Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (789 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
9.32Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
In relation to the next question, the possibility and the actual course of the incident before us, the natural interpretation seems to find the most pliant material in the narrative of John. Here, it is remarked, Jesus nowhere says that he will effect the patient’s cure, he merely assures the father that his son is out of clanger, (6 vlbg cov ^), and the father, when he finds that the favourable turn of his sou’s malady coincides with the time at which he was conversing with Jesus, in no way draws the inference that Jesus had wrought the cure at a distance. Hence, this history is only a proof that Jesus by means of his profound acquaintance with semeiology, was able, on receiving a description of the patient’s state, correctly to predict the course of his disease; that such a description is not here given is no proof that Jesus had not obtained it; while further this proot of knowledge is called a a^islov (v. 54) because it was a sign ot a kind of skill in Jesus which John had not bsfore intimated, namely, the ability to predict the cure of one dangerously ill.* But, apart from the misinterpretation of the word CFT^EIOV, and the interpolation of a conversation not intimated in the text; this view of the matter would place the character and even the understanding of Jesus in the most equivocal light. For if we should pronounce a physician imprudent, who in the ease of a patient believed to be dying of fever, should even from his own observation of the symptoms, guarantee a cure, and thus risk his reputation: how much wore rashly would Jesus have acted, had he, on the mere descrip-•wri ot a man who was not a physician, given assurance that a dis-ease was attended with no danger ? We cannot ascribe such conduct to him, benansp. it ™-™-.l/i i>~ -’-- ,i:..--i ---• ->• •• -.. * •THE LIFE
OF JESUS.
OF JESUS.
I?A\/
conduct, and the impression which he left on his coternporaries.If then Jesus merely predicted the cure without effecting it, he must have been assured of it in a more certain manner than by natural reasoning,-he must have known it in a supernatural manner. This is the turn given to the narrative by one of the most recent commentators on the gospel of John. lie puts the question, whether we have here a miracle of knowledge or of power; and as there is no mention of an immediate effect from the words of Jesus, while’ elsewhere in the fourth gospel the superior knowledge of Jesus is especially held up to our view, he is of opinion that Jesus, by means of his higher-nature, merely knew that at that moment the danger--r j.i.« ,1 ;„„„<,„ waa -nasf.* But jf our gospel frequently LJV-MV^A.Jt-«.*----------7
cerned, this is plainly stated (as i. 49, ii. iio, vi. o-i,j ami ucu^o ^ a supernatural cognizance of the already effected cure of the boy had been intended, John would have made Jesus speak on this occasion as he did before to Nathanael, and tell the father that he already saw his son on his bed in an ameliorated state. On the .contrary, not only is there no intimation of the exercise of superior knowledge, but we are plainly enoxigh given
to understand that there was an exercise of miraculous power.When the sudden cure of one at the point of dtat/i is spoken of, the immediate question is, What brought about this unexpected change ? and when a narrative which elsewhere makes miracles follow on the word of its hero, puts into his mouth an assurance that the patient lives, it is only the mistaken effort to diminish the marvellous, which can prevent the admission that in this assurance the author means to give the cause of the cure.
to understand that there was an exercise of miraculous power.When the sudden cure of one at the point of dtat/i is spoken of, the immediate question is, What brought about this unexpected change ? and when a narrative which elsewhere makes miracles follow on the word of its hero, puts into his mouth an assurance that the patient lives, it is only the mistaken effort to diminish the marvellous, which can prevent the admission that in this assurance the author means to give the cause of the cure.
