during most of this time, Jesus was in great measure unattended, since the call of the Apostles [f St. Matt, iv. 18-22 &c] only took place after the 'unnamed feast;' that, indeed, they had probably returned to
their homes and ordinary occupations when Jesus went to Nazareth, [g St. Luke iv. 16.] and that therefore, not having themselvesbeen eye-witnesses of what had passed, they confined themselves to a general summary. At the same time, St. Luke expressly marks that Jesus taught in the various Synagogues of Galilee, [h St. Luke iv. 15.] and alsothatHe made a longer stay in Capernaum, [i St. Luke iv. 31; comp. St. Matt. iv. 13-16.]
When Jesus returned to Galilee, it was in circumstances entirely different from those under which He had left it. As He Himself said, [k St. Johniv. 44.] there had, perhaps naturally, been prejudices connected with the humbleness of His upbringing, and the familarity engendered by knowledge [11 cannot believe that the expression 'His own country,' refers to Judaea. Such an explanation is not only unnatural, but contrary to the usage of the expression ('his own'). Comp. St. Matt. ix. 1; also St. John vii. 40-42. Strauss's arguments (Leben Jesu, i. p. 659) seem here conclusive.] of His home-surroundings. These were overcome, when the Galileans had witnessed at the feast in Jerusalem, what He had done. Accordingly, they were now prepared to receive Him with the reverent attention which His Word claimed. We may conjecture, that it was partially for reasons such as these that He first bent His steps to Cana. The miracle, which had there been wrought, [m St. John ii. 1-11.] would still further prepare the people for His preaching. Besides, this was the home of Nathanael, who had probably followed Him to Jerusalem, and in whose house a gladsome homage of welcome would now await Him. It was here that the second recorded miracle of His Galilean ministry was wrought, with what effect upon the whole district, may be judged from the expectancies which the fame of it excited even in Nazareth, the city of His early upbringing [a St. Luke iv. 23.]
It appears that the son of one of Herod Antipas' officers, either civil or military, [1 used by Josephus in the general sense of officers in the service of Herod Antipas. Comp. Krebs, Obs. in N. Test, e Fl. Josepho, pp. 144, 145, who notes that the expression occurs 600 times in the writings of Josephus.] was sick, and at the point of death. When tidings reached the father that the Prophet, or more than Prophet, Whose fame had preceded Him to Galilee, had come to Cana, he resolved, in his despair of other means, to apply to Him for the cure of His child. Nothing can be gained for the spiritual interest of this or any other Biblical narrative, by exaggeration; but much is lost, when the historical demands of the case are overlooked. It is not from any disbelief in the supernatural agency at work, that we insist on the natural and rational sequence of events. And having done so, we can all the more clearly mark, by the side of the natural, the distinctively higher elements at work. Accordingly, we do not assume that this 'court- officer' was actuated by spiritual belief in the Son of God, when applying to Him for help. Rather would we go to almost the opposite extreme, and regard him as simply actuated by what, in the circumstances, might be the views of a devout Jew. Instances are recorded in the Talmud, which may here serve as our guide. Various cases are related in which those seriously ill, and even at the point of death, were restored by the prayers of celebrated Rabbis. One instance is specially illustrative, [b Ber. 34 b; Jer. Ber. 9 d.] We read that, when the son of Rabban Gamaliel was dangerously ill, he sent two of his disciples to one Chanina ben Dosa to entreat his prayers for the restoration of his son. On this, Chanina is said to have gone up to the Aliyah (upper chamber) to pray. On his return, he assured the messengers that the young man was restored, grounding his confidence, not on the possession of any prophetic gift, but on the circumstance that he knew his request was answered from the freedom he had in prayer. The messengers noted down the hour, and on their arrival at the house of Gamaliel found, that at that very hour 'the fever left him, and he asked for water.' Thus far the Rabbinic story. Even supposing
that it was either invented or coloured in imitation of the New Testament, it shows, at least, what a devout Jew might deem lawful to expect from a celebrated Rabbi, who was regarded as having power in prayer.
Having indicated the illustrated part of this story, we may now mark the contrast between it and the event in the Gospels. There restoration is not merely asked, but expected, and that, not in answer to prayer, but by Christ's Personal presence. But the great and vital contrast lies, alike in what was thought of Him Who was instrumental in the cure, performed it, and in the moral effects which it wrought. The history just quoted from the Talmud is immediately followed by another of similar import, when a celebrated Rabbi accounts on this wise for his inability to do that in which Chanina had succeeded, that Chanina was like 'a servant of the King,' who went in and out familiarly, and so might beg favours; while he (the failing Rabbi) was 'like a lord before the King,' who would not be accorded mere favours, but discussed matters on a footing of equality. This profane representation of the relation between God and His servants, the utterly unspiritual view of prayer which it displays, and the daring self-exaltation of the Rabbi, surely mark sufficiently an absolute contrast in spirit between the Jewish view and that which underlies the Evangelic narrative.
