Chapter XXXIX: Section X: The Last Efforts Before Pilate (3)

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
xiii. 2,) that the Jews sent an embassy thither, with accusations
against Archelaus.” NEWCOME, Obs. on our Lord, p. 83.

228 Zech. ix. 9.

229 Thus acknowledging him to be their king; for this was a custom
observed by the people when they found that God had appointed a man
to the kingdom. When Jehu was anointed King by Elisha the prophet,
at the command of God, and his captains knew what was done, _every
man took his garment and spread it under him on the top of the
steps, and blew the trumpets, saying Jehu is king_. 2 King ix. 13.
A. CLARKE. See JENNINGS, Ant. vol. ii. p. 245. “_Thereon_,” that is,
on the garments. The princes of Israel were forbidden to multiply
_horses_ to themselves. Deut. xvii. 16, and xx. 1. This law was
imposed as a standing mark of distinction between them and other
nations; and a trial of prince and people, whether they had
confidence in God their deliverer, who wanted neither horses nor
footmen to fight his battles. It was observed for near four hundred
years, until some time in the reign of Solomon; for David himself
rode on a mule; as did Solomon also on the day of his coronation. 1
Kings i. 33, 34. See Judges x. 4, and xii. 14; 1 Saml. xxv. 20.
Subsequently the kings of Israel and Judah violated this command, by
copying the example of the neighbouring princes in the establishment
of their cavalry. The displeasure of God for this offence is
indicated by several of the prophets: Isaiah ii. 6, 7, and xxxi. 1;
Hosea xiv. 3, and i. 7; Micah v. 10, 11.—In opposition to the
character of these warlike and disobedient princes, it was predicted
that Messiah would come as a just king, having salvation;—a
deliverer—riding upon an ass, after the manner of the ancient
deliverers of Israel, who came only in the strength and power of the
Lord. Zech. ix. 9. See Bishop SHERLOCK’S Dissert. IV. MICHAELIS,
vol. ii. pp. 439-449.

230 Ps. viii. 3.

231 Ps. cxviii. 26.

232 Isa. lvi. 7. Jer. vii. 11.

233 Matth. xxi. 20, _the disciples_. Mark xi. 21, _Peter_. These may be
thus reconciled. Peter addresses himself to Jesus: the disciples
turn their attention to the object; Jesus addresses all. Or, Peter’s
remark may be attributed to all the disciples. See § 141. NEWCOME.

234 Many servants are sent; some of whom are beaten, some slain, some
stoned. Here St. Matthew is more circumstantial than the other two
Evangelists, who mention only one servant as sent, and one of the
three injurious modes of treatment. Some suppose that this servant
was chief among the rest.

235 Here Mark mentions one servant among the others, as stoned wounded
in the head, and sent away dishonoured; and Luke selects the
circumstance that that one was beaten. Then Mark and Luke mention a
third message, about which Matthew is silent. But, “qui pauciora
memorat, plura non negat.” St. Luke may be understood as saying that
a mortal wound was inflicted on the third messenger. NEWCOME.

236 Ps. cxviii. 22.

237 Isa. viii. 14, seq. Zech. xii. 3. Dan. ii. 34, seq., 44, seq.

238 In the East, where the fashions of dress rarely if ever change, much
of their riches consists in the number and splendour of their robes,
or _caffetans_. Presents of garments are frequently alluded to in
Scripture. Gen. xlv. 22. 2 Chron. ix. 24. Judges xiv. 12. 2 Kings v.
5. Ezra ii. 69. Neh. vii. 70, where “the Tirshatha gave five hundred
and thirty priests’ garments.”

Presents were considered as tokens of honour;—not meant as offers of
payment or enrichment, (1 Sam. ix. 7); and especially presents of
dresses. 1 Sam. xviii. 4. Luke xv. 22. _Tavernier_, p. 43, mentions
a _nazar_, whose virtue so pleased a king of Persia, that he caused
himself to be disappareled, and gave his own habit to the _nazar_,
which is _the greatest honour a king of Persia can bestow on a
subject_.

Such presents are given by kings on great occasions, especially at
the marriages of their children. The Sultan Achmet, at the marriage
of his eldest daughter, “gave presents to above 20,000 persons.”
Knolles’s Hist. of the Turks, p. 1311. So Ahasuerus “gave gifts,
_according to the state of the king_.” Esth. ii. 18.

The king gives his garment of honour _before_ the wearer is admitted
into his presence;—De la Mottraye’s Trav. p. 199; (Does this
illustrate Zech. iii. 3, 4?)—and would resent it if any, having
received robes of him, should appear in his presence without wearing
these marks of his liberality. And to refuse such favours, when
offered, is considered as one of the greatest indignities. Sir John
Chardin relates an instance where such a refusal cost a vizier his
life. See 4 CALM. DICT. pp. 64, 126, 514.

239 Deut. xxv. 5.

240 Ex. iii. 6.

241 Here is a minute indication of St. Luke’s veracity, derived from his
medical profession. No other Evangelist records this remark; but it
would not be likely to escape the notice of a physician. See on Luke
xxii. 44.

