Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

designed for the place of Jesus's residence, after the return from Egypt.

The visit of the Magi at Bethleem is justly placed after the purification ; for otherwise Mary, having received such rich presents, would not have offered the offering of the poor, Luke ji. 24. comp. Lev. xii. 8. Nor, again, after Herod's jealousy had been raised, could the child Jesus bave been safely presented in the Temple with so many circumstances of solemnity. No juft objection to this order can be drawn from Luke ji. 39: for this Evangelist, omitting the circumstances in Matthew, chap. ii. 1-22, except the journey into Galilee, gives a seeming connection to events really diftant, as all concise historians do. So Luke xxi. 7, &c. Jesus's prophecy seems immediately cona! nected with the observations in ver. 5, 6: and yet that there was some intervening time, and that the scene was not the Temple but the Mount of Olives, which commanded a full view of the Temple, appears from Macch. xxiv. 3, Mark xiii. 3. So likewise, Luke xxiv. 50, the ascension of Christ seems connected with his appearance to the apostles on the first day of his resurrection ; and yet the same writer teaches us, A&ts i. 32 that forty days intervened. And, again : the journey into Galilee, mentioned Matth. 4. 12, Mark i. 14, Luke iv, 142, seems to have immediately followed the temptation : and yet St. John thews that there were many intermediate facts, the testimony of John the Baptist, the conversion of Andrew, Sie. mon, Philip, and Nathaniel, a journey into Galilee, a miracle at Cana, attendance at the passover, and baptifing in Judeae See also Acts ix. 19-26, where St. Paul's journey into Arabia, mentioned Gal. i. 17, is omitted. « This, says Lardner, is an instructive instance: the omiffion is certain and undoubted.” Suppl. to Cred. 1.299. Other instances are Matth. xii. 8, 9, xiii. 9, 10: 53, 54. ' xix. I, 10. xxi. II, 12: 19, 20. xxvii. 7. xxviij. 15, 16. Mark x. 1. xvi. 18, 19. Luke xix. 45. John vi. 49, 41. See $ 148. Matth. xxviii. 9.

"After the residence of some months at Bethleem, probably near the end of our Lord's first year, the Magi, may have of fered their gifts : and when Herod slaughtered the infants, our Lord may have entered on his second year. This is agreeable to Matth. ii, 7, 16; supposing, which is most natural, that the star appeared at the birth of Christ. This is my opinion.'

To this we shall add part of another note, as it relates to the latitude with which the Evangelists use some forms of ex p:ession which seem to denote an immediate connection of one event with another, and contains Mr. Jones's remark on the subject ; leaving the whole to the judgment of our Readers.

i § 29. It appears from the order of St. Mark's and of St. Luke's narration, that the leper was healed during the second

journey

journey of our Lord into Galilee after his public ministry; and during that circuit about Galilee which is spoken of Matth.

and during the parallel ximates tha

St. Mark plainly intimates that this was done in some of those cities to which Jesus went in his progress, after he left Capernaum, chap. i. 35, and before he returned thither again, chap. ii. 1. Pilkington's Harm. notes, p. 18.

"The miracle was performed in a certain city, Luke v. 12: and therefore not immediately on Jesus's descent from the mountain, Matth. viii. 1.

Mr. Jones, in his judicious Vindication of St. Matthew's Gospel, London, 1719, thinks that Matth. viii. 2-4, is in the proper order of time, and that the other Evangelists place it where they do, because done at Capernaum. In support of his opinion he alleges the form of transition, Matth. viii. l. KatalóUTI %. A

"But, , it is certain from comparing Marki. 21, 35, and ji. I, that the leper was not healed in Capernaum. See also Matth. viii. 5. And ii. the form of connection, used Mauh. viii. 1, only proves that on Jesus's descent from the mountain great multitudes followed him. This verse refers to Match, v. I, and should not be detached from the foregoing chapter.

Kai ido is the introductory phrase prefixed to this relation ; of which see this Author, p. 38, 9. His words are, “ Is it not evident that these, and such as these [idwoz, xai ids, x..] are designed only for the better transition from one story to another? Is it not very plain that they regard only the subsequent story? Have these phrases any reference at all to what goes be. fore? Do they intimate that the next fact related was immediately in order of time after that which was before related ?”

