Jesus is represented as travelling leisurely through the cities and villages towards Jerusalem. Now this journey cannot have been the same with that in Luke 9, 51 and John 7, 10; because there Jesus went up privately, while here he is accompanied by multitudes, Luke 14, 25. Nor can it have been a later journey from Galilee; for that in Luke 9, 51 was the final one. Nor indeed were the Jews accustomed to go up from the country to Jerusalem at the festival of Dedication; see Note on § 91. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on John 10, 22. Besides, Luke 13, 22 stands in connection with the warning received by our Lord against Herod, vv. 31-33; which under the attendant circumstances cannot well be regarded as having been given in Galilee, and much less in Jerusalem. But Herod was lord also of Perea; and in that province he had imprisoned and put to death John the Baptist; Joseph. Ant. 18. 5. 2. It would therefore be natural, that our Lord, who had been less known in that region, and who now appeared there followed by multitudes, should receive warning of the danger he was thus incurring. Hence, I have ventured to assign this part of Luke (13, 10-17, 10) to that period of our Lord's life and ministry, which was passed in Perea after the festival of Dedication.

Our Lord first withdrew soon after that festival from the plots of the Jews into Perea, the province beyond Jordan: "He went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. And many resorted unto him and believed;" John 10, 40-42. How long Jesus remained in that region before he was recalled by the death of Lazarus, can be only matter of conjecture. In that interval Lightfoot places all this part of Luke after c. 13, 22; see Opp. II. p. 39. In this I am unable to accord with that profound scholar; because the language of John does not necessarily imply that our Lord at this time made any journey or circuit in Perea itself. At least, it could not then and there be said of him in any sense, that "he went through their cities and villages, teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem," Luke 13, 22; for he had just departed from Jerusalem, and was recalled to Bethany by a special message from the sisters of Lazarus, John 11, 3. 7. All this would seem to imply rather, that Jesus remained during this excursion, at least mainly, in the district" where John had baptized;" so that Martha and Mary knew at once where to send for him. It follows also as a natural inference, that this first sojourn beyond Jordan could not well have been a long one, nor probably have occupied more than a few weeks out of the four months intervening between the festival of Dedication and the Passover.

After the raising of Lazarus, Jesus again retired from the machinations of the Jews to "a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples;" John 11, 54. The Evangelist John records nothing more of his movements, until he again appears in Bethany six days before the Passover; John 12, 1. But the expression used by John as to his sojourn at Ephraim, (literally: there he passed the time,) does not preclude the idea of excursions from that place, nor of a circuitous route on his return to Bethany and Jerusalem at the Passover. Now Matthew, Mark, and Luke affirm expressly, that on his return Jesus went up to Bethany from Jericho ; and the two former narrate, as expressly, that in thus reaching Jericho he had come "into the coasts.of Judea by the farther side of Jordan," where great multitudes followed him, and he healed them and taught them, as he was wont; Matth. 19, 1. 2. Mark 10, 1. With all this the language of Luke 13, 22 accords

perfectly: "And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem;" as does also the mention of the multitudes in Luke 14, 25. With this too accords Luke 13, 31-35, including the warning against Herod and our Lord's reply; as also the touching lamentation over Jerusalem, where Jesus was so soon to suffer. With this accords, further, the fact, that the narrative of Luke subsequent to the portion in question, viz. Luke 18, 15 sq. is parallel with that of Matthew and Mark during the same journey; see §§ 105-109.