In the case of the synoptical narratives, the supposition of a mere prediction Avill not suffice, since here the father (Matt. v. 8) entreats the exercise of healing power, and Jesus (v. 13,) accedes to this entreaty. Hence every way would seem to be closed to the natural interpretation (for the distance of Jesus from the patient made all physical or psychical influence impossible), if a single feature in the narrative had not presented unexpected help. This feature is the comparison which the centurion institutes between himself and Jesus. As he need only speak a word in order to see this or that command performed by his soldiers and servants, so, he concludes, it would cost Jesus no more than a word to restore his servant to health. Out of this comparison it has been found possible to extract an intimation that as on the side of the centurion, so on that of Jesus, human proxies were thought of. According to this, the centurion intended to represent to Jesus, that he need only speak n -.I-^T/I +n niio, of his tlisciyiles, and the latter would go with him and MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES AT A DISTANCE.cure his servant, which is supposed to have forthwith happened.* But as this would be the first instance in which Jesus had caused a cure to be wrought by his disciples, and the only one in which he commissions them immediately to perform a particular cure, how could this peculiar circumstance be silently presupposed in the otherwise detailed narrative of Luke ? Why, since this narrator is not sparing in spinning out the rest of the messenger’s speech, docs he stint the few words which would have explained all-the simple addition after eiTte A.6yu, speak the word, of evl ruv fiaOrj-uv, to one of tky disciples, or something similar ? But, above all, at the close of the narrative, where the result is told, this mode of interpretation falls into the greatest perplexity, not merely through the silence of the narrator, but through his positive statement. Luke, namely, concludes with the information that when the friends of the centurion returned into the house, they found the servant already recovered. Now, if Jesus had caused the cure by sending with the messengers one or more of his disciples, the patient could only begin gradually to be better after the disciples had come into the house with the messengers; he could not have been already well on their arrival. Paulus indeed supposes that the messengers’lingered for some time listening to the discourse of Jesus, and that thus the disciples arrived before them ; but how the former could so unnecessarily linger, and how the evangelist could have been silent on this point as well as on the commission of the disciples, he omits to explain. Whether instead of the disciples, we hold that which corresponds on the side of Jesus to the soldiers of the centurion to be demons of disease,! ministering- angels, f or merely the word and the curative power of Jesus ;§ in any case there remains to us a iniracle wrought at a distance.
This kind of agency on the part of Jesus is, according to the admission even of such commentators as have not generally any repugnance to the miraculous, attended with special difficulty, because irom the want of the personal presence of Jesus, and its beneficial influence on the patient, we are deprived of every possibility of rendering the cure conceivable by means of an analogy observable in nature. || According to Olshausen, indeed, this distant influence has its analogies; namely, in animal magnctism.li I will not directly contest this, but only point out the limits within which, so far as my knowledge extends, this phenomenon confines itself in the do-mam oi animal magnetism. According to our experience hitherto, the cases in which one person can exert an influence over another at a distance are only two: first, the magnetizer or an individual ni magnetic relation to him can act thus on the somnambulc, but this distant action must always be preceded by immediate contact,* Paulug, exeg. JIamUmcli, ]. B. S. 710 f.; Katurliche Gcschichte, 2, S. 285 ff. “ Y’’m- homil- ix- 21; Fritzsche, in Matth. 313. J Wetstein, N. T. ], p. 349 ; comp. Co. ‘aUSf1’ “‘ 10C- ? K”*
a preliminary winch is not supposed in the relation of Jesus to the patient in our narrative; secondly, such an influence is found to exist in persons who are themselves somnambulcs, or otherwise under a disordered state of the nerves; neither of which descriptions can apply to Jesus. If thus such a cure of distant persons as is ascribed to Jesus in our narratives, far outsteps the extreme limits of natural causation, as exhibited in magnetism and the kindred phenomena; then must Jesus have been, so far as the above narratives can lay claim to historical credit, a supernatural being. But before we admit him to have been so really, it is worth our while as critical inquirers to examine whether the narrative under consideration could not have arisen without any historical foundation ; especially as by the very fact of the various forms which it has taken in the different gospels it shows itself to contain legendary ingredients. And here it is evident that the miraculous cures of Jesus by merely touching the patient, such as we have examples of in that of the leper, Mutt. via. 3, and in that of the blind men, Matt. ix. 29, might by a natural climax rise, first into the cure of persons when in his presence, by a mere word, as in the case of the demoniacs, of the lepers Luke xvii. 14, and other sufferers; and then into the cure even of the absent by a word; of which there is a strongly marked precedent in the Old Testament. In 2 Kings v. 9 ff. we read that when the Syrian general Naaman came before the dwelling of the prophet Elisha that he might be cured of his leprosy, the prophet came not out to meet him, but sent to him by a servant the direction to wash himself seven times in the river Jordan. At this the Syrian was so Indignant that he was about to return home without regarding the direction of the prophet. He had expected, he said, that the prophet would come to him, and calling on his God, strike his hand over the leprous place; that without any personal procedure of this kind, the prophet merely directed him to
go
to
the
river Jordan
and wash,
discouraged and irritated him, since if water were the thing required, he might have had it better at home then here in Israel. By this Old Testament history we see. what was ordinarily expected from a prophet, namely, that he should be able to cure when present by bodily contact; that he could do so without contact, and at a distance, was not presupposed. Elisha effected the cure of the leprous general in the latter manner (for the washing was not the cause of cure here, any more than in John ix., but the miraculous power of the prophet, who saw fit to annex its influence to this external act),
and hereby proved himself a highly distinguished prophet: ought then the Messiah in this particular to fall short of the prophet ? Thus our New Testament narrative is manifested to be a necessary reflection of that Old Testament story. As, there, the sick person will not believe in the possibility of his cure unless the prophet “-• i •-- !.„,,„«.
