| 58. The Residence of Jesus At Capernaum. | ||||
During the Time Spent By Jesus in Judea, the capital and its environs recommended themselves as the most eligible theatre for his agency; and we might have conjectured that in like manner when in Galilee, he would have chosen his native city, Nazareth, as the centre of his labours. Instead of this we find him, when not travelling, domesticated at Capernaum, as already mentioned; the synoptic writers designate this place the idia polij of Jesus (Matt. ix. 1, comp. Mark. ii. 1); here, according to them, was the oi)koj, which Jesus was accustomed to inhabit, (Mark ii. 1; iii. 20; Matt. xiii. 1. 36,) probably that of Peter (Mark i. 29; Matt. viii. 14; xvii.25; Luke iv. 38). In the fourth Gospel, which only mentions very transient visits of Jesus to Galilee, Capernaum is not given as his dwelling-place, and Cana is the place with which he is supposed to have the most connection. After his baptism he proceeds first to Cana, (ii. 1) on a special occasion, it is true: after this he makes a short stay at Capernaum (v. 12); and on his return from his first attendance at the Passover, it is again Cana to which he resorts, and in which the fourth evangelist makes him effect a cure (iv. 46 ft), according to the synoptic writers, performed at Capernaum, and after this we find him once again in the synagogue at Capernaum (vi. 59). The most eminent disciples, also, are said by the writer of the fourth Gospel, not, as by the synoptic writers, to come from Capernaum, but partly from Cana (xxi. 2) and partly from Bethsaida (i. 45). The latter place, even in the synoptic Gospels, is mentioned, with Chorazin, as one iii which Jesus had been pre-eminently active (Matt. xi. 21; Luke x. 13). | ||||
Why Jesus chose Capernaum as his central residence in Galilee, Mark does not attempt to show, but conducts him there without comment after his return into Galilee, and the calling of the two pairs of fishermen (i. 21). Matthew (iv.13ff.) alleges as a motive, that an Old Testament prophecy, (Isai. viii. 23; ix. 1,) was thereby fulfilled; a dogmatical motive, and therefore of no historical value. Luke thinks he has found the reason in a fact, which is more worthy of notice. According to him, Jesus after his return from baptism does not immediately take up his residence in Capernaum, but makes an essay to teach in Nazareth, and after its failure first turns to Capernaum. This evangelist tells us in the most graphic style, how Jesus presented himself at the synagogue on the sabbath-day, and expounded a prophetic passage, so as to excite general admiration, but at the same time to provoke malicious reflections on the narrow {P.284} circumstances of his family. Jesus, in reply, is made to refer the discontent of the Nazarenes, that he performed no miracles before them as at Capernaum, to the contempt which every prophet meets with in his own country, and to threaten them in Old Testament allusions, that the divine benefits would be withdrawn from them and conferred on strangers. Exasperated by this, they lead him to the brow of the hill, intending to cast him down: he, however, passes unhurt through the midst of them (iv. 16-30). | ||||
Both the other synoptic writers are acquainted with a visit of Jesus to Nazareth; but they transfer it to a much later period, when Jesus had been long labouring in Galilee, and resident in Capernaum (Matt. xiii.54ff.; Mark vi.1ff.). To reconcile their narrative with that of Luke, it has been customary to suppose that Jesus, notwithstanding his first rough reception, as described by Luke, wished to make one more experiment whether his long absence and subsequent fame might not have altered the opinion of the Nazarenes, an opinion worthy of a petty town; but the result was equally unfavourable. The two scenes, however, are too similar to be prevented from mingling with each other. In both instances the teaching of Jesus in the synagogue makes the same impression on the Nazarenes, that of amazement at the wisdom of the carpenter's son (Luke only giving more details); in both instances there is a lack of miracles on the part of Jesus, the first two evangelists presenting more prominently its cause; namely, the unbelief of the Nazarenes, and the third dwelling more on its unfavourable effect; lastly, in both instances, Jesus delivers the maxim (the result of his experience), that a prophet is the least esteemed in his own country; and to this Luke appends a more ample discourse, which irritates the Nazarenes to attempt an act of violence, unnoticed by the other evangelists. But the fact which most decisively shows that the two narratives cannot exist in each other's presence, is that they both claim to relate the first incident of the kind; for in both, the Nazarenes express their astonishment at the suddenly revealed intellectual gifts of Jesus, which they could not at once reconcile with his known condition. The first supposition that presents itself is, that the scene described by Luke preceded that of Matthew and Mark; but if so, the Nazarenes could not wonder a second time and inquire, from where has this man this wisdom? since they must have had proof on that point on the first occasion; if, on the contrary, we try to give the later date to Luke's incident, it appears unnatural, for the same reason that they should wonder at the gracious words 'which proceeded out of his mouth, neither could Jesus well say, This day is this scripture fulfilled in, your ears, without severely reflecting on their former insensibility, which had retarded that fulfilment. | ||||