After long consideration; therefore, I do not hesitate to refer Luke 13, 22, with the transactions and discourses of which it forms the nucleus, mainly to a journey of our Lord through the populous region of Perea, on his return to Bethany after sojourning in Ephraim. There may also have been excursions from that city to the neighbouring villages of Judea, or even to the Jordan valley. This city Ephraim I hold to be probably identical with Ephron and Ophrah of the Old Testament; and therefore apparently represented by the modern Taiyibeh, situated nearly twenty Roman miles N. N. E. of Jerusalem, and five or six Roman miles N. E. of Bethel, on the borders of the desert which stretches along on the west of the Dead Sea and the Valley of Jordan; see Note on § 93. It occupies a lofty site; and from it one overlooks the adjacent desert, the Jordan with its great valley, and the mountains of Perea beyond, with the Saracenic castle er-Rŭbud, near Ajlûn, in the northern part of Perea, bearing about N. E. Even at the present day the hardy and industrious mountaineers of this place have much intercourse with the valley, and till the rich fields and reap the harvests of Jericho; see Bibl. Res. in Palest. II. p. 121. p. 276. It was therefore quite natural and easy for our Lord, from this point to cross the valley and the Jordan, and then turn his course towards Jericho and Jerusalem; while at the same time he exercised his ministry among the cities and villages along the valley and in the eastern region. Thither, indeed, he not improbably had sent before him the Seventy disciples (see Note on § 80); and some parts of the same district he himself had already visited.

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

If it be objected, that this arrangement crowds too many incidents and discourses into this journey through Perea, the reply is not difficult. Matthew and Mark confine their previous narratives chiefly to Galilee; and give comparatively little of what took place later in Perea. Luke, besides recounting the like events in Galilee, has a large amount of matter peculiar to himself, without any definite notation of time and place; and it is therefore not unnatural to

suppose, that an important portion of it may relate to this last journey. Again, there is room for allowing to this journey in Perea an interval of time, amply sufficient for all these transactions, and indeed many more. If we assume, that our Lord's first sojourn beyond Jordan, his return to Bethany, and the subsequent departure to Ephraim, occupied even two months (which is a large allowance), there still remained nearly two months before the Passover, in which to make excursions from Ephraim, and also traverse leisurely the distance through Perea to Bethany, requiring in itself, at the utmost, not more than five days of travel. If now we compare the transactions thus spread out over these two months (or not improbably over a longer interval), with those recorded during the following six days next before the Passover (see Part VII), we shall hardly be very strongly impressed with the idea, that too much in proportion is thus allotted to this journey.

§ 83. Jesus had now been absent from Jerusalem a year and six months, since his second Passover.

$$ 86, 87. Our Lord had left the temple, and apparently the city; John 8, 59. The healing of the blind man occurred later; see Note on § 90. While thus absent from the city, and yet in its vicinity, Jesus visits Bethany and is received by Martha and Mary, with whom very probably he may have been earlier acquainted. This visit is placed by Luke in immediate connection with the incident of the lawyer and the parable of the Good Samaritan; which therefore are inserted here. The scene of that parable also implies, that it was spoken in the vicinity of Jerusalem and Bethany.

§ 88. Jesus repeats on this occasion the same model-form of prayer taught in the Sermon on the Mount, § 41. Luke's order is here retained; as there is no evidence by which to assign any other.

§ 89. Luke relates the return of the Seventy in immediate connection with their appointment (Luke 10, 1-16), evidently by anticipation. Their appointment appears to have been one of our Lord's last acts in Galilee; and they went forth, probably into Perea and elsewhere, while he proceeded to Jerusalem; see Note on § 80. Their return to him at or near Jerusalem, is therefore here placed as late as may be, before the festival of Dedication.

§ 90. With the healing of the blind man the discourse in John 10, 1 sq. stands in immediate connection; see c. 9, 40. And in the words of our Lord, John 10, 26, spoken at the festival of Dedication, there is a direct allusion to the figurative representation of the shepherd and his sheep in the same discourse. This implies that the same audience was then present, at least in part; and consequently, that the discourse in question had been delivered not long before. For these reasons the healing of the blind man would seem also to have taken place near the beginning of the festival of Dedication, or at least not long before.

§ 91. The festival of Dedication was instituted by Judas Maccabeus to commemorate the purification of the temple and the renewal of the temple-worship,

after the three years' profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes. It was held during eight days, commencing on the 25th day of the month Kislev, which began with the new moon of December. See 1 Macc. 4, 52-59. 2 Macc. 10, 5-8. Josephus calls it the festival of lights or lanterns, and speaks of it as a season of rejoicing; Antiq. 12. 7. 6, 7. It was celebrated by the Jews, not at Jerusalem alone, like the great festivals of the law; but at home, throughout the whole country, by the festive illumination of their dwellings; see Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on Joh. 10, 22.-According to John's narrative, Jesus was now at Jerusalem, not because the Jews were accustomed to go up thither at this festival, but because he had remained in the vicinity since the festival of Tabernacles; see Introd. Note to Part VI. p. 183, 184.