. Other marks of transition mentioned by him as used with latitude are, xai šyéveto, xai {n9wv, xai TPOTET.I wv, siosalóuto di, repit ATWV di, xai avaigas tò sóua. We may add, TOTE, μετα ταυτα, όν, εν ταις ημέραις εκείναις, εν μια των ημερών : and an attentive reader will remark others.' Sie Chemnitius's Harm. Proleg. p. 17, 18.

His Lordship is of opinion, with Calvin, Medc, Lardner, Bishop Hurd, and others, that Jesus cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple twice. On the contrary Mr. Mann, Dr. Priestley, and Bishop Pearce contend that Jefus purged the Temple only at the last paflover. Dr. Newcome has stated their arguments, and given a distinct reply to each of them. After comparing them attentively together, we think it the more probable opinion that Jesus purged the Temple only once ; though we acknowledge that we are at a loss to account for the anticipation which this implies in St. John's narrative.

The

under of times that cheference and only

The Bishop, in a long note, has particularly confidered, and, we think, effe&tually refuted, a singular position advanced by Lamy, Harm. 106, Apparatus 212, that the Baptist was twice impriloned, first by the Sanhedrim, and then by Herod.

The following extracts relate to the duration of our Lord's ministry, and include some of the principal circumstances which led ibis intelligent Writer to adopt the common opinion, in preference to Mr. Mann's hypothesis, so lately revived and ably supported, by Dr. Priestley: we hope that the importance of their contents will be a sufficient apology for their length.'

• If Jesus was born early in Otober, in that month he entered on his thirtieth year. We cannot, therefore, allow that more than about six months elapsed between the beginning of his min stry and the first passover. John ii. 23, affords reason to conclude that Jesus continued in Jerusalem during a part of the paschal week; and it was a conduct very suitable to the great ends of his ministry, if he protracted his' stay beyond the time of that whole festival."

o$ 22. Jesus leaves Jerusalem, and exercises his public ministry in Judea, probably in the parts about Jordan. John üi. 22, the word dit prow imports a considerable space of time. We fee indeed, Acts xxv. 6. xx. 6, that it is sometimes reftrained to ten or seven days. But in John xi. 54, which is a parallel place, where it is used absolutely, and xebvou is understood, it can scarcely mean less than a month. In the place before us it seems to import a still longer time. John iii. 22,

Ek w716s, compared with John iv. 1, will lead us to conclude that in Judea, after the passover, Jesus made and baptised more disciples than John. And we cannot but think that they were instructed, as well as baptised.

of 33*. I think with many commentators that this tranfaction happened on the first Sabbath after the sixteenth of Nisan, that is, after the second day of the feast of 'unleavened bread. See $23. We may well suppose that our Lord and his disciples were then on their way from Jerusalem to Galilee, after having kept the pallover. John v. 16, 18, will furnish a reason why our Lord chose to remain so short a time in Jerusalem. 'Odov TacleTV, Mark ii. 23, may refer to such a journey as by custom might be taken on the Sabbath. See Acts i. 12. Matthew resumes what he had omitted in its proper place.

• Dr. Priestley, the learned and ingenious defender of Mr. Mann's hypothesis, thinks that the passover recorded $ 20, $ that is, John ij. 13, was that which immediately preceded the transaction here related.” The duration of our Lord's mi

[ocr errors]

* N. B. This refers to Luke vi, 1–5, and the parallel passages.

nistry niftry turns on this point. I will, therefore, place before the Reader, in one view, the evidence against what has been lately supported with as much plausibility as the subject admits.

iWe read, $20, that Jesus celebrated at Jerusalem the first passover during his public ministry; and though I allow that he might work miracles, make disciples, and purge the Temple, before the fourteenth of Nisan, yet John ij. 23, shews that he also displayed his miraculous power during the feast, that is, during some part of the seven days after the paschal lamb was flain. It is observed, John ii. 24, that at this paflover Jesus did not trust himself to those who believed in him: and John jii. 2, a Jewish ruler visits Jesus by night, and refers to his miracles. The Reader must judge from these circumstances whether it is not probable that Jesus continued at Jerusalem at Jeaft during the eight days of this festival.

