Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (745 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
6.38Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
A similar limitation of the duration of tlie law is involved in tlie.
predictions of Jesus, (if indeed they were uttered by Jesus, a point wliicli we have to discuss,) that the temple would be destroyed at his approaching advent (Matt. xxiv. parall.), and that devotion would be freed from all local restrictions (Jolin iv.); for with tlicse must fall tlie entire Mosaic system of external worsliip. Tills is not contradicted by tlie declaration that tlie law would endure until heaven and earth should pass away (Matt. v. 18.), for tlie Hebrew associated tlie fall of his state and sanctuary with the end of tlie old world or dispensation, so that the expressions, so long as tlie temple stands, and so long as the world stands, were equivalent.* It is true tliat tlie words of Jesus, Lake xvi. 16., o v6^.og K.a’i. ol npwt>i]rai w<; ‘\udvvov seem to imply, that tlie appearance of tlie. Baptist put an end to tlie validity of the law; but this passage loses its depreciatory sense when compared with its parallel, Matt. xi. 13. On the other hand, Luke xvi. 17. controls Matt. v. 18., and reduces it to a mere comparison between the stability of tlie law and that of heaven and earth. The only question then is, in which of the gospels are the two passages more correctly stated ? As given in tlie first, they intimate tliat the law would retain its supremacy until, and not after, tlie close of tlie old dispensation.
 
With this agrees the prediction, that tlie temple would be destroyed; for tlie spiritualization of religion, and, according to Stephen’s interpretation, tlie abolition of tlie Mosaic law, wliicli were to be tlie results of tliat event, were undoubtedly identified by Jesus with tlie commencement of tlie a’Mv ^e/Utiw of tlie Messiah,
 
Hence it appears, tliat the only difference between tlie view of Paul and tliat of Jesus is this: that the latter anticipated tlie extinction of tlie Mosaic system as a concomitant of his glorious advent or return to tlie regenerated earth, while the former believed its abolition permissible on the old, unregcnerated earth, in virtue of tlie Messiah’s first advent, f
* Comp. Paulus, exeg. IIandb. 1. B. S. S98 f.
t Comp. IIase, L. J. S. 81.
Kabbincal notions of the abrogation of the Law in
a-Anti.o.cr, ii. s. (ill ff.
 
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 317
 
§ 68. SCOPE OF THE MESSIANIC PLAN OF JESUS-RELATIONS TO THE
GENTILE8.
 
ALTHOUGH the church founded by Jesus did, in fact, early extend itself beyond tlie limits of the Jewish people, there are yet indications wliicli might induce a belief tliat lie did not contemplate such a.n extension.* When he sends the twelve on their first mission, his command is, Go not into the, way of the Gentiles-Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. x. 5 f.). That Matthew alone has tills injunction and not tlie two other synoptists, is less probably explained by the supposition that tlie Hebrew author of tlie first gospel interpolated it, than by the opposite one, namely, tliat it -was wilfully omitted by the Hellenistic authors of the second and third gospels. For, as the judaizing tendency of Mattliew is not so marked that he assigns to Jesus the intention of limiting tlie messianic kingdom to tlie Jews; as, on the contrary, he makes Jesus unequivocally foretel tlie calling of the Gentiles (viii. 11 f. xxi. 33 ff. xxii. 1 ff. xxviii. 19 f.): he had no motive for fabricating this particularizing addition ; but the two other evangelists had a strong one for its omission; in the offence which it would cause to the Gentiles already within tlie fold. Its presence in Mattliew, however, demands an explanation, and expositors have thought to furnish one by supposing the injunction of Jesus to be a measure of prudence, f It is unquestionable that, even if the plan of Jesus comprehended the Gentiles as well as the Jews, he must at first, if he would not for ever ruin his cause with his fellow-countrymen, adopt, and prescribe to the disciples, a rule of national exclusiveness. This necessity on hia part might account for his answer to the Canaanitish woman, whose daughter he refuses to heal, because he was only sent to the lost sheep of the liouse of Israel (Matt.
XY. 24), were it not that the boon which he here denies is not a reception into the messianic kingdom, but a temporal benefit, such as even Elijah and Elisha had conferred on those who were not Israelites (1 Kings xvii. 9 ff. 2 Kings v. 1 ff.)-examples to which Jesus elsewhere appeals (Luke iv. 25 ff.). Tience the disciples thought it natural and unobjectionable to grant the woman’s petition, and it could not be prudential considerations that withheld Jesus, for a time, from compliance. That an aversion to the Gentiles may not appear to be his motive, it has been conjectured f that Jesus, wishing to preserve an incognito in that country, avoided the performance of any messianic work. But sucli a design of concealment is only mentioned by Mark (vii. 25.), wlio represents it as being defeated by the entreaties of the woman, contrary to the inclinations of Jesus; and as this evangelist omits tlie declaration ot Jesus, tliat he was not sent but to tlie lost sheep of the house of
‘‘‘ Thus the Wolfenbuttel Fragmentist, ut sup. S. 72 ff. + Reinhard ; Planck, Geachichte des Clirislenthums in der Per. seiner Einfulirung, 1, S. 179 tE f Paulus, Leben
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
Israel, we must suspect that lie was guided by the wish to supply a less offensive motive for tlie conduct of Jeans, rather than by historical accuracy. Had Jesus really bccu influenced by the motive which Mark assigns, he must at once have alleged it to his disciples instead of a merely ostensible one, calculated to strengthen their already rigid exclusiveness. We should therefore rather listen to tlic opinion tliat Jesus sought, by Ids repeated refusal, to prove tlie faitli of the woman, and furnish an occasion for its exhibition,* if we could find in tlic text the sliglitcst trace of mere dissimulation;
 