The place "where John at first baptized" (10, 40) was Bethabara beyond Jordan; or Bethany beyond Jordan, according to some manuscripts and editions; see John 1, 28. Nothing more is known as to its situation. On our Lord's sojourn here, and also the probable length of it, see Introd. Note to Part VI. pp. 184, 186.

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

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

For our Lord's sojourn in Ephraim, and his return thence through Perea to Bethany, see Introd. Note to Part VI. p. 187. For a fuller discussion respecting the identity of Ephraim with Taiyibeh, see Greek Harmony, p. 203, 204.

§ 94. Matthew and Mark, having omitted all mention of our Lord's presence and teaching in Jerusalem at the festivals of Tabernacles and of Dedication, as likewise all notice of the raising of Lazarus and other intervening events, here resume their narrative by relating, that after Jesus had left Galilee he approached Jerusalem, as the Passover drew nigh, by passing through the country beyond Jordan. Both Evangelists speak of the great multitudes that followed Jesus.

Luke 13, 10-21 is inserted here, because it immediately precedes, and is thus connected with, the notice of our Lord's journeying towards Jerusalem in Luke 13, 22; see § 95 and Note.

§ 95. For the reasons why Luke 13, 22 is arranged in this connection, see Introd. Note to Part VI. pp. 185, 186. For the appropriateness of this arrangement, so far as it respects vv. 31-35, see the same Note, p. 186, 187.

The lamentation over Jerusalem in v. 34 arises naturally from the mention

of that city in v. 33. In Matth. 23, 37 sq. (§ 123) the same lamentation is repeated in connection with our Lord's denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees in Jerusalem. Luke's phrase, "Ye shall not see me, etc." is explained by the like phrase of Matthew, "Ye shall not see me henceforth, etc." implying that he was now about to withdraw from the world, and that Jerusalem, which then rejected him, would not again behold him and enjoy the privilege of his presence, until compelled by his glorious manifestation to acknowledge him as the true Messiah.

§ 96-103. These sections are placed here for the reasons assigned in the Introd. Note to Part VI. p. 187.

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

§ 107. This discourse probably took place in Perea; as Jesus had not yet arrived at Jericho. The expression to go up, is used of any journey to Jerusalem or Judea; sce Luke 2, 4. John 7, 8. 12, 20. Acts 18, 22.

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

§ 109. Mark and Luke here speak of one blind man; Matthew of two. The case is similar to that of the demoniacs of Gadarå; see Note on § 57.

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

1. The language of Mark is, "They came to Jericho." This, it is said, may be understood as implying, that Jesus remained some days at least in Jericho, where he would naturally visit points of interest in the vicinity; as, for example, the fountain of Elisha, a mile or more distant. The miracle, therefore, may have been wrought, not when he was finally leaving Jericho for Jerusalem; but when he was occasionally going out of, and returning to, Jericho. So NewHarm. Note on § 108.

come,

2. The Greek verb here rendered to come nigh, it is said, may signify not only to draw nigh, but also to be nigh or near. Hence, the language of Luke nay include also the idea expressed by Matthew and Mark, i. c. while he was still near the city. So Grotius, Comm. on Matth. 20, 30. Passow in his Lexicon gives a like definition of the Greek verb, i. e. to be near, to draw near; but neither he nor Grotius brings forward any references to classic authors in support of such a meaning. Indeed, it is very doubtful, whether this definition can be fully sustained by classic authority. Yet in the New Testament and Septuagint there are several passages, which go to imply such a usage of the Greek word. Thus, Luke 19, 29 compared with Matth. 21, 1. So Phil. 2, 3 he was nigh unto death. The usage of the LXX is still more definite; e. g. of Naboth's vineyard, 1 K. 21, 2 because it is near unto my house. Also Deut. 21, 3, the city next [nigh] unto the slain man. v. 6. 22, 2; and trop. Jer. 23, 23. Ruth 2, 20.