« ÎnapoiContinuă »
pouring of water, which was considered of such vital importance as to give to the whole festival the name of 'House of Outpouring,' was symbolical of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. As the brief Jer. Succ. night of the great Temple-illumination closed, there was solemn
a Succ. v. 1
testimony made before Jehovah against heathenism. It must have been a stirring scene, when from out the mass of Levites, with their musical instruments, who crowded the fifteen steps that led from the Court of Israel to that of the Women, stepped two priests with their silver trumpets. As the first cockerowing intimated the dawn of morn, they blew a threefold blast; another on the tenth step, and yet another threefold blast as they entered the Court of the Women. And, still sounding their trumpets, they marched through the Court of the Women to the Beautiful Gate. Here, turning round and facing westwards to the Holy Place, they repeated: 'Our fathers, who were in this place, they turned their backs on the Sanctuary of Jehovah, and their faces eastward, for they worshipped eastward, the sun; but we, our eyes are towards Jehovah.' 'We are Jehovah's—our eyes are towards Jehovah.' Nay, the whole of this night- and morning-scene was symbolical: the Temple-illumination, of the light which was to shine from out the Temple into the dark night of heathendom; then, at the first dawn of morn the blast of the priests' silver trumpets, of the army of God, as it advanced, with festive trumpet-sound and call, to awaken the sleepers, marching on to quite the utmost bounds of the Sanctuary, to the Beautiful Gate, which opened upon the Court of the Gentiles—and, then again, facing round to utter solemn protest against heathenism, and make solemn confession of Jehovah!
* Succ. v. 4
But Jesus did not appear in the Temple during the first two festive days. The pilgrims from all parts of the country—perhaps, they from abroad also-had expected Him there, for everyone would now speak of Him-'not openly,' in Jerusalem, for they were afraid of their rulers. It was hardly safe to speak of Him without reserve. But they sought Him, and inquired after Him—and they did speak of Him, though there was only a murmuring—a low, confused discussion of the pro and con in this great controversy among the 'multitudes,'' or festive bands from various parts. Some said: He is a good man, while others declared that He only led astray the common, ignorant populace. And now, all at once, in Chol ha
This second form is according to R.
In the plural it occurs only in this
place in St. John, and once in St. Mark (vi. 33), but sixteen times in St. Luke, and still more frequently in St. Matthew.
'HOW DOES THIS ONE KNOW LETTERS ?'
b Acts v. 12
Moed, Jesus Himself appeared in the Temple, and taught. We know that, on a later occasion," He walked and taught in 'Solomon's Porch,' and, from the circumstance that the early disciples St. John x. made this their common meeting-place, we may draw the inference that it was here the people now found Him. Although neither Josephus nor the Mishnah mention this 'Porch' by name,2 we have every reason for believing that it was the eastern colonnade, which abutted against the Mount of Olives and faced 'the Beautiful Gate,' that formed the principal entrance into the Court of the Women,' and so into the Sanctuary. For, all along the inside of the great wall which formed the Temple-enclosure ran a double colonnade— each column a monolith of white marble, 25 cubits high, covered with cedar-beams. That on the south side (leading from the western entrance to Solomon's Porch), known as the 'Royal Porch,' was a threefold colonnade, consisting of four rows of columns, each 27 cubits high, and surmounted by Corinthian capitals. We infer that the eastern was 'Solomon's Porch,' from the circumstance that it was the only relic left of Solomon's Temple. These colonnades, which, from their ample space, formed alike places for quiet walk and for larger gatherings, had benches in them—and, from the liberty of speaking and teaching in Israel, Jesus might here address the people in the very face of His enemies.