or,i,ovf, according to one edition of the MIBACLES OF JESUS--CUEES ON THE SABBATH.Jesus will come into his house; according to the other editions, he is convinced of the power of Jesus to heal even without this; and all agree that Jesus, like the prophet, succeeded in the performance of this especially difficult miracle.
go
to
the
river Jordan
and wash,
discouraged and irritated him, since if water were the thing required, he might have had it better at home then here in Israel. By this Old Testament history we see. what was ordinarily expected from a prophet, namely, that he should be able to cure when present by bodily contact; that he could do so without contact, and at a distance, was not presupposed. Elisha effected the cure of the leprous general in the latter manner (for the washing was not the cause of cure here, any more than in John ix., but the miraculous power of the prophet, who saw fit to annex its influence to this external act),
and hereby proved himself a highly distinguished prophet: ought then the Messiah in this particular to fall short of the prophet ? Thus our New Testament narrative is manifested to be a necessary reflection of that Old Testament story. As, there, the sick person will not believe in the possibility of his cure unless the prophet “-• i •-- !.„,,„«.
or,i,ovf, according to one edition of the MIBACLES OF JESUS--CUEES ON THE SABBATH.Jesus will come into his house; according to the other editions, he is convinced of the power of Jesus to heal even without this; and all agree that Jesus, like the prophet, succeeded in the performance of this especially difficult miracle.
§ 99.CURES OS THE SABBATH.
JESUS, according to the gospels, gave great scandal to the Jews by not seldom performing his curative miracles on the sabbath. One example of this is common to the three synoptical writers, two are peculiar to Luke, and two to John.
In the narrative common to the three synoptical writers, two cases of supposed desecration of the sabbath are united; the plucking of the ears of corn by the disciples (Matt. xii. 1. parall.), and the cure of the man with the withered hand by Jesus (v. 9 ff. par.). After the conversation which was occasioned by the plucking of the corn, and which took place in the fields, the two first evangelists continue as if Jesus went from this scene immediately into the synagogue of the same place, to which no special designation is given, and there, on the occasion of the cure of the man with the withered hand, again held a dispute on the observance of the sabbath. It is evident that these two histories were originally united only on account of the similarity in their tendency; hence it is to the credit of Luke, that he has expressly separated them chronologically by the words iv irtpu (7a/3(3aru>, on another sabbath.* The further inquiry, which narrative is hero the more original ? we may dismiss with the observation, that if the question which Matthew puts into the mouth of the Pharisees, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? is held up as a specimen of invented dialogue ;f we may with equal justice characterize in the same way the question lent to Jesus by the two intermediate evangelists; while their much praised* deserip-tion of Jesus calling to the man to stand forth in the midst, and then casting reproving glances around, may be accused of having the air of dramatic fiction.
The narratives all agree in representing the affliction under which the patient laboured, as a XSV &IP°-> or K^rjpa^KVi]. Indefinite as this expression is, it is treated too freely when it is understood, as by Paulus, to imply only that the hand was injured by heat,§ or even by a sprain, according to Venturini’s supposition. || For when, m order to determine the signification in which this term is used in the New Testament we refer, as it is proper to do, to the Old Testament, we iind (1 Kings, xiii. 4.) a hand which, on being stretched out, KsqpdvO?) (aaipn), described as incapable of being drawn back again, so that we must understand a lameness and rigidity of the n . *
Scl>leiermachcr, ttber den Lukaa. S. 80 f.
f Schneckenburger, tiber den Urspr..
Scl>leiermachcr, ttber den Lukaa. S. 80 f.
f Schneckenburger, tiber den Urspr..
“•
8-
I.
S.
50.t Sollli-iormonV,.. ...-..-
o T»~.....,»..’..-- ‘‘THE LIFE OF JESUS.
8-
I.
S.
50.t Sollli-iormonV,.. ...-..-
o T»~.....,»..’..-- ‘‘THE LIFE OF JESUS.
hand; and on a comparison of Mark ix. 18, where the expression fypaivKaOai to be withered or wasted away is applied to an epileptic, a drying Tip and shrinking of that member.* Now from the narrative before us a very plausible argument may be drawn in favour of the supposition, that Jesus employed natural means in the treatment of tins and other diseases. Only such cures, it is said, were prohibited on the sabbath as were attended with any kind of labour; thus, if the Pharisees, as it is here said, expected Jesus to transgress the sabbatical laws by effecting a cure, they must have known that he was not accustomed to cure by his mere word, but by medicaments and surgical operations.t As, however, a cure merely by means of a conjuration otherwise lawful, was forbidden on the sabbath, a fact which Paulus himself elsewhere adduces :+ as moreover there was a controversy between the schools of Ilillcl and Schamrnai, whether it were permitted even to administer consolation to the sick on the sabbath ;§ and as again, according to an observation of Paulus, the more ancient rabbins were stricter on the point of sabbatical observance than those whose writings on this subject have come down to us:|| so the cures of Jesus, even supposing that he used no natural means, might by captious Pharisees be brought under the category of violations of the sabbath.
The principal objection to the rationalistic explanation, namely, the silence of the evangelists as to natural means, Paulus believes to be obviated in the present case by conceiving the scene thus : at that time, and in the synagogue, there was indeed 110 application of such means; Jesus merely caused the hand to be shown to him, that he might see how far the remedies hitherto prescribed by him (which remedies however are still a bare assumption) had been serviceable, and he then found that it was completely cured; for the expression dTronareordOr], used by all the narrators, implies a cure completed previously, not one suddenly effected in the passing moment. It is true that the context seems to require this interpretation, since the outstretching of the hand prior to the cure would appear to be as little possible, as in 1 Kings xiii. 4. the act of drawing it back: nevertheless the evangelists give O
O
O
The principal objection to the rationalistic explanation, namely, the silence of the evangelists as to natural means, Paulus believes to be obviated in the present case by conceiving the scene thus : at that time, and in the synagogue, there was indeed 110 application of such means; Jesus merely caused the hand to be shown to him, that he might see how far the remedies hitherto prescribed by him (which remedies however are still a bare assumption) had been serviceable, and he then found that it was completely cured; for the expression dTronareordOr], used by all the narrators, implies a cure completed previously, not one suddenly effected in the passing moment. It is true that the context seems to require this interpretation, since the outstretching of the hand prior to the cure would appear to be as little possible, as in 1 Kings xiii. 4. the act of drawing it back: nevertheless the evangelists give O
O
O
us only the word of Jesus as the source of the cure, not natural means, which arc the gratuitous addition of expositors.*!
Decisive evidence, alike for the necessity of viewing this as a miraculous cure, and for the possibility of explaining the origin ot the anecdote, is to be obtained by a closer examination of the Old Testament narrative already mentioned, 1 Kings xiii. 1 ff. A prophet out of Judah threatened Jeroboam, while ottering incense on his idolatrous altar, with the destruction of the altar and the overthrow of his false worship; the king with outstretched hand commanded that this prophet of evil should be seized, when suddenly his hand dried up so that he could not draw it again towards him, and the - •”“•..-.
,M,
-11 .,„!,..
is 7!)n
T Puulus, ut sup. S. 49, 54; Kuster, Inunanucl, MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES ON THE SABBATH.altar was rent. On the entreaty of the king, however, the prophet • besought Jehovah for the restoration of the hand, and its full use was again granted.* Paulus also refers to this narrative in the same connexion, but only for the purpose of applying to it his natural method of explanation ; he observes that Jeroboam’s anger may have produced a transient convulsive rigidity of the muscles and so forth, in the hand just stretched out with such impetuosity.
