10-2. The Healing of the Nobleman's Son

2. The Healing of the Nobleman’s Son

John 4:46-54

There is an apparent contradiction in the words that introduce this miracle. Jesus, it is said, “went into Galilee;” and why? “for He Himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country;” and yet Galilee was his own country, and immediately after we are told that the Galilseans, so far from rejecting, “received”^[1] or gave Him honourable welcome, “having seen all the things that He did at Jerusalem at the feast.” This must be removed, not as Tittmann, and some older expositors propose, by making St. John, in fact, to say that the Lord went into Galilee, though He had testified that a prophet was unhonoured at home; for there is no compelling the words to mean this. Origen’s explanation, which some moderns follow, can as little be accepted. He understands our Lord’s “own country” as Judaea, and finds in this saying an explanation of his retiring from thence into Galilee. But the Lord’s birth at Bethlehem in Judaea being a fact not generally known (John 7:41-42), the slight esteem in which He was there held, could not have had this explanation. Rather we must accept “his own country”^[2] in its narrowest sense, as the place where He had been brought up, namely, Nazareth; and then these words will account for his not returning thither (with a direct reference to the testimony which He Himself had borne in its synagogue, “No prophet is accepted in his own country,” Luk 4:24; Mat 13:57); but preferring Cana and other cities of Galilee. ”And the Galilaeans,” as St. John, with an emphasis, relates, “received Him” albeit the Nazarenes, the people of his own immediate city, had rejected, and would have killed Him.^[3]

“There was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum.” It is not wholly improbable, which has been supposed by some,^[4] that this “nobleman”^[5] is no other than Chuza, Herod’s steward, whose wife, remarkably enough, appears among the holy women that ministered to the Lord of their substance (Luk 8:3. cf. ver. 53). Only some mighty and marvellous work of this kind would have been likely to draw a steward of Herod’s, with his family, into the Gospel net. Or, as some suggest, he may have been Manaen, the foster-brother of Herod (Acts 13:1). Whether he was one of these, or some other not elsewhere named in Scripture, “when he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, he went unto Him, and besought Him that He would come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death.” From a certain severity which speaks out in our Lord’s reply, “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe,” we gather that this supplicant was one driven to Jesus by the strong constraint of an outward need, a need which no other but He could supply (Isa 26:16), rather than one drawn by the inner necessities and desires of his soul; such as would not have come at all, but for this.^[6] Sharing in the carnal temper of the Jews in general (for plural, “ye will not believe,” includes them in the same condemnation), he had (hitherto, at least) no organ for perceiving the glory of Christ as it shone out in his person and in his doctrine. “Signs and wonders” might compel him to a belief, but nothing else; unlike those Samaritans whom the Lord has just quitted, and who, without a miracle, had “believed because of his word” (John 4:41). But “the Jews require a sign” (1Co 1:22), and this one, in the smallness of his present faith, straitened and limited the power of the Lord. Christ must “come down”^[7] if his son is to be healed; he cannot raise himself to the height of those words of the Psalmist, “He sent his word, and He healed them.”^[8] And yet if there be rebuke in the Lord’s answer, there is encouragement too; an implied promise of a miracle, even while the man is blamed, that he needed a miracle, that less than this would not induce him to put his trust in the Lord of life.^[9] And so he accepts it; for reading no repulse by this word of a seeming, and indeed of a real, severity, he only urges his suit the more earnestly, “Sir, come down, ^[10] ere my child die; “—still, it is true, he links help to the bodily presence of the Lord; is still far off from his faith and humility who said, “Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldest come under my roof; but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.” Much less does he dream of a power that could raise the dead; “Come down, ere my child die;” Christ might heal his sick; he does not dream of Him as one who could raise his dead. A faith so weak must be strengthened, and can only be strengthened through being proved. Such a gracious purpose of at once proving and strengthening it we trace in the Lord’s dealing with the man which follows. He does not come down with him, as he had prayed; but sends him away with a mere word of assurance that it should go Well with his child: “Go thy way; thy son liveth.” And the nobleman was contented with that assurance; he “believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way” expecting to find that it should be done according to that word. The miracle was a double one—on the body of the absent child; on the heart of the present father; one cured of his sickness, the other of his unbelief. A comparison of the Lord’s dealing with this man and with the centurion of the other Gospels is instructive. He has not men’s persons in admiration, who will not come, but only sends to the son of this nobleman (cf. 2Ki 5:10-11), Himself visiting the servant of that centurion.^[11]. And there is more in the matter than this. Here, being entreated to come, He does not; but sends his healing word; there, being asked to speak at a distance that word of healing, He rather proposes Himself to come; for here, as Chrysostom explains it well, a narrow and poor faith is enlarged and deepened, there a strong faith is crowned and rewarded. By not going He increases this nobleman’s faith; by offering to go He brings out and honours that centurion’s humility.