1 See above, p. 148.
This, as showing such local knowledge on the part of the Fourth Gospel, must be taken as additional evidence of
We know not what was the subject of Christ's teaching on this occasion. But the effect on the people was one of general astonishment. They knew what common unlettered Galilean tradesmen were-but this, whence came it? 'How does this one know literature (letters, learning), never having learned?' To the Jews there & Comp. was only one kind of learning-that of Theology; and only one road 24 to it-the Schools of the Rabbis. Their major was true, but their minor false-and Jesus hastened to correct it. He had, indeed, 'learned,' but in a School quite other from those which alone they recognised. Yet, on their own showing, it claimed the most absolute submission. Among the Jews a Rabbi's teaching derived authority from the fact of its accordance with tradition-that it accurately represented what had been received from a previous great teacher, and so on upwards to Moses, and to God Himself. On this ground Christ claimed the highest authority. His doctrine was not His own invention-it was the teaching of Him that sent Him. The doctrine
its Johannine authorship, just as the men-
Jos. Ant. xx. 9.7
xv. 11. 5;
a St. John vi. 68, 69
was God-received, and Christ was sent direct from God to bring it. He was God's messenger of it to them. Of this twofold claim there was also twofold evidence. Did He assert that what He taught was God-received? Let trial be made of it. Everyone who felt drawn in his soul towards God; each one who really willeth to do His Will,' would know 'concerning this teaching, whether it is of God,' or whether it was of man.' It was this felt, though unrealised influence which had drawn all men after Him, so that they hung on His lips. It was this which, in the hour of greatest temptation and mental difficulty, had led Peter, in name of the others, to end the sore inner contest by laying hold on this fact: 'To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life-and we have believed and know, that Thou art the Holy One of God.'a Marking, as we pass, that this inward connection between that teaching and learning and the present occasion, may be the deeper reason why, in the Gospel by St. John, the one narrative is immediately followed by the other, we pause to say, how real it hath proved in all ages and to all stages of Christian learning-that the heart makes the truly God-taught ('pectus facit Theologum '), and that inward, true aspiration after the Divine prepares the eye to behold the Divine Reality in the Christ. But, if it be so, is there not evidence here, that He is the God-sent-that He is a real, true Ambassador of God? If Jesus' teaching meets and satisfies our moral nature, if it leads up to God, is He not the Christ?
And this brings us to the second claim which Christ made, that of being sent by God. There is yet another logical link in His reasoning. He had said: 'He shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from Myself.' From Myself? Why, there is this other test of it: Who speaketh from himself, seeketh his own glory'-there can be no doubt or question of this, but do I seek My own glory?— but He Who seeketh the glory of Him Who sent Him, He is true [a faithful messenger], and unrighteousness is not in Him.' Thus did Christ appeal and prove it: My doctrine is of God, and I am sent of God!
Sent of God, no unrighteousness in Him! And yet at that very moment there hung over Him the charge of defiance of the Law of Moses, nay, of that of God, in an open breach of the Sabbath-commandment—there, in that very City, the last time He had been in Jerusalem; for which, as well as for His Divine Claims, the Jews were
The passage quoted by Westcott from Ab. ii. 4 does not seem to be parallel.
CHRIST'S DEFENCE OF HIS CLAIMS.
even then ' seeking to kill Him.'a And this forms the transition to what may be called the second part of Christ's address. If, in the first part, the Jewish form of ratiocination was already apparent, it seems almost impossible for any one acquainted with those forms to understand how it can be overlooked in what follows. It is exactly the mode in which a Jew would argue with Jews, only the substance of the reasoning is to all times and people. Christ is defending Himself against a charge which naturally came up, when He claimed that His Teaching was of God and Himself God's real and faithful Messenger. In His reply the two threads of the former argument are taken up. Doing is the condition of knowledge-and a messenger had been sent from God! Admittedly, Moses was such, and yet every one of them was breaking the Law which he had given them; for, were they not seeking to kill Him without right or justice? This, put in the form of a double question, represents a peculiarly Jewish mode of argumentation, behind which lay the terrible truth, that those, whose hearts were so little longing to do the Will of God, not only must remain ignorant of His Teaching as that of God, but had also rejected that of Moses.
