32. καιρος.
And so He let them go up in the festive company, while Himself tarried. When the noise
and publicity (which He wished to avoid) were no longer to be apprehended, He also
went up, but privately,33 not publicly, as they had suggested. Here St. Luke's account
begins. It almost reads like a commentary on what the Lord had just said to His
brethren, about the enmity of the world, and His mode of manifestation - who would not,
and who would receive Him, and why. 'He came unto His own, and His own receive d
Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of
God . . . which were born . . . of God.'
33. Godet infers from the word 'secretly,' that the journey of St. Luke ix. 51 could not have
been that referred to by St. John. But the qualified expression, 'as it were in secret,'
conveys to my mind only a contrast to the public pilgrim-bands, in which it was the
custom to travel to the Feasts - a publicity, which His 'brethren' specially desired at this
time. Besides, the 'in sec ret' of St. John might refer not so much to the journey as to the
appearance of Christ at the Feast: comp. St. John vii. 11, 14.
The first purpose of Christ seems to have been to take the more direct road to
Jerusalem, through Samaria, and not to follow t hat of the festive pilgrim-bands, which
travelled to Jerusalem through Perę , in order to avoid the band of their hated rivals.
a
But His intention was soon frustrated. In the very first Samaritan village to which the
Christ had sent beforehand to prepare fo r Himself and His company, 34 His messengers
were told that the Rabbi could not be received; that neither hospitality nor friendly
treatment could be extended to One Who was going up to the Feast at Jerusalem. The
messengers who brought back this strangely un-Oriental answer met the Master and
His followers on the road. It was not only an outrage on common manners, but an act of
open hostility to Israel, as well as to Christ, and the 'Sons of Thunder,' whose feelings
for their Master were, perhaps, the more deeply stirred as opposition to Him grew more
fierce, proposed to vindicate the cause, alike of Israel and its Messiah-King, by the open
and Divine judgment of fire called down from heaven to destroy that village. Did they in
this connection think of the vision of Elijah, ministering to Christ on the Mount of
Transfiguration - and was this their application of it? Truly, they knew not of what Spirit
they were to be the children and messengers. He Who had come, not to destroy, but to
save, turned and rebuked them, and passed from Samaritan into Jewish territory to
pursue His journey.35 Perhaps, indeed, He had only passed into Samaria to teach His
disciples this needful lesson. The view of this event just presented seems confirmed by
the circumstance, that St. Matthew lays the scene immediately following 'on the other
side' - that is, in the Decapolis.36
34. It does not necessarily follow, that the company at starting was a large one. But they
would have no host nor quarters ready to receive them in Samaria. Hence the despatch
of messengers.
35. At the same time, according to the best MSS. the words (in St. Luke ix. 54): 'Even as
Elias did,' and those (in verses 55 and 56) from 'and said. . .' to 'save them,' are
interpolated. They are 'a gloss,' though a correct one.
36. St. Matt. viii. 18.