Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

Luke IX. 51. 597
From Pertea the Saviour came back to Bethany in order to raise
Lazarus (John xi). After this miracle, however, he went to
Ephraim in the neighbourhood of the desert (John xi, 54), and
stayed there with his discij)les. It thus appears that, according to
John, the journey of Jesus to the last passover did not begin
exactly at Galilee ; there intervenes, it would rather seem, his stay
at Jerusalem during the feast of dedication, and at Pera3a and
Ephraim in the interval. Luke, on the other hand, makes it appear
as if Jesus went directly from Galilee to the passover. If, however,
to escape these difficulties, we understand the account as applying
to the journey from Ephraim to Jerusalem, our view would well
harmonize with the passage Luke ix. 51, for the lifting up of the
Lord is there expressly spoken of, which stands in direct connexion
with his journey from Ephraim to the passover. But in that case
the passage Luke x. 13, seq., which treats of the guilt of the cities,
Chorazm and Bethsaida, is altogether removed from its proper con-
nexion, for Jesus had left Galilee long before. Nor can Luke x.
38 be reconciled with this view, for, according to that passage, Jesus
is already in Bethany, while at xvii. 11, he again appears on the boun-
daries of Samaria and Galilee, and not till Luke xix. 29 (compare
Matth. xxi. 1 ; Mark xi. 1), makes his entry into Jemsalem. Be-
sides, in that case Luke's narrative leaves too great a space in the
life of Christ. Hence the chronological scries of events must be at
once and wholly abandoned, and the idea of our having in this
section a journal of travel must be given up, unless its varia-
tions from John can be removed, who, undoubtedly, claims the
preference in points of chronological or topographical exactness.
This, however, seems to be effected most simply by the hypothesis
of Sclileiermacher (on the writings of Luke, p. 158, seq.), which
regards the section as blending the narratives of two journeys.*
This acute and learned man observes most correctly, that, not Luke
xviii. 14, must be regarded as the conclusion of the section, but Luke
xix. 48, which records the entry into Jerusalem. f With this,
the account of the journey fittingly ends, while at Luke xviii. 14,
no termination is to be found. This entire account, then, according
to Schleiermacher's view, Luke inserted without change, and it
*5 Care sliould be taken that we are not tempted to confound this hj-pothesis with Dc
"Wette's view of this section, which he thus expresses: "We shall have to notice it
this section an unchronological and unhistorical collection, whieli was occasioned pro
bably. by the circumstance that Luke found a good deal of gof^pel material which hf.
could not elsewhere arrange into its place, and which, consequently, he here threw
together.
f If nevertheless, in our exposition, we keep to Luke xviii. 14, as the conclusion oi
the section, this i§ done simply because our leading object is not criticism so much as the
full understanding of the facts in themselves. To facilitate this, however, we must, after
Luke xviii. 15, again take Matthew as our groundwork, because his Gospel, subsequently
to that point, becomes richer in detail