242 Deut. vi. 4, 5.

243 Lev. xix. 18.

244 Ps. cx. 1.

245 Gen. iv. 8. 2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22.

246 Ps. lxix. 26. Jer. xii. 7, and xxii. 5.

247 Ps. cxviii. 26.

248 2 Sam. vii. 13. Ps. lxxxix. 30, 37; cx. 4.

249 Is. liii. 1.

250 Is. vi. 10.

251 Is. vi. 1, seq.

252 No imposter would have warned his followers, as Jesus did, of the
persecutions they would have to submit to.

253 Danl. ix. 27.

254 Is. xiii. 9, 10. Joel iii. 15.

255 Gen. vii. 4, seq.

256 Interrogatively and sarcastically. That is, Was such thy wicked
opinion? Then “out of thine own mouth will I judge thee;” thou
oughtest to have acted according to that opinion. Bp. SUMNER, _in
loc_.

257 In St. John, Judas alone murmurs; in St. Matthew, the disciples have
indignation; or, as St. Mark expresses it, some have indignation
among themselves. Dr. Lardner says, Serm. v. 2, p. 316, “It is well
known to be very common with all writers, to use the plural number
when one person only is intended. Nor is it impossible that others
might have some uneasiness about it, though they were far from being
so disgusted at it as Judas was. And their concern for the poor was
sincere; his was self-interested, and mere pretence.” See also
Grotius _in loc_. NEWCOME.

258 It is nowhere asserted that the unction was of Jesus’s head _only_,
or of his feet _only_. Both actions are consistent; and St. John, in
his supplemental history, may very well have added the respectful
conduct of Mary, that, after having anointed Jesus’s head, she
proceeded to anoint his feet, and even to wipe them with her hair.
Newcome.

259 The other Evangelists mention that indignation was caused by the
supposed waste of the ointment: John fixes it upon Judas. That Judas
went to the High Priest’s on the evening or night of our Wednesday,
may be collected from Matth. xxvi. 14, 17, and the parallel places;
and he seems to have acted partly from disgust at what had passed.
The story has a remarkably apt connection with the preceding and
subsequent history. The Jewish rulers consult how they may take
Jesus by craft, and without raising a tumult among the people. An
incident happens, which offends one of Jesus’s familiar attendants,
who immediately repairs to the enemies of Jesus, and receives from
them a bribe to betray him in the absence of the multitude. Newcome.

260 Here is a very natural, yet incidental recognition of a rule,
universally respected among the Jews, that this feast was to be
celebrated not alone, but by companies of not less than ten persons.
See JOSEPHUS, Bell. Jud. vi. ix. § 3. BLUNT, Veracity, &c. Sect. ii.
8.

261 Ps. xli. 10.

262 Zech. xiii. 7.

263 The other Evangelists simply say, Before the cock crow.—It is
observed, that the cock crows about midnight: and about the fourth
watch, or about three in the morning, when that watch began. When
_gallicinium (cock-crowing)_ stands alone, it means this latter
time, which is referred to, Aristoph. Eccles. 390, Juv. Sat. ix.
107. The four Evangelists therefore denote the same time,—sc.
galliciniis secundis, as Ammianus expresses it, 1. 22; and any part
of the period thus marked out may be understood. See BOCHART de
anim. pars, 2d. 119, and GROTIUS on Matth. xxvi. 34. NEWCOME.

264 In the animated language of the prophets, their predictions are
often announced under the form of commands. The prophet Isaiah, in
the sublime prediction he has given us of the fate of the king of
Babylon, thus foretells the destruction of his family:—_Prepare
slaughter for his children_, &c. Isa. xiv. 21. The prophet Jeremiah
in like manner foretells the approaching destruction of the children
of Zion: _Call for the mourning women, that they may come: and send
for cunning women; and let them make haste, and take up a wailing_,
&c. Jer. ix. 17, 18. There, matter of sorrow is predicted, by
commanding the common attendants on mourning and lamentation to be
gotten in readiness; here, warning is given of the most imminent
dangers, by orders to make the customary preparation against
violence, and to account a weapon more necessary than a garment.
CAMPBELL, _in loc_.

265 Isa. liii. 12.

266 This account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper is corroborated
by that of Paul, in 1 Cor. xi. 23-25, which is usually inserted by
Harmonists in this place as parallel testimony; but as the plan of
this work leads me to deal with the four Gospels alone, the
insertion of other parts of Scripture in the text, here and
elsewhere, is omitted.

267 The Evangelists have determined, by some general expressions, the
order of the following events between the sitting down to the
paschal supper, and the going to Gethsemane. Before the eating of
the paschal lamb, Jesus rises from supper to wash the disciples’
feet. John xiii. 1, 4. While they are eating, a declaration is made
of Judas’s treachery, and the bread is instituted, Matt. xxvi. 21,
26. See also Mark. After, the cup is instituted, Luke xxii. 20; 1
Cor. xi. 25. But as to the particular and precise order of the facts
and discourses during this period, Pilkington’s words relating to
one of them are applicable to all. “It is observable that St. Luke
mentions the institution of the communion before the declaration of
Judas’s treachery; whereas the other Evangelists place these in a
different order. But it is a liberty I think very allowable in any
historian, to neglect taking notice of the exact order of all the
facts, when he is only giving a general account of what was done at
a certain time. And if so, whichsoever was the true successive
order, there can be no just imputation upon any of the Evangelists
for neglecting to observe it in the narration.” Harm. p. 52.
NEWCOME.

268 The use of the word _testament_, (_diatheke_,) in a sense involving
also the idea of a _covenant_, and in connexion with the
circumstances of a compact, has greatly perplexed many English
readers of the Bible. The difficulty occurs in Matt. 26, 28, and the
parallel places, where our Lord employs the word _testament_, or
last will, in connexion with the sacrificial shedding of his own
blood; a ceremony which, by means of a suitable animal, usually was
adopted among the ancients, upon the making of the most solemn
engagements; and instead of which, the mutual partaking of the
sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, by the contracting parties, was
substituted among Christians in later times. The same embarrassment
occurs, perhaps in a greater degree, in the exposition of several
passages in the eighth and ninth chapters of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, (manifestly written by a profound lawyer, be he Paul or
Apollos), where he uses language applicable indifferently both to a
covenant _inter vivos_ and a last will. For with us, a testament is
simply a declaration of the last will of the testator, in regard to
the disposition of his property after his decease, irrespective of
any consent, or even knowledge, at the time, on the part of him to
whom the estate is given; while a covenant requires the mutual
consent of both parties, as essential to its existence. The one is
simply the _ultima voluntas_ of an individual, the other is the
_aggregatio mentium_ of both or all.

The solution of this difficulty belongs rather to theologians, whose
province it is by no means intended here to invade; but perhaps a
reference to the laws and usages in force in Judea in the times of
our Saviour and his Apostles may furnish some aid, which a lawyer
might contribute without transgressing the limit of his profession.

It is first to be observed that the municipal laws of Greece and
Rome were strikingly similar; those of Greece having been freely
imported into the Roman jurisprudence. In like manner, the
similarity of the Grecian laws and usages with those extant in Asia
Minor, indicated a common origin; and thus, what Greece derived from
Egypt and the states of Asia Minor, these states, after many ages,
received again as the laws of their Roman masters. It should also be
remembered that Palestine had been reduced to a Roman province some
years before the time of our Saviour; long enough, indeed, to have
become familiar with Roman laws and usages, even had they been
previously unknown; and that Paul, to whom the Epistle to the
Hebrews is generally attributed, was himself a thorough-bred lawyer,
well versed in the customs of his country, whether ancient or
modern. Among those nations, the civil magistrate often exercised
the functions of the priesthood, these dignities being in some
respects identical; and thus, whatever was transacted before the
magistrate, might naturally seem to partake of the character of an
act of religion. Covenants were always made with particular
formalities, and to those of graver nature, religious solemnities
were often superadded. They were frequently confirmed by an oath,
the most solemn form of which was taken standing before the altar;
and whosoever swore by the altar, swore by the sacrifice thereon,
and was held as firmly bound as though he had passed between the
dismembered parts of the victim. Of the latter kind was the oath, by
which God confirmed his covenant with Abraham (Gen. xv.) when the
visible light of his presence passed between the pieces which the
patriarch had divided and laid “each piece one against another.”

With these things in view, we may now look at some of the modes of
transferring property, practised by the nations alluded to.

Among the methods of alienation or sale of property by the owner, in
his lifetime, was that which in the Roman law was termed
_mancipatio_; a mode by which the vendor conveyed property to the
purchaser, each party being present, either in person or by his
agent, representative, or factor. Five witnesses were requisite, one
of whom was called _libripens_, or the balance-holder. This form had
its origin in the sale of goods by weight, but was gradually
extended to all sales; and the practice was for the buyer to strike
the balance with a piece of money called a _sestertius_, which was
immediately paid over to the vendor as part of the price; and hence
the expression _per æs et libram vendere_.

Wills or testaments were made with great solemnity. One method among
the Romans, probably common, in its principal traits, to the other
nations before mentioned, was termed the testament _per æs et
libram_, it being effected in the form of a sale. This mode seems to
have been resorted to whenever the estate was given to a stranger,
(_hæres extraneus_,) to the exclusion of the _hæres suus_, or
_necessarius_, or, as we should say, the heir at law; and it was
founded on the purchase of the estate by the adopted heir, who
succeeded to the privileges of the child. The forms of a sale by
_mancipatio_ were therefore scrupulously observed; the presence and
agreement of the purchaser, either in person or by his
representative or negotiator, being necessary to its validity. The
reason for requiring this form was because it _involved a covenant_
on the part of the adopted heir or legatee, by which he became bound
to pay all the debts of the testator. Having entered into this
covenant, he had the best possible title in law to the inheritance,
namely, that of a purchaser for a valuable consideration. Among the
Greeks, and probably among the Romans also, this was transacted in
the presence of a magistrate, who sanctioned it by his sentence of
approval. This was the most ancient form of a will; and it does not
seem to have been abrogated until the time of Constantine.

