LT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY^ ON THE EMPHASIS OP ST. LDKE. 251 



1, 2, about Himself, and blessing to the Gentiles, His 

 hearers endeavoured to kill Him. Our Lord's next demon- 

 stration of His Divine power in fori^iving a man's sins was 

 met by the impious protest of the Scribes and Pharisees 

 that He was blaspheming. As they said," Wlio can forgive sins, 

 but God alone ? " they evidently understood the greatness of 

 His claim (Exodus xxxiv, 6, 7). On the third occasion our 

 Saviour declared Himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath ; His 

 hearers well knew that this was an assertion of His Godhead, 

 because the Sabbath belongs to Jehovah (Exodus xx, 10). 

 Again he encountered intense opposition (Luke vi, 11). 



It will be noticed that these two triplications, proclaiming the 

 Lord Jesus, correspond to the three at the beginning of the Acts, 

 which announce two of the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity. 



We now proceed to demonstrate the existence of the most 

 important triplication (No. 3) in the Gospel of Luke, which 

 powerfully emphasizes the grand Work which our Lord came to 

 do — to die upon the Cross for our sins. 



In reading through the synoptic Gospels we are struck by 

 the fact that the arrival at Bethany (Luke x, 38, c. with John xii, 

 1), toward the close of the last journey to Jerusalem (Luke ix, 51), 

 is told at less than half-way through the Gospel of Luke ; but the 

 same point is not reached in the other two Gospels until two- 

 thirds of each have been read through. It is, however, evidently 

 the same arrival at Bethany or its neighbourhood which is 

 recorded, because the events which preceded it are told in the 

 same order by all three Evangelists. 



But in Luke xix, 29, an arrival at Bethphage and Bethany is 

 mentioned; the context ctfter this passage agrees exactly with 

 the records after the corresponding accounts in the other 

 synoptists. Hence we must conclude, in this case also, that the 

 same arrival is referred to by all three Evangelists. 



Consequently Luke x, 38, and xix, 29, must both tell of the 

 same arrival. If we suppose the long intervening passage between 

 these two texts to be cut out pro teyn. we should find that the 

 arrival at Bethany would then come at two-thirds of the way 

 through this Gospel also. The thought at once occurs that a 

 retrogression must have been made ; this supposition is fully 

 confirmed by further evidence. 



Let us now consider the chapters between these two 

 accounts of the same arrival. At first sight they look like 

 historical confusion, and it is generally supposed that chrono- 

 logical order has been quite given up, some think for the sake 



