3. Thus far to the disciples. And now for its application to the multitudes' [4349] - although here also He could only repeat what on a former occasion He had said to the Pharisees. [4350] Let them not think that all this only concerned the disciples. No; it was a question between Israel and their Messiah, and the struggle would involve the widest consequences, alike to the people and the Sanctuary. Were they so blinded as not to know how to interpret the time'? [4351] Could they not read its signs - they who had no difficulty in interpreting it when a cloud rose from the sea, or the sirocco blew from the south? [4352] Why then - and here St. Luke is again alone in his report [4353] - did they not, in the circumstances, of themselves judge what was right and fitting and necessary, in view of the gathering tempest?
What was it? Even that he had told them before in Galilee, [4354] for the circumstances were the same. What common sense and common prudence would dictate to every one whom his accuser or creditor hauled before the magistrate: to come to an agreement with him before it was too late, before sentence had been pronounced and executed. [4355] Although the illustration must not be pressed as to details, its general meaning would be the more readily understood that there was a similar Rabbinic proverb, [4356] although with very different practical application.
4. Besides these Discourses, two events are recorded before Christ's departure to the Feast of the Dedication.' Each of these led to a brief Discourse, ending in a Parable.
The first records two circumstances not mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, [4357] nor in any other historical notice of the time, either by Rabbinic or other writers. This shows, on the one hand, how terribly common such events must have been, when they could be so generally omitted from the long catalogue of Pilate's misdeeds towards the Jews. On the other hand it also evidences that the narrative of St. Luke was derived from independent, authentic sources - in other words, the historical character of his narrative - when he could refer as well known to facts, which are not mentioned in any other record of the times; and, lastly, that we are not warranted in rejecting a notice, simply because we find no other mention of it than on the pages of the Third Gospel.
It appears that, just then, or quite soon afterwards, some persons told Christ about a number of His own Galileans, whom Pilate had ordered to be cut down, as we infer, in the Temple, while engaged in offering their sacrifices, [4358] so that, in the pictorial language of the East, their blood had mingled with that of their sacrifices. Clearly, their narration of this event must be connected with the preceding Discourse of Jesus. He had asked them, whether they could not discern the signs of the terrible national storm that was nearing. And it was in reference to this, as we judge, that they repeated this story. To understand their object, we must attend to the answer of Christ. It is intended to refute the idea, that these Galileans had in this been visited by a special punishment of some special sin against God. Two questions here arise. Since between Christ's visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles and that at the Dedication of the Temple no Festival took place, it is most probable that this event had happened before Christ's visit to Jerusalem. But in that case it seems most likely - almost certain - that Christ had heard of it before. If so, or, at any rate, if it was not quite a recent event, why did these men tell Him of it then and there? Again, it seems strange that, although the Jews connected special sins with special punishments, they should have regarded it as the Divine punishment of a special sin to have been martyred by a Pilate in the Temple, while engaged in offering sacrifices.