Now, when our Saviour speaks of the _new testament in his blood_, or
of his _blood of the new testament_, and when Paul uses similar
forms of expression may not the figure have reference to the custom
above stated? And if so, may not this custom guide us to the true
meaning of the words? Does it intimate to us that the promised
inheritance was first given to man, as it were by a testament in
this ancient form, upon a covenant of _his own perfect obedience_ to
every part of the law of God; that having broken this covenant, his
title became forfeited; that the inheritance was afterwards
promised, in the same manner, to every one, Jew or Gentile, upon a
new covenant and condition, namely of a true _faith_ in Christ; a
faith evinced in the fruits of a holy life; that this inheritance by
a new testament and covenant was negociated, as it were, and
obtained for man by the mediation of Jesus Christ, (“the mediator of
the new testament,” Heb. 9. 15,) as the representative of all who
should accept it by such faith, and their surety for the performance
of its conditions; that it was purchased by _his_ obedience and
solemnized by the sacrifice of himself as the victim?

This solution is suggested with much diffidence. That it carries
these passages clear of all difficulty is not pretended. The very
nature of the subject renders it difficult of illustration by any
reference to human affairs; and the embarrassment is proportionally
increased, whenever the simile is pressed beyond its principal point
of resemblance.

See Ayliffe’s Pandect, pp. 349, 393, 367-369. Book iii. tit. xii.
xv. Leges Atticæ, De Testamentis, &c. tit. vi. S. Petit. Comm. in
Leges Attic. p. 479-481. Justin, Inst. lib. 2. tit. 10, § 1. Ibid.
tit. 19, § 5, 6. Cooper’s Justinian, p. 487. Cod. lib. 6. tit. 23,
1. 15. Fuss’s Roman Antiq. ch. 1, § 87, 97, 103, 107, 183.
Michaelis, LL. Moses, vol. 4, art. 302. Bp. Patrick, quoted in
Bush’s Illustrations, p. 254.

269 Ps. lxix. 5.

270 Ps. xli. 9, and cix. 8, 17.

271 The strangeness of such a profusion of blood has been urged, first,
against the probability, and then against the truth, of the
narrative. But learned men have related instances of mental agony so
great as to force the blood through the pores; and if this has ever
occurred, it may well be believed to have occurred in the present
case. See _Bloomfield_ and _A. Clarke_, in loc. It should be
observed, however, that Luke does not directly affirm that it was
blood. He only _compares_ the sweat to that of blood, using a term
of similitude, (_quasi_ grumi sanguinis—_Beza_; _tanquam_
demissiones sanguinis—_Tremellius_; sicut guttæ sanguinis—_Vulg_.
and _Molinaus_;) which may signify no more than that the drops of
sweat were as large as drops of blood, which, from its viscidity,
are very large.

272 No other Evangelist mentions the cause of their slumber, except
Luke, who ascribes it to their sorrow. It is observable, that Luke
was a physician, (Col. iv. 14,) and therefore well knew that deep
mental distress frequently induced sleep. To this cause may perhaps
be referred the fact, that persons condemned to die are often waked
from sound sleep by the executioner. The internal evidence here
afforded of the truth of Luke’s narrative, is corroborated by his
notice of the bloody sweat, ver. 44, and of the miraculous healing
of the ear of Malchus, ver. 51; facts which are not related by any
other Evangelist, but which would naturally attract the attention of
a physician.

273 Gen. ix. 6.

274 In the order of events, Jesus first voluntarily discriminates
himself; after which Judas gives the agreed sign to his enemies.
Newcome.

275 Lenfant and Bp. Pearce think that Peter was named by John, because
he was then dead; and that he was not named by the other Evangelists
because when they wrote he was living, and the action might have
subjected him to public justice, or at least to reproach. NEWCOME.

276 Here is a minute indication of veracity, which would have been lost
upon us but for the narrative of John. Matthew only states the fact
that the maid in the porch recognized Peter as one of the disciples
of Jesus; but John (xviii. 16,) informs us how she knew him to be
so; namely, because he was brought in by John, who was a frequent
guest at the house of her master the high priest. BLUNT, Veracity
&c., Sect. i. 12, 18.

277 Probably by way of compliment to the past high priest who was also
the father-in-law of Caiaphas. If this circumstance never happened,
it is difficult to discover how the introduction of it could serve
the purposes of fiction. See Roberts, Light Shining, &c. pp. 171,
172.

278 The seeming contradiction between Luke, who relates that it _was a
man_ who charged Peter with being a follower of Jesus, and Matthew
and Mark who state that he was accused by _a maid_, is reconciled by
attending to the narrative of John, (xviii. 25,) who writes, “_They
said_.” Whence it appears that there were several who spake on this
occasion, and that each Evangelist refers to the accusation which
made the deepest impression on his own mind. See MICHAELIS and Bp.
MIDDLETON, cited in 4 HORNE’S _Introd_. p. 258, note 1.

279 Matthew and Mark relate Peter’s denials of Christ after his
condemnation, and the insults consequent upon it. It is plain that
they happened while the High Priest and council were sitting in
judgment. But instances of recurring in this manner to what had been
omitted in its proper place are common in the Gospels; and in this
place the thread of the narration is preserved unbroken.

It having been expressly mentioned by each Evangelist, that Peter
would _thrice_ deny Jesus, we may conclude that each has related the
_three_ denials which Jesus foretold.