But who does not see that we have a legend designed to glorify the monotheistic order of prophets, and to hold up to infamy the
Israelitish idolatry in the person of its founder Jeroboam ? The man of God denounces on the idolatrous altar quick and miraculous destruction; the idolatrous king impiously stretches forth his hand against the man of God ; the hand is paralyzed, the idolatrous altar falls asunder into the dust, and only on the intercession of the prophet is the king restored. Who can argue about the miraculous and the natural in what is so evidently a mytlrus ? And who can fail to perceive in our evangelical narrative an imitation of this Old Testament legend, except that agreeably to the spirit of Christianity the withering of the hand appears, not as a retributive miracle, but as a natural disease, and only its cure is ascribedto Jesus; whence also the outstretching of the hand is riot, as in the case of Jeroboam, the criminal cause of the infliction, continued as a punishment, and the drawing of it back again a sign of cure; but, on the contrary, the hand which had previously been drawn inwards, owing to disease, can after the completion of the cure be again extended. That, in other instances, about that period, the power of working cures of this kind was in the East ascribed to the favourites of the gods, may be seen from a narrative already adduced, in which, together with (he cure of blindness, the restoration of a diseased hand is attributed to Vespasian, f But this curative miracle does not appear independently and as an object by itself: the history of it hinges on the fact that the cure was wrought on the Sabbath, and the point of the whole lies in the words by which Jesus vindicates his activity in healing on the sabbath against, the Pharisees. In Luke and Mark this defence consists in the^ question, Is it lawful to do good on the sablath days, or to°c fl ^oi}f, an ass or an ox for ~pul3arov sheep, and of tppeap, well orjJti for (366vvof, ditch,} in connexion with the cure of an vdpumuibs a man who had the dropsy (xiv. 5.); a narrative which has in 1 Kings
xiii,
4, LXX : Kal ISov fypuvdlvxeipaitrt’
*’
ljXX: Kal
M,Matth.
xii.10: rai idov Mp^oc f/V (> : , Ml Imorpede ‘rf,v reioa nrii pn•> •
~”\ .?’Pa.^uv ^,1™ (Mark. ifrpa/j/xv,jv).
,M,
-11 .,„!,..
is 7!)n
T Puulus, ut sup. S. 49, 54; Kuster, Inunanucl, MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES ON THE SABBATH.altar was rent. On the entreaty of the king, however, the prophet • besought Jehovah for the restoration of the hand, and its full use was again granted.* Paulus also refers to this narrative in the same connexion, but only for the purpose of applying to it his natural method of explanation ; he observes that Jeroboam’s anger may have produced a transient convulsive rigidity of the muscles and so forth, in the hand just stretched out with such impetuosity.
But who does not see that we have a legend designed to glorify the monotheistic order of prophets, and to hold up to infamy the
Israelitish idolatry in the person of its founder Jeroboam ? The man of God denounces on the idolatrous altar quick and miraculous destruction; the idolatrous king impiously stretches forth his hand against the man of God ; the hand is paralyzed, the idolatrous altar falls asunder into the dust, and only on the intercession of the prophet is the king restored. Who can argue about the miraculous and the natural in what is so evidently a mytlrus ? And who can fail to perceive in our evangelical narrative an imitation of this Old Testament legend, except that agreeably to the spirit of Christianity the withering of the hand appears, not as a retributive miracle, but as a natural disease, and only its cure is ascribedto Jesus; whence also the outstretching of the hand is riot, as in the case of Jeroboam, the criminal cause of the infliction, continued as a punishment, and the drawing of it back again a sign of cure; but, on the contrary, the hand which had previously been drawn inwards, owing to disease, can after the completion of the cure be again extended. That, in other instances, about that period, the power of working cures of this kind was in the East ascribed to the favourites of the gods, may be seen from a narrative already adduced, in which, together with (he cure of blindness, the restoration of a diseased hand is attributed to Vespasian, f But this curative miracle does not appear independently and as an object by itself: the history of it hinges on the fact that the cure was wrought on the Sabbath, and the point of the whole lies in the words by which Jesus vindicates his activity in healing on the sabbath against, the Pharisees. In Luke and Mark this defence consists in the^ question, Is it lawful to do good on the sablath days, or to
xiii,
4, LXX : Kal ISov fypuvdlvxeipaitrt’
*’
ljXX: Kal
M,Matth.
xii.10: rai idov Mp^oc f/V (> : , Ml Imorpede ‘rf,v reioa nrii pn•> •
~”\ .?’Pa.^uv ^,1™ (Mark. ifrpa/j/xv,jv).