• In $ 22, fome remarks have been made on John iji. 22, compared with iv. 1. Dr. Priestley observes on John iii. 22. I. Several circumstances make it evident that Jesus's stay in Judea at that time could not be long. For not only do the other Evangelists make no mention of this stay in Judea; but the manner in which they all relate the history of the first transactions in Galilee shews that they had no idea of any thing confiderable having been done before, Matth. iv. 17. Mark i, 28. Luke iv. 14.

62. Jesus could not be long in making disciples enow to alarm the Jews.

3. Peter and Andrew, James and John, did not particularly attend upon Jesus vill after his arrival in Galilee. See these arguments more fully stated in Dr. Priestley's Harm. p. 52, 53

But the force of these objections will be abated, if we consider that the Evangelists often omit very important events; (for instance, three of them are filent on our Lord's attendance at any Jewish feast except the last passover): that Jesus might with much wisdom preach more openly and universally in the remote province of Galilee than he chose to do in Judea : that Jesus's high reputation for what had pasied in Judea seems to have gone before him into Galilee, Luke iv. 14: that supposing Jesus to have tarried in the parts about Jordan, twenty or thirty : miles from Jerusalem, and to have proceeded at first with that reserve and circumspection which his vicinity to the Jewish ruJers seems to have required, it might be some time before their jealousy became dangerous to him: and that, before the call of Peter, &c. to a stated attendance on Jesus, his disciples are often mentioned, and are once said to have been employed in Þaptising converts. See John ii. 2, 22. iii. 22. iv. 2.

Upon

Upon the whole, I continue to think that at least a month must be allowed for Jesus's abode in Judea.

"Let us suppose that Cana was situated to the West beyond. Nazareth and Sephoris, and that its distance from that part of Judea in which Jesus dwelt was fifty or fixty miles. On this journey Jesus passed probably two whole days in Samaria, John iv. 40, 43: and if a Sabbath intervened, and some attention was occasionally paid to his ministry (John iv. 34), it cannot have occupied less than six or seven days.

• Jesus's presence in Cana is notified at Capernaum, distant about twenty-three miles. One of Herod's court attends Jelus, requests that he would heal his son, receives assurance that his fon should live about one in the afternoon according to our computation, and the next day meets his servants coming from Capernaum to inform him of his son's recovery. Jesus there. fore must have remained at Cana a few days : let us say four.

Luke iv, 15, Jefus teaches in the synagogues of Galilee : and this teaching is diftin&t from that in his circuit through Galilee after the call of Peter, &c. Luke iv. 43, 44. It is also distinct from his teaching in the synagogue at Nazareih; for it precedes it. Cum jam in Galilææ fynagogis aliis magnam fibi auctoritatem comparaffet, tum venit Nazareth, Chemn. Harm. p. 351. In these public instructions not less than two Sabbaths, or eight days, can be employed.

Luke iv. 16. Terus is one Sabbath at Nazareth; and probably his benevolence led him to pais a few days there previous to that Sabbath. We will suppose him then to have con:inued four days in his own city.

« Then, Matth. iv. 13, Jelus goes more than twenty miles from Nazareth co Capernaum and dwells there: for which we must allow some weeks, perhaps three. But it is objected that Jesus could not relide here for any long time, because, Matth. viji. 20, he intimates that he had no fixed habitation during his public ministry. See Dr. Priestley's Harm. p. 54. Answ. The words do not import that Jesus did not reside long in any place during his ministry; but that he did not relide any where in a place of bis own, that he had only a contingent and precasious habitacion.

? After this Jesus went about all Galilee, Matth. iv. 23, and the parallel verses; his fame spread through all Syria, and they brought to him all their fick; ib. ver. 24; and particularly in a certain city he healed a leper, which occafioned hirm to remain out of the city in desert places, where they came to him from every quarter. Then he returned to Capernaum, healed a paralytic, and called Levi. A month is a moderate space of time for these transactions,

But

« VorigeDoorgaan »