_Peter’s first denial_. Peter was _without_, or _beneath_, in the
hall of Caiaphas’s house. Dr. Scott, on Matth. xxvi. 3, observes
that _aule_ signifies an house, (Luke xi. 21,) and that emphatically
it signifies the king’s house, or palace. But in Luke xxii. 55, it
seems to signify a spacious apartment, probably the High Priest’s
judgment-hall. It was the place in which Jesus stood before the High
Priest, (Luke xxii. 61,) and had an _atrium_ or _vestibulum_ at its
entrance. This was an unfit place for the tribunal of the High
Priest at such an hour, (John xviii. 18.) Sir John Chardin says, “In
the lower Asia the day is always hot; and in the height of summer
the nights are as cold as at Paris in the month of March.” It
remains therefore that we understand it of a spacious chamber, such
as Shaw mentions, Travels, 4to. pp. 207, 8.

Peter was not in the _higher_ part, where Jesus stood before the
High Priest; but _without_ that division of the hall, and in the
_lower_ part, with the servants and officers. The damsel, who kept
the door, had entered into the hall when she charged Peter.

_Peter’s second denial_. Peter, having once denied Jesus, naturally
retired from the place where his accuser was, to the vestibule of
the hall, (Matt. xxvi. 71); and it was the time of the first
cock-crowing, or soon after midnight. After remaining here a short
time, perhaps near an hour, another damsel sees him, and says to
those who were standing by in the vestibule, that he was one of
them. Peter, to avoid this charge, withdraws into the hall, and
stands and warms himself, (John xviii. 25.) The damsel, and those to
whom she had spoken, follow him; the communication between the
places being immediate. Here a _man_ enforces the charge of the
damsel, according to Luke; and _others_ urge it according to John,
(though by him the plural may be used for the singular,) and Peter
denies Jesus vehemently.

_Peter’s third denial_. Peter was now in the hall. Observe Matt.
xxvi. 75, and Luke xxii. 62. He was also within sight of Jesus,
though at such a distance from him that Jesus could know what passed
only in a supernatural way. About an hour after his second denial,
those who stood by founded a charge against him on his being a
Galilean, which, Luke says, one in particular strongly affirmed,
(though here Matthew and Mark may use the plural for the singular,)
and which, according to John, was supported by one of Malchus’s
relations. This occasioned a more vehement denial than before; and
immediately the cock crew the second time. The first denial may have
been between our twelve and one; and the second between our two and
three. We must further observe, that Matt. xxvi. 57, lays the scene
of Peter’s denials in the house of Caiaphas; whereas the
transactions of John xviii. 15-23 seem to have passed in the house
of Annas. But John xviii. 24 is here transposed to its regular
place, with Le Clerc. NEWCOME.

280 Matthew alone states this fact; and he states nothing in explanation
of it. The other Evangelists add another fact, which shows that the
Jews were quite consistent in asking him to designate who struck
him, namely, that they had previously “blindfolded him.” Now the
omissions of particulars are characteristic of one to whom it never
occurs that they are wanted to make his statement credible, but who,
conscious of his own integrity, states his facts and leaves them to
their fate; and they cannot fairly be accounted for, upon any other
supposition than the truth of the narrative. BLUNT, Veracity, &c.,
_sec_. i. 10.

281 Jesus seems here almost to have challenged inquiry into the assault
so lately committed by Peter upon the servant of the high priest.
St. Luke, however, states a fact which accounts for their not making
such inquiry, ch. xxii. 51. _He touched his ear and healed him_. An
inquiry into the truth would have frustrated the malicious purpose
of the enemies of Jesus, by proving his own compassionate nature,
his submission to the laws, and his miraculous powers. Blunt,
Veracity, &c., sect. i. 19.

282 Here is an obscure intimation that neither Pilate nor Herod were
residents of Jerusalem; and the manner of the insinuation deserves
notice, as a mark of conscious veracity in the narrator. Now it
appears from Josephus, that this Herod was the very opposite of his
successor, Herod Agrippa; the former being partial to the Greeks,
and a hater of the Jews; while the latter so loved the Jews that he
took pleasure in constantly dwelling at Jerusalem. It is therefore
evident that Herod’s presence at Jerusalem at this time was merely
casual; as that of Pilate certainly was, the Roman governors
residing at Cæsarea. See Josephus, Ant. xviii. iv. § 1.-xix. vii. §
3.-xx. iv. § 4. BLUNT, Veracity, &c., sect. II. 11.

283 The accuracy of Luke, as a man of education, is observable in this
statement of the formal judgment pronounced by Pilate, which is only
implied in the narratives of the other Evangelists.

284 The apparent contradiction between John and Mark, (ch. xv. 25,) who
mentions the third hour, is reconciled by Dr. Campbell, in a
critical note upon the force of the expressions in the original,
which he interprets as equivalent to saying, in the one case, that
it was past _three_, and in the other, that it was _towards six_.
See CAMPBELL, _in loc_.

285 The passage here quoted is found in the prophecy of Zechariah, and
not in Jeremiah. Dr. Lightfoot says, that anciently among the Jews
the Old Testament was divided into three parts. The first, beginning
with the law, was called _The Law_. The second, beginning with
Psalms, was called _The Psalms_. The third, beginning with the
prophecy of Jeremiah, which anciently stood first, was called
_Jeremiah_, under which name all quotations from the prophets were
made. See A. CLARKE, _in loc._ JENNINGS, Jewish Antiq. pp. 594, 595.
Others account for the apparent error in Matthew’s quotation, by
supposing that he omitted the name of the prophet, as he frequently
did in his citations of scripture, and that the name of Jeremiah was
inserted by a subsequent copyist. 1 HORNE’S _Introd_. p. 582.

