any one of my readers has ever known this spasm of divine change which annihilates the old and in the same moment creates or re-creates a new-born soul, such a one, at least, will understand the thrill of electric sympathy, the arrow-point of intense conviction, that shot that very instant through the heart of Nathanael, and brought him, as it were, at once upon his knees with the exclamation, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel!" We scarcely hear of Nathanael again. His seems to have been one of those calm, retiring, contemplative souls, whose whole sphere of existence lies not here, but 66 Where, beyond these voices, there is peace." It was a life of which the world sees nothing, because it was "hid with Christ in God;" but of this we may be sure, that never till the day of his martyrdom, or even during his martyr agonies, did he forget those quiet words which showed that his "Lord had searched him out and known him, and comprehended his thoughts long before." Not once, doubtless, but on many and many a future day, was the promise fulfilled for him and for his companions, that, with the eye of faith, they 1 ŏ4€σde (~, B, L, &c.). The promise is obviously spiritual, as the ablest Fathers saw. A striking passage of Luther's to this effect is quoted in Alford. The word "hereafter shall ye see," &c. (John i. 51), meant "from this time forth," and therefore was a correct translation of an' ǎpт at the time when our Version was made. Compare Matt. xxvi. 64, and the petition "that we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life " i.e., not at some future time, but "from this day forward." The reading, however, is very dubious, and B, L, as well as several versions, and Origen, &c., omit it. The 'Aun is found twenty-five times in St. John, and always doubled. Cf. Isa. lxv. 16 (where God is called the ; (” אָמֵן God of 2 Cor. i. 20; Rev. iii. 14. For the Messianic title Son of Man-a title describing the Messiah as the essential representative of every child in the great human family of God-see Dan. vii. 13, 14; Rev. i. 13, &c. should "see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.' 1 "Son of Man," Ben-adam, may, in its general sense, be applied to any man (Job xxv. 6; Ps. cxliv. 3, &c.), but it is applied in a special sense to Ezekiel in the Old Testament, and to Christ in the New. One very observable fact is, that though used of Ezekiel nearly ninety times, he does not once apply the title to himself; and though used about eighty times of Christ, it is never used by any but Himself, except in passages which describe His heavenly exaltation (Acts vii. 56; Rev. i. 13—20; xiv. 14). It seems further clear that though Ezekiel is called Ben-Adam (perhaps, in the midst of his revelations, to remind him of his own nothingness, μéμvnσo aveрwños v), the title in the New Testament, being clearly drawn from Daniel (vii. 13), is the Chaldee Bar-enôsh, which represents humanity in its greatest frailty and humility, and is a significant declaration that the exaltation of Christ in His kingly and judicial office is due to His previous self-humiliation in His human nature (Phil. ii. 5-11). (Bishop Wordsworth s. v. in Smith's Dict. of Bible. iii. 1359, who quotes Cypr. De Idol. Vanit., p. 538, "hominem induit, quem perducat ad Patrem," and Aug., Serm. 121, "Filius Dei factus est filius hominis, ut vos, qui eratis filii hominis, efficeremini filii Dei.") The term beni ish, found in Ps. iv. 3, &c., means "filii viri," not "filii hominis." Bengel, on this verse (John i. 51), referring to 1 Cor. xv. 47, says, "Unus hic nempe homo est, quem Adamus, post lapsum, expectavit." CHAPTER XI. THE FIRST MIRACLE. "Unde rubor vestris et non sua purpura lymphis? Numen, convivae, praesens agnoscite numen: Lympha pudica Deum vidit et erubuit."-CRASHAW. "ON the third day," says St. John, "there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee." Writing with a full knowledge and vivid recollection of every fact that took place during those divinely-memorable days, he gives his indications of time as though all were equally familiar with them. The third day has been understood in different manners: it is simplest to understand it as the third after the departure of Jesus for Galilee. If He were travelling expeditiously He might stop on the first night (supposing him to follow the ordinary route) at Shiloh or at Shechem; on the second at En-Gannim; on the third, crossing the plain of Jezreel, He could easily reach Nazareth, and finding that His mother and brethren 1 The author has done this himself, and therefore knows that it is