“And as he was now going down, his servants met him, saying, Thy son liveth.” Though faith had not struck its roots quickly in his soul, it would appear to have struck them strongly at last. His confidence in Christ’s word was so great, that he proceeded leisurely homewards: it was not till the next day that he approached his house, though the distance between the two cities was not so great that the journey need have occupied many hours; “he that believeth shall not make haste. ““Then inquired he of them the hour when he began to amend”^[12] to be a little better; for at the height of his faith the father had looked only for a slow and gradual amendment. “And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him” It was not merely, they would imply, that at the hour they name there was a turning point in the disorder, and the violence of the fever abated; but it, left^[13] and forsook him^[14] altogether. “So the father knew that it was at the same hour in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: ^[15] and himself believed and his whole house.” This he did for all the benefits which the Lord had bestowed on him, he accepted another and the crowning benefit, even the cup of salvation; and not he alone; but, as so often happened, his conversion drew after that of all who belonged to him; for by consequences such as these God will bring us into a consciousness of the manner in which not merely the great community of mankind, but each smaller community, a nation, or as in this case a family, is united and bound together under its federal head, shares in his good or in his evil (cf. Acts 16:15; Acts 16:34; Acts 18:8§). But did he not believe before? Was not this healing itself a gracious reward of his faith? Yes, he believed that particular word of the Lord’s; but this is something more, of faith, the entering into the number of Christ’s disciples, the giving of himself to Him as to the promised Messiah. Or, admitting that he already truly believed, there may be indicated here a heightening and augmenting of his faith. For faith may be true, and yet most capable of this increase. In him who cried, “Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief (Mark 9:24), faith was indeed born, though as yet its actings were weak and feeble. After and in consequence of the first miracle of the water made wine, Christ’s “disciples believed on Him” (John 2:11), who yet, being disciples, must have believed on Him already.^[16] Apostles themselves exclaim, “Lord, increase our faith” (Luk 17:5). The Israelites of old, who followed Moses through the Red Sea, must have already believed that he was the instrument of God for their deliverance; yet of them it is written after the great overthrow of Pharaoh and his host, that they “believed the Lord, and his servant Moses” (Exo 14:31). Compare 1Ki 17:24, where, after the mighty work which Elijah did, raising the widow’s son, she addresses him thus: “Now by this I know thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth.”^[17] Knowing him for such before (ver. 18), she now received a new confirmation of her faith (cf. John 11:15; John 13:19); and so we may accept it here. Whether, then, we understand that faith was first born in him now, or, being born already, received now a notable increase, it is plain from either result that the Lord by those words of his, “Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe, ^[18] could not have intended to cast any slight on miracles, as a mean whereby men may be brought to the truth; or having been brought to it, are more strongly established and confirmed in the same.

Before leaving this miracle, there is one question which will claim a brief discussion, namely, whether this is the same history as that of the servant (παῖς) of the centurion, related by St. Matthew (viii. 5) and St. Luke (vii. 2), and here repeated with only immaterial variations. It would almost seem as if Irenaeus^[19] had thought so; and there were certainly those in the time of Chrysostom who identified the two miracles. Not, however, Chrysostom himself, who properly rejects this rolling up of the two narratives into one. There is nothing to warrant it, almost nothing to render it in the least plausible. Not merely the external circumstances are widely different; the scene of that miracle being Capernaum, of this Cana; the centurion there a heathen, the nobleman here a Jew (for had he been other, it could not have past unnoticed); that suppliant pleading for his servant, this for his son; there by others, in person here; the sickness there a paralysis, a fever here; but more decisive than all this, the heart and inner kernel’ of the two narratives is different. That centurion is an example of a strong faith, this nobleman of a weak faith; that centurion counts that if Jesus will but speak the word, his servant will be healed, while this nobleman is so earnest that the Lord should come down, because in heart he limits his power, and counts that nothing but his actual presence will avail to help his sick; that other is praised, this rebuked of the Lord. So striking indeed are these differences, that Augustine^[20] not without good reason compares, but for the purpose of contrasting, the faith of that centurion and the unbelief of this nobleman. Against all this, the points of likeness, and suggesting identity, are very slight and superficial; as the near death of the sufferer, the healing at a distance and by a word, and the returning and finding the sick well. It is nothing strange that two miracles should have such circumstances as these in common.