and none of a real change of mind.f Even Mark, bent as lie was on softening tlic features of tlie incident, cannot have thought of a dissimulation of tills kind; otherwise, instead of omitting tlie harsh words and making the inadequate addition, and would have no man, knoic it, lie would have removed the offence in tlie most satisfactory manner, by an observation such as, he said this to prove, her (comp.
John vi. 6.). Thus it must be allowed that Jesus in this case sccma to share the antipathy of his countrymen towards tlie Gentiles, nay, his antipathy seems to be of a deeper stamp than tliat of his disciples ; unless their advocacy of tlie woman be a touch from the pencil of tradition, for tlie sake of contrast and grouping.
 
This narrative, however, is neutralized by another, in which Jesus is said to act in a directly opposite manner. The centurion of Capernaum, also a Gentile, (as we gather from tlie remarks of Jesus,) lias scarcely complained of a distress similar to that of tlie Canaanitlsh woman, when Jesus himself volunteers to go and heal his servant (Matt. viii. 5.).If, then, Jesus has no hesitation, in this instance, to exercise his power of healing in favour of a lieatlion, how comes it tliat lie refuses to do so in another quite analogous case? Truly if the relative position of tlie two narratives in tlie gospels have any wciglit, lie must have shown himself more. harsh and narrow at the later period than at tlie earlier one. Meanwhile, tlus single act of benevolence to a Gentile, standing as it docs in inexplicable contradiction to tlie narrative above examined, cannot prove, in opposition to tlie command expressly given to the disciples, not to go to the Gentiles, tliat Jesus contemplated their admission
as such into the messianic kingdom.
 
Even the prediction of Jesus tliat tlie kingdom of heaven would.
be taken from tlie Jews and given to tlie Gentiles, does not prove this.
In tlic above interview with tlie centurion of Capernaum, Jesus declares tliat many shall come from the east and t/ie u’est, and sit down with tlie patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven, while tlie children of the kingdom, (obviously the Jews,) for whom it was originally designed, will be cast out (Matt. viii. 11 f.).
 
Yet more decidedly, when applying tlie parable of tlic husbandmen in the vineyard, lie warns his countrymen tliat the kingdom of God shall be taken from them, and given, to a nation bringing forth the fmiifs f.hp.rp.of (^,\alt. xxi. 43.’). All this may be understood in the
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 319
 
sense intended by the prophets, in their promises tliat tlie messianic kingdom would extend to all nations; namely, tliat tlie Gentiles would turn to tlie worship of Jehovah, embrace tlie Mosaic religion in its entire form, and afterwards be received into the Messiah’s kingdom.It would accord very well with tills expectation, tliat, prior to sucli a conversion, Jesus sliould forbid his disciples to direct their announcement of his kingdom to tlie Gentiles.
 
