33. Thus the testimony of a man, that during the heathen occupancy of Jerusalem his
wife had never left him, was not allowed, and the husband forbidden his wife (Kethub. ii.
9).
34. Not, as in the A.V., 'tell.'
35. St. John viii. 14.
36. vv. 15, 16.
37. Kethub. ii. 9. Such solitary testimony only when favourable, not when adverse. On the
law of testimony generally, comp. Saalschütz, Mos. Recht, pp. 604, 605.
The reasoning of Christ, without for a moment quitting the higher ground of His
teaching, was quite unanswerable from the Jewish standpoint. The Pharisees felt it,
and, t hough well knowing to Whom He referred, tried to evade it by the sneer - where
(not Who) His Father was? This gave occasion for Christ to return to the main subject of
His Address, that the reason of their ignorance of Him was, that they knew not the
Father, and, in turn, that only acknowledgment of Him would bring true knowledge of the
Father.38
38. St. John viii. 19.
Such words would only ripen in the hearts of such men the murderous resolve against
Jesus. Yet, not till His, not their, hour had come! Presently, we find Him again, now in
one of the Porches - probably that of Solomon - teaching, this time, 'the Jews.' We
imagine they were chiefly, if not all, Judæ ns - perhaps Jerusalemites, aware of the
a
murderous intent of their leaders - not His own Gali leans, whom He addressed. It was in
continuation of what had gone before - alike of what He had said to them and of what
they felt towards Him. The words are intensely sad - Christ's farewell to His rebellious
people, His tear-words over lost Israel; abrup t also, as if they were torn sentences, or,
else, headings for special discourses: 'I go My way' - 'Ye shall seek Me, and in your
sin39 shall ye die' - 'Whither I go, ye cannot come!' And is it not all most true? These
many centuries has Israel sought its Christ, and perished in its great sin of rejecting
Him; and whither Christ and His kingdom tended, the Synagogue and Judaism never
came. They thought that He spoke of His dying, and not, as He did, of that which came
after it. But, how could His dying esta blish such separation between them? This was the
next question which rose in their minds.40 Would there be anything so peculiar about His
dying, or, did His expression about going indicate a purpose of taking away His Own
life?41
39. Not 'sins,' as in the A.V.
40. St. John viii. 22.
41. Generally this is understood as referring to the supposed Jewish belief, that suicides
occupied the lowest place in Gehenna. But a glance at the context must convince that the
Jews could not have understood Christ as meaning, that He would be separated from
them by being sent to the lowest Gehenna. Besides, this supposed punishment of
suicides is only derived from a rhetorical passage in Josephus (Jew. War iii. 8. 5), but
unsupported by any Rabbinic statements. The Rab binic definition - or rather limitation - of
what constitutes suicide is remarkable. Thus, neither Saul, nor Ahitophel, nor Zimri, are
regarded as suicides, because they did it to avoid falling into the hands of their enemies.
For premeditated, real suicide the punishment is left with God. Some difference is to be
made in the burial of such, yet not such as to put the survivors to shame.