An illustrated commentary on the Gospel according to St. John
Date: 2025-03-06T00:00:00+00:00

The Project Gutenberg eBook of An illustrated commentary on the Gospel according to St. John

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: An illustrated commentary on the Gospel according to St. John

Author: Lyman Abbott

Release date: March 6, 2025 [eBook #75543]

Language: English

Original publication: New York: A. S. Barnes & Company, 1879

Credits: Carol Brown, Richard Hulse and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN ILLUSTRATED COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN ***

AN

Illustrated Commentary

ON

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST. JOHN.

FOR FAMILY USE AND REFERENCE, AND FOR THE GREAT BODY OF CHRISTIAN WORKERS OF ALL DENOMINATIONS.

By LYMAN ABBOTT, D.D.,

AUTHOR OF A SERIES OF COMMENTARIES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.

A. S. BARNES & COMPANY,

NEW YORK, CHICAGO, AND NEW ORLEANS.

1879.

BY THE EDITOR OF THIS WORK.

A POPULAR COMMENTARY
ON THE
NEW TESTAMENT;

WITH MAPS, ILLUSTRATIONS, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, A CONDENSED LIFE OF CHRIST AND A TABULAR HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS, CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE AND GAZETTEER.

IN TWO SIZES.

FIRST SERIES. FOUR VOLUMES. LARGE 8vo.

Very sumptuously printed and bound, on toned paper with wide margin.

Volume | I. | MATTHEW AND MARK.
“ | II. | LUKE AND JOHN.

(THE REMAINING VOLUMES OF THIS SERIES IN PREPARATION.)

SECOND SERIES. EIGHT VOLUMES. 8vo.

A handy edition for Christian workers.

Volume | I. | MATTHEW.
“ | II. | MARK AND LUKE.
“ | III. | JOHN.
“ | IV. | THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

(THE REMAINING VOLUMES OF THIS SERIES IN PREPARATION.)

For Sale by Subscription. Persons owning any volume of either Series may obtain the other volumes by addressing the Publishers.

Copyright, 1879, by A. S. Barnes & Co.

TO

JACOB ABBOTT,

WHOSE WRITINGS HAVE INTERPRETED THE GOSPEL TO
INNUMERABLE READERS;
WHOSE LIFE HAS EVEN MORE ILLUSTRIOUSLY MANIFESTED ITS SPIRIT
TO ALL WHO HAVE KNOWN HIM;
AND WHO, BOTH BY EXAMPLE AND PRECEPT, HAS TAUGHT
HIS CHILDREN TO VALUE THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST ABOVE ALL FORMS,
AND CHRIST HIMSELF ABOVE ALL CREEDS,
THIS EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL
IS AFFECTIONATELY AND REVERENTLY DEDICATED BY
HIS SON.

PREFACE

TO ALL THE VOLUMES OF THIS SERIES OF COMMENTARIES.

The object of this Commentary is to aid in their Christian work those who are endeavoring to promote the knowledge of the principles which Jesus Christ came to propound and establish—clergymen, Christian parents, Sunday-School teachers, Bible-women, lay-preachers. Intended for Christian workers, it aims to give the results rather than the processes of scholarship, the conclusions rather than the controversies of scholars; intended for laymen as well as for clergymen, it accompanies the English version of the New Testament, in all references to the original Greek gives the English equivalent, and translates all quotations from the French, German, Latin and Greek authors.

The introduction to Volume I contains a statement of those principles of interpretation which appear to me to be essential to the correct understanding of the Word of God. This Commentary is the result of a conscientious endeavor to apply those principles to the elucidation of the New Testament.

It is founded on a careful examination of the latest and best text; such variations as are of practical or doctrinal importance are indicated in the notes. It is founded on the original Greek; wherever that is inadequately rendered in our English version, a new translation is afforded by the notes. The general purpose of the writer or speaker, and the general scope of the incident or teaching, is indicated in a Preliminary Note to the passage, or in an analysis, a paraphrase, or a general summary at the close. Special topics are treated in preliminary or supplementary notes. The results of recent researches in Biblical archæology have been embodied, so as to make the Commentary serve in part the purpose of a Bible Dictionary. A free use is made of illustrations, from antiques, photographs, original drawings, and other trustworthy sources. They are never employed for mere ornament, but always to aid in depicting the life of Palestine, which remains in many respects substantially unchanged by the lapse of time. Since the Commentary is prepared, not for devotional reading, but for practical workers, little space has been devoted to hortatory remarks or practical or spiritual reflections. But I have uniformly sought to interpret the letter by the spirit, and to suggest rather than to supply moral and spiritual reflections, a paragraph of hints is affixed to each section or topic, embodying what appears to me to be the essential religious lessons of the incident or the teaching; sometimes a note is appended elucidating them more fully. The best thoughts of the best thinkers, both exegetical and homiletical, are freely quoted, especially such as are not likely to be accessible to most American readers; in all such cases the thought is credited to the author. Parallel and contrasted passages of Scripture are brought together in the notes; in addition, full Scripture references are appended to the text. These are taken substantially from Bagster’s large edition of the English version of the Polyglot Bible, but they have been carefully examined and verified in preparing for the press, and some modifications have been made. For the convenience of that large class of Christian workers who are limited in their means, I have endeavored to make this Commentary, as far as practicable, a complete apparatus for the study of the New Testament. When finished it will be fully furnished with maps;—there are four in this volume; a Gazetteer gives a condensed account of all the principal places in Palestine, mentioned in our Lord’s life; and an introduction traces the history of the New Testament from the days of Christ to the present, giving some account of the evidence and nature of inspiration, the growth of the canon, the character and history of the manuscripts, the English version, the nature of the Gospels and their relation to each other, a brief life of Christ, and a complete tabular harmony of the four Gospels.

The want of all who use the Bible in Christian work is the same. The wish is often for a demonstration that the Scripture sustains the reader’s peculiar theological tenets, but the want is always for a clearer and better knowledge of Scripture teaching, whether it sanctions or overturns previous opinions. I am not conscious that this work is written in the interest of any theological or ecclesiastical system. In those cases in which the best scholars are disagreed in their interpretation, the different views and the reasons which lead me to my own conclusions have been given, I trust, in no controversial spirit. For the sole object of this work is to ascertain and make clear the meaning of the Word of God, irrespective of systems, whether ecclesiastical or doctrinal.

No work is more delightful than that which throws us into fellowship with great minds; of all work the most delightful is that which brings us into association with the mind of God. This is the fellowship to which the student of the Bible aspires. I can have for those who use this work no higher hope than that they may find in its employment some of the happiness which I have found in its preparation, and that it may serve them as it has served me, as a guide to the Word of God, and through that Word to a better acquaintance with God himself.

Cornwall-on-Hudson, May, 1875. LYMAN ABBOTT.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.

Page
Introduction | 3
Supplementary Notes—
On the Introduction to John’s Gospel | 13
The Incarnation | 21
The Lamb of God | 24
Christ’s Example in the Use of Wine | 32
Christ as a Conversationalist | 58
Christ’s Discourse on the Bread of Life | 83
The Woman Taken in Adultery | 105
The Parable of the Sheepfold | 125
The Resurrection of Lazarus | 135, 145
The Anointing of Jesus | 150
The Lord’s Supper | 162
Christ’s Last Discourse with his Disciples | 171
The Parable of the Vine | 185
Christ’s Intercessory Prayer | 201
The Character of Pontius Pilate | 221
The Character of John’s Gospel | 240

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Most of the engravings in this volume have been drawn and engraved expressly for this work; some from original sketches by Mr. A. L. Rawson, others from careful study from the best accessible authorities, by Mr. R. F. Zogbaum.

Page
Cana of Galilee | 29
An Oriental Wedding | 29
Water-pots and Ewers | 31
Substructures of the Temple | 34
Plan and Section of the Temple | 36
The Expulsion of the Traders | 36
Eastern Money-changer | 37
A Modern Jewish Rabbi | 41
Traditional Site of Enon | 48
Jacob’s Well | 52
Jesus at the Well | 54
Samaritan Remains in Gerizim | 60
Church over the Pool of Bethesda | 63
Bethsaida | 77
Tiberias | 85
Booth on the Housetop | 96
Officers of the Chief Priest | 104
The Mount of Olives | 107
The Woman and her Accusers | 108
An Eastern Sheepfold | 126
Fell at His Feet | 142
Resurrection of Lazarus | 146
Bethany | 151
Anointing of the Feet | 152
Ancient Money-bag | 153
Washing of Feet | 163
Dipping the Sop | 168
Torches | 212
Ancient Fire Utensils | 214
Denials of Peter | 215
Jesus before Pilate | 217
Roman Judgment-seat | 221
He Girt his Fisher’s Coat unto him | 235
Ancient Bread | 236

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

INTRODUCTION.

From the beginning of the third century to near the close of the seventeenth, the Fourth Gospel was by a common and substantially a unanimous consent attributed to the Apostle John. This authorship was then questioned, at first by an English critic by the name of Evanson. The discussion was soon transferred to Germany, where it waxed warm, and whence it was again transferred to England and this country.[1] It may now be regarded as the most hotly contested question in biblical criticism. The controversy has been intensified by prejudices and feeling on both sides. It is indeed impossible to discuss it with cool indifference, as a mere matter of curious literary interest. If this Gospel was written by the Apostle John, we have the testimony of an undoubted eye-witness—not his conclusions but his account of facts in respect to which he could not well be deceived—certainly not, unless we are prepared to believe that Jesus was himself a deliberate deceiver; testimony of an eye-witness whose honesty not even the most resolute skepticism would or could well call in question. This testimony would establish beyond question such facts as the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, the healing of the man born blind, the resurrection of Lazarus, and the death and resurrection of Jesus himself. In other words, it would establish beyond the possibility of reasonable question, the truth of historical Christianity. Accordingly, Renan, who to a certain extent accepts the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, is compelled to maintain that the pretended resurrection of Lazarus was a pious fraud to which Jesus lent himself because it was necessary to the success of his mission, and because his growing religious enthusiasm justified to his conscience this means, for the sake of the end to be accomplished by it. Moreover, we have in this Gospel a report of words of Jesus, which leave to us no alternative but to accept him as in a peculiar sense the Son of God, or to regard him either as a religious impostor or a religious enthusiast. The synoptics leave some opportunity for discussion as to the place which Jesus assumed to fill. The Fourth Gospel does not. Thus the question of the authorship of this Gospel is not merely a question in literary criticism, but even more one respecting the nature of Christianity. Accordingly we find, on the one hand, the advocates of its apostolic authorship more or less resting their belief upon the inherent beauty of the book, and the opponents more or less declaring the true ground of their opposition to it, viz., that it presents what they call a mythological view of Jesus, and a dogmatic view of his teachings; in other words, that it presents Jesus distinctively as the incarnate Son of God, and represents the central truth in his teaching to have been the necessity of faith in him. Both these aspects of truth are indeed presented in the other Gospels, but not with the same clearness, nor with the same prominence, as in the Fourth Gospel. Hence the latter is assailed with peculiar vigor by the opponents of evangelical Christianity, and is, for the same reason, maintained with equal vigor by evangelical believers. It does not come within the province of this work to enter into the details of this controversy. To give the arguments, pro and con, would require a treatise, and for a consideration of them the reader is of necessity referred to the various works which have been written on this subject. The student will find the most vigorous assault on the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel in the second volume of “Supernatural Religion,” which, however, must be read with considerable allowance for a scholarship evidently warped by determined prejudices, and which is certainly one-sided, if not absolutely false in many particulars. Among the many defences of the authenticity of the Gospel, I have found nothing more comprehensive or satisfactory than that contained in the first volume of Godet’s Commentary on John. With this, however, may be advantageously compared Luthardt’s “St. John, the Author of the Fourth Gospel,” Prof. Fisher’s “Supernatural Origin of Christianity,” and the introductions to the commentaries, especially those of Luthardt, Lange, Alford, Meyer and Tholuck. Here I propose merely to set before the reader briefly a compact statement of the more important facts in the case, confining myself mainly to those that are undisputed—facts which led the world for fifteen centuries to attribute the Fourth Gospel to John without a doubt, and which on a more careful examination have led the great majority of scholars to adhere to that conclusion.

The Apostle John. The Apostle John was probably a native, certainly a resident, of Galilee. His mother, Salome,[2] early became a follower of Jesus. She was probably one of the women of Galilee who accompanied him on his missionary tours, and ministered to him of their substance.[3] She was with him on his last journey to Jerusalem, and during the passion week, and was one of those women who were last at the cross and first at the sepulchre.[4] Like the other followers of Jesus, she anticipated the establishment of a temporal kingdom, was ambitious for her sons James and John, and made an application for special favors for them when the kingdom should be established. From a comparison of Matt. 27:56 with John 19:25, it would appear that she was own sister to the Virgin Mary, in which case John was own cousin to Jesus. This opinion is not accepted by all critics, but I believe it to be the correct one. See note on John 19:25. John’s father, Zebedee, was a well-to-do fisherman on the shores of the sea of Galilee. Of him we know very little. He was sufficiently prosperous to own several boats and to hire men to work for him. Tradition makes him of noble birth; and this tradition is perhaps confirmed by the fact that John had some acquaintance with the high-priest.

John has been characterized by those critics who wish to make out that his character is inconsistent with the idea of his authorship of the Fourth Gospel, as ignorant and unlettered, on the authority of Acts 4:13, and as a vehement and bigoted Jew on the authority of Galatians, chap. II, and of the peculiar Hebraic tone of the Book of Revelation. Both characterizations are quite gratuitous assumptions. In connection with every Jewish synagogue was a parochial school, in which the pupils were taught reading, writing, and the rudiments of such natural sciences as were then in existence. The Jewish children of the common people were far better educated than those of Greece or Rome. There is every reason to believe that John received this common education of the age and community in which he lived, and there is absolutely no reason whatever to suppose the contrary. It was only by the Pharisees that John was considered as ignorant and unlettered, and they affixed the same stigma upon Jesus himself.[5] To the Pharisees the only learning worth the name was learning in the traditional lore of the church. Of this the Galilean fisherman was ignorant. In the eyes of a Pharisee of Jerusalem, Plato himself would have been ignorant and unlearned. As little reason is there to believe that John was a vehement and bigoted Jew. There is not the slightest evidence that John was among the Judaizing Christians to whom Paul so frequently refers, and whom throughout his life he combated. With one exception, Judas Iscariot, all the twelve were taken from Galilee. This province of Palestine was innocent of that formalism and narrowness which characterized the southern province of Judea. The people had lived in amicable relations with their heathen neighbors, and had intermarried with them ever since the days of the treaty of amity between Solomon and the King of Tyre.[6] The line of commerce between Damascus and the Mediterranean lay directly across this province. Mineral springs of real or fancied value near the southern coast of the Sea of Gennesaret made it the summer resort of the wealthy Romans of the entire land. Thus history and location, commerce and social relations, combined to make the inhabitants of Galilee indifferent to the rigid formalism of the Judeans, and comparatively free from their narrow race and religious prejudices. Indeed, the two assertions that John was ignorant and unlearned, and at the same time a narrow and bigoted Jew, contradict each other. Jewish bigotry and reverence for the traditional lore of the Jewish church always went together.

The important facts in the history of John, so far as known, are few and soon told. John the Baptist was second cousin of Jesus, and John the Apostle was probably, as we have seen, his own cousin. The two Johns were, therefore, probably acquainted. At all events, when the Baptist began preaching the gospel of repentance for the remission of sins, the Apostle was among his disciples; and when the Baptist pointed out Jesus as the one whom God had indicated to him as the promised Messiah, John was among the first to leave the old teacher to follow the new one. This was, however, a temporary following only. We next meet him fishing with his father at the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus finds him and his brother, and calls them to become permanent followers of him. This summons, without hesitation or delay, they obey. From this time onward John is the constant companion of Jesus. With Peter and James he belongs to an inner circle of friends: the three are selected to be the sole witnesses of the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter; they alone go up into the Mount of Transfiguration, and witness his glory there; they alone accompany him to the Garden of Gethsemane, and are invited to be the sharers of his sorrow there; when the arrest takes place, and all the disciples forsake their Master and flee, John and Peter turn back and follow him to the scene of his trial, and the former, with a courage for which few critics give him credit, goes without concealment, as a disciple, openly, into the house of Caiaphas, follows the Master to the trial before Pilate, and when the sentence of crucifixion is pronounced, accompanies the procession to the place of execution, to remain by the cross till all is over. When the news of the resurrection is brought to the disciples, he and Peter are the first to reach the sepulchre. In the subsequent history of the Church, as recorded in the book of Acts, he does not take a prominent part. To him was committed the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and probably this sacred charge prevented him from quitting Palestine while she lived.[7]

For the subsequent history of John we are dependent on tradition. This is, however, in his case, less uncertain than in many other cases. As Christianity spread over the heathen world, Jerusalem ceased to be the centre of Christian operations; but, while the Roman Empire continued pagan and persecuting, Rome could not take the place of Jerusalem, as subsequently it did. Hence, for the first century, Asia Minor was the great field of missionary work, and Ephesus, which was the scene of Paul’s greatest triumphs and most successful labors,[8] became the centre of the Christian church. Here John became settled in his later life. From this point he seems to have exercised an apostolic supervision over the churches of all Asia Minor. The few traditional stories of his old age accord with what the Gospels indicate of his character. When he could no longer preach, it is said that he was accustomed to be carried into the church, and to repeat from the pulpit as the sum and substance of Christian doctrine, “Little children, love one another!” He was banished to the island of Patmos, where, according to the book of Revelation, he witnessed the vision therein recorded. He subsequently returned to Ephesus, where it is probable he died at an extremely advanced age—not much, if any, less than a hundred years old.

The character of John has been strangely misconceived. He is with reason identified with the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved,” and who at the Last Supper rested his head on Jesus’ bosom; the Epistles attributed to him breathe a spirit of love; the Gospel attributed to him is of all the Gospels the most spiritual in its tone. From these premises, the character of John has been constructed; it has been supposed that he was by nature peculiarly tender, gentle, loving, and spiritually-minded; that his was a woman’s character. He is so portrayed in art, and to some extent in literature; and the special friendship which Christ has been supposed to have entertained for him is attributed to a character by nature peculiarly loveable.

There are, however, other considerations which any such view totally ignores. James and John were by Jesus called Boanerges, “the sons of thunder;” it was John who prohibited a strange disciple from casting out devils in Jesus’ name, because he followed not the Twelve; it was John who desired to call down fire from Heaven upon the Samaritan village which refused to entertain his Master; it was James and John who, with their mother, applied secretly to Jesus for the highest offices for themselves in his anticipated kingdom; it was John who followed Jesus into the courtyard of the high-priest, when all the other disciples forsook him and fled; John who stood with the Galilean women near the cross at the time of the crucifixion; John who with Peter defied the edict of the Sanhedrim after the death of Jesus, prohibiting them from teaching or speaking in his name.[9] These are not the acts of one whose nature was characteristically timid, gentle, or spiritually-minded. By nature John was ardent, courageous, impetuous, and not more broad-minded or spiritually-minded than his co-disciples. Indications of these traits are not wanting, as we shall presently see, in the Gospel and the Epistles which bear his name.

But he was of all the Twelve the most receptive. When Christ foretold his passion, Peter remonstrated with him. When Jesus spoke of the heavenly mansions and of his departure to prepare a place therein for his disciples, Thomas expressed his doubt and his perplexity by the question, “We know not whither thou goest, and how can we know the way?” When Jesus pointed to himself as the manifestation of the Father, Philip, dissatisfied, asked for a direct revelation of the Father. When Jesus promised to his disciples a spiritual manifestation of himself, Judas (not Iscariot), after the manner of modern theology, desired to have that manifestation explained to him before he could accept the truth. When Jesus rebuked Judas Iscariot for complaining of Mary’s act in anointing her Lord, Judas was angered.[10] But we look in vain in the Gospels for any instance in which John expressed any rebuke of Christ, or any opposition to him, or any doubt of his teaching, or demanded any other evidence of its truth than the simple word of his Lord. Of all the disciples the most receptive, he was the one whose character underwent the greatest and most radical change. The John that we know is the John transformed by the renewing influence of the spirit of Christ; he is the John that is a new creature in Christ Jesus. He was, I believe, the beloved disciple, because he was the one in whom the love of Christ had the freest course and wrought the fullest and the largest results. This simple fact must be borne in mind in considering the question of the internal evidences for and against the Johannine authorship of the Gospel.

The external evidence. Those who expect to find a demonstration of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel in the external evidences, will be disappointed. The literature of the first three centuries does not afford a demonstration of authorship of any ancient book. But the authorship of John’s Gospel I believe to be as well established, on a fair consideration of all the evidence, external and internal, as that of any work of the same era.

It is not questioned by any one that at the beginning of the third century the Fourth Gospel was in general use in the churches, and universally recognized as written by the Apostle John. Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, are among those who bear testimony to this fact. The Fourth Gospel is recognized as John’s composition in the canon of Muratori, A. D. 175; and by Irenæus, who died about 202, and who was a pupil of Polycarp, himself a pupil of John. References to sayings of Jesus reported only by John are also found in the writings of Tatian, A. D. 170, Justin Martyr, A. D. 120-160, and the various Gnostic writers of the second century. These references do not conclusively prove the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, for these earliest writers are not accustomed to give the names of authors from whom they quote; but they do conclusively prove that as early as the first part of the second century, sayings of Christ, found only in the Fourth Gospel, were attributed by the Church to Jesus. The best report of these quotations which I have seen is to be found in the second volume of “Supernatural Religion,” and they are there the more effective because the author in vain endeavors to break their force, by what most readers will consider an ingenious but ineffective special pleading. Let the reader compare these quotations with the parallel passages in the Fourth Gospel; he will not doubt that the later writers borrowed from the earlier one. The only alternative is the irrational hypothesis that both borrowed from the same source and one generally recognized in the primitive Church; in other words, that there was a Gospel containing the same matter that is now found in the Fourth Gospel, but that it has so entirely disappeared that no tradition even of its existence has survived, and that in its place a forgery has been palmed off upon the Church so successfully, that in the beginning of the third century it was universally accepted as the original work of the Apostle whose name it has ever since borne.

Space does not allow me to give in detail these quotations, which are numerous; it would be still more out of the province of this introduction to enter into the arguments by which the rationalistic writers endeavor to reconcile these quotations with their hypotheses. I can but briefly indicate a few of them, referring the student to the larger works for the examination in detail of the parallelism between these early ecclesiastical writers and the Fourth Gospel. Justin Martyr thus refers to the testimony of John the Baptist: “I am not the Christ ... for he cometh who is stronger than I, whose shoes I am not meet to bear” (comp. John 1:19-27). He cites Christ as saying, “Unless ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,” and adds the comment, “Now that it is impossible for those who have been born to go into the matrices of the mother is evident to all” (comp. John 3:3-5). Tatian refers to the sayings, “The darkness comprehends not the light” (comp. John 1:5), and “All things were by him, and without him was not anything made” (comp. John 1:5, 3). Hegessippus (A. D. 125) refers to “that which is spoken in the Gospels, ‘That was the true light which lighteth every man who cometh into the world’” (comp. John 1:9). In the writings of the Naaseni and Peratæ, Gnostic sects of the beginning of the second century, we have several unmistakable references to sayings that are peculiar to the Fourth Gospel. “I am the door,” (comp. John 10:7); “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son be lifted up,” (comp. John 3:14); “If thou hadst known who it is that asketh thee, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water, springing up,” (comp. John 4:10); “The Saviour hath said, ‘That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,’” (comp. John 3:6); “Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,” (comp. John 6:53). These are by no means all the citations from the writers of the first two centuries which appear to have been taken from the Fourth Gospel, but they will suffice to give the reader an idea of the nature of the evidence which is regarded by most Christian writers, and by some rationalistic critics—Matthew Arnold, for example—as establishing the fact that the Fourth Gospel was in existence and recognized as an authority in the Church in the beginning of the second century. If this is the fact, it is reasonably certain that it was the work of the Apostle

John, since if it had been written by any one else as early as that date, that is, during the lifetime of some of the contemporaries of John, the forgery would certainly have been detected.

The internal evidence. The facts indicated above are not questioned by any critic. But though from the beginning of the third century to the close of the eighteenth, the Fourth Gospel was unanimously attributed to the Apostle John, it is maintained by those critics who deny the Johannine authorship that a fair consideration of the external evidence now extant, leaves it uncertain whether the unanimous opinion of the Church in the first century was correct, and that the internal evidence, i. e., the character of the Gospel itself, when contrasted (1) with the other Gospels, (2) with the known character of John, (3) with the other writings attributed to him, makes it certain that he was not the author.

Unquestionably the Fourth Gospel presents very different matter and a very different aspect of Christ’s life and character from that presented by the other three Gospels. The three Gospels give an impression almost exclusively Galilean; the Fourth Gospel narrates almost exclusively a ministry in Judea; the three Gospels indicate one which might have been completed in a single year; the fourth indicates three years as the duration of Christ’s ministry; the three Gospels report chiefly Christ’s ethical discourses; the fourth reports chiefly his doctrinal discourses; love to men’s neighbor is the predominate theme in the three Gospels; faith in a divine Saviour is the predominate theme in the fourth; the three Gospels portray the work of Jesus Christ; the fourth portrays his person and character; the three Gospels repeat the same incidents and instructions in slightly different language; the fourth repeats scarcely anything found in the other three; and when, as in its account of the feeding of the five thousand, it does repeat, the manifest object of the repetition is to introduce a report of a discourse of Jesus omitted in the other narratives.

It is also true that there is a marked difference between the style of John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelations. This difference is so considerable that it is vigorously maintained that the same author could not have written both books. “The difference,” says Lucke, “between the language, way of expression and mode of thought and doctrine of the Apocalypse and the rest of the Johannine writings is so comprehensive and intense, so individual and even so radical; the affinity and agreement on the contrary either so general, or in detail so fragmentary and uncertain, that the Apostle John, if he really is the author of the Gospel and of the Epistles—which we here advance—cannot have composed the Apocalypse either before or after the Gospel and the Epistles.” This difference is of two kinds, a difference both of style and of spirit. The language of the Apocalypse is comparatively harsh and Hebraic, that of the Gospel a comparatively fine and flowing Greek. The author of the Apocalypse, it is claimed, is an intense Jew, whose imagery is borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures, and whose object is the exaltation of the Jewish people; who narrates the outpoured punishment of God on the enemies of God’s chosen people, and whose celestial capital of the kingdom without end is the new Jerusalem. The author of the Fourth Gospel, it is claimed, could not have been a Jew or of Jewish extraction; he makes no attempt to conceal his enmity of the Jews; he stigmatizes them as the enemies of Christ, and as the children of the devil;[11] and he writes of them and of their customs as no Jew would or could have written of the customs of his own people.[12]

It is not my purpose here to enter upon a discussion of these objections. It must suffice to say that they are founded on a false conception of the character of John and a false assumption that what John was when he first met Jesus by the banks of the Jordan, that he was after a life-time spent as a disciple, learning of him and undergoing that transformation of character which has been the peculiar and glorious fruitage of Christ’s husbandry. Instead of entering into such a discussion, I shall ask the reader to consider briefly what are some of the more notable characteristics of the Fourth Gospel, and what would be the conclusion as to its authorship from an independent and original examination of its pages.

Imagine then that we have just discovered this ancient manuscript, a manuscript which unquestionably dates from the beginning of the third century, probably from a still earlier period, and which we have abundant evidence was then unanimously attributed to the Apostle John. We enter upon its examination that we may form for ourselves a judgment who its real author probably was. In this examination there are three characteristics which force themselves upon our attention as predominant: (1) the claims which it presents; (2) its literary character; (3) the indications which it affords as to the personality of its author.

1. Its claims. It assumes to be written by an eye-witness. In his introduction the writer says distinctly of the subject of his biography: “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.” In the Epistle attributed to him, he reiterates this statement even more explicitly. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the word of life ... that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you.” In his account of the crucifixion he emphasizes the fact that he is an eye-witness of the events described. “He that saw it bare record and the record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe.” And yet again in the closing chapter, generally regarded as written subsequent to the rest of the volume, and as supplementary to it, the writer is identified with the unnamed beloved disciple. “This is the disciple who testified of these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.”[13]

In reading the book we constantly come upon indications that the work is by an eye-witness or by one who writes in order to give that impression. No one of the Evangelist’s narratives more abounds with graphic touches, slight but significant, such as indicate the vivid remembrance of one who was not only an eye and ear witness, but also one who treasures up in a remarkably retentive memory incidents which mere tradition would not have preserved. John the Baptist “looks upon Jesus,” and points him out to his disciples, by his peculiar gaze; Jesus “turns” and sees them follow; wearied with the journey he sits “thus on the well;” there is “much grass” where he feeds the five thousand; when Mary anointed Jesus the “house was filled with the odor of the ointment;” when Judas went out to complete the betrayal “it was night;” the night “was cold,” and Peter stands with the servant of the high-priest warming himself at a fire of coals in the court-yard.[14] These may serve as illustrations. Examples the reader will find in great abundance, and references to them in the notes. Of all the Gospels, the Fourth Gospel is the one which reports most fully the private conferences between Jesus and the Twelve, and the only one which reports his “asides” and his personal feelings in explanation of his public acts.[15] These features in the narrative do not prove that it was written by an eye-witness, but they indicate that it was written either by an eye-witness, or by one who desired to produce that impression; either by one of the Twelve or by a deliberate and skilful forger.

2. Its literary character. The differences between this Gospel and the other three which I have already very briefly described, are very considerable. They have led different minds to very different conclusions respecting the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. It is, however, safe to say that they are just such as might be expected if the Fourth Gospel was written after the other three, and by some one familiar with them, or at least with the traditions embodied in them. This Gospel presents precisely the aspect which would be presented by a book written for the purpose of supplementing the accounts already possessed by the primitive churches, and of portraying an aspect of character not adequately portrayed by the earlier writers. It presents, too, exactly that aspect which would be presented by a narrative written after the rapid growth of the Church, and its prophetic incursions into heathenism had given the writer a better conception than his co-disciples possessed of the spiritual character of the new religion. Matthew, Mark, and Luke might perhaps have believed that the privileges of Christianity were to be confined to Jews and Jewish proselytes. Though many of Christ’s words which they report indicate a broader scope, it is by no means clear that they comprehended them. But no one can doubt that the author of John’s Gospel, when he wrote, believed that the atonement of Jesus Christ was for all humanity, his religion for all classes, races, and conditions of mankind. It is the Fourth Gospel which tells us that He was the true Light which lighteth every man which cometh into the world, that God so loved the world that he gave his only beloved Son that whosoever believeth in him should have everlasting life, and that whosoever comes to him he will in no wise cast out; it is the Fourth Gospel which reports Christ’s interview with the woman of Samaria and his subsequent preaching to the Samaritans, which brings out more clearly than either of the others the grounds of Christ’s practical abrogation of the Pharisaic law of the Sabbath, which dwells more than any other Gospel on the spiritual aspects of his kingdom and the divine nature of the king.[16] All this we might expect from one writing after more than half a century of Catholic Christianity had interpreted the nature, mission, and words of Christ to his church.

Let us add that a forger would not have suffered his narrative to stand in such a marked contrast with the previous and recognized narratives already in the possession of the churches. He would have commingled the ethical with the doctrinal, the human with the divine. He would have repeated in a modified form some of the incidents and teachings already reported by the other Evangelists, that he might thus give a color of authenticity to his narrative. The very contrast between the Fourth Gospel and the other three, on which skeptic writers rely to prove its untrustworthiness, is an indication that it cannot be the work of fraud. If that aspect of Christ’s character and teachings reported by John’s Gospel was not recognized by the primitive church as true, or if the author was not himself known in the age in which the narrative was produced, and so known that his simple name was a sufficient guarantee of the accuracy of his narrative, an account so dissimilar from those already in the possession of the churches would have received little credit and no general, certainly no universal, acceptance.

3. Indications of authorship. A further examination of this Gospel gives a definite impression respecting the character of the author. He is evidently thoroughly familiar with Jewish manners and customs. He knows whereof he writes. He has lived in the country and mingled with the people. His knowledge is not that of a student of books, nor that of a mere casual traveler. But he writes for those who are not familiar with Palestine or its social life. He inserts parenthetical explications of Jewish customs. He explains to his Gentile readers the use of the firkins of water at the wedding-feast “for purifying after the manner of the Jews;” the wrapping of the body of Jesus, as the manner of the “Jews is to bury;” the refusal of the Pharisees to enter Pilate’s hall “lest they should be defiled.” The feast of Tabernacles is the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles, the Passover is the Jews’ Passover, and the Preparation for it is the Preparation of the Jews.[17] These references are so incidental as to indicate a writer thoroughly familiar with Jewish life; yet they are so marked as to indicate equally clearly a writer whose readers were not Jews but Gentiles.

The indications are not less clear that the writer, whoever he may have been, was not himself a sharer in Jewish prejudices. Jew he may have been; an intolerant Jew he certainly was not. He is familiar with the Pharisees and with the Pharisaic law, but he has no sympathy with the one and no admiration for the other. We can hardly be mistaken in thinking that his native prejudices are adverse rather than favorable to the inhabitants of Judea. More than any of the other Evangelists his language respecting them indicates his aversion to them. He is the Evangelist who reports the mobs in Jerusalem against Jesus, and the secret counsels for his assassination, and the deliberate judgment of Caiaphas that it is better for the rulers to kill the Galilean Rabbi than to hazard their own offices, and the persistent persecution of Jesus; he it is who with delicate sarcasm stigmatizes Caiaphas as high-priest for “that same year;” the very language which he employs in describing the religious festivals of Judea as “feasts of the Jews,” indicates an author not in sympathy with the religious formalism of Judea; the very phraseology with which he characterizes the reluctance of the Jews to enter into Pilate’s judgment-hall, indicates a writer having little sympathy for the formalism which was never a characteristic of the Galilean Jews, and always was a characteristic of the more intense and bigoted Jews of the Syrian province of Judea.[18]

Nor can we be mistaken in surmising that the author was, by nature and temperament, ardent, impulsive, vehement. The intensity of his nature has been tamed by age, experience or grace, or the three combined; but the indications of his native character crop out in occasional utterances. The records of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are absolutely colorless. They are without epithets. Their simple and artless narrative is left to produce its own impression. This is less true of the Fourth Gospel than of the other three. The intense indignation which the writer feels against Judas Iscariot, he is at no pains to conceal. He it is who reports Jesus as declaring early in his ministry, One of you is a devil; he it is who characterizes Judas Iscariot as a thief; he who twice declares that Satan entered into Judas Iscariot.[19] These are the most notable exhibitions of his feelings; but one can hardly read through the entire narrative without realizing in its tone and spirit the evidence that the author was a man of intense and passionate earnestness, kept under marvelous self-restraint.

Finally, it is clear that the author is a man of some native capacity for culture and of large education. He is familiar with the Greek language and with the Greco-Oriental philosophy. He writes with a pure and flowing style. His introduction could have been penned only by one who had become habituated to those forms of philosophic thought which some cities of Greece, and notably Ephesus, had imported from Alexandria and the further East. It could only have been written for readers who were familiar with that philosophy and could best be approached by employing its phraseology.

We find then in the direct claims and the incidental allusions of the Fourth Gospel indications that it was written by an eye and ear witness, who was with Jesus from the commencement to the close of his ministry; in the broad differences between the Fourth Gospel and the other three gospels, indications that it was written after the others and by one who was familiar with them or with the traditions embodied in them, and who wrote to supplement their accounts; in the general catholic and spiritual atmosphere of the book, indications that it was written after history had begun to interpret the words and work of Christ, and to make clearer his transcendent and incomparable character; and in the style and phraseology of the book, indications that it was written by one who was familiar with Jewish customs but not sharing Jewish prejudices, who possessed an ardent nature which had been brought under the power of a strong self-control, and who to a native capacity for culture added that familiarity with Greek literature and philosophy which only long residence in a thoroughly Greek society could impart.

Now, so far as our limited knowledge enables us to judge, John’s life and character remarkably correspond with these indications of the Gospel which was so long unanimously attributed to his pen. His parents were well-to-do Galileans, and he probably received a fair education in his childhood; his early education as a Galilean would have given him familiarity with Jewish customs, and yet would prejudice him against rather than in favor of the inhabitants of Judea; his later and prolonged residence in Ephesus, of all Greek cities the most Oriental, would have made him familiar with the best Greek culture, and with the mystic philosophy of the Greco-Oriental school; that he possessed a vehement nature is evident from his original title of Son of Thunder; his receptive disposition and his intense love for Jesus might have been expected to tame that nature, without eradicating from his writings all indications of its existence; of all the disciples the most courageous and the most sympathetically intimate with the subject of his biography, he was of them all the one to adhere to Jesus in his dangerous ministry in Jerusalem, and the one therefore to record what all the others have omitted; he was also the one to interpret Christ’s actions by his own suggestion of Christ’s unuttered thoughts; writing after the other Gospels had been written and were already being widely circulated, his omission of events and teachings which they had recorded is not only explicable, but natural and to be anticipated; finally, writing after the destruction of Jerusalem, after the dispersion of the Jews had begun, after the descent of the Holy Spirit had interpreted the mystical promises of another Comforter, after churches had been organized as far west as Rome in which Gentile and Jew met on equal terms, after, in a word, the history of the church had interpreted the prophecies and instructions of its Lord, it would have been strange indeed if he had not given a deeper, truer, and more catholic exposition of Christ’s Gospel than could have been written during the first half-century in Palestine, by those whose comprehension of Christ’s, teaching had not been broadened by residence in a foreign land and an observation of Christ’s redeeming work in a pagan community.

Other hypotheses. The conclusion to which a consideration of the external and internal evidence brings the candid student is confirmed by a consideration of the alternative hypotheses presented to him. These are many in form; for it is a significant fact that while those who believe in the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel are entirely agreed in respect to its authorship, and the time and place of its composition, those who disbelieve in its authenticity are not agreed among themselves respecting either. But in general their various opinions may be reduced to two classes.

The first is that the Fourth Gospel is the work of a Gentile Christian writing in the third century. Confessedly this Gospel purports to be written by an eye and ear witness. Confessedly it was unanimously attributed to the Apostle John in the third century. Confessedly it is without a peer in literature, ancient or modern, sacred or secular, Christian or pagan, in the purity of its doctrine, the moral elevation of its style, and the spirituality of its atmosphere. This hypothesis asks us to believe that it is the work of a deliberate ecclesiastical forger, with so little conscience that he neither hesitated to assume the pen of an Apostle nor to attribute to Jesus fictitious discourses and imaginary miracles, yet with so much conscience that he would not put an Apostle’s name to his composition, but left its authorship to be inferred by a self-deluded public; written too by a forger who was so skillful that he deceived the whole contemporaneous church, all sects and sections, Jewish and Gentile, Greek, Roman, and African, orthodox and heretic, and yet who was such a bungler that the gross discrepancies of his account, contrasted with that of the other three evangelists, make his fraud palpable to the ecclesiastical and literary critics of the nineteenth century. This hypothesis demands so great an exercise of credulity that sober critics of even the rationalistic school are generally abandoning it, or have already done so. This opinion may be already characterized as a thing of the past.

The other hypothesis is more plausible and captivating. This is that the Fourth Gospel was written by an amanuensis or a disciple of the Apostle John, that its essential facts were derived from him, that it was written in his old age, that his recollection was already growing dim and his reports of the words of Jesus are unconsciously modified by his philosophy and experience, and that these reports are still further modified by the free pen of the amanuensis or the disciple who perfected the written record; and it is urged that this hypothesis explains both verbal peculiarities and the title given to it from early ages, viz., not the Gospel of John, but the Gospel according to John.[20]

In support of this opinion there is quoted an ancient legend found in the canon of Muratori (A. D. 175), which runs as follows: “The fourth of the Gospels is by the disciple John. He was being pressed by his disciples and (fellow) bishops, and he said, ‘Fast with me this day, and for three days; and whatsoever shall have been revealed to each one of us, let us relate it to the rest.’ In the same night it was revealed to the Apostle Andrew that John should write the whole in his name, and that all the rest should revise it.” It must suffice to say of this opinion that in its most pronounced form it is wholly unsustained by evidence. It is ingenious, but not substantial. Doubtless the reports of Christ’s disciples are not verbatim. Doubtless we have in many instances the sentiments of Christ embodied in the words of John. Possibly some glosses and explanations added originally by an amanuensis or scribe may have become incorporated in the narrative.[21] But that the book is in no sense a composite production, that it is the work of one not of many minds, that we have essentially the portrayal of the life and character of Jesus by a single author, is evident on even a casual perusal, and still more on a careful analysis of the work.

Discourses of Jesus. The Gospel of John abounds with reports of the discourses of Jesus; it is more a report of his discourses (λόγια) than of his works (ἔργα); the miracles reported are generally only a text for a discourse which follows. The student, passing from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, or the parables in Perea, in Luke, to the sermon on the Bread of life at Capernaum (John, ch. 6), or on the Good Shepherd, at Jerusalem (John, ch. 10), feels the difference between them, a difference chiefly in the phraseology employed, sometimes in the phases of truth taught, but never amounting to a contradiction in the essential teaching. The same doctrine respecting the authority of Christ is conveyed by Matt. 11:27, and John 5:19-30; the same truth as to the nature and necessity of a new and divine life in the soul is expressed in Mark 4:26-29, and in John 6:50-58; similar parallels in essential truth may be found in the synoptics to all that is taught in the Fourth Gospel; but the form of expression is strikingly different. Thus, in the study of the Fourth Gospel, the question is constantly pressed upon the student, how far the reports of Christ’s addresses by John are to be regarded as reported in the words of Christ.

In answer to this we have, on the one hand, Christ’s promise reported by John: “The Comforter ... shall bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you” (ch. 14:26); on the other, we have reason to believe that the reports are not verbatim. (a) This would require a supernatural exercise of memory nowhere claimed by the Evangelists, and therefore not to be claimed by the church for them. (b) In some instances, e. g., the case of the conversation with Nicodemus and the woman at the well, it is certain that John could not have been present, and must have derived his information either from Jesus or from the other party to the conference. (c) The language in which the discourse is reported is analogous not only in words, but also in the forms of expression to that of the narrator; the likeness is so marked that in several instances the critics are not fully agreed how much is to be regarded as the discourse of Jesus, and how much as the accompanying comment of John. (d) The thought is sometimes, and the language is often, obscure. And though this obscurity is increased by mistranslations, and by the division into verses, which hides from the reader the true unity of the discourse, nevertheless it exists in the Greek original. Such obscurity does not exist in the reports of Christ’s discourses in the other Gospels. (e) The largest public discourse as reported would not have required over eight minutes in delivery. I believe then that in the Fourth Gospel we have the substantial thoughts of Christ, reproduced generally in the words and with the phraseology of John, whose mind, under the divine inspiration, preserves the essential truth unimpaired, but represents it, not as a mechanical repeater of words, but as a disciple who freely reproduces the ideas of his Master, but largely in language of his own.

Object and character. We are not left to surmise the object of the author of the Fourth Gospel. He himself tells us what it was: “These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life through his name.”[22]

According to John’s Gospel, true religion consists not in obedience to an external law, but in a new life in the soul, by which it is transformed, and the soul, its habits and character, are brought into conformity with the law of God, that is, the law of love. This new and divine life is implanted supernaturally from above; it is fed perpetually by the influence of the divine Spirit; it emancipates the soul from all bondage to sin and the law; for it preparation is made by the life and death of the Lord; in it God is manifested in a peculiar manner to the soul and abides with it, an indwelling Comforter. This life comes through a vital faith in Jesus as in a peculiar sense the Son of God, in whose life the believer finds his ideal of true life, by whose death he is redeemed from death, by whose spiritual power he is raised a new creature in Christ Jesus, by whose abiding presence he is guided, guarded, strengthened, fed. Those incidents and discourses in the life of Christ which illustrate and enforce this aspect of Christian truth and experience are those which John gives us in his Gospel. The other Gospels represent the duties of the disciples, John their privileges; the other Gospels bid them what they ought to do, John points them to what they can become; the other Gospels represent Christ chiefly as a Saviour coming to seek and to save that which is lost, John as a Friend abiding with his own; in the other Gospels he is a Shepherd in the wilderness, in John the Shepherd in the fold; in the other Gospels the Son is either still in the far country or but just returning to his Father’s home, in John he has returned and is abiding in his Father’s love. In the other Gospels, therefore, Jesus is chiefly represented as a divine teacher, in John as a recognized Saviour; in the other Gospels as the Son of man, in John as the Son of God; in the other Gospels we have seen him as he appears to the wanderer, in John as he is interpreted by the heart of the saved; in the other Gospels the bridegroom is coming for his bride and is still the Unknown; in John he has taken her to himself, and her love at least dimly recognizes in him the One among ten thousand and altogether lovely.

These aspects of truth may be easily discerned in even a brief survey of the Fourth Gospel.

John opens his narrative by an introduction, in which he borrows the mystical language of Oriental philosophy to characterize Jesus, whom he describes as the Life, the Light, the Word; he reports John the Baptist, not as the preacher of the baptism of repentance, but as a prophet of the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (ch. 1); in his account of the conversation with Nicodemus (ch. 3), he points out the origin of the spiritual life which Christ imparts to the believer, “Ye must be born from above;” in his report of the conversation with the Samaritan woman, and of the discourse at Capernaum (chaps. 4, 6), he indicates the means by which that life is sustained, by appropriating faith in Christ; and in his record of the intermediate discourse at Jerusalem (ch. 5), the basis for that faith in Christ’s own portrayal of himself as the Son and manifestation of God the Father; in his report of the discourses in the Temple, he sets forth in a different form the same truths. (ch. 7), declares the emancipation from bondage which faith in the Son achieves for the soul, contrasts it with the life of bondage unto sin (ch. 8), and describes the safety and security of the disciples, a security purchased by the death of their Lord (ch. 10); he narrates the resurrection of Lazarus, therein portraying Jesus as the resurrection and the life (ch. 11); he reports those words of Jesus at the Last Supper, the full meaning of which no Christian experience has ever yet fully sounded, in which is promised to the believing disciple a spiritual manifestation of God to the soul, an abiding life of God in the soul, and a joyful realization of all spiritual fullness in God by the soul (chaps. 14, 15, 16); he records the only reported intercessory prayer of the Lord for his disciples (ch. 17), the burden of which is, “As thou Father art in me and I in you, that they also may be one in us;” in the account of the Passion he alone gives the short dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, in which the Lord declares himself a king and his kingdom one of everlasting truth; and in his account of the resurrection (ch. 20), he tells the story of Thomas’s unbelief and of Christ’s warm commendation of “those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Life through faith—this is the burden of John’s Evangel; Jesus Christ the Life-giver, the disciple of Jesus Christ the recipient of a new life—this is the good news which constitutes the Fourth Gospel.

When and where and for whom written. A very ancient testimony, that of Irenæus, repeated by Jerome and later writers, fixes the place of publication at Ephesus. This accords with the character of the Gospel itself. The Oriental phraseology employed in the first chapter especially, but also in less degree in other portions of the Gospel, indicates that it was written in a city where Oriental philosophy had a strong hold; and of all Greek cities Ephesus was the most Oriental. Moreover, an ancient and apparently trustworthy tradition makes this city the home of John in his later years. The time of its composition is uncertain. Irenæus states that it was the latest written of the four Gospels. The character of the Gospel, as we have seen, confirms this tradition. The book bears marks of being written in old age; it is apparently the production of a ripened Christian experience. Alford fixes the date as between A. D. 70 and A. D. 85; Macdonald, A. D. 85 or 86; Godet, between A. D. 80 and 90; Tholuck, not far from A. D. 100.

[1] For same account in detail of these discussions, see Godet’s Commentary on St. John’s Gospel, Intro., Chap. II.

[2] Comp. Matt. 27:56 with Mark 15:40.

[3] Luke 8:3.

[4] Matt. 20:20, 21; Mark 15:40; 16:1.

[5] John 7:15, 48.

[6] 1 Kings 9:10, 11. See Abbott’s Dict. of Rel. Knowledge, art. Galilee.

[7] See John 1:35-37, notes; Matt. 4:21; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20; 26:37; Mark 5:37; John 13:23; 14:26, 27; 20:1-8; Acts 3:1, etc.; 8:14-25; Gal. 2:9.

[8] Acts, ch. 19; ch. 20:17-38.

[9] Mark 3:17; Luke 9:49-56; Matt. 20:20; John 18:15; 19:26; Acts 4:19, 20.

[10] Matt. 16:22; John 14:5, 8, 22; John 12:4, with Matt. 26:14.

[11] John 5:16, 18; 7:13, 19; 8:40, 44, 59; 9:22, 28; 18:31, etc.

[12] See John 2:6, 13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 8:17; 10:34; 15:25; 19:40, 42.

[13] John 1:14; 19:35; 21:24; 1 John 1:1-3.

[14] John 1:36, 38; 4:6; 6:10; 12:3; 13:30; 18:18.

[15] John 12:27, 28; 13:3; chaps. 14-16.

[16] John 1:19; 3:16; 6:37; chaps. 4, 5, 10, 14, 15.

[17] John 2:6; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 18:28; 19:40.

[18] See John 7:1, 19, 25, 32; 8:6, 59; 9:22; 10:31; 11:49.

[19] John 6:70, 71; 11:6; 13:2, 27.

[20] The student will find this hypothesis urged with great literary ingenuity by Matthew Arnold, in “God and the Bible.”

[21] See John 5:4, and note there.

[22] John 20:31. This declaration makes it unnecessary to discuss the various theories which have been proposed, such as that it was written to supplement the other Gospels and supply their defects, or to refute certain Gnostic heresies, or to commend Christianity to the disciples of Oriental philosophy and the like. These may, or may not, have been subordinate aims of the writer: the main design he clearly indicates, and it is the design here indicated which affords the key to the true interpretation of the Gospel as a whole.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

JOHN.

1:1-18. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JOHN.—The pre-existence of Christ.—The creative power of Christ.—The regenerating work of Christ.—The illumination given by Christ.—The divine manifestation in Christ.—The Word; the Light; the Life; the Tabernacle; the Only-begotten Son.—Contrasted with John the Baptist; with Moses.—The gifts he confers; the welcome he receives.

Preliminary Note.—The ordinary English reader will find no difficulty in comprehending the truths which John expresses in this introduction to his Gospel, viz., the pre-existence, divine attributes, and divine nature of that Jesus, the Messiah, of whom his book is written. John identifies him with the Word, which was with God from eternity, and with the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. But it is not so clear why he should use the peculiar and somewhat mysterious language here employed; for the full understanding of this, some historical explanation is necessary. My object in this note is to afford very briefly this historical explanation, as a basis for more detailed consideration of particular words and phrases in the notes.

From the earliest ages the ablest minds have been perplexed by the problem how to reconcile faith in an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-benevolent Creator, with the fact of a creation full of sin and suffering. One of the ablest thinkers of modern times (John Stuart Mill) has declared the problem insoluble, and from the facts of creation has deduced the conclusion that the Creator is neither all-wise, all-powerful, nor all-good; to use his own words respecting the Creator, “his wisdom is possibly, his power certainly limited, and his goodness, though real, is not likely to have been the only motive which actuated him in the work of creation.”—(Three Essays in Religion.) Oriental philosophy, pondering this problem, proposed for its solution an hypothesis which to a Western mind seems singularly puerile and fantastic, and yet which, in slightly different forms, gained, at one period in the world’s history, an acceptance quite as widespread as any form of philosophy or theology of to-day. This hypothesis, however modified in form, was in essence this, that the evil in the world came not from the Creator, but from some other and inferior Being. In the Persian religion there were two deities, a good and an evil god, Ormuzd and Ahriman, struggling with each other for the supremacy. In the Chaldean philosophy Light was the soul of the universe and the Original First Cause; in the lower realms, far below the space filled with pure and unapproachable light, were darkness, night, and all forth-springing evils, which either the Supreme Light regarded it beneath his dignity to contend with, or which were indestructible and could only be confined within narrow limits, not destroyed. In the Hindoo philosophy, the Great First Cause, the beatific Brahm, lived in perpetual repose, in a supreme and serene indifference to all things. From him, by emanations, proceeded lesser deities, and from these, by a process more or less remote, a corrupt creation. At the beginning of the Christian era, Alexandria, founded by and named in honor of Alexander the Great, was one of the intellectual centres of the world. Here was gathered a library of over 700,000 volumes; here congregated Oriental dreamers, Greek philosophers, and Jewish religionists. Here, in the third century before Christ, was translated into the Greek language the Old Testament Scriptures. Here about 20 B. C., was born Philo, a Jew, of a priestly family, a philosopher and litterateur, and a voluminous writer. He was not an original thinker; his works are therefore all the more valuable as a reflection of the current mystical philosophy of his age and school. This dreamy philosophy it is difficult to translate into modern forms of thought. So far as this can be done, it may be said to have involved the following statements: God is simply the absolute, unchangeable Existence, incomprehensible, inconceivable, yet ever to be the object of our thoughts and meditations. He could not come directly into contact with matter without losing something of his ineffable excellence. Hence he gave forth certain divine powers or influences, “incorporeal potencies,” which surround God as the members of a court surround an earthly monarch. The highest of these is the divine Logos or Word of God. Through this Word the world was created, and to the influence of the inferior potencies the evils of the world must be attributed. Again, borrowing the imagery of the Chaldeans, Philo conceives of God as the pure and absolute Light, the original source of effulgence, the Logos or Word as the nearest circle of light proceeding from it, and each separate power as a separate ray, fading more and more away into darkness, as it becomes removed from the original source and centre. From this philosophy was later developed that peculiar and incomprehensible form of thought known as

Gnosticism. This Gnostic philosophy, which reached its climax in the second century after Christ, undertook to describe in detail all the emanations from the original inconceivable deity; Reason, the Word, practical Wisdom, theoretical Wisdom, Power, Light, Life, were all lesser deities. The God of the Jews was one of these lower deities; Jesus Christ was a higher deity—the Reason according to some, the Word according to others, who came to deliver the world from its subjection to the inferior deity, and who entered the body of Jesus at his baptism, and departed from it just before his crucifixion. Whether John was acquainted with the writings of Philo we do not know; but he was certainly familiar with this Gnostic philosophy. It had already begun to enter into and corrupt the Christian church during the lifetime of Paul, whose writings contain frequent references to different phases of it (e. g., Col. 2:18; 1 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Tim. 2:16-18); Ephesus, a city of luxury, effeminacy and superstition (Acts, ch. 19, notes), was a centre of this philosophy; in Paul’s address to the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:29, 30), and in his letter to Timothy, first bishop of that church (subs. to 2 Tim.), he especially warns against it (2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3:8, 9); and Ephesus was John’s residence, and probably the city in which he wrote his Gospel. (See Introduction.)

John, then, employs the language of this mystical philosophy, in order more effectually to refute its errors. He finds a certain substratum of truth, viz., that there is one God and one Mediator between God and man, underlying this superstructure of error; he begins his Gospel by occupying this ground, and by his phraseology brings himself into sympathy with his Gnostic readers; then, from this common ground he leads them on to the truth respecting the incarnation. It is true, he says to them, that there is a Word of God, but this Word was from the beginning with God, and is indeed God himself, who is not incommunicable, but a self-manifesting God. It is true that there is a Life and a Light; but the Life is God himself, not an inferior and subordinate deity; and the Light is not remote and unapproachable, but lighteth every man that cometh into the world. For this Mediator is not an emanation from God, but God himself, the true Light shining in the darkness (verse 5), the true Life by whom we can not only commune with Christ, but become the very children of God (verses 12, 13). And he has come and tabernacled among men in the flesh, in the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth.

It only remains to add that there is to be found in the Old Testament (see notes below) a Scriptural basis for John’s use of the language here, particularly his phrase “the Word of God,” and that there is not the least ground for the claims of some rationalistic scholars that John derived his doctrine here from Philo, or from the Alexandrian or Gnostic schools. On the contrary, his doctrine and theirs are radically inconsistent. Philo holds that matter is inherently defiling, that God cannot come into contact with matter, even to fashion it in creation, without defilement; John, that God “was made flesh and dwelt among us,” and yet so far from being defiled thereby, manifested his glory, “the glory of the only-begotten of the Father.”

CHAPTER I.

In[23] the beginning was the Word,[24] and the Word was with[25] God, and the Word was[26] God.

[23] Prov. 8:22, 31; Col. 1:16, 17; 1 John 1:1.

[24] Rev. 19:13.

[25] ch. 17:5.

[26] Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:8-13; 1 John 5:7.

1. In the beginning. John begins the Gospel where Moses began the Law. The employment of and the reference to the language of the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis is unmistakable. In that beginning in which God created the heavens and the earth was the Word, and the Word was with God and was God and was the One through whom the act of creation was consummated. So in Prov., chap. 8, Wisdom personified is represented as with God in the creation and from the beginning (see especially verses 23-29). For parallel passages teaching the pre-existence of Christ, see John 8:58; 17:5; Phil. 2:5, 6; 1 John 1:1. In Rev. 3:14 he is described as “the beginning of the creation of God,” but this does not necessarily imply that he was a created Being. See notes there.—Was the Word. There are several Greek words meaning word; (1 and 2) ῥῆμα and ἔπος, word in the grammatical sense, i. e., that which is spoken; (3) μῦθος, word in the rhetorical sense, that which is delivered by words, the subject expressed; (4) ὄνομα, word in a technical sense, strictly a name, and only because words are names or appellations; (5) λόγος, word in the philosophical sense, the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed. The latter term is employed here. As the thoughts or experiences of the soul are completely hidden from us till they are uttered, so God is the Unknown and the Unknowable, save as he utters himself, discloses his nature to us, which he does chiefly if not solely through him who is for that reason called the Word, i. e., the utterance of God. The metaphor which underlies this phraseology is in part interpreted by the saying of Wordsworth that language is the incarnation of ideas. (2) In the Old Testament we have a partial employment of the same symbolism. In Moses’ account of the creation, God is represented as calling the various powers of nature into being by a word. “God said Light be! Light was!” (Gen. 1:3, see also 6, 9, 11, etc.) In the later Hebrew poetry this symbol is made more prominent in the distinct declaration that “by the word of the Lord were the heavens made.” (Ps. 33:6; comp. 107:20; Isaiah 55:10, 11; see also Heb. 11:3.) The same symbol, in a slightly different form, reappears in Prov., chap. 8, which is connected with that employed here by the language of certain of the apocryphal books, e. g., “I (Wisdom) came out of the mouth of the Most High and covered the earth as a cloud” (Ecclesiasticus 24:3). “She (Wisdom) is the breath of the power of God” (Wisdom of Solomon 1:25). (3) The same symbolism was employed as we have seen (Prel. Note above) in the mystical philosophy of Alexandria and of later Gnosticism, with which John was familiar, and of which, Ephesus, his city, was a centre, to represent an eon or emanation for the deity. That the Word here does not mean the Bible or the Gospel is evident both from the connection, since it cannot be said that the Bible became flesh (ver. 14), and also from John’s usage, who never employs the phrase Word of God to designate the Bible, but usually the term Scriptures or writings (John 2:22; 5:39; 7:38, 42; 19:24, 28, 36, 37, etc.). Moreover he does employ this phraseology elsewhere to designate Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). It cannot mean the Speaking One nor the Promised One. Though both these meanings have been attributed to it, it is not grammatically capable of either interpretation. There is classical authority for rendering it Reason or Order, and this meaning it still retains in words ending with ology, such as ge-ology (ge-logos), the order, i. e., science of the earth; path-ology (pathos-logos), the order, i. e., science of disease. But it is never used with this signification by John, and is never but once so used in the N. T. (1 Peter 3:15), if even there the translation is strictly accurate, which is doubtful. Seeking, then, to understand John as he would have been understood by his contemporaries, I think it clear that he declares, not that Reason or Wisdom was in the beginning with God, nor Speech, nor the Promised Messiah, but the Word, i. e., the One by and through whom he was chiefly to be manifested to the world, as one soul is to another by utterance.—And the Word was with God and the Word was God. Grammatically the last clause of the sentence may be read, and God was the Word. But the obvious connection calls for the rendering of our English version, and it is the rendering adopted by the best scholars. There is a difference in the language of the first and last clause of this sentence in the original which is significant, but difficult, if not impossible, to render in the English. In the first clause, “the Word was with God,” the article accompanies the word God; in the second clause, “the Word was God,” it is wanting. We should measurably reflect the meaning by reading the passage, “the Word was with God and the Word was divine;” or “the Word was with the Father and the Word was God.”

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

2. The same was in the beginning with God. John recurs to his first statement and reiterates it, not merely for the sake of emphasis, but also to mark a real distinction between the Word and the unknown Father. For he labors to express two conflicting and even apparently contradictory ideas, the identity of the Word with God and the individuality of the Word, as distinct from the infinite and invisible deity. This contradiction subsequent theology has endeavored in vain to eliminate by drawing distinctions between essence and substance, person and being, etc., in such phraseologies as three in substance and one in essence, or three persons in one God. This philosophy of the Trinity is extra-Scriptural, framed to harmonize teachings respecting the divine nature, which are best harmonized by the frank confession that the knowledge of the divine nature is too wonderful for us, we cannot attain unto it (Ps. 139:6; Job 11:7). So Chalmers, “The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. God is one. If you ask me to reconcile the four (propositions), I answer, I cannot. We require no one to reconcile the personality of each with the unity of God.” So Calvin, “I could wish them (the extra-Scriptural phrases, person, hypostasis, etc.) to be buried in oblivion, provided this truth were universally received, that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one God; and that nevertheless the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are distinguished from each other by some peculiar properties.”

3 All[27] things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

[27] Ps. 33:6; Eph. 3:9.

3. All things were made by him. To interpret this language “All things” as meaning simply the moral creation, is to distort plain language in order to conform it to preconceived ideas, a fault in exegesis of which no school of theology is entirely innocent. The reference to Genesis, ch. 1, is unmistakable. The declaration is parallel to and interpreted by such passages as Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2. The Greek student will observe, however, and the English student should know, that the language here implies that the Word was the instrument by which God created the “all things,” not the original source of creative power. There are two Greek prepositions translated in English “by,”

one (ἐκ) signifying the source or origin from which anything proceeds, or the power by which it is produced; the other (διά) signifying the means or instrument through which it is produced. One indicates the original, the other the proximate cause. The preposition here used is the latter, and the exact meaning of the sentence will be imparted by the rendering All things were made by means of him or through him. With this interpretation corresponds the general teaching of the New Testament, which represents Christ, both in his earthly life and in his heavenly administration, as always the executor of his Father’s will. This is in some sense especially prominent in John’s Gospel (see for example John 5:22, 23, 27; 6:37, 44, 57; 8:28, 42; 10:29; 14:10; 17:18, 24); but it is equally clearly taught elsewhere (Luke 2:49; 1 Cor. 15:27, 28; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1:19; comp. Mark 10:40, note and references there).—And without him was not anything made that was made. Simply an emphatic and exhaustive reiteration, such as is not infrequent in fervid writing. For analogous rhetorical repetition in John see verse 20; 1 John 2:4, 27. Some manuscripts and some few scholars put a period at the close of the first clause of the sentence, and connect the last clause with the following verse, so that the passage reads: And without him was not anything made. And what originated in him was life. But while this reading is grammatically possible, it is generally repudiated by the best scholars, who accept the punctuation and rendering of our English version as correct.

4 In him[28] was life; and the life was the light[29] of men.

[28] ch. 5:26; 1 John 5:11.

[29] ch. 8:12.

4. In him was life. There is probably a reference here again to the language of Gnostic philosophy (See Prel. Note), which supposed other eons or emanations from God, besides the Word, prominent among which was Light and Life. Here, as throughout this introduction, John employs the language of the Gnostics to correct their errors. The general and practical teaching for us of the declaration is that Christ is the source of both physical or external life (Col. 1:17), and of intellectual and spiritual life (ch. 10:10). It is admirably interpreted by Kaulbach’s famous cartoon of the Reformation, in which Luther with the open Bible in his hand is represented as the centre of the intellectual and moral awakening which characterized that century. Observe, since Christ is Life and Light, that any religion which dwarfs man, represses their life, belittles them, and any which shuts them up in darkness and denies them intellectual freedom and progress in any direction, is so far anti-Christ. The cause of Christ has nothing to fear from any intellectual life or any light of scientific discovery.—And the life was the light of men. Not merely shall be, not merely is, but was. The intimation is that all the light of Old Testament prophecy and instruction, if not all that dim religious light which has illuminated even heathen nations, through special instructors such as Buddha, Confucius and Socrates, came through the Word, i. e., through the Mediator by whom the invisible God reveals himself to man, of which revelation the incarnation (ver. 14) is only a part, though a most important part. Compare with the language here 1 John 1:5.

5 And the light shineth in[30] darkness; and the darkness comprehended[31] it not.

[30] ch. 3:19.

[31] 1 Cor. 2:14.

5. And the light shineth in the darkness. Shines, not merely appears; a real illumination is indicated; shines, not shone; a present and continuous illumination is indicated; the darkness, not merely darkness; as, before God said “Let there be light,” the earth is reported as enveloped in darkness (Gen. 1:2), so, before and apart from this spiritual illumination, through the Light of the world, the nations of the earth were in gross darkness. Comp. Isaiah 42:6, 7; Matt. 4:16, note; Ephes. 5:7, 8; John 12:46.—And the darkness comprehended it not. This has been universally true in the world’s history; the dim light of conscience has never been apprehended, taken hold of by heathen nations. The light afforded by special and signal moral geniuses has never been comprehended aright by the people, as witness the deterioration of Buddhism and Confucianism; the teachings of the Jewish prophets were not comprehended; they shone in darkness which was not dispelled by their instructors; and the clearer light of Christ has never, even in the best ages, been more than very imperfectly apprehended, even in the church. Here the primary reference is certainly to the constant closing of their eyes by the Jews to the light of the Old Testament teachings, concerning the spirit of true religion, the nature of the kingdom of God, and the character and appearance of the promised Messiah. For the reason why the darkness does not comprehend the light, see chap. 3:19; comp. Matt. 13:15, note.

6 There was a man[32] sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

[32] Luke 3:2, 3.

6, 7. There was a man sent from God. From a characterization of the light, John passes to a description of the incarnation and its object, and to a discrimination between the incarnate Light and the prophet who foretold its coming. From the Greek word here rendered sent (ἀποστέλλω, apostello) comes our word apostle. The apostle is a man sent from God; Christ is the word or utterance, or manifestation of God. Comp. Heb. 1:1-3.—John. The Baptist.—The same came for a witness. As one who enters the witness-stand to testify what he knows, so John the Baptist came to declare what had been revealed to him concerning the coming Messiah. Comp. John 5:32-35.—To bear witness of the Light. Simply a repetition and amplification of the previous clause of the sentence. He was not a mere preacher of the law, nor of the duty of repentance, though this is the phase of his ministry most prominent in the reports of Matt. (3:1-12), and Luke (3:1-18). He was a forerunner of the great King, sent to bear witness of his approach. And this phase of his ministry, though indicated in the other Gospels (Matt. 3:11; 11:9, Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:16, 17), is most clearly brought out in John (verses 23, 29-36).—That all through him might believe. That is, through John might believe in the Light. The other construction, through the Light might believe, i. e., in God, is forced and unnatural, even if grammatically admissible. The true office of the Christian ministry is so to bear witness to the Light which the preacher knows by his own experience (Rom. 7:14; 8:28; 2 Tim. 1:12), that men may believe in and accept that Light (2 Cor. 4:5; Col. 1:28.)

8 He[33] was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light,[34] which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

[33] Acts 19:4.

[34] Isa. 49:6.

8, 9. An early Gnostic sect (second century) believed that John was the Messiah. The primary reference here appears to be to this error, which, in common with other Gnostic errors (see Prel. Note), John aims to correct in this introduction to his Gospel. Compare, with the declaration here, Christ’s characterization of John, “He was a burning and a shining light” (ch. 5:35). The Greek scholar will observe that the English word “light” represents different Greek words in the two passages. Here the word is one signifying original light (φῶς), there rather a borrowed or reflected light (λύχνος), though the latter word is once applied to Christ (Rev. 21:23). We are to be in a true sense the former kind of light (φῶς, Matt. 5:14), because Christ in us is our light, and by his indwelling we are made partakers of his nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and men seeing this light glorify, not us, but Him who shines in and through us.—The true Light was that which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. There is some difficulty about the construction of this sentence; this appears to me to be the best. For other constructions, see Alford and Meyer. On the meaning of the declaration observe, (1) That John’s use of the word true here is interpreted by his use of the same word in other and analogous passages, e. g., “true worshippers” (John 4:23); “true bread” (ch. 6:32); “true vine” (ch. 15:1). The light, the bread, the vine of earth are regarded only as symbols of the spiritual truths which they parabolically represent. Christ is the original pattern, or source of light; all prophets and teachers are only reflections from him; all material light is a symbol or parable of his illuminating grace. (2) The phrase, “lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” is not to be taken as an hyperbole. The latter clause is added, not merely, as Meyer, “as a solemn redundance,” “an epic fullness of words,” but to emphasize and make clear the declaration, and to show that “every man” means not merely (a) the Jews, nor (b) those who accept Christ as their light, nor (c) the Christian nations, but literally all men. The every (πᾶς) here is thus distinguished from the all (πᾶς) of verse 7 above. Christ is the universal light; all intellectual and political as well as moral illumination has come through him; and this, not only in Christendom, but also in heathendom. Such light as struggles through the thick darkness, in a partial disclosure of divine truth afforded by a Buddha or a Confucius, or dimly recognized by a Cornelius, comes from Him who, in larger or smaller measure, lighteth every man that cometh into the world. By this declaration we are to interpret such passages as Matt. 8:11; Acts 10:35; Rev. 5:9; whoever accepts even this imperfect and dim light, mistakenly called the light of Nature, in so far accepts Christ.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and[35] the world knew him not.

[35] verse 5.

11 He[36] came unto his own, and his own received him not.

[36] Acts 3:26; 13:46.

10, 11. Notice the rhetorical climax in these verses; he was in the world; he came unto his own; the world knew him not; his own received him not. The world is here humanity in general, Jew and Gentile, both of whom united in Christ’s crucifixion; the Jew, represented in the high-priest who deliberately rejected him (John 11:47-50), the Gentile, represented in Pilate and the soldiers, who simply did not know him. His own are the Jewish people, Jehovah’s peculiar possession (Exod. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; Psalm 135:4; Isaiah 31:9), to whom he first came and by whom he was rejected before he was preached to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; Rom. 1:16). It was only the world of men that knew him not; nature knew and obeyed him whenever he commanded her obedience, as in the turning of water into wine, the stilling of the tempest, etc. The verbs in this sentence are in the imperfect tense, and the reference is to the incarnation of Christ and his earthly life. Observe that the Jewish nation which rejected the Messiah is rejected by God (Matt. 8:12), and that the disciples of Christ are not to know the world which knew not their Lord and Master (1 John 2:15-17).

12 But as many[37] as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them[38] that believe on his name:

[37] Isa. 56:4, 5; Rom. 8:14, 15; 1 John 3:1.

[38] Gal. 3:26.

12. But as many as received him. Not merely, as Alford, “recognized him as that which he was—the Word of God and Light of men,” but received him as the Word to be implicitly obeyed (ch. 14:21; 15:10, 15), and the Light in which to walk (1 John 1:6).—To them gave he power (ἐξουσίαν). Not capability, nor privilege, nor claim, but power and right; the original word combines the two ideas. He confers the power to become the sons of God, and confers the right to claim that privilege. Ryle is certainly correct in saying that this verse “does not mean that Christ confers on those who receive him a spiritual and moral strength, by which they convert themselves, change their own hearts, and make themselves God’s children.” He is as certainly wrong in saying, with Calvin and the marginal reading, that the original Greek word means “right or privilege.” The reader will best get its meaning by comparing John’s use of it in other passages, in no one of which could it be rendered either “right” or “privilege.” See ch. 5:27; 10:18; 17:2; 19:10, 11. Comp. Matt. 28:18, note. The plain implication here is that the power to become a son of God is not natural and inherent, but acquired, and is the especial gift of God. See Phil. 2:12, 13; Titus 3:4, 5.—To become the sons of God. Sons and therefore (1) partakers of the divine nature (Ephes. 4:13; Heb. 12:10; 2 Pet. 1:4); (2) entitled to and walking in freedom as children, not in bondage as servants (ch. 15:15; Gal. 4:1-7); (3) heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, his only-begotten Son (Rom. 8:16, 17). But the full conception of the meaning of this sonship we cannot know, till in the other world we see the Father as he is (1 John 3:1, 2).—Even to them that have faith in his name. His name is Jesus, i. e., Saviour, given to him because he saves his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). To have faith in that name is to have faith in him as a personal Saviour from sin. Observe, then, that this verse comprises the whole Gospel in a sentence. It declares (1) the object of the Gospel: that we who are by nature the children of disobedience and of wrath (Ephes. 2:2, 3) may become the sons of God; (2) the source to which we are to look for this prerogative of sonship: power conferred by God; (3) the means by which we are to attain it: personal faith in a personal Saviour from sin. Observe too that John follows his description of the rejection of Christ, not by threatening punishment to them, but by depicting the infinite gain of those that accept Christ.

13 Which were born,[39] not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

[39] James 1:18.

13. Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. That is, not by inheritance (Luke 3:8); nor by resolution (Rom. 8:5-8); nor by human teaching (1 Cor. 3:6, 7); but by the direct personal influence and contact of the Spirit of God on the heart (Titus 3:5, 6). Thus, John emphasizes the declaration of the preceding verse, that God gives the power to become the sons of God, by declaring that Christian character is not the product of either good parentage, a strong will, or a good education, but directly of a divine recreative act. (Gal. 6:15.) The Greek student will observe that the preposition used is of (ἐκ), not through (διά); the writer is speaking of the origin or source of Christian character, not of the instruments by which it is developed. Good parentage, will power, and education, are all means for the development of divine sonship; the original cause, without which a true son of God is never produced, is the creative act of God himself.

14 And the Word[40] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and[41] we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full[42] of grace and truth.

[40] Luke 1:35; 1 Tim. 3:16.

[41] 2 Pet. 1:17; 1 John 1:1, 2.

[42] Ps. 45:2; Col. 2:3, 9.

14. And the Word. The self-manifesting God, as described in the first verse.—Became flesh. Not a man (ἄνθρωπος) nor a body (σῶμα), but flesh (σάρξ). The word is one whose signification would probably be best rendered to the English reader by the phrase human nature. Though occasionally used in the N. T. of the literal and material flesh (Acts 2:31), it almost always indicates man in his corporeal or earthly nature, sometimes signifying the predominance of that over the higher or spiritual nature, sometimes simply signifying this aspect of his nature, without any indication of its corrupt tendencies. Here, then, the declaration is that the Word became human nature; how is not indicated. The language gives no sanction to either of the two principal theories of the incarnation; the first, that Christ took on human nature as something superadded to the divine, so carrying through life a double nature, both divine and human; the second, that he simply entered a human body and became subject to the limitations which it imposed on him. How the divine became human we must learn elsewhere in the N. T., if the N. T. reveals it at all; but the declaration here is explicit that the divine Word became human.—And tabernacled among us. Pitched his tent with us. As God in the wilderness dwelt for a time in the transitory tabernacle, so the Word dwelt in the flesh, which is elsewhere in the N. T. compared to a tabernacle (2 Cor. 5:1, 4; 2 Pet. 1:13, 14). As God dwelt subsequently in the permanent Temple at Jerusalem, so the Word makes its permanent abode in the soul of the believer, which is the Temple, not the Tabernacle of God (ch. 15:6, 7; 2 Cor. 6:16; Rev. 21:3). That the reference here is to the incarnation, not to the spiritual presence of Christ with the believer, is evident from the fact that the verb (ἐσκίνωσεν) is in the historical tense. John says he tabernacled, not he tabernacles, among us.—And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father. We are made sons of God; but Christ alone is the only begotten Son. For the meaning of this phrase, see Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38. John uses it only of Jesus Christ. The Greek student should observe the use of the preposition from (παρά). It designates the source from which anything is derived, and here indicates that in a peculiar sense Christ is from the Father, directly and immediately; we are from him only through Christ. Comp. ch. 7:29. In a peculiar sense the Apostles beheld Christ’s glory (ch. 2:11; Matt. 17:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 John 1:1). But in Christ’s life and character, and in their influence on the world, we are all beholders of the true divine glory, manifested in him (Heb. 1:3); and his earthly life is the brightness and glory of heaven (Rev. 21:23; 5:9, 10). The language, as of the only begotten, distinguishes the glory of Christ from that of all previous revealers of the divine will and nature. Since many of the prophets too were glorified, as Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, the one encircled by the fiery chariot, the other taken up by it; and after them Daniel and the three children, and the many others who showed forth wonders; and angels who have appeared among men, and partly disclosed to beholders the flashing light of their proper nature; and since not angels only, but even the cherubim were seen by the prophet in great glory and the seraphim also; the Evangelist, leading us away from all these, and removing our thoughts from created things, and from the brightness of our fellow-servants, sets us at the very summit of good. For, “not of prophets,” says he, “nor angel, nor archangel, nor of the higher powers, nor of any other created nature, if other there be, but of the Master himself, the King himself, the true only begotten Son himself, of the very Lord of all, did we behold the glory.”—(Chrysostom.)—Full of grace and truth. There is some doubt whether this is said of the glory beheld, or of the only begotten Son whose glory was beheld. The question is not very important; the latter construction is grammatically preferable. Thus rendered, the clause “And we beheld, etc.,” is parenthetical, John’s statement being: “The Word tabernacled among us, full of grace and truth.” Observe (1) that the grace here answers to the Life in verse 4, and the truth to the Light in verse 9. Because of his grace Christ is Life to all who accept him; because of his truth he is Light to all who follow him; (2) that the declaration here is explained by, and is possibly partially derived from Exodus 33:18, 19, where Moses asks to see God’s glory, and is promised a disclosure of the divine goodness; in the goodness of God in Christ Jesus we behold the divine glory; (3) that the Christian is to be, like his Master, full of grace and truth, and that to be at once perfectly truthful and also gracious is one of the most difficult practical problems of the Christian life (Rom. 12:9). It seems to me clear that John has in mind throughout this verse the manifestation of the glory of God, through the Shechinah, in the Tabernacle, and subsequently in the Temple (Exod. 40:34, 35; 1 Kings 8:10; see Matt. 17:5, note). As the Shechinah made luminous and glorious these earthly dwelling-places, so the Word, by his indwelling, made glorious the flesh.

15 John[43] bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

[43] Matt. 3:11, etc.

15. John is testifying concerning him. John the Baptist was long since dead when these words were written; but his testimony was not dead; it was an ever-living testimony. The verb is therefore put in the present tense, not, as in our English version, in the past.—And he cried, saying, It is the echo of this cry which still resounds and witnesses to Jesus Christ. The language used implies a public testimony, and one borne with confidence and joy. On seeing the Christ of whom he had prophesied, John the Baptist cries out, “This is he of whom I spoke.” For illustration of John’s prophetic utterances concerning the Messiah, previous to the baptism of Jesus, see Matt. 3:11, 12; Mark 1:7, 8.—He that cometh after me. Christ did not begin his public ministry till the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Mark 1:14). Thus as a public teacher he came after John the Baptist.—Came forth before me. Not, was before me (γίγνομαι has not the force of εἰμί), for then the sentence would be tautological—that Jesus was before John is in the next clause given as the reason for the statement in this, that he came forth before him; nor can the meaning be was preferred before me, in the sense of esteemed above me, for the mere fact of Christ’s pre-existence would be no reason for esteeming him more highly than John—the devil existed before John the Baptist; nor, was preferred before me, in the sense of, was exalted in rank above me, though some excellent scholars, e. g., Alford, Olshausen, De Wette, so interpret it; but, as I have rendered it above, came forth, or, was set before me. The reference is to the previous manifestations of the Word, in the partial revelations of God in the O. T. All the disclosures of the divine nature in the O. T. were made through the Word or utterance of God, through whom alone he speaks to the human race. See ver. 4, note, and ch. 8:56-58. John then says “He who is coming after me is the One who has already come forth before me; for he existed before me.” Christ’s pre-existence would not explain the preference, either in the divine love or in rank, but it does in part explain precedence in appearance or manifestation. So Hengstenberg, “My successor is my predecessor.”

16 And of his fulness[44] have all we received, and grace for grace.

[44] ch. 3:34.

16. And of his fullness have we all received. The fullness is that of the divine nature, of which we are made partakers through faith in Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9, 10; Ephes. 3:19). The all are those who receive him and thus become the sons of God (verse 12). This and the two following verses are the addition of the Evangelist, not the continuance of John the Baptist’s discourse; this is evident both from their style, which better accords with that of the Evangelist, and because the fullness of Christ’s nature was not received by John the Baptist and his disciples, for it was not disclosed till after the Baptist’s death. Observe, (1) How inexhaustible the fountain. From Christ’s fullness all spiritual life is supplied. Chrysostom compares Christ to a fire from which ten thousand lamps are kindled, but which burns as brightly thereafter as before. “The sea is diminished if you take a drop from it, though the diminution be imperceptible; but how much soever a man draw from the divine Fountain, it continues undiminished.” (2) How free the supply; we have all received. “None went empty away.”—(Meyer.) (3) The nature of Christian experience. It is not a mere trust in a crucified Saviour for pardon for the past; it is also a personal and continuous receiving of divine life from the fullness of a living Saviour.—And grace for grace. Of this expression there are two interpretations. The ancient expositors understood it to mean, For the lesser grace of the O. T. we have received the greater grace of the N. T. So Chrysostom: “There was a righteousness and there is a righteousness (Rom. 1:17); there was a glory and there is a glory (2 Cor. 3:11); there was a law and there is a law (Rom. 8:2); there was a service and there is a service (Rom. 9:4; 12:11); there was a covenant and there is a covenant (Jer. 31:31, 32); there was a sanctification and there is a sanctification; there was a baptism and there is a baptism; there was a sacrifice and there is a sacrifice; there was a temple and there is a temple; there was a circumcision and there is a circumcision; and so too there was a grace and there is a grace.” The modern commentators, Alford, Meyer, Lange, etc., understand it to mean, “For each new accessory of grace we receive a still larger gift. Each grace, though, when given large enough, is, as it were, overwhelmed by the accumulation and fullness of that which follows.”—(Bengel.) “Grace for grace, grace in the place of that which preceded—therefore grace uninterrupted, unceasingly renewed.”—(Winer.) The spiritual signification of the passage is substantially the same on either interpretation. We have nothing to give in exchange for the divine grace; our only virtue is to receive. It is given to us in exchange for the grace already imparted. “Unto every one that hath shall be given;” but what he already hath is God’s gift, which bestows both the good and the purchase money, each new gift superseding the old, as the N. T. gift of grace and truth through Jesus Christ superseded the lesser gift of law through Moses. With this accords the teaching of both O. T. and N. T. See, for example, Deut. 7:7; Ps. 6:4; 23:3; 25:7; 31:16; 79:9; 115:1; Isaiah 55:1; Ephes. 2:4; 1 John 4:8, 10.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace[45] and truth came by Jesus Christ.

[45] Ps. 85:10; Rom. 5:21.

17. For the law was given by Moses. Through (διὰ) Moses as the instrument or mediator of the old covenant.—Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Through (διὰ) Jesus Christ as the mediator of the new covenant. The grace is the favor of God (see below), the truth is the clear revelation of the divine character and will, seen only dimly under the old covenant. (2 Cor. 3:13, 14.) Observe the contrast between Christ and Moses (comp. Heb. 3:5, 6); and between the gifts brought by the two. The law was given, a completed thing, once for all; grace and truth came and continually come, grace for grace, out of the inexhaustible fullness of the giver.

On the meaning of the word “grace.” The word here translated grace (χάρις) is also variously translated in the N. T. acceptable, benefit, favor, gift, joy, liberality, pleasure, thanks, and thankworthy. This fact will of itself sufficiently indicate that the word possesses various shades of meaning. They are all, however, etymologically derived from the same root idea. The noun is derived from a verb meaning to rejoice, and primarily signifies that which gives joy to another. With the Greeks, beauty was one of the chief joys; hence the first meaning of the word—grace of external form, manner, or language, a meaning which it but rarely bears in the N. T. (see Luke 4:22; Col. 4:6). Thence it derived a deeper meaning, viz., beauty in character, and this, according to the N. T. teaching, is good-will, the disposition to do a kindness to another, to make another rejoice; hence the word is used to signify that quality in God which leads him to confer freely happiness on men, either on special individuals (Luke 2:40; 1 Cor. 3:10), or on the whole human race (Rom. 3:24; Ephes. 1:6; Tit. 2:11). Thence it was employed to designate the kindness actually flowing from and conferred by this disposition, hence an alms, and in the N. T. the spiritual gifts conferred by the divine love on the soul (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:4; 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 6:1; 2 Pet. 3:18); in which sense it is employed in the apostolic benediction (1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3, etc.). Finally it was used to designate the feeling awakened by favors shown, the reflection in the human heart of the divine grace imparted, and hence gratitude and even its expression in thanks (Luke 6:32-34; 17:9; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:3). Underlying its meaning in all these uses is the radical idea that the gift is conferred freely and finds its only motive in the bounty and love of the giver, an idea which finds expression in the Latin word gratis (for nothing), now thoroughly Anglicized, a word which comes from the same root as grace (gratia). By the doctrine of grace, then, as it is variously expounded in the N. T., is meant that our own spiritual life is the free gift of God, bestowed on us without merit or desert on our part, purely from the love and good-will of God. Our graces are God’s free gifts. John here marks the contrast between the law which requires obedience of man, and grace and truth which confers spiritual power on man. The one says, Do this and live; the other says, Live, so that you can do this (Rom. 8:3). Nowhere in the N. T. is the doctrine of grace more clearly set forth than in these 16th and 17th verses, which may be paraphrased thus: From the divine fullness in Jesus Christ we have all received; the only condition which God attaches to the free impartation of his spiritual gifts is that we should have received willingly those already proffered to us; by Moses it was revealed to us what God would have us do and be; by Christ it is clearly disclosed to us what God is, and there is freely imparted to us power to become, like him, sons of God.

18 No man hath seen God[46] at any time; the[47] only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

[46] Ex. 33:20; 1 Tim. 6:16.

[47] 1 John 4:9.

18. No one hath seen God at any time. Not merely no man; no one—man, angel, archangel. The phrase here, seen God, is equivalent to the phrase knowing God perfectly, in Matt. 11:27 (see note there). We know him but in part, shall see him only when we awake in his likeness (Ps. 17:15); Christ sees him because he is one with him.—The only begotten Son. Some manuscripts have here, The only begotten God, and this reading is adopted by Tregelles, but rejected by Alford, Meyer, and Tischendorf. For examination of the authorities on both sides, see Alford (sixth edition) and Lange, critical note by Dr. Schaff. The external authorities are not conclusive; internal authority strongly favors the ordinary reading. The only begotten God is a phrase occurring nowhere else in the N. T., and is unnatural if not unmeaning. The change of a single letter in the early copies would account for the corruption of the text (Ψ to Θ).—Which is in the bosom of the Father. A metaphorical expression, indicating the closeness of intimacy, and drawn more probably from the relation of a child with its parents, than from the not infrequent reclining of one on the bosom of his friend, at meal-time (John 13:25).—He hath declared him. Comp. ch. 6:46; 14:6, 9, 10; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3. These and other kindred passages indicate clearly how Christ declares the Father, viz., not merely by what he teaches concerning the divine nature, but yet more by his personal manifestation of the divine nature in his own life and character. This verse thus interprets the word truth in the preceding verse, as the word grace has already been interpreted by verses 11 and 12. Christ is the truth of God, because he reveals the divine nature; he is the grace of God because he imparts the divine nature to such as trust in him.

Note on the Incarnation. A correct apprehension of the character and place in history of Jesus Christ is essential to a correct apprehension of Christianity. Our conception of the system will depend upon our conception of the Founder. The other Evangelists give simply the story of his life, leaving the readers to draw their own deductions respecting him. John, writing at a later date, and in a more philosophical atmosphere, begins his Gospel with a characterization of the One the story of whose earthly life he is about to narrate. It is evident on even a cursory examination of this preface that John believed and intended to teach, (1) That Christ existed prior to his earthly birth. He was the Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; was before John the Baptist, whom in his earthly history and mission he succeeded; and he was in the beginning with God (vers. 1, 4, 15). (2) That he possessed a superhuman character. He is carefully distinguished from and placed above John the Baptist, the last of the prophets and more than a prophet (Matt. 11:9), and from Moses the lawgiver and politically the founder of the Jewish nation; and he is emphatically declared not only to have been with God in the beginning, but to have partaken of the divine nature (vers. 1, 6-8, 17). (3) This superhuman character is further illustrated by what is declared of his office or work. He is the Creator, the Light and Life of men, the regenerating power through whom men are brought into divine sonship, the daily support of the spiritual life of the children of God, the disclosure of the divine nature to men (vers. 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, 18). (4) This truth is incidentally, but all the more effectively, enforced by John’s peculiar language in describing Christ’s earthly state: he “tabernacled among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father” (ver. 14). (5) Finally, it is illustrated in the various titles conferred upon him throughout this chapter, which are ten in number: the Word; the Light; the Life; the only begotten of the Father; Jesus Christ, i. e., the Saviour, the Messiah; the only begotten Son; the Lamb of God; the Son of God; Master; the Son of Man. It is not the province of the commentator to construct a systematic theology. But it is certain that these elements must enter into any conception of Jesus Christ which is founded on and accords with the N. T. There is probably no other single passage of equal length in the N. T. which contains so much respecting the character and office of Jesus Christ as this preface to John’s Gospel; with it, however, should be examined Paul’s Christology (e. g., Phil. 2:5-11), and that of the unknown author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb., chaps. 1, 2).

Ch. 1:19-51. INTRODUCTION OF CHRIST TO THE WORLD. By John the Baptist (vers. 19-37); by Himself (vers. 38-51). Christ the sin-bearer of the world.—The power of Christ; the abiding of God’s Spirit on him.—Christ our pattern in fishing for men.—The value of personal and private work.—The power of prejudice in good men.—The best answer to skepticism, “Come and see.”—Christ reveals himself when he reveals us to ourselves.—Christ’s first coming a prophecy and foretaste of his second coming.

The historical portion of the Fourth Gospel begins here. The interview between the deputation from the Sanhedrim and John the Baptist here described probably took place after the baptism of Jesus, and during the temptation, of which latter event this Gospel makes no mention. With the account of the Baptist’s ministry given here the reader should compare Matt., chap. 3, and Luke, chap. 3.

19 And this[48] is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

[48] Luke 3:15, etc.

20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

19, 20. And this is the witness of John. The writer goes back and gives a detailed history of John’s first explicit testimony to the Messiah, connecting it with his previous reference to that testimony in verse 15.—When the Jews sent priests and Levites. In John’s Gospel, the term Jews generally signifies, not the residents of Palestine, but those of Judea, and sometimes the official heads of the people. This appears to be the meaning here. It is clear from verse 22 that this was an official deputation, probably sent by the Sanhedrim. The Baptist’s preaching had produced a profound sensation throughout that part of Palestine; great crowds flocked to his ministry; he was universally regarded as a prophet, and by some as perhaps the Messiah; some of the Pharisees themselves came to his baptism, though his severe denunciation of their formalism, and their own opposition to such a personal reform as his preaching demanded, made them, as a class, bitterly opposed to him (Matt. 3:5, 7; 21:25, 26; Luke 3:15). It was therefore natural and fit that the Sanhedrim should send to inquire officially respecting his ministry. There is nothing to indicate whether this inquiry was conducted in a hostile spirit or otherwise.—Who art thou? Observe, throughout this interview, the difference in the spirit of the inquirers and of John. They persist in demanding to know who he is; he replies only by pointing out what he does. “They ever ask about his person; he ever refers them to his office. He is no one—a voice merely; it is the work of God, the testimony to Christ, which is everything. So the formalist ever in the church asks, Who is he? while the witness for Christ only exalts, only cares for Christ’s work.”—(Alford.)—And he publicly acknowledged, and denied not. We know from Luke 3:15 that some thought he might be the Messiah; and later, a Gnostic sect maintained that he was the Messiah. This testimony, amplifying the brief reference to it in verses 7, 8, is probably inserted in part to refute this error.

21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

21. Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Mal. 4:5 declares that Elijah should precede the Messiah. John the Baptist’s character, and even his appearance (comp. Matt. 3:4 with 2 Kings 1:8), resembled that of Elijah. Christ distinctly declares that John the Baptist is the Elijah foretold by the prophet and expected by the people (Matt. 17:12, 13; comp. Luke 1:17). Here John says he is not. The true explanation is, not that the people were expecting a literal resurrection of Elijah from the dead, and John denied that he fulfilled that expectation, but that, like many another great but humble messenger of God, he did not comprehend his own character and mission and relation to ancient prophecy. He was more than he knew.—Art thou that prophet? From Deut., 8:15 the Jews expected a prophet to precede the Messiah (John 6:14; 7:40). Not till later was this prophecy correctly interpreted by the Apostles as referring to Christ himself (Acts 3:22; 7:37).

22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

23 He[49] said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet[50] Esaias.

[49] ch. 3:28; Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4.

[50] Isa. 40:3.

22, 23. See Matt. 3:3 and Mark 1:3, and notes. It is evident that the characterization of John the Baptist there and the application to him of the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3 was derived from John himself.

24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizeth thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one[51] among you, whom ye know not;

[51] Mal. 3:1.

27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

24-27. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were scrupulous ceremonialists, and ablutions were an important part of their ceremonial. See Matt. 15:1-7; Mark 7:2-5, notes. To them John’s employment of baptism appeared irregular and unauthorized if he were not invested with some special divine authority.—John answered them. This answer is only indirectly responsive to their interrogatory. He passes at once from his own authority, which he disdains to defend, to testify to the Messiah, whose forerunner he is. The synoptical Evangelists (Matt. 3:11, 12, note; Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:16, 17) report more fully John’s characterization of his own baptism and its contrast with that which the Messiah would inaugurate; one in water, the other in fire and the Holy Ghost; one a symbol, the other the thing symbolized; one a prophecy, the other its fulfillment.—There standeth one among you whom ye know not. That is, do not recognize as what he really is, the Messiah. It is not necessarily implied that Jesus Christ was present at this interview, and verse 29 implies that he was not. The language simply points to one apparently of the common people and unknown.—Who cometh after me, whose shoe-latchet I am unworthy to unloose. This is the true reading; the words is preferred before me have been added by some copyist from verse 15. On the significance of the expression, see notes on Matt. 3:11 and Luke 3:16. The latchet of the shoe is the leather thong with which the sandal was bound on to the foot or the shoe was laced. For illustration, see Mark 6:7-13, Vol. 1, p. 362.

28 These things were done in Bethabara[52] beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

[52] Judges 7:24.

28. Bethabara. The best reading here is Bethany; the common reading, Bethabara, is derived from Origen, who found such a place about opposite Jericho. The Bethany intended is certainly not the well-known town of that name on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, for this one was beyond Jordan. The site is unknown; it has been fixed by Origen as far south as Jericho; by Stanley, 30 miles north of Jericho, near Succoth; by Lightfoot, north of the Sea of Galilee. We can only say that it was probably at one of the fords of the Jordan, in the great eastern line of travel, and certainly at some point between the sea of Galilee and the neighborhood of Jericho. There are two traditional sites, one Greek, the other Latin, and both historically worthless.

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb[53] of God, which taketh[54] away the sin of the world.

[53] Ex. 12:3; Isa. 53:7, 11; Rev. 5:6.

[54] Acts 13:39; 1 Pet. 2:24; Rev. 1:5.

29. The next day. Not merely, some following day, for the original Greek word (ἐπαύριον) never has this meaning in the N. T. It has been so rendered by some commentators here, in order to introduce the Temptation between the testimony of the Baptist to the delegation from Jerusalem and his testimony here uttered to his own disciples.—He seeth Jesus. The word John has been inserted by some copyists to make the meaning clearer.—Coming toward him. Not, as in our English version, unto him. The preposition employed (πρός) signifies simply direction. Why he was coming toward him is not a matter for profitable conjecture. Not, as some suppose, for baptism, for the temptation followed the baptism, and the order of events in John’s narrative follow each other so closely up to and after the marriage at Cana (vers. 35, 43; ch. 2:1), that no time is afforded for the temptation, which was forty days in duration, and which must have occurred prior to the interview between the Baptist and the Jewish delegation.—And said. Publicly, probably to his own disciples, perhaps to the multitude. This first preaching of Christ produced no observable effect. It was not till

John repeated it on the following day (ver. 37) that any of his auditors followed Jesus.—Behold the Lamb of God. Not a lamb of God. The meaning cannot therefore be, Behold a pure and innocent man; an interpretation which would probably never have been conceived, but for the purpose of escaping the doctrine of atonement for sin, which can be escaped only by rejecting both the Old and the New Testaments in their entirety.—Which taketh away. This exactly represents the significance of the original verb (αἴρω), which means, not bears, or suffers, or releases from the penalty of, but takes away. For its non-metaphorical use, see Matt. 13:12, shall be taken away; 21:21, be removed; Luke 6:30, that taketh away thy goods; John 11:39, take away the stone; 11:48, the Romans shall take away both our place, etc. It thus corresponds almost exactly with the word (ἁφίηγι) ordinarily translated forgive. See Matt. 6:12, note. Observe that the verb is in the present tense, is taking away. The sacrifice has been offered once for all; but its effect is a continuous one. Christ is ever engaged in lifting up and taking away the sin of the world.—The sin of the world. Not sins from the world, which would be a very different matter. The sin is represented as one burden, which Christ as a whole lifts up and carries away. His redemption is not a limited redemption; it provides a finished salvation for the entire human race. See ch. 16:22, note.

Very unnecessary difficulty has been made respecting the interpretation of the Baptist’s simple metaphor here. The lamb was throughout the O. T. times commonly used for sacrifice as a sin-offering (Lev. 4:32); in cleansing the leper (Lev. 14:10); at the morning and evening sacrifice (Exod. 29:38); at all the great feasts (Numb. 28:11; 29:2, 13, 37; Lev. 23:19); and in large numbers on special occasions (1 Chron. 29:21; 2 Chron. 29:32; 35:7). The sacrifice of the paschal lamb at the Passover connected the lamb as a sacrifice with the greatest feast day of the nation, and with the national redemption from bondage and deliverance from death (Exod. 12:21-27). The ceremony with the scape-goat on the day of atonement, the only fast-day in the Jewish calendar, interpreted clearly, and by an annual symbol, the meaning of these sacrifices. On that day two kids of goats were chosen, closely resembling each other; one was slain as a sin-offering; over the other the high-priest confessed the sins of the people, “putting them on the head of the goat,” who was then led away into the wilderness, “to bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. 16:5-10, 20-22). Isaiah, with unmistakable reference to these typical sacrifices, declared that the Messiah should bear the sins and sorrows of the world as a lamb slaughtered (Isaiah 53:1-7); and the Baptist, speaking to a people whose national education had led them to regard the lamb as the type of sacrifice, through the shedding of whose blood there was a redemption, a carrying away of sins, points to Jesus with the declaration, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, that is, the true Sin-bearer, of whom all that went before were but types and prophecies. How he was to take away this load of sin the Baptist does not say, and probably did not know. That he did not realize that Christ was to be a true sacrifice for sin is indicated by his subsequent perplexity and message to Jesus (Matt. 11:2-6, note). Observe the analogy and the contrast between the O. T. and the N. T. Under the O. T. there were provided by the sinner lambs, whose sacrifice took sin away from the individual or the nation, but for the time only, and therefore the sacrifice needed to be continually repeated; under the N. T. one Lamb is provided, the Lamb of God, i. e., proceeding from and provided by God, as intimated by Abraham to Isaac (Gen. 22:8), whose sacrifice once for all (Heb. 10:10-12) takes away the sin of the whole world (1 John 2:2), and therefore never needs to be repeated. It is worthy of note that the word lamb is never used in the N. T. except in reference to Jesus Christ (John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12, etc.). The word lambs in the plural form occurs twice, but both times refer to the disciples of Christ (Luke 10:3; John 21:15).

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

30, 31. After me cometh, etc. See on verse 15.—But that he should be made manifest to Israel therefore am I come, etc. The object of the Baptist’s ministry was not then merely to preach repentance, but to preach repentance as a preparation for the coming of the kingdom of God in the incarnation of the King. And with this agrees his own definition of his mission (verse 23) and the other Evangelists’ epitome of his ministry (Matt. 3:2). The true office of the minister is always that Christ may be made manifest.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining[55] on him, the same is he which baptizeth[56] with the Holy Ghost.

[55] chap. 3:34.

[56] Acts 1:5; 2:4.

34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

32-34. And John witnessed. Evidently the Evangelist here speaks of his witness at some period subsequent to the baptism, and therefore subsequent to the temptation which immediately succeeded the baptism.—I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove. That is, in the form of a dove. The vision was seen only by Jesus and John. On it see Matt. 3:16, note.—And it abode upon him. The Spirit of God, not the dove, abode. That John in some way recognized the abiding as a part of the sign of Christ’s Messiahship, is evident from the next verse; how he recognized it is not indicated.—I also knew him not. He connects himself with the people who knew him not (verse 26). I, as well as you, knew him not, till this sign was vouchsafed me. Why then did he at first object to baptizing Jesus, if he did not recognize in him the Christ (Matt. 3:14). He was second cousin of Jesus; knew him, probably, as a pure and holy man; perhaps knew the facts respecting Jesus’ birth, which were certainly known to John’s mother; may even have suspected that he was the promised Messiah; and at all events may have believed that he needed no baptism of repentance. He did not, however, know him to be the Messiah, and did not recognize him as such, till after the promised sign, and this followed the baptism of Jesus.—Saw and bare witness. That is, at that time. He refers the people to his witness-bearing at the time of the baptism, a testimony which was still fresh in their memory.

35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples:

36 And looking upon Jesus as he walketh, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

35-37. Again the next day. That is, the day following the apparent public discourse, so briefly reported in the preceding verses (29-34).—And two of his disciples. See on their names verse 40 and note. As they were disciples of the Baptist it is to be presumed that they had been baptized, but by John’s baptism which was unto repentance and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. See Acts 19:3-5.—As he walked. Or, as we should say, As he was taking a walk. One of the numerous indications in the Gospels that Christ was a lover of nature, and accustomed to meditate and study in communion with nature.—Saith, Behold the Lamb of God. See on verse 29. Observe the practical value of line upon line. John’s private message recalls and repeats his public testimony. See Phil. 3:1.—And the two disciples heard him speak. He spoke possibly in soliloquy, more probably to them. It is clear that it was not a public discourse which is here reported. There is no ground for the hypothesis that the two disciples had not heard the discourse of the previous day. Rather the implication is that they had heard it, and these words uttered to them in private by their teacher, enforced the public lesson, and led them to seek further knowledge concerning the one who was pointed out to them as the Messiah. Observe how this passage teaches the value of personal work and personal influence. The first disciples are led to seek Christ, not by the public discourse, but by the private words of the Baptist; by private influence they bring Peter (41); by private invitation Philip is added to the disciples (43); and by his personal solicitation Nathanael is brought to Christ (45).—And they followed Jesus. Not, in the religious sense of the words, became followers of Jesus; not till later did they leave all to follow him (Luke, ch. 5). The simplest is also the truest interpretation of these words. They literally followed him; drawn partly by curiosity, partly, perhaps, by a real spiritual desire for closer acquaintance with the one whom their teacher designated as the Lamb of God.

38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.

38, 39. Jesus * * * saith unto them, What seek ye? Not because he was ignorant of their purpose, for he knew what was in man (ch. 2:25; comp. Mark 2:8, etc.); but because he would draw them out. In a similar manner he opens conversation with the woman at the well (ch. 4:10, 16), with the disciples fishing at the sea of Galilee (ch. 21:5), and with the disciples on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:17). Christ as a conversationalist is a study for the Christian. Observe how he opens the way and leads on to familiar acquaintance, first by his question, then by his invitation, finally by his hospitality.—Rabbi * * * Master. Rather, teacher, or doctor. Rabbi is a Hebrew word; teacher (διδάσκαλος) is its Greek equivalent. John, writing for the Gentile world, habitually translates the Hebrew phrases into their Greek equivalents.—Where dwellest thou? They are timid and dare not, or at least do not, express their whole desire. Often in the spiritual reticence, so common to the first experiences of the awakened soul, its real aspirations after truth are concealed beneath an assumed curiosity respecting some indifferent matter. Christ meets this non-pertinent if not impertinent curiosity with an invitation which attaches the two inquirers to him for life.—Come and see. Rather, Come and ye shall see. This is the best reading, and is given by Alford, Meyer, Tischendorf, Tregelles, etc. (ὄψεσθε not ἴδετε).—And abode with him that day. For the rest of the day.—For it was about the tenth hour. Reckoning from 6 A. M., according to Jewish fashion, this would make it 4 P. M. Observe, as indicative of the Evangelist John’s character, and of the force of the impression made on him from the outset by Christ, that he remembered not only the day, but the very hour, of his first interview with his subsequent Lord. This, too, is one of those minute touches which would not be found in either a mythical tradition or an ecclesiastical forgery.

40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou[57] shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

[57] Matt. 16:18.

40-42. One of the two * * * was Andrew. It is the almost universal belief of scholars that the other was John the Evangelist, an opinion which rests on the following considerations: (1) John never mentions himself in his Gospel; if he refers to himself at all it is never by name (ch. 13:23; 18:15; 19:26; 20:3; 21:20). (2) The name of the other disciple would have been mentioned if there had not been some special reason for not mentioning it, and John’s habit of suppressing his own name constitutes a sufficient reason; no other plausible reason has been suggested. (3) The minute accuracy of detail in this narrative, extending to the specification of the day and of the hour, justifies the belief that it is the narrative of an eye and ear witness. On the life and character of Andrew see note at close of Matt. ch. 10, Vol. 1.—He first findeth his own brother. Our English version is ambiguous if not misleading. The meaning is not, Before going to Jesus’ residence he found his own brother, but of the two he was the first to find Simon. The implication is that both went in search of him; all three, John, Andrew, and Simon were probably at the baptism of John the Baptist, and were his disciples. There is no evidence to sustain the hypothesis that John brought his brother James to Jesus at this time, or even that James was with John at the Jordan.—The Messiah * * * the Christ. One is a Hebrew, the other a Greek word. The meaning is the Anointed One. On the spiritual meaning of the names of Jesus, see note at close of Matt. ch. 1, Vol. I. Andrew’s exclamation of delight on finding the Messiah, eureka (εὐρήκαμεν, we have found), is the same attributed to Archimedes on his discovery of the adulteration of Hiero’s crown. He detected the mixture of silver in a crown which Hiero had ordered to be made of gold, and determined the proportions of the two metals by a method suggested to him by the overflow of the water when he stepped into a bath. When the thought struck him, he is said to have been so pleased that, forgetting to put on his clothes, he ran home shouting Eureka, Eureka, I have found it, I have found it. What is the grandest discovery compared with that which the soul makes when it finds its Messiah?—Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation Peter. Cephas is Hebrew; Peter is Greek; both words mean a stone. On the significance of this change of name, see Matt. 16:18, note. At the interview there reported Christ refers to the name here given, and confirms and interprets it; at least this is the view of the best Evangelical scholars, Meyer, Alford, Lange, Schaff; and it is more reasonable, on the whole, than the supposition that the Evangelist John anticipates and reports the change of name out of its place. The careful student will observe that here Christ’s language is that of prophecy: Thou shalt be called Peter; there it is the language of fulfillment. Thou art Peter. The apostle did not become Peter till he made the inspired confession of Christ as the divine Messiah, which is recorded in Matthew.

43 The day following. Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses[58] in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

[58] Luke 24:27, 44.

43-45. The day following. That is, the day following the bringing of Peter to Jesus, which Meyer thinks occurred on the same day in which Andrew and John accompanied Jesus to his home, but which it appears to me, from verse 39, must have occurred on the following day; and this is the view of the ancient and of many of the modern expositors. In that case the order would be as follows: first day, John’s conference with the delegation from Jerusalem (19-28); second day, John’s public testimony to Jesus (29-34); third day, John’s private testimony to Jesus (35-39); fourth day, Peter brought to Jesus (40-42); fifth day, Nathanael brought to Jesus (43-51); seventh day, one day intervening, the marriage at Cana in Galilee (ch. 2:1, etc.).—Findeth Philip and saith unto him, Follow me.

This is Christ’s first personal call of a disciple to follow him. There is no evidence that Philip ever withdrew from this personal following of Christ as did John and Peter and Andrew; they did not permanently attach themselves to Jesus till his subsequent call to them by the sea of Galilee (Luke 5:1-11). On Philip’s life, see note at close of Matt. 10, Vol. I. He is not to be confounded with Philip the deacon, mentioned in Acts 6:5; 8:5-12, etc.—Bethsaida. There is no good ground for the hypothesis that there were two towns of this name on or near the sea of Galilee. The city was on the northern shore, near the entrance of the Jordan into the sea. See Mark 6:45, note; and for illustration of site, John ch. 6.—Philip findeth Nathanael. Observe that the young disciple does not wait, but as soon as he has found Christ begins to declare his discovery to others. So with Andrew above (41), with the woman of Samaria (ch. 4:28, 29), with Paul after his conversion (Acts 9:20). Nathanael’s name occurs in the N. T. only here and in John 21:2. It is not among the list of apostles furnished by Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; and Acts 1:13. But they all mention, in close connection with Philip, a Bartholomew, which is not properly a name but only a patronymic, its meaning being Son of Tholmai. These facts have led most scholars to adopt, as a reasonable hypothesis, the opinion that Nathanael and Bartholomew are different names for the same person. The name Nathanael, like our Theodore, means gift of God.—We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write. The reference is unmistakably to the Messiah. For references in the books of Moses to the promised Messiah, see Gen. 3:15 and 17:7, with Gal. 3:16, and Deut. 18:15-19.—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. This is the language, not of the Evangelist, but of Philip. Unquestionably at that time Philip knew nothing of the supposed birth of Jesus; to him Jesus was, as to the Nazarenes subsequently (Matt. 13:54-56), simply the son of Joseph. The supposed inconsistency of this language and the account of Christ’s supernatural birth as given by Matthew, is therefore purely imaginary.

46 And Nathanael said unto him,[59] Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

[59] chap. 7:41.

46. Out of Nazareth is it possible that anything good can come! There is a scornful emphasis on the word Nazareth not preserved in our English version. That Nazareth was an unimportant and insignificant town is indicated by the fact that it is neither mentioned in the O. T. nor in Josephus; that the moral condition of its inhabitants was below that of the rest of Galilee is indicated by the declaration of Mark 6:5, 6, and by the mob which threatened the life of Christ at a time when he was just growing into popularity elsewhere in Galilee (Luke 4:28-30). No other definite reason is known for the evident odium which attached to Nazareth even in the minds of Galileans. Comp. Matt. 2:23, note. The question of Nathanael furnishes a striking illustration of the spirit of prejudice in even good men. To Nathanael it seems impossible that the promised Prophet can appear elsewhere than in or near the city of the Great King.—Come and see. This is the best answer to make to unbelief. Christ is his own best witness (ch. 5:34). It is not merely true that “personal experience is the best test of the truth of Christianity, which, like the sun in heaven, can only be seen in its own light” (Schaff), but it is also true that Christ is a greater miracle than any he ever wrought; and that the supreme character of Christ carries in itself a moral conviction to hearts which resist all arguments drawn from nature. Of this truth John Stuart Mill, in his Three Essays on Religion, affords a striking illustration. After considering all the arguments for the existence and perfection of the Divine Being derived from nature, and declaring that Natural Religion points to a Being “of great but limited power,” “who desires and pays some regard to the happiness of his creatures, but who seems to have other motives of action which he cares more for,” he comes to the character of Christ, and not only pays a tribute to it, eloquent and reverent, but adds his conviction that it would not “even now be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve our life.” Chrysostom notices the gentleness and candor of Philip’s reply; he furnishes a model to all disputants in dealing with religious prejudice. See 2 Tim. 2:24.

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold[60] an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

[60] Ps. 32:2; Rom. 2:28, 29.

48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw[61] thee.

[61] Ps. 139:1, 2.

49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou[62] art the Son of God; thou art the King[63] of Israel.

[62] chap. 20:28, 29; Matt. 14:33.

[63] Matt. 21:5; 27:11.

47-49. An Israelite indeed. Because in faith and love a true child of God. Comp. Luke

19:9; Romans 2:28, 29; Gal. 3:29; 6:15, 16. For O. T. description of such an Israelite, see Psalm 15.—In whom is no guile. Therefore, characteristically unlike the Pharisees, whose pride it was that they were children of Abraham (Luke 3:8; John 8:33), and who were full of hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 23:14-33).—Whence knowest thou me? As Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:5, 6, notes), so Nathanael is surprised by the Lord’s reading of his character and inward experience.—When thou wast under the fig-tree. The whole course of the narrative indicates in this response a supernatural sight, as in the previous characterization of Nathanael a supernatural insight. If Christ had merely chanced to see Nathanael without being seen by him, this fact would afford, surely, no basis for Nathanael’s faith, or Christ’s commendation of it. It seems also clear that something more is implied than the mere fact that Christ saw Nathanael under a fig-tree, since that would neither explain Christ’s commendation of him as an Israelite without guile, nor Nathanael’s astonishment. Hence the surmise of the commentators that he had retired there for purposes of prayer, and that Christ had seen him there, like the Israel from whom he descended (Gen. 32:24-23) wrestling with God, for the bestowal of the long-promised blessing to his realm, in the gift of the Messiah. It was probably this revelation of the secret of his soul which caused Christ to characterize him as a true Israelite, and Nathanael to recognize in the One who read his inmost life so perfectly, the King of Israel.—The Son of God * * * the King of Israel. The Messiah. See Ps. 2:7; Matt. 16:16; Luke 22:70; John 1:34; 11:27. Observe that Christ recognizes and accepts this characterization of himself at the outset of his ministry, a quite sufficient refutation of the theory of Renan, that it was the outgrowth of his followers’ later admiration, and tacitly accepted by Christ at or near the close of his earthly life. That Nathanael fully comprehended the meaning of his own confession is not, however, probable.

50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you. Hereafter ye shall see heaven[64] open, and the angels[65] of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

[64] Ezek. 1:1.

[65] Gen. 28:12; Dan. 7:9, 10; Acts 1:10, 11.

50, 51. There is some difficulty respecting the proper interpretation of Christ’s promise here. The word hereafter is rather henceforth; but it is omitted by the best critics, e. g., Alford, Tischendorf, Lachmann. The figure is undoubtedly drawn from the vision of Jacob (Israel) of the ladder between heaven and earth, and the angels ascending and descending on it (Gen. 28:12). Some suppose the reference to the angelic appearances to Christ, and the divine signs given in attestation of his mission (ver. 32; Matt. 4:11; Luke 2:13; 9:29-31; 22:43), but the earlier of these had already taken place, and Nathanael was neither present at the temptation, at the transfiguration, nor at the garden of Gethsemane. Chrysostom refers in addition to the angelic appearances at the resurrection, but they by no means furnish a literal fulfillment of the promise. Some interpret it spiritually, of the manifest opening of the heavens and the intercommunication between earth and heaven, through Jesus Christ. So Maurice: “Faithful and true Israelite! the vision to thy progenitor who first bore that name, shall be substantiated for thee, and for those who trust in me in lonely hours, through clouds and darkness, as thou hast done. The ladder set upon earth and reaching to heaven—the ladder upon which the angels of God ascended and descended—is a ladder for thee and for all. For the Son of man, who joins earth to heaven, the seen to the unseen, God and man in one, He is with you; through Him your spirits may arise to God; through Him God’s Spirit shall come down upon you.” Similarly Luther, Calvin, Tholuck, Alford, and others. But this interpretation is not wholly satisfactory, since it converts Christ’s words into an allegory, and deprives them of all literal meaning. According to this view the angels are but spiritual blessings, the open heavens are not seen, and the angelic appearances are not upon the Messiah, but through him to mankind. A third interpretation connects Christ’s words here with his analogous declarations in Matt. 25:31; 26:64, etc., and refers it to his Second Coming. So Ryle: “When He comes the second time to take his great power and reign, the words of this text shall be literally fulfilled. His believing people shall see heaven open, and a constant communication kept up between heaven and earth—the tabernacle of God with men, and the angels visibly ministering to the King of Israel, and King of all the earth.” I believe that these three views are congruous and consistent, and are all embraced in the promise. Christ opened the communication between earth and heaven; manifested that fact by the angelic appearances which accompanied his coming, his presence, and his departure; still manifests it, by the spiritual blessings which he constantly confers in answer to the prayers of his people; and will finally manifest it yet more gloriously when he comes to take possession of his established kingdom, with his holy angels with him. The past and present fulfillments of this prophecy are but fragmentary and imperfect. The final and perfect fulfillment awaits us in the future.

AN ORIENTAL WEDDING.
“And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee”

CHAPTER II.

Ch. 2:1-11. THE MARRIAGE AT CANA IN GALILEE. Christianity not asceticism.

This miracle is recounted only by the Evangelist John. That fact does not discredit the account: it incidentally confirms the view that he wrote to supply what was lacking in the other Gospels.

CANA OF GALILEE.

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana[66] of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there.

[66] ch. 4:46; Joshua 19:28.

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.[67]

[67] Heb. 13:4.

1, 2. The third day. That is, probably, after the interview with Nathanael described at the close of the preceding chapter. Lightfoot says that, according to Jewish custom, the weddings of virgins took place on the fourth day of the week, our Wednesday, and of widows on the fifth day, our Thursday.—There was a marriage. For description of wedding ceremonies among the Jews, with illustration of wedding procession, see Matt. 25:1-13, Prel. Note.—In Cana of Galilee. The traditional site is Kefr Kenna, four and one-half miles northwest of Nazareth. The more probable site is about nine miles north of Nazareth and six or eight hours from Capernaum. See Map, Vol. I, p. 50. Robinson describes it as a fine situation, and once a considerable village of well-built houses. They are now uninhabited and the whole region is wild and desolate.—And the mother of Jesus was there. Her name is never mentioned by John. The fact that Joseph is not mentioned in either of the Gospels, after Christ’s manhood, has led to the universal opinion that he was dead. The presence of Mary, and her apparent authority (ver. 5), indicates that the bride or bridegroom were connections or relatives. Different traditions represent respectively Alphæus, one of his sons, John the Apostle, and Simon the Canaanite as the bridegroom, but they are all equally untrustworthy. The Mormons maintain that this was the marriage of Jesus himself. The student will observe that it is said of Mary that she was there, of Jesus that he was called, an indication that he came at a later period, and probably after the marriage feast, which usually lasted for several days, had begun.—And his disciples. Probably those who had already begun to follow him, though not yet ordained as apostles, nor summoned by him to leave their regular avocations to become his constant companions. These were Andrew, John, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael, and they were probably invited because they were with Christ, and out of consideration for him.

3 And when[68] they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

[68] Eccles. 10:19; Isa. 24:11.

3. And the wine failing. Not merely, as in our English version, when they wanted wine. The implication is that wine had been provided, but the supply proved insufficient. Possibly the unexpected addition of the five disciples of Christ exhausted it.—The mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Why did she appeal to him? There is certainly no ground for such an explanation as that of Bengel, that she meant to give a hint to Jesus and his disciples to go away! Nor is there any evidence that she asked him to work a miracle, or even definitely anticipated or desired it. If she were in any way responsible for the success of the feast, and the supply was falling short, the appeal for help to her son was natural; and it was specially so, if, as modern customs in the Orient indicate (see Ellicott’s Life of Christ, p. 118), the guests often contribute to the supplies at such entertainments. Along with this desire to do the bride and bridegroom a favor, there may have been, as Chrysostom suggests, a desire through her son to render herself conspicuous, and a vague and inexpressible feeling that he could, if he would, supply the want by a miracle, as Elijah supplied the widow’s cruse (1 Kings 17:14-16). And his quasi rebuke, if rebuke it be, may have been addressed to this mother’s vanity.

4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. Some question has been made respecting the meaning of this language. It is clear (1) that woman is not a harsh term, and involves no tone of rebuke or reproof; for when Christ on the cross commends his mother to John’s care, he uses the same term, “Woman, behold thy son” (ch. 19:26); (2) the Greek phrase (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ) is properly rendered in our English version, What have I to do with thee? Though literally capable of the translation proposed by Dr. Adam Clarke, What is this to thee and me? that is, What is this to us? the uniform usage of the N. T. forbids this translation. The Greek is the same in the following passages, where the translation cannot be other than that given both there and here. Matt. 8:29, note; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 8:28. I can only understand it as a disclaimer on Christ’s part of any responsibility in the matter, and an intimation that in his future mission he was not, as he had heretofore been, subject unto his mother. There may also be in it implied a gentle rebuke of her endeavor to elicit from him some display of his miraculous power, before the time for the commencement of his public ministry. Chrysostom interprets her spirit here by that of Christ’s brethren (ch. 7:4), and his reply by his refusal, later, to turn aside from his work at her solicitation (Matt. 12:47, 48). Evidently she did not regard his language as that of refusal, for she expects his aid, and bids the servants do his bidding. “She read a yes latent in his apparent no.”—(Trench.)—Mine hour is not yet come. Not mine hour to die, though that is usually the signification of this oft-repeated phrase in John’s Gospel (ch. 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1); but that would be here meaningless; nor, The hour to work this miracle, because the wine is not yet wholly exhausted, or the guests are not conscious of the lack, and have not asked for supply; but, The hour for me to begin my public ministry, accompanied as it is to be with the working of miracles, the hour for my manifestation. The Protestant commentaries see in the language here a rebuke of the spirit of Mariolatry, in this following the fathers; e. g., Chrysostom: “The answer was not that of one rejecting his mother, but of One who would show her that having borne him would have availed nothing, had she not been very good and faithful;” and Augustine: “As God he has no mother. And now that he was about to perform a divine work, he ignores, as it were, the human womb, and asks, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ as much as to say, Thou art not the mother of that in me which works miracles; thou art not the mother of my Godhead.”

5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever[69] he saith unto you, do it.

[69] Luke 5:5, 6.

5. His mother saith onto the servants. The fact that there were servants, and more than one, indicates that the family was in at least comfortable if not opulent circumstances. Christ associated with the rich as readily as with the poor; but the rich did not, as readily as the poor, associate with him. Her direction to the servants and their unquestioning obedience indicates that in this marriage festival she had some degree of authority.

6 And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

8 And he saith unto them, Draw[70] out now, and bear unto the governor[71] of the feast. And they bare it.

[70] Eccles. 9:7.

[71] Rom. 13:7.

6-8. The forms of the water-pot and of the ewer, with which the water was drawn or dipped out, are shown in the accompanying illustration. The water-pots may have set in the room; more probably in an ante-room or in the courtyard of the house. The fact that the water was provided for purifying is stated to account for the presence of so much water; and the reference to the manner of the Jews is added for the Gentile readers, for whom John especially wrote. On these ceremonial washings, see Mark 7:2-5, notes. The firkin (μετρητης) is equivalent to 8⅞ gallons; the whole amount of water, therefore, was between 100 and 150 gallons. Since the jars were filled to the brim, the water was apparent after they were filled; there was, therefore, no room for fraud or mistake. The statement of the exact number and proximate size indicates that we have here the description of an eye-witness. It also indicates that there were a large number of guests.

WATER-POTS AND EWERS.

The quantity of wine made by Christ on this occasion has been the subject of some hostile criticism, as though it were an invitation to excessive drinking. But (1) there is no evidence that any more wine was created than was used. Whether it was changed in the stone jars, or as it was carried to the guests, does not appear; (2) in Palestine, a wine-growing and wine-consuming country, where it is not merely a beverage, but the beverage of the common people, four or five barrels of wine would not seem so extraordinary a supply as it would to us, nor would it produce any such effect in the consumption as an equal amount of the ordinary wines of to-day; (3) it is God’s way to pour out his bounty, not only in abundance, but in superabundance. As Christ created, not merely barely enough bread for the 5,000, but the disciples, after all were fed, gathered up twelve baskets full, so we may well believe that here he created not barely sufficient for the hour, but a superabundance which remained to bless the home after the departure of the guests. On the probable character of this wine, see below, Note on Christ’s example in the use of wine.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants[72] which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

[72] ch. 7:17; Ps. 119:100.

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine[73] until now.

[73] Ps. 104:15; Prov. 9:2, 5.

9, 10. The ruler of the feast. The same word as governor of the feast, in the preceding verse. Among the Greeks and Romans, a ruler of the feast (symposiarch) was commonly chosen, usually by lot, who regulated the whole order of the festivities, proposed the amusements, etc. A reference in the Apocrypha (Eccles. 32:1, 2) indicates that the same practice prevailed among the Jews. There is no ground for supposing the ruler of the feast in this case to have been other than a guest, who occupied this honorary office.—But the servants knew, they having drawn the water. Not merely, the servants which drew, knew; the reason of their knowledge is indicated; they knew because they had themselves filled the jars with the water, and drawn it out.—Called the bridegroom. Called out to him, probably across the table. The language which follows is sportive, and characteristic of such an occasion of festivity.—Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men are drunken, then that which is worse. The verb rendered in our English version “have well drunk” is literally are drunken. It is in the passive voice. This does not necessarily imply that in the East men counted on the inebriacy of their guests, and for that reason provided the best wine first, still less that the guests here were intoxicated. “The man says only in joke, as if it were a general experience, what he certainly may have often observed.”—(Meyer.) The ancient commentators have observed the difference between the feasts of the world and the feasts of Christ; the world gives its best wine at first, and when men have become intoxicated with it, then the poor, as the prodigal son experienced (Luke 15:13-16); Christ ever reserves the good wine to the last. See this thought beautifully drawn out by Jeremy Taylor in his Life of Christ. Comp. John 4:13, 14.

