Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/856

Rh 832 GOSP ELS The The whole of the next chapter (iii.) deals with purification <1°°t“”‘e by water and the spirit. The learned but timid Nicoileiiiiis, °f “mﬂ “ the teacher” of Israel (iii. 10), exhibits the blindness of [For urn GOSPEL. Now follows (ch. iv.) what may be called the foreign 'l‘l section of the Gospel. Ve noticed that, even in Luke, the *“= Samaritans assume a prominent position, their faith and "2 carnal learning as contrasted with the knowledge that belongs to those who are born of the spirit. A third pre- diction of “the hour” is expressed through a third ﬁgure, the serpent in the wilderness. But this ﬁgure introduces a new conception, that of faith, an intense lool'i-ng towards Christ, even as the children of Israel looked on the healing serpent.‘ This thought of faith as sight, illustrated per- haps by the statement that Nicodemus had come by night, introduces a few remarks on a subject hereafter to be more amply treated by the evangelist—-the difference between the children of light and the children of darkness (iii. 18-21). I In the second section of this chapter the subject of water- purification is taken 11p again by the Baptist, who con- trasts his own inferior purification with the higher puriﬁca- tion of the Messiah, and his own decrease with Christ’s in- ' crease, describing himself (almost in the language of Paul) ' as “ earthly,” whereas the Messiah is “ from heaven.” But the Baptist also introduces the subject of faith; the path of life is through faith in the Son of God: “He that I believeth in the Son hath everlasting life ” (iii. 22-36). unconventional goodness being twice contrasted with the carnal formalism of the Pharisees, at one time in a miracle (Lu. xvii. 16), at another time in a parable (Lu. X. 33). We are now to see how the contrast between Samaria and J udzea is handled in the Fourth Gospel in the dialogue on the living water, which might fairly be called, from its sub- ject, as from its scenery, the “ Dialogue of the Well.” The well is a frequent ﬁgure in the books of Philo. To all men, says Philo (I’lanting of i'oalz, xix.), there is, in common, the desire to find drink; but some seek drink for the body, others for the soul. The seekers after truth are as those who dig wells, and many seekers have dug wells without finding water; and taking the LXX. version of Genesis xxvi. 3:2, “ lVe have not found water,” he comments on the well of the oath (Beersheba), which is discovered to be “ dry ”; and he declares that the dry well illustrates the failure of all human search after knowledge, as compared with the ideal God—given knowledge which is like a gushing spring. Elsewhere (Dreams, ii. 2, et seq.) he says, even more explicitly, that the well is the emblem of knowledge; that Christ’; Particularly to be noted is verse 24 of this chapter, in relations which it is expressly stated that “John was not yet cast e give no account of the public appearance of Jesus till after its depth signifies the difliculty of the attainment of know- ledge ; and that concerning all knowledge the well—diggers have to make but one sad confession, “We can ﬁnd no water.” Moses sits by the well “waiting to see what Baptht the imprisonment of John. It was therefore open to the enemies of the church to maintain that Jesus was but a pupil of the Baptist, and that He did not venture to teach till His master John had been shut up in prison. Much more might this be asserted in Ephesus, where, as we have seen, there were some who were baptized only with the baptism of John, and who knew nothing of the Holy Spirit. On this account probably it is that our author introduces Jesus as working by the side of John, before his imprison- ment, and even then inevitably, and against His own will, drawing multitudes from the Baptist to Himself. The apostle John himself is one of the first to leave the Baptist for the Greater Teacher (i. 37); but the Baptist also is made to witness, and to rejoice in, the desertion : “ He must increase, but I must decrease.” And ﬁnally, we are told i that the superiority of Jesus over the Baptist had become so manifest that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, and upon this, desiring to avoid this appearance of superiority, Jesus retired to Galilee‘-’ (iv. 1). It would not be possible more effectively to repel every suggestion of the pupilage of Jesus, or of his subordiuation——-even His temporary sub- ' ordination—to John the Baptist.