2. Others refer the entire narrative (Luke 9:51-18:14) to the last journey of the Saviour to Jerusalem to the Passover and see a triple reference to the same journey arguing for triplications in Luke. Others prefer to understand it as meaning the journey to the Feast of the Tabernacles or Dedication. Some would combine this idea with the unchronological plan noticed above. In favor of this journey being continuous and the last one to Jerusalem, the following arguments are adduced:
(a) The language of [Luke 9:51], "when the days were being completed that he should be received up," implies that the end was drawing near, and that he was setting his face towards Jerusalem to meet it. This is true without doubt, for Wieseler's interpretation of "received up" as meaning Christ's reception by man is entirely too forced. The expression points to the end of Christ's earthly career. But what does the vague expression, "the days were being completed," mean? Does it have to mean only a few weeks? May it not include as much as six months? For we know that Jesus had been instructing his disciples on this very subject expressly and pointedly, and at the Transfiguration he had spoken of his "decease." Henceforward this was the uppermost subject in his mind. So the interpretation is correct, but the inference is not necessary. This journey in [Luke 9:51] need not be either just before the Passover or the Dedication. It could be as early as Tabernacles and be thus described.
(b) It is insisted that this is Jesus' final departure from Galilee, the one described by Matthew and Mark. No place is allowed for a return to Galilee after the departure in [Luke 9:51]. Robinson urges that [Luke 9:51] naturally means a final departure from Galilee. But it may simply mean that he left it as a sphere of activity, not that he never entered Galilee again. And then [Luke 17:11] expressly says that Jesus went "through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." This means more than going on the border between the two countries, as McClellan argues. He went through some portions of Samaria and Galilee. In order for McClellan to carry out his scheme he has to resort to the artificial device of referring part of [John 10:40] to the departure from Galilee, and the other half to the Perean ministry after a diversion of considerable length into Samaria and back into Galilee. So the effort is not convincing to place all the material in this large section of Luke in one last journey to Jerusalem.
3. The combination of Luke's narrative with that of John. Wieseler was the first to point out a possible parallel between Luke and John. John gives us three journeys,—the Feast of Tabernacles ([John 7:2] ff.), the journey to Bethany at the raising of Lazarus ([John 11:17] f.), the final Passover ([John 12:1]). Luke likewise three times in this section speaks of Jesus going to Jerusalem, [9:51]; [13:22]; [17:11]. Hence it would seem possible, even probable, that their journeys corresponded. If so, John 7:2-11:54 is to be taken as parallel to Luke 9:51-18:14. This plan is followed by various modern scholars.
According to John's chronology, Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles ([7:2]), at the Feast of Dedication ([10:22]), and at the Passover ([12:1]). Just after the Feast of the Dedication we find him abiding beyond Jordan, where John had baptized ([John 10:40]). From this point he comes to Bethany near Jerusalem at the raising of Lazarus ([John 11:17]), whence he withdraws to a little town called Ephraim in the hills north of Jerusalem ([John 11:54]). Here he abides awhile with his disciples away from his enemies till he goes to the Passover. Such is John's outline of these last six months of the Saviour's life.
(a) But how is all this to be reconciled with the statement of Luke ([17:11]) that Jesus went through Samaria and Galilee? If Jesus went back to Galilee, John would have mentioned it, we are told. Not necessarily, not unless it fell in with his plan to do so. Hence no conflict need exist between Luke and John. Luke says he went through Galilee and John permits it by the break in his narrative at [11:54]. Various points in the six months have been suggested as the point when the return to Galilee was made. The most natural point is from Ephraim, whither he had withdrawn ([John 11:54]). It was not far to go up through Samaria and join in Galilee ([Luke 17:11]) the pilgrims from his own country who were in the habit of going to the Passover through Perea, to avoid passing through Samaria. This supposition is not improbable, as Robinson and McClellan urge, but very natural; it makes Luke and John both agree, and allows [Luke 9:51] to mean that Jesus then left Galilee as a field of operations. Various other theories are suggested for this return to Galilee, but none of them appear as fitting as this one. It was just before the Passover, when such a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem would be made.
(b) One other point needs to be considered. The theory we hold makes the journey in [Luke 9:51] identical with the one in [John 7:2-10], viz., to Tabernacles. Many hold such identity to be impossible because of apparent contradictions in the narratives. Andrews makes three objections against this identity: (1) That the Lord refused to go with his brethren ([John 7:6]). But it was his brothers who were not favorable to him that he refused to go with. He simply wished to avoid publicity. His face was set ([Luke 9:51]) all the time, but he was not going with them. (2) That the manner of the going is unlike; the one in John is secret, while the one in Luke is public. But the secrecy in John may merely mean the avoidance of the caravan routes and so through Samaria (Luke). The messengers sent before were not to herald his coming to gather crowds simply, but to make ready for him. It was needed, since the Samaritans saw that his face was as if he were going to Jerusalem. (3) That he went rapidly according to John and slowly according to Luke. He does, according to John, appear in Jerusalem before the feast is over, but Luke does not make him move slowly. Nor is it necessary to connect the sending of the seventy ([Luke 10:1] ff.) with this journey. It belongs rather to the interval between Tabernacles and Dedication. So the secret going of John and the going through Samaria of Luke agree. John explains, [7:10], that Jesus rejected the advice of his brothers. This theory is held irrespective of this being the final departure from Galilee. It is not necessary to fill out every detail in this programme and show where Jesus was between Tabernacles and Dedication. The main outlines remain clear and harmonious and are fairly satisfactory. This combination of Luke and John preserves the integrity of both narratives and fills up a large blank that would otherwise exist in these closing months of the Saviour's life. Upon the whole, therefore, this view seems decidedly preferable, though nothing like absolute certainty can be claimed in regard to the question.
We do not know what special source Luke had for 9:51-18:14. Some of it may have come from the Logia (Q). Hawkins (Oxford Studies, pp. 55 ff.) calls it "the Travel Document." Burton (Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem) suggests "The Peræan Document" and thinks that Luke may have drafted it early out of oral material. But at any rate it is a great and characteristic portion of his Gospel and adds greatly to our knowledge of Christ.
11. Did Christ Eat the Passover?