ii. 11, willingly made this omission, as he omits some aggravating

circumstances in Peter’s denial of Christ, Luke xxii. 60, though he carefully records the greatness of his sorrow, v. 62. NEWCOME.

192 It has been shown, § 74, that “_after six days_” may signify on the sixth day. But we are not hence to conclude that the phrase has _always_ such a signification. Here it means six days complete, after the discourse recorded in § 74. The eight days mentioned by St. Luke include that of Peter’s reproof and of the transfiguration; which two days Matthew and Mark exclude. Macknight furnishes us with the following apposite reference to Tacitus: Hist. i. 29. Piso says, _Sextus dies agitur—ex quo—Cæsar adscitus sum;_ and yet, § 48 of the same book, Tacitus speaks of Piso as _quatriduo Cæsar_.

Grotius on Matth. xvii. 1, has another solution; Quod Lucas dicit, tale est quale cum vulgò dicimus _post septimanam circiter. Nam Judæos octo dies_ appellasse id quod ab uno sabbato est ad alterum apparet, Joan. 20, 26, &c. NEWCOME.

193 It is remarkable that Luke assigns no reason for this extraordinary silence; leaving his narrative in this place imperfect and obscure, which an impostor would not have done. It is explained by the command of Jesus, related by Matthew and Mark.

194 The original word is _didrachma_, denoting, not tribute or tax in general, but a specific and particular offering which every Jew paid to God. See Josephus, Ant. xviii. x. § 1. This minute accuracy of the evangelist is worthy of note, as an indication of veracity.

195 The twelve apostles and the seventy disciples were commissioned and sent forth at different times. Hence the person here alluded to may, for aught that appears, have been one of the seventy, not personally known to John and to those who were with him. _Letters on Evil Spirits_, p. 39.

196 Here Jesus says, He that is not against us is for us; but in Matth. xii. 30, he says, He that is not with me is against me. Grotius regards both as proverbial sayings;—Proverbia in utramque partem usurpata, veritatem suam habent pro materia cui aptantur;—and alludes to similar forms in Prov. xxvi. 4, 5. NEWCOME.

197 2 Kings iv. 29.

198 This was near the passover; when Jesus, going to celebrate it at Jerusalem, plainly indicated that men ought to worship _there_; contrary to the practice of the Samaritans, who, in opposition to the Holy City, had set up a temple at Gerazim. Hence the cause of their hostility to him as well as to all others travelling in that direction _at that season_. This account perfectly harmonizes with the respectful deportment of the Samaritans towards him at the time of his interview with the woman at Jacob’s well, John iv. 1-42; for he was then coming _from_ Judea, and it was not the season of resorting thither for any purposes of devotion. John iv. 35. BLUNT, Veracity, &c., sect. i. 16.

199 Lev. xii. 3.

200 On this day, which was one of great joy and festivity, it was the custom of the Jews to fetch water from the pool Siloam, some of which they drank with loud acclamations of joy and thanksgiving; and some they brought to the altar, in commemoration of the miraculous relief of their forefathers, when thirsting in the wilderness; and some they brought as a drink-offering to God, to pray for rain against the following seed-time. See BENSON’S Life of Christ, p. 412. JENNINGS, Ant. p. 495. The existence of this custom, thus remotely alluded to, gives great truthfulness to the narrative.

201 Isa. lv. 1, and lviii. 11, and xliv. 3. Zech. xiii. 1, and xiv. 8.

202 Ps. lxxxix. 4, and cxxxii. 11. Mic. v. 2.

203 It is apparent, from various incidental allusions in the Evangelists, that it was the habit of our Lord at this period to spend his days in Jerusalem, in teaching the people and healing the sick, and his nights in the Mount of Olives, in prayer. Yet it is nowhere directly asserted; and the manner in which it is slightly mentioned or alluded to by the sacred writers, is worthy of particular notice, as a proof of their veracity, never met with, in works of fiction. Compare Matth. xxiv. 3, and xxvi. 30; Mark xiii. 3, and xiv. 26; Luke vi. 12, and xxi. 37, 38, and xxii. 39; John viii. 1, 2, and xviii. 1.

204 Lev. xx. 10. Deut. xxii. 21.

205 The Romans, in settling the provincial government of Judea, which they had conquered, deprived the Jewish tribunals of the power of inflicting capital punishments. John xviii. 31. The law of Moses, however, condemned adulterers to be stoned to death. “This woman had been caught in the very fact. Jesus must therefore determine against the law, which inflicted death; or against the Romans, who suffered them not to put any body to death, and who would still less have permitted it for such a crime as adultery, which was not capital among them.—If he condemned not the adulteress _to death_ when he was alone with her, he hereby teaches us to submit to the civil laws of the places where we live.” BASNAGE, _Hist. Jud_. lib. v. c. § 2.

206 When one was condemned to death, those witnesses, whose evidence decided the sentence, inflicted the first blows, in order to add the last degree of certainty to their evidence. DUPIN, Trial of Jesus, p. 7. SALVADOR, Histoire des Institutions de Moise, &c. Liv. iv. ch. ii. p. 76.

207 John vii. 28, is consistent with John viii. 14. “Ye both know my transactions among you, and whence, as a man, I derive my descent; (ch. vi. 42,) and yet there is a sense in which ye know not whence I am, as I came not,” _&c. Kai_ is used in the same manner, Matth. ix. 19. _And yet wisdom_, &c. See also John ix. 30. In this latter sense (ch. viii. 14,) the Jews knew not whence Jesus came, knew not his divine mission, and that he would return to the Father at his ascension. NEWCOME.

208 Deut. xvii. 6, and xix. 15.

209 The Jews who are said to have believed on Jesus (John viii. 30) are not the same with those whom our Lord accuses of seeking to kill him, ver. 40, nor with those who insulted him, ver. 48, &c., although these are not distinguished from the others in the narrative of John, who always mentions the Jews indiscriminately as speaking with Jesus. Cler. Harm. 528. NEWCOME.

210 Deut, vi. 5. Lev. xix. 18, and xviii. 5.

211 The professional reader will not fail to observe the wisdom of this reply. The lawyer sought to learn from Jesus the terms of the condition on which eternal life could be attained; and was made to answer for himself that, by the law, it was attainable by nothing short of the highest degree of love, to God and to his neighbour. The lawyer thus was reminded, out of his own code, that, this being a condition precedent, he could have no title to that which was promised, unless he fully performed every part of the condition; and that in this sense, whosoever offended in one point, or was deficient in performing any part of the condition, was guilty of all—lost the benefit of all. If he murmured at the hardship of losing the reward of all the good deeds he had done, merely for the omission to do a little more; the well-known rule of law and of reason would teach him that nothing is to be allowed for acts of past performance of a condition precedent, unless they are beneficial to the party for whom they are performed.

212 A note of minute accuracy in the historian, Jericho being situated in the plain or valley of Jordan, and Jerusalem being among the mountains of Judea.

213 An incidental and very natural allusion to the well-known custom of that country. For in those hot regions, men travel in the cool of the evening and night, and rest in the daytime; looking for refreshment, if they are not among total strangers, to the hospitality of friends.

214 Ps. lxxxii. 6. Ex. xxii. 7, seq.

215 Ps. lxix. 25. Jer. xii. 7, and xxii. 5.

216 Gen. vii. 4, 7.

217 Gen. xix. 15, seq.

218 Gen xix. 26.

219 The two Evangelists go on to relate our Lord’s observations about divorce and marriage; they agree in substance, which is sufficient; though they differ in the form of the dialogue, neither adhering scrupulously to the exact manner in which the words passed, though we may learn it, by comparing both. Thus Matt. v. 9, reduces to a plain assertion, what Mark informs us was a reply to an inquiry made by the disciples apart. Or, we may suppose with Le Clerc, that this assertion was first advanced to the Pharisees, and then repeated to the disciples. NEWCOME.

220 Gen. i. 27.

221 Gen. ii. 24.

222 Deut. xxiv. 1.

223 The practice of divorcing the husband, unwarranted by the law, had been introduced, as Josephus informs us, (Antiq. XV. vii. 10,) by Salome, sister of Herod the Great, who sent a bill of divorce to her husband Costobarus; which bad example was afterwards followed by Herodias and others. Campbell. This natural allusion to an existing illegal custom is in perfect harmony with the whole history, it being true; but it seldom if ever has a parallel in the annals of forgery.

224 Ex. xx. 12, seq. Lev. xix. 18.

225 As all three came to Jesus, the action of the sons expressed, that they joined in the petition uttered by the mother. They are therefore represented as saying what was said with their consent, and probably by their suggestion. Luke xix. 11, will show how suitable this request was to the time, according to the ideas of our Lord’s disciples. NEWCOME.

226 According to St. Mark, Jesus comes to Jericho; by which may be meant that he is a temporary inhabitant of that city. See Mark vi. 1, and viii. 22. Jesus therefore may be represented, (Matt. xx. 29; Mark x. 46,) not as _finally leaving_ Jericho for Jerusalem, but as _occasionally going out_ of Jericho; in which city he had made some abode, it matters not for how few days. See Mark xi. 19. Jericho was a very considerable city; and we do not read that it was visited by our Lord at any other time. We may therefore suppose that Jesus, accompanied by his disciples and the multitude, and intent on his great work of propagating the gospel, went out of this city, knowing that a fit occasion of working a miracle would present itself; and that on his return, as he drew nigh unto Jericho, (Luke xviii. 35,) he restored the blind men to sight. It is likewise probable that Jesus, having given this proof of his divine mission, or foreseeing that so great a miracle would create too much attention in the people, prudently and humbly passed through Jericho on his return to it, (Luke xix. 1,) and continued his journey to Jerusalem.

As to the remaining difficulty, that Matthew mentions two blind men, and the other Evangelists only one, I must refer to Le Clerc’s maxim, before quoted; (see § 57, note): adding that Bartimeus may have been the more remarkable of the two, and the more eminent for his faith in Jesus. NEWCOME.

227 Here is a fine allusion to historical facts, first observed by Le Clerc. “Thus Herod the Great solicited the kingdom of Judea at Rome, (Jos. Antiq. Jud. XIV. xiv. 4, 5; XV. vi. 6, 7,) and was appointed king by the interest of Anthony with the senate; and afterwards he sailed to Rhodes, divested himself of his diadem, and received it again from Augustus. In like manner his sons Archelaus and Antipas repaired to the imperial city, that they might obtain the kingdom on their father’s death; and we read, (Jos. Antiq. Jud. XIV. xi. 1, and