286 Zech. xi. 12, seq. Jer. xxxii. 6, seq.

287 Clement of Alexandria and Jerome both relate that Mark wrote this
Gospel at _Rome_, and we find in Romans xiv. 13, that a disciple
named Rufus, of considerable note, resided in that city. Admitting
that both Mark and Paul speak of the same person, which is highly
probable, as they refer to the same period of time and to a disciple
of distinction, there is an evident consciousness of veracity in the
Evangelist, in making this reference to Rufus, then living among
them, since he could not but have known the particulars of the
crucifixion, in which his own father was so intimately concerned.
BLUNT’S Veracity, &c., sect. i. 14. See also EUSEBIUS, lib. 2, ch.
15.

288 Is. liv. 1.

289 Hos. x. 8.

290 Ps. xxii. 19.

291 As to the title itself, the precise working may have differed in the
different languages; and MSS. represent it differently.

But the same verbal exactness is not necessary in historians, whose
aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public
inscriptions. It is enough that the Evangelists agree as to the main
article, “_the King of the Jews_,” referred to, John xix. 21. That
their manner is to regard the sense, rather than the words, appears
from many places. Compare Matt. iii. 17, and ix. 11, and xv. 27, and
xvi. 6, 9, and xix. 18, and xx. 33, and xxi. 9, and xxvi. 39, 64,
70, and xxviii. 5, 6, with the parallel verses in this Harmony.
Compare also John xi. 40, with ver. 23, 25. One of the most solemn
and awful of our Lord’s discourses is, in some parts, variously
expressed. See Matt. xxvi. 28, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20, 1 Cor.
xi. 25. Now as each of these writers has, beyond all doubt,
faithfully represented the meaning of Christ, we see that it might
be truly done in different words, or in a different form of the same
words. His sentences also, sometimes admitted a difference of
arrangement; for the order in which two sentences, or the several
members of the same sentence, are disposed by St. Matthew, is, in
several places, inverted by St. Mark. And with regard to his
actions, though the most material parts of whatever they were going
to relate must command their attention, yet there was no such
superior attraction in one specific number and order of secondary
circumstances, as could turn their thoughts absolutely and
exclusively to them. This is plain from instances to the contrary.
One Evangelist is sometimes distinct, while another is concise; and
describes what the other passes over. TOWNSON, pp. 60-1.

We may reasonably suppose St. Matthew to have cited the Hebrew,—St.
John the Greek,—and St. Mark the Latin, which was the shortest, and
without mixture of foreign words. St. Mark is followed by St. Luke;
only that he has brought down “THIS IS” from above, as having a
common reference to what stood under it. NEWCOME.

292 Is. liii. 12.

293 We have here an incidental allusion to a practice well known at that
time. The malefactor about to be crucified, having borne his own
cross to the place of execution, was stripped, and made to drink a
stupefying potion; the cross was then laid on the ground, the
sufferer distended upon it, and four soldiers, two on each side,
were employed in driving four large nails through his hands and
feet. For this service they had a right to his clothes as a
perquisite. See Dr. Harwood’s Introd., cited in Horne’s _Introd_.,
vol. i. pp. 94, 95.

294 Ps. xxii. 7, 8.

295 Here the common drink of the Roman soldiers is offered by them to
Jesus on the cross, while they are deriding him; which is a
different act from that in Matt. xxvii. 34, 48, as appears by the
place assigned to it. NEWCOME

296 What was true of only one of the malefactors is attributed to both
in the concise relations of Matthew and Mark; the plural being often
used in the Gospels for the singular. This the Evangelists
themselves show in some instances. Compare Mark vii. 17, and Matt.
xv. 15; Mark v. 31, and Luke viii. 45; Matt. xiv. 17, and Mark vi.
38, Luke ix. 13, John vi. 8, 9; Matt. xxvi. 8, and Mark xiv. 4, John
xii. 4; Matt. xxiv. 1, and Mark xiii. 1; Matt. xxvii. 37, and John
xix. 19; Matt. xxvii. 48, and Mark xv. 36, John xix. 29. See also
Luke xxii. 67. In the following places, the plural is used, while
the sense shows that one is spoken of. John xi. 8, Luke xx. 21, 39,
and xxiv. 5, Matt. xv. 1, 12.—The Evangelists, therefore, when from
attention to brevity they avoid particularizing, often attribute to
many what is said or done by single persons; nor does any striking
peculiarity in the case omitted, lead them to deviate from their
manner; for instance, the case of Judas, Matth. xxvi. 8, and the
parallel places. NEWCOME

297 Ps. xxii. 1.

_ 298 Hil_ or _Hila_ was the old Syriac for _vinegar_. Hence one of the
bystanders, hearing our Saviour’s exclamation on the cross, thought
he wanted vinegar to alleviate his thirst, and straightway filled a
spunge. See BUCHANAN’S _Researches_, p. 153.

299 The Jews gave a literal interpretation to Mal. iv. 5, expecting
Elijah to appear in person, as the forerunner of the Messiah; and
hence they, on this occasion, sneeringly adverted to the want of
this testimony to the mission of Christ. JONES, _Lect_. 147. This
incidental allusion to the popular opinion, by Matthew and Mark, may
be noticed as additional evidence of their veracity.