11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested[74] forth his glory: and his disciples believed[75] on him.

[74] ch 1:14.

[75] 1 John 5:13.

11. This beginning of miracles. An incidental and indirect testimony that the miracles of Christ’s infancy, narrated in the apocryphal Gospels, are spurious.—And manifested forth his glory. Observe his glory; the miracles of the disciples did not manifest forth their glory, but that of their Lord (Acts 3:8; 14:11-15).—And his disciples believed in him. That is, the five that had already begun to follow him. But what or how much they believed is not indicated. They began to have that confidence in him which was not consummated till after his resurrection.

In respect to this miracle, observe, (1) The simplicity of the narrative. John does not directly assert that the water was made wine, nor that a miracle was performed, nor does he deduce any conclusion from the event; he simply narrates what he saw and heard—the jars filled with water, the contents drawn out, the testimony of the governor of the feast to the excellence of the wine carried to him; the reader is left to draw his own conclusion. (2) The utter failure of all naturalistic explanations, such as that Christ simply accelerated the process of nature, or changed the attributes of the water after the analogy of mineral waters, so as to give it the taste and appearance of wine, or that the taste and semblance of wine was due to a state of spiritual exaltation on the part of the company, all of which views have had defenders even among orthodox critics. See Lange’s and Meyer’s Commentaries for a statement of these and kindred interpretations. Meyer well says, respecting them all, “Instead of a transmutation of water we have a frivolous transmutation of history.” (3) The impossibility of deception or fraud. The jars are those belonging to the household; they are filled to the brim with water; it is drawn out by the servants; the judgment respecting the wine is pronounced by the governor of the feast, who does not know of the miracle. (4) The analogy of nature. “He who made the wine at this wedding does the same thing every year in the vines. As the water which the servants put into the water-pots was turned into wine by the Lord, so that which the clouds pour down is turned into wine by the same Lord. It excites no wonder in us, because it occurs every year.”—(Augustine.) (5) The moral and spiritual significance of the miracle. Contrast Christ’s ready consent to convert water into wine to add to the festivities of others, with his refusal to convert stones into bread to supply his own imperative needs (Matt. 4:3, 4); his conversion of water into wine, the symbol of inspiration and life, with the first miracle of Moses, who converted water into blood, an instrument and a symbol of death (Exod. 7:20, 21)—Christ brings life and power, Moses brings law and condemnation (Rom. 7:8, 9); his entrance on his ministry by attendance on a marriage festivity, and his miracle to prolong its festivities, with the asceticism of John the Baptist (Luke 1:15; Matt. 3:4). Compare his inauguration of the new covenant by a miracle at a marriage with God’s inauguration of the old covenant by ordaining and creating the marriage relation (Gen. 1:21-24). Notice in this miracle a type of Christ’s redeeming love, who converts the water of the law into the wine of the Gospel, and every soul which hears and obeys his creative command into an inspiring life-giving spirit (John 5:21; 6:33; 1 Cor. 15:45). Observe the fundamental lesson, that Christ’s example bids us not to withdraw from the world, nor abstain from its use, but to use without abusing it (1 Cor. 7:31), and that the assertion that Christianity bids men “make this earth as unpleasant to themselves as possible so as to secure hereafter the joys of heaven,” is a monstrous perversion of the teaching and example of Jesus Christ. Comp. Matt. 9:9, 10; 11:19; Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1; John 12:1, 2.

Christ’s example in the use of wine. 1. The facts. These are that Christ inaugurated his public ministry by attending a wedding feast, and there by a miracle creating a large quantity of wine—certainly all that the guests could use—for the simple purpose of prolonging the festivities of the occasion; that he was accustomed throughout his life to attend social gatherings where wine was freely used; that he used it freely himself, notwithstanding the fact that it subjected him to the reproaches and the misrepresentations of his enemies (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34); that he never directly or indirectly condemns the use of wine, though he does condemn drunkenness (Matt. 24:49; Luke 12:45); and that he directs its use by his church as a perpetual memorial of his atoning love, and employs it as a symbol of joy and fellowship in the world to come (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:18; 1 Cor. 10:16). The force of this example is strengthened by the reflection that drunkenness was common in the East before Christ’s day (Esther 1:10; Isa. 5:22; 28:7; Dan. 5:2-4; Hosea 4:11), and in Palestine and the neighboring countries during Christ’s lifetime, so that even the church of Christ had need of constant admonition against it (Matt. 24:49; Luke 15:13; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 11:21; Gal. 5:21; 1 Pet. 4:3); that a Jewish Sect existed, the Essenes (Matt. 3:7, note), who were total abstainers, with whom Christ never identified himself; and that he directly contrasts his life and example with that of John the Baptist (Matt. 11:19), who, as a Nazarite, was pledged against the use of wine and strong drink (Luke 1:15; Numb. 6:3). Attempts have been made to show that the wine which Christ made on this occasion and used on other occasions was not fermented. It is certain that there were in use in the Greek and Roman world, and presumptively in Palestine, three kinds of wine—fermented wines, which, however, were unlike our own fiery wines and contained only a small percentage of alcohol, and which were usually mixed in the use with water, in the proportion of two or three parts of water to one of wine; new wine, made of the juice of the grape, and, like our new cider, not fermented and not intoxicating; and wines in which, by boiling the unfermented juice of the grape, or by the addition of certain drugs, the process of fermentation had been stopped, and the formation of alcohol prevented. It is claimed that fermented wine was not used at the Passover, though I can find no other reason for this opinion than the fact that leavened, i. e., fermented bread was prohibited—a prohibition the sole object of which was to remind the Jews of the haste of the original passover. Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 11:21 (see note there) makes it evident that fermented wine was used by the primitive church in the administration of the Lord’s Supper; and the Rabbinical rule, requiring water to be mixed with the wine at the paschal feast (see Lightfoot on Matt. 26:27), lest drunkenness should disgrace it, makes it equally evident that wine was used in the original O. T. festival. There is nothing in the language of the N. T. to indicate any discrimination between fermented and unfermented wines; Christ himself never directly or indirectly discriminates between them; neither do any of his apostles; and it is apparently indicated if not necessarily implied in the account here, and in other passages, that it was the ordinary fermented wine which Christ employed; see especially Matt. 11:19, “Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber,” and Matt. 9:17, “No man having drunk old (fermented) wine, straightway desireth new (that of the last vintage and unfermented), for he saith the old is better.” The language of Mark 14:25, “I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine,” etc., plainly implies that he had been accustomed to drink it freely and as a beverage with his followers. I judge then that Christ here made, and throughout his life ordinarily used, fermented wine; and this is the nearly unanimous judgment of the best unprejudiced Biblical scholars. The opposite opinion is of later origin, an after-thought, the product not of impartial Biblical research, but of the temperance reformation. (2) Significance of these facts. It appears to me clear, in the light of these facts, that neither Christ’s precept nor his example can be cited in favor of the doctrine of total abstinence, as a universal and permanent obligation from all use of wine, even as a beverage; that it rather indicates that he recognizes the right and propriety of so using it; and that the doctrine and practice of total abstinence must be maintained, if at all, not by any specific precept, nor by the general course of Christ’s life, but from local and perhaps temporary considerations, and solely on the ground that the Christian must always be willing to surrender a lawful gratification for the sake of a higher good, either to himself or to others (Matt. 5:29, 30; Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 6:12). It is equally clear that neither Christ’s precepts nor his example justifies the ordinary drinking usages of American society of to-day, with its bars, its wine-shops, its beer-gardens, its fiery wines and strong liquors, and all its attendant evils. The ordinary wine of to-day is a very different article from that in Christ’s day. The word is the same, the thing is different. And the usages are equally different. It is not my province here to enter into a general discussion of the temperance question, or even of the Bible teaching on the subject; but for the convenience of the student I add, from my Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, a tabular view of the principal Bible passages which bear on the subject, either for or against the use of wines.

THE BIBLE
Commends Wine: | Condemns Wine:
As an offering to God with oil and wheat: | As a cause of violence and woe:
Numb. 18:12. | Prov. 4:17; 23:29-32.
Neh. 10:37-39. | Of self-security and irreligion:
As a blessing to man: | Isa. 28:7; 56:12.
Gen. 27:28-37. | Hab. 2:5.
Deut. 7:13. | As a poison:
Judges 9:13. | Deut. 32:33.
Prov. 3:10. | Prov. 23:31.
Isa. 65:8. | Hosea 7:5.
Joel 3:18. | As an accompaniment of wickedness:
Ps. 104:15. | Isa. 5:22.
Zech. 9:17. | As an emblem of divine wrath:
As an emblem of spiritual blessing: | Ps. 60:3; 75:8.
Isa. 55:1. | Isa. 51:17.
Sol. Song 7:9. | Jer. 25:15.
As a perpetual memorial of Christ’s atoning sacrifice: | Rev. 14:10; 16:19.
Matt. 26:26-29. | By the example of priests on entering the tabernacle:
Mark 14:22-25. | Lev. 10:8-11.
1 Cor. 10:16. | Of Rechabites:
As a medicine: | Jer. 35:6.
Prov. 31:6, 7. | Of Nazarites:
1 Tim. 5:23. | Numb. 6:2, 3.
By the example of Jesus Christ: | Of Daniel:
John 2:1-11. | Dan. 1:8, 12.
Luke 7:34.

Ch. 2: 12-22. CHRIST CASTS THE TRADERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE. An illustration of the character of Christ.—A symbol of the work of Christ.—An example to the followers of Christ.

This incident is narrated only by John. It is not to be confounded with the second casting out narrated by the synoptists. See note on Matt. 21:12, 13. This occurred at the first Passover in Christ’s public ministry; that at the last. There is a significance in the repetition. It indicates both the tendency of a corrupt church to corruption in spite of cleanings, a truth unhappily abundantly illustrated in history; and the persistence of Christ’s zeal, a quality imperfectly reflected in the zeal of his disciples. The probable date of this event was March, A. D. 28.

12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

12. Went down to Capernaum. From Cana, which was the hill country, to Capernaum, which was on the shore of the sea of Galilee. For description of Capernaum, see Matt. 4:13. It would be on the natural though not necessary route from Cana to Jerusalem. This visit is not to be confounded with Christ’s permanent change of residence from Nazareth to Capernaum, which resulted from the mob in the former city (Luke 4:28-31); this did not take place till after the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12, 13). The statement that they continued not there many days, distinguished this visit from that permanent change of residence.—His mother and his brethren and his disciples. His public ministry had not yet fully begun; he had not, therefore, yet left his mother and brethren to devote himself to his work. That these were real brethren, not cousins or other relations, I think is clear, though by many doubted. See note on “Brethren of our Lord,” Vol. I, p. 187.

13 And the Jews’ passover[76] was at hand, and Jesus[77] went up to Jerusalem,

[76] Ex. 12:14.

[77] Verse 23; chap. 5:1; 6:4; 11:55.

13. And the Jews’ Passover was at hand. For origin of Passover see Exodus, ch. 12; for some account of its ceremonies see Matt. 26:26-30, Prel. Note.—And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Observe, that he was accustomed to attend the Jewish feasts as well as the synagogue services. The corruption of the church did not cause his withdrawal from its public services (ch. 10:25).

SUBSTRUCTURES OF THE TEMPLE.

BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF JERUSALEM.

PLAN AND SECTION OF THE TEMPLE.
From “Life of Jesus, the Christ,” by Rev. Henry Ward Beecher.

14 And found[78] in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

[78] Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.

14. In the temple. Historically there were three temples: Solomon’s (1 Kings, ch. 6, 7; 2 Chron., ch. 3, 4), the temple of Zerubbabel, constructed at the time of the restoration under Nehemiah (Ezra 3:8-11; 6:3-5), and Herod’s. The latter, named for its builder, Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1, note), is the one mentioned here and elsewhere in the N. T. Its site, established with as much certainty as any in the N. T., was a rock platform in the southeast corner of Jerusalem, now occupied by the Mohammedan Mosque of Omar. In its erection ten thousand skilled workmen were employed; among them one thousand priests especially instructed in the arts of the stonecutter and the carpenter. The result was a temple whose architectural magnificence is thought never to have been surpassed in ancient or modern times. It was less a building than a collection of buildings, and covered an area of over nineteen acres. The stone was white marble, the roof cedar, the architecture probably a combination of the Greek and the Roman. On the east it overlooked the valley of the Cedron, forming an effective fortification. It also served as a defence on the north, where adjoined the tower of Antonia, the barracks of the Roman soldiery. On the south a single gateway, on the west four gateways, gave exit and entrance. On the east it was connected by a bridge over the Tyrophœan valley with Mount Zion, the site of Solomon’s and later of Herod’s palace. The remains of this bridge have been lately discovered. The annexed ground plan, from Henry Ward Beecher’s “Life of Christ,” will enable the reader to understand the internal structure of the temple. The illustration in Vol. I, p. 257, will give an idea of its external appearance. The reader is there supposed to be on the Mount of Olives looking down upon the temple from the east; Mount Zion with its palaces and towers is in the background; the long-roofed structure on the left, that is, the south, is the royal cloister or Stoa basilica. This is minutely described by Josephus (Ant. 15:11, 5). It consisted of a nave and two aisles, the side toward the country being closed by a wall, that toward the temple proper being open. It was 105 feet in breadth, 600 feet in length; the centre aisle was 100 feet high, the side aisles 50. The roof of cedar was supported by 102 Corinthian columns of white marble, the floor was a magnificent mosaic. Between this cloister and the temple structure was the open court of the Gentiles. It was open to all, heathen and Jew alike, and was used for the purpose of social and intellectual exchange, as well as for religious processional services. Here Christ (Matt. 21:23), and subsequently his disciples (Luke 24:53; Acts 5:21, 42), taught the people. Inscriptions in Greek and Latin forbade the heathen from passing beyond this court, under penalty of death. For a supposed infringement of this law Paul was mobbed (Acts 21:26-30). Within were the successive courts of the women, of Israel, of the priests. In this latter was the sacred furniture and utensils, the table of shewbread, the altar, the laver, etc. In the heart of this enclosure, investing all with a mysterious sacredness, was the Holy of Holies, veiled from even priestly gaze by the curtain, which was subsequently rent in twain at the time of Christ’s death (Matt. 27:57). This Holy of Holies, 90 × 30 feet, is seen in the illustration of the temple as restored, in the centre of the building; it constituted the most prominent feature. It was in the outer court of the Gentiles that the sheep and cattle and money-changers had gathered. The scattered Israelites were unable to bring in person the sacrifices for the altar. The Mosaic law permitted them to sell their first-fruits, and with the money purchase their gifts at Jerusalem (Deut. 14:24-26). They were also required to pay for the support of the temple service a half-shekel (Exod. 3:11-16; Matt. 17:24-27, notes). This must be paid in Jewish money, for Gentile coin would pollute the sacred coffers. Thus, gradually, the feast-days became great market-days, as they still are among the nomadic tribes of the Mohammedan religion. The priesthood, sharing in the profits, suffered the traffickers gradually to intrude into and occupy the outer court of the temple. Thus, not only were the religious services of the Jews disturbed by the bleating of sheep, the lowing of cattle, the cooing of doves, the clangor of the money-changers, and the hum of a busy market, but the Gentiles were absolutely driven from all participation in the religious benefits of the temple. To their exclusion Christ referred in the second expulsion (Mark 11:15-19, note). The priests winked not only at the sacrilege, but also at the double defrauding of God and man which accompanied it (Mal. 1:7, 8). The court of the Gentiles was worse than a market-place; it was a den of thieves. Thus Christ’s act was not only a vehement protest against the sacrilege which suffers business to encroach on the house and worship of God, but also a rebuke of the bigotry which is indifferent to the religious wants and worship of men not of our race, faith, or companionship.—Those that sold cattle, sheep, and doves. For sacrifices under the Levitical law; sheep, rams, lambs, goats, kids, bulls, cows, calves, doves, and sparrows were offered for this purpose. All sacrifices were required to be offered by the priesthood and in the temple. On the great feast-days, when the population of Jerusalem was increased to a million or more, the traffic must have been both large and profitable.—And the changers of money. Money-changers had in Greece and Rome their stalls or tables in the streets and market-places for the purpose of exchanging the coin of one nation for another. They are still to be found in Jerusalem, seated by their little glass cases, in which are saucers of brass filled with coins of silver and gold, of every size and value.

THE EXPULSION OF THE TRADERS.
“He drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the changer’s money, and overthrew the tables.”

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

15, 16. And when he had made a scourge of rushes. The original indicates that the scourge was made of the rushes which were used to bed the cattle. Christ picked these up from the floor and wove them together into a whip.

Of course this fragile lash would not do much real execution. It was used as one might use a switch to alarm and so drive out the animals. The original shows very clearly that it was used for this purpose alone, and not to threaten the men with physical chastisement.—He drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. This is the correct rendering; our English version is ambiguous and so misleading.—And poured out the changers’ money. Poured it out upon the floor. This prevented their resisting, for it occupied their energies to pick up and save the coin.—And said unto them that sold doves. It is noteworthy that he drove out the sheep and cattle, which the owners could reclaim in the streets, but did not set the doves free, which would thus have been lost to their owners. A true Christian indignation never blinds to the true rights even of the most flagrant wrong-doers.—Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise. Compare Christ’s language at the second expulsion, Mark 11:17, note.

EASTERN MONEY-CHANGER.

17 And his disciples remembered that it was written,[79] The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

[79] Psalm 69:9.

17. And his disciples remembered, etc. At the time, not afterward; if this had been meant it would have been expressed, as in ver. 22. It is not here stated that the utterance in Ps. 69:9 was a prophecy which Christ fulfilled; simply that his course recalled the language there. The fact indicates the vigor and intensity of Christ’s zeal in the manner and spirit of his action, as well as in the act itself.

This and the subsequent purification of the temple during the Passion week, indicate in Christ a vigor and intensity of character, and a power of indignation, which modern thought rarely attributes to him. They interpret the suggestive description of Christ’s personal appearance given by John in Rev. 1:13-16, the only hint of his personal appearance afforded by the New Testament. We can imagine that in this expulsion his eyes were as flames of fire, his feet firm in their tread like feet of brass, his voice as the sound of the ocean, his words as a two-edged sword. This indignation was aroused by (a) the sacrilegious covetousness which made God’s house a house of merchandise; (b) the fraud which converted it into a den of thieves; (c) the selfishness of the bigotry which excluded the heathen from the only court reserved for them. It should inspire in his disciples a like spirit of indignation (a) against the sacrilegious covetousness which converts the house of God into a mart of merchandise, whether by the sale of indulgences, masses, and prayers to others, or by employing it not for the praise of God but for the social and pecuniary profit of the pretended worshipper; (b) against the bigotry which permits us to look with indifference upon the exclusion of the poor, the outcast, the despised from the privileges of God’s house. It is a type of (a) the cleansing which Christ comes to do for every soul, which is a temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16), and out of which all unclean things must be driven by the power of God, before it is fit for God’s indwelling; (b) the final cleansing when he will come to cast out all things that defile and work abomination (Rev. 21:27). Observe that in Revelation the world is represented as dreading “the wrath of the Lamb.” Christ’s example here does not justify the use of physical force by the church to cleanse it from corruption; for Christ did not employ physical force. His whip was not a weapon; the power before which the traders fled was the moral power of Christ, strengthened by the concurring judgment of their own consciences and the moral sense of the mass of the people (Mark 11:15, note).

18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign[80] showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

[80] ch. 6:30; Matt. 12:38, etc.

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy[81] this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

[81] Matt. 26:61; 27:40.

18, 19. What sign showest thou unto us? What evidence of authority to expel from the temple practices allowed by the priesthood. They questioned not the right of an inspired prophet to act thus, but the authority of Jesus as a prophet. The moral power before which all quailed was the greatest of signs; but to that they were indifferent. “They required signs to be proved by signs.”—(Bengel.) No other authority for any reformation is ever required than the power and grace to achieve it. The same question was repeated at the second cleansing, but it elicited a very different answer (Matt. 21:23).—Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. In interpreting this passage observe that (1) John himself explicitly declares Christ’s meaning, “He spake of the temple of his body” (ver. 21); (2) that not only the Jews, who might have willfully perverted Christ, misunderstood his meaning, but his own followers did not, till after his death, understand him (ver. 22); hence (3) the hypothesis that he pointed to himself when he said, “Destroy this temple,” is not only unnecessary but improbable. The words are a prophecy, but are purposely left enigmatical, to be interpreted by the event. The temple is itself a type of man, who is intended to be the temple of God, in which he will dwell; and therefore a type perfectly fulfilled only in Christ, in whom alone the Spirit of God dwelt without measure, and with no periods of partial or complete exclusion. The Jews in crucifying Christ destroyed the divine reality of which the building was only a symbol or prophecy; moreover they inaugurated that terrible drama of passion which ended in the literal destruction of the temple itself. For description of this destruction see Matt. ch. 24, Prel. Note. Some objections to this passage have been suggested. (1) The crucifixion of Christ and his resurrection taking place three years later cannot be a sign of his authority here. Ans. In fact Christ does not comply with the Pharisees’ demand for a sign but refuses it, as in the analogous passage in Matt. 12:34-40, where he also by a metaphor refers to his resurrection. (2) The prophecy would not be and in fact was not understood. Ans. It was not intended to be understood then, but to afford a basis for the faith of the disciples when subsequent history had interpreted it. It was an enigma more likely to be remembered because enigmatical. “Many such sayings he uttered which were not intelligible to his immediate hearers, but which were to be so to those who should come after. And wherefore doth he do this? In order that when the accomplishment of his predictions should have come to pass, he might be seen to have foreknown from the beginning what was to follow.”—(Chrysostom.) (3) The language is imperative and thus involves a command by Christ to crucify him. Ans. The imperative, Destroy this temple, is not equivalent to the future, You will destroy this temple; nor is it permissive merely, You may destroy this temple; nor yet is it a command, You must destroy this temple. It is a challenge. Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up. “It springs from painfully excited feelings, as he looks with heart-searching gaze upon that implacable opposition which was already beginning to show itself, and which would not be satisfied till it had put him to death.”—(Meyer.) (4) The language, I will raise it up, imputes to Christ the power of the resurrection which is uniformly attributed to the Father. Ans. This objection is founded on a misapprehension. The N. T. recognizes no such distinction between the Father and the Son as this objection implies, and Christ uses language elsewhere, as distinctly implying his own act in the resurrection as that used here (ch. 10:18; 11:25; comp. 5:39, 40, 44). The interpretation proposed by some writers, that Christ here speaks of the decay of the Jewish religion in its temple, and the building up of a new spiritual theocracy, will not be accepted by those who believe that John’s explicit declaration of Christ’s meaning is inspired and authoritative. Observe how the Jews intentionally misrepresented Christ’s saying; they accused him of threatening to destroy the temple (Matt. 26:61, note), when he had really prophesied that they would destroy it.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple[82] of his body.

[82] Ephes. 2:21, 22; Col. 2:9; Heb. 8:2.

20. Forty and six years was this temple in building. The argument is a natural one, and seemed conclusive. The temple was commenced by Herod twenty years previous to the birth of Christ, and had been forty-six years in construction up to this time. It was not finally completed, however, till A. D. 64, under Herod Agrippa II; so that it was really over eighty years in building. The workmen were at this time still engaged upon it, and the language of the people refers to the work up to this time.

22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he[83] had said this unto them: and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

[83] Luke 24:8.

22. When therefore he was risen from the dead. Not merely after but at the time of his resurrection and in the light of that fact, the disciples interpreted both what he had said and what the O. T. contained on this subject.—They believed the Scripture. Not the N. T., no part of which was written at the time of the resurrection; and the “Scripture” is here distinguished from the words which Jesus had spoken. The O. T. contained prophecies of the resurrection which are enigmatical, and probably were but imperfectly comprehended by even the most devout Jews, but which were interpreted by the event (Ps. 16:4 with Acts 3:15; Ps. 17:15; 73:23, 24; Isaiah 26:19; Hosea 6:2). For evidence that Christ, and subsequently the apostles, recognized in the O. T. prophecies of the resurrection, see Luke 24:26, 27; John 20:9; 1 Cor. 15:4.

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name when they saw the miracles which he did.

24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he[84] knew all men,

[84] ch. 16:30; 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9; 29:17; Jer. 17:9, 10; Matt. 9:4; Acts 1:24; Rev. 2:23.

25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

23-25. Many trusted in his name, seeing the signs which he wrought, but Christ did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed not, etc. Compare with the English version the translation here given which approximates more nearly to the original; and observe respecting this that (1) the term miracle has acquired in modern theology a technical meaning it does not possess in the N. T. Christ may have wrought miracles at this time not recorded by the Evangelist (ch. 21, 25), but the belief of the Jewish disciples may have rested on such signs of his moral power as the expulsion of the traders from the temple; (2) their trust in his name was not necessarily a true spiritual acceptance of him as a personal Saviour from sin; the reverse is implied by the statement that they trusted him because they saw his miracles; and still more by the declaration respecting himself that he did not entrust himself to them; (3) this declaration would scarcely need interpretation were it not for a common misinterpretation. It does not imply that he held back from them his doctrine, or refused to work miracles for their benefit, but simply that he did not and could not enter into that close and unreserved personal intercourse with them which characterized his Galilean life and companionships. He knew them too well to do this; knew that when the spiritual and universal nature of his kingdom of love was revealed unto them, they would reject and crucify him. The statement that he knew what was in man, indicates a divine and supernatural reading of the secrets of the human heart, of which the N. T. affords many and striking illustrations (Matt. 9:4; Mark 2:8; Luke 7:39, 40). The declaration that he knew all men, indicates that this interior knowledge of the heart was not occasional and exceptional, but universal. Melancthon sees in the example of our Lord here an admonition of caution in opening our hearts unreservedly to strangers, even though they may seem to receive our word with kindness. Be friendly to all, be intimate with few.