Footnotes [1] Ἐδέξαντο = benevole et honorifice exceperunt; so often elsewhere.

[2] Πατρίς, cf. Mat 13:54; Mat 13:57; Mark 6:1; Mark 6:4; Luk 4:16. Chrysostom (Horn. xxxv. in Joh.) has this right view of the meaning, with the exception, indeed, of understanding by “his own country,” Capernaum (Luk 10:15) rather than Nazareth; ἐμαρτύρησε will then have a pluperfect sense, as so often in the N. T.

[3] There is another view of the passage possible, namely, that St. John, recording (ver. 43) Christ’s return to Galilee, is explaining why He should have first left it (ver. 44), and why He should have returned to it now (ver. 45). He left it, because, as He had Himself testified (ἐμαρτύρησε, a first aorist for a pluperfect), a prophet is unhonoured in Ms own country; but He returned to it now, because his countrymen, the Galilaeans, having seen the signs that He did at Jerusalem, were prepared to welcome, and did welcome Him, in quite another spirit from that which they manifested at his first appearance: “so (ver. 46) Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee.” This is Neander’s explanation (Leben Jem, p. 385), and Jacobi’s (Theol. Stud, und Krit., 1836, p, 906).

[4] Lightfoot, Chemnitz, and others.

[5] The precise meaning of βασιλικός here never can be exactly fixed; Chrysostom (Horn. xxxv. in Joh.) can only suggest a meaning; showing that even in his day it was not to be explained by the familiar usage of them with whom Greek was a living language. Three meanings have been offered,. Either by the βασιλικός is meant one of those that were of the king’s party, a royalist, in which case the term would be much the same as Herodian, designating one of those that sided with the faction of the Herods, father and son, and helped to maintain them on the throne (Lightfoot); or, with something of a narrower signification, the βασιλικός may be one especially attached to the court, aulicus, or as Jerome (In Esai. lxv.) calls this man palatinus (Regulus qui Greece dicitur βασιλικός, quern nos de aulâ regiâ rectius interpretari possumus palatinum); thus in the margin of our Bibles it is “courtier;” or else, though this seems here the least probable supposition, βασιλικός may mean one of royal blood; so in Lucian the word is four times applied to those who are actually kings, or are related to them. Perhaps no better term could be found than “nobleman,” which has something of the doubtfulness of the original expression, and while it does not require, yet does not deny, that he was of royal blood.

[6] Augustine (In Ev. Joh. tract, xvi.) is disposed to take a still more unfavourable estimate of the moral condition of this suppliant, to class him with those who asked of the Lord a sign, tempting Him: Arguit hominem in fide tepidum aut frigidum, aut omnino nullius fidei: sed tentare cupientem de sanitate filii sui, qualis esset Christus, quis esset, quantum posset. Verba enim rogantis audivimus, cor diffidentis non videmus; sed ille pronuntiavit, qui et verba audivit, et cor inspexit. Yet the earnestness of the man’s rejoinder, “Sir, come down ere my son die,” is very unlike this; nor would such have carried away a blessing at the last.

[7] Gregory the Great (In Ev. Horn, xxviii.): Minus itaque in ilium credidit, quem non putavit posse salutem dare, nisi praesens esset in corpore.

[8] Bengel will have this to be the especial point of the whole answer, laying the entire emphasis thus: “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe:” Innuit Jesus se etiam absenti reguli filio posse vitam dare; et postulat ut regulus id credat, neque profectionem Jesu postulet suscipiendam cum ipso sanationem apud lectulum visuro. Others have done the same: see Köcher, Analecta (in loc).

