BOOK III a Acts x. 14 Yet another time had Peter to learn that lesson, when his resistance to the teaching of the vision of the sheet let down from heaven was silenced by this: What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.' a Not only the spirit of legalism, but the very terms common' (in reference to the unwashen hands) and 'making clean' are the same. Nor can we wonder at this, if the vision of Peter was real, and not, as negative criticism would have it, invented so as to make an imaginary Peter-Apostle of the Jews-speak and act like Paul. On that hypothesis, the correspondence of thought and expression would seem, indeed, inexplicable; on the former, the Peter, who has had that vision, is telling through St. Mark the teaching that underlay it all, and, as he looked back upon it, drawing from it the inference which he understood not at the time: This He said, making all meats clean.' A most difficult lesson this for a Jew, and for one like Peter, nay, for us all, to learn. And still a third time had Peter to learn it, when, in his fear of the Judaisers from Jerusalem, he made that common which God had made clean, had care of the unwashen hands, but forgot that the Lord had made clean all meats. Terrible, indeed, must have been that contention which followed between Paul and Peter. Eighteen centuries have passed, and that fatal strife is still the ground of theological contention against the truth.' Eighteen centuries, and within the Church also the strife still continues. Brethren sharply contend and are separated, because they will insist on that as of necessity which should be treated as of indifference because of the not eating with unwashen hands, forgetful that He has made all meats clean to him who is inwardly and spiritually cleansed. mill (Vajjik R. 4; 18; Midr. on Eccl. Rabbinic Aphidra (NTDN), which Levy renders by the floor of a stable formed by the excrements of the animals which are soaked and stamped into a hard mass.' It is, of course, well known that the reasoning of the Tübingen school and of kindred negative theology is based on a supposed contrariety between the Petrine and Pauline direction, and that this again is chiefly based on the occurrence in Antioch recorded in Gal. ii. 11 &c. THE GREAT CRISIS IN POPULAR FEELING. 25 CHAPTER XXXII. THE GREAT CRISIS IN POPULAR FEELING-THE LAST DISCOURSES IN THE (St. John vi. 22-71.)1 THE narrative now returns to those who, on the previous evening, had, after the miraculous meal, been sent away' to their homes. We remember, that this had been after an abortive attempt on their part to take Jesus by force and make Him their Messiah-King. We can understand how the effectual resistance of Jesus to their purpose not only weakened, but in great measure neutralised, the effect of the miracle which they had witnessed. In fact, we look upon this check as the first turning of the tide of popular enthusiasm. Let us bear in mind what ideas and expectations of an altogether external character those men connected with the Messiah of their dreams. At last, by some miracle more notable even than the giving of the Manna in the wilderness, enthusiasm had been raised to the highest pitch, and thousands were determined to give up their pilgrimage to the Passover, and then and there proclaim the Galilean Teacher Israel's King. If He were the Messiah, such was His rightful title. Why then did He so strenuously and effectually resist it? In ignorance of His real views concerning the Kingship, they would naturally conclude that it must have been from fear, from misgiving, from want of belief in Himself. At any rate, He could not be the Messiah, Who would not be Israel's King. Enthusiasm of this kind, once repressed, could never be kindled again. Henceforth there was continuous misunderstanding, doubt, and defection among former adherents, growing into opposition and hatred unto death. Even to those who took not this position, Jesus, His Words and Works, were henceforth a constant mystery.' And so it came, that the morn It is specially requested, that this chapter be read along with the text of Scripture. • We are here involuntarily reminded of the fate of Elijah on the morning CHAP. XXXII BOOK III a vv. 22, 24 b St. John vi. 53-58 © ver. 59 d vi. 25-65 e vv. 25-36 f vv. 41-52 ing after the miraculous meal found the vast majority of those who had been fed, either in their homes or on their pilgrim-way to the Passover at Jerusalem. Only comparatively few came back to seek Him, where they had eaten bread at His Hand. And even to them, as the after-conversation shows, Jesus was a mystery. They could not disbelieve, and yet they could not believe; and they sought both a sign to guide, and an explanation to give them its understanding. Yet out of them was there such selection of grace, that all that the Father had given would reach Him, and that they who, by a personal act of believing choice and by determination of conviction, would come, should in nowise be rejected of Him. a It is this view of the mental and moral state of those who, on the morning after the meal, came to seek Jesus, which alone explains the questions and answers of the interview at Capernaum. As we read it: the day following, the multitude which stood on the other [the eastern] side of the sea'saw that Jesus was not there, neither His disciples.' But of two facts they were cognisant. They knew that, on the evening before, only one boat had come over, bringing Jesus and His disciples; and that Jesus had not returned in it with His disciples, for they had seen them depart, while Jesus remained to dismiss the people. In these circumstances they probably imagined, that Christ had returned on foot by land, being, of course, ignorant of the miracle of that night. But the wind which had been contrary to the disciples, had also driven over to the eastern shore a number of fishing-boats from Tiberias (and this is one of the undesigned confirmations of the narrative). These they now hired, and came to Capernaum, making inquiry for Jesus. Whether on that Friday afternoon they went to meet Him on His way from Gennesaret (which the wording of St. John vi. 25 makes likely), or awaited His arrival at Capernaum, is of little importance. Similarly, it is difficult to determine whether the conversation