CHAPTER III.

Ch. 3:1-21. CHRIST’S CONVERSATION WITH NICODEMUS.—The argument from miracles: its strength and its weakness illustrated (verse 2).—Christ more than a teacher, a Life-giver; Christianity more than a system of truth, a new life.—The condition of spiritual knowledge, a new spiritual life.—The spirit of skepticism illustrated (verse 4).—The true method of answering skepticism, not by argument, but by personal assured conviction (verse 5).—The two conditions of entering Christ’s kingdom: a new spiritual life, and a public confession of Christ (verse 5).—Like begets like.—The known and the unknown in theology (verses 8, 11): the known, what takes place on earth; the unknown, what takes place in heaven.—The ignorance of the wise; he is no master who has no personal knowledge of the new birth.—The power of salvation: a crucified Christ; the condition of salvation: faith in Him; the condemnation of sinners: their love of darkness and rejection of the light.

Christ’s interview with Nicodemus is described only by John. It occurred immediately after the events described in the preceding chapter, and before Christ had inaugurated his missionary labors, which he did not begin till the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Mark 1:14). In studying this passage, the following considerations will prevent the student from falling into the perplexities and errors into which some learned and orthodox commentators have fallen. (1) The conversation was had at the commencement of Christ’s ministry, before he had explained, even to his own disciples, the principles of his kingdom; we cannot therefore safely assume that Nicodemus was familiar with those principles, nor can we interpret Christ’s teachings here by the later apostolic teaching, except in so far as that was developed from this as from a germ. (2) Nicodemus was a Pharisee, therefore a formalist, and pre-eminently a Jew. We may safely assume that Christ’s object was in part to correct Jewish and Pharisaic errors, and our first object must be to understand, if we can, Nicodemus’ understanding of our Lord. (3) There is no evidence that John was present at this interview; and it is not probable that we have a full verbatim report of it. The structure of the narrative indicates that only so much of the conversation is reported as was necessary to make clear Christ’s discourse founded thereon.

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus,[85] a ruler of the Jews:

[85] ch. 7:50, 51; 19:39.

1. There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus. Of Nicodemus nothing is known except what John tells us. He is not mentioned by the other Evangelists; and subsequent traditions are untrustworthy. There is a Nicodemus referred to in the Talmud; but there is nothing to identify him with this one, for the name was common among the Jews. The only incidents related of him are this conference, his protest against condemning Jesus unheard (ch. 7:50-52), and his participation with Joseph of Arimathea in the burial of Jesus (ch. 19:39). There is a spurious Gospel of Nicodemus, the author of which is, however, unknown. The designation of him here as a ruler of the Jews indicates that he was one of the Sanhedrim, and this indication is confirmed by ch. 7:50. On the character of the Pharisees, see Matt. 3:7, note. Among them there were some pure and honest souls, sincere but not courageous seekers after the truth (Mark 12:28-34; 15:43; Acts 5:34-39; 15:5; Phil. 3:5); to this class of the Pharisees Nicodemus seems to have belonged.

A MODERN JEWISH RABBI.

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for[86] no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God[87] be with him.

[86] ch. 9:16, 33; Acts 2:22.

[87] Acts 10:38.

2. The same came to Jesus by night.

Why by night? The reason generally assumed is fear of the Jews; but this is not asserted by the Evangelist, and at this time there had not been developed any pronounced hostility on the part of the Judeans to Jesus. Nicodemus may have had a natural reluctance to commit himself to an unknown Rabbi, till he had learned more of his doctrine; he may have simply sought a quiet and personal conversation, such as he could not obtain in the busy day-time.—Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher. The plural is not used here for the singular number; Nicodemus expresses not merely his own personal conviction, but that of the Pharisees as a class. That they did, even much later, recognize Christ’s superhuman character and mission is clear from such passages as Matt. 12:23, 24; John 9:29-34; 11:47, and this even when they resisted him most bitterly.—For no man can do these miracles, etc. This is the argument from miracles put in the tersest possible form. Comp. Acts 4:16, 17. And this is all that miracles prove, namely, the commission and authority of Christ; they do not of themselves show his character. Nicodemus then regards Christ as a prophet sent from God; and John, who in ch. 1:6, etc., has drawn clearly the distinction between the prophet and the Light and Life, reports in this conversation with Nicodemus a discourse of Christ in which he emphasizes the same distinction. Nicodemus impliedly asks to know what new doctrine Christ has to teach; Christ replies in substance that the world needs not new doctrine, but new life. The key to the understanding of this conversation is the contrast between the two conceptions of religion, as a system of doctrine, and as a new and spiritual life.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except[88] a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

[88] ch. 1:13; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:1; Tit. 3:5; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:29; 3:9.

3. Verily, verily. With Christ these words are a common precursor of any especially weighty and solemn declaration (Matt. 5:18, note).—Except a man be begotten anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. On the meaning of this sentence, it is to be observed that, (1) The word (γεννάω) here rendered in our English version born, more properly signifies the act of begetting. Here therefore Christ’s language carries Nicodemus back to the very beginning of life. (2) The word (ἄνωθεν) rendered here in our English version again, is certainly mistranslated. It means either anew, i. e., from the beginning or from above. Both meanings are attached to it here by the best scholars. According to the first definition, Christ simply implies that the life must begin anew, that the character must be rebuilt from the foundation, without however implying how; according to the other idea, he indicates in the use of this word not only a new but a spiritual and divine birth. The word is used in the first sense in Luke 1:3, where it is rendered from the very first; in the second sense in James 1:17; 3:15, 17, where it is rendered from above. It is clear that Nicodemus understood it in the former sense merely, and therefore I have so rendered it here. (3) The word rendered see (ἰδεῖν) is not equivalent to enter into (εἰσελθεῖν), as Meyer interprets it. The declaration is explicit that a new spiritual life is necessary, not only to enter into but even to form any correct conception of the kingdom of God. And with this agrees the teaching of Christ elsewhere (Matt. 13:14, 15), and of Paul (1 Cor. 2:9, 14, 15). Christ thus declares to Nicodemus that he cannot even understand the spiritual teachings of the new religion without first beginning a new life. In other words, a new spiritual life is the condition precedent to a correct spiritual apprehension of Christ’s teaching. It is further to be observed that light is thrown on the meaning of this declaration by a consideration of previous Rabbinical and of later Apostolic teaching. The new birth was a familiar metaphor with the Rabbis. They held that a Gentile in becoming a Jewish proselyte, and submitting to circumcision and baptism, was born again. Old things passed away; all things became new; it was even maintained that the proselyte might marry his nearest kin without offence, because the old relationships were annulled by his new birth. Christ employs this metaphor, familiar to the Jewish Rabbi, without interpreting it, and declares that no man, Jew or Gentile, could see the kingdom of God without undergoing a change as radical. This truth, that a man may bury his old life and begin a new one, with something of the freshness and hope of youth, is also foreshadowed in the O. T. (Isa. 1:18, 19; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 11:19, 20; 36:26), and underlies the teaching of the N. T. (Rom. 6:8; 8:3; 12:2; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Ephes. 2:1-8; Col. 3:9, 10; Titus 3:5); and the metaphor itself frequently occurs in the teaching of the apostles (Rom. 8:15; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3; 1 John 3:9).

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

4. How can a man be born when he is old? It seems to me clear that this question is asked in a spirit of irony. So Godet, Alford, Luther, and others. Considering that the metaphor was a common one, as Lightfoot has shown, and that the doctrine of a new life inspired from God could not have been unknown to any devout student of the O. T. (see references above), it is hardly possible to suppose that Nicodemus took Christ literally. This is however Meyer’s interpretation of the question; but it represents Nicodemus as not only “a somewhat narrow-minded man,” but also as a grossly ignorant and stupid one; and so, in truth, Meyer represents him throughout.

In the following verses (5-8), Christ answers Nicodemus’ threefold question: first, by simply reasserting his declaration that no man can see the kingdom of God unless he is born anew; second, by declaring the nature of this new birth, as the commencement of a new spiritual life, not of a new physical or fleshly life; and third, by borrowing an illustration from nature to indicate the degree of knowledge attainable by man on this subject; he can perceive the results of the operations of the spirit of God, but he cannot trace them to their source nor comprehend their laws.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water[89] and of the Spirit,[90] he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[89] Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38.

[90] Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 2:12.

5. Born of water and of Spirit. Governing ourselves by the cardinal canon, that we are to understand Christ as Christ expected his auditor to understand him, it cannot be difficult to understand this declaration. The Jewish proselyte, as a sign that he put off his old faiths, was baptized on entering the Jewish church. John the Baptist, employing the same symbolic rite, baptized Jew as well as Gentile, as a sign of purification by repentance from past sins. The Sanhedrim were familiar with his baptism, and had sent a delegation to inquire into it (ch. 1:19, 25), and he had told them prophetically of the baptism of the Spirit which Christ would inaugurate. Nicodemus then would certainly have understood by Christ’s expression, “born of water,” a reference to this rite of baptism, and by the expression, “born of the Spirit,” a reference to a new spiritual life, which however he could have only imperfectly apprehended. The declaration then is that no man can enter the kingdom of God except by (1) a public acknowledgment and confession of sin, a public putting off of the old man and entering into the new; and (2) a real and vital change of life and character wrought by the Spirit of God in the heart of the believer. By the one act he enters into the visible and external kingdom; by the other, into the spiritual and invisible kingdom. That a public confession and consecration is essential is clearly indicated elsewhere in Christ’s teaching (Matt. 10:32, 33). Observe the difference in phraseology here and in verse 3. He cannot see the kingdom of God, except his eyes are opened by the Spirit of God; he cannot enter it, except by a public and complete abandonment of the old and a spiritual consecration to the new life (2 Cor. 5:14-16).

6 That[91] which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

[91] 1 Cor. 15:47, 49; 2 Cor. 5:17.

6. That which is born of flesh is flesh. The connection is this: even if a man when he is old could enter again his mother’s womb and be born, it would avail nothing; that which is born of flesh is always flesh; only that which is born of the Spirit partakes of the Spirit of God. (Comp. Rom. 8:5-9.) The declaration here, coupled with John’s explicit declaration in ch. 1:14, that the Word was made flesh, implies that the birth of Jesus was supernatural, though he narrates none of the circumstances of that birth.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The original, by its construction, puts an emphasis on the word ye. And it was this which surprised Nicodemus; not that men must be born again, but that this necessity was laid on him, a child of Abraham, and an honored ruler and teacher among the Jews. Observe too that he says ye, not we. “The Lord did not, could not say this of Himself. Why? Because, in the full sense in which the flesh is incapacitated from entering the kingdom of God, He was not born of the flesh. He inherited the weakness of the flesh, but his spirit was not like that of sinful man, alien from holiness and God, and therefore on Him no sentence hath passed; when the Holy Spirit descended on Him at His baptism, the words spoken by the Father were indicative of past approval, not of renewal. His obedience was accepted as perfect, and the good pleasure of the Father rested on Him. Therefore He includes not himself in this necessity for the new birth.”—(Alford.)

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so[92] is every one that is born of the Spirit.

[92] 1 Cor. 2:11.

8. It is very difficult to convey the exact meaning of the original of this verse; for in the original the same word signifies wind and spirit; there is thus a verbal felicity in the metaphor, a certain play upon the word itself, which cannot be transferred from the Greek into another language. As in nature we see the operation of the summer breeze, that comes we know not whence, and goes we know not whither, so in the kingdom of grace we see the effects of the Spirit of God, in changes wrought in the individual character and in the community (Gal. 5:22), but are unable to comprehend the nature of the influence or the laws according to which it operates. Christ by this metaphor certainly indicates something more than the mere incomprehensibleness of the Spirit’s work (comp. Eccles. 11:5); he indicates also the realm in which we are to conduct our investigations, and that from which, by the nature of the case, we are excluded. We can study to advantage the results of the Spirit’s operations; but all endeavors to know how He operates, what are the occult laws of His being and work, are in vain. A humble acceptance of this teaching would eliminate many useless discussions from theology. Alford notices that the Greek word used for wind (πνεῦμα) indicates the gentle breath of summer, not the violent gale. “It is one of those sudden breezes springing up on a calm day, which has no apparent direction, but we hear it rustling in the leaves around.” Observe also in the language, where it listeth, an indication of the fact that the divine operations are free, unconstrained, and not answerable to man, nor subject to his control. Comp. Rom. 9:15, 16.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

9, 10. Nicodemus answered, ... how can these things be? He is sobered by the moral power and earnestness of the Lord, lays aside cavilling, and asks seriously for clearer light. For similar effect of Christ’s personal power on a skeptical nature, compare his conference with the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:11 with 25), and with Pilate (ch. 18:33-38 with 19:9-12); compare also account of Paul before Festus and Agrippa (Acts 26:31, 32). Observe that Christ does not overcome Nicodemus’ skepticism by arguing against his objections, but by the mere power of his own personal assurance of the truth.—Thou art the teacher of Israel; and dost thou not know these things? There is certainly in this declaration and question a touch of irony and of rebuke. The necessity of a radical change of heart and life, for Israelite as well as Gentile, is abundantly taught by the O. T. (see ver. 3, note, for references); Nicodemus, as a professional teacher of the religion of the O. T., ought not to have been surprised at Christ’s reiteration of the truth; and the less because the doctrine of a new birth and a public baptism as a symbol of it were taught by the Rabbis to the Gentiles. The language here, The teacher of Israel (ὁ διδάσκαλος) indicates that Nicodemus was a well-known teacher; perhaps that he prided himself on his pre-eminence.

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We[93] speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

[93] 1 John 1:1-3.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?

11, 12. We speak that we do know, etc. Christ has spoken hitherto only of that which is matter of common observation, viz., man’s need of a new and divine life, and the apparent results of it in character and conduct. He now speaks of that which is matter of personal experience with Him, the new life in the soul. He now becomes not merely an interpreter to facts that are patent, but also a witness to facts that are not. Christian teaching, to be effectual, must always be founded on personal experience of the truth taught (1 Cor. 2:12, 13).—Earthly things ... heavenly things. The connection of these verses with the preceding interprets the contrast which Christ here indicates. Nicodemus has impliedly asked for an exposition of Christ’s system of truth. Christ has replied by saying that no man can understand the truths that pertain to the kingdom of God unless he is born again. This necessity of a radical change in heart and life in order to appreciate divine things is an earthly fact, easily tested by an observation of men; a striking evidence of it is afforded by the question of Nicodemus in verse 4. He then immediately goes on to ask how such a change can be effected. But this, the method of God’s work in anew creating the heart, is a heavenly thing, not a matter of observation; and Christ says, If you do not believe me when I tell you a truth which you can easily verify by studying the earthly life of men, what use is there in my telling you the secrets of God’s working, the truth of which disclosure you have no means of verifying. Observe the implication that the things which are earthly, literally, upon the earth (ἐπίγεία), belong to us to study and know, and the things which are heavenly, literally, which take place in the heavens (ἐπουρανια), belong to the secret counsels and work of God, and do not belong to us to investigate (Deut. 29:29). And yet by far the largest proportion of theological conflicts have taken place respecting these hidden things, concerning God’s eternal counsels not man’s present duty.

13 And[94] no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

[94] Eph. 4:9, 10.

13. The key to the interpretation of this verse is to be found in its context and connection. Christ says: How shall ye believe if I tell you of things which take place in heaven; yet no one else can tell you, for no one has ascended into heaven, and no one therefore can report its secrets, except he who has descended from heaven and is in continual communion with heaven. So interpreting it, observe, (1) The declaration, No one (not merely no man) hath ascended up to heaven, means no living person; it does not militate against the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, nor imply an unconscious or even an intermediate state. It is by the connection limited to those living on the earth, for they alone could reveal the secrets of heaven if acquainted with them. (2) He that came down from heaven plainly implies the pre-existence and supernatural character and origin of Jesus Christ (comp. ch. 8:58). He contrasts himself with other men, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, as the only one who has descended to earth from heaven. (3) Which is in heaven indicates not merely, as Meyer apparently interprets it, that Christ’s proper abode and home were in heaven, but also that he maintained a vital and continuous communion therewith, dwelling in the Spirit in heaven, even while in the flesh upon earth. The Christian’s experience interprets, though it does not fully measure, this mystery of the heavenly life in the flesh (Phil. 3:20; Ephes. 2:6; Heb. 12:22).

14 And as[95] Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

[95] Numb. 21:9.

15 That whosoever[96] believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

[96] ver. 36; Heb. 7:25.

14, 15. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. The reference here is to the event recorded in Num. 21:4-9. The account there should be carefully studied and compared with the spiritual interpretation which Christ affords here. What species are there indicated by the description “fiery serpent” is not very clear; probably the title was given from the burning sensations produced by their bite. Travelers describe a large serpent, said to abound in the Arabian peninsula, full of fiery red spots and undulating stripes, and regarded as one of the most poisonous of the serpent kind. Excruciating heat and a burning thirst are among the symptoms produced by the bite of this serpent. The brazen serpent described in Numbers is thought to have been put upon a pole and carried throughout the camp, so as to bring it within the sight of all the people. It was carefully preserved and carried into the Holy Land, where it became an object of idolatry and was destroyed in the reformation instituted under Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4). A Roman Catholic church at Milan, Italy, however, still claims to possess the original brazen serpent.—Must the Son of Man be lifted up. Why must? What is the necessity? That question Christ does not answer here, nor, so far as I can see, does the N. T. anywhere. It simply represents the atoning sacrifice of Christ as a necessity, without explaining the grounds of that necessity (comp. Luke 24:26). That it is in the divine economy of grace an inexorable necessity is indicated even by the types of the O. T. (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22). The phrase “Son of Man” was a common Jewish designation for the Messiah. It would have been so understood by Nicodemus (Matt. 10:23, note).—Be lifted up. Not only on the cross, but by the cross unto glory. It is the cross which lifts up Christ to be the object of adoration for the whole creation (Phil. 2:9; Rev. 5:9).—Should not perish. These words are wanting in the best manuscripts. But the doctrine implied, that those who do not believe will perish, is clearly taught in verse 16, from which it was probably borrowed and inserted here by some early copyist.—Eternal life. The same Greek words are rendered everlasting life in the next verse (ζωὴν αἰώνιον). Comp. ch. 10:10. Eternal life is the life of the soul which disaster cannot impair nor death destroy—a present possession, not a future inheritance, except that it is a possession which grows in value and importance in the future.

In studying Christ’s language in these two verses observe (1) That we have Christ’s authority for the doctrine that the O. T. history is intended to indicate, by types or object-teaching, the great truths of the Gospel. This he assumes elsewhere in his ministry (Luke 22:15, 19, 20; John 6:49-51), and it is directly asserted by Paul (1 Cor. 10:11), and underlies the Epistle to the Hebrews. The history of the brazen serpent is then a parable of the Gospel; parabolically it points out the way of salvation. (2) The serpent is throughout the Bible an emblem of Satan, and its poison an emblem of the deadly and pervasive effects of sin (Gen. 3:1, 14, 15; Deut. 32:33; Psalm 58:4, 5; 140:3; Rom. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9). It is a fitting emblem—slight in its first wound, affecting the blood, the current and fountain of life, pervading the whole frame with its subtle poison, a poison for which there is no human remedy, and resulting in certain death. (3) For the human soul, poisoned by sin, the end whereof is death (James 1:15), there is lifted up One who, though he knew no sin, was made in the likeness of sinful flesh (2 Cor. 6:21), so that in him the enemy himself was, as it were, nailed to the cross (Col. 2:15). Thus, as the brazen serpent represented the fiery serpent, yet had in him not poison but healing, so Christ represented sinful flesh, but had in him no sin but redemption from the poison of sin in others. (4) The one only condition of healing to the poisoned Israelite was that he look on the brazen serpent; and this simply as an act of obedient faith. To this fact Isaiah had reference in his interpretation of the divine condition of salvation, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:22). So here to “believe in him” is not to believe some doctrine about the Messiah, but simply to trust in him, to look unto him (Acts 16:31; Heb. 12:2). (5) The work of heralding the Gospel is the work of Moses in the wilderness. It is a simple pointing to the Saviour, lifted up that the sinner, by looking unto him, may be saved. The work of instruction in the precepts of Christ and the principles of his kingdom comes after, not before, salvation (Matt. 28:19, 20, note).

16 For God[97] so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[97] 1 John 4:9.

16. Some scholars, including Olshausen and Tholuck, suppose that Christ’s discourse ends with the preceding verse, and that the remainder, to verse 21, are added by John; but the grounds for such an hypothesis seem to me quite insufficient, and the objections to it quite conclusive. The grounds are (a) That all allusion to Nicodemus is henceforth dropped. But Nicodemus is only introduced as an interrogator, because his questions elicit the instruction of Jesus; and only so much of his share in the conversation is recorded as is necessary to make Christ’s language intelligible. (b) Thenceforth past tenses are used. This might, however, well be the case, even if the events were future, the discourse being prophetic. But the events were not future, but past. The love of God, the sending his Son into the world, the opening of the door of salvation through Him—all this was already accomplished; and the passion is not described in detail as an event past. (c) The phrase “only begotten” is said to be peculiar to John. But Stier well replies that John probably obtained the phrase from Christ. The objections to the view which supposes that Christ ends the discourse at verse 15, and that the rest is John’s are, (a) That the discourse breaks off abruptly, if ended at verse 15, leaving Nicodemus in entire ignorance of the way of salvation. The same necessity which, on this hypothesis, led John to complete it, would much more have led Christ to complete it. (b) There is nothing to indicate a break at verse 15; and to suppose John guilty of adding to the discourse of our Lord his own words, without indicating that it is an addition, is to accuse him of imposture, if not forgery, and casts discredit over his whole narrative. Lange, Stier, Meyer, Alford, all hold the discourse to be our Lord’s to the end, at verse 21. The verse itself has been well called by Luther “The little gospel,” for it embodies the whole gospel in a single sentence. It declares the divine nature—love (1 John 3:9, 16); the nature of that love, a love unto self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of his Only Son; the object of that love—the whole world; the result of that love—the gift of the Messiah; the divine nature of the Messiah—God’s only begotten Son; the object of that gift—salvation; the sole condition of securing the benefits of that gift—trust in the Saviour; the proffer of that salvation—to all that believe in him; the effect of rejecting it—perishing; the effect of accepting it—everlasting life. Observe, (1) that all attempts to limit the meaning of the word world (ὁ κόσμος) to the elect, or the church, are inconsistent with the original and with other parallel passages of Scripture. See particularly 1 John 2:2, and Matt. 13:38, note; (2) the cause of the atonement is traced here not to the wrath but to the love of God, a fundamental fact often lost sight of in presenting that doctrine; (3) in the original an emphasis is put upon the word so, which is not preserved in the English version. The wonder of the Gospel is not that God loved the world, but that he loved it with such a love, a love which only the sacrifice of an only begotten Son can interpret.

17 For God[98] sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

[98] Luke 9:56.

17. Not ... to condemn the world. The Jews believed (see Lightfoot) that the Messiah would save Israel and judge the Gentile nations. It was a Rabbinical interpretation of Isaiah 21:12, “The morning cometh and also the night.” “It will be the morning to Israel (when the Messiah shall come), but night to the (Gentile) nations of the world.” This error Christ refutes, in this his first private preaching of the Gospel, as subsequently in his first public preaching (Luke 4:25-27); he declares that he brings salvation to the whole world. Alford notices the peculiar construction of the close of the verse, not, That he might save the world, but, That the world through him might be saved. “The free will of the world is by this strikingly set forth in connection with verses 19, 20. Not that the Lord is not the Saviour of the world, but that the peculiar cast of this passage requires the other side of the truth to be brought out.”

18 He[99] that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

[99] ch. 6:40, 47.

18. The connection is this: Though God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, yet he is even now judging it and condemning its unbelief, though not in the way Nicodemus had anticipated; his mere presence is a judgment. His fan is in his hand (Matt. 3:12); for he that trusts in Christ is thereby taken out from judgment, while he that rejects Christ condemns himself. The next verse states the ground and the nature of this condemnation. The Light has come into the world, and men by refusing the Light attest their love of darkness; and it is for this, not for the darkness but for their love of it, that they are condemned.—Is not condemned. But “is passed from death unto life” (ch. 5:24).—Is condemned already. The sinner is condemned, not by Christ but by his own act; he is self-condemned (Tit. 3:11). Observe, that throughout the N. T. both condemnation and salvation are represented as present realities, not as future possibilities. The last judgment decides nothing; it simply announces publicly the results of the judgment now forming. Life is the true judgment-day.—Because he hath not believed. Men are not condemned for their deeds but for their desires. The way of escape from the evil is provided and declined; and for this the soul is condemned. Thus it is true that the Lamb of God taketh away the sin of the world (ch. 1:29) and yet condemns the sinner (ch. 15:22), because the condemnation is not for the past sin, but for the present rejection of the Saviour from sin.—In the name of the only begotten Son of God. The name is Jesus, i. e., Saviour, and was given to him because “he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). To disbelieve in that name is to reject that salvation. “The ‘only begotten’ also here sets before us the hopelessness of such a man’s state; he has no other Saviour.”—(Alford.)