But in tlic discourses concerning, his re-appearance, Jesus regards tlie publication of tlie Gospel to all nations as one of the circumstances tliat must precede that event: (Matt. xxiv, 14.
Mark xiii. 10.), and after his resurreciion, according to the synoptists, he gave his disciples the command, Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c. (Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; Luke xxiv. 47.); i. e. go to them witli the offer of tlie Messiah’s kingdom, even though they may not beforehand have become Jews.Not only, however, do the disciples, after tlie first Pentecost, neglect to execute, tins command, but when a case is thrust on them which offers them an opportunity for compliance with it, they act as if they were altogether ignorant that such a direction had been given, by Jesus (Acts x. xi.). The heathen centurion Cornelius, worthy, from Ins devout life, of a reception into tlic messianic community is pointed out by an angel to tlic apostle Peter. But because it was not hidden from God, with what difficulty tlie apostle would be induced to receive a heathen, witliout further preliminary, into the Messiah’s kingdom, he saw it needful to prepare him for such a step by a symbolical vision.In consequence of sucli an admonition Peter goes to Cornelius; but to impel him to baptize liirn and his family, lie needs a second sign, the pouring out of tlie Holy Gliost on these uncircumcised. When, subsequently, tlie Jewish Christians- in Jerusalem call him to account for tills reception of Gentiles, Peter appeals in his justification solely to the recent vision, and to the Holy Gliost given to the centurion’s family. Whatever judgment we may form of tlie. credibility of this liistory, it is a memorial of tlie many deliberations and contentions wliicli it cost the apostles after tlic departure of Jesus, to convince themselves of tlie eligibility of Gentiles for a participation in tlie kingdom of tlieir Christ, and tlic reasons which at last brought them to a decision. Now if Jesus had given so explicit a command as tliat above quoted, wliat need was tlicre of a vision to encourage Peter to its fulfilment? or, supposing tlie vision to be a legendary investiture of the natural deliberations of tlie disciples, why did they go about in search of the reflection, that all men ought to be baptized, because before God all men and all animals, as his creatures, are clean, if they could have appealed to an express injunction of Jesus ? Here, then, is tlie alternative: if Jesus himself gave this command, the disciples cannot have been led to tlie admission of tlie Gentiles by the means narrated in Acts x. xl.; if, on tlie other hand, tliat narrative is authentic, the
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
for the latter proposition. For that the subsequent practice and preeminent distinction of the Christian Church, its accessibility to all nations, and its indifference to circumcision or uncircumcision, should have lain in the mind of its founder, is the view best adapted to exalt and adorn Jesus; while, that, first after his death, and through the gradual development of relations, tlie church, which its Founder had designed for the Gentiles only in so far as they became Jews, should break through tliese limits, is in the simple, natural, and therefore the probable course of tilings.
 
§ 69. RELATION OP THE MESSIANIC PLAN OP JESUS TO THE SAMARITANS--HIS INTERVIEW WITH THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA.
 
THERE is the same apparent contradiction in the position -which Jesu-s took, and prescribed to his disciples, towards the inhabitants of Samaria. While in his instructions to his disciples, (Matt. x. 5,)
he forbids them to visit any city of the Samaritans, we read in John (iv.) lhat Jesus himself in his journey through Samaria laboured as the Messiah with great effect, and ultimately stayed two days in a Samaritan town; and in the Acts (i. 8), that before his ascension he charged the disciples to be his witnesses, not only in Jerusalem and in all Judea, but also in Samaria. That Jesus did not entirely shun Samaria, as that prohibition might appear to intimate, is evident from Luke ix. 52. (comp. xvii. 11.), where his disciples bespeak lodgings for him in a Samaritan village, when he has determined to go to Jerusalem; a circumstance which accords with the information of Josephus, tliat those Galileans who journeyed to the feasts usually went through Samaria.* That Jesus was not unfavourable to the Samaritans, nay, tliat in many respects lie acknowledged their superiority to the Jews, is evident from his parable of tlie Good Samaritan (Luke x. 30 ff.); he also bestows a marked notice on the case of a Samaritan, who, among ten cleansed, was tlie only one that testified his gratitude (Luke xvii. 16); and, if we may venture on such a conclusion from John iv. 25, and subsequent records,! the inliabitants of Samaria themselves had some tincture of the messianic idea.

Other books

Market Forces by Richard K. Morgan
Temple of Fear by Nick Carter
The Strange Attractor by Cory, Desmond
Haunting Whispers by V. K. Powell
Southtown by Rick Riordan