and outlined address of Christ took place on one or partly on several occasions: on the Friday afternoon and Sabbath morning, or only on the Sabbath. All that we know for certain is, that the last part (at any rate b) was spoken in Synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum.' It has been well observed, that there are evident breaks after verse 40 and verse 51.'1 Probably the succession of events may have been, that part of what is here recorded by St. John had taken place when those from across the Lake had first met Jesus; part on the way to, and entering, the Synagogue; and part as what He spoke in His 6 d e 1 Westcott, ad loc. POPULAR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE MIRACLE OF FEEDING. Discourse, and then after the defection of some of His former disciples. But we can only suggest such an arrangement, since it would have been quite consistent with Jewish practice, that the greater part should have taken place in the Synagogue itself, the Jewish questions and objections representing either an irregular running commentary on His Words, or expressions during breaks in, or at the conclusion of, His teaching. This, however, is a primary requirement, that, what Christ is reported to have spoken, should appear suited to His hearers: such as would appeal to what they knew, such also as they could understand. This must be kept in view, even while admitting that the Evangelist wrote his Gospel in the light of much later and fuller knowledge, and for the instruction of the Christian Church, and that there may be breaks and omissions in the reported, as compared with the original Discourse, which, if supplied, would make its understanding much easier to a Jew. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind all the circumstances of the case. The Discourse in question was delivered in the city, which had been the scene of so many of Christ's great miracles, and the centre of His teaching, and in the Synagogue, built by the good Centurion, and of which Jairus was the chief ruler. Here we have the outward and inward conditions for even the most advanced teaching of Christ. Again, it was delivered under twofold moral conditions, to which we may expect the Discourse of Christ to be adapted. For, first, it was after that miraculous feeding which had raised the popular enthusiasm to the highest pitch, and also after that chilling disappointment of their Judaistic hopes in Christ's utmost resistance to His Messianic proclamation. They now came 'seeking for Jesus,' in every sense of the word. They knew not what to make of those, to them, contradictory and irreconcilable facts; they came, because they did eat of the loaves, without seeing in them 'signs.' And therefore they came for such a 'sign c ver. 26 as they could perceive, and for such teaching in interpretation of it as they could understand. They were outwardly-by what had happened-prepared for the very highest teaching, to which the preceding events had led up, and therefore they must receive such, if any. But they were not inwardly prepared for it, and therefore they could not understand it. Secondly, and in connection with it, we must remember that two high points had been reached-by the people, that Jesus was the Messiah-King; by the ship's company, that He was the Son of God. However imperfectly these truths may have been apprehended, yet the teaching of Christ, if it was to be pro BOOK III a St. John vi. 25-29 gressive, must start from them, and then point onwards and upwards. In this expectation we shall not be disappointed. And if, by the side of all this, we shall find allusions to peculiarly Jewish thoughts and views, these will not only confirm the Evangelic narrative, but furnish additional evidence of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel. 1 1. The question : Rabbi, when camest Thou hither?' with which they from the eastern side greeted Jesus, seems to imply that they were perplexed about, and that some perhaps had heard a vague rumour of the miracle of, His return to the western shore. It was the beginning of that unhealthy craving for the miraculous which the Lord had so sharply to reprove. In His own words: they sought Him not because they saw signs,' but because they ate of the loaves,' and, in their coarse love for the miraculous, were filled.' What brought them, was not that they had discerned either the higher meaning of that miracle, or the Son of God, but those carnal Judaistic expectancies which had led them to proclaim Him King. What they waited for, was a Kingdom of God-not in righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Ghost, but in meat and drink-a kingdom with miraculous wilderness-banquets to Israel, and coarse miraculous triumphs over the Gentiles. Not to speak of the fabulous Messianic banquet which a sensuous realism expected, or of the achievements for which it looked, every figure in which prophets had clothed the brightness of those days was first literalised, and then exaggerated, till the most glorious poetic descriptions became the most repulsively incongruous caricatures of spiritual Messianic expectancy. The fruit-trees were every day, or at least every week or two, to yield their riches, the fields their harvests; the grain was to stand like palm trees, and to Shekal. vi. 2 be reaped and winnowed without labour. Similar blessings were to visit the vine; ordinary trees would bear like fruit trees, and every produce, of every clime, would be found in Palestine in such abundance and luxuriance as only the wildest imagination could conceive. b Shabb. 30 b; Jer. e Chethub. 111 6 b Such were the carnal thoughts about the Messiah and His Kingdom of those who sought Jesus because they ate of the loaves, and were filled.' What a contrast between them and the Christ, as He pointed them from the search for such meat to work for the meat which He would give them,' not as merely a Jewish Messiah, but as the Son of Man.' And yet, in uttering this strange truth, Jesus could appeal to something they knew when He added, for Him the Father hath sealed, even God.' The words, which seem almost inexplicable in 1 Canon Westcott notes the intended realism in the choice of words: Liter 6 ally, "were satisfied with food as animals with fodder ”—ἐχορτάσθητε. |