^ 0*^, Kai ^ToRT^;^ ™ • ‘J?” *>%.* “v9^ *™™4THE LIFE OP JESUS.
two general a striking similarity to the one under consideration. Jesus takes food in the house of one of the chief Pharisees, where, as in the other instance in the synagogue, he is watched (here, fjaav -rrapa-TT/poi’fifivot, there, naperfipovv}. A dropsical person is present; as, there, a man with a withered hand.In the synagogue, according to Matthew, the Pharisees ask Jesus, d tfecrrt TO?? adfifiaat OeparreiJeiv ; fs ‘it lawful to heal on the sabbath days ?According to Mark and Luke, Jesus aks them whether it he lawful to save life, &c.:
so, here, he asks them, el K^eari, TW traftSaru Oepanevsiv • J~$ it lawful to heal on the sabbath ? whereupon in both histories the interrogated parties are silent (in that of the withered hand, Mark : ot <5t ecnwirwv ; in that of the dropsical patient, Luke: ol (5e ^av^aaav).
Lastly, in both histories we have the saying about the animal fallen into a pit, in the one as an epilogue to the cure, in the other (that of Matthew) as a prologue. A natural explanation, which has not been left untried even with this cure of the dropsy,’* seems more than usually a vain labour, where, as in this case, we have before us no particular narrative, resting on its own historical basis, but a mere variation on the theme of the sabbath cures, and the text on the endangered domestic animal, which might come to one (Matthew) in connexion with the cure of a withered hand, to another (Luke) with the cure of a dropsical patient, and to a third in a different connexion still; for there is yet a third story of a miraculous cure with which a similar saying is associated. Luke, namely, narrates (xiii. 10 ff.) the cure of a woman bowed down by demoniacal influence, as having been performed by Jesus on the sabbath ; when to the indignant remonstrance of the ruler of the synagogue, Jesus replies by asking, whether every one docs not. loose his ox or ass from the stall on the sabbath, and lead him away to watering? a question which is undeniably a variation of the one given above.
So entirely identical does this history appear with the one last named, that Schlcier-machcr comes to this conclusion:
since in the second there is no reference to the first, and since consequently the repetition is not excused by confession, the two passages Luke xiii. 10, and xiv. 5, cannot have been written one after the other by the same author.^
so, here, he asks them, el K^eari, TW traftSaru Oepanevsiv • J~$ it lawful to heal on the sabbath ? whereupon in both histories the interrogated parties are silent (in that of the withered hand, Mark : ot <5t ecnwirwv ; in that of the dropsical patient, Luke: ol (5e ^av^aaav).
Lastly, in both histories we have the saying about the animal fallen into a pit, in the one as an epilogue to the cure, in the other (that of Matthew) as a prologue. A natural explanation, which has not been left untried even with this cure of the dropsy,’* seems more than usually a vain labour, where, as in this case, we have before us no particular narrative, resting on its own historical basis, but a mere variation on the theme of the sabbath cures, and the text on the endangered domestic animal, which might come to one (Matthew) in connexion with the cure of a withered hand, to another (Luke) with the cure of a dropsical patient, and to a third in a different connexion still; for there is yet a third story of a miraculous cure with which a similar saying is associated. Luke, namely, narrates (xiii. 10 ff.) the cure of a woman bowed down by demoniacal influence, as having been performed by Jesus on the sabbath ; when to the indignant remonstrance of the ruler of the synagogue, Jesus replies by asking, whether every one docs not. loose his ox or ass from the stall on the sabbath, and lead him away to watering? a question which is undeniably a variation of the one given above.
So entirely identical does this history appear with the one last named, that Schlcier-machcr comes to this conclusion:
since in the second there is no reference to the first, and since consequently the repetition is not excused by confession, the two passages Luke xiii. 10, and xiv. 5, cannot have been written one after the other by the same author.^
Tims we have here, not three different incidents, but only three different frames in which legend has preserved the memorable and thoroughly popular aphorism on the domestic animal, to be rescued or tended on the sabbath. Yet, unless we would deny to Jesus so original and appropriate an argument, there must lie at the foundation a cure of some kind actually performed by him on the sabbath; not, however, a miraculous one.AVe have seen that Luke unites the saying with the cure of a demoniacal patient : now it might have been uttered by Jesus on the occasion of one of those cures of demoniacs of which, under certain limitations, we have admitted the •no-hivsil Tiossibility.
Or, when Jesus in cases of illness among his -i ,.,;ti
Or, when Jesus in cases of illness among his -i ,.,;ti
Of the two cures on the sabbath narrated in the fourth gospel, one has already been considered with the cures of the blind ; the other (v. 1 ff.) might have been numbered among the cures of paralytics, but as the patient is not so designated, it was admissible to reserve it for our present head. In the porches of the pool of Bcthcsda in Jerusalem, Jesus found a man who, as it subsequently appears, had been
lame for thirty-eight years;this
sufferer he enables by a word to stand up and carry home his bed, but, as it was the sabbath, he thus draws down on himself the hostility of the
Jewish hierarchy. Woolstonf and many later writers have thought to get clear of this history in a singular manner, by the supposition that Jesus here did not cure a real sufferer but merely unmasked a hypocrite. £ The
sole
reason
which
can
withany plausibility be urged in favour of this notion, is that the cured man points out Jesus to his enemies as the one who had commanded him to carry his bed on the sabbath (v. 15; comp. 11 ff.), a circumstance which is oidy to be explained on the ground that Jesus had enjoined what was unwelcome. But that notification to the Pharisees might equally be given, either with a friendly intention, as in the case of the man born blind (John ix. 11. 25.), or at least with the mnocent one of devolving the defence of the alleged violation of the sabbath on a stronger than himself.§ The evangelist at least g’ves it as his opinion that the man was really afflicted, and suffered from a^ wearisome disease, when he describes him as having had an-wjirmity tldrtij-eight years, rpiaKov-a nal OKTU l-r\ K%UV ev rfj a°^Vfa ^V’ ty’’ ^or ^le f’01’ce(l interpretation once put on this passage by Paulus, referring the thirty-eight years to the man’s age, ana not to the duration of his disease, he has not even himselfTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
lame for thirty-eight years;this
sufferer he enables by a word to stand up and carry home his bed, but, as it was the sabbath, he thus draws down on himself the hostility of the
Jewish hierarchy. Woolstonf and many later writers have thought to get clear of this history in a singular manner, by the supposition that Jesus here did not cure a real sufferer but merely unmasked a hypocrite. £ The
sole
reason
which
can
withany plausibility be urged in favour of this notion, is that the cured man points out Jesus to his enemies as the one who had commanded him to carry his bed on the sabbath (v. 15; comp. 11 ff.), a circumstance which is oidy to be explained on the ground that Jesus had enjoined what was unwelcome. But that notification to the Pharisees might equally be given, either with a friendly intention, as in the case of the man born blind (John ix. 11. 25.), or at least with the mnocent one of devolving the defence of the alleged violation of the sabbath on a stronger than himself.§ The evangelist at least g’ves it as his opinion that the man was really afflicted, and suffered from a^ wearisome disease, when he describes him as having had an-wjirmity tldrtij-eight years, rpiaKov-a nal OKTU l-r\ K%UV ev rfj a°^Vfa ^V’ ty’’ ^or ^le f’01’ce(l interpretation once put on this passage by Paulus, referring the thirty-eight years to the man’s age, ana not to the duration of his disease, he has not even himselfTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
Other books
Moving Targets and Other Tales of Valdemar by Mercedes Lackey
Five Have a Wonderful Time by Enid Blyton
thefiremargins by Lisanne Norman
TARN & BECK by Roger Nickleby
The Taming of Dr. Alex Draycott by Joanna Neil
Final Grave by Nadja Bernitt
Stab in the Dark by Louis Trimble
Bakers on Board by Sheryl Berk
A Million Tears by Paul Henke
Apple of My Eye by Patrick Redmond