96 Luke ii. 35. 97 Genesis xxviii. 12. 98 John i. 51. 99 Mark iii. 17-19. 100 Matth. x. 2-6. 101 If a party of young men were in the habit of separating for excursions and going two by two, and one of the party were afterwards asked for a list of the company; it would help his memory to recall them, pair by pair. The Evangelist is going to tell us of our Lord’s directions to the twelve about their mission. It then strikes him that he must record their names. 102 John ii. 11. 103 John ii. 12. 104 John iv. 43-45. 105 The tone of His discourse delivered there, after His visit to Jerusalem, falls in with this view. 106 It must be recollected that there is no mention in St John’s Gospel of any disciple _by name_, after the first chapter, until we come to the sixth. 107 It may be asked, How were the disciples maintained during several weeks at Jerusalem? Though not of the poorest class they could not have lived long without labour. John may have been spared because James remained to help his father in his work. But if Peter and Andrew had both stayed at Jerusalem through all the early summer, it is hard to see how they, and Peter’s wife, could have been supported. I should conjecture therefore that if Peter went to Jerusalem to the first passover, he only made a brief stay. There were, at this time, apparently no contributions such as we hear of afterwards (Luke viii. 3). 108 1 Peter ii. 23. 109 John ii. 16. 110 John ii. 23. 111 John ii. 24, 25. 112 John vi. 66. 113 John iii. 22, 23. 114 John iii. 26. 115 John iv. 1, 2. 116 2 Tim. iv. 2. 117 1 Cor. i. 12. 118 John iv. 31. They press Him to take bodily support about which they thought Him careless. This must be an eye-witness’s account. 119 John xv. 15. 120 John ii. 24. 121 John iv. 35-38. See Chronological Appendix. 122 Luke x. 21, 22. 123 Luke xxii. 28. 124 Luke xv. 10. 125 Mark x. 33, 34. 126 John v. 1. 127 Luke iv. 14, 15. 128 John iv. 45. 129 If a body of disciples had accompanied our Lord to Nazareth, they would probably have offered some opposition to the Nazarenes. The absence of all mention of disciples in St Luke, chap. iv. gives reason for supposing that the visit to Nazareth here recorded is not the same with that related in St Matthew and St Mark; for the disciples were then present. See Mark vi. 1-6, Matth. xiii. 53.