By Johann Peter Lange
Edited by Rev. Marcus Dods
THE HISTORICAL DELINEATION OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.
THE TIME OF JESUS APPEARING AND DISAPPEARING AMID THE PERSECUTIONS OF HIS MORTAL ENEMIES.
Section XXIX
jesus prevented from travelling
through samaria
(Luk 9:51-62)
It was a part of Jesus’ plan in
journeying towards Jerusalem to
go first through Samaria. We are
constrained to conjecture that
He hoped to arrive at Jerusalem
at the feast of the Dedication,
and that it was His purpose from
thence to visit Perea, for the
purpose of spreading His Gospel
in that district before His
pilgrimage should close. But
through circumstances altogether
out of the ordinary run He was
induced to adopt a different
course.
We turn back to the ninth
chapter in St Luke’s Gospel.
That the Evangelist has not
related the several incidents
belonging to our Lord’s last
journeys in their proper
chronological order, has already
appeared on another occasion.
But most especially is it plain
that he is here speaking of the
closing period of Jesus’
pilgrimage. He speaks of a time
when the ‘days were drawing to
an end of Jesus’ still finding
acceptance with the people’ [ἐν
τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς
ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ],1 and when He
had decidedly ‘set His face to
go to Jerusalem.’ These words
evidently set forth the time
when He was bidding farewell to
Galilee with the view of
completing His course at
Jerusalem. But if we preferred
understanding the words referred
to as they are commonly taken,
namely thus, that now ‘the days
were fulfilled that Jesus should
be taken up,’ we should thereby
be only the more constrained to
adopt the view, that the
Evangelist is speaking of our
Lord’s last departure from
Galilee.
Even the Samaritans were
destined to make good to the
experience of Jesus, that the
days of the welcome which He at
the first had met with in the
world were now coming to an end.
Jesus ‘sent messengers before
Him into a Samaritan town to
prepare for Him lodging.’ We can
the more readily understand this
forethought of our Lord, if we
call to mind that He was
travelling with a great train of
disciples. The same circumstance
serves also to explain what
followed. The Samaritans of that
town refused to receive Him, and
in truth for the reason that He
was directing the march of His
pilgrims towards Jerusalem. Time
was when the Samaritans at
Sichem had received Him
joyfully, when He was travelling
with a small train from Judea to
go to Galilee: His spiritual
glory had then made a great
impression upon them. But it was
different with the Samaritans of
this town. Though they perhaps
might know something of Jesus,
yet they were not inclined to
receive Him, because He proposed
to turn in to them in the
character of a Jewish pilgrim,
who was about to celebrate one
of those feasts at Jerusalem
which they so much abhorred,
leading also a great company of
pilgrims in His train. It seemed
to them to be asking too much,
that they should be required to
give entertainment to such a
large Jewish procession,—which
was what the company of
disciples might seem to be in
their eyes.
Such a repulse the disciples
could not help regarding as an
intolerable offence. These
Samaritans, men who should have
accounted it as the highest
honour put upon them that the
Messiah should offer to stop at
their town, propose to arrest
His triumphal march! Most
especially did this rouse the
indignation of the two sons of
Zebedee, James and John, who
generally at this time seemed to
be burning with a fiery zeal for
the honour of their Master. We
may imagine that strains of
ancient Messianic prophecy were
resounding in their soul, such
as those of the psalm: ‘Lift up
your heads, O ye gates; and be
ye lift up, ye doors of the
world; that the King of glory
may come in!’ and that they
might remember the admonition
addressed to the gainsayers of
the Lord’s Anointed, ‘Kiss the
Son, lest He be angry, and ye
perish from the way!’ They
recollected the judgments which
holy Elijah had called down upon
the gainsayers of Jehovah’s
honour;—these gainsayers of
their Lord seemed to them to
have in a yet higher degree
merited the judgments of God.
Under an impulse of lofty zeal
they came to Jesus, and proposed
that they should speak words of
prophet-power, drawing down from
heaven fire and destroying these
men, in the same way as Elijah
had done.
Jesus had already turned His
back upon that village for the
purpose of quietly pursuing His
journey, when they thus sought
to summon Him to the work of
retributive punishment. He
therefore turned Himself round
and asked them, ‘Know ye not of
what spirit ye are the
children?’2
This question proved a salutary
warning to them. The spirit of
passionate zeal departed from
them, overcome by the might of
His spirit of gentle holy
patience. They had not only
mistaken the spirit of Christ;
they had misapprehended also the
spirit in which Elijah had
formerly wrought. For the time
of Elijah was different from
that of Christ. In the stern
zeal which marked the personal
character of Elijah, that
prophet had, however, dimly
descried the spirit of Christ,
and had done homage to it (1
Kings 19.) But in his official
ministration he had with
implicit self-surrender served
the Spirit of God; and the
Spirit of God judged it needful
to save the Old Testament
theocracy from the overthrow
which threatened it by severe
judgments. These disciples, on
the contrary, were now seeking
to bring the spirit of Christ in subserviency to that zealotry of
theirs which they imagined to be
the same impulse of divine power
as that under which Elijah had
acted. Nevertheless their Lord
is not unaware that His spirit
has begun to work in them; only,
this spirit is darkened by that
zeal for His worldly honour
which is just now hurrying them
away. He therefore calls them to
self-recollection: they must
reflect what spirit they are the
children of: they must reflect
upon their deepest spiritual
experiences;—in the light of
these they would perceive that
their present tone of feeling
was utterly antagonistic to that
new cast of sentiment which
claimed to be a fundamental
principle of action, and which
in the innermost depths of their
being was beginning to dawn as
the working of His spirit. What
that spirit was, He
characterized by the words, ‘The
Son of man is not come to
destroy men’s souls, but to save
them.’
They now turned to another
village, in which they met with
a kinder reception. It is not
said that this village was a
Samaritan one; but, at all
events, there is no doubt that
it was a village on the borders
between Galilee and Samaria.
───♦───
Notes
1. The offers of discipleship
which Luke here (vers. 57-62)
brings into connection with the
anecdote respecting the sons of
Zebedee, we have already
considered (above, p. 142).
2. Stier thoughtfully reminds
us, that the same John who would
now fain have so severely
punished the Samaritans, ‘was
afterwards constrained to call
down upon them, by the efficacy
of his apostolic prayer, the
gracious gift of the Holy
Spirit.’
|
|
1) So Wieseler, p. 324 seqq., explains the passage. His interpretation appears to us (eyen after considering the objections of Stier, iii, 474) to be preferable to that which is commonly given, both in respect to the grammatical construction and with reference to the connection, But, however, we cannot altogether confine to Galilee the decline of popular acceptance which is here indicated, any more than we can concur in the chronological inference which Wieseler draws from it, as supposing that through this interpretation the hypothesis is established that the Evangelist is not here speaking of the last journey which our Lord took. The author has since seen cause to abandon Wieseler’s interpretation and to accept Stier's. His reasons are given below, Book III. Part iii, see. 15, first foot-note—ED.] 2) This question of Jesus is wanting in some manuscripts. It is, however, not likely that no answer of Jesus was recorded (cp. Stier, iii. 470). The addition, For the Son of man, &c., is certainly less authenticated.
|