[9] Simul autem miraculum promittitur, fidesque prius etiam desideratur, et dum desideratur, excitatur. Responsum externâ quâdam repulsae specie et tacitâ opis promissione mixtum, congruit sensui rogantis ex fide et imbecillitate mixto.

[10] Κατάβηθι, Capernaum lying upon the shore, and lower than Cana, where now they were.

[11] Thus the Opus Imperf. in Matt. Horn. xxii.: Ilium ergo contemsit, quem dignitas sublevabat regalis; istum autem honoravit, quern conditio humiliabat servilis.

[12] Κομψότερον ἔσχε = meliuscule se habuit. Κομψός from κομέω,—so in Latin, comptus, for adorned in any way. Thus in Arrian (Diss. Epict. iii. 10) κομψῶς ἔχεις = belle habes (Cicero) are the words of the physician to his patient that is getting better.

[13] Ammonius (in Catena): Οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς, οὐδὲ ὡς ἔτυχεν, ἀπηλλάγη τῆς ἀσθενείας τὸ παιδίον, ἀλλ̓ ἀθρόον, ὡς φαίνεσθαι μὴ φύσεως ἀκολουθιαν εἶναι τὸ θαῦμα, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

[14] So it was plainly in the case of Simon’s wife’s mother; for at Christ’s word, “immediately she arose and ministered unto them” (Luk 4:39); and there exactly the same phrase (ἀφῆκεν αὐτήν) is used.

[15] A beautiful remark of Bengel’s: Quo curatius divina opera et beneficia considerantur, eo plus nutrimenti fides acquirit.

[16] The Jews have their miracle, evidently founded upon, and in rivalry of, this. Vitringa (De Synag. p. 147) quotes it: Quando aegrotavit filius E. Gamalielis, duos misit studiosos sapientiae ad R. Chanina, Dusae filium, ut per preces pro eo gratiam divinam implorarent. Postquam eos vidit, ascendit in coenaculum suum, Deumque pro eo oravit. Ubi vero descendit, dixit, Abite, quia febris ilium jam dereliquit.... Illi vero considentes, signate annotârunt illam horam, et quando reversi sunt ad R. Gamalielem, dixit ipsis, Per cultum! Nec excessu nec defectu temporis peccâstis, sed sic prorsus factum: eâ enim ipsa horâ dereliquit ipsum febris, et petiit a nobis aquam potandam.Cf. Lampe, Com. in Joh. vol. i. p. 813.

[17] Beda: Unde datur intelligi et in fide gradus esse, sicut et in aliis virtutibus, quibus est initium, incrementum, et perfectio. Hujus ergo fides initium. habuit, cum filii salutem petiit: incrementum, cum credidit sermoni Domini dicentis, Filius tuus vivit; deinde perfectionem obtinuit, nuntiantibus servis.

[18] This passage and Mat 12:38-40; Mat 16:1-4, are favourites with those who deny that Christ laid any special stress on his miracles, as proving his divine mission and authority. Those others have been stretched into proofs that He did not even claim to do any. Thus by the modern rationalists, though the abuse of the passage is as old as Aquinas, who takes note of and rebukes it. But our Lord’s words there have no such meaning; He does not deny value of miracles, nor say that He will do none; but only that He will do none for them, for an evil and adulterous generation, which is seeking, not after helps and confirmations of faith, but excuses and subterfuges for unbelief. These works of grace and power are reserved for those who, are receptive of impressions from them. They are seals which are to seal softened hearts; hearts utterly cold and hard would take no impression from them, and therefore shall not be tried with them.

[19] Con. Haer. ii. 22: Filium centurionis absens verbo curavit dicens, Vade, filius tuus vivit. Yet centurionis. may well be only a slip of the pen or of the memory. In modern times only Semler, that I know, has held the same opinion.

[20] In Ev. Joli. tract, xvi.: Videte distinctionem. Regulus iste Dominum ad domum suam descendere cupiebat; ille centurio indignum se esse dicebat. Illi dicebatur, Ego veniam, et curabo eum: huic dictum est, Vade, films tuus vivit. Illi praesentiam promittebat, hunc verbo sanabat. Iste tamen prsesentiam ejus extorquebat, ille se praesentiâ ejus indignum esse dicebat. Hie cessum est elationi; illic concessum est humilitati. Cf. Chrysostom, Horn. xxxv. in Joh.