Again, the narrative expresses very markedly, that the interposition of Christ, alike in itself, and in the manner of it, was wholly unexpected by, indeed, contrary to the expectation of, the disciples. This also holds true in regard to other of the great manifestations of Christ, up to His Resurrection from the dead. This, of course, proves that the narrative was not founded on existing Jewish ideas. But there is more than this. The gratuitous introduction of traits which, so far from glorifying, would rather detract from a legendary Christ, while at the same time they seriously reflect on the disciples, presumably the inventors of the legend, appears to us wholly inconsistent with the assumption that the narrative is spurious.
Nor ought we to overlook another circumstance. While we regard the narrative as that of an historical occurrence - indeed, because we do so - we cannot fail to perceive its permanent symbolic and typical bearing. It were, indeed, impossible to describe either the history of the Church of Christ, or the experience of individual disciples, more accurately, or with wider and deeper capability of application, than in the Parable of this Miracle. And thus it is morally true to all ages; just because it was historically true at the first. [2898] And as we enter on this field of contemplation, many views open to us. The true Humanity of the Saviour, by the side of His Divine Power; the sleeping Jesus and the Almighty Word of rebuke and command to the elements, which lay them down obedient at His feet: this sharp-edged contrast resolved into a higher unity - how true is it to the fundamental thought of the Gospel-History! Then this other contrast of the failure of faith, and then the excitement of the disciples; and of the calm of the sleeping, and then the Majesty of the wakening Christ. And, lastly, yet this third contrast of the helplessness and despondency of the disciples and the Divine certitude of conscious Omnipotence.
We perceive only difficulties and the seemingly impossible, as we compare what may be before us with that which we consciously possess. He also makes this outlook: but only to know and show, that with Him there can be no difficulty, since all is His - and all may be ours, since He has come for our help and is in the ship. One thing only He wonders at - the shortcomings of our faith; and one thing only makes it impossible for Him to help - our unbelief.
THE ASCENT: FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION __________________________________________________________________
[2876] The definite article (St. Mark iv. 36) marks it as the' ship - a well-known boat which always bore Him.
[2877] Phil. ii. 6.
[2878] St. Mark iv. 37.
[2879] Is. vi. 9, 10.
[2880] Ps. cvi. 9; cvii. 25; Is. li. 10; Nah. i. 4-7; Hab. iii. 8.
[2881] St. Matt. and St. Luke.
[2882] St. Mark.
[2883] St. Matt.
[2884] St. Mark and St. Luke.
[2885] St. Mark probably from St. Peter.
[2886] From the size of these boats it seems unlikely, that any but His closest followers would have found room in the ship. Besides, the language of those who called for help and the answer of Christ imply the same thing.
[2887] St. Mark iv. 38.
[2888] Ps. cvi. 9; Nah. i. 4.
[2889] St. Luke iv. 39.
[2890] St. Mark ix. 25.
[2891] St. Mark i. 27.
[2892] So literally.
[2893] The supposed Rabbinic parallels in Wetstein (Babha Mez. 59 b) and Wünsche's (Chull. 7 a) works are quite inapplicable.
[2894] The strangest commentation, perhaps, is that of Volkmar (Marcus, pp. 307-312). For I cannot here perceive any kind of parallelism with the history of Jonah, nor yet see any references to the history of St. Paul's shipwreck.
[2895] Ps. viii. 4-8.
[2896] Rom. viii 20.
[2897] Ber. R. 12.
[2898] A fact may be the basis of a symbol; but a symbol can never be the basis of a fact. The former is the principle of Divine history, the latter of human legend. But, even so, legend could never have arisen but for a belief in Divine history: it is the counterfeit coin of Revelation. __________________________________________________________________