These considerations have led the majority of modern {P.285} commentators to the opinion, that Luke and the other synoptic evangelists have here given the same history, merely differing in the date, and in the colouring of the facts; and the only question among them is, which of the two narrations deserves the preference. With respect to the date, that of Luke seems, at the first glance, to have the advantage; it gives the desiderated motive for the change of residence, and the wonder of the Nazarenes appears most natural on the supposition that then he first assumed the function of a public teacher; hence Matthew's divergency from Luke has been recently made a serious reproach to him, as a chronological error, But there is one particular in all the three narratives which is an obstacle to our referring the incident to so early a period. If Jesus presented himself thus at Nazareth before he had made Capernaum the principal theatre of his agency, the Nazarenes could not utter the words which Jesus imputes to them in Luke: Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in your country; nor could they, according to Matthew and Mark, be astonished at the- mighty works of Jesus,} for as he performed few if any miracles at Nazareth, that expression, nothwithstanding its perplexing connection with the aocfi'ia, the wisdom,, manifested in that city, must refer to woi'ks performed elsewherc. If, then, the Nazarenes wondered at the deeds of Jesus at Capernaum, or were jealous of the distinction conferred on that city, Jesus must have previously resided there, and could not have proceeded there for the first time in consequence of the scene at Nazareth. From this, it is plain that the later chronological position of the narrative is the original one, and that Luke, in placing it earlier, out of mere conjecture, was honest or careless enough to retain the mention of the wonders at Capernaum, though only consistent with the later position. If, with regard to the date of the incident, the advantage is thus on the side of Matthew and Mark, we are left in darkness as to the motive which led Jesus to alter his abode from Nazareth to Capernaum; unless the circumstance that some of his most confidential disciples had their home there, and the more extensive frame of the place, may be regarded as inducements to the measure. | ||||
The fullness .and particularity of Luke's description of the scene, contrasted with the summary style in which it is given by the other two evangelists, has generally won for the former the praise of superior accuracy.) Let us look more closely, and we shall find that the greater particularity of Luke shows itself chiefly in this, that he is not satisfied with a merely general mention of the discourse delivered by Jesus in the synagogue, but cites the Old Testament passage on which he enlarged, and the beginning of its application. The passage is from Isai. Ixi. 1, 2, where the prophet {P.286} announces the return from exile, with the exception of the words to set at liberty them that are bruised, which are from Isai. Iviii. 6. To this passage Jesus gives a Messianic interpretation, for he declares it to be fulfilled by his appearance. Why he selected this text from among all others has been variously conjectured. It is known that among the Jews at a later period, certain extracts from the Thorah and the Prophets were statedly read on particular sabbaths and feast days, and it has hence been suggested that the above passage was the selection appointed for the occasion in question. It is true that the chapter from which the words are taken, used to be read on the great day of atonement, and Bengel has made the supposition, that the scene we are considering occurred on that day, a main pillar of his Gospel chronology. But if Jesus had adhered to the regular course of reading, he would not merely have extracted from the lesson appointed for this feast a few stray words, to insert them in a totally disconnected passage; and after all, it is impossible to demonstrate that, so early as the time of Jesus, there were prescribed readings, even from the prophets, If then Jesus was not thus circumstantially directed to the passage cited, did he open. upon it designedly or fortuitously? Many imagine him turning over the leaves until he found the text which was in his mind: but Olshausen is right in saying that the words "finding the place" do not imply that he found the passage after searching for it, but that he alighted on it under the guidance of the Divine Spirit. | ||||
This, however, is but a poor contrivance, to hide the improbability, that Jesus should fortuitously open on a passage so well adapted to serve as a motto for his first Messianic enterprize, behind an appeal to the Spirit, as deus ex machina. Jesus might very likely have quoted this text with reference to himself, and thus it would remain in the minds of the evangelists as a prophecy fulfilled in Jesus; | ||||
Matthew would probably have introduced it in his own person with his usual form, i(na plhrwqh, and would have said that Jesus had now begun his Messianic annunciation, that the prophecy Isai, Ixi. 1 ff. might be fulfilled; but Luke, who is less partial to this form, or the tradition from which he drew his materials, puts the words into the mouth of Jesus on his first Messianic appearance, very judiciously, it is true, but, owing to the chances which it is necessary to suppose, less probably; so that I am more inclined to be satisfied with the indefinite statement of Matthew and Mark. | ||||
The other point in which the description of Luke merits the praise of particularity, is his dramatic picture of the tumultuary closing scene; but this scene perplexes even those who on the whole give the preference to his narrative. It is not to be concealed that the extremely violent expulsion of Jesus by the Nazarenes, seems to have had no adequate provocation; and we cannot, with {P.287} Schleiermacher, expunge the notion that the life of Jesus was threatened, without imputing to the writer a false addition of the words (v. 29), and thus materially affecting the credibility of his entire narration. But the still more remarkable clause (v. 30), is the main difficulty. It is not to be explained (at least not in accordance with the evangelist's view) as an effect merely of the commanding glance of Jesus, as Hase supposes; and Olshausen is again right when he says, that the evangelist intended to signify that Jesus passed unharmed through the midst of his furious enemies, because his divine power fettered their senses and limbs, because his hour was not yet come (John viii. 20), and because no man could take his life from him until he himself laid it down (John x. 18). Here again we have a display of the glorifying tendency of tradition, which loved to represent Jesus as one defended from his enemies, like Lot (Gen. xix. 11), or Elisha (2 Kings vi. 18), by a, heavenly hand, or better still, by the power of his own superior nature; unless there be supposed in this case, as in the two examples from the Old Testament, a temporary infliction of blindness, an illudere per caliginem, the idea of which Tertullian reprobates. Thus in this instance also, the less imposing account of the first two evangelists is to be preferred, namely that Jesus, impeded from further activity by the unbelief of the Nazarenes, voluntarily forsook his ungrateful paternal city. | ||||