300 The objection urged by infidels, upon this passage, against the
veracity of the Evangelists, from the silence of profane writers
concerning so remarkable an event, is met and answered by Bp. Watson
in his Reply to Gibbon, Let. 5. See also HORNE’S _Introd_. Vol. 1.
p. 210-216. The word translated _earth_, in Luke, is the same which
is rendered _land_, in the others, and applies equally to both.
Taken in the latter sense, it may limit the darkness to Judea. But
the Evangelists do not mention the degree of darkness; if therefore
it was slight, though it extended over the whole globe, the
objection of its not being recorded by Pliny or Seneca vanishes at
once.

301 Ps. lxix. 22.

302 This and the parallel verses are reconciled with John xix. 25, by
the following observation in Wall’s critical notes, p. 116. “Mary
stood as yet, (John xix. 25,) so nigh the cross as to hear what
Christ said. But at the time of his departure, Matthew, Mark and
Luke say, the women stood afar off.” See also Watson’s Reply to
Gibbon, Let. 5, (Evangelical Family Library, Vol. xiv. pp. 276,
277.) It is natural to suppose that our Lord’s relations and
friends, mentioned in John xix. 25, were too much struck with
commiseration and grief to remain long near the cross; and that they
would retire from the horror of the concluding scene. NEWCOME.

303 Here is another of those incidental allusions to existing customs,
which show the naturalness and veracity of the narrative. Those who
were crucified by the Romans are said to have been usually exposed
to the birds of prey; and a guard was set to prevent their friends
from burying the bodies. The body of Jesus therefore could not be
obtained for burial, without leave from Pilate; which the
Evangelists relate was applied for, but without explaining the
cause.

304 Ex. xxii. 46. Ps. xxiv. 20.

305 Zech. xii. 10.

306 We must not understand this word of the morning light. The Jewish
sabbath began at six in the morning, before which time our Lord’s
body was deposited in the tomb. NEWCOME.

307 The mention of this circumstance by Matthew, and not by the other
Evangelists, is in perfect keeping with his previous occupation;
which led him to watch for fraud, in all places where it might be
perpetrated.

308 This appearance of Jesus is not alluded to by any other Evangelist;
but it was a fact well known among the disciples, and is expressly
stated by Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 5,—“and that he was seen of Cephas,
then of the twelve.”

309 This appearance of Jesus is also affirmed by Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 5.

310 Many and perhaps most Harmonists and Commentators refer 1 Cor. xv.
6, to this place, where it is related that Jesus was seen of above
five hundred brethren at once. Such is the opinion of Dr. Robinson
and Bishop J. B. Sumner, and such seems to have been the opinion of
Abp. Newcome, Dr. Macknight, and Dr. Pilkington. See NEWCOME, in
loc. The fact is deemed by some to have an important bearing upon
the extent of the commission then given or repeated by our Lord; but
the plan of this work does not require any further notice of the
question.

311 This is perfectly consistent with the statement of Luke in Acts i.
12, as Bethany was not only the name of a town, but of a district of
Mount Olivet, adjoining the town. See Watson’s Reply to Gibbon,
Letter vi. in Evangelical Family Library, Vol. xiv., p. 277.

312 Harm. p. 525. Can. XII. fin.

313 Matt. 8: 28, Mark 5: 2. Luke 8: 27.—Matt. 20: 30. Mark 10: 46. Luke
18: 35.

314 Matt. 16: 21. 17: 23. Luke 9: 22. 24: 6, 7. al.

315 Matt. 28: 63 sq.

316 Matt. 28: 9.

317 See also John 21: 4.

318 See Matt. 26: 32.

319 1 Cor. 15: 6.

320 Acts 1: 15.

321 See Acts 12: 17. 15: 13. 21: 18. Gal. 2: 9, 12 al.

322 Acts 12: 1.

323 To this interview belongs also Luke 24: 44.

324 See John xi. 47-54.

325 Matt. xxi. 33-46. Mark xxii. 1-12. Luke xx. 9-19.

326 Deut. xvii. 15.

327 Matt. xxii. 15-22. Mark xii. 13-17. Luke xx. 20-26.

328 Tappan’s Jewish Ant. p. 239.

329 Matt. xxii. 23-33. Mark xii. 18-27. Luke xx. 27-39.

330 Matt. xxii. 25-40, 46. Mark xii. 28-34.

331 Exodus xx. 1-7. And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord
thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou
shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness _of any
thing_ that _is_ in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
or that _is_ in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down
thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous
God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the
third and fourth _generation_ of them that hate me; And shewing
mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the
Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

332 Lev. xxiv. 11-16. And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the
name _of the Lord_, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses (and
his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe
of Dan): And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might
be shewed them. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth
him that hath cursed without the camp, and let all that heard _him_
lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone
him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying,
Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that
blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death,
_and_ all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the
stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the
name _of the Lord_, shall be put to death. See A. Clarke on Matt.
ix. 3.

