J.J. Blunt's Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
AN ARGUMENT FOR THE VERACITY OF THE HOLY BIBLE
Introduction
Part One:
The Books of Moses
Part Two:
The Historical Scriptures
Part Three:
The Prophetical Scripture
Part Four:
The Gospels and Acts
Appendix:
The Gospels, Acts
and Josephus

XXVIII. THE DAYS OF JESUS AT BETHANY

The events of the last week of our Saviour’s earthly life, as recorded by the Evangelists, will furnish us with several arguments of the kind we are collecting.

1. John 12:1.—“Then Jesus, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany, where Lazarus was.”

Bethany was a village at the mount of Olives (Mark xi. 1), near Jerusalem; and it was in his approach to that city, to keep the last Passover and die, that Jesus now lodged there for the night, meaning to enter the capital the next day. (John 12:12.)

St. John tells us no more of the movements of Jesus on this occasion with precision; however, this one date will suffice to verify his narrative, as well as that of St. Mark. Turn we, then, to the latter, who gives us an account of the proceedings of Jesus immediately before his crucifixion in more detail; or rather, enables us to infer for ourselves what they were, from phrases which escape from him; and we shall find that the two narratives are very consistent with respect to them, though it is very evident that neither narrative is at all dressed by the other, but that both are so constructed as to argue independent knowledge of the facts in the Evangelists themselves.

In Mark 11:1, we read, “And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, He sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you,” &c.; The internal evidence of this whole transaction implies, that the disciples were despatched on this errand the morning after they had arrived at Bethany, where Jesus had lodged for the night, and not the evening before, on the instant of his arrival; the events of the day being much too numerous to be crowded into the latter period of time—the procuring the ass, the triumphant procession to Jerusalem, the visit to the temple, all filling up that day; and its being expressly said, when all these transactions were concluded, that “the even-tide was come” (ver. 11); and this internal evidence entirely accords with the direct assertion of St. John (12:12) that it was “the next day.” Accordingly, this day closed with Jesus “looking round about upon all things,” in the temple (ver. 11), and then “when the eventide was come, going out unto Bethany with the twelve.” This, then, was the second day Jesus lodged at Bethany, as we gather from St. Mark. “On the morrow, as they were coming from Bethany, ” Jesus cursed the fig-tree (ver. 13); proceeded to Jerusalem; spent the day, as before, in Jerusalem and the temple, casting out of it the moneychangers; and again, “when even was come He went out of the city” (ver. 19), certainly returning to Bethany; for though this is not said, the fact is clear, from the tenor of the next paragraph. This was the third day Jesus lodged at Bethany, according to St. Mark. “In the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig-tree dried up from the roots” (ver. 20), i. e., they were proceeding by the same road as the morning before, and therefore from Bethany, again to spend the day at Jerusalem, and in the temple (ver. 27; 12:41); Jesus employing himself there in enunciating parables and answering cavils. After this “he went out of the temple” (13:1), to return once more, no doubt, the evening being come, to Bethany; for though this again is not asserted, it is clearly to be inferred, which is better, since we immediately afterwards find Jesus sitting with the disciples, and talking with several of them privately, “on the mount of Olives” (ver. 3), which lay in his road to Bethany. This was the fourth day, according to St. Mark. St. Mark next says, “After two days was the feast of the Passover.” (14:1.)

This, then, makes up the interval of the six days since Jesus came to Bethany, according to St. Mark, which tallies exactly with the direct assertion of St. John, that “Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany.”

But how unconcerted is this agreement between the Evangelists! St. John’s declaration of the date of the arrival of Jesus at Bethany is indeed unambiguous; but the corresponding relation of St. Mark, though proved to be in perfect accordance with St. John, has to be traced with pains and difficulty; some of the steps necessary for arriving at the conclusion altogether inferential. How extremely improbable is a concurrence of this nature upon any other supposition than the truth of the incident related, and the independent knowledge of it of the witnesses: and how infallibly would that be the impression it would produce on the minds of a jury, supposing it to be an ingredient in a case of circumstantial evidence presented to them.

2. A second slight coincidence, which offers itself to our notice on the events of Bethany, is the following:—

It is in the evening that the Evangelists represent Jesus as returning from the city to Bethany: “And now the even-tide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.” (Mark 11:11.) “And when even was come, he went out of the city” (ver. 19), says St. Mark. “And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there. Now in the morning, as he returned,” &c.; (Matth. 21:17), says St. Matthew.

St. John does not speak directly of Jesus going in the evening to Bethany. But there is an incidental expression in him which implies that such was his own conviction, though nothing can be less studied than it is. For he tells us, that at Bethany, “they made him a supper,” deipnon, a term, as now used, indicating an evening meal. Had St. John happened to employ the same phrase St. Mark does when relating this same event (katakeimenou autou, “as he sat at meat,”) the argument would have been lost; as it is, the mention of the meal by St. John (who takes no notice of the fact that Jesus lodged at Bethany, though he spent the day at Jerusalem), and such meal being an evening meal, is tantamount to St. Mark’s statement, that he passed his evenings in this village.

3 The same fact coincides with several other particulars, though our attention is not drawn to them by the Evangelists. It is obvious, from the history, that the danger to Jesus did not arise from the multitude, but from the priests. The multitude were with Him, until, as I have said in a former paragraph, they were persuaded that he assumed to Himself the character of God, and spake blasphemy, when they turned against Him: but till then they were on his side. Judas “promised, and sought opportunity to betray Him in the absence of the multitude.” (Luke 22:6.) The chief priests and elders, in consulting on his death, said, “Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people.” (Matth. 26:5.) Jesus, therefore, felt Himself safe, nay, powerful, so that he could even clear the temple of its profaners by force, in the day; but not so in the night. In the night, the chief priests might use stratagem, as they eventually did; and the fact appears to be, that the very first night Jesus did not retire to Bethany, but remained in and about Jerusalem, He was actually betrayed and seized. There is a consistency, I say, of the most artless kind in the several parts of this narrative; a consistency, however, such as we have to detect for ourselves; and so latent and unobtrusive, that no forgery could reach it [Several of the thoughts in this Number are suggested to me by Mr. A. Johnson’s “Christus Crucifixus.”] .