The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 84

tradition. poi11t,s in the worcl "again" to the first departure from Judroa to Galilee which he had himself described, but of which the synoptists eairl nothing. In eh. v. J1•sus vi~its Jcn_1salem ~ta fe~t, encl there discusses t'ne law of the sabbath, and justi- fies, by the loftiest claims, h1s right to work cures 011 that day. In eh, vi. 4 we read that the Jews' Passover was at hand, which Jesus, however, did not attend. Ho "walkcd_ in Galilee, because the Jews sought to kill him." This wns certainly one yonr, and possibly two years, after the Passover mentioned in eh. ii. 23. In eh. vii. 2, at the Feast of Tabernacles, our Lord does visit Jerusalem (ver. 10), and in the temple, and on the Mount of Olives (eh. viii. 1), he taught and remonstrated with the people, and was exposed to their bitter and increasing hostility. On two occasions he escaped from their malice, and retired "beyond Jordan," to a place "where John at first baptized.11 In eh. xi. he came_ once more to Bethany in close proximity to Jerusalem; we are not told that he entered 1t, but retired to a place called Ephraim, where he awaited the le.st carave.n advance to Jerusalem, so abundantly described by Matthew, Me.rk, and Luke. The question a1ises-Are the synoptists silent concerning this lapse of time e.nd con- cerning the scene of the ministry of our Lord anterior to the last week of his life? Are there any considcrations which tend to throw light upon the discrepancy without impugning the veracity of the fourth evangelist? Two suppositions are possible; either (1) the latter, without any authority, an<l contrary to widespread tradition, invented these imaginary visits to Jerusalem; or (2) he remembered them, and, being eye-witness of the events, recorded them for the benefit of the Church. The first sup- position is untenable, if he wore what he undoubtedly wished his readers to believe, the most intimate friend, associate, and disciple of the Lord. In favour of the second supposition we ought to take into account that that disciple says that be had a home in Jerusalem, and wa.s personally known to the high priest (eh. xviii. 15; xix. 27; ll.. 10). Ca.span's valuable suggestion 1 throws light on the narrative from beginning to end. John the fisherman may have been in the habit of going or sending to Jerusalem fish from the lake, at the periods of the great feasts, when there must have been enormous demands for food. It does not appear, therefore, at all unlikely that Jesus, with some of his disciples, did take the journeys to Jerusalem mentioned by John ; and that, whosoever else accompanied him, John did so, and thus became hie host e.s well as biographer, the auditor of his mightiest words, the witness of his greatest miracles. It is, however, an error to suppose that the Fourth Gospel has expanded the brief report into a lengthened biography. Like the earlier evangelists, the writer con- fines himself to the record of a few solitary days, hinting, just a.s they do, the passage of time, and the occunence of numerous events which produce a deep impression, but of which no details are given. Thus long periods of time are referred to without any particu- lars. Take the abrupt reference to the Feasts of the Passover already mentioned ; notice the abiding in Judiea (eh. iii. 22), the walking in Galilee (eh. vii. 1), the abiding in the wilderness and the town of Ephraim (eh. x. 40 and xi. 64). Again, numerous signs are said to have been wrought, and teachings uttered, of which no special enumeration or further account is given (eh. ii. 23; iii. 2; vi. 2 ; vii. 3, 31; x. 32; xi. 47); besides the summary generalizations of eh. xx. 30 and x.xi. 25. If both synoptists and John &re alike fra"'mentary in their recital, what difficulty is there in supposing that, after the first reco;ds had been made, among the numerous and omitted signs and phlces of dis- course, one who had special opportunities should have made a further selection? Is the synoptic narrative, however, BO absolutely silent about our Lord's visits to Jerusalem? Certainly not. The true text of Luke iv. 44 (approved by Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf (8th edit.), and placed in margin of Tregelles and Revised Version), has Els .-cl:s o-wa:')'fd')'o.s .-,is '1011311.Ca.s, "He was preaching in the synagogues of Judrea." 'l'his is a note of time and place which would correspond with the first or second visit to Jerusalem mentioned in John. Again, the indication of great animosity among the Gali11Ba.D Phari~ees, and one stirred up by emissaries from Jerusalem (Luke v. 17), touching the law of the sabbath and Christ's claim to forgive sins, an hostility which pervades the records of Matt. xii. and parallel pas8ages, derives a great access of light when the conversations recorded in eh. v. are borne in mind or are presupposed. Further, 1 ' Chronological Introduction to the Life of Christ,' p. 142.  THF: GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOTJN. xci ------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - ----