Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (792 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
10.78Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
versa.But where the word Epj3pifjtaa0ai is first used v. 33, the general weeping seems to have been likely to excite in Jesus a melancholy, rather than an angry emotion: yet even here a strong disapproval of the want of faith (6;UyoTMOTia) which was manifested was not impossible.That Jesus then himself broke out into tears, only proves that his indignation against the faithless generation around him dissolved into melancholy, not that melancholy was his emotion from the beginning. Lastly, that the Jews (v. 36) in relation to the tears which Jesus shed, said among themselves, Behold, how he loved him ! appears to be rather against than for those who regard the emotion of Jesus as sorrow for the death of his friend, and sympathy with the sisters ; for, as the character of the narrative of John in general would rather lead us to expect an opposition between the real import of the demeanour of Jesus, and the interpretation put upon it by the spectators, so in particular the Jews in this gospel are always those who either misunderstand or pervert the words and actions of Jesus. It is true that the mild character of Jesus is urged, as inconsistent with the harshness which displeasure on his part at the very natural weeping of Mary and the rest would imply ;* but such a mode of thinking is by no means foreign to the Christ of John’s gospel.He who gave to the /Boat/Usbf, when preferring the inoffensive request that he would come to his house and heal his son, the rebuke, Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe; he who, when some of his disciples murmured at the hard doctrines of the sixth chapter, assailed them with the cutting questions, Doth this offend you? and Will ye also go away? (v. 61, 57.); he who repulsed his own mother, when at the wedding at Cana she complained to him of the want of wine, with the harsh reply, What have I to do with thee, Woman? (ii. 4.)-who thus was always the most displeased when men, not comprehending his higher mode of thought or action, showed themselves desponding or importunate,-would here find peculiar reason for this kind of displeasure.If this be the true interpretation of the passage^nd if it be not sorrow for the death of Lazarus which Jesus here exhibits, there is an end to the assistance which the natural explanation of the entire event is thought to derive from this particular feature; meanwhile, even on the other interpretation, a momentary emotion produced by sympathy with the mourners is quite reconcileable with the foreknowledge of the resurrection. \ And how could the words of the Jews v. 37, serve, as rationalistic commentators think, to excite in Jesus the hope that God would now perhaps perform something extraordinary for him 1 The Jews did not express the hope that he could awake the dead, but only the conjecture that he might perhaps have been able to preserve his friend’s life; Martha therefore had previously said more when she declared her belief that even now the Father would grant him what he asked; so that if such “-i’-*•
*^IIT TYmat. have, been exMIEACLES-RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.cited earlier, and especially before the weeping of Jesus, to which it is customary to appeal as the proof that they did not yet exist.
*^IIT TYmat. have, been exMIEACLES-RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.cited earlier, and especially before the weeping of Jesus, to which it is customary to appeal as the proof that they did not yet exist.
Even supranaturalists admit that the expression of Martha when Jesus commanded that the stone should be taken away from the grave, Kvpte, f]^i] ofa (v. 39), is no proof at all that decomposition had really commenced, nor consequently that a natural resuscitation was impossible, since it may have been a mere inference from the length of time since the burial.* But more weight must be attached to the words with which Jesus, repelling the objections of Martha, persists in having the tomb opened (v. 40): Said I not unto thee thai if thou wouldst believe thou shouldsi see the glory of God? How could he say this unless he was decidedly conscious of his power to resuscitate Lazarus ? According to Paulus, this declaration only implied generally that those who have faith will, in some way or other, experience a glorious manifestation of the divinity. But what glorious manifestation of the divinity was to be seen here, on the opening of the grave of one who had been buried four days, unless it were his restoration to life ? and what could be the sense of the words of Jesus, as opposed to the observation of Martha, that her brother was already within the grasp of decay, but that he was empowered to arrest decay ? But in order to learn with certainty the meaning of the words rfjv do^av -ov deov in our present passage we need only refer to v. 4, where Jesus had said that the sickness of Lazarus was not unto death, •n-p&f 6dva-rov, but for the glory of God, vrrep -ny? S6^i]<; rov Oeov. Here the first member of the antithesis, not unto death, clearly shows that the <56fa rov 6eov signifies the glorification of God by the life of Lazarus, that is, since he was now dead, by his resurrection: a hope which Jesus could not venture to excite in the most, critical moment, without having a superior assurance that it would be fulfilled.! After the opening of the grave, and before he says to the dead man, Come forth ! lie thanks the Father for having heard his prayer. This is adduced, in the rationalistic point of view, as the most satisfactory proof that he did not first recall Lazarus to life by those words, but on looking into the grave found him already alive again. Truly, such an argument was not to be expected from theologians who have some insight into the character of John’s gospel. These ought to have remembered how common it is in this gospel, as for example in the expression glorify thy son, to represent that which is yet to be effected or which is only just begun, as already performed; and in the present instance it is especially suited to mark the certainty of obtaining fulfilment, that it is spoken of as having already happened. And what invention does it further require to explain, both how Jesus could perceive in Lazarus the evidences of returning life, and how the latter could have come to life again! Between the removal of the stone, says i aulus, and the thanksgiving of Jesus, lies the critical interval when the surprising result was accomplished ; then must Jesus, yet some * Flatt. S. 106 :
Olsh.ii 9, 9KO
4-TTlott «Q7THE LIFE OF JESUS, steps removed from the grave, have discerned that Lazarus was liv*-ing.By what means ? and how so quickly and unhesitatingly ? and why did he and no one else, discern it ? He may have discerned it by the movements of Lazarus, it is conjectured. But how easily might he deceive himself with respect to a dead body lying in a dark cavern: how precipitate was he, if without having examined more nearly, he so quickly and decidedly declared his conviction, that Lazarus lived! Or, if the movements of the supposed corpse were strong and not to be mistaken, how could they escape the notice of the surrounding spectators ?Lastly, how could Jesus in his prayer represent the incident about to take place as a sign of his divine mission, if he was conscious that he had not effected, but only discovered, the resuscitation of Lazarus ?As arguments for the natural possibility of a return of life in a man who had been interred four days, the rationalistic explanation adduces our ignorance of the particular circumstances of the supposed death, the rapidity of interment among the Jews, afterwards the coolness of the cave, the strong fragrance of the spices, and lastly, the reanimating draught of warm air which on the rolling awav of the stone streamed into the cave.But all these circumstances do not produce more than the lowest degree of possibility, which coincides with the highest degree of improbability : and with this the certainty with which Jesus predicts the result must remain irreconcilcablc.*
Olsh.ii 9, 9KO
4-TTlott «Q7THE LIFE OF JESUS, steps removed from the grave, have discerned that Lazarus was liv*-ing.By what means ? and how so quickly and unhesitatingly ? and why did he and no one else, discern it ? He may have discerned it by the movements of Lazarus, it is conjectured. But how easily might he deceive himself with respect to a dead body lying in a dark cavern: how precipitate was he, if without having examined more nearly, he so quickly and decidedly declared his conviction, that Lazarus lived! Or, if the movements of the supposed corpse were strong and not to be mistaken, how could they escape the notice of the surrounding spectators ?Lastly, how could Jesus in his prayer represent the incident about to take place as a sign of his divine mission, if he was conscious that he had not effected, but only discovered, the resuscitation of Lazarus ?As arguments for the natural possibility of a return of life in a man who had been interred four days, the rationalistic explanation adduces our ignorance of the particular circumstances of the supposed death, the rapidity of interment among the Jews, afterwards the coolness of the cave, the strong fragrance of the spices, and lastly, the reanimating draught of warm air which on the rolling awav of the stone streamed into the cave.But all these circumstances do not produce more than the lowest degree of possibility, which coincides with the highest degree of improbability : and with this the certainty with which Jesus predicts the result must remain irreconcilcablc.*
These decided predictions are indeed the main hindrance to the natural interpretation of this chapter; hence it has been sought to neutralize them, still from the rationalistic position, by the supposition that they did not proceed from Jesus, but may have been added ex cventu by the narrator. Paulus himself found the words e^v-viau ai-Tov (y. 11) quite too decided, and therefore ventured the conjecture that the narrator, writing with the result in his mind, had omitted a qualifying perhaps, which Jesus had inserted.\ This expedient has been more extensively adopted by Gabler. Not only does he par’ i1-~~V~,,«“-”wfnacnnn lint
alvfiatlv tne ywi’ij uj
ui/«, LW m^ ..,.„„„,.
. ^
alvfiatlv tne ywi’ij uj
ui/«, LW m^ ..,.„„„,.
. ^
conjectures that in the words %atpw 61 ijuaic, ‘iva Ttiarevorire, on OVK’ fmrjv KKel, f am glad for your aakes that I was not there, to the intent he may believe, there is a slight exaggeration resulting from John’s knowledge of the issue ; lastly, even in relation to the words of Martha v. 22, d/U,u KOI vvv oida a. r. A. he admits the idea of an addition from the pen of the writer4 By the adoption of this expedient, the natural interpretation avows its inability by itself to MIRACLES-RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.cope with the difficulties in John’s narrative. For if, in order to render its application possible, it is necessary to expunge the most significant passages, it is plain that the narrative in its actual state does not admit of a natural explanation. It is true that the passages, the incompatibility of which with the rationalistic mode of explanation is confessed by their excision, are very sparingly chosen; but from the above observations it is clear, that if all the features in this narrative which are really opposed to the natural view of the entire event were ascribed to the evangelist, it would in the end be little short of the whole that must be regarded as his invention. Thus, what we have done with the two first narratives of resuscitations, is with the last and most remarkable history of this kind, effected by the various successive attempts at explanation themselves, namely, to reduce the subject to the alternative: that we either receive the event as supernatural, according to the representation of the evangelical narrative ; or, if we find it incredible as such, deny that the narrative has an historical character.
In order, in this dilemma, to arrive at a decision with respect to all the three narratives, we must refer to the peculiar character of the kind of miracles which we have now before us. We have hitherto been ascending a ladder of miracles ; first, cures of mental disorders, then, of all kinds of bodily maladies, in which, however, the organization of the sufferer was not so injured as to cause the cessation of consciousness and life; and now, the rcvivification of bodies, from which the life has actually departed. This progression in the marvellous is, at the same time, a gradation in inconceivability. We have indeed been able to represent to ourselves how a mental derangement, in which none of the bodily organs were attacked beyond the nervous system, which is immediately connected with mental action, might have been removed, even in a purely psychical manner, by the mere word, look, and influence of Jesus : but the more deeply the malady appeared to have penetrated into the entire corporeal system, the more inconceivable to ITS was a cure of this kind. Where in insane persons the brain was disturbed to the extent of raging madness, or where in nervous patients the disorder was so confirmed as to manifest itself.in periodical epilepsy; there we could scarcely imagine how permanent benefit could be conferred by that mental influence; and this was yet more difficult where the disease had no immediate connection with the mind, as in leprosy, blindness, lameness, &e. And yet, up to this point, there was always something present, to which the miraculous power of Jesus could apply itself; there was still a consciousness in the objects, on winch to make an Jiiipression-a nervous life to be stimulated. Not so with the dead. J-he corpse from which life and consciousness have flown has lost |lie last fulcrum for the power of the miracle worker; it perceives Juni^ no longer-receives no impression from him ; for the very capability of receiving impressions must be conferred on him anew. *>ut to confer this, that is, to give life in the proper sense, is a ere-THE LIFE OF JESUS.
ative act, and to think of this as being exercised by a man, we must confess to be beyond our power.
But even within the limits of our three histories of resurrections, there is an evident climax. Woolston has remarked with is restored 10 me uu me a^m^ ^.^ „„ ,,„.
the youth of Nain, when already in his coffin, and on. his way to interment;lastly,
Lazarus,
after
four days’ abode in the tomb. In the first history, a word was the only intimation that the maiden had fallen under the powers of the grave; in the second, the fact is imprinted on the imagination also, by the picture of the young man being already carried out of the city towards his grave; but in the third, Lazarus, who had been some time inclosed in the grave, is depicted in the strongest manner as an inhabitant of the nether world:
so that, if the reality of the death could be doubted in the first instance, this would become more difficult in the second, and in the third, as good as impossible.! With this gradation, there is a corresponding increase in
the difficulty of rendering the three events conceivable; if, indeed, when the fact itself is inconceivable, there can exist degrees of inconceivableness between its various modifications. If, however, the resurrection of a dead person in general were possible, it must rather be possible in the case of one just departed, and yet having some remains of vital warmth, than in that of a corpse, cold and being carried to the grave; and again, in this, rather than in the case of one who had already lain four days in the grave, and in which decay is supposed to have commenced, nay, with respect to which, this supposition, if not confirmed, is at least not denied.
Lazarus,
after
four days’ abode in the tomb. In the first history, a word was the only intimation that the maiden had fallen under the powers of the grave; in the second, the fact is imprinted on the imagination also, by the picture of the young man being already carried out of the city towards his grave; but in the third, Lazarus, who had been some time inclosed in the grave, is depicted in the strongest manner as an inhabitant of the nether world:
so that, if the reality of the death could be doubted in the first instance, this would become more difficult in the second, and in the third, as good as impossible.! With this gradation, there is a corresponding increase in
the difficulty of rendering the three events conceivable; if, indeed, when the fact itself is inconceivable, there can exist degrees of inconceivableness between its various modifications. If, however, the resurrection of a dead person in general were possible, it must rather be possible in the case of one just departed, and yet having some remains of vital warmth, than in that of a corpse, cold and being carried to the grave; and again, in this, rather than in the case of one who had already lain four days in the grave, and in which decay is supposed to have commenced, nay, with respect to which, this supposition, if not confirmed, is at least not denied.
But, setting aside the miraculous part of the histories in question, each succeeding one is both intrinsically more improbable, and externally less attested, than the foregoing.As regards the internal improbability, one element of this, which indeed lies in all, and therefore also in the first, is especially conspicuous in the second. As a motive by which Jesus was induced to raise the young man at Nain, the narrative mentions compassion for the mother (v. 13).
Together with this we are to include, according to Olshausen, a reference to the young man himself. For, he observes, man as a conscious being can never be treated as a mere instrument, which would be the case here, if the joy of the mother were regarded as the sole object of Jesus in raising the youth. J This remark of Olshausen demands our thanks, not that it removes the difficulty of this and every other resuscitation of the dead, but that it exhibits that difficulty in the clearest light.For the conslusion, that what in itself, or according to enlightened ideas, is not allowable or fitting, cannot be ascribed to Jesus by the evangelists, is totally inadmissible. We should rather (presupposing the purity of the character of Jesus)
Together with this we are to include, according to Olshausen, a reference to the young man himself. For, he observes, man as a conscious being can never be treated as a mere instrument, which would be the case here, if the joy of the mother were regarded as the sole object of Jesus in raising the youth. J This remark of Olshausen demands our thanks, not that it removes the difficulty of this and every other resuscitation of the dead, but that it exhibits that difficulty in the clearest light.For the conslusion, that what in itself, or according to enlightened ideas, is not allowable or fitting, cannot be ascribed to Jesus by the evangelists, is totally inadmissible. We should rather (presupposing the purity of the character of Jesus)
Other books
Bound and Determined by Anara Bella
Black Orchid by Abigail Owen
A Fall of Silver by Amy Corwin
Since He Really Feels (He Feels) by Lisa Suzanne
The Ghost Witch by Betty Ren Wright
Patrica Rice by The English Heiress
You & Me Make Three: Barrington Billionaire's Series: Book Three by Jeannette Winters
Joshua Healy (Mitchell Healy Book 10) by Jennifer Foor
Kiss of Steel by Bec McMaster