“ 1 According to Philo, the brazen serpent represents temperance, the antidote of pleasure; and he who has strength to behold the beauty of I temperance, and to “ discern God through the serpent ” shall live (.llle_r/orics, ii. 20). 2 The insertion of the remark that “Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples," serves two purposes :—(I) to magnify the Messiah ; ('2) to disparage the mere baptism with water. 3 It is, of course, possible that here (as in the matter of the last slipper) the Fourth Gospel may have preserved some historical traditions concerning the acts of the Lord in J udeea, which have not been pre- .icI‘'(:(1 in the synoptic record. Nor is it denied that elsewhere, c._r/., in the matter of the three passovers, the Fourth Gospel may be historical. There is scarcely evidence enough to admit of absolute demonstration on either side. All that is contended is that, whether historical or not, the incidents recorded in the Fourth Gospel are suggested (1) often lay a clearly discernible motive in the mind of the writer contrasting forcibly with the motiveless, simple, inartistic narrative of St Mark; (2) sometimes by a desire to supplement, if not to correct, the previous narratives of the synoptists. The presence of such a motive and desire is not, of course, absolutely inconsistent with historical accuracy; but, the more we consider the synoptic narrative to be objective, and the more we consider the Fourth Gospel to be subjective, the more we shall be disposed to believe that, in proportion as incidents in the latter are suggestible by motives and desires, in that proportion are water God will send forth for his thirsty soul” (-llle{/., ii. -1) ; Israel “ sang the song of the well,” i.e., sang a song of triumph at the discovery of knowledge (Dreams, ii. 4); and the ren ark of the dau rl to f S ' '. ll tl t, L-_ at the well (lgbpéap) is (1BB1)%1fOHO(lVef1alJ;7aIlll:l'B(l(f011l§["?,Qt,lzf the “fountain 2’ of wpatext; ll:)l1{:l3 “leatps ubp” 1(iv. 14), a once surrges s u os con ras e ween ie 0l1( —woman Hagar at D“ the deep well” and Rebecca who nourishes those who come to her with “the fomzlrlln that never fails” (I’osleri(_z/ of Cain, 41). Origen, in the same way, con- sidering J acob’s well to mean the Old Testament, contrasts Samaria leaving her f;8pi’a (the old implement of know- ledge) with tebecca at the fountain (Comm. in Ev. Jormn., xiii. 10 and 29). The four wells due by the patriarehs Abraham and Isaac represent (Dredjms, ii. 3, 4) four departments of knowledge. The fourth and dry well represents the search after the fourth and incomprehen- sible immaterial element corresponding to the material heaven—a search that is necessarily fruitless. This beinrr Philo’s interpretation (and he indignantly protests againsl; any other, as being unworthy of wise men), we shall also see a singular propriety in placing the dialogue on the living water in the neighbourhood of “the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph” (iv. 5); for here also Philo has prescribed a metaphorical interpreta- tion, declaring that “Jacob gave Joseph Shechem, mean- they likely to be non-liistorical, especially if they appear to be difficult to harmonize with the earlier narrative of the synoptis-ts. It has been suggested that the lamentation over Jerusalem (Mat. xxiii. 37; Lu. xiii. 31), expressed in the words, “ How often did I desire to gather together‘ thy children . . . aml ye would not,” implies many previous visits. These words were no doubt spoken in Jerusalem, where Matthew (not Luke, see p. 800, above) places them ; but still, may they not refer to the many occasions in Galilee where the lie- deemer, striving to “gather together" the children of Israel, had surely included the “children of Jerusalem” in the scope of his efforts? liven if the words “thy children" are to be taken literally, they may refer to the occasions when the scribes and Pharisees had come down from Jerusalem to test the Messiah, and Jesus had pro- claimed the new kingdom to them in vain. Though preaching in Galilee, Jesus was really conflicting with the spirit of Jerusalem, and striving to “gather together the children of Jerusalem.” In any case the supposition that vromims refers to previous public visits to Jerusalem results in an incompatibility. For no one maintains that Jesus had made more than two previous public visits to Jerusalem ; and it is impossible that “ how many times ” can mean twice.
 * ‘1'1‘thJ°hn into prison.” It will be remembered that the synoptists