By Johann Peter Lange
Edited by Rev. Marcus Dods
THE HISTORICAL DELINEATION OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.
THE TIME OF JESUS APPEARING AND DISAPPEARING AMID THE PERSECUTIONS OF HIS MORTAL ENEMIES.
Section XIV
the private journey of Christ
through Galilee, and the
exhortation of his brethren that
he should step out of this
concealment by taking part in
the approaching pilgrimage to
the feast. his rejection of
their advice, and secret journey
to Jerusalem
(Mat 17:22-23. Mar 9:30-32. Joh
7:1-10)
After our Lord, in the mountains
near the sources of the Jordan,
had brought the disciples to the
decision that they would belong
to Him and follow Him even in
opposition to the sentiments and
leanings of the people, and had
thereby laid the first
foundation of His New Testament
Church in opposition to the
Jewish, He could calmly go to
meet the risk of death which
threatened Him everywhere, both
in Judea and in Galilee. But
nevertheless He found it
necessary meanwhile to exercise
the greatest caution in openly
showing Himself in Galilee. He
would therefore seem, in all
probability, to have avoided the
ordinary way back over the sea,
and to have betaken Himself in
returning to His home by a
considerable detour through
Upper Galilee. To this the
expression in Mark seems to
point: ‘They went past,’ or
‘went by’ (παρεπορεύοντο),
‘through Galilee;’ an expression
which has, not without reason,
been also taken to mean,1 that
Jesus did not now, as He
commonly did, travel along the
public roads, but through small
by-roads and field-paths. If the
sense be determined thus, then
Galilee would seem also to be
taken in its stricter sense, as
meaning Upper Galilee. As they
avoided going over the sea, and
went round the sea, it must have
been through Upper Galilee that
they travelled. By these
circuits, as they travelled
through Galilee crossing their
own path (ἀναστρεφωμένων αὐτῶν,
Matt. ver. 22), it would of
course come to pass that they
did not remain on the main road,
but were obliged to choose more
solitary ways by mountain, wood,
and field. To this pitch had
matters come in respect to
Jesus’ safety in Galilee. That
He kept His route as secret as
possible, the Evangelist Mark
further remarks expressly (ver.
30). It suited His views that He
should preserve His life, which
He had in spirit given up to His
Father from the beginning, as
much as possible from secret
plots, for the purpose of giving
it up to His nation and the
whole world, and that He might
fall as the sacrifice of
expiation for the world, at the
right hour and in the right
place.
On this journey He again said to
them quite distinctly, that He
looked forward to be ‘delivered
into the hands of men,’ to be
‘rejected’ in the judicial
courts of men, and to be
‘executed,’ and that ‘He should
rise again on the third day.’
The Evangelist Luke, in another
connection, has already
described to us the impression
which this disclosure made upon
the disciples. They were ‘made
very sad,’ but not in the sense
of implicit resignation to the
pain which the clear expectation
of Jesus’ death might have
occasioned them. The word itself
pained them in an extraordinary
manner. It ever afresh called
forth in their minds the feeling
of dejection.
And ‘even His brethren believed
not on Him.’ They could no
longer endure that He should go
about in such concealment,
whilst they thought that He
might with the happiest results
show Himself in Judea, and even
in Jerusalem itself; they
considered that He had there, no
doubt, powerful friends; that
there His cause must be decided
in His favour. Moreover, just
now the feast of Tabernacles,
which the Jews celebrated in
autumn, was near, and all the
world was addressing itself to
the journey to Jerusalem. Now,
they thought, it was doubly His
duty that He should attach
Himself to the train of
pilgrims; that He should go
forward, leaving this retirement
in Galilee, and in Jerusalem
show His glory in His works
before the eyes of His
disciples, particularly of the
powerful among the Jews who
reverenced Him. ‘No man,’ they
said, ‘dealeth in secret, if he
wishes to stand in public
recognition. Since Thou doest
such things, Thou must manifest
Thyself to the world.’ Now when
John says that ‘even these
brethren had not believed in
Him,’ it has been already shown
that here he cannot be speaking
of a hostile disbelief. (See
above, Book II. ii. 13.) They
were far from meaning to
ridicule Him. His miracles they
evidently acknowledged; of His
authority they felt sure; but
they doubted of the rightness of
the course which He chose to
follow, as shortly before Peter
had done. Peter, in spite of his
fiery character, had sought to
throw obstacles in the way of
His going to suffer: these
brethren, with enthusiastic
boldness and with lofty family
pride, would fain place Him
before the time in the decisive
scene, because they are not
minded to believe His own words,
that He then might become a
sacrifice to the persecution of
His enemies. This want of trust
in His word, of subjection and
self-surrender, is enough to
merit the charge of unbelief
with the Evangelist John. We
know not in what place in
Galilee they gave Him this
advice. At any rate, we must
assume that He had not yet
publicly shown Himself.
Jesus declined their advice. ‘My
time is not yet come,’ He said.
Therein there lay the
intimation, that He certainly
did mean to go to Jerusalem;
only not as yet; and truly not
as yet, because He had not yet
received from the Father the
intimation to do so, or rather,
because, according to the
intimation of the Father, He was
not as yet to travel thither.2
But He was not as yet to go,
because also in a more solemn
sense His time was not yet
come—the time of His death. The
one sense in this connection
hangs closely with the other.
They, however, through this
holding back of His, should not
be restrained from following
their inclination to go up to
the feast. ‘For you,’ He said
reprovingly, ‘the time is always
ready. For you the world cannot
hate; but Me it hateth, because
I testify of it that its deeds
are evil.’ Thereupon He gave
them the distinct direction: ‘Go
ye up to this feast. I go not3
up to this feast; for My time is
not yet come.’
In this passage it has been
overlooked that there is a great
difference between saying, ‘I go
not up to this feast,’ i.e., I
do not join in the pilgrimage to
this feast, and the assurance,
‘I will not come to Jerusalem
during this feast.’ Resort to
the feast had for the Israelites
a religious significance of a
perfectly distinct character; it
was coupled with the observance
of a distinct ritual, and with
the offering of distinct
sacrifices and kindred
observances. In this pilgrimage
Jesus declared to His brethren
that He would not take part.
And, in fact, He did not take
part in it.4 He came this time
to the feast as a Greek (for
example) might have come, in
order that He might, with a view
to some purpose of His own,
avail Himself of the opportunity
of finding the people assembled
there. His resort to the feast
was ‘in secret,’ says John, ‘not
openly;’ it had no religious
character. But that He likewise
meant soon to come to Jerusalem,
He intimated again to His
brethren by the yet more
distinct remark, ‘My time is not
yet fully come.’
But why did He not say to them
plainly that He should come
after? This is a problem which
the Evangelist gives us to
solve. As His brethren and
disciples were children of
truth, they would have been
compelled at Jerusalem to say,
He is coming, if they had been
asked, on their arrival there,
whether He was coming or not.
This is just the case which He
seems to have wished to avoid.
We see plainly He Himself wished
that they should go to the
feast. On the other hand, He
declared to them that He did not
find it advisable to join with
them in the pilgrimage and
celebration of the feast. At the
same time, He repeatedly gave
them to understand, that only
for the moment the favourable
season for His going to
Jerusalem was not yet come. With
these intimations they were
compelled to rest satisfied. And
in fact, in spite of their
chiliastic unbelief, they
understood Him better than many
later interpreters of what He
said. They attached themselves
to the festal caravan. Probably
with the brethren who were His
disciples He despatched to the
feast also His other disciples,
at least the greater part of
them.
Soon after, the trains of
pilgrims had disappeared from
Galilee; the country was become
quieter; and now Jesus also
relinquished His retirement, and
proceeded to travel as the great
persecuted, ‘quiet one in the
land,’ towards Jerusalem.
We have a proverb, If you wish
to strive with the lion, seek
him in his den. With this
proverb, this wonderful journey
of His seemed to be in harmony.
───♦───
Notes
From the circumstance, that
Jesus in complete secrecy
returned from Gaulonitis to
Galilee, travelled about in
Galilee, and at last journeyed
from Galilee to Judea, we gain
quite a distinct hold for the
exposition of the chronology. By
this observation it is clearly
determined that Jesus was not
now for the last time leaving
Galilee to go to Judea, as has
nevertheless been often assumed,
in particular by Lücke (Commentar
zum Joh. ii. 185), Wieseler (p.
319), K. Hoffmann (Weissagung
und Erfüllung, ii. 112), Ebrard
(348). For when Jesus for the
last time left Galilee, His
departure took place in very
public manner. He sent disciples
before, to prepare lodging for
Him in a Samaritan town (Luk
9:52). From this it follows,
that at that time a great
company of adherents accompanied
Him; and it will further appear
in what way the Seventy were
separated out of this great
company that was travelling with
Him (Luk 10:1). Also, that last
journey of Christ was preceded
by another course of public
activity in Galilee (Luk 15:1).
But it is obviously impossible
to square this last public
activity of Jesus in Galilee
with His present secret
travelling through the same
land; that last setting out,
amidst the full attendance of
His disciples, with the
circumstance that He now
despatches His brethren before
Him to Jerusalem; that very
public journey accompanied by so
much noise and excitement, with
His present travelling to the
capital in quietness and
privacy. Nay, even His latest
public appearance at Capernaum
(Mat 17:24), and its attendant
circumstances, cannot have taken
place now. For how little would
such an appearance in the most
public spot in all Galilee have
agreed with the studied
concealment of His being in the
country? This time, therefore,
it was not in Galilee, nor till
He came to Jerusalem, that He
stepped forth again out of His
concealment. From this it
follows, that later, and in
fact, as will be seen, between
the feast of Tabernacles and the
feast of the Dedication of the
Temple in this year, He must
again have returned to Galilee,
in order now formally, amidst
the largest attendance of His
Galilean adherents, to take His
leave of that country.
|
|
1) See Grotius, Annotat. in Marc., p. 638. Grotius refers to the use of the same word, Mark ii. 23. (Jump. Sepp, ii. 418. 2) See Olshausen, iii. 469. 3) On the reasons for the different readings οὔπω and οὐκ, cf. Lücke, p. 192. Lücke prefers the reading OVK on critical grounds. To these we must add also the consideration, that Jesus really was not repairing to the feast of Tabernacles at all, in the sense of celebrating the Jewish rite of pilgrimage. [Though οὐκ makes the passage so much more difficult, it can hardly be rejected; very strongly in its favour is what Lampe (ii. 312) adduces—ʻquod Porphyrius, teste Hieronymo (adv. Pelag. ii. 6), hanc ob causam Christum arguerit inconstantiæ.ʼ Meyer thinks Jesus did change His mind, but is not on that account to be charged with fickleness. For a view similar to the author s, see the quotation from Cyril in Lampe in loc. ED.] 4) So also K. Hoffmann, Weissayuny und Erfüllung, ii. 113.
|