19 And this is the condemnation, that light[100] is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

[100] ch. 1:4; 9:11.

19. And this is the condemnation. Not merely, This is the cause of the condemnation; Christ has already stated that in the preceding verse; he here states the nature of the condemnation. He that loves darkness rather than light is given over to his own choice; this is the sentence pronounced against him (Hosea 4:1-17; Rom. 1:28; Rev. 22:11).—Men loved darkness rather than light. Not merely more than light; they chose darkness. For illustration of this deliberate choice of darkness see Matt. 13:14, 15; 28:12-14; John 6:66; 12:10, 11; Acts 4:16, 17; 2 Tim. 4:10. This is not always, however, a conscious and deliberate choice. See John 12:43; 2 Tim. 3:4.—Because their deeds are evil. Corrupting to others. This is the force of the Greek word (πονηρὰ), which is different from that rendered evil in the next verse. The corrupting power of sin lies in its secreting its evil character and purpose; hence it avoids the light; hence too it is called in Scripture the power of darkness (Luke 22:53; Col. 1:13; Rev. 16:10). Observe the secret cause of unbelief here indicated; men are willfully ignorant of the truth. It is not the intellect, but the will which is perverse. “The source of unbelief is immorality.”—(Meyer.)

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither[101] cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

[101] Job 24:13, 17; Pr. 4:18, 19.

20. Every one that practiseth evil. Worthless things (φαῦλα) not as in the preceding verse, things corrupting. But corrupting include worthless things, for they are not only worthless but worse than worthless. The evil here characterized is parallel to the idle words of Matt. 12:36, and it is opposed to the truth which is always fruitful in goodness and love.—Hateth the light. It has been supposed by some that there is in these words a covert rebuke of Nicodemus for coming to Christ secretly by night. This seems to me improbable. Christ was not accustomed to conceal his rebukes so deftly.—Lest his deeds should be reproved. Not necessarily by words of condemnation, but by the mere exposure of their worthlessness when brought to the light. See Luke 3:19, 20; John 8:8, 9; Compare Ephes. 5:11-13.

21 But he that doeth[102] truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought[103] in God.

[102] 1 John 1:6.

[103] John 3:21.

21. But he that doeth the truth. Man practises the evil (πράσσω), he does the truth (ποιέω). Compare ch. 5:29, where the same distinction is observed: “they that have done good (shall come forth) unto the resurrection of life, they that have practised evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” “He that practises (πράσσω) has nothing but his practice, which is an event, a thing of the past, a source to him only of condemnation, for he has nothing to show for it, for it is also worthless (φαῦλον); whereas he that does (ποιέω) has his deed—he has abiding fruit; his works do follow him.”—(Alford.)—Cometh to the light. Not merely is willing and desirous to come to the light, but is also enabled to come to it, and to appreciate and receive it (Prov. 4:18; John 7:17). Observe that throughout the N. T. truth is represented not merely as an abstract philosophy to be intellectually received, but as a life in harmony with the eternal verities of God’s law and character. Thus the incarnation is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity; as Christ is himself emphatically the Truth, so every Christian must be in a smaller measure an embodiment and incarnation of divine truth, manifesting it less by his words than by his life. So, on the other hand, Paul catalogues the vices of life, as the things which are contrary to “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:10). For an exemplification of what it is to do the truth, see Psalm 15.—That they are wrought in God. The Christian comes to the light, not for self-glorification, but to glorify God; his desire is not to manifest the goodness in himself, but the goodness in God which has triumphed over the evil in himself (Matt. 5:16; 1 Cor. 15:10).

Ch. 3:22-36. FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM JOHN THE BAPTIST TO JESUS.—The office and the joy of the ministry—Christ contrasted with his herald—The human confirmation of divine truth—The conditions of salvation—The ground of condemnation—The danger of and the defence from envy.

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judæa; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.[104]

[104] ch. 4:2.

22. After these things. Not necessarily immediately after. There is nothing to indicate how much time elapsed between the conversation with Nicodemus and the events recorded in the latter part of this chapter, except the note of time in verse 24.—And baptized. Christ did not baptize (ch. 4:2), and the baptism could not have been in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the Holy Ghost was not yet given (John 7:39), that is, in such measure as to be the common heritage of all disciples. The probable explanation of the statement here and in ch. 4:1, 2, is that of Chrysostom: “Both parties (John and the disciples of Jesus) alike had one reason for baptizing, and that was to lead the baptized to Christ.”

23 And John also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim,[105] because there was much water there: and they[106] came, and were baptized.

[105] 1 Sam. 9:4.

[106] Matt. 3:5, 6.

24 For John[107] was not yet cast into prison.

[107] Matt. 14:3.

23, 24. In Enon near to Salim. The site of both places is uncertain. For different hypotheses see Smith’s Bible Dictionary, article Ænon. Jerome and Eusebius both affirm that Salim existed in their day eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis near the Jordan. Van der Velde found a Mussulman oratory called Sheyk Salim about six miles south of Scythopolis, and two miles west of the Jordan. Dr. Hackett seems to think this the more probable site. This places it near the northern border of Samaria.—Because there was much water there. Rather many waters, i. e., many springs. Whether this spot was chosen because the water afforded conveniences for baptizing, or because the springs afforded conveniences for the pilgrims that flocked in such numbers (Matt. 3:5) to the baptism of John, is uncertain. Nothing respecting the form of baptism can be deduced from this expression.—For John was not yet cast into prison. For chronology of this period, see Matt. 4:12, note. The events recorded in John, chaps. 2, 3, and 4, seem to have occurred between the temptation and the first preaching of Jesus recorded in Matt. 14:3-12; Mark 6:14-29. See notes there.

25 Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.

26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest[108] witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men[109] come to him.

[108] ch. 1:7, 15, etc.

[109] Ps. 65:2; Isa. 45:23.

25, 26. Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and a Jew about purifying. Not the Jews, but a Jew, an indication that the difficulty, whatever it was, started with him. Various conjectures have been proposed respecting the nature of this question. The discussion of them is unprofitable. The fact of the question is merely stated to explain how the instructions of John the Baptist came to be given.—And they came. Some of the disciples of John came.—Said unto him. What they said was evidently in the nature of a complaint. “He who also was with thee,” said they, “as one of thy disciples, has started off on a mission of his own, and is eclipsing thee.” There was possibly a little personal jealousy in this complaint. To their minds Jesus was but a disciple of the Baptist like themselves.

27 John answered and said, A man[110] can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

[110] 1 Cor. 2:12, 14; 4:7.

28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said,[111] I am not the Christ, but that I[112] am sent before him.

[111] ch. 1:20, 27.

[112] Luke 1:17.

27, 28. A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven. Some, as Alford and Maurice, suppose that John refers to himself, saying in effect: I cannot take more than God has given me, viz., the mission of a herald; others, as Chrysostom, that he refers to Jesus. This latter seems to me clearly the true view, which has been abandoned, perhaps, from a reluctance to apply the principle involved in it to Christ, that whatever power he possessed was not independent but derived from the Father. The connection seems to me to be this: “If he whom I baptized is drawing all men unto him and is conferring on them spiritual gifts greater than I conferred, it is because his spiritual power, heaven bestowed, is greater. For, in the spiritual realm no man can usurp; no man can receive what heaven does not give.” In other words, spiritual results are always an all-sufficient justification for any spiritual work. No question of its regularity, or of the authority or the right of the worker is to be entertained.—Ye yourselves bear me out. He turns their words, “to whom thou barest witness,” against themselves. See for his witness Matt. 3:11, 12; John 1:20, 25-27.—I am sent before him. As a herald before a king (Luke 3:3-6).

TRADITIONAL SITE OF ENON.

29 He that hath the bride[113] is the bridegroom: but the friend[114] of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

[113] Cant. 4:8-12; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16:8; Hos. 2:19, 20; Matt. 22:2; 2 Cor. 11:2; Ephes. 5:25, 27; Rev. 21:9.

[114] Cant. 5:1.

30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

29, 30. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom, etc. In the East, etiquette forbids any meetings between the bride and groom prior to marriage. Often they do not even see each other. All communications between them are carried on by one answering to our groomsman, and who is designated as the friend of the bridegroom. See Matt. 25:1-13, Prel. Note. To this custom John refers. The Church is the bride (Matt. 9:15; 25:1-13; Rev. 21:9); in a sense every individual Christian is the bride (Jer. 3:14; Isa. 54:5); Christ is the bridegroom; every one who brings Christ to his Church, or to the individual soul, is a “friend of the bridegroom.” The practical lesson for us is that we are to rejoice to be lost in the Master; to rejoice when our mission is ended for the Church or the individual, and those whom we have been teaching are able to say to us, as the Samaritans to the woman (John 4:42), “Now we believe, not because of thy saying; for we have heard him ourselves, and know that it is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.” “I know scarcely any words in all the Scriptures which have a deeper and diviner music in them than these, or which more express all that a Christian minister and a Christian man should wish to understand and feel; and should hope that some day he may understand and feel as he who first spoke them did.”—(Maurice.)—Who standeth and heareth him. Stands ready to do the bridegroom’s bidding.—He must increase, but I must decrease. This is with John the Baptist a subject not for resignation, but for rejoicing. His decrease in the increasing of Christ is the evidence that his work and his faith have not been in vain. For him to live is Christ; hence the more Christ and the less John, the greater his joy.

31 He that cometh from above[115] is above all: he[116] that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

[115] ch. 6:33; 8:23.

[116] 1 Cor. 15:47.

32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man[117] receiveth his testimony.

[117] ch. 1:11.

31-32. It has been supposed by some critics that the discourse of John the Baptist ends with the preceding verse, and that what follows is a comment by the Evangelist, (so Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck); and by others that although it is in form the Evangelist’s report of the Baptist’s words, it has been so transformed in the reporting that it is in effect the Evangelist’s, (so Lucke and De Wette.) It must be confessed that the style is far more like that of John the Evangelist than like that of John the Baptist, so far as we have reports from other quarters, of the latter’s discourses; but there is no indication of any transition here from a report to a comment on it; and the closeness of the connection in thought forbids the idea that any such transition exists. I therefore (with Alford and Meyer) regard the whole discourse as in substance that of John the Baptist, though probably in phraseology largely that of the Evangelist.—He that cometh from above is above all. The Baptist emphasizes the contrast between Christ and himself. Christ, from above and above all, speaks what he knows and has seen (comp. John 3:11); John the Baptist from the earth, and possessing the earthly nature, can, like all other human teachers, only declare the truth as it has come to him in his earthly condition and as seen through the earthly atmosphere. The teachings of Christ are the highest even in the Bible, for they are free from that admixture of earthiness which belongs essentially to all mere earth-born teachers.—No man receiveth his testimony. A sorrowful comment (comp. ch. 1:11); but not literally true, nor is it intended to be literally taken. This is evident from the next verse.

33 He that hath received his testimony hath set[118] to his seal that God is true.

[118] 1 John 5:10.

34 For he[119] whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure[120] unto him.

[119] ch. 7:16.

[120] ch. 1:16; Ps. 45:7; Isa. 11:2; 59:21; Col. 1:19.

35 The Father loveth the Son,[121] and hath given all things into his hand.

[121] Matt. 28:18.

33-35. He that hath received his testimony hath sealed that God is true.—The seal was in ancient times, as in modern, attached to any document in confirmation and attestation of it. John the Baptist declares that whoever accepts heartily the testimony of Jesus Christ becomes himself a confirmation of its truth to others, by his own life. The meaning is interpreted by Matt. 5:14; and 2 Cor. 3:2. A pregnant and suggestive metaphor; that we put the seal to God’s testimony.—He whom God hath sent. The question of Christ’s relation to the Father is not in issue here. John’s disciples complain that Jesus teaches at all; John replies that the divine effects of his teaching are the attestation of his divine ministry; and that having been divinely sent, he can speak no other than divine words. Compare ch. 7:16.—For the Father giveth not the Spirit by measure. Alford sustains the addition of the English translators, unto him; to me it seems, as to Meyer, quite arbitrary. The meaning is not, God has distinguished Christ from all other teachers by his unmeasured gifts of grace to him; but, when God gives he does not stint, nor measure, nor parley, but gives abundantly more than we can ask or think (Ephes. 3:20); therefore, when he sends one into the world to reveal divine truth, we are not to be afraid of his teaching, and to put limitations upon and hindrances about him, lest he go astray. The truth that God has given immeasurably more into the hands of his only begotten Son than to any created being appears in the next verse, not in this. Our English version destroys the climax, and makes ver. 35 little more than a repetition of ver. 34.—And hath given all things into his hands. Observe that throughout the N. T. the power and authority of Christ is represented as derived from the Father, not as original or independent of him. See for example, John 5:26; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9.

36 He[122] that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath[123] of God abideth on him.

[122] ver. 15, 16; Hab. 2:4.

[123] Rom. 1:18.

36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. An assertion, not a promise. The declaration is not that everlasting life shall be given to him in the future as a reward for his act of faith, but that faith at once inducts him into spiritual life, which is alone everlasting. Compare ver. 18 above; Rom. 6:23; 1 John 3:2. Observe what faith confers is life, i. e., the highest development and activity of the whole being (John 10:10), the reverse being death.—He that believeth not the Son. Two different Greek words are translated in the two clauses of this verse by the English word believe. The force of the original is impaired, if not destroyed, by this mistranslation; but it is not easy to find in English the exact equivalent for the distinction which is noted in the original. The passage may perhaps be rendered, He that hath faith in (πιστεύων εἰς) the Son hath everlasting life; but he that will not be persuaded by (ἀπειθων) the Son shall not see life. Beware of considering Believe on the Son as equivalent to either Believe correctly about the Son, or even Believe the Son. See Matt. 18:6, note.—Shall not see life. Not only shall not have it, but cannot even comprehend it. Spiritual life is only spiritually discerned, and faith is the first condition of spiritual discernment. See ver. 3 and note.—The wrath of God abideth on him. Remains, as something previously resting upon him and not removed. See Ephes. 2:3.

SYCHAR.

CHAPTER IV.

Ch. 4:1-26. CHRIST AND THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA.—Christ a preacher in season and out of season.—His example as a Christian conversationalist.—The divine spring; the human cistern.—The essential and the insignificant questions in worship contrasted.

This interview between Christ and the Samaritan woman is reported alone by John. The time is uncertain; the only definite indication is that of verse 35, and the interpretation of that is uncertain. With Ellicott and Andrews, I think December of A. D. 27 the most probable date. Matthew (4:12) explains Christ’s departure into Galilee by saying that it took place when he heard that John the Baptist was cast into prison; John here attributes it to another cause, a fear of rivalry and contention between his own and John’s disciples. The probable explanation is that Christ left Judea for the latter reason, but did not commence his public ministry till the imprisonment of the Baptist. See ch. 5, Prel. note.

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized[124] more disciples than John,

[124] ch. 3:22, 26.

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

3 He left Judæa, and departed again into Galilee.

4 And he must needs[125] go through Samaria.

[125] Luke 2:49.

1-4. Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. The conversation between Christ and Nicodemus took place at the Passover, and therefore in the spring; if that between Christ and the woman at the well occurred in December, Jesus and John the Baptist baptized together during the summer. The doctrine which Christ preached at this time was substantially the same as that of the Baptist. “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17); for he had not yet begun to explain publicly the spiritual and universal nature of his kingdom. But differences between the ministries of the two were from the first apparent; differences chiefly respecting the ceremonials of religion—purifying, baptizing, fasting (ch. 3:25, 26; Matt. 9:14). The increasing popularity of Christ threatened to awake the envy of the Baptist’s disciples, his disregard of ceremonial to awaken their suspicion; the Pharisees were alert to stimulate both. So Christ withdrew, forestalling the first danger of rupture and conflict, a lesson to all Christian workers against all unchristian rivalries and contentions about details in doctrine or ceremony. Envy is the most common instigator of denominational controversy.—Jesus himself baptized not. No instance is recorded of any baptism administered by Christ, or of any baptism commanded or authorized by Christ, till after his resurrection and about the time of his ascension. Baptism appears to have been adopted by his disciples from John the Baptist, and employed by them without express direction from Christ, as a symbol of repentance and a profession of a new life, and to have been subsequently adopted in a modified form by their Lord. That it was always regarded by the apostles as subordinate to the preaching of the Word is indicated by Acts 10:4, 8, with 1 Cor. 1:16, 17, from which it appears to have been a ministerial act not ordinarily performed by the apostles. On the history of baptism, see note on the baptism of Jesus by John, Vol. I, p. 72, and on Christian baptism, note on Matt. 28:19.—And he must needs go through Samaria. Simply because that province lay directly between Judea and Galilee, and therefore on the direct route. See map. Josephus tells us that it was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city to the festivals, to take their journey through the country of the Samaritans. The more bigoted Judeans may have sometimes avoided it by going through Perea. The history of Samaria explains, and in some measure justifies, the odium attaching to it and its inhabitants among the Jews. At the time of the secession of the ten tribes under Rehoboam (1 Kings, ch. 12), Shechem was adopted by him as the capital of the new monarchy, and made the seat of an idolatrous worship. Subsequently the city of Samaria was built by Omri, king of Israel, as capital (1 Kings 16:24), and so remained till the time of the captivity of the ten tribes under Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17:6). A heathen colony was then sent in to take the places of the exiled Israelites; these colonists suffered from the devastations of wild beasts, and acting on the common assumption of that time that their own gods were not competent to take care of them in a strange land, sent for and received priests of Israel to teach them the manner of the God of Palestine. The result of this instruction was a mixed religion, partly Jewish, partly heathen (2 Kings 17:24-41). In the O. T., the phrase “the cities of Samaria,” is equivalent to the “kingdom of Israel;” it thus included all of Palestine north of Judea. That portion of Israel east of the Jordan which originally belonged to it was subsequently taken away the kings of Assyria (1 Chron. 5:26), Galilee shared the same fate (2 Kings 15:29), and Samaria was reduced to the dimensions which it possessed in the time of Christ. The character and conduct of the Samaritans increased the antagonism between them and the Jews. They were refused permission to participate in the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, at the time of the return of Judah from captivity, and became open, and, for a time, successful opponents of the rebuilding (Ezra, chaps. 4 and 5; Neh., chaps. 4 and 6). Finally, an exiled priest from Jerusalem obtained permission from the Persian king of his day to build a rival temple at Gerizim, and Samaria became the rival of Jerusalem, and the rallying-point of its foes and its outlaws (Josephus’ Antiq. 11:8, 6). To a rival temple and religion, they added a Samaritan Pentateuch, for which they claimed a greater antiquity and authority than for any copy of the O. T. possessed by the Jews. The bitter national and religious antipathy between Jew and Samaritan, consequent upon this history, is illustrated in several passages in the N. T. (ver. 9, note; 8:48; Luke 9:52-56; 10:30-37; 17:16). If anything could justify such an antipathy this would be justified, since the Samaritans were renegades both to their religion and to their nation; and Christ’s course here and elsewhere implies a condemnation of all rancor and bitterness, founded on race, national, or religious differences. Of the Samaritans, one hundred and fifty still worshipping in a little synagogue at the foot of Gerizim are all that are left, “the oldest and the smallest sect in the world.”

5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave[126] to his son Joseph.

[126] Gen. 33:19; 48:22; Josh. 24:32.

5. A city of Samaria called Sychar. The prevalent opinion is that Sychar is a corruption of the name Shechem, that it means drunken, and that this slight change was given by the Jews to the rival capital in derision, and in possible allusion to Isaiah 28:1. If this be so, it must have become current at this time; for we can hardly believe that John would otherwise embody a mere term of derision in the Evangelical narrative. Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, ii:206, following Hug, Luthardt, and Ewald) identifies the ancient Sychar with a village about half a mile north of the supposed site of Jacob’s well, called Aschar; and as the corruption of Shechem into Sychar is a mere hypothesis, framed to account for the use of the word here, Dr. Thomson’s opinion appears to me the more probable. Shechem was two miles distant from Jacob’s well, and apparently was abundantly supplied with water.

JACOB’S WELL.

6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.

6. Now Jacob’s spring was there. There are two Greek words translated well in this narrative: the first means a spring or fountain, i. e., water-source; the second a well or cistern, i. e., a water-chamber. The first (πηγή) is used here, indicating that the well was fed internally by springs, not externally by rain. A well, now dry and deserted, answering to all the conditions of the narrative here, is designated by an ancient tradition as the one here described; and the case is one of the very few in Palestine in which tradition appears to be trustworthy. It is accepted even by Dr. Robinson. The purchase of the ground by Jacob is described in Gen. 33:18-20, but for the digging of the well there is no other authority than tradition, unless Gen. 49:22 is an allusion to it. Whether Jacob himself dug it, or whether his name was subsequently given to it by tradition is not known, nor does the reference here determine that question; it only designates the well by its customary name. Why he should have dug a well at all has been made matter of question, since the whole valley abounds with water. To this question Dr. Thomson replies: “The well is a very positive fact, and it must have been dug by somebody, notwithstanding this abundance of fountains, and why not by Jacob?” And he suggests that these fountains may have been already appropriated by the native population. The site of the well is in the valley between Mts. Gerizim and Ebal. For a striking description of this valley, see Van der Velde. The historical associations connected with the site were many and sacred. There the Lord first appeared to Abraham (Gen. 12:6, 7); Jacob built his first altar (Gen. 33:18-20); Joseph sought his brethren in vain (Gen. 37:12); Joshua rehearsed the law, with its blessings and cursings, and amidst the loud amens of the assembled people (Josh. 8:30-35; 24:1-25); and there Joseph was buried in the land that belonged to his father Jacob (Josh. 24:32). “At no other spot in Palestine, probably, could Jesus have more fitly uttered his remarkable doctrine, of the absolute liberty of conscience from all thrall of place or tradition, than here in Shechem, where the whole Jewish nation, in a peculiar sense, had its beginning.”—(H. W. Beecher’s Life of Christ.)—Being wearied with his journey. The commentators call attention to this weariness as an evidence of the reality of his humanity. It seems to me, when coupled with the prophecy of Isaiah 53:2, his apparent sinking under the weight of the cross, and his early death, while the two thieves survived (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:44; John 19:32, 33), to be an indication that his physical frame was not robust, was not equal to the demands of the soul which it contained, and that, as a part of his human experience, he knew the peculiar sorrows which an intense and active mind feels when hindered by a weak bodily organization.—Sat thus at the spring. “What meaneth ‘thus’? Not upon a throne; not upon a cushion; but simply and as he was upon the ground.”—(Chrysostom.)—And it was about the sixth hour. That is, about twelve o’clock. There appears to be no adequate reason for the opinion that has been advanced, that John employs a different kind of reckoning from that common among the Jews, and means here 6 P. M. It is true that the evening was the common hour of resort to the wells by the women, but evidently this conference was with Christ alone, an indication that the hour was not the evening hour, for then others would probably have been present also. Ryle suggests that there is a significance in the fact that while Christ talked with Nicodemus alone, and at night, his ministry to this sinful woman was at a public resort, and at noon. “If a man will try to do good to a person like the Samaritan woman, alone and without witnesses, let him take heed that he walk in his Master’s footsteps, as to the time of his proceedings, as well as to the message he delivers.” Compare the circumstances of Christ’s Gospel message to the woman that was a sinner (Luke 7:37, etc.).

7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.

8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)

7, 8. A woman of Samaria. That is, a Samaritan woman.—To draw water. In the East the towns are not supplied, as with us, by means of aqueducts and water-pipes, nor are individual houses furnished each with its well. The well itself is usually excavated from the solid limestone rock, and provided with a low curb to guard against accident (Exod. 21:33). On such a curb Christ probably sat to rest. The well is ordinarily not furnished with any apparatus for drawing water. Each woman brings her own bucket, most commonly made of the skin of some animal; sometimes the well is shallow, and she descends by steps made for the purpose (Gen. 24:16), and dips the water up from the surface; if it is deep, she lets down her bucket with a rope. To assist in the work, a wheel or pulley is sometimes fixed over the well. A trough of wood or stone usually provides a means for watering cattle and sheep (Gen. 24:20; Exod. 2:16). In this case, Christ had no bucket with him, and the well being deep, so that he could not descend into it, he had no means of obtaining water (ver. 11).—Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. Observe how insignificant a request he makes the occasion for a deeply spiritual religious conversation; and how natural the transition from the material to the spiritual. Observe, too, that by asking a favor he opens the way to the granting of one. He thus verifies the truth that the way to gain another’s good will is not at first by doing, but by receiving a kindness.—His disciples were gone ... to buy meat. They apparently carried little or nothing to eat on their journeys (Matt. 16:6, 7; 12:1), but money to make the necessary purchases (John 12:6). The direction to depend on hospitality (Matt. 10:9, 10) was not for their general guidance and government.

9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings[127] with the Samaritans.

[127] Acts 10:28.

9. For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. This is taken by some to be said by the woman; more probably it was added parenthetically by the Evangelist, to explain to his Gentile readers the woman’s surprise. For the reason of the fact, see on verse 4. It seems clear that the statement is not to be taken literally, for the disciples, who were Jews, had just gone into the Samaritan city to purchase food; but that there was abundant ground for it is evident from Rabbinical writings; e. g., “Let no Israelite eat one mouthful of anything that is a Samaritan’s; for if he eat but a little mouthful, