from the Feast of Dedication ? Is it probable that Jesus returned to Galilee and coutiiuu-il \i\\ ministty there',' It does not seem .so. The .solemn anil deliberate leave-taking from Galilee is not likely to have been so broken. The principal objection to this view would be that the secret and uuex|)ected visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of TabcnuicU'S does not seem consistent with the solemnity of this leave-taking. We may, how- ever, suppose that the Galihean mini.'strj was practically complete before this date, anil that strong exjnessions like those of Lk il", if they are to be taken as they slaud, refer to one of the later journey.s,
i. 'llie so-called Pereean Ministry. — There is a long section of St. Luke's Gospel, Lk 95i_i834^ which has been often treated as a single whole and as containing the record of a special ministry, identified with the last journey towarils Jerusalem, and having for its scene the laiuis beyoml the Jonlan, This is based upon the fact that the beginning of the section coincides with SIk 10', Mt 19', and that the end of it brings us to the approach to Jericho (Lk 18^''), It is true that some part of the time preceding the last Passover was spent in Per<ea. We know this on the joint testimony of the other SynoplLsts and St, John (Mk 10», Mt 19', Jn WJ), But to suppose that the whole section must be localized there is to misunderstand the structure and character of St. Luke's Gospel. It is far more probable that he has massed together a tpiantity of material derived from some special source to which he hail access, and which could not be easily lilted into the framework supplied to him by St, Mark.
When wo como to examine these materiala in detail, it would .■seem probable that they belong to very dilferent periods in our Lord's ministry. Some Incidents, for instance, appear to assume those easier reiatioiis to the Pharisees which we nave seen to be characteristic of the earlier period (Lk II-'" [but not vv. *2-m] 14Jtt"-), It would be natural also to refer to this or the middle pei-iod the three parables of cli. 15 (Weiss, Ltbeu ,/c««. i. .')0T). Ou the other hand, some of the incidents are pi-actically dated by their coincidence with the other (losjiels ; while others, like the severe denunciations of the Pharisees and eschatolopical sections such as Lk \',^"^» IT^^-lh*, are referred to the later period by their subject-matter. It would be wrong to lay too much stress on mere syntmetry ; but when a natural sequence siip- pests itself, it may be accepted as having such probability as can be attained. The document which St. Luke is using in this part has preserved for us discourses of the utmost value, and it Is largely to them that the Gospel owes its marked Individuality.
ii, Tlte Johdimean Xarratire of this Periml. — The historical value of the Fourth Gospel comes out strongly in this period. Karely has any situation been described with the extraordinary vividness and truth to nature of ch, 7 (.see es]). vv, 11-15- i5-27. 31. 32. ■to-ia)_ Not less graphic are the details of ch. 9 ; and there is marked precision iu the statements of Jn ]i)22f-*f ii'-)-'". We note a special intimacy willi what passes in the inner counsels of the Sanhedrin (Jn ~*'-^'^ ID^-^"), This intimate knowledge might have beer, derived through Nicodemus or through the connexion hinted at in Jn 18'°.* But, apart from the peculiar verisimilitude of these details, some such activity as th.tt described in these chs, is required to explain the great catastrophe which followed. It is impossible that Jesus should have been so much a stranger to Juda!a and Jerusalem as the Synoptic narrative would at first sight seem to make Him. For the steps which lead up to the end we must go to St, John,
iii, 77ip general Character of the Teaching of this Period. — There are no doubt portions of the teaching of this period preserved in tlie Synoptias. But except those contained in Jlk 10'-*^ 1| they are difficult to identify with certainty. For the greater
* The theory of TJeltf has been mentioned above (p. 614 sup.) ; but It turns too much upon a single set of data, and leads to au arbitrary dissection of the Gospel,
JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST
G31
p;ut of our knowledge of it we are iiulebted to St. Jolm. and we may observe that the teachinj; now licjjins to take a new cliaracter. Hitherto it has lii'fii mainly concerned wilh the nature of the Kingdom ; lienceforward greater stress is laid on the person of the King. We have already noted the remarkable verse Jit ll-'ll 'AH things have been delivered unto me of my Father : and no one knowetli llie Son save the Father; neither doth any know the Fatlier save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willelh to reveal him.' This vei-se may be said to represent the text wliich the discourses in St. Jolm set in various lights. We have now the self-revelation of the Son a-s the central life-giving and light-giving force of hu- manity. As lie is the living Bread (Jn (5), so is He the living Water (Jn "■"' ) ; He is the Light (if the world (Jn 8'- 9^) ; He is the Good Shepherd (Jn 10"), the Kesurrection and the Mfe (Jn U^). If we sup))iise that these discourses were really held, we shall understand better than we could do otherwise the state of Christian thought which meets us when we open the lirst surviving Epistles of St. I'aul.