Griiners and ofthe BarthoUnes1
are free from this difficulty, since they do not affirm a
coagulation of the blood. The former suppose that both
pericardium and heart were pierced by the spear ; and that
from the former came the water, and from the latter the
blood. The statement of the elder Gruner, that " the peri
cardium is full of water when a person dies after extreme
anxiety," does not seem to be sustained by facts. That
there must have been a considerable quantity of water as
weU as of blood flowing forth, appears from the fact that
the apostle, standing doubtless at some distance from the
cross, was able to distinguish them. It is in a high degree
improbable that any such quantity of serum should have
been found in the pericardium as to be visible to him. It
is also difficult to explain, in this way, the flowing of the
blood, since the heart of a dead person is usuaUy emptied
of its blood ; or, if any remains, it would flow very slowly :
and to say that J.esus was not wholly dead when pierced
with the spear, is contrary to the sacred narrative. *
The second explanation, that of the BarthoUnes, sup
poses that the water and blood came from one or both of
the pleural sacs. It is said that, during the sufferings of
crucifixion, a bloody serum was effused in these sacs, from
which, when pierced by the spear, it flowed out. But aside
%from the fact that such an effusion of bloody serum or
lymph as the narrative demands, is not proved in cases of
crucified persons, if indeed in any case whatever ; there is
» See Stroud, 135-137.

THE LOED's BODY SAW NO CORRUPTION. 555
the further objection that such bloody serum does not an
swer to the Evangelist's " blood and water."
We conclude, then, that the attempts to explain this
phenomenon as a merely natural event, and upon physio
logical grounds, are by no means satisfactory. They are
whoUy unable to explain how so much clear serum, as the
narrative plainly implies, could have been found in the peri
cardium, or in the pleural sacs, or in any of the internal
cavities which the spear could have reached. Against the
view that it was coagulated blood, stands the fact that the
Lord's body saw no corruption ; nor would any unlearned
reader understand the terms " blood and water " of de
composed blood. We therefore infer, that the event was
something supernatural. It is not here the place to inquire
into its special significance. It may have been a sign to aU
beholders that the body was not subject to the common
law. of corruption. The spirit of Jesus had departed, and
with it that vital energy which held together the constitu
ent elements of the body ; yet disorganization and dissolu
tion did not begin. According to Lange,1 it was a sign
that the change in tbe body, preparatory to the resurrec
tion, had already begun ; the power of God was already
working in it, to prepare it for immortaUty and incorrupti
bility. It was in the power of governors of provinces to grant
private burial to criminals when requested by friends ; and
this was usually done, except they were very mean and in
famous.2 But for the request of Joseph of Arimathea, the
body would probably have been buried in some place ap
propriated to criminals, and where the two malefactors
were actually buried. " They that were put to death by
the councU were not to be buried in the sepulchres of their
fathers; but two burying places were appointed by the
» Note in loco. ' Pearson, Creed, 332.

556 THE LIFE OP OUR LOED.
council, one for those slain by the sword and strangled, the
other for those that, were stoned or burnt." ' PUate could
have no objection to granting Joseph's request ; as, on the
one hand, his position as a member of the Sanhedrim en?
titled him to a favorable hearing ; and, on the other, he
was not unwilling that the innocent victim should have an
honorable burial. (Mark xv. 45. He gave the body to
Joseph ; or, more Uterally, made a gift or present of the
body to him.) According to Mark, xv. 44, PUate was
surprised that He was already dead ; and, calling the cen
turion, made inquiries how long He had been dead. How
is this coming of Joseph related to that of the Jews, (John
xix. 31,) who asked that the bodies might be taken down?
We may suppose that the Jews came about 3 p. m., be
fore the coming of Joseph, and were ignorant ofthe Lord's
death. Joseph may have stood near the cross, and heard
His last words, and thus have known of His death so soon
as it occurred. He went to PUate " when the even was
come," (Matt. xxvn. 57,) or from 3-6 p. m. Going at once
to Pilate he informs him of it ; and the latter, knowing that
sufficient time has not elapsed for the execution of the
order respecting the breaking of the legs, or at least for
their death after their legs were broken, is surprised. The
Jews, indeed, may have preferred their request after Joseph
had preferred his, and PUate have given the soldiers orders
to make sure that Jesus was reaUy dead, ere He was given
up for burial ; but the former order is most probable. It is
not necessary to suppose that Joseph knew ofthe purpose to
have the bodies taken down, though he might have done so.
Joseph, having received permission to take the body, is
aided by Nicodemus ; and, taking it down, they wrap it in
linen cloths, with "myrrh and aloes about an hundred pound
weight," which the latter had brought, and lay it in a new
sepulchre in a garden near at hand, which belonged to Jo-
1 Lightfoot on Matt, xxviii. 58.

EMBALMING OP THE LORD'S BODY. 557
seph.1 It has been questioned whether the spices were
actuaUy used, because ofthe shortness of time. But John's
words are express that the spices were used. It, however,
remains doubtful whether the customary embalming was
then perfected. Lardner (x. 368) remarks, that " aU was
done, as may reasonably be supposed, after the best man
ner, by the hands of an apothecary or confectioner, or
perfumer, skiUed in performing funeral rites. There must
have been many such at Jerusalem." # Norton3 makes
the transactions of anointing and burying the body, to
have occupied many hours, and the dawn of the Sab
bath to have appeared ere all engaged in them had left
the tomb. But it is more probable that Joseph and Nico
demus were themselves able to do all that was necessary to
be done ; for there is no reason to suppose that the body
was embalmed in any proper sense of that term. " The
Egyptians fiUed the interior of the body with spices ; but
the Jews, who buried on the day of decease, only wrapped
the body round witb spices." 3 It is probable that aU was
finished before the Sabbath began. If, however, the body
was then properly prepared for its burial, why did the
women, who " beheld the sepulchre and how the body was
laid," prepare additional spices and ointments ? It could
not weU have been from ignorance of what Nicodemus bad
done. We must, therefore, suppose that this further anoint
ing was something customary ;* or that the first was imper
fect, and this therefore necessary ; or that it was a mark of
love.6 1 It is not certain that Nicodemus came till the body had been taken from
the cross.
3 Notes, 317.
3 Michaelis on Resurrection, 93 ; Greswell, iii. 260, note.
* Friedlieb, Arch. 172.
5 Meyer, Greswell ; Alex, on Mark xvi. 1. Lange regards the first as only
for the preservation of the body, and the second as the proper anointing.
Jones affirms, that, as Joseph and Nicodemus were secret disciples, the wo
men had no acquaintance with them, and did not know their purpose,

553 THE LTPE OP OUR LORD.
The Lord was crucified at a place caUed in the Hebrew,
Golgotha, and His body was laid in a sepulchre in a garden
near by. The site of this sepulchre has been much dis
cussed, and with great learning and ingenuity, but without
leading to any certain result. For many centuries the
Christian Church received, without question, the tradition
ary tomb beneath the dome of the present church of the
Holy Sepulchre as that to which He was borne, and from
which He arose. . Of this belief is stiU the great body of
Christians. But a large number of modern traveUers have
been led, by a personal raspection ofthe spot, to doubt the
tradition, and have brought very cogent arguments against
it. Fortunately, here, as often, it is of Uttle importance
whether the traditionary site be, or be not, the true one.
The fact of the Lord's resurrection is a vital one, but hot
whether He arose from a tomb in the valley of Jehosaphat,
or on the side of Aera. Nor is, as affirmed by WiUiams,1
" the credit of the whole Church for fifteen hundred years
in some measure involved in its veracity." Few wUl so
press the infallibility of the Church as to deny the possibil
ity of a topographical error. The httle value attached by
the apostles to the holy places, appears from the brevity
with which they speak of them when they allude to them
at aU. Not to the places of His birth and of His burial
would they turn the eyes of the early Christians, but to
Himself— the ever-living One, and now the great High
Priest at tbe right hand of God.
But however unimportant in itself, either as confirma
tory .of the Gospel narratives, or as Ulustrating the Lord's
words, stUl, as a point that has so greatly interested men,
it may not be whoUy passed by. A brief statement of the
question wiU therefore be given, that the chief data for a
judgment may be in the reader's possession. It naturaUy
presents itself, first, as a question of topography ; and, sec-
' Holy City, ii. 2.

PLACE OP CRUCIFIXION. 559
ond, of history. But before we consider it from either of
these points of view, let us note what is said respecting the
places of crucifixion and of burial by the Evangelists.
From their statements it appears, First, that the place of
crucifixion was out ofthe city, (John xix. 17 ; Matt, xxviu.
11 ; Heb. xui. 12.) Second, it was near the city, (John
xix. 20.) Third, the sepulchre was near the place of cruci
fixion, (John xix. 41.) Fourth, it was in a garden and
hewn in a rock, (Matt. xxvn. 60 ; Mark xv. 46 ; John xix.
41; Luke xxiU. 53.) It may, perhaps, be inferred from
Mark xv. 29, " And they that passed by railed on Him,"
that the cross stood near some frequented street, but much
weight cannot be laid upon it. The name of the place
where He was crucified was Golgotha, which Alexander
caUs " an Aramaic form of the Hebrew word for skull."
" The proper writing and pronunciation of the word," says
Lightfoot, " had been Golgolta, but use had now brought
it to be uttered Golgotha." Some suppose it so called
from its resemblance to the shape of a skull — a little hill so
shaped;1 others, because it was the usual place of execu
tion. " They come to the place of execution commonly
called Golgotha, not the 'place of graves' but the place of
skulls ; where, though indeed there were some buried of
the executed, yet was it in such a manner that the place
deserved this name rather than the other." '
If the first interpretation ofthe name be taken, it is stUl
possible that it was the common place of execution. That it
was a well known spot, appears from the use ofthe article,
(Luke xxiU. 33 ; John xix. 17 ;) but it is doubtful whether
the Jews bad any one place set apart as a place of execu
tion ; * and if so, would a rich man Uke Joseph have had a
1 So Reland, Meyer, Alexander, Winer.
12 Lightfoot, iii. 164; so early, Jerome, locum decollatonm ; Greswell, iii
243; Ewald, v. 484.
3 See Kitto, Bib. Cyc, i. 779 ; Herzog's Cyk., v. 308.

560 THE LIFE OP OUE LOED.
garden there? If, then, we reject this, we may suppose
that the Lord was taken to the nearest convenient place in
the suburbs of the city. In regard to the epithet " mount,"
applied to Calvary, Robinson denies that Eusebius, or
Cyril, or Jerome, or any of the historians of the fourth or
fifth centuries, use it ; and ascribes its origin to the fact that
the rock of Golgotha was left in the midst of the large open
court, formerly the garden, on one side of which a BasUica
was erected. " From this rock or monticule of Golgotha
was doubtless derived the epithet 'mount' as applied to the
present Golgotha or Calvary." * According to WUlis, the
rock of Calvary was part of a httle swell of the ground
forming a somewhat abrupt brow on the west and south
sides. " This would afford a convenient spot for the place
of -pubUc execution. For the southwestern brow of the
rock has just sufficient elevation to raise the wretched suf
ferers above the gazing crowd, that would naturally ar
range itself below and upon the sloping ridge opposite." 3
We come now to the consideration of the topographical
question ; and as this has been most fully discussed by
Robinson in his " BibUcal Researches " on the one side, and
by Williams in his " Holy City " on the other, our references
wiU be chiefly to them. As we have seen, the place of cruci
fixion was without the city. The site of the Holy Sepulchre
is within the present city waU. If, therefore, the present
waU were the same that existed at the death of Jesus, this
site could not be the true one. But it is admitted that the
present wall is not the same ; and the point in dispute is,
Where did that wall stand? Josephus mentions three
waUs.3 With the first, buUt by David and Solomon, and
» i. 376, note 3.
3 Holy City, ii. 240. Ewald (v. 485, note) identifies it with "the hill.
Gareb," Jer. xxxi. 39 ; Lewin, (130,) following Krafft, with Goath : " In
the time of the prophets, Calvary appears to have been called Goath, and
was without the city." See p. 85, where Gareb is identified with Bezetha.
3 War, 5. 4. 2.

SITE OP THE SEPULCHRE. 561
embracing Mount Sion, and with the last, built by Agrippa
after Christ's death, we have no concern. The question
concerns only the position of the second wall, which began
at the gate Gennath in the first wall, and reached to An
tonia, encircling the northern part of the town. Did this
include or exclude the present church of the Holy Sepul-
chre? Into the intricate discussions respecting the position of
Aera, and ofthe valley of the Tyropoeon, it is not necessary
here to enter. Aera may be, as maintained by Robinson
and others, on the north side of Sion, and the vaUey of the
Tyropoeon Ue between it and Sion ; and yet the position of
the second waU be not thereby determined.1 To determine
the position of the second wall, Josephus gives us the two
termini — the gate Gennath in the first wall and the tower
Antonia ; and implies that it ran not in a straight line but
in a circle, kvkXov[H£vov Be to rrpoo-apKTwv KXip.a, &c, " en
circling the northern part." Where was the gate Genr
nath ? The name indicates that it was a gate leading to a
garden, or near one. By Robinson it is placed in the first
waU, near the tower Hippicus, which both Robinson and
WUliams agree to have been upon, or very near, the site of
the modern citadel El Kalah, not far south or southeast
from the present Jaffa gate.3 By others it is plaeed farther
to the east, near the Bazaars, which lie midway upon the •
street running from the Jaffa gate to the temple wall, and
close to the traditional "Iron Gate, (Acts xn. IO.)3 The
arguments upon either side are not conclusive ; nor which'
1 Much importance is, indeed, given by many in this controversy to the
exact locations of Aera and the Tyropoeon ; so Williams and Robinson.
Schaffter makes the whole controversy to turn upon it. Raumer, on the con-
¦trary, who agrees upon these points with Bobinson, does not find that they
decide the course of the second wall.
3 So Raumer. According to Lewin, this is not Hippicus but Phasaelus.
3 So Williams, Schaffter. Lewin puts it east ofthe three great towers of
Herod, and due south from the southwest corner of the Pool of Hezekiah.
24*

562 THE LIFE OP OUE LORD.
ever point be selected, does it decide the question ; since it
is admitted by Robinson, (i. 410,) that if the second waU
ran in a straight Une from Hippicus to Antonia, it would
leave the Holy Sepulchre without the city. StUl, the nearer
was this gate to Hippicus, the less the probabUity that it
ran east of the present sepulchre ; and the probabUity di
minishes as the northern terminus is carried westward. It
is however, to be noted that aU are not agreed as to the
position of Hippicus. Schwartz places it on a high rocky
bill, north of the so-caUed Grotto of Jeremiah; Fergusson
identifies it with the present Kasr Jalud; Bonar denies
that it is the citadel of David, but assigns no site.
As to the general position of Antonia, there is no
doubt. It was on the north of the temple area, and prob
ably on the northwest corner.1 Robinson, however, makes
it to have occupied the whole northern part of the present
Haram area. In this discussion tbe difference is unim
portant. With this knowledge of the termini, we now ask as to
the course of the waU. It was not straight, but curved.
Are there any ruins by which it may be traced ? Robinson
discovered in the present waU, at the Damascus gate, some
ancient remains, which he identifies with the guard houses
of a gate of the second waU ; and the identification is ac
cepted by WUliams. This narrows down the question to
the course of the waU from the gate Gennath to the Da
mascus gate. Are there any remains that indicate its posi
tion between these points ? West of the Damascus gate,
for about 300 feet, Robinson finds traces of an old wall,
which he supposes may be the ancient second wall.3 If cor
rect, this would remove its northern terminus so much
farther westward ; and here it is placed by WiUiams. Sim-
Uar remains have been found in an angle of the present
" Raumer, 389 ; Williams, 409. 3 So Wilson.

COURSE OP THE SECOND WALL. 563
wad, near the Latin Convent.1 If it is true that these re
mains mark the course of the second waU, it is apparent
that the present site of the sepulchre would be embraced
within it, and is thus disproved.
On the other side, Williams (ii. 51) finds remains of two
ancient gateways, as he supposes, of the second wall ; one
on the south side of ruins of the Hospital of St. John, and
another farther to the north, and known by tradition as
the " Porta Judicii," or Gate of Judgment. In these re
mains Robinson, however, finds no traces of the second
wall. Ofthe first he says, it may have been one of the piers
of a portal, but not more ancient than the hospital ; of the
second, that a single column furnishes no evidence of a
gateway ; and that the tradition respecting the Judgment
Gate goes no farther back than the end of the Crusades.3
All defenders of the present site of the sepulchre do not
admit, with WiUiams, that the present gate of Damascus is
a gateway of the second waU. Some make it to turn east
erly from the Gate of Judgment* to Antonia.'
The objection* to the present site, drawn from the fact
that the distance from it to the western waU of the Haram
area is less than a quarter of a mUe, thus making the city
much too smaU for the number of inhabitants, is of weight,
but not decisive, since we know that the ancient city ex
tended much farther south than the present."
Much stress bas been laid by some upon the fact that
within the present Church ofthe Sepulchre is a "rock-tomb,
formed long before the church was built, and which proba
bly belonged to an old Jewish sepulchre of an age prior to
the destruction of Jerusalem by tbe Romans." " " The ex
istence of these sepulchres," says Stanley, (452,) " proves,
1 Robinson, iii. 219 ; Porter, i. 109.
* See Schaffter, 46 ; Barclay, 226 ; Lewin, 119.
» See Raumer, 896 ; Lewin, Map. « Robinson, i. 410.
6 See Ritter, Theil xvi. 426. " Willis on Holy City, ii. 194.