Enough has been said to show, that the application to Jesus on the part of the 'royal officer' did not, in the peculiar circumstances, lie absolutely beyond the range of Jewish ideas. What the 'court-officer' exactly expected to be done, is a question secondary to that of his state of receptiveness, as it may be called, which was the moral condition alike of the outward help, and of the inward blessing which he received. One thing, however, it is of importance to notice. We must not suppose, that when, to the request that Jesus would come down to Capernaum to perform the cure, the Master replied, that unless they saw [1 The emphasis must lie on the word 'see,' yet not exclusively. Lucke's objections to this (Ev. Joh. i. p. 622) are not well founded.] signs and wonders they would not believe, He meant thereby to convey that his Jewish hearers, in opposition to the Samaritans, required 'signs and wonders' in order to believe. For the application of 'the officer' was itself an expression of faith, although imperfect. Besides, the cure, which was the object of the application, could not have been performed without a miracle. What the Saviour reproved was not the request for a miracle, which was necessary, but the urgent plea that He should come down to Capernaum for that purpose, which the father afterwards so earnestly repeated, [a ver. 49.] That request argued ignorance of the real character of the Christ, as if He were either merely a Rabbi endowed with special power, or else a miracle-monger. What He intended to teach this man was, that He, Who had life in Himself, could restore life at a distance as easily as by His Presence; by the word of his Power as readily as by personal application. A lesson this of the deepest importance, as regarded the Person of Christ; a lesson, also, of the widest application to us and for all circumstances, temporal and spiritual. When the 'court-officer' had learned this lesson, he became 'obedient unto the faith,' and 'went his way,' [a ver. 50.] presently to find his faith both crowned and perfected, [b ver. 53.] And when both 'he and his house' had learned that lesson, they would never afterwards think of the Christ either as the Jews did, who simply witnessed His miracles, or unspiritually. It was the completion of that teaching which had first come to Nathanael, the first believer of Cana. [c St. John i. vi. 50, 51.] So, also, is it when we have learned that lesson, that we come to know alike the meaning and the blessedness of believing in Jesus.
Indeed, so far as its moral import is concerned, the whole history turns upon this point. It also marks the fundamental difference between this and the somewhat similar history of the healing of the Centurion's servant in Capernaum, [d St. Matt. viii. 5 &c; St. Luke vii. 1 &c.]Critics have noticed marked divergences in almost every detail of the two narratives, [1 These will readily occur on comparison of the two narratives. Archdeacon Watkins (ad loc.) has grouped these under eight distinct particulars. Comp. Lucke (Ev. Joh.) i. p. 626.] which some, both orthodox and negative interpreters, have so strangely represented as only different presentations of one and the same event. [2 So partially and hesitatingly Origen, Chrysostom, and more decidedly Theophilus, Euthymius, Irenoeus, and Eusebius. All modern negative critics hold this view; but Gfrorer regards the narrative of St. John, Strauss and Weiss that of St. Matthew, as the original account. And yet Keim ventures to assert: 'Ohne alien Zweifel (!) ist das die selbe Geschichte.'] But, besides these marked differences of detail, there is also fundamental difference in the substance of the narratives, and in the spirit of the two applicants, which made the Saviour in the one instance reprove as the requirement of sight, which by itself could only produce a transitory faith, for which He had in vain looked in Israel, at as greatness of faith, for which He had in vain looked in Israel. The great point in the history of the 'court-officer' is Israel's mistaken view of the Person and Work of the Christ. That in the narrative of the Centurion is the prepardness of a simple faith, unencumbered by Jewish realism, although the outcome of Jewish teaching. The carnal realism of the one, which looks for signs and wonders, is contrasted with the simplicity and straightforwardness of the other. Lastly, the point in the history of the Syro-Phoenician woman, which is sometimes confounded with it, [3 Alike Strauss and Keim discuss this at some length from the point of view of seeming contradiction between the reception of the heathen Centurion and the first refusal of the Syro-Phoenician woman. Keim's treatment of the whole subject seems to me inconsistent with itself] is the intensity of the same faith which, despite discouragements, nay, seeming improbabilities, holds fast by the conviction which her spiritual instinct had grasped, that such an One as Jesus must be not only the Messiah of the Jews, but the Saviour of the world.