A general disclaimer, a cry Thou hast a demon' (art possessed), 'who seeks to kill Thee?' here broke in upon the Speaker. But He would not be interrupted, and continued: 'One work I did, and all you wonder on account of it'2-referring to His healing on the Sabbath, and their utter inability to understand His conduct. Well, then, Moses was a messenger of God, and I am sent of God. Moses gave the law of circumcision-not, indeed, that it was of his authority, but had long before been God-given-and, to observe this law, no one hesitated to break the Sabbath,3 since, according to Rabbinic principle, a positive ordinance superseded a negative. And yet, when Christ, as sent from God, made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath (made a whole man sound'), they were angry with Him. Every argument which might have been urged in favour of the postponement of Christ's healing to a week-day, would equally apply to that of circumcision; while every reason that could be
1 I regard this as almost overwhelming evidence against the theory of an Ephesian authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Even the double question in ver. 19 is here significant.
The words' on account of it,' rendered in the A.V. therefore,' and placed in ver. 22, really form the close of ver. 21. At any rate, they cannot be taken in the
sense of 'therefore.'
3 This was a well-recognised Rabbinic principle. Comp. for example Shabb. 132 a, where the argument runs that, if circumcision, which applies to one of the 248 members, of which, according to the Rabbis, the human body consists, superseded the Sabbath, how much more the preservation of the whole body.
urged in favour of Sabbath-circumcision, would tell an hundredfold in favour of Christ. Oh, then, let them not judge after the mere outward appearance, but 'judge the right judgment.' And, indeed, had it not been to convince them of the externalism of their views, that Jesus had on that Sabbath opened the great controversy between the letter that killeth and the spirit that maketh alive, when He directed the impotent man to carry home the bed on which he had lain?
If any doubt could obtain, how truly Jesus had gauged the exist ing state of things, when He contrasted heart-willingness to do the Will of God, as the necessary preparation for the reception of His God-sent Teaching, with their murderous designs, springing from blind literalism and ignorance of the spirit of their Law, the reported remarks of some Jerusalemites in the crowd would suffice to convince us. The fact that He, Whom they sought to kill, was suffered to speak openly, seemed to them incomprehensible. Could it be that the authorities were shaken in their former ideas about Him, and now regarded Him as the Messiah? But it could not be.' It was a settled popular belief, and, in a sense, not quite unfounded, that the appearance of the Messiah would be sudden and unexpected. He might be there, and not be known; or He might come, and be again Comp. also hidden for a time.a 2 As they put it, when Messiah came, no one would know whence He was; but they all knew whence this One' was. And with this rough and ready argument of a coarse realism, they, like so many among us, settled off-hand and once for all the great question. But Jesus could not, even for the sake of His poor weak disciples, let it rest there. Therefore' He lifted up His voice,3 that it reached the dispersing, receding multitude. Yes, they thought they knew both Him and whence He came. It would have been so had He come from Himself. But He had been sent, and He that sent Him was real;'4 it was a real Mission, and Him, Who had thus sent the Christ, they knew not. And so, with a reaffirmation of
Sanh. 97 a ;
In the original: Can it be?'
2 See Book II. ch. v., and Appendix IX.
The word aλniós has not an exact English equivalent, scarcely a German one (wahrhaftig?). It is a favourite word of St. John's, who uses it eight times in his Gospel, or, if the Revised reading viii. 16 be adopted, nine times (i. 9; iv. 23, 37; vi. 32; vii. 28; viii. 16?; xv. 1; xvii. 3; xix. 35); and four times in his First Epistle (ii. 8, and three times in ch. v. 20). Its Johannine meaning is perhaps best
seen when in juxtaposition with ảλnths (for example, 1 John ii. 8). But in the Book of Revelation, where it occurs ten times (iii. 7, 14; vi. 10; xv. 3; xvi. 7; xix. 2, 9, 11; xxi. 5 ; xxii. 6), it has another meaning, and can scarcely be distinguished from our English true.' It is used, in the same sense as in St. John's Gospel and Epistle, in St. Luke xvi. 11, in 1 Thess. i. 9; and three times in the Epistle to the Hebrews (viii. 2; ix. 24; x. 22). We may, therefore, regard it as a word to which a Grecian, not a Judæan meaning attaches. In our view it refers