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

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

PART III.

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

§§ 21-35.

§ 21. This our Lord's first Passover is mentioned only by John; though the language of the other Evangelists implies, that he had been again in Judea; Matth. 4, 12. Mark 1, 14.

John connects with this first Passover the cleansing of the temple and the casting out of the traders; while the other Evangelists describe a like transaction at his last Passover, Matth. 21, 12 sq. Mark 11, 15 sq. Luke 19, 45 sq. The question is raised, whether these were different transactions; and whether there is not here a neglect of the order of time, either by John or in the other Gospels. As the language and the note of time in all the Evangelists in respect to both the instances, is entirely definite and specific, the answer may be said to depend upon a further question, viz. Whether our Lord would be likely to repeat a highly symbolic and important public act, after an interval of two or three years? That he was accustomed to repeat the substance of his discourses, or at least the more striking parts of them, at different times and before different persons, is sufficiently obvious. Compare Luke 11, 37-54 uttered in Galilee, with Matth. 23, 1-39 delivered at Jerusalem; likewise Matth. 5, 13 in the Sermon on the Mount, with Mark 9, 50 and Luke 14, 34. 35, spoken elsewhere; and also the different examples of the Lord's prayer, Matth. 6, 9-13. Luke 11, 2-4. Further, Matth. 5, 29. 30 compared with Mark 9, 43-47; and Matth. 6. 25-33, with Luke 12, 22-31. Such examples indeed may be multiplied almost indefinitely, as the pages of the Harmony every where show Now if this is true in respect to the discourses of Christ, why might he not just as well have repeated, after a long interval and before different persons, a public symbolical act, so significant in itself, and so expressive of his character and authority as the Messiah? The Jews, it seems, did not question his right to perform such an act, provided he was a true prophet 'hey only demanded some sign of his authority; John 2, 18. This Jesus gave, and had already

given in his mighty works, wrought at the same Passover, v. 13; works which drew from Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrim, the admission, that he was "a teacher come from God;" John 3, 2.

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

§§ 23, 24. The order is here determined by comparing John, 3, 24 with Matth 4, 12. Mark 1, 14. Jesus goes out with his disciples from Jerusalem into the country of Judea; where he remains until after John was cast into prison. See the next Note.

§ 25. John 4, 35 contains a specification of time which is tolerably definite: "Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest?" According to Lev. 23, 5-7. 10. 11. 14. 15, and Jos. Antiq. 3. 10. 5, the first-fruits of the barley-harvest were presented on the second day of the paschal week; while the wheat harvest was two or three weeks later; see Bibl. Res. in Palest. II. p. 99 sq. Hence this journey of our Lord must have been made in the latter part of November or in December, about eight months after the preceding Passover. It follows, that the public ministry of John the Baptist had continued for at least a year and six months, before his imprisonment; that is to say, on the supposition that he commenced his labours about the time of the Passover in the preceding year. See Note on § 7, last paragraph.

§ 28. The visit to Nazareth is inserted here on the testimony of Luke 4, 16 sq. which is supported by Matth. 4, 13. The visit mentioned in Matth. 13, 54 sq. Mark 6, 1 sq. was later, and took place after the raising of Jairus' daughter. Our Lord's escape from the crowd, Luke 4, 30, does not seem necessarily to imply any thing directly supernatural; see the similar circumstances narrated, John 8, 59. 10, 39.

29. That the call of the four Apostles belongs here, in accordance with Mark's order, is obvious; since they were afterwards present with Jesus at the healing of the demoniac and of Peter's wife's mother, §§ 30, 31.-The three accounts all evidently relate to the same transaction. Luke relates more particularly the former part, including the putting off upon the lake in Simon's boat and also the miraculous draught of fishes; and passes lightly over the latter part. Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, narrate the former part only generally; but the latter part with more detail. In the one part, Luke introduces circumstances which the others omit; in the other part, Matthew and Mark mention facts which Luke has not noted. The remark of Spanheim 18 here just: "The facts narrated by Luke are not contradicted by Matthew, but only passed over. Nothing is more common than that circumstances omitted by one, should be supplied by another; lest the sacred writers should seem to have written by compact, or lest the readers should cleave to one and neglect the others." Dubia Evang. Tom. III. Dub. 72. vii.

PART IV.

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

§§ 36-66.

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

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

The only reasonable ground of doubt in this case, is the absence (in the Greek) of the definite article before the word signifying feast, or rather festival. Did the text read "the feast of the Jews," (as is actually the case in some Manuscripts and Editions,) then, as most admit, it would with sufficient definite. ness denote the Passover; comp. Matth. 26, 5. Luke 2, 42. John 4, 45. 11, 56. etc. At any rate, even as the text now stands, it may assuredly in itself just as well denote the great Jewish festival, as any other. The following considerations seem to show, that it does most probably thus stand for a Passover, viz. the second in our Lord's public ministry.

1. The same word without the article is put definitely for the Passover, in the phrase "at the feast," where our English version from necessity inserts the or that, Matth. 27, 15. Mark 15, 6. Luke 23, 17. Comp. John 18, 39.

2. It is not probable, that John means here to imply that the festival was indefinite or uncertain. Such is not his usual manner. The Jewish festivals were to him the measures of time; and in every other instance they are definitely specified. So the Passover, John 2, 23. 12, 1; even when Jesus does not visit it, 6, 4; and also when it is expressed only by the feast, 4, 45. 11, 56. 12, 12. 20. So too the festival of Tabernacles, 7, 2; and of the Dedication, 10, 22. This is all natural in him; for an indefinite festival could afford no note of time.

3. The plucking of the ears of grain by the disciples (§.37 and Note), shows that a Passover had just been kept; which tallies accurately with this visit of our Lord to Jerusalem.

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

It also would give the same duration of three and a half years to our Lord's ministry.

5. Nor can we well understand here the festival of Purim, which occurred on the fourteenth and fifteenth of the month Adar (March), one month before the Passover; see Esth. 9, 21. 22. 26-28. Against this the following considerations present themselves: (a) The Jews did not go up to Jerusalem to celebrate the festival of Purim. The observance of it among that people throughout the world, consisted solely in reading the Book of Esther in their synagogues on those days, and making them "days of fasting and joy, and of sending portions [dishes] one to another, and gifts to the poor;" Esth. 9, 22. Jos. Ant. 11. 6. 13. But the "multitude," John 5, 13, seems to imply a concourse of strangers at one of the great festivals.-(b) It is very improbable, that Jesus would have gone up to Jerusalem at the Purim, to which the Jews did not go up, rather than at the Passover, which occurred only a month later. His being once present at the festival of Dedication (John 10, 22) is not a parallel case; since he appears not to have gone up for that purpose, but this festival occurred while he remained in or near Jerusalem after the festival of Tabernacles, John 7, 2 sq.-(c) The infirm man was healed on the Sabbath, John 5, 9; which Sabbath belonged to the festival, as the whole context shows, John 5, 1. 2. 10-13. But the Purim was never celebrated on a Sabbath; and, when it happened to fall on that day, was regularly deferred; see Reland Antiq. Heb. IV. 9. 6. The main objection urged against taking this festival as a Passover, is the circumstance, that in such case, as our Lord did not go up to the Passover spoken of in John 6, 4, but only at the subsequent festival of Tabernacles in John 7, 2 sq. he would thus have absented himself from Jerusalem for a year and six months; a neglect, it is alleged, inconsistent with his character and with a due observance of the Jewish law. But a sufficient reason is assigned for this omission, viz. "because the Jews sought to kill him," John 7, 1. comp. 5, 18. It obviously had been our Lord's custom to visit the Holy City every year at the Passover; and because, for the reason assigned, he once let this occasion pass by, he therefore went up six months afterwards at the festival of Tabernacles. All this presents a view perfectly natural; and covers the whole ground. Nor have we any right to assume, as many do, that our Lord regularly went up to Jerusalem on other occasions, besides those specified in the New Testament.

In this instance, the most ancient view is that which interprets the festival as a Passover. So Irenæus in the third century; and the same view was adopted by Eusebius, Theodoret, and others; and in later times has been followed by Luther, Scaliger, Grotius, Lightfoot, Le Clerc, Lampe, Hengstenberg, etc. Cyril and Chrysostom held to a Pentecost; and so, in modern times, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, etc. The festival of Purim was first suggested by Keppler; and at the present day this is the only view, aside from the Passover, that finds advocates. Those who hold it, as Hug, Neander, Olshausen, Tholuck, Meyer, (Lücke and De Wette leave the question undecided,) regard John 6, 4 as having reference to the second Passover during our Lord's ministry; which latter thus becomes limited to two and a half years.

§ 37. The circumstances here narrated show that a Passover had just been celebrated; see Note on § 25. The phrase "second sabbath after the first" in

Luke 6, 1, is more properly translated "the second-first sabbath," and was probably a sort of proper name for the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover or of unleavened bread; that is, the first of the seven Sabbaths reckoned between that day and Pentecost; see the Greek Lexicons, also Scaliger Emendat. Tempp. VI. 557. Our Lord would seem to have hastened away from Jerusalem; for which a reason is found in John 5, 16. 18.

§ 40. The appointment of the Twelve follows here according to Mark and Luke. Matthew gives their names in c. 10, 24, as having been already appointed. Lebbeus, called also Thaddeus by Matthew and Mark, is the same as Jude the brother of Janies in Luke. The epithet Zelotes, Zealot, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word, Cananite, Zealot. Nathaniel, who is mentioned with the Apostles in John 21, 2, was probably the same as Bartholomew, who elsewhere also is coupled with Philip; see John 1, 45 sq.

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

1. The choice of the Twelve by our Lord, as his ministers and witnesses, furnished an appropriate occasion for this public declaration respecting the spiritual nature of his kingdom, and the life and character required of those who would become his true followers. Luke expressly assigns this as the occasion; and although Matthew is silent here and elsewhere as to the selection of the Apostles, yet some passages of the discourse as reported by him, seem to presuppose their previous appointment as teachers; see Matth. 5, 13. 14. 7, 6. 2. The beginning and the end of both discourses, and the general course of thought in both, exhibit an entire accordance one with the other.

3. The historical circumstances which follow both discourses are the same, viz. the entrance into Capernaum and the healing of the Centurion's servant. The main objection which has been felt and urged against the identity of the two discourses, is the fact, that Matthew's report contains much that is not found in Luke; while, on the other hand, Luke adds a few things not found in Matthew, as vv. 24-26. 38-40. 45; and, further, his expressions are often modified and different, as in vv. 20. 29. 35. 36. 43. 44. 46. But this objection vanishes, if we look at the different objects which the two Evangelists had in view. Matthew was writing chiefly for Hebrew Christians; and it was therefore important for him to bring out, in full, the manner in which our Lord enforced the spiritual nature of his dispensation and doctrine, in opposition to the mere letter of the Jewish law and the teaching and corrupt practice of the Scribes and Pharisees. This he does particularly, and with many examples, in Matth. 5, 18-38. 6, 1-34. Luke, on the contrary, was writing mainly for Gentile Christians; and hence he omits the long passages of Matthew above referred to, and dwells only upon those topics which are of practical importance to all, whether Jew or Gentile. In other respects, the discourses, as given by the two writers, do not differ more than is elsewhere often the case in different reports of the same discourse. Compare Matth. 24, 1-42 with Mark 13, 1-37 and Luke 21,