564 THE LIFE OP OUE LOED.
almost to a certainty, that at some period the site of the
present church must have been outside the waUs of the
city ; and lends considerable probability to the belief that
the rock excavation, which perhaps exists in part stUl, and
certainly once existed entire, within the marble casing of
the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre, was at any rate a reaUy
ancient tomb, and not, as is often rashly asserted, a modern
structure intended to imitate it." The antiquity of this
rock-tomb is, however, denied by Robinson ; and if this
could be proved, he denies the conclusion that the second
waU must have been to the east of the sepulchre.
Into a consideration of the novel view propounded by
Fergusson, that the sepulchre was in the rock now under
the dome of the Mosque of Omar, and that this building is
the identical church erected by Constantine, we are not
called to enter. It is stated by himself, in Diet, of Bible,
i. 1018, &c, and rests mainly on architectural grounds.1
A new method of proving the genuineness of the pres
ent site was presented by .Finlay, " On the Site ofthe Holy
Sepulchre," 1847. He supposes that the Roman govern
ment had, from time to time, accurate surveys made of its
territories, and that " maps were constructed indicating not
only every loeaUty possessing a name, but so detailed that
every field was measured ; " and that this was done through
out the provinces. Thus it was in the power of Constan
tine to trace the garden of Joseph, from the day of the
crucifixion down, through its successive owners, and at any
time to identify it. He was therefore able to find it, even
though hidden under rubbish and covered over by the
temple of Venus. AU depends here upon the facts whether
such minute and accurate measurements were made at in
tervals; and if made, whether they had been preserved
1 For replies, see Williams, Holy City, ii. 90 ; Willis, same, ii. 196, note ;
Schaffter, 77 ; Robinson, iii. 263 ; Lewin, 146 ; Edinburgh Review, Oct.
1860. See also Fergusson's Answer to the Review, London, Murray, 1861.

SITE OP THE SEPULCHRE NOT FORGOTTEN. 565
from the day of the crucifixion to the reign of Constantine.
Either of these is intrinsicaUy improbable, and anything
like demonstrative proof seems to be wanting.1
We now come to the historical question. It is certain
that the places of crucifixion and burial must have been
known, not only to the disciples, but to the priests and
rulers, and to many ofthe inhabitants. It is in the highest
degree improbable that they could have been forgotten by
any who were witnesses of the Lord's death, or knew of
His resurrection. As the apostles, according to a commonly
received tradition, continued for a number of years after
this at Jerusalem, there could be no doubt that each site was
accurately known. Besides, the Evangehsts, writing from
twenty to fifty years after His death, mention distinctly
Golgotha and the garden. Down to the destruction of Je
rusalem by Titus, a. d. 70, there can be no question that
these places were well known. During the siege ofthe city,
most or aU ofthe Jewish Christians retired to PeUa, but they
seem soon to have returned.3 Was the city so destroyed
that the former site of the sepulchre could not be recog
nized ? This is not claimed by any one. Robinson (i. 366)
speaks of it as " a destruction terrible, but not total."
If, then, the site was known to the Jewish Christians
after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, it could not
well have been forgotten before its second destruction by
Hadrian, a. d. 136. Whether up to this period it had been
marked by any monument, does not appear. This is pos
sible, although we cannot believe, as assumed by Chateau
briand, that a church was erected upon it. That the city
was not wholly destroyed by Hadrian, and that the work
of rebuUding began immediately after the close of the war,
is historicaUy proved. It became in many respects a new
city, taking the name of Aelia Capitolina, by which it was
i So Williams, Holy City, ii. 66 ; contra, Schaffter, 56.
' Giesseler, i. 98.

566 THE LTPE OP OUR LORD.
generally known for many years. It was at this period
that the Jewish Christian Church at Jerusalem first elected
a GentUe bishop ; and Eusebius gives a list of his succes
sors, twenty-three in number, down to the time of Con
stantine.1 From this time, 136 to 324 a. d., a period of
about 190 years, we know nothing of the sepulchre except
what we learn from a statement of Eusebius, that impious
men had erected over it a temple to the goddess Venus, first
covering it with earth.3 When this temple was erected,
or by whom, we do not know. Jerome, at a later period,
speaks of a statue of Venus standing upon the spot, and
ascribes it to the time of Hadrian. That Hadrian erected
upon the site of the Jewish temple a temple to Jupiter, is
well known.3 It is then possible, at least, that at this time
a temple to Venus may have been also erected upon the
site ofthe sepulchre; tbe latter being in the eyes of the
Christians a sacred spot, as was the former in the eyes of
the Jews, and therefore both alike dishonored by the Ro
mans. How far the Roman government made a distinc
tion between the Jews and the Christians, is not clear ; but
that Hadrian was so friendly to the latter that he would
not erect a temple over the sepulchre, is not shown.4 But
whether erected by Hadrian or not, there seems no good
reason for doubting the statement of Eusebius. The objec
tion of Robinson, that his language implies that Constan
tine learned the site by immediate revelation, and that there
fore it could not have been previously known, is hypercriti
cal. Eusebius plainly means that the thought of braiding a
church over the sepulchre, was through divine impulse. This
had long been " given over to forgetfulness and oblivion "
in the purpose of its enemies ; it was buried out of sight,
and nothmg existed to bring it to mind as the place of the
Lord's burial ; but he does not say that it was actuaUy thus
1 Williams, i. 215. " Robinson, iii. 257 ; Williams, ii. 239.
3 Robinson, i. 370. * See Giesseler, i. 125.

GENUINENESS OP PRESENT SEPULCHRE. 567
forgotten. " In the days of Constantine not the least doubt
was entertained where the sepulchre was situate ; but the
only hesitation was, whether, by removing the temple, the
sepulchre itself could be recovered." '
That Constantine erected a church where the temple
of Venus stood, is admitted ; that this temple actually
stood on the site of the sepulchre, must rest upon the au
thority of Eusebius. This is supposed to find, some support
in the fact that a coin of Antoninus Pius contains a figure
of Venus standing in a temple with the inscription, c. a. c. :
Colonia AeUa Capitolina.3 The fables related by CyrU and
others, in connection with the Invention of the Cross, do by
no means show that the site of the sepulchre is fictitious.3
We cannot weU doubt, that if its true position was whoUy
unknown, and, for purposes of pious fraud, a new one was
to be selected, one would have been taken free from such
obvious topographical difficulties as encompass the present
site. In concluding this brief statement, it may be added
that, as the topographical argument now stands, it seems
to make against the genuineness of the present sepulchre.
Further excavations and researches may, however, whoUy
change the aspect of the question. The historical argu
ment in its favor has not yet been set aside. Modern
opinions are about equally divided. WhUe most of the
Roman Catholic writers defend its genuineness, some deny
it ; and on the other hand, many Protestants defend it.4
The next day, that which followed the day of prepara
tion, or the Sabbath, the chief priests and Pharisees came
1 Lewin, 155. 3 See Williams, i. 240.
3 See Winer, i. 437, note 6. Isaac Taylor (Ancient Christianity, ii. 277)
argues more forcibly than fairly that the whole was a stupendous fraud.
' Among those not already cited, who deny it, may be mentioned : Wilson,
Barclay, Bonar, Stewart, Arnold, Meyer, Ewald. Among those who defend
it : Tischendorf, Olin, Prime, Lange, Alford, Friedlieb, Lewin. Among those
who are undecided : Ritter, Raumer, Winer, Bartlett, Stanley, Ellicott.

568 THE LIPE OP OUR LORD.
to PUate, desiring that the door of the sepulchre might be
sealed, and a watch set, to prevent the disciples from steal
ing the body ; aUeging, as the ground of their fear, His
words, " After three days I wUl rise again." Whether the
request was made on the Sabbath itself, or upon the even
ing following, is uncertain.1
Meyer regards all this account as unhistorieal, chiefly
for the reason that the Pharisees could not have heard
Christ's predictions respecting His resurrection; or, at'
least, could not have thought them worthy of attention.
If the disciples did not understand or beheve these predic
tions, much less would His enemies. But this by no means
follows. He had openly spoken of His death and resurrec
tion to His disciples, (Matt. xvi. 21 ; xvii. 22, 23.) This
was then uninteUigible to them, because they truly be
lieved that He was the Christ ; and when He was actually
crucified, in their grief and despair all remembrance of His
words seems to have escaped them. To the Pharisees He
had spoken of the sign of the prophet Jonah as to be ful
filled in Himself, (Matt. xn. 40 ;) and now that He was
dead, they must have thought of its actual fulfilment.
Besides, it is scarce possible that they should not, through
some of the disciples, have heard of His words respecting
His resurrection spoken to them. Judas must have known
what his Lord said, and may have told the priests. They
were far too sagacious not to take precautions against all
possible contingencies. Even if they did not beheve His
resurrection possible, and had no faith in His words, still it
was wise to guard against the stealing ofthe body. But it
is not certain that they did not fear that He would rise.
Did they not know of the resurrection of Lazarus ? and
might not He who then bade the dead arise, Himself come
' For Ihe former, Friedlieb ; for the latter, Alford. Bucher puts it on the
evening following the crucifixion, or the beginning of the Sabbath ; so
Jones.

GUARDING OP THE SEPULCHRE. 569
forth ? In their state of mind, to seal the stone and set
the watch was a very natural precaution.
But why was not the body at once taken charge of by
the Pharisees, and not dehvered into the hands of His dis
ciples ? Very hkely the request of Joseph for the body
was something unknown and unexpected to them ; but as
it was given to him by permission of PUate, they could not
interfere. It was of no importance in what sepulchre it
was placed, provided it was secure ; and doubtless they
knew that it was in the sepulchre ere they sealed the stone.
When the stone was sealed, is not said : many suppose,
upon the evening foUowing the crucifixion. " They went
to PUate that same evening, which now no longer belonged
to Friday, but formed part of the Sabbath." ] But let us
suppose, with Alford, that it " was done in the evening
after tbe termination of the Sabbath." This delay presents
no real difficulty. " The prediction of our Lord was that
He would rise the third day ; and tUl it was approaching
they would give themselves no concern about His body.
The absence of it from the tomb before the commencement
of that day, would rather falsify the prediction than show
the truth of it." 3 Perhaps they relied on the sanctity of
the Sabbath as a sufficient preventive against His disciples,
and thought no guard necessary till the day was past.
Perhaps they supposed at first that with His death all cause
of apprehension had vanished, and that afterward they be
gan to reflect, and this step occurred to them. Of course
it was in itself whoUy unimportant when the stone was seal
ed, provided only that the body was then there.
That the account is given by Matthew only, is readily
explained from the fact that he wrote specially for the
Jews, among whom the report of stealing the body had
been put in circulation. It was omitted by Mark and Luke,
who wrote for another class of readers.3
> Michaelis on Resurrection, 100 ; so McKnight, Bucher.
i Townson, 93. 3 See Michaelis on Resurrection, 98.

PART VII.
FROM THE RESURRECTION TO THE ASCENSION; OR FROM
SUNDAY, 9th APRIL, (17th NISAN,) TO THURSDAY, MAY
18th, 783. A. D. 30.

Sunday, 17th Nisan, 9th Aprtl.

As the day began to dawn there was a great
earthquake ; and an angel of the Lord, descending,
rolled away the stone from the door ofthe sepulchre,
and sat upon it. For fear of him, the soldiers be
came as dead men. Immediately after came Mary
Magdalene, and other women, to embalm the body.
As they approach the sepulchre, Mary Magdalene,
beholding the stone rolled away, and supposing that
the body had been removed by the Jews, runs to find
Peter and John, to inform them. The other women
proceed to the sepulchre, and there meet an angel,
(or angels,) who tells them of the Lord's resurrec
tion, and gives them a message to the disciples.
Soon after they had departed, Peter and John,
who had heard the story of Mary Magdalene, come
in haste to see what had occurred ; and Mary follows
them. Entering the sepulchre, they find it empty,
and the grave clothes lying in order ; and John then
believes. They leave the tomb to return, but Mary
remains behind weeping. Looking into the sepul
chre, she sees two angels, and immediately after, the

Matt, xxviii. 2-4.

Matt, xxviii. 1.
Mare xvi. I.
Luke xxiv. 1.
John xx. 1, 2.
Mark xvi. 2-8.
Luke xxiv. 2-8.
Matt, xxviii. 5-8
John xx. 3-10.
Luke xxiv. 12 & 24.

John xx. 11-18.

JESUS THE RISEN ONE. 571
Lord appears to her, and gives her a message to bear Matt, xxviii. 9,10.
to the disciples. The accounts of the women seem Maek xvi. 9-11.
to the disciples as idle tales, and are not believed. Luke xxiv. 9-11.
Upon the return of the soldiers from the sepulchre
into the city, the priests and elders, learning what Matt, xxviii. 11-15.
had taken place, bribe them to spread the report
that the disciples had stolen the body away.
In our attempts to put in order the events from the
resurrection to the ascension, it is necessary to bear con
stantly in mind that the Lord now appears under new
physical conditions. Up to His death He had been under
tbe usual limitations of our humanity. Now He is the Risen
One. Without entering into any inquiries as to the nature
of His body after the resurrection, it is certain that it was in
many respects unlike what it had been before. During this
period of forty days, He came and went, appeared and dis
appeared, in a most mysterious and inscrutable manner.
He passes, seemingly in an instant, from place to place ; He
is seen by His disciples, and converses with them, and yet
is not recognized ; ' He enters the room where they are as
sembled while the doors are shut. Hence, in examining the
narrative of His various appearances during this period, we
must remember that He is no more under the ordinary
laws of nature ; and that we are in the highest sense in the
region of the supernatural. Also the angels, of whose
modes of existence we know so little, now appear as His at
tendants, and manifest themselves from time to time to the
disciples. Before attempting to form a connected and complete
narrative, let us examine the statements of the several
Evangelists separately, and critically compare them with
each other. We begin with John. This Evangelist men
tions that early on the first day of the week, when it was
yet dark, Mary Magdalene came to the sepulchre. He
speaks of her only, but his silence respecting others is no

572 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
certain proof that she was alone. Incidental evidence that
others were with her, is found in the use of the plural,
(xx. 2,) " We know not where they have laid Him." 1 How
many constituted the party, must be learned from the Syn
optists. Seeing the stone taken away from tbe door ofthe
sepulchre, she naturaUy supposed that the body of Jesus
had been removed by the Jews ; and in her alarm, without
entering it, runs to announce the fact to Peter and John.
It is not said where she found them ; but hearing her mes
sage, they hasten with aU speed to the tomb, and entering
it, see that it is empty, except the linen clothes and napkin.
It is said by John of himself, (v. 8,) " And he saw, and be
Ueved." By mapy this is understood as meaning no more
than that he believed what Mary had said about the re
moval ofthe body;3 but this is inconsistent with the gen
eral use of this word by John, and with the context, which
clearly implies that he believed that Jesus was risen.3 The
two apostles return home, or go to find others of their
number. Mary Magdalene, who had followed them back
to the sepulchre, remains to weep. Bending down and
looking into it, but not entering it, she sees two angels,
who address her, asking why she weeps. Absorbed in her
grief, she does not seem to have noticed the strangeness of
their appearance in such a place, and hastily answers them.
Turning backward she sees Jesus, but supposes Him to be
the gardener, and not tiU He calls her by name is He recog
nized. His words, (v. 17,) "Touch me not, for I am not
yet ascended to my Father," seem to point to some move
ment on her part to embrace Him, which He forbids.
(See Matt. xxvUi. 9.) He then gives her a message to His
brethren ; and she, returning to the disciples, told them of
all that had occurred. Townson (121) regards this mes-
1 Compare v. 13, where the singular is used ; so Norton, Luthardt,
Stier. 3 Ebrard, Stier, Newcome. 3 Townson, Luthardt, Robinson.

THE WOMEN AT THE SEPULCHRE! 573
sage, which is very unlike that given by Matthew, (xxviii.
10,) as a voucher to the apostles that Mary Magdalene had
actuaUy seen Him, for He had spoken these very words to
them on the evening before His death, (John xvi. 16, 17.)
Hearing them repeated from her lips, they could not doubt
that He had appeared to her ; but, notwithstanding this,
her testimony was not at first believed, (Mark xvi. 11.)
This narrative presents several questions that demand
examination. Was this appearance to Mary Magdalene the
first after Christ's resurrection ? Was she alone when He
appeared to ber ? With what intent had she gone to the
sepulchre ? These questions wUl be answered as we exam
ine the accounts of the Synoptists.
Matthew's account of the resurrection stands in close
connection witb what he had said of the burial, and of the
guarding of the sepulchre. He wishes to show how aU the
efforts of the Pharisees " to make the sepulchre sure," by
setting a watch and sealing tbe stone, were made of no
effect by the mighty power of God. He sends His angel,
and the guards become as dead men ; the seal is broken,
and the stone rolled away. Let us examine his narrative
in detaU. ,
The two women, "Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary," who were left on Friday evening "sitting over
against the sepulchre," now reappear at the dawning ofthe
first day of the week, going " to see the sepulchre." Were
these two alone ? If we turn to the other Evangelists, we
find that Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary mother
of James, and Salome. Luke mentions Mary Magdalene,
Mary mother of James, and Joanna, "and other with
them.". John mentions Mary Magdalene only. What shall
we conclude from these discrepancies? Do the Evangel
ists speak in general terms, giving the names of certain
prominent members only ofthe party, without designing to
enumerate aU ; or do they refer to two or more distinct

574 THE LIFE OP OUE LORD.
parties, who visited the sepulchre at different times ? The
former is much the more probable. A scrupulous exact
ness in regard to the number of the persons witnesses of an
event, is by no means characteristic of the Gospels. The
Evangelists do not write as men who are fearful that their
statements will be discredited, and therefore anxious to
confirm them by heaping up evidence. Each uses the facts
connected with the visit of the women to the sepulchre in
such manner as wiU best serve the purpose of his special
narrative. How many women went, and who they were —
circumstances important indeed in a court of justice — were
to them a minor matter, not at aU affecting the central fact
of the resurrection, which was estahhshed by quite other
evidence. Each Evangelist mentions certain ofthe women
by name, and passes by others : the grounds of this mention
and sUence are not known to us, but in no degree affect
the truth of the narrative. John mentions Mary Magda
lene only ; but this does not exclude others ; and her lan
guage, as has been said, plainly implies that others were
present. Matthew had spoken of Mary Magdalene and
Mary mother of James as being at the tomb on Friday
evening; and he now mentions the same two as going
thither on Sunday morning. These two Mark also had
mentioned as at the burial ; and he now adds to them Sa
lome. Luke had spoken in general ofthe women from Gali
lee, as beholding how the body was laid ; and now men
tions by name Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary
mother of James; and adds, "and other women that were
with them."
We conclude, then, that ofthe Gahlean women, or those
who came up with the Lord from GalUee, and whose number
seems to have been considerable, aU, or certainly most of
them, came on the morning ofthe first day ofthe week to
assist in embalming the body. That four are mentioned by
name, is very probably owing to the fact that they were

DESCENT OP THE ANGEL AND EARTHQUAKE. 575
especially prominent. Whether all came together to tbe
sepulchre, does not appear ; but it is more likely that they
lodged in different places, and met near the tomb by agree
ment. Matthew speaks ofthe two Marys as coming "to see the
sepulchre ; " John does not mention the object for which
Mary Magdalene came ; but Luke and Mark speak of the
women as coming to anoint the body. Beyond question,
this was the chief object. Affection, or a melancholy curi
osity, might indeed have led them to wish to behold where
the Lord was laid ; but here was a duty to be performed
of a most sacred character. That Matthew passes by in
sUence the facts that Nicodemus brought spices on Friday,
and that the women brought more on Sunday morning, is
explained from the scope of his narrative. In pursuance of
his purpose to show how vain were aU the precautions of
the priests and Pharisees, in sealing the stone and setting a
watch, he relates, and he only, that there was a great earth
quake ; for an angel, descending from heaven, rolled back
the stone from the door and sat upon it ; and for fear of
him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. The
connection between the descent of the angel and roUing
away of the stone, and of the resurrection of the Lord,, is
not defined. It was the general opinion ofthe fathers, that
He rose and left the tomb before tbe stone was rolled
away ; the object of this act by the angel being, not to give
the Lord a way of exit, but to open the way for the women
to enter. There is no indication that the soldiers saw
Jesus as He left the sepulchre, and their terror is expressly
ascribed to the sight of the angel. StUl, the general tenor
of the narrative makes on us the impression that the Lord
did leave the sepulchre at the time when the stone was roUed
back, even if the act of revivification was some time earUer.
Whether. by the "earthquake," o-eio7*os, we are to un
derstand a literal earthquake, has been questioned. Some

576 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
would refer it to the confusion, or commotion, which the
sudden appearance of the angel made among the soldiers
keeprag watch ; others to the shock made by the rolling
away of the stone, which was very great ; others to a tem
pest, or tempest and earthquake. If, however, as is most
probable, it was a literal earthquake, it is doubtful whether
it was felt throughout the city ; for such an event, taken in
connection with what occurred at the crucifixion, could
scarce have passed unnoticed by the disciples. " The first
earthquake," says Stier, " extended all over Jerusalem to
the temple and graves ; the second only moves the stone
in Joseph's garden, and scares the guards away."
It has been inferred by some, from Matt, xxviii. 2-5,
that the descent ofthe angel, and rolling away ofthe stone,
were after the women had reached the sepulchre. " ' Be
hold there was,' " says Alford, " must mean that the women
were witnesses ofthe earthquake, and that which foUowed."'
But the language does not compel us to this conclusion ;
and indeed the more natural interpretation is, that these
events had taken place while they were on their way, or
just before their arrival.3 That Mary Magdalene saw this
angel, and the rolUng away of the stone, and the opening
ofthe sepulchre, is not consistent with John xx. 1, 2. She
obviously saw no more than that the door was open, and
was afraid that the Jews had taken the body away. It
may be questioned whether any of the women approached
the sepulchre so long as the angel, in that terrible glory
with which he affrighted the keepers, was- stUl sitting upon
the stone. (Compare Mark xvi. 5 and Luke xxiv. 4.)
Whether the keepers had departed ere the women came, is
uncertain. On the one hand, the angel's address to the latter,
v. 5, " Fear not ye," where the " ye " is emphatic, impUes
1 So Meyer.*
» " There was (ryectTo) a great earthquake," is translated by Campbell
and Norton, " there had been," Ac. See De Wette in loco. Ellicott supposes
that " they beheld it partially, and at a distance."

THE ANGEL APPEARS TO THE WOMEN. 577
their presence ; yet, on the other hand, they would hardly
have approached the door if they had seen the Roman
soldiers. Mark says that the women " entering into the sepulchre,
saw a young man sitting on the right side." Did they see
two angels, one without and one within ? This is affirmed
by GresweU, and also that each addressed them in the same
terms. But this is intrinsically improbable. There is
nothing in Matthew's narrative that forbids us to suppose
that tbe angel, whose first appearance had special reference
to the soldiers and the opening of the door, was not seen
by the women at all till they were about to enter, or had
actually entered, the sepulchre. Then he addresses them,
and invites them " to come and see the place where the
Lord lay." It may be that the sepulchre had a porch or
entrance, from which aU the interior could be seen. " There
is no aUusion in the Scripture to a vestibule or outer cave ;
but, on the other hand, there is nothing to contradict its
existence ; and the common arrangement of the Jewish
sepulchres make it probable that there was one." J
The mention of the two angels by Luke (xxiv. 4) wUl
be considered when his account comes before us.
After receiving the message, Matthew adds that the
women "departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear
and great joy : and did run to bring His disciples word."
This is seemingly at variance with Mark's statement, (xvi>
8,) that " They went out quickly and fled from the sepul
chre, for they trembled and were amazed; neither said
they any thing to any man, for they were afraid." Alford
affirms that the two accounts cannot be reconcUed. But
the discrepancy is more apparent than real. According to.
1 Willis in Holy City, ii. 196 ; see Townson, 80; Lichtenstein, 466. The
distinction sometimes taken between iwrtpeiov and ra<pos — the former as.the
name of the whole sepulchre, including the porch or anteroom ; the latter
as the place where the body was deposited — does not seem well supported.
25

578 THE -LIFE OP OUE LOED.
Mark, the women were afraid and amazed, or, more literaUy,
" trembling and ecstasy held them ; " a form of expression
nearly paraUel to Matthew's, " with fear and great joy."
They said nothing to any one. What does this mean ?
That they never told any one what they had seen ? This
is contrary to Luke xxiv. 9, and intrinsicaUy improbable.
The obvious meaning is, that they did not teU it to any one
but the disciples. They said nothing to the strangers whom
they met by the way, but hastened to find those for whom
their message was intended. That on finding the apostles
they continued sUent, is neither imphed in the narrative,
nor supported by the circumstances of the case. No such
overpowering fear seized them at the sight of the angel as
seized the keepers, and yet the latter, speedily recovering
themselves, went to the city and showed to the priests aU
that had been done.
Matthew adds, (vs. 9, 10,) "Behold Jesus met them,
saying, All haU.1 And they came, and held Him by the
feet, and worshipped Him. Then said Jesus unto them,
Be not afraid : go, tell my brethren that they go into GaU
lee, and there shall they see me." When, and with whom,
was this interview ? Apparently the Lord met the women
as they were going from the sepulchre into the city to find
the disciples. But this has been often questioned. New-
come, and many, suppose that the women bore to the dis
ciples the message of the angel, (v. 7,) and then returned
to the tomb, and that upon their second departure Jesus
appeared to them.3 GresweU puts this meeting several
days after the day of the resurrection. Rejecting these
constructions as forced, we hold to the obvious tenor of
1 The received text has, " And as they went to tell His disciples," &a.,
but this clause is omitted by Tischendorf; so Alford and Meyer.
3 See Ellicott, 390, note, who says : " After the delivery ofthe first tidings
to the apostles, they directed their steps back again to the sepulchre, and
that it was on their way there that the Lord vouchsafed to appear to
them."

TO WHOM JESUS FIRST APPEARS. 579
the narrative, and place this meeting whUe the women were
returning from tbe sepulchre, soon after the vision of the
angel. But who were these women? Apparently Mary
Magdalene and tbe other Mary. Were there then two
appearances the same morning to Mary Magdalene ; or, are
this and that mentioned by John (xx. 14-18) one and the
same ? The point is one of importance, and needs careful
examination. WhUe from John's language it would appear that Mary
Magdalene visited the sepulchre alone, from the Synoptists
it appears that she was accompanied, by others. Leaving
these, she ran to caU Peter and John, and foUowed them
back to the sepulchre ; and here Jesus appeared to her.
Was she now alone ? This is the natural construction of
the language. Every circumstance indicates that she alone
saw him. This is confirmed by Mark's words, (xvi. 9,) "He
appeared first to Mary Magdalene." If she had not been
alone, this could not have been said. Taking then as cer
tain that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and that
no others were present, can the account of Matthew be
referred to this appearance ? We have seen that the men
tion of the two, Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of
James, does not show that others did not accompany them
to the tomb. If Mary Magdalene separated herself from
this party, and, returning to the sepulchre after the others
had left it, then beheld Jesus, could Matthew speak of it
in the general terms which he uses ? From his words it
would appear that more than one were present. The plural
is used throughout : " ye," " they," " them " ; but this is
not conclusive, since we may say, with Krafft, that the
plural is here rather a generic than a numerical designation.
Also, tbe circumstances mentioned by Matthew seem in
many points unUke those mentioned by John, both as to
the place where Jesus appeared, the words which He spake,
and the demeanor and language of the women. StUl, the

580 THE LIFE OP OUE LOED.
tenor of the narrative leads us to the result that Matthew
states in general what John gives in detaU. The purpose
of the latter leads him to give special prominence through
out his Gospel to the words of Jesus ; and His words here
to Mary Magdalene are of pecuhar interest, and are there
fore recorded. The former, whose account is adapted to
meet the report current among the Jews, that the disciples
had stolen the body away, contents himself with saying
generaUy that the Lord first appeared to certain women,
and that they held Him by the feet and worshipped Him.
The important facts in Matthew's account are, that to the
women a vision of angels appeared, announcing the Lord's
resurrection; and that afterward the Lord himself appeared
to them. How many there were of the women, and whether
the two whom he mentions as having seen the angels, saw
also the Lord, are but incidental and unimportant circum
stances. We conclude then that, although a number of women
visited the sepulchre, and several of them saw the angels,
or an angel, to Mary Magdalene alone did Jesus himself
appear. We thus make the accounts of Matthew and John
refer to the same event.1
There are some, who, making two appearances of the
Lord to the women, attempt to avoid the difficulty that,
according to Matthew, the women must have reached the
disciples before Mary Magdalene returned to the sepulchre,
and therefore could not have seen Jesus at this time, by
denying that the first appearance was to Mary Magdalene,
as is generally assumed. It is said that the words of Mark,
(xvi. 9,) "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of
the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene," do not
mean that His first appearance, absolutely speaking, was to
her, but that the first of the appearances related by Mark
was to her. It is remarked by Robinson3 : " Mark narrates
1 So Lightfoot, Krafft, Lichtenstein, Wieseler, Da Costa.
- Har. 232.

JESUS FIRST SEEN BY MART MAGDALENE. 581
three, and only three, appearances of our Lord; of these three
that to Mary Magdalene takes place first, and that to the
assembled disciples the same evening occurs last." Thus
interpreted, the Lord may have appeared first of all to, the
women departing from the sepulchre, and then, a few
minutes later, to Mary Magdalene. But the great body
of commentators interpret Mark's words as referring to
His first appearance to any one after His resurrection.1
In immediate connection witb the departure of the
women to announce the resurrection to His friends, Mat
thew relates tbe departure of the soldiers to announce it
to His enemies. The latter incident wiU be considered by
and by.
From Matthew's narrative we turn to that of Mark.3
The main points in which the two differ have been already
noticed, but Mark adds some interesting particulars. The
subject of conversation with the women as they approach
the sepulchre, is, how the stone shall be rolled away ; but
advancing, they see that it is already rolled away.3 In men
tioning the fact that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magda
lene, Mark adds, " out of whom He had cast seven devils."
This may be to designate her in distinction from others,
but more probably is explanatory of the high honor that
was given her. Her faith had been great, and here was
her reward.
We turn now to Luke. He had related (xxiii. 55, 56)
1 So West, Greswell, Newcome, Krafft, Ellicott, Wieseler ; Alexander is
undecided. 3 Many regard the latter portion ofthe sixteenth chapter of this Evangelist,
vs. 9-20, as not his own, but as added by another at a later period ; so Tisch
endorf, Alford, Meyer. Some, as Ebrard, make it a later addition of Mark
himself. Alexander defends the present conclusion as the original one of the
Evangelist. 3 Lewin (159) infers from the narratives that the stone was a large circu
lar one, moving in a groove, cut laterally in the front of the sepulchre. A
specimen of this kind of stone door is still to be seen at the " Tombs of the
Kings," at Jerusalem.

582 THE LIFE OP OUE LOED.
that the women which came with Jesus from GalUee, fol
lowed His body to the tomb, and beheld the sepulchre, and
how the body was laid. Returning, they prepared spices
and ointments, and, resting the Sabbath, went early the
next morning, (xxiv. 1,) taking the spices they had pre
pared.1 The names of these women were, (v. 10,) Mary
Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary mother of James ; but others
were with them, whose names are not mentioned.2 In what
relation does this visit stand to that of Matthew and Mark?
Some have supposed them to be wholly distinct.3 It is
said that there were two parties of women ; the first of
which consisted of the two Marys and Salome, the second
of Joanna and others, among whom was probably Susanna.
In proof that there were two parties, several points of dif
ference in the narrations of Matthew and Mark on the one
hand, and of Luke on tbe other, are made prominent :
1st. That, according to the former, the women prepared
their spices after the Sabbath ; according to the latter, be
fore the Sabbath. 2d. That, according to the former, they
saw but one angel ; according to the latter, they saw two ;
and also that the angelic messages are unlike. 3d. That,
according to the latter, Peter, hearing the report of the
women, runs to the sepulchre; but of this the former
makes no mention.
Before considering these points of difference, let us note
the character of Luke's narrative. Is he giving a particu
lar account of what happened to a certain party or number
of women ; or is he summing up what happened to the
women generaUy, without distinction of parties or indi
viduals ? The latter is most probable. If, as is claimed,
1 Tischendorf omits, " And certain with them," which is in the received
text ; so Alford.
3 The form of expression, ai Konrat, seems to embrace all the Galilean
women. 3 West, 50 ; Greswell, iii. 264.

CHARACTER OP LUKE'S NARRATIVE. 583
there were two distinct parties, what happened to one did
not to the other ; and the account here must refer to one
party only. But if this relates merely to what Joanna and
her companions saw and heard, why is the name of Mary
Magdalene mentioned ? She was not present with them,
and did not see these angels, or hear their message. The
mention of her name shows that Luke is giving a summary
of what occurred, a general statement of the facts, without
distinction of witnesses. A number of women go to the
sepulchre; find the stone rolled away, and the tomb empty;
are in. perplexity to know what has become of the body;
see a vision of angels, who give them a message ; return
and tell the disciples, and are not believed, only Peter and
others (see xxiv. 24) go to see for themselves : this is the
substance of Luke's narrative. It is an outline of what
occurred in the early part of the day to the women, but
without entering into any details. Why be omits all men
tion of the fact that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene,
and narrates His appearance to the two disciples on then-
way to Emmaus, as if it were the first, we can but conjec
ture. That he does not mention it here, may be explained
as springing from the scope of the narrative, which repre
sents that the two disciples, leaving the city before the ap
pearance to her was known, had heard only of the angeUc
announcement that He was alive.
If this be a correct view of Luke's narrative, all the
supposed discrepancies between him on the one side, and
Matthew and Mark on the other, are readily removed.
The first, in regard to the time of the preparation of the
spices, has already been considered. The second, in regard
to the number of angels, finds its explanation in the fact
that if the women in Matthew and Mark saw but one, ac
cording to John, Mary Magdalene saw two ; and Luke
gives the greater number. He simply says that " two men
stood by them (eTrecfryo-av) in shining garments," but with-

584 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD.
out any detaUs. The message given by them is substan-
tially the same in the three Evangelists. The third, in re
gard to the running of Peter to the sepulchre, is a brief
statement of the same fact that John (xx. 3, 4) relates more
at length. That Luke was aware that Peter was not alone
appears from v. 24 : " And certain of them which were with
us, went to the sepulchre." There is no necessity to say, as
West and Townson do, that Luke refers to another and
later visit.
No notice has yet been taken of the time when these
various events are said by the several Evangelists to have
taken place. For the sake of convenience we bring to
gether here their statements. Our main inquiry concerns
the time when the women first visited the sepulchre. In
Matthew, (xxviii. 1,) it is spoken of as " In the end of the
Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week."1 As the Sabbath ended at sunset, this may be
understood, as by Patritius, of its last hours, or those just
before sunset.3 But most agree that the natural day, com
mencing at sunrise and ending at sunset, is spoken of; and
that the coming of the women was at the dawn of the day
following the Sabbath.3 Mark (xvi. 2) says : " And very early
in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the
sepulchre, at the rising of the sun," avareiXavros rov ^Aiou.
Luke (xxiv. 1) says: "Now upon the first day ofthe
week, very early in the morning, op&pov fiaOeos, they came,"
&c. John (xx. 1) says: "The .first day of the week com
eth Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark," 7rpojt,
o-Karias en ovo-ys. Let us note the exact force of each
of these statements. "The beginning of the dawn," in
1 This is translated by Greswell : " Now late in the week, at the hour of
dawn, against the first day ofthe week." By Norton: " And the Sabbath
being over, in the dawn ofthe first day' of the week."
3 See Luke xxiii. 54, where the Greek term emfwo-Kw is the same.
3 See Alford and Meyer in loco.

TIME OP VISITING THE SEPULCHRE. 585
Matthew, was about 5 o'clock a. m., it being then early in
April.1 The " very early " of Mark is somewhat indefinite.
If irpoi be taken here as in xui. 35, for the "morning
watch," it would embrace 3-6 a. m. ; if used indefinitely,
it denotes simply the early morning. Taken in connection
with Xtav, " very," as here, it is parallel to the " day dawn "
of Matthew, or " while it was yet dark " of John.
But bow can this be reconciled with that further note
of time which Mark gives, " at the rising of the sun," or
" the sun having arisen " ? If both expressions be strictly
taken, the Evangehst is inconsistent with himself.3 Various
solutions have been proposed. Townsend would make a
period at sepulchre, and connect the " rising of the sun "
with the clause following, making it to read: "At the
rising of tbe sun they said among themselves," &c. But
this is indefensible. West, (42,) followed by Greswell,
would make the women to have reached the sepulchre at
the rising of the sun, but to have left their homes much
earlier. This, however, does not meet the difficulty,
the verb " they came " being qualified by both marks of
time. Ewald (vi. 73, note) regards " at the rising of the
sun " an addition to the original Gospel. This is to cut
the knot. Newcome would change the reading, but with
out authority. But, in truth, no solution is necessary.
It is most unreasonable to suppose that Mark should not
know what he designed to say, and contradict himself in
the compass of a single sentence. He evidently speaks in
general terms. If, then, " very early " be understood as
the dawning day, as is most probable, the phrase " at the
rising of the sun " denotes the same period which we des
ignate as the sun-rising, or that period from the first il
lumination of the sky till the sun is above the horizon.3
1 Winer, ii. 560. ' So Meyer, Alford.
3 See Robinson, Har. 230, who cites several passages from the Old Testa
ment in which a like form of expression is used : Judges ix. 33 ; Psalms eiv.
22 ; 2 Kings iii. 22. So Hengstenberg and Alexander.
25*

586 THE LD7E OP OUR LORD.
Thus Mark is both in harmony with himself, and with. the
other Evangelists. The " very early in the morning " of
Luke, the early morning twiUght, or deep dawn, is plainly
identical with " the dawning " of Matthew, and the " very
early " of Mark. The " early " of John is more exactly
defined by the addition " when it was yet dark," or before
it was yet clear day. It was at least sufficiently hght for
Mary Magdalene to see that the stone was roUed away.
Thus it appears that tbe only discrepancy in regard to
the time of the women's visiting the sepulchre, arises from
Mark's statement that they came " at the rising of the
sun." If this phrase should be pressed' to the letter, as
skeptical critics for the most part do, he would not only
contradict himself, but also the statement of John that
Mary Magdalene came " whUe it was yet dark." It should,
however, be noted, that some interval must have elapsed
between the departure ofthe women from their homes and
their arrival at the sepulchre, and that the Evangelists may
speak of one or the other period without special discrim
ination. We may, without violence, take Mark's expression in
the large sense, as embracing the whole period from early
dawn till actual sunrising. The women, however early
they may have left their homes, could scarcely expect to
begin their work of embalming the body till it was broad
daylight. Lightfoot (on Mark xvi. 2) mentions a fourfold
distinction of twilight among the Rabbins: 1st. "The
hind of the morning, or first appearance of Ught." 2d.
"When one may distinguish between purple color and
white." 3d. "When the east begins to lighten." 4th.
" Sunrise." He would apply these four periods to the state
ments of the four Evangelists — the first to Matthew, the
second to John, the third to Luke, the fourth to Mark.
There seem no good grounds for this.
AU the Evangelists imply that the Lord's resurrection

DIFFERING ARRANGEMENTS OF HARMONISTS. 587
was very early, for the women find the sepulchre empty;
but none give any note of time except Mark (xvi. 9 :) " Now
when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week," &c.
Here it is seen that Mark speaks only indefinitely, for the
Lord arises " early," wpou, whilst the women came " very
early," Xiav n-puu. Some, however, would make this define
the time when the Lord appeared to Mary.1
This examination ofthe several narratives shows us how
many of the data are wanting which are necessary to' enable
us to form a regular, harmonious, and complete history of
this eventful morning. Each of the Evangehsts gives us
some particulars which the others omit, but no one of them
aims to give us a fuU and connected account ; and for us
to supply tbe missing Unks in the chain, is impossible. To
a superficial examination there seem many discrepancies,
not to say contradictions, but a thorough investigation
shows that the points of real difference are very few ; and
that in several ways even these differences may be removed.
WhUst thus we cannot say of any order which we can
frame that it is certain, we can say of several that they are
probable ; and if they cannot be proved, neither can they
be disproved. This is sufficient for him who finds in the
moral character of the Gospels the highest vouchers for
their historic truth.
To bring before the reader some of the many possible
arrangements of these events, and to show what the special
difficulties in the way of the harmonist are, we select the
following, which have found many adherents. It wiU be
noted that the point which chiefly determines the order, is
whether Jesus appeared once or twice to the women. We
begin with —
Lightfoot. 1. Earthquake, and resurrection of Christ.
2i Visit of Mary Magdalene and other women to the tomb,
which they reach just as the sun is up. They are told
1 See Meyer in loco.

588 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
of His resurrection by the angels, and go back to the dis
ciples. 3. Peter and John go to the sepulchre, foUowed by
Mary Magdalene. They return, and she remains'. 4. Christ
appears to her, and she takes Him for tbe gardener. She
afterward embraces His feet, kissing them. Thus Matthew
xxviii. 9 and John xx. 14 refer to the same appearance.
Lardner. 1. The women, with Mary Magdalene, go to
the sepulchre and find it empty. 2. Mary, with others, goes
to the apostles Peter and John. 3. They come to the tomb,
and then return home. 4. Mary Magdalene and the others
follow tbe two apostles back to the tomb, and remain there
after Peter and John are gone. 5. Jesus appears to them
aU there. 6. Mary Magdalene and the others go and an
nounce all to the disciples. 7. Jesus appears to the two
disciples. 8. He appears to Peter. 9. He appears to the
Eleven. Here, also, the appearance to Mary Magdalene
mentioned by John, and that to the two Marys mentioned
by Matthew, are made the same.
West. 1. The two Marys and Salome visit the tomb,
the angel having before rolled away the stone, and the
guards being gone. 2. Mary Magdalene, seeing the stone
rolled away, runs to find Peter and John. 3. Mary, mother
of James, and Salome, remaining, see an angel, and receive
his message. Greatly terrified, they depart. 4. Peter and
John visit the sepulchre, and depart. 5. Mary Magdalene,
having followed them, sees the two angels, and then the
Lord himself. 6. The Lord appears to the other Mary and
Salome. 7. Joanna and her party of women come to the
sepulchre, see two angels, and hear from them that Jesus
is risen. They depart and announce to the disciples that
they had seen a vision of angels. 8. Peter runs a second
time to the sepulchre, but sees only the linen clothes. 9.
The two disciples having heard the report of Joanna and
her party, set out for Emmaus. Here the appearances
mentioned by John and Matthew are distinguished.

DIFFERING ARRANGEMENTS OP HARMONISTS. 589
Townson. 1. The two Marys and Salome go to the
tomb, and whUe they are on the way the angel descends
and rolls away the stone. They reach it at the rising of
the sun. 2. Mary Magdalene goes for Peter and John.
3. The other Mary and Salome enter the porch of the
sepulchre, see an angel, receive his message, and depart in
great fear. 4. Peter and John come and visit the tomb.
5. Mary Magdalene returns and sees first the angels, and
then the Lord. 6. Mary Magdalene departing, faUs in with
the other Mary and Salome, and to them together Jesus
appears the second time. 7. Joanna and ber party now
come, and, entering the tomb, see two angels. They return,
and confirm to the disciples what the other women had
already reported. 8. Peter goes a second time to the
sepulchre, and finds only the clothes. 9. The two disciples
set out for Emmaus. 10. The Lord appears to Peter.
Here are made two successive appearances to Mary Mag
dalene : first when alone, second to her in company with the
other Mary.
Newcome. 1. The two Marys, Salome, Joanna, and
others, go to the sepulchre, and, finding the stone removed,
enter the tomb. Two angels appear to them, and one
gives them a message. 2. They return to Jerusalem, and
Mary Magdalene communicates the message to Peter and
John, and the other women to the other disciples. 3. Pe
ter and John go to the sepulchre, and return. 4. The two
disciples, having heard the report of the women and of
Peter and John, depart for Emmaus. 5. Mary Magdalene
and the other women follow Peter and John to the tomb.
She, arriving before them, or following after them, sees the
angels, and afterward the Lord. 6. She joins the other
women who were near by, and, as they were returning to
Jerusalem, Jesus meets them. 7. He appears to Peter. 8.
He appears to the two at Emmaus. Here Mary Magdalene

590 THE LIFE OF OUE LORD.
alone first sees the Lord, and afterward she sees Him the
second time in company with others.
Da Costa. 1. The two Marys, Joanna, Salome, and
others, start before daybreak for the sepulchre, and find
the stone roUed away. 2. Mary Magdalene runs to find
Peter and John. 3. The other women enter the sepulchre,
see the angels, receive their message, and return to the
disciples. 4. Peter and John visit the sepulchre and de
part home. 5. Mary Magdalene, who had followed them,
sees first the angels, and then the Lord, and returns to the
disciples. 6. Jesus appears to the two at Emmaus. 7. He
appears to Peter. Here the Lord appears to Mary Mag
dalene only.
Greswell. 1. Two parties of women — one the two
Marys and Salome, the other, Joanna and some with her —
set out from different quarters to go to the sepulchre.
While on their way, the stone is rolled away and the Lord
rises. 2. The Marys and Salome arrive first at the sepul
chre about sunrise. Mary Magdalene runs to find Peter
and John. The other two enter the sepulchre, see an angel,
receive a message, and depart. 3. The party of Joanna
arrives, sees two angels, and returns to the disciples. 4.
Peter and John visit the sepulchre. 5. Mary Magdalene,
who had foUowed Peter and John, sees two angels, and
then Christ.. 6. The two disciples depart for Emmaus,
before Mary Magdalene reports the appearance of Jesus to
her. Upon the way the Lord meets them. 7. He appears
to Peter. 8. He appears to the Eleven. 9. He appears the
second time to the Eleven, a week after. 10. Soon after
this He appears to the other Mary and Salome, and perhaps
also to Mary Magdalene. Here the Lord is seen first by
Mary Magdalene, and does not appear to the other women
tUl a week after.
Ebrard. 1. Mary Magdalene visits the sepulchre early,
while it is yet dark. She finds the stone roUed away, and

DIFFERING ARRANGEMENTS OP HARMONISTS. 591
runs to find Peter and John. 2. Mary, mother of James,
Joanna, Salome, and the other women go to anoint the body,
and looking into the tomb, see an angel, who gives them
a message. They depart, but dare not report to any one
what had occurred. 3. Peter and John come to the grave
and return home. 4. Mary Magdalene, who had foUowed
them, sees two angels, and then the Lord. She returns, and
teUs the disciples. 5. The Lord appears to tbe two on the
way to Emmaus. 6. He appears to Peter. Here the ap
pearance to Mary Magdalene of John, and that to the
two Marys of Matthew, are identified.
Lange. 1 . The two Marys and Salome go to the grave.
Another party — Joanna, and others with her — was to fol
low with the spices and ointments. The former see tbe
stone rolled away, and Mary Magdalene runs to find Peter
and John. 2. The other Mary and Salome approach and
see one angel sitting upon the stone, and afterward another
within the sepulchre, who gives them a message, and they
depart. 3. Peter and John visit the sepulchre, and return.
4. Mary Magdalene sees two angels, and then the Lord.
5. Jesus appears to the other Mary and Salome, on their
way to the disciples. 6. These two fall in with Joanna and
her party, and together return to the sepulchre and see
two angels. 7. He appears to the two disciples. 8. He
appears to Peter. Here the Lord appears first to Mary
Magdalene, then to the other Mary, and Salome.
Bobinson. 1. The two Marys, Joanna and Salome, and
others, go to the sepulchre to embalm the body, and find
the stone roUed away. 2. Mary Magdalene runs to find
Peter and John. 3. The other women see two angels in
the tomb, who give them a message to tbe disciples, and
they depart. 4. Jesus meets them on the way, and renews
the message. 5. Peter and John come to the sepulchre,
and return home. 6. Mary Magdalene sees the two angels,
and then the Lord. 7. Jesus appears to Peter. 8. He

592 THE LIPE OP OUR LORD.
appears to the two going to Emmaus. Here the Lord first
appears to the other women, and then to Mary Magda
lene. Let us now attempt to frame a continuous narrative
from the accounts of the several Evangehsts. Very early
in the morning the women from Galilee, to the number of
five or more, who had been present at the crucifixion and
burial, start for the sepulchre to embalm the body. Whether
aU went from one place, and at the same moment, is uncer
tain ; but under the circumstances it is more probable that
they came from different parts of the city, and met by
agreement. Perhaps Mary Magdalene alone, or with the
other Mary and Salome, may have a httle preceded the
others. They knew, for some at least were eye-witnesses,
that a great stone had been roUed to the door ofthe sepul
chre, and it was therefore a question with them how they
could roU it away. But they did not know of the sealing
ofthe stone, and the setting ofthe watch, which took place
at the eve of the Sabbath. As they approach the sepulchre
they see that the stone is rolled away ; and Mary Magdalene,
who naturaUy inferred that the Jews had removed the body,
in deep excitement runs to inform the two chief apostles,
Peter and John, of this fact. The other women continue
to approach the sepulchre. That the angel was not now
sitting upon the stone, and visible to them, and that the
guards were not lying as dead men before the door, seem
most probable, as otherwise their fears would have deterred
them from advancing. Seeing nothing, they enter the sep
ulchre, or its vestibule. An angel now appears to them,
and, after bidding them not be afraid, shows them the
empty niche where the body was laid, and gently reproves
them for coming to find the Lord there, the living with the
dead. He proceeds to announce to them that He is risen,
and wUl meet the disciples in GalUee, as He had said to
them whUe He was with them there. Greatly agitated by

PROBABLE ORDER OP EVENTS. 593
what they had seen and heard, fear contending with joy,
they leave the sepulchre.
Soon after their departure — but how soon is uncertain,
as we do not know where Mary Magdalene found Peter
and John — the two apostles come running with all speed to
determine the truth of her account. John, who reaches
the tomb first, only looks in, but Peter enters, and is fol
lowed by John. The body is gone ; but, examining care
fully, they see the grave clothes arranged in order, and the
napkin lying by itself. John is convinced, by aU that he
sees, that the Lord is indeed risen ; but Peter only marvels.
They seem to have departed very quickly again, perhaps
to inform the other disciples that the body was truly gone ;
or perhaps they were afraid lest they should be found by
their enemies at the tomb. Mary Magdalene, who had
foUowed them back to the sepulchre, did not depart with
them, but remained standing without, weeping. It is plain
from the whole narrative that she was under the power of
most intense grief, believing that the body of her Lord had
been borne away by His enemies. Whilst weeping, she-
stoops down to look in, as if a faint hope still Ungered that
she should see Him there. She sees two angels sitting, one
at the head and one at the feet, where the body bad lain.
Unlike the other women, who had been greatly terrified at
the angehc apparition, she seems scarce to have noticed
them ; and to their question, " Woman, why weepest thou ? "
she answers in words showing how wholly her heart was-
filled with her one great sorrow. Lifting her head, for she
was now looking into the tomb, she sees Jesus, but does
not recognize Him. He addresses her with the inquiry,
" Woman, why weepest thou ? " Supposing Him to be the
gardener, probably because it was natural that he should
be there, and thinking that he might possibly have taken
away the body, she asks Him, in words full of passionate
earnestness. The Lord's reply, " Mary," spoken in His

594 THE LIFE OF OUR LOED.
own famUiar voice, recalls her to herself. She recognizes
Him, and, prostrating herself, would hold Him by the feet
to worship Him. He forbids her to touch Him, and gives
ber a message to His brethren. She departs, and teUs the
disciples, but they believe not.
Thus we find most probable that there were two visions
of angels, the first to the women, the second to Mary Mag
dalene ; and one appearance of the Lord, that to Mary Mag
dalene; aU closely following each other. As yet, these
supernatural manifestations were vouchsafed only to the
women. Peter and John saw at the sepulchre neither an
gels nor the Lord. They found, indeed, the sepulchre
open and the body gone ; but the fact that He had risen
rested solely on the testimony of the women. It is not, in
one point of view, at all strange that all their words should
have seemed to the disciples as idle tales ; for it is plain that,
notwithstanding His most explicit declarations that He
would rise on the third day, none were expecting, or even
hoping for, His resurrection. The women went to the grave
to anoint the body, and Mary Magdalene's grief was caused
by the thought that she could not show it the last sad to
kens of regard. She does not once allude to His resurrec
tion as if it were possible. Perhaps the fact that He had
not appeared to any of the apostles, had something to do
with the incredulity of the latter, for it was natural to
suppose that He would first manifest Himself to them,
(Mark xvi. 11.) Accordingly, we find that it was the testi
mony of Peter that he had seen Him, that convinced them,
(Luke xxiv. 34,) though even then they seemed to have
doubts whether it was a real resurrection.
Rumors that the sepulchre was empty, must have be
come current among the disciples early in the day, and
probably most or all of them, or at least of the apostles,
visited it, though we have no record of their visits.
The historical accuracy ofthe account of the bribing of

BRIBING OF THE SOLDIERS. 595
the soldiers by the priests and elders, has been often ques
tioned,1 but on insufficient grounds. The watch came, re-
porting what had taken place at the sepulchre, and that
Jesus had actually risen. The priests and elders may have
believed this or may not, but they doubtless ascertained to
their own satisfaction that the body was actually gone.
What should they do ? Arrest and punish the soldiers ?
But to what end ? since aU the facts of the affair must thus
necessarUy come to the ears of PUate, and become more
generaUy known. As it could not be concealed that the
body was gone, some plausible explanation must be given.
What could answer the purpose so well as to admit this
fact, and affirm that the disciples had done what they at
tempted to guard against when they set the Watch— had
stolen away the body. But this the soldiers would natu
raUy contradict, as exposing them to mUitary punishment.
They therefore must be bribed to admit that the story set
afloat by the priests, was true. They would not affirm the
absurdity that they knew What the disciples were doing
while they were sleeping ; but merely keep sUence as to
What they had actually seen, and not deny that they might
have been asleep, and that what the rulers said, might have
occurred. Of course this report would soon become cur
rent, and by most ofthe Jews be beUeved.3
Sunday, . 17th Nisan, 9th April, 783.
Early in the afternoon two of the disciples leave Luke xxiv. 13-32.
Jerusalem for Emmaus. As they go, Jesus joins Him- Mark xvi. 12.
self to them, and converses with them till they reach
the village. At their urgent request He sits down to
eat with them, and as He was breaking the bread,
their eyes, which were holden that they should not
know Him, were opened, but He immediately van
ished out of their sight. They return at once to Je- Luke xxiv. 33
• See Meyer in loco.
' See the excellent observations of JoneS, Notes, 483.

596 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
rusalem, and find the Eleven and others gathered Mark xvi. 13, 14.
together, who meet them with the announcement Luke xxiv. 34, 85.
that the Lord is indeed risen, and has appeared to 1 Cob. xv. 5.
Simon. But the account of the two disciples that
they had also seen Him at Emmaus,was disbelieved.
While yet speaking together, Jesus Himself stood in Luke xxiv. 36-48.
the midst of them, although the doors were shut, and John xx. 19-23.
saluted them. He convinces them of the reality of
His bodily presence by showing them His hands and
His feet, and by eating before them. He breathes
upon them, and gives them the power to remit sins,
and opened their understanding to understand the
Scriptures. The name of one of the disciples going to Emmaus was
Cleopas, (Luke xxiv. 18.) Many identify him with Cleopbas,
Clopas, or Alphaeus, the husband of Mary. It is most prob
able that he was a different person. The name ofthe other
disciple is not given. Lightfoot supposes him to have been
Peter himself; and it was early. a very common opinion
that he was Luke, and that the Evangelist through modesty
did not mention his own name. Wieseler, (431,) who makes
Cleopas to have been Alphaeus, makes the other the apos
tle James, his son.
Josephus mentions three places bythe name of Emmaus.1
Of one of these he speaks as " sixty furlongs distant from
Jerusalem." This coincides so exactly with the statement
of Luke, (v. 13,) that no reasonable doubt can exist that
both refer to the same place. The name itself signifies
warm water, and indicates that there was a hot spring in
the neighborhood. The site of the old Emmaus has been
for a long period supposed to be a viUage now called
El Kubeibeh, which lies about seventy furlongs, or nine
miles, north-westerly from Jerusalem, and is reached by the
road running near Mizpeh. Schwartz (117) finds its site in
some ruins about seven and a half mUes from Jerusalem,
' War, 4. 1. 8; 7. 6. 6. Antiq. 14. 11. 2.

THE TWO DISCIPLES AT EMMAUS. 597
now called by the Arabs Baburaia. The identification with
Kubeibeh, Robinson denies, (ii. 255 and iii. 147,) and at
tempts to identify it with that Emmaus which lay in the
plain of Judah, more than one hundred and seventy stadia
from Jerusalem, or about twenty-two Roman miles, and ten
from Lydda. It received the name of Nicopolis in the third
century, and both names were in use for many centuries.
It is now known as Amwas.
The ground upon which Robinson asserts that this vU
lage is the Emmaus of Luke, is, that " for thirteen centuries
did the interpretation current in the whole Church regard
the Emmaus of the New Testament as identical with Nicop
olis." He disposes of the statement of Luke, that it was
"about threescore furlongs from Jerusalem," (v. 13,) by
questioning the correctness of this reading, several manu
scripts having one hundred and sixty furlongs. He ques
tions also the reading, sixty stadia, in Josephus, several
manuscripts having thirty. The correctness ofthe received
reading in both cases seems too well supported to be shaken.
But aside from this it is scarcely possible that Emmaus
could have been so far distant from Jerusalem. According
to Robinson himself, it now requires six to six and a half
hours to pass from the former to the latter, and if the two
disciples had left Jerusalem at 12 a.m., they would have
reached their home about 6 p. m. Allowing that only a
very brief interval was spent in preparation for the evening
meal, (v. 30,) and that they returned with all haste, they
could not have reached Jerusalem tiU near midnight. But
considering the habits of the orientals, it is very improba
ble that the disciples were assembled together at that hour;
nor is it likely that the Lord would have selected it to make
His first appearance to them. Besides, some marks of the
time when they met the Eleven are given us. John (xx. 19)
states that when Jesus made His appearance to them it was
evening. This was probably the first evening, which began

598 THE LTPE OP OUR LOED.
at 3 p. m, and ended at 6, or at sunsetting. This is con
firmed by Mark, (xvi, 14,) who says that "He appeared to
the Eleven as they sat at meat." This could not well have
been late in the evening.
Upon these grounds we believe that the Emmaus of
Luke caunot be placed at a greater distance than he has
placed it. Whether it can be identified with Kubeibeh or
not, is unimportant. Robinson1 says rightly, although in
opposition to his present opinion, that "the distanoe (of
Nicopolis) one hundred and sixty stadia, or six hours, is
too great for the disciples to have returned the same even
ing. We must therefore abide by the usual reading."*
The time when the two disciples left Jerusalem is not
mentioned, but it was probably early in the afternoon, as
the distance was about eight miles, and they seem to have
reached Emmaus about sundown,3
When the Lord met the two He was not recognized by
them. Luke says (v. 16) " Their eyes were holden that
they should not know Him." This some have thought dis
crepant with Mark's statement (xvi. 12) that "He appeared
in another form — ev erepq, f-op^y — unto two of them." The
latter expression may refer to His previous appearance to
Mary Magdalene, by whom He had been mistaken for the
gardener ;4 or to another form than that before the resurrec
tion. That His bodily aspect was in many points after the
resurrection unlike what it had been before, we eannot
doubt, though it is impossible for us to teU wherein those
distinctions consisted. (See John xxi. 4.) Still the language
of Luke implies that there was no such distinction as to
hinder His recognition ; and that, in this case, except the
' Iu Bib. Sacra, 1845, p. 181. ' See Winer, i. 325 ; Raumer, 169.
3 See v. 29 : " For it is toward evening, and the day is far spent ; " and
it was about the time ofthe evening meal. " They arrived at Emmaus about
3 p. m.," (Lardner ;) between 3 and 4 p. m., (Jones.) But this is too early.
4 So Lardner.

appearance of the lord to peter. 599
eyes ofthe disciples had been specially holden, they would
have known Him. " And their eyes were opened and they
knew Him," (v. 31.)
It was probably early in the evening that the two
reached Jerusalem on their return, joy at again beholding
their Lord adding wings to their feet. They find the eleven
apostles gathered together, and others with them, but the
doors were closed for fear of the Jews. As they enter they
are greeted by the cry, " The Lord is risen indeed, and hath
appeared unto Simon." l They proceed to teU that He has
also appeared to them, but their words are not beUeved,
(Mark xvi. 13.) Why was this? If tbe disciples beUeved
Peter's word, that He had appeared to him, and thus the
fact of His resurrection was established, how easy to be
heve the report of the two that they also had seen Him.
Upon this ground, and because Luke does not mention the
fact that the Eleven disbelieved, it is said that the two
Evangelists are at variance." But the sUence of Luke does
not disprove Mark's statement. Nor is it difficult to un
derstand why, after having given credit to Peter, they should
deny it to the two disciples. It was in the supposed in-
compatibUity of their respective statements. The two report
ed that He had been with them on their journey and at
Emmaus ; yet He had also been seen by Peter at Jerusalem.
If we now suppose that immediately after He vanished from
their sight He appeared to the apostle, into what perplex
ity would all be cast ! Ignorant of the properties of His
resurrection body, and its power of sudden transition from
place to place, they would either deny the reality of the
resurrection, and say that they had seen a spirit or ghost ;
or deny their testimony, and the fact that they had seen Him
at all. Probably the former opinion was the more general
1 Some would make this an interrogation : " Has the Lord risen, and has
He appeared to Simon?" So Townsend; but there is no ground for this.
' So Meyer, Alford.

600 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
one ; for when the Lord immediately afterward stood in the
midst of them, " They were terrified, and thought that they
had seen a spirit."
Under what circumstances the Lord appeared to Peter
we are not informed : it is probable that it was the same
appearance to which Paul alludes, (1 Cor. xv. 5.) The cir
cumstance mentioned by John, (xx. 19,) that the doors
were shut when Jesus appeared to the disciples, seems de
signed to show that He had now entered a new stage of
being ; and that that, which was a barrier agamst the intru
sion of the Jews, was no barrier against Him. How He
entered we cannot say. The doors were shut — they were
not seen or heard to open, yet He stood among them. As
He had suddenly vanished from the two at Emmaus, so did
He now suddenly appear to the apostles at Jerusalem. And
these sudden appearances and disappearances seem to have
marked all His interviews with His disciples during the
forty days. The first work of the Lord, after He saw the
terror of the Eleven and their superstitious fears, was to
convince them of His true bodily presence. He shows them
His hands and His feet, in which they might see the prints
of the nails, and even }>roceeds to eat before them. He
afterward, when their minds were tranquillized, and they
were fuUy convinced that He was indeed with them, breathes
on them, and gives to them the Holy Ghost, with power to
remit and retain sins. Into the special significance of this
gift, or its relations to the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost,
our purpose does not lead us to enter. He also opened their
understanding that they might understand the Scriptures.
Some would refer the statement of Mark (xvi. 14) not
to His first, but to His second appearance to the Eleven. It
is said that neither Luke nor John in their accounts of the
first interview intimates that He upbraided their unbelief.
It was their continued incredufity that brought down upon
them His reproof. But it does not appear that any of the

SECOND APPEARANCE TO THE ELEVEN. 601
apostles except Thomas, who was not present at His first
appearance, did disbelieve after they had actually seen
Him ; and He may have used language of reproof, although
it is not speciaUy reported by Luke or John. Indeed, His
words and acts during that interview necessarUy imply re
proof. ' Sunday, 24th. Nisan, 16th April, 783.
After eight days Jesus again appeared to the assem- John xx. 26-29.
bled apostles, Thomas, who had been before absent, now
being with them. By showing him the prints of the John xx. 24, 28.
nails and the spear, as he had demanded, and desiring
him to touch them, the Lord convinces him of the
reality of His resurrection ; and Thomas acknowledges
Him as his Lord and his God.
The place where the apostles were assembled, was in all
probability the same in which Jesus had before met them,
and may have been the upper room in which the paschal
supper was eaten, and to which they returned from the
Mount of Olives. Why they continued so long in Jerusa
lem, when the Lord had bidden them go to GalUee, is not
stated ; and some have inferred that they waited for the expi
ration of the feast, which lasted seven days. " The Lord's
command," says Stier, "presupposed their tarrying through
the eight days, according to the rules ofthe feast." Lightfoot
aflirms that, on the first day, no one should exceed the Umits
of a sabbath-day's journey ; on the second, no one might go
home, because ofthe " appearance before tbe Lord" which
then took place ; on the third, one might go if necessary,
though it was better to stay through the whole feast. But the
feast had been some days ended, yet they remain. Luthardt
1 Clericus refers to this occasion all of Mark xvi. 14-18 ; Luke xxiv. 36-
49. Bucher would place this meeting after the return from Galilee, and just
before the ascension : Mark xvi. 14-19 ; Luke xxiv. 44-53 ; Acts i. 4-13.
26

602 THE LIFE OP OUE LORD.
(in loco) supposes that they may have assembled to keep the
day in commemoration of His resurrection, and with the
hope that He would appear to them again. It seems, how
ever, more probable that it was the unbelief of the apostles
which kept them at Jerusalem. Just before His arrest, and
while on His way from the Passover supper to the garden,
Jesus had said to them that " After He was risen He would
go before them into Galilee," (Matt. xxvi. 32 ; Mark xiv.
28.) Probably also at the same time He specified the place
where He would meet with them there, (Matt, xxviu. 10
and 16.) This direction, in the first moments of their grief,
they seem utterly to have forgotten ; and the Lord, first by
the angels, and then from His own mouth, remmded them
of it, and incited them to obedience. Had their faith been
strong, they would have gone at once to Galilee, and waited
for Him there. This they did not do. Even after He had
by the most convincing proofs estahhshed the fact of His
resurrection to others of the Eleven, still Thomas disbe-
Ueved ; and perhaps many among the disciples. WhUst this
fact was in dispute they could not go into GaUlee, for this
implied that they no longer had any doubts that He was
risen and would meet them there. It thus became neces
sary that He should manifest Himself to them again and
again, and tarry for them at Jerusalem till the unbelief of
aU was overcome. And yet it is said that some which had
gathered at the mountain in GalUee, doubted, (Matt. xxvUi.
17.) It is most probable, however, that these were not of
those who had seen Him in Judea.
Why Thomas was not present at the first meeting of
the apostles is not stated, and we can but oonjecture. It
can scarcely, however, have been accidental. That the Lord
should appear the second time to the Eleven on the eighth
day after His resurrection, is of deep significance.

APPEARANCE AT THE SEA OP TIBERIAS. 603

April— May, 783. a. d. 30.
The apostles having returned to Galilee, the Lord
appears to seven of them whilst engaged, in fishing John xxi, 1-28.
upon the lake. The miracle pf the great draught
of fishes is repeated, and He feeds the seven with fish
and bread. After they had dined, He commands
Peter three times to feed His sheep, and signifies his
future death and the protracted life of John.
After this He appears upon a mountain to a great Matt, xxviii. 16-2,0.
body of disciples, and commands that the Gospel be 1 Cor. xv. 6.
preached and disciples baptized throughout the world, Mark xvi. 18-18,
That the appearance of tbe Lord at the lake of GaUlee
was before His appearance upon the mountain, may be in
ferred from the fact that " This was now the third time that
He showed Himself to His disciples after that He was risen.
from the dea,d," (John xxi. 14.) This order is foUowed by
most.1 In this threefold enumeration the Evangelist plainly
refers to the apostles as constituting the most important
part ofthe disciples, although not perhaps to them exclusive
ly. Thus the, first appearance was to the " Eleven gathered
together aud them that were with tbera," (Luke xxiv. 33.)
Mark (xvi. 14) says " The Eleven." John speaks simply of
"The disciples," (xx. 19.) At this time Thomas was absent.
The second was to the disciples, including Thomas, (John xx,
36,) The third " To the disciples at the sea of Tiberias." Of
these, five at least were apostles ; the names of the remau>
ing two are, not given, and it is not certain, though prob^
able, that they also were of tbe apostles. Lightfoot sup
poses them to have been Philip and Andrew, Meyer (ra
loco) thinks it impossible that these three appearances can
be made to harmonize with the statements of Paul, (1 Cor.
xv. 5.) But this depends upon the point whether Paul is
' So Lightfoot, Robinson, Lichtenstein, Ebrard, Krafft, Newcome,

604 THE LTPE OP OUR LORD.
designing to a give a chronological outline of all the ap
pearances. This is generally and with good reason denied.1
Luthardt supposes that Paul, in the words " Then of the
Twelve," (v. 5,) may embrace all the three appearances to
them, and thus his order be made chronological.
Perhaps at this time the Lord gave them more specific
directions respecting the meeting upon the mount. If we
identify this meeting upon the mount with that when the
500 brethren were present, as most do, such a number of
disciples could not have been gathered unless the notice
had been early given, and widely spread. Both the time
and place must have been definitely known.
The name of the mountain where the disciples met the
Lord according to His appointment is not given. Many
suppose it to be the same where He delivered the sermon,
(Matt. v. 1.) Others identify it with the Moimt of Trans
figuration; others stiU with Tabor. It was a tradition
current during the middle ages that it was the northern
peak of the Mount of Olives. Saewulf a speaks of a chapel
called GalUee of Mount Sion, where the Lord first appeared
to His apostles after His resurrection, according to His
words, " After I am risen again I wiU go before you into
GaUlee." " That place was called Galilee, because the apos
tles, who were caUe.d Galileans, frequently rested there." 3
This tradition has recently been defended by Hofmann,*
but is whoUy untenable.6
This meeting, having been appointed by the Lord before
His death, and recalled to the memory of the disciples by
the angels, must be looked upon as the chiefest and most
significant of all His manifestations. There can be little
doubt that it was identical with that mentioned by Paul,
(1 Cor. xv. 6 :) "After that He was seen of above five
1 Lichtenstein, 476 ; Hodge in loco ; Wieseler, 432.
> A. D. 1102. Early Travels, 42.
" See also Maundeville, Early Travels, 177. * Leben Jesu, 895.
6 See Meyer on Matt, xxviii. 16 ; Ewald, Jahrbuch, 1856, p. 196.

APPEARANCE UPON THE MOUNT IN GAULEE. 605
hundred brethren at once." Although Matthew speaks
only ofthe eleven disciples as present at the mountain, yet
his sUence respecting others would not exclude them, as in
his introduction to the sermon on the mount, he speaks
only of the disciples as His auditors, although great multi
tudes beside were present. That he should mention only
the Eleven, is whoUy consistent with his general purpose,
and with the peculiarities of his Gospel. But in his own
brief account there is a hint that others were there beside
the Eleven. He says, " And when they saw Him they wor
shipped Him ; but some doubted." Who were these that
doubted ? Meyer insists that it could only have been some
of the Eleven. But when we recollect His prior appear
ances to them ; how that none of them after the first inter
view, except Thomas, seem to have had any doubts as to the
reality of His resurrection; how the unbelief of Thomas
was wholly overcome at the second interview ; how He had
given to them the first fruits of the Spirit ; and that they
had now gathered expressly to meet Him — we find it very
difficult to believe that any of these doubters were apostles.
If not, then others must have been present ; and as most
of these had not seen Him since His resurrection, it will
not appear surprising if some among them should doubt.1
This is confirmed by the fact that the angel, speaking to the
women, does not confine his direction to go into GalUee to
tbe apostles, but makes it general, embracing aU the dis
ciples, and perhaps also the women.
Some, however, though admitting that others were pres
ent with the apostles, make some of the latter to have
doubted. If so, of what did they doubt ? Whether they
should offer to Him worship ? ' It is not indeed anywhere
said that He had before been worshipped by them ; and
now something new and divine in His aspect may have
i So Lightfoot, Norton, Robinson, Ebrard, Stier, Alford.
a So Wetstein, quoted in Meyer; De Wette, Lange.

606 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD,
impeUed them to the act. (See Matt, xxviii. 9.) But their
doubts could scarce refer to this. Did they doubt of His
personal identity ? Some have thought that He was so far
from them that aU could not at first distinctly see Him ;
others refer their doubts to the changed appearance of His
body, either as already glorified, or as in an intermediate
condition, midway between the earthly and heavenly. Some,
as Newcome, would translate it " had doubted," and refer
it to the earlier doubts ofthe apostles. "Some had doubt
ed before ; but aU were now convinced.'* But if this was
the interview when the 600 were present, many of whom
must have been from GalUee, and had not seen Him since
His resurrection, this fact best explains the circumstance
that some doubted even now.
Upon this occasion, the words seem to have been spoken
which are recorded by Matthew xxviii. 18^20, and Mark
Xvi. 15-18.1 Some, however, suppose His WOrds in Mark
to have been spoken to the Eleven, as they sat at meat, on
the evening ofthe day of the resurrection." Alford Would
refer v. 15 to this occasion, but doubts respecting Vs. 16-18.
Townson makes aU to have been spoken in Jerusalem, after
the return from Gahlee. He would place here also His
words, Luke xxiv. 44-48." Ebrard considers all that Luke
records from v. 44 on, a resume of all that Jesus had spoken
after His resurrection, in His various interviews with His
disciples. We shall consider the point more fully in con
nection with the ascension;
Thursday, May 18th, 783. a. d. 30.
A few days after the meeting upon the mountain
in Galilee, the apostles return to Jerusalem, accom- Luke xxiv. 49.
panied by Jesus' mother and brethren. Upon the Acts i. 1-3.
fortieth day after His resurrection, Jesus gathers the Acts i. 4-8.
1 So Lichtenstein, Tischendorf, Krafft, Ebrard.
* So Newcotae, Robinson. * So Wieseler, Bengel, Tischendorf.

GATHERING OP DISCIPLES AT JERUSALEM. 607
Eleven at the Mount of Olives, and, leading them Luke xxiv. 50, 51.
toward Bethany, ascends to heaven. Whilst they Mark xvi. 19.
were gazing after Him, two angels appear to them, Acts i. 9-12.
and remind them that He is to return. The apos- Luke xxiv. 52, 53.
ties go back to Jerusalem, and there wait for the
promised baptism of the Holy Spirit. After Pente- Mark xvi. 20.
cost they begin their labors.
That Luke, in his statement (Acts i. 3) that Jesus
" Showed Himself aUve after His passion by many infallible
proofs, being seen of the apostles forty days, and speaking
Ofthe things pertaining to the kingdom of God," includes
more interviews than are specifically recorded by any of
the Evangelists, cannot well be doubted. But whether
these interviews occurred in GalUee, before tbe apostles
went up to Jerusalem, or in Jerusalem, or in both, can only
be conjectured. In favor of GalUee it may be said, that
here the apoBtles were at home and among friends, and
that amidst the scenes of His former teachings His present
Words would come with double power and meaning ; whUst
in Jerusalem they would be among His enemies, and in a
state of disquietude, if not of positive fear. We may, then,
suppose that it was near the fortieth day ere they went up to
Jerusalem. ' That they went in obedience to some special
direction, is probable, and not simply to be present at the
feast of Pentecost ; but that they knew for what end He
. had gathered them there, may be doubted. Indeed it may
be fairly inferred from Acts i. 6, that so far from supposing
that He was then about to depart from them into heaven,
they rather hoped and expected that He was about to re
veal Himself in glory, and to commence His reign With the
baptism of the Holy Ghost, Conformably to His promise,
(v. 5.) Olshausen would refer v. 4 to one assembling of
¦ the disciples, and v. 6 to another and later, but his reasons
arc not strong.
The exact spot of tbe ascension upon the Mount of

608 THE LIPE OP OUR LORD.
Olives has been preserved by tradition; and a chapel now
stands upon it, of modern erection, and in the hands of the
Mohammedans. But it is certain that Helena, mother of
Constantine, erected a church upon the summit, and prob
ably near the present site ; though Stanley (448) claims that
she did not mean to honor the scene of the ascension
itself, but a cave, in which, according to Eusebius, Jesus
initiated His disciples into His secret mysteries. " There is,
in fact, no proof from Eusebius that any tradition porated
out the scene of the ascension." ' As to the rock within
the present chapel, which has been pointed Out to pUgrims
since the seventh century as bearing the imprint of the
Lord's footsteps, he says, " There is nothing but a simple
cavity in the rock, with no more resemblance to a human
foot than to any thing else."
As Luke alone of the Evangehsts mentions the place
of the ascension, we must turn to his statements. He says
in his Gospel, (xxiv. 50 :) " And He led them out as far as
to Bethany," ecus es ByOaviav ; in the Acts of the Apostles,
(i. 12:) "Then returned" they unto Jerusalem from the
mount caUed OUvet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath-
day's journey." There is thus the topographical objection
to tbe traditional site of the ascension, that it is but about
half a mUe from the city waU ; and if Jesus was separated
from the disciples here, He did not lead them out as far as
to Bethany. There is also another objection, in the fact of its
publicity, being in fuU view from the city. But if we con
strue the statement, "as far as to Bethany," to mean the
vUlage of Bethany, we on the other hand make Luke in
consistent with himself, since this is a mUe below the sum
mit of Olivet, and much more than a sabbath-day's jour
ney. Several solutions of the difficulty have been proposed.
Lightfoot would distinguish between Bethany, a tract of
2 See, however, Porter, i. 177.

PLACE OP THE ASCENSION. 609
the mount, and the town Bethany. The former was dis
tant from the city but seven furlongs, or one mile ; tbe lat
ter, fifteen furlongs, or two miles. Between the two lay
Bethphage, and He ascended " in that very place where He
got upon the ass when He rode into Jerusalem." Wieseler
(435, note) supposes that Bethphage was regarded by the
Jews as if it constituted a part of the city, and that, reck
oning from it eastward, Bethany was but a sabbath-day's
journey. He refers to John xU. 9-11, that the Jews did
go as far as Bethany upon the Sabbath. Robinson J affirms
that Bethany and the Mount of Olives are used by Luke
" interchangeably, and almost as synonymous." With him
many agree. "As far as to Bethany, not quite to the
vUlage itself, but over the brow of the Mount of Olives,
where it descends on Bethany." (Alford.) " Not altogether
into Bethany, but so far as the point where Bethany came-
into sight." (Stier.) " The secluded hills which overhang
that village' on the eastern slope of Olivet." (Stanley.)';
That the "Mount of Olives " is a general designation, em
bracing the eastern as well as the western slopes,, and the •
villages upon them, is apparent from various passages ini
the Evangelists. (Compare Mark xi. 1 ; Luke xix. 29 ;.
Mark xi. 11, 12 ; Luke xxi. 37.) We have, then, to seek a,
site somewhere upon the mount, in the neighborhood of.
Bethany, and distant about a sabbath-day's journey from;
Jerusalem.3 Such a site Barclay thinks be finds in a hUl
which overhangs Bethany, that lies about five hundred
yards below. This hill is a mUe from St. Stephen's gate^,
' Har. 234.
a Meyer would make, not the place of the ascension, but the mountain, to
be so far distant. But the mountain, at its base and lower slopes, is within
a few rods of the city. " The mean . distance," says Barclay, (59,) " of that
portion of its summit opposite the city, is about half a mile. But by the
nearest pathway it is 918 yards from St. Stephen's gate to the Church of the
Ascension ; by the longer footpath, 1310 yards; and by the main camel road,
is perhaps a little farther."
26*

610 THE LIFE OP OUR LORD.
and within a hundred yards of the direct footpath from
Bethany to Jerusalem. However it may be with this par
ticular spot, there is little doubt that from some one of the
heights a Uttle below the summit of Olivet, that look to
the east, and overhang the vUlage of Bethany, He ascended
to sit at the right hand of His Father.1
In regard to the hour of the day when the ascension
took place, nothing definite can be said. By some it is
supposed to have been early morning, by others midday.
That others were present beside the Eleven, is probable,
though not expressly said.
The difficulties connected with the statements of the
Evangelists respecting the ascension demand that we ex
amine their respective narratives in some detail. Matthew
does not say that Jesus ascended into heaven after His res
urrection, but closes his Gosp'el with the departure of the
Eleven from Jerusalem to Galilee, where Jesus met them
.at the mountain, as He had appointed them. There, as it
would seem, He gave them the commission to go and teach
all nations, promising to be with them to the end of
the world.2 That these words were spoken at this in
terview in GaUlee is intrinsically probable ; and there is
,an espeeial fitness in it if we suppose that, not only the
Eleven, but the great body of the disciples were present.
But the assertion that this was the final interview, and these
.the last words of Jesus to His apostles, and therefore that
the ascension was from Galilee, is without proof. Here, as
-often, the brevity of our Evangelist must be complemented
by the fuller narratives of the others. Had we the account
of Matthew only, we could not know that Jesus ascended
1 In favor of the traditional site, see Williams, ii. 440 ; Ellicott, 413.
Jones, (Notes, 451,) who supposes several ascensions, makes the first to have
tnken place on the evening of the day of the resurrection, (Luke xxiv. 50,
51,) and to have been at Bethany, nearly two miles from Jerusalem ; aud the
.last, (Acts i. 12,) from Olivet, about five furlongs distant.
2 Tischendorf. Lichtenstein, Robinson.

TIME OP THE ASCENSION. 611
from the mountain in GalUee, since he does not mention the
ascension at all. But as he was not ignorant ofthe fact, so
he could not have been ofthe time and place.
The narrative of Mark (xvi. 14-20) presents greater
difficulties. He records the command of the Lord to go
into all the world and preach the Gospel, and the promise
that certain signs should follow them that believe. From
the connection in which His words stand it would seem
that they were spoken to the Eleven as they sat at meat
on the evening of the day of the resurrection, and that im
mediately after He ascended into heaven. This, however,
is wholly irreconcilable with the statements of Luke ; and
it is also intrinsically improbable that upon the occasion of
His first meeting with the apostles after He had risen, and
while their minds were in so great excitement, He should
give them this commission. We give some of the solutions
that have been proposed : 1st. That which takes Mark's
narrative as strictly chronological, and makes the Lord's
words to have been spoken to the Eleven, on the evening
of the day of the resurrection, and His ascension to have
immediately followed. This is affirmed by those who, as
Kinkel and Jones, maintain that He repeatedly ascended to
heaven ; and, indeed, that He departed thither after each
appearance to His disciples. The ascension on the fortieth
day (Acts i. 9) was the last, and as such visible, and
marked with especial solemnity.1 This view of several as
censions may remove some difficulties, but involves others
greater, both historical and dogmatic. Others affirm, as
Meyer and Alford, that Mark, intending to relate what took
place at one and the same time, brings together here by
mistake what really took place on several distinct occasions.
He supposed that the Lord spake these words to the Eleven
1 See Kinkel, Studien u. Krit., 1841, translated in Bib. Sacra, Feb. 1S44.
Jones, (Notes, 480 :) " He was during the forty days ordinarily an inhabitant
ofthe heavenly world." See, contra, Robinson, in Bib. Sacra, May, 1845.

612 THE LTPE OP OUE LORD.
on the evening of the day He rose, and the same evening
ascended to heaven. The same rule of interpretation seems
also to show that He was received up from the room in
which they were eating, and that the Eleven, going imme
diately forth from this room, began at once to preach the
Gospel. Of course the writer, whether Mark or some one
else, could have known nothing of the several appearances
of Jesus during the forty days, of the ascension from Beth
any, or of the ten days' waiting for the Spirit ere the dis
ciples began to preach. The supposition of such ignorance
itself presents a greater difficulty than that it is intended
to remove. 2d. That which makes Jesus to have spoken these words
to the Eleven on the evening of the day of the resurrection,
but defers the ascension itself to the fortieth day following.
In this case the phrase pera to XaXyo-ai, " After the Lord
had spoken to them," (v. 1 9,) is not to be confined to the
few words just recorded, but embraces His discourses in
general, down to the time He ascended.
3d. That which places His interview with the Eleven on
the evening ofthe day of the resurrection, (v. 14,) but the
words following upon some subsequent occasion, perhaps
upon the mount in GaUlee ; and the ascension at a stiU later
period. 4th. That which makes this interview with the Eleven
to have been after the return of Jesus and the disciples
from Galilee to Jerusalem, and immediately before the as
cension at Bethany.
The obvious and natural interpretation of the narrative
is this : The Evangelist, wishing to give in the briefest way
the substance of the Lord's missionary commission to the
Church, with its accompanying promises, connects it with a
meeting of the eleven apostles, which may have been on
the evening of the day of the resurrection, or more probably
at some subsequent period. AU the instructions of the

JESUS ASCENDS BUT ONCE. 613
forty days upon this point, are summed up in these few
words. In the same concise way it is said, that after the
Lord had spoken to them, or after He had finished His
instructions, He was received up. To press this brevity as
indicating ignorance on his part of the real order of events,
is hypercritical. Substantially the same difficulties meet us in the narra
tive of Luke as in that of Mark. In his Gospel, (xxiv. 33-51,)
he seems to represent the ascension as taking place the
evening after Jesus rose from the dead. He meets the
Eleven and others as they were gathered together, and
after convincing them that He was really risen, by eating
before them, and discoursing to them, He leads them out
to Bethany, and, blessing them, is earned up into heaven.
In the Acts of the Apostles, however, the Evangelist states
expUcitly that He was seen of them forty days, and full de
tails respecting His ascension at the end of this period, are
given. Do these two accounts conflict with each other ?
This is affirmed by Meyer. According to him, there were
two traditions, one of which represented the Lord as as
cending upon the day of the resurrection; the other, after
forty days. In his Gospel, Luke follows the former; in
the Acts, the latter. With Meyer, Alford agrees. " Luke,
at the time of writing his Gospel, was not aware of any Gah
lean appearances of the Lord, nor indeed of any later than
this one. That he corrects this in Acts 1, shows him to
have become acquainted with some other sources of infor
mation, not however, perhaps, including the Gahlean ap
pearances." All this is arbitrary conjecture. There is not
the slightest hint that the Evangehst wished to correct in
the later account an error in the earUer. Had he made so
gross a mistake, common honesty toward his readers would
have demanded an explicit statement of it, and a retraction.
On the contrary, he says that his former treatise embraced
all that Jesus did and taught " Until the day in which He

614 THE LTPE OP OUR LORD.
was taken up," which day, as he says, was the fortieth after
His resurrection. This is a plain averment that in his
Gospel he placed the ascension on the fortieth day, although
he did not then give any specific designation of time.1
Those who, like Jones, make the Lord to have often
ascended, refer these accounts of Luke to different events.
In the Gospel he speaks of the ascension on the evening
following the resurrection ; in Acts, of the last ascension.
And as the time, so the place was different ; the former
ascension being from Bethany, the latter from the summit
of the Mount of OUves.3 But Luke's language, in his Gos
pel, plainly shows that he cannot speak of an ascension upon
the evening ofthe day when Jesus arose. The day was far
spent when He was with the two disciples at Emmaus, ancl
they returned to Jerusalem, and probably were some time
with the Eleven, ere Jesus joined them. Some time passed
in convincing them of His actual resurrection, and in dis
coursing to them. It must therefore have been late in the
evening ere He led them out to Bethany, two mUes distant,
and tbe ascension itself must have been in the dead of night.
This is intrinsicaUy improbable, or rather incredible.
When the words recorded by Luke (xxiv. 44-48) were
spoken, is not certain. Some would put them in immediate
connection with what precedes ; others refer them to a later
period ; to the second interview with the Eleven, or to the
meeting upon the mount in GaUlee, or to the day of the
ascension. That the Evangelist gives here a summary of
Jesus' teachings during the forty days, is made doubtful by
the fact of His opening their understanding, v. 45, which
seems to refer to some special act rather than to a gradual
process of enlightening. We therefore connect this with
1 See Ebrard, 596.
a In this way Jones explains the statement of Barnabas, that the Lord
ascended on the eighth or Sabbath day. See Heferle, Patrum Apostolicorum
Opera, 42.

JESUS DEPARTS TO RETURN IN GLORY. 615
the reception of the Holy Ghost, John xx. 21-23, which
was on the evening following the resurrection. Possibly
vs. 46-48 may have been spoken later. That the command,
v. 49, to tarry in the city of Jerusalem was spoken after
they had returned hither from GalUee, and is identical with
the command Acts i. 4, needs no proof.
Thus comparing the several Evangelists, we find that
the Lord, during tbe forty days, first manifested Himself to
His disciples in Judea, and, going thence to Galilee, return
ed again to Judea. So far as we can learn, it was not His
purpose to have shown Himself to them in Jerusalem, for
He had commanded them to go into GalUee, and there they
should see Him. But their unbelief in His words respect
ing His resurrection, made it necessary that He should mani
fest Himself to them there ; yet even after they had seen
Him, the unbelief of one seems to have detained them some
days at Jerusalem. As in Galilee He had gathered His
disciples, so here He appoints a place of general meeting.
But He cannot ascend to His Father from Galilee. As He
went up to Jerusalem to die, He now goes up thither again,
that from the Mount of Olives, overlooking the Holy City
and the temple, He may ascend to His Father's right hand
to receive the kingdom, and to await the hour when His
enemies shall be made His footstool, and the Lord shall
be King over aU the earth.
" §Te mm of d&aliltt, fafe sfunb g* gating r$ into frafra ? Sfeis
earn ge»6 tobitk is taken nn from got: info ftabnr, sljall so torn* in
Kite manna as 2* H* 6m lim S0 'mia !«*««."

GENERAL INDEX.

Abia, course of, 15.
Aceldama, 511, 512.
Adulteress brought before Jesus, 334.
jfflnon, site of, 155-157.
Alphasus, 107.
Andrew visits Jesus, 145.
Angels, appearance of, at sepulchre,
676, 577.
Annas, office of, 137-139 : Jesus taken
before, 485-490.
Annunciation, to Zacharias, 45 ; to
Mary, 48-62.
Anointing of Jesus, by a woman a sin
ner, 259 ; by Mary, 401, 402.
Antonia, tower of, 515.
Apostles, early relations of, to Jesus,
228 ; choice of, 247 ; sending of, 286-
288 ; return of, to Jesus, 298 ; disputes
among, 327 ; strife among, at paschal
Bupper, 460.
Appearances of Jesus after the resur
rection, different arrangements of,
587-592.
Archelaus, 132.
Ascension, place of, 607-610 : time of,
610-614.
Augustus, emperor, census under, 2, 3 ;
closes the temple of Janus, 13, 14 ,
taxing by, 67-71.
Barabbas, 521.
Bethabara, site of, 140; Jesus returns
thither, 374.
Bethany visited by Jesus, 371 ; site of,
381 ; Jesus lodges at, 396 ; feast at,
398 ; Jesus ascends from, 608-610.
Bethesda, pool of, 180-182.
Bethlehem, position of, 77 : cavo of, 78-
83.
Bethphage, site of, 404, 405.
Bethsaida, site of, 211-217 ; the feeding
of 5,000 there, 299, 300.
Blasphemy, Jesus charged with, 501.
Blood and water, flowing of, 552-555.
Brethren, the Lord's, 104-116 ; did not
believe on Him, 329, 330.
Caesarea Philippi, visited by Jesus, 317..

Caiaphas, high priest, 137 ; council at
palace of, 421 : JeBUB examined by,
485^90. "
Cana of Galilee, wedding at, 148 : site
of, 150, 151.
Capernaum, why selected by Jesus, 201 :
site of, 203-220.
Cedron, 476.
Chorazin, site of, 218, 219.
Christmas, when tirst observed, 19.
Chronology, patristic, 39-44.
Circuits in G-alilee, arrangement of,
223-227 ; duration of, 233.
Cleopas, 696.
Cock-crowing, 475.
Corn, plucking ears of, 242.
Crucifixion, time of, 530-532 ; place of,
533, 558-560 ; mode of, 535-539.
Cyrenius, governor of Cyria, when, 3-6 ;
taxing under, 71-73.
Dalmanutha, site of, 314.
Daniel, week of, 38.
Darkness at the crucifixion, 542, 543.
David, decay of his family, 61.
Decapolis visited by JeBus, 311. 312.
Dedication, feast of, 371, 372.
Dream, Pilate's wife's, 522.
Earthquake, at crucifixion, 546 ; at res
urrection, 675.
Egypt, Jesus in, 92, 93.
Elias, forerunner of Messiah, 324. 325.
Emmaus, site of, 596-598.
Ephraim, site of, 384, 385 ; Jesus so
journs at, 386, 387.
Epiphany, feast of, 30, 31 ; when kept,
84.
Eras, Roman and Christian, 1.
Gadara. Seo Gergesa.
Galilee, province of, its populouanoss,
232 ; sea of, 202 ; shores fitted for teach
ing, 237 ', storms on, 269, 305 ; Jesus
meets the seven disciples there, 603;
mount of, 604.
Genealogies of Jesus, 55-60.
Gennesaret, position of, 202, 219.

618

GENERAL INDEX.

Gerasa. See Gergesa.
Gergesa, site of, 271-275 ; demoniacs of,
276, 277.
Gethsemane, garden of, 47S, 479 ; tho
Lord's agony in, 481.
Golgotha, 559.
Greeks desire to see JeBU3, 413.
Harvest, time of, 164, 165.
Herod the Great, time of his death, 1 ;
character of, 95, 96.
> Herod Antipas, 132 ; hears of Jesus,
290 : imprisons John, 291 ; celebrates
birthday, 293 ; threatens to till Jesus,
368 : Jesus sent to, by Pilate, 519.'
Herodians, who, 243.
Herodias, 293.
Innocents, murder of, 12, 94-96.
Jacob, well of, 166, 167.
James the Apostle, 146, 228.
James, son of Alpheus, 108-111.
Jericho, visited by Jesus, 392.
Jews, term as used by John, 447, 448.
John the ApoBtle, first visit of, to Jesus,
145 ; call of, 228-230 ; ambition of,
391 ; at paBchal supper, 464 ; at the
cross, 541 : at the sepulchre, 572.
John the Baptist, time of birth, 15 ;
time of beginning his ministry, 23, 24 ;
age of, when he began to preach, 29 ;
birthplace, 46; place of baptizing,
140 ; testimony to Jesus, 144, 145 ; bap
tizes at JBnon, 155 ; relations of his
baptism to that of Christ, 159-161 ;
imprisonment of, 193 ; message to Je
sus, 257-259 j death of, 289, 290.
Jordan, floods in, 33-35.
Joseph, his lineage, 48, 49; prior mar
riage of, 105, 106.
Joseph of Arimathea, receives the
Lord'B body, 555-557.
Juda, city of, 46.
Judas offended at Christ's words, 400 ;
bargaining with the priests, 422; ut
paschal supper, 463-466 ; whether pres
ent at the Lord's supper, 470-473 ;
leads the soldiers to arrest Jesus, 483 ;
returns the thirty pieces of silver,
510 ; his death, 510 ; his motives, 613.
Judea, tho Lord's work in, 130.
Karaites, 427.
Lazarus, death of, 379 j sepulchre of,
Levi, call of, 237 ; feast of, 238. 278-282.
Lord's supper, institution of, 469, 470.
Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, 133-136.
Machserus, 292.
Magdala, 313.
Magi, star of, 9, 91 ; oountry of. 89.
Malefactors, two crucified with Jesus,
635 ; one repents, 540 ; death of, 549.
Martha, sister of Lazarus, 370 ; serves at
the table, 402.

Mary Magdalene, her character, 260,
261 ; visits the sepulchre, 571, 572 ;
Jesus appears first to, 579, 580.
Mary, mother of Jobus, parentage of, 49 :
of the house of David ,51-55 ; is visited
by Gabriel, 62 ; visits Elisabeth, 63-65 ;
at the FasBOver, 103 ; at Cana, 149 ;
supposed residence at Capernaum,
201, 202 ; visitB her eon with His
brethren, 265 ; is commended to tbe
care of John, 541.
Mary, wife of Alphaeus, who, 107, 108 ;
soub of, 109, 110.
Mary, sister of Lazarus, is commended
by Jesus, 370' anoints the Lord, 402.
Matthew. See Levi.
Ministry, the Lord's, divisions of, 117-
130 ; in Judea, 130 ; in Galilee, 1S6-
193 ; general features of, in Galilee,
220-223 ; later work in Galilee, 295-297.
Miracles, of healing :— Healing of noble
man's son, 169 ; of impotent man, 183 ;
of the possessed in the synagogue,
231 : of Simon's wife's mother, 231 ; of
the leper, 234 ; of the paralytic. 236 ;
of the man with a withered hand,
243: of the centurion's servant, 255;
of blind and dumb possessed, 262 ; of
the Gergesene demoniacs, 276 ; of
woman with issue of blood, 273 ; of
two blind men, 283 ; of a dumb person
possessed, 283 ; of the daughter of a
Phenician woman, 310 ; of man with
an impediment in speech, 312 ; of
blind man at Bethsaida, 316; ofluna-
tic child, 325 * of man blind from birth,
337 ; of dumb possessed, 365 ; of sick
woman in the synagogue, 367 ; of a
man with dropsy, 376 ; of the ten
lepers, 888 ; of the blind men at Jeri
cho, 392 ; of Malchus' oar, 483.
, other kinds of: — Changing wa

ter into wine, 148 ; escapes tho wrath
of the Nazarenes, 199 ; first draught
of fishes, 230; raising of the widow's
son, 256; stilling of the tempest, 269 ;
raising of daughter of JairuB, 282 ;
feeding of the 5,000, 299; walking on
the sea, 305 ; feeding ofthe 4,000, 313 ;
money in fish's mouth, 326 ; raising of
Lazarus, 379 : withering of fig tree,
413 ; second draught of fishes, 603.
 in general :— Wrought at Jeru
salem, at Passover, 153 ; at Caper
naum, 231 ; by the Bea-shore, 245 ; be- '
fore the Sermon on the Mount, 249 ; in
the neighborhood of Nazareth, 286 ; in
the land of Gennesaret, 307 ; on east
side of sea of Galilee, 312 : in tho tem
ple, 412.
 ofthe apostles, 287.
 ofthe Seventy, 362.
Nain, site of, 256.
Nathanael, 146.
Nativity, cave of, 79-83.
Nazareth, name of, 98 ; position of, 99-
101. '

GENERAL .INDEX.

619

Nicodemus visits Jesus, 154; defends
Jesus, 334 ; embalms His body, 556,
557.
Olives, Mount of, path over from Beth
any, 407 ; discourse upon, 420 ; dis
tance from Jerusalem, 609, n. ; ascen
sion from, 607, 608.
Palestine, Beasons of, 16-18 ; climate of,
. 32.
Parables, those spoken by the seaside,
266, 267 ; beginning ol teaching in,
268 ; of the unmerciful servant, 326 ;
of the good Samaritan, 363 ; of the
rich fool, 364 ; of fig tree, 367 ; of great
supper, 377 ; of lost sheep, lost piece
of silver, ^prodigal son, unrighteous
steward, of the rich man and Lazarus,
378 ; of unjust judge, of Pharisee and
publican, 385 ; of the pounds, 395 ; of
the two sons, tho wicked husband
men, the king's son, 414 ; of the fool
ish virgins, the talents, 420.
Paschal supper, whether eaten by Jesus,
425-460 ; order of, 466, 467.
Passovers, number of, in Jesus' minis
try, 35, 43 ; Jesus's first attendance at,
102 ; first of, in His ministry, 152 ;
second of, 171, 180 ; third of, 308 ;
numbers present at, 387 ", last of Je
sus' ministry, 423; preparation for,
424.
Perea, Jesus' last journey through, 347 ;
visited by the Seventy, 365.
Peter, Simon, first meets Jesus, 146 ;
house of, 201, 231 ; call of, 228-230;
preference shown to, with James and
John, 282 ; attempt to walk on the
water, 306 ; first confession of, 308 ;
second confession of, 319, 320 ; denials
foretold, 473, 474 ; thrice denies the
Lord, 493-496; visits the sepulchre
with John, 593 ; sees the Lord in Je
rusalem, 600 ; at the lake of Tiberias,
603.
Pharisees, deputation of, to John, 144 ;
demand a sign of Jesns, 153 ; hinder
baptism by Jesus, 170 ; hostility to
Jesus, 244 ; blasphemy of, 264, 265 ;
demand a sien, 315 ; send oflicers to
arrest Jesus, 332 ; demand His author
ity, 414 ; attempt to entrap Him, 415,
416 ; hypocrisy of, rebuked, 417.
PUate, Pontius, administration of, 132;
Jesus brought before him, 516-521 ;
attempts to release Jesns, 522-528 ;
acts of 529
Prisoner, release of, at Passover, 520.
Pretorium, site of. 514-516.
Punishment, capital, power to inflict,
when taken from the Jews, 38, 497,
498.
Purim, feast of, 174, 177.
Resurrection of saints at tbe crucifixion,
546, 547 ; of Jesus, hour of, 586, 587.

Sabbath, second-first, 239-242; strictly
kept by the Jews, 243 ; feaBts upon,
399.
Sabbaths, certain feast days so regard
ed, 435, 436.
Sabbatic year, John's ministry in, 139.
Sadducees, unite with Pharisees against
Jesus, 314.
Salome, mother of JamcB and John,
391.
Samaritans receive Jesus, 168 ; reject
Him, 361.
Sanhedrim, Jesus before, 184; sends
oflicerB to arrest Him, 333; takeB
counsel to put Him to death, 383;
powers of, 496-499 : second session of,
506-509.
Saturninus, governor of Syria, 3.
Scourging of Jesus, 525, 528.
Scribes, deputation of, from Jerusalem,
265 ; second deputation, 309.
Sepulchre, ihe Lord's, site of, 558-567 ;
sealing of, 568.
Sermon on the Mount, 248-253.
Seventy, the, sending of, 352 ; whtn and
where sent, 354-358.
Shepherds at Bethlehem, i6, 83.
Sidon. See Tyre.
Siloam, pool of, 337.
Simon of Cyrene, 534.
Soldiers, Roman, aid to arrest Jesus,
480 ; bribery of, 694, 595.
Son of God, term how used, 503-505.
Star of the East, 9-11, 90, 91.
Sun, darkening of, 37, 542.
Sweat, bloody, 481.

Tabernacles, feast of, 179 ; attended by
Jesus, 331-333 ; order of events at,
334, 335.
Taxing, the, when made, 2, 6.
Temple, rebuilt by Herod, 8 ; first puri
fication of, 153; tax of, 328; second
purification of, 409, 411 ; veil of, 546.
Temptations, place of, 147.
Thomas, unbelief of, 601.
Tiberius, colleagueship with Augustus,
25-28.
Trial of Jesns, of what accused, 499-
504 ; not impartial. 505.

Varus, governor of Syria, 4.
Via Dolorosa, 534, n. 2.
Washing of disciples' feet by Jesus, 461.
462 ; of Pilate's hands, 624.
Women of Galilee attending Jesus, 261 ;
visit to sepulchre, 673, 574, 582, 584-
686.
Zaccheus, 394, 395.
Zacharias, not high priest, 45 ; home of,
46, 48.
Zacharias, son of Barachias, who, 41T.

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX.

PAGE
Annunciation to Zacharias,  Oct., 6 e. o. 45
Elisabeth conceives a son, and lives in retirement, Oct.-March, 6-5 " 46
Annunciation to Mary,  April, 5 " 48
Mary visits Elisabeth, and remains three months, April-June, 5 " 63
Birth of John the Baptist,  June, 5 " 65
Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem to be taxed, . . Dec, 5 " 66
Jesus born at Bethlehem,  Deo., 5 " 77
The angel and the shepherds,  Dec, 5 " 83
Circumcision of Jesus,  Jan., 4 " 84
Presentation of Jesus  Feb., 4 " 84
Coming of the Magi, .  Feb., 4 " 89
Plight of Jesus into Egypt,  Feb., 4 " 92
Return to Nazareth, and sojourn there, .... May, 4 " 92
JesuB, at twelve years of age, attends the Passorcr, . April, 8 a. d. 101
John the Baptist begins his labors, . . . Summer, 26 " 131
Baptism of Jesus,  Jan., 27 " 131
Jesus tempted in the wilderness,  Jan. -Feb., 27 " 143
Deputation of Priests and Levites to the Baptist, . . Feb., 27 " 143
Jesus returns to Galilee  Feb., 27 " 143
Wedding at Cana of Galilee,  Feb., 27 " 148
First Passover of Jesus' ministry ; cleansing of temple, April, 27 " 152
Jesus begins to baptize,  . May, 27 " 152
Jobus departs into Galileo, through Samaria, . . . Dec, 27 " 158
A few weeks spent by Jesus in retirement, ¦ . Jan.- April, 28 :1 158
The Baptist imprisoned,  March, 28 " 158
Second Passover; healing of impotent man, . . .April, 28 " 171
Jesus begins His ministry in Galilee, . . . April-May, 28 " 193
Calling of the four disoiples, and healings at Capernaum, April-May, 28 " 220
First oirouit in Galilee ; healing of tho leper, . . . May, 28 " 232
Return to Capernaum, and healing of the paralytic, Summer, 28 " 235
Plucking the corn, and healing the man witb withered hand, Summer, 28 " 239
Choice of apostles, and Sermon on the Mount, . Summer, 28 " 245
Healing of centurion's Bervant at Capernaum, . . . Summer, 28 " 253
Journey to Nain, and raising of the widow's son, . Summer, 28 " 255
Message to Jesus of the Baptist,  Summer, 28 " 255
Jesus anointed by the woman ; a sinner, . . . Autumn, 28 u 259
Healing at Capernaum of the blind and dumb possessed ;
oharge of the Pharisees that He casts out devils by
Beelzebub,  Autumn, 28 " 262
Teaching in parables, and stilling of the tempest, . Autumn, 28 " 266
Healing of demoniacs in Gergesa, and return to Capernaum, Autumn, 28 " 270
Matthew's feast ; healing of woman with issue of blood,
and raising of Jairus' daughter  Autumn, 28 " 277
Healing of two blind men, and a dumb possessed ; Phari-
scob blaspheme, .  Autumn, 28 " 283

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX. 621
PAGE
Second visit to Nazareth; sending of the Twelve, . Winter, 29 A. D. 284
Death of Baptist ; Jesus returns to Capernaum, . Winter, 29 " 284
Crossing of the sea, and feeding of the 5,000 ; return to
. Capernaum,  Spring, 29 " 298
Discourse at Capernaum respecting tho bread of life, April, 29 " 306
Jesus visits the coaBts of Tyre and Sidon ; heals the daugh
ter of Syro-PhtBnician woman ; viBits the region of
Decapolis : heals one with an impediment in his speech ;
feedB the 4,000,  Summer, 29 " 309
Jesus returns to Capernaum ; is tempted by the Pharisees ;
reproves their hypocrisy ; again crosses the sea ; heals
blind man at Bethsaida  Summer, 29 " 314
Peter's confession that He is the Christ ; He announces His
approaching death and resurrection ; the transfigura
tion,  Summer, 29 " 316
Healing of lunatic child,  Summer, 29 " 324
Jesus journeys through Galilee, teaching the disciples ;
at Capernaum pays the tribute money , goes up to
feast of Tabernacles  Autumn, 29 " 326
He teaches in the temple ; efforts to arrest Him, . . Oct., 29 " 331
An adulteress ia brought before Him ; attempt to stone
Him ; healing of a man blind from birth ; return to
Galilee,  Oct., 29 " 334
Final departure from Galilee ; is rejected at Samaria ;
sending of the Seventy, whom he follows, . . Nov., 29 " 345
Jesus is attended by great multitudes ; parable ofthe good
Samaritan; He gives a form of prayer, . . . Nov., 29 " 363
Healing of a dumb possessed man ; renewed blasphemy of
the Pharisees'; dining with a Pharisee ; Jesus rebukes
hypocrisy ;. parable of the rich fool, . . . Nov. -Dec, 29 " 364
Jesus is told of the murder of the Galileans by Pilate;
parable of the fig tree ; healing of a woman 18 years
sick ; is warned against Herod, . . . Nov.-Dec, 29 " 366
Feast of Dedication , visit to Mary and Martha ; the Jews
at Jerusalem attempt to stono Him : He goes beyond
Jordan,  Dec, 29 " 370
JeBUB dines with a Pharisee, and healB a man with dropsy ;
parables of the great supper, of the lost sheep, of the
lost piece of silver, of the unjuBt Bteward, of the rich
man and Lazarus,  Dec, 29 " 375
Resurrection of Lazarus ; counsel ofthe Jews to put Him
to death ; He retires to Ephraim, . . . Jan.-Feb., 30 " 378
Sojourn in Ephraim till Passover at hand ; journeys on the
" border of Samaria and Galilee ; healing of ten lepers ;
parables of the unjust judge, and of Pharisee and pub
lican ; teaching respecting divorce ; blessing of chil
dren ; the young ruler, and parable of laborers in the
vineyard,  Feb.-March, 30 " 385
Jesus again announces His death ; ambition of James aud
John  March, 30 " 389
Healing of blind men at Jericho ; Zaccheus ; parable of the
pounds ; departure to Bethany  March, 30 " 392
Supperat Bethany, and anointing of JeBus by Mary, Sat, April 1, 30 " 396
Entry into Jerusalem ; visit to the temple, and return to
Bethany,  Sund., April 2, 30 " 403
Cursing of the fig tree ; second purification of the temple ;
return to Bethany,  Mond., April 3, 30 " 410
Teaching in the temple ; parables of the two sons, of the
wicked husbandmen, of the king's son ; attempts of
His enemies to entangle Him ; the poor widow ; tbe
Greeks who desire to see him ; a voice heard from
Heaven • departure from the temple to the Mount of
Olives • discourse respecting the end of tho world ;
Jesu?seeks%Wremyent™'Bethany, . . Wed.,' A&U »I 30 « 423

622 CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX. PAGE
Sending of Peter and John to prepare the Passover; the
paschal supper,  Thurs., Apr; 6, 30 AD. 423
Events at pasoW supper, . . . Thurs. eve., April 6, 30 " 460
After supper Jesus foretells the denials of Peter ; speaks
of the coming of the Comforter, and ends with prayer,
Thurs. eve., April 6, 30 " 473
Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, . Thurs. eye, April 6, 30 " 477
JesuB is given into the hands of Judas, Thurs., midnight,. April 6, 30 482
Jesus is led to the house of Annas, and thence to palace of
Caiaphas ; is condemned for blasphemy,
* Friday, 1-5 A. m., April 7. 30 " 485
Mockeries of His enemies; he is brought the second time
before the council, and thence taken before Pilate,
Friday, 6-6 A. m., April 7, 30 " 506
Charge of sedition ; Pilate finds no fault with Him, and
attempts to release Him, but is forced to scourge Him,
and give Him up to be crucified, Friday, 6^9 A. m., April 7, 30 " 514
Jesus is crucified at Golgotha, . ¦ Friday, 9-12 a. m^, April 7, 30 " 630
Upon the cross is reviled: by His enemies ; commends His
mother to John ; darkness covers the land ; He dies ;
the earth shakes, and rocks are rent,
Friday, 12 A. M.-3 p. M., April 7, 30 " 539
His body taken down and given to Joseph, and laid in his
sepulchre,  Friday, 3-6 p. M., April 7, 30 " 648
Resurrection of Jesus, and appearance to Mary Magdalene,
Sunday A. M., April 9, 30 " 570
Appearance to the two disciples at Emmaus ; to Peter and
to the Eleven at Jerusalem, . . Sunday p. ia., April 9, 30 " 595
Appearance to the apostles and Thomas, Sunday, April 16, 30 " 601
Appearance to seven disciples at sea of Tiberias, and to
600 at mountain in Galilee. .... April-May, SO " 603
Final appearance to the disciples at Jerusalem, and ascen
sion to heaven,  Thursday, May 18, 30 « 606

PASSAGES OF SCRIPTUEE EEFEEEED TO IN THE
HISTORY.

MATTHEW.
i. 20  48
i. 18-25  65
ii. 1—12  89
ii. 13—23  92
iii. 1—17  131
iv. 1-11  143
iv. 12  171
iv. 12—17  193
iv. 18—22  220
v., vi., vii  245
viii. 2—4  234
viii. 5—18  253
viii. 14—17  220
viii. 18—27  266
viii. 28—34  270
ix. 1  270
ix. 2—9  235
ix. 10—26  277
ix. 27—34  283
ix. 35—38  284
X. 1—42  284
xi. 1  284
xi. 2—19  255
xi. 20—30  259
xii. 1—14  2S9
xii. 15-21  245
xii. 22—50  262
xiii. 1—52  266
xiii. 63—58  284
xiv. 1—12  284
xiv. 13—34  298
xiv. 34—36  306
xv. 1—20  308
XV. 21—39  309
XVi. 1—13  314
XV). 14—28  316
xvii. 1—9  316
xvii. 10-21  324
xvi'. 22—27  326
xviii. 1—35  326
xix. 1-2  346
xix. 2  363
xix. 3—30  386
XX. 1—16  386
xx. 17-28  389
xx. 29—34  392

xxi. 1—11  403
xxi. 12—19  410
xx:. 20-46  412
xxii. 1—46  412
xxiii., xxiv., xxv., .. 413
xxvi. 1—16  413
xxvi. 6—13  396
xxvi. 17—20  423
xxvi. 20—29  460
xxvi. 30—35  473
xxvi. 36—46  477
xxvi. 47—56  482
xxvi. 57—76  485
xxvi. 67—68  606
xxvii. 1—10  506
xxvii. 11—31  514
xxvii. 32—38  530
xxvii. 39—56  539
xxvii. 57—66  548
xxviii. 1—8  570
xxviii. 9—15  571
xxviii. 16—20  603
MARK.
i. 4—11  .131
i. 12—13  143
i. 14—15 ....171-193
i. 16—34  220
i. 35-39  232
ii. 1—14  235
ii. 15—22  277
ii. 23—28  239
iii. 1—6  239
iii. 7—19  245
iii. 20—21  253
iii. 22—35  262
iv. 1-41...  266
v. 1—20  270
v. 21—43  277
vi. 1—30...  284
vi. 31—52  298
vi. 63—56  306
vii. 1—23  308
vii. 24—37  309
viii. 1—10  309
viii. 11—26  314

viii. 27—38  316
ix. 1—10  316
ix. 11—29  324
X. 1  346
X. 2—31  386
x. 32—45  389
x. 46—52  392
xi. 1—10  403
xi. 11  404
xi. 12—19  410
xi. 20—33  412
xii. 1—40  412
xii. 41—44  413
xiii. 1—37  413
xiv. 1—2  413
xiv. 3—9  396
xiv. 10-^11  413
xiv. 12—17  423
xiv. 18—25  460
xiv. 26—31  473
xiv. 82—42  477
xiv. 43-52  482
xiv. 53—72  485
xiv. 65  506
xv. 1  506
XV. 2—20  514
xv. 20—28  530
XV. 29—41  539
xv. 42—47  548
xvi. 1—8  570
xvi. 9—11  571
xvi. 12  595
xvi. 13—14  596
xvi. 15—18  603
xvi. 19—20  607
LUKE.
i. 5—22  45
i. 23—25  46
i. 26—38  48
i. 30-56  68
i. 57—80  65
ii. 1—5  66
ii. 6—7  , 77
ii. 8—20  83
ii. 21— 3S  84

624

PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.

vi.
vii. vii.
vii.
viii.viii.viii.viii.viii.viii. ix.ix.ix. ix.ix.ix.ix.ix.

x.
xi.xi.
xii.
xii.
xiii. xiv. xv.
xvi.
xvii.xvii.

39—40  92
41—52  101
1—22  131
1-13  143
14  171
14—32  193
33—42  220
43—44  232
1—11  220
12—16  234
17—28  235
29—39  277
1—11  239
12—49  245
1—10  253
11—35  255
36—50  259
1—3  259
4—15  266
19—21  262
22—25  266
26—39  270
40—56  277
1—9  284
10—17  298
18—36  316
37—42  824
43—50  326
51—56  345
57—60  266
61-62  345
1—24  345
25—37  363
38—42  370
1—13  363
14—36  364
1—22  364
22—59  365
1—35  366
1—35  875
1—32  375
1—31  376
1—10  376
11—37  385

xviii. 1—14  385
xviii. 15—30  386
xviii. 31—84  389
xviii. 35—43  392
xix. 1—28  392
xix. 29—44  403
iix. 45—48  410
xx. 1—18  412
xx. 19—47  413
xxi. 1—36  413
xxii. 7—14  423
xxii. 15—30  460
xxii. 31—38  473
xxii. 39—46  477
xxii. 47—48  482
xxii. 49—53  483
xxii. 54—62  485
xxii. 63—71  506
xxiii. 1  506
xxiii. 2—25  614
xxiii. 26—34  630
xxiii. 35—49  539
xxiii. 60—56  648
xxiv. 1—9  570
xxiv. 9—12  671
xxiv. 13—32  955
xxiv. 33—48  596
xxiv. 49  606
xxiv. 50—53  607
JOHN.
i. 19—51  143
i. 32—34  131
ii. 1—18  148
ii. 14—25  152
iii. 1—22  162
iii. 25—36  158
iv. 1-45  158
iv. 2  152
iv. 46—54  159
v. 1—47  171
vi. 1—21  298
Vi. 22—66  306

vi.

67-71 ..

 307

vn.

2—10 ..

 326

vn.

Vlll

ix.
1—39 . .
 334
X.
1—21 . .
 334
X.
X.
25—42 . .
 371
XI.
XI.
47-57 . .
 379
xi.
64—57 . .
 385
xii.
1—11 . .
 396
Xll.
12—20 . .
 403
xxii.
xiii.
2—30 ..
 460
XI 11.
36—38 . .
 473
xiv.
, xv., xvi.
xvii., 473
xviii.
1-2 ..
 477
xvm.
3—12 . .
 482
xviii.
13—27 . .
 485
xviii.
28—32 . .
 613
xviii.
33-40 . .
 514
XIX.
1-15 ..
 614
xix.
16 24 ..
 630
XIX.
xix.
31 42 . .
 648
XX.
1-18 . .
 670
XX.
19—23 . .
 596
XX.
24—29 . .
 601
XXI.
ACTS.
i. 1—8  608
i. 9—12  607
i. 18-19  606
1 CORINTHIANS.
xv. 6
xv. 6
696
603
PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE REFERRED TO IN THE
OHRONOLOGIOAL ESSAYS.
MATTHEW 1-7
16 
9
.. 12
.. 7
NUMBERS.
ii
xiii. 6—9 
.. 40
.. 88
iv. 3 
ii.
LUKE.
JOHN.
DANIEL.
i.
i.
il.ii
5
24 28
1,2 
.. 14
.. 15
,. 3
.. 23
i. 29
ii. 20
v. 1
xviii. 18 
.. 22
8,40
.. 3640
.. 17
ISAIAH.
iii.
xviii. 31
.. 87
Ixi. 2 
THE END.
YALE UNIVERSITY LIBR

3 9002 051

06 6414