2 Sam. 19, 42. These instances seem sufficient to bear out the proposed interpretation in Luke; which is also adopted by Le Clerc, Doddridge, Pilkington, and others. Nor is this method of explanation "made useless for the purpose of reconciling the Evangelists, by Luke 19, 1," as Newcome asserts. In connection with Jericho, Luke first of all relates this striking miracle; then goes back and mentions that Jesus "entered and passed through Jericho ;" and lastly records the visit to the house of Zaccheus, apparently within the city. Luke 19, 1 therefore is not more at variance with this view respecting the miracle, than it is with the visit to Zaccheus. It is a passing announcement of a general fact, in connection with which other more important circumstances are related, not indeed in the order of time, but partly by anticipation.

3. Less probable than either of the above is the solution of Lightfoot and others, who assume that Jesus healed one blind man before entering the city, and another on departing from it. See Lightfoot Opp. II. p. 42.

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

"Six days before the Passover" is equivalent to "the sixth day" before that festival; see Note on § 49. As our Lord ate the paschal supper on the evening following Thursday, (which evening was reckoned in the Jewish manner to Friday,) the sixth day before the Passover was the first day of the week or Sunday, reckoning back from Friday itself as one day, as is done in all like cases. Jesus then came to Bethany on the first day of the week, from Jericho. John 12, 2-8, where the supper at Bethany is described, is postponed in accordance with the order of Matthew and Mark; see Note on § 131.

PART VII.

OUR LORD'S PUBLIC ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM, AND THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS BEFORE THE FOURTH PASSOVER.

§§ 112-132.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.-SCHEDULE OF DAYS.

THE Jewish day of twenty-four hours was reckoned from sunset to sunset, as is still the case in oriental countries. The paschal lamb was killed on the fourteenth day of Nisan towards sunset; and was eaten the same evening, after the fifteenth day of Nisan had begun; Ex. 12, 6. 8. Our Lord was crucified on the day before the Jewish Sabbath, that is, on Friday, Mark 15, 42; and as he had eaten the Passover on the preceding evening, it follows that the fourteenth of Nisan fell that year on Thursday, reckoned from the preceding sunset. Hence, the sixth day before the Passover, when Jesus came to Bethany, was the first day of the week or Sunday (see Note on § 111); and the transactions of the week, comprised in Parts VII and VIII, may be distributed ac

cording to the following Schedule; which differs somewhat from the Schema of Lightfoot; see his Hor. Heb. on Joh. 12, 2.

Day of Nisan.

Day of → Week.

9.

SCHEDULE OF DAYS.

7. SAT. reckoned from sunset. The Jewish Sabbath. Jesus remains at

Jericho.

10. 1. SUND. from sunset.

12, 1.

Jesus arrives at Bethany from Jericho, John

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

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

13. 4. WEDN. from sunset. Jesus returns to the city; on the way the disciples see the fig-tree withered, Mark 11, 20. Our Lord discourses in the temple, § 115-126; takes leave of it; and, when on the Mount of Olives, on his way to Bethany, foretells his coming to destroy the city, and proceeds to speak also of his final coming to judgment, §§ 127-130.

14. 5. THURS. from sunset. The rulers conspire against Christ. On the eve of this day, (i. e. the evening following Wednesday,) our Lord had partaken of the supper at Bethany; where Mary anointed him, and where Judas laid his plan of treachery, which he made known to the chief priests in the course of this day.

over.

Jesus sends two disciples to the city to make ready the PassHe himself repairs thither in the afternoon, in order to eat the paschal supper at evening.

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

16. 7. SAT.

17. 1. SUND.

The Jewish Sabbath. Our Lord rests in the sepulchre.

Jesus rises from the dead at early dawn; see § 159 and Note.

§ 112. The time is specified in John 12, 12. The other Evangelists do not notice the fact, that Jesus had remained at Bethany the preceding night.

§ 113. Mark 11, 11. 12 specifies the time very exactly. On the cleansing of the temple, see Note on § 21.

Luke 21, 37. 38 is inserted here, because in Luke's order it is only retrospective; being placed after our Lord's discourses on the Mount of Olives, when he had already taken leave of the temple, to which he returned no more.

SS 114-130. These sections include the numerous discourses and transactions of the fourth day of this week.

§ 114. The account of the withering away of the fig-tree might in itself well be connected with the preceding Section. But according to Mark 11, 20, this occurrence took place on the subsequent day.

§ 123. In Matthew, verses 13 and 14 are transposed, as in the best critical editions.

125. This incident of the Greeks is inserted here on the fourth day of the week, rather than on the second, because of John 12, 36; which implies that Jesus afterwards appeared no more in public as a teacher. He immediately takes leaves of the temple.

§ 126. The Evangelist John here gives his own reflections upon the unbelief of the Jews. From v. 44 we are not to understand, that Jesus, after having .eft the temple, returned and uttered this additional discourse. It is rather the vivid manner of the Evangelist himself; who thus introduces Jesus as speaking, in order to recapitulate the sum and substance of his teaching, which the Jews had rejected.

§§ 127-130. The topics of these Sections are more fully discussed in an article by the author of this work, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 1843, No. III. pp. 531.8q.

§ 127. Our Lord takes leave of the temple, to which he returns no more; at the same time foretelling its impending destruction. On his way to Bethany, he seats himself for a time upon the Mount of Olives, over against the temple, where the city was spread out before him as on a map; and here four of his disciples put to him the question, "When shall these things be?" According to Matthew they add: "And what the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" They were still in darkness; and believed, like the other Jews, that the Messiah was yet to go forth as an exalted temporal prince, to subvert the then present order of things, to overthrow their enemies and subdue all nations, and thus restore pre-eminency and glory to the Jewish people, and reign in peace and splendour over the world; see Luke 24, 21. Acts 1, 6. This was the expected coming and the end of the world, or present state of things, referred to in Matth. 24, 3; as also in Luke 17, 20 sq. 19, 11. See Biblioth. Sacra, ib. pp. 531-535.

Jesus does not directly answer the question of the four Apostles; but speaks of deceivers and calamities and persecutions, that should arise. His language here is strictly introductory to the next Section.

§ 128. That the "abomination of desolation" Matth. 24, 15 etc. refers to the Roman armies by which Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed, is shown conclusively by Luke 21, 20.

The subsequent desolation and calamity spoken of in Matth. 24, 29-31 and the parallel passages, may be most appropriately referred to the overthrow and complete extirpation of the Jewish people fifty years later under Adrian; when they were sold as slaves and utterly driven out from the land of their fathers. See Münter's Jewish War, translated by W. W. Turner in the Biblioth. Sacra,

1843. No. III. p. 393 sq. Compare ibid. p. 550 sq. This was the final war and catastrophe of the Jewish nation under the celebrated and mysterious BarCochba, "Son of a Star." It was a catastrophe far more terrible than that of the destruction of Jerusalem; though the latter, in consequence of the vivid description of it by Josephus, has come to be usually considered as the last act in this great tragedy. Such, however, it was not.

The figurative language of these verses (Matth. 24, 29-31, etc.) is similar to that of many passages in the Old Testament, which refer to civil commotions and historical events, of far less importance than the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Jewish state; see Is. 13,9 sq. 19, 1. 5 sq. 34, 2. 4 sq. Ezek. 32, 2. 7. Ps. 18, 7-14. 68, 1 sq. etc. See also Biblioth. Sac. 1843, No. III. p. 545 sq. Further, Luke 21, 28 shows decisively, that these verses cannot have reference to the general judgment of the great and final day; the language of Luke directly expresses temporal deliverance, and that only. That some near catastrophe is meant, appears also from the limitation to "this generation," in Matth. 24, 34 and the parallel passages.

Matth. 24, 36-42 connects itself directly with what precedes, see v. 36; and refers likewise to the overthrow of the Jewish people and dispensation; comp. Luke 17, 20-37. But with v. 42 of Matthew, all direct reference to the Jewish catastrophe terminates. This appears from the nature of the language; and also further from the fact, that thus far both Mark and Luke give parallel reports; while at this very point their reports cease, and all that follows belongs to Matthew alone. This goes to show, that the discourse of our Lord up to this point is to be regarded as a whole, which is here completed; having reference to his coming for the overthrow of Judaism. At this point a new topic is introduced.

§§ 129, 130. Our Lord here makes a transition, and proceeds to speak of his final coming at the day of judgment. This appears from the fact, that the matter of these Sections is added by Matthew, after Mark and Luke have ended their parallel reports relative to the Jewish catastrophe; and Matthew here commences with v. 43, the same discourse which Luke has given on another occasion, in Galilee; Luke 12, 39 sq. § 52. (See Note on § 21.) This discourse in Luke has reference obviously to our Lord's final coming; and that it has here the same reference, is apparent from the appropriateness of the subsequent warnings, and their intimate connection with Matth. 25, 31-46; which latter all interpreters of note agree in referring to the general judgment. See Biblioth Sac. 1. ib. 553 sq.

§ 131. On the fifth day of the week the chief priests and others, after deliberation, came to the formal conclusion to seize Jesus and put him to death; Matth. 26, 3. 4. etc. As the means by which this purpose was aided and accomplished, the first three Evangelists narrate the treacherous intent of Judas; which again Matthew and Mark introduce by describing the circumstances under which it arose during the supper at Bethany. According to Matthew and Mark this supper would most naturally seem to have taken place on the preceding evening; that is, the evening which ushered in, and was reckoned to, the fifth day of the week. John's order would apparently assign it to the evening after the day on which Jesus came to Bethany.

As in the accounts of this supper itself, neither of the Evangelists has specicified any note of time, we are left to infer from other circumstances, whether it more probably took place on the evening after the arrival of Jesus at Bethany, as John seems to imply; or, on the evening following the fourth day of the week, in accordance with Matthew and Mark, after our Lord had taken his final leave of the teinple. The following are some of these circumstances.

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

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

3. The language of Matthew, "then Judas went," v. 14, seems necessarily to connect the visit of Judas to the chief priests immediately with the supper, which therefore must have taken place on the preceding evening. On the other hand, it would be very natural for John to anticipate the time of the supper and narrate it where he does, in order there to bring together and complete all that he had to say further of Bethany; which indeed he mentions no more. There is no sufficient reason for supposing, with Lightfoot and others, that the supper in John is a different one from that in Matthew and Mark. The identity of circumstances is too great, and the alleged differences too few, to leave a doubt on this point. Matthew and Mark narrate it as in the house of Simon the leper; John does not say where it took place, but he speaks of Lazarus as one of those who reclined at the table, implying that the supper was not in his own house. It was not, and is not now, customary in the East, for females to eat with the males; and therefore Lazarus, in his own house, would have been the master and giver of the entertainment. In the two former Evangelists, the woman anoints the head of Jesus; in the latter his feet; yet neither excludes the other. Matthew and Mark do not here name Mary; nor have they any where else mentioned her or Martha or Lazarus. Nor do they in this connection name Judas; whom we know as the fault-finder only from John.

§ 132. "The first day of unleavened bread" is here the fourteenth of Nisan ; on which day, at or before noon, the Jews were accustomed to cease from labour and put away all leaven out of their houses; Ex. 12, 15-17. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on Mark 14, 12. On that day towards sunset the paschal lamb was killed; and was eaten the same evening, after the fifteenth of Nisan had begun; at which time, strictly, the festival of unleavened bread commenced and continued seven days. In popular usage, however, the fourteenth day, being thus a day of preparation, was spoken of as belonging to the festival; and there