what men ordinarily, and often thoughtlessly, call the miraculous. But, in this case, the
miraculous would have become the magical, which it never is. If Christ had yielded to
their appeal, and transferred the question from the moral to the coarsely external
sphere, He would have ceased to be the Messiah of the Incarnation, Temptation, and
Cross, the Messiah-Saviour. It would have been to un-Messiah the Messiah of the
Gospel, for it was only, in another form, a repetition of the Temptation. A miracle or sign
would at that moment have been a moral anachronism - as much as any miracle would
be in our days,29 when the Christ makes His appeal to the moral, and is met by a
demand for the external and material evidence of His Witness.
28. ver. 13.
29. It is substantially the same evidence which is demanded by the negative physicists of
our days. Nor can I imagine a more thorough misunderstanding of the character and
teaching of Christianity than, for example, the proposal to test the efficacy of prayer, by
asking for the recovery of those in a hospital ward! This would represent heathenism, not
Christianity.
The interruption of the Pharisees30 was thoroughly Jewish, and so was their objection. It
had to be met, and that in the Jewish fo rm31 in which it had been raised, while the Christ
must at the same time continue His former teaching to them concerning God and their
own distance from Him. Their objection had proceeded on this fundamental judicial
principle - 'A person is not accredited about himself.'32 Harsh and unjust as this principle
sometimes was,33 it evidently applied only in judicial cases, and hence implied that
these Pharisees sat in judgment on Him as one suspected, and charged with guilt. The
reply of Jesus was plain. Even i f His testimony about Himself were unsupported, it
would still be true, and He was competent to bear it, for He knew, as a matter of fact,
whence He came and whither He went - His own part in this Mission, and its goal, as
well as God's - whereas they knew34 not either.35 But, more than this: their demand for a
witness had proceeded on the assumption of their being the judges, and He the panel -
a relation which only arose from their judging after the flesh. Spiritual judgment upon
that which was within belonged only to Him, that searcheth all secrets. Christ, while on
earth, judged no man; and, even if He did so, it must be remembered that He did it not
alone, but with, and as the Representative of, the Father. Hence, such judgment would
be true.36 But, as for their main charge, was it either true, or good in law? In accordance
with the Law of God, there were two witnesses to the fact of His Mission: His own, and
the frequently-shown attestation of His Father. And, if it were objected that a man could
not bear witness in his own cause, the same Rabbinic canon laid it down, that this only
applied if his testimony stood alone. But if it were corroborated (even in a matter of
greatest delicacy),37 although by only one male or female slave - who ordinarily were
unfit for testimony - it would be credited.
30. St. John viii. 13.
31. We mark here again the evidence of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
32. Kethub. ii. 9.