easily possible, although it requires quick travelling. There would, however, be nothing on this occasion to make Jesus linger, and possibly he was journeying with the express intention of being present at the marriage feast. The fact that a wedding will soon take place is usually known throughout an Eastern village, and Jesus might easily have heard about it from one of His disciples, or from some other Galilæan pilgrim. were not there, might, in an hour and a half longer, reach Cana in time for the ceremonies of an Oriental wedding.1 It is well known that those ceremonies began at twilight. It was the custom in Palestine, no less than in Greece, "To bear away The bride from home at blushing shut of day," or even later, far on into the night, covered from head to foot in her loose and flowing veil, garlanded with flowers, and dressed in her fairest robes. She was heralded by torchlight, with songs and dances, and the music of the drum and flute, to the bridegroom's home. She was attended by the maidens of her village, and the bridegroom came to meet her with his youthful friends. Legend says that Nathanael was on this occasion the 1 It will be seen from this paragraph that I consider Kefr Kenna, and not the so-called Kâna el-Jalil, to be the real Cana. On this point I entirely agree with De Sauley as against Dr. Robinson. If I am right in the explanation of "the third day," it will be an additional argument in favour of this view. I say "the so-called Kâna el-Jalil," because certainly the more ordinary name of this ruined and deserted village is Khurbet Kâna, and Thomson (The Land and the Book) could find no trace worth mentioning of the other name, which rests solely on Robinson's authority; moreover, the name Kenna el-Jalil is certainly sometimes given to Kefr Kenna, as Osborne testifies. The philological difficulty is by no means insuperable; tradition too, fairly tested, is in favour of Kefr Kenna; and its position (far nearer to Nazareth and Capernaum than Khurbet Kâna, and lying on the direct road) is in every respect more in accordance with the indications of the Gospel narrative than its more remote and desolate rival. Moreover, at Kefr Kenna there are distinct traces of antiquity, and at the other place there are none. If in fact it be a mere hallucination to suppose that Khurbet Kâna is at all known under the designation of Kâna el-Jalil, more than half of the reasons for identifying it with Cana of Galilee at once fall to the ground. Now on this point Mr. Thomson is far more likely to be right than Dr. Robinson, for the latter knew little or no Arabic, and the former could speak it fluently. 2 When in Palestine I arrived at El Jib about sunset, and found that the festivities of a wedding were just commencing. They lasted till late at night. L* paranymph, whose duty it was to escort the bride; but the presence of Mary, who must have left Nazareth on purpose to be present at the wedding, seems to show that one of the bridal pair was some member of the Holy family. Jesus too was invited, and His disciples, and the use of the singular (ékλýon) implies that they were invited for His sake, not He for theirs. It is not likely, therefore, that Nathanael, who had only heard the name of Jesus two days before, had anything to do with the marriage. All positive conjecture is idle; but the fact that the Virgin evidently took a leading position in the house, and commands the servants in a tone of authority, renders it not improbable that this may have been the wedding of one of her nephews, the sons of Alphæus, or even of one of her daughters, "the sisters of Jesus," to whom tradition gives the names Esther and Thamar. That Joseph himself was dead is evident from the complete silence of the Evangelists, who after Christ's first visit to Jerusalem as a boy, make no further mention of his name.2 Whether the marriage festival lasted for seven days, as was usual among those who could afford it,3 or only for one or two, as was the case among the poorer classes, we cannot tell; but at some period of the entertainment the wine suddenly ran short. None but those who know how sacred in the East is the duty of lavish hospitality, and how passionately the obligation to exercise it to the 1 Matt. xiii. 56. 2 The notion that the bridegroom was Simon the Canaanite, arises from a complete, but not unnatural, error about his name. An improbable tradition followed by St. Jerome and St. Bonaventura, and adopted by the Mahometans (D'Herbelot, s. v. "Johannes"), represents that the bridegroom was the Evangelist St. John. 3 Judg. xiv. 12; Tob. xi. 19. |