333 Deut. xiii. 6-10. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son,
or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is
as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve
other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
_Namely_, of the gods of the people which _are_ round about you,
nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the _one_ end of the
earth even unto the _other_ end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent
unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him,
neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou
shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to death,
and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him
with _stones_ that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee
away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
Egypt from the house of bondage. Deut. xviii. 20. But the prophet,
which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not
commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other
gods, even that prophet shall die.

334 It is true that in the Mishna it is written—“Blasphemus non tenetur,
nisi expressit Nomen.” Mishna, Pars iv. p. 242. Tractatus de
Synedriis, cap. 7, § 5. But these traditions were not written until
150 years after the time of our Saviour; and the passage, moreover,
seems properly to refer to that form of blasphemy which consists in
evil speaking of the Supreme Being, in a direct manner, rather than
to the other forms in which this offence, in its larger acceptation,
might be committed. See Michælis, Comm. Art. 251. Vol. 4, p. 67-70.

335 Numb. xx. 10, 12.

336 Numb. xx. 24. Deut. i. 37, and xxxiv. 4, 5.

337 Is. xlii. 8, and xlviii. 2.

338 Gen. xli. 16, 25, 28.

339 Exod. viii. ix. x. per tot.

340 Deut. xviii. 20.

341 “Now, therefore, stand and see this great thing, which the LORD will
do before your eyes.” 1 Sam. xii. 16-18.

342 “And it came to pass, at the time of the offering of the evening
sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near and said, Lord God of
Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that _thou
art God in Israel_,” &c. 1 Kings xviii. 36-38.

343 “And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the
waters, and said, _Where is the Lord God of Elijah?_” &c. 2 Kings
ii. 14.

344 “_For thus saith the Lord_, they shall eat and shall leave thereof,”
&c. 2 Kings iv. 43.

345 See 2 Kings vi. 16, 17, 18, 20. In some other places, where there is
no express reference to the power of God, the omission may be
attributed to the brevity of the narrative; but even in those cases,
such reference is plainly implied.

346 Dan. ix. 21, 23, and x. 11, 12. See further, 2 Kings xviii. 30-35,
and xix. 1-3.

347 Matt. ix. 2, 3. Luke v. 20, 21.

348 John x. 31-33.

349 This view of the Jewish law may seem opposed to that of Dr.
Campbell, in his Preliminary Dissertation on the Gospels, (Vol. 2,
Diss. ix. Part 2); but it is evident, on examination, that he is
discussing the _word blasphemy_, and the propriety of its
application, taken in its more restricted sense of intentional and
direct malediction of Jehovah; and not whether the assumption of his
attributes and authority was or was not a violation of his law. That
this assumption was a heinous transgression, seems universally
agreed. The question, therefore, is reduced to this—whether the
offence was properly _termed_ blasphemy. For the _act_, by whatever
name it were called, was a capital crime. The Jewish judges of that
day held it to amount to blasphemy; and in so doing, they do not
appear to have given to their law a construction more expanded and
comprehensive than has been given by judges in our own times, to the
law of treason, or of sedition.

350 This was judicially and solemnly done by the members of the
Sanhedrim, rising from their seats, when the crime was testified to.
Only one witness was permitted to repeat the words; the others
simply stating that they heard the same which he had related. The
practice is thus described in the Mishna: “Exactis omnibus,
interrogant vetustissimum testium, dicendo,—_Edissere, quodcumque
audivisti expresse_. Tum ille hoc refert. Judices autem stant
erecti, vestesque discerpunt, non resarciendas. Dein secundus
tertiusque ait,—_Ego idem, quod ille audivi_.” Mishna, Pars 4.
Tractat. de Synedriis, cap. 7, § 5. Upon which, Cocceius
remarks:—“Assurgunt reverentiæ causâ. Mos discendarum vestium
probatur ex 2do Regum, xviii. 37. Hinc nata est regula,—_Qui
blasphemiam audit, vel ab ipso auctore vel ex alio, tenetur vestem
discerpere_. Ratio est, ut semper ob oculos et animum versetur
mæroris aut indignationis mnemosynon.” Coccej. in loc. § 11, 12. The
custom is fully explained, with particular reference to the high
priest at the trial of Jesus, by Hedenus, _De Scissione Vestium_,
38, 42. (In Ugolini Thesauro, tom. xxix, fol. 1025. &c.)

351 That the Jews understood Jesus to make himself equal with God, is
maintained by Mr. Salvador, himself a Jew, in his Histoire des
Institutions de Moïse et du Peuple Hébreu, Liv. iv. ch. 3, p. 81, of
which chapter a translation is given at the end of this article. Mr.
Noah, also a Jew, seems to be of opinion, that Jesus was brought to
trial under the law in Deut. xiii. 1-11. See his Discourse on the
Restoration of the Jews, p. 19. But whether he was charged with a
blasphemous usurpation of the attributes of Deity, or with sedition,
in inciting the people to serve another god, meaning himself, the
difference is of no importance; the essence of the offence in both
cases being the same.

352 Matt. xxvi. 60-65. This view of the nature of the offence with which
Jesus was charged, is confirmed by the learned jurist, Chr.
Thomasius, in his Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, § 11, 12,
and by the authors whom he there cites. Dissert. Thomasii. vol. 1,
p. 5.

353 John ii. 13-22.

354 Matt. xxvi. 63-66.