hear His word and cherished murderous designs, it was because, morally speaking, their descent was of the Devil. Very differently from Jewish ideas did He speak concerning the moral evil of Satan, as both a murderer and a liar a murderer from the beginning of the history of our race, and one who stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him.' Hence whenever he speaketh a lie'-whether to our first parents, or now concerning the Christ- he speaketh from out his own (things), for he (Satan) is a liar, and the father of such an one (who telleth or believeth lies).' Which of them could convict Him of sin? If therefore He spake truth,3 and they believed Him not, it was because they were not of God, but, as He had shown them, of their father, the Devil. 2 The argument was unanswerable, and there seemed only one way to turn it aside a Jewish Tu quoque, an adaptation of the 'Physician, heal thyself': 'Do we not say rightly, that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon?' It is strange that the first clause of this reproach should have been so misunderstood, and yet its direct explanation lies on the surface. We have only to retranslate it into the language which the Jews had used. By no strain of ingenuity is it possible to account for the designation Samaritan,' as given by the Jews to Jesus, if it is regarded as referring to nationality. Even at that very Feast they had made it an objection to His Messianic claims, that He was (as they supposed) a Galilean." Nor had He come to Jerusalem from Samaria; nor could He be so called (as Commentators suggest) because He was a foe' to Israel, or a breaker of the Law,' or 'unfit to bear witness '4-for neither of these circumstances would have led the Jews to designate Him by the term 'Samaritan.' But, in the language which they spoke, what is rendered into Greek by Samaritan,' would have been either Cuthi (n), which, while literally meaning a Samaritan, is almost as often used in the sense of 'heretic,' or else Shomroni (p). The latter word deserves special attention. Literally, it also means 'Samaritan;' but, the name Shomron (perhaps from its connection with Samaria), is also sometimes used as the equivalent of Ashmedai, the prince of the demons.c According to the Kabbalists, Shomron was the father of Ashmedai, and hence the same as Sammael, or Satan. That this was a wide-spread 5 1 See Book II. ch. v. 2 I cannot regard Canon Westcott's refers to a non-Israelite. More apt, but also unsuitable, is Sot. 22 a, quoted by Wetstein. 5 Comp. Kohut, Jüd. Angelol. p. 95. See the Appendix on Jewish Angelology and Demonology. MEANING OF 'THOU ART A SAMARITAN.' a a 175 VIII L'Alcoran Sieur du trad. par le Ryer, p. 247 b Pirké de R. Elies, 45 ed. Lemb. 10 from top Jewish belief, appears from the circumstance that in the Korân CHAP. (which, in such matters, would reproduce popular Jewish tradition), Israel is said to have been seduced into idolatry by Shomron, while, in Jewish tradition, this is attributed to Sammael. If, therefore, the term applied by the Jews to Jesus was Shomroni-and not Cuthi, heretic'—it would literally mean, 'Child of the Devil.'1 This would also explain why Christ only replied to the charge of p. 596, line having a demon, since the two charges meant substantially the same: Thou art a child of the devil and hast a demon.' In wondrous patience and mercy He almost passed it by, dwelling rather, for their teaching, on the fact that, while they dishonoured Him, He honoured His Father. He heard not their charges. His concern was the glory of His Father; the vindication of His own honour would be brought about by the Father-though, alas! in judgment on those who were casting such dishonour on the Sent of God. Then, as if lingering St. John in deep compassion on the terrible issue, He once more pressed home the great subject of His Discourse, that only if a man keep'-both have regard to, and observe-His 'Word,' he shall not gaze at death [intently behold it]2 unto eternity '—for ever shall he not come within close and terrible gaze of what is really death, of what became such to Adam in the hour of his Fall. It was, as repeatedly observed, this death as the consequence of the Fall, of which the Jews knew nothing. And so they once more misunderstood it as of physical death,3 and, since Abraham and the prophets had died, regarded Christ as setting up a claim higher than theirs. The Discourse had contained all that He had wished to bring before them, and their objections were degenerating into wrangling. It was time to break it off by a general application. The question, He added, was not of what He said, but of what God said of Him-that God, Whom they claimed as theirs, and yet knew not, but Whom He knew, and Whose Word He kept.' But, as for Elijah did not taste the taste of death' On the expression 'keep (Tnpεîv) His word,' Bengel beautifully observes: doctrinam Jesu, credendo, promissa, sperando, facienda, obediendo. с viii. 50 BOOK IV b Ber. R. 44, ed. Warsh. p. 81 b, lines Abraham-he had exulted' in the thought of the coming day of the Christ, and, seeing its glory, he was glad. Even Jewish tradition could scarcely gainsay this, since there were two parties in the Synagogue, of which one believed that, when that horror of great darkness fell • Gen. xv. 17 on him,a Abraham had, in vision, been shown not only this, but the coming world-and not only all events in the present age,' but also those in Messianic times. And now, theirs was not misunderstanding, but wilful misinterpretation. He had spoken of Abraham 8,7,6, from seeing His day; they took it of His seeing Abraham's day, and challenged its possibility. Whether or not they intended thus to elicit an avowal of His claim to eternal duration, and hence to Divinity, it was not time any longer to forbear the full statement, and, with Divine emphasis, He spake the words which could not be mistaken: Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.' bottom It was as if they had only waited for this. Furiously they rushed from the Porch into the Court of the Gentiles--with symbolic significance, even in this-to pick up stones, and to cast them at Him. But, once more, His hour had not yet come, and their fury proved impotent. Hiding Himself for the moment, as might so easily be done, in one of the many chambers, passages, or gateways of the Temple, He presently passed out. It had been the first plain disclosure and avowal of His Divinity, and it was in the midst of His enemies,' and when most contempt was cast upon Him. Presently would that avowal be renewed both in Word and by Deed; for the end' of mercy and judgment had not yet come, but was drawing terribly nigh. In the Targum Jerusalem on Gen. xv. also it seems implied that Abraham saw in vision all that would befall his children in the future, and also Gehenna and its torments. So far as I can gather, only the latter, not the former, seems implied in the Targ. Pseudo-Jonathan. THE MAN BORN BLIND. 177 CHAPTER IX. THE HEALING OF THE MAN BORN BLIND. (St. John ix.) AFTER the scene in the Temple described in the last chapter, and Christ's consequent withdrawal from His enemies, we can scarcely suppose any other great event to have taken place on that day within or near the precincts of the Sanctuary. And yet, from the close connection of the narratives, we are led to infer that no long interval of time can have elapsed before the healing of the man born blind.' Probably it happened the day after the events just recorded. We know that it was a Sabbath, and this fresh mark of time, as well as the multiplicity of things done, and the whole style of the narrative, confirm our belief that it was not on the evening of the day when He had spoken to them first in the Treasury,' and then in the Porch. a CHAP. IX a St. John ix. 14 On two other points there is strong presumption, though we cannot offer actual proof. Remembering, that the entrance to the Temple or its Courts was then-as that of churches is on the Continent the chosen spot for those who, as objects of pity, solicited charity; remembering, also, how rapidly the healing of the blind Acts iii. 2 man became known, and how soon both his parents and the healed man himself appeared before the Pharisees-presumably, in the Temple; lastly, how readily the Saviour knew where again to find him, we can scarcely doubt that the miracle took place at the St. John entering to the Temple, or on the Temple-Mount. Secondly, both the Work, and specially the Words of Christ, seem in such close connection with what had preceded, that we can scarcely be mistaken in regarding them as intended to form a continuation of it. It is not difficult to realise the scene, nor to understand the remarks of all who had part in it. It was the Sabbath-the day Godet supposes that it had taken place on the evening of the Octave of the Feast. On the other hand, Canon Westcott would relegate both ch. ix. and x. to VOL. II. N the Feast of the Dedication.' But his ix 35 BOOK IV after the Octave of the Feast, and Christ with His disciples was passing-presumably when going into the Temple, where this blind beggar was wont to sit, probably soliciting alms, perhaps in some such terms as these, which were common at the time: 'Gain merit by me;' or, "O tenderhearted, by me gain merit, to thine own benefit.' But on the Sabbath he would, of course, neither ask nor receive alms, though his presence in the wonted place would secure wider notice, and perhaps lead to many private gifts. Indeed, the *Peab viii. 9 blind were regarded as specially entitled to charity; and the Jeru b Ber. R. salem Talmud relates some touching instances of the delicacy displayed towards such. As the Master and His disciples passed the blind beggar, Jesus saw' him, with that look which they who followed Him knew to be full of meaning. Yet, so thoroughly Judaised were they by their late contact with the Pharisees, that no thought of possible mercy came to them, only a truly and characteristically Jewish question, addressed to Him expressly, and as 'Rabbi:"1 through whose guilt this blindness had befallen him-through his own, or that of his parents. 6 For, thoroughly Jewish the question was. Many instances could be adduced, in which one or another sin is said to have been punished by some immediate stroke, disease, or even by death; and we constantly find Rabbis, when meeting such unfortunate persons, asking them, how or by what sin this had come to them. But, as this man was blind from his birth,' the possibility of some actual sin before birth would suggest itself, at least as a speculative question, since the 'evil impulse' (Yezer haRa), might even then be called into actiSanh. 916; vity. At the same time, both the Talmud and the later charge of the Pharisees, In sins wast thou born altogether,' imply that in such cases the alternative explanation would be considered, that the blindness might be caused by the sin of his parents.2 It was a common Jewish view, that the merits or demerits of the parents would appear in the children. In fact, up to thirteen years of age a child was considered, as it were, part of his father, and as suffering for his guilt. More than that, the thoughts of a mother might affect the moral state of her unborn offspring, and the terrible apostasy of one of the greatest Rabbis had, in popular belief, been caused by the sinful delight his mother had taken when passing through an idolRuth iii. 13 grove. Lastly, certain special sins in the parents would result in d Shabb. Ruth, vol. ii. • Midr. on 1 So in the original. 2 This opinion has, however, nothing to do with the migration of souls' -a doctrine which it has been generally, but quite erroneously, supposed that Josephus imputed to the Pharisees. The misunderstanding of Jew. War ii. 8. 14, should be corrected by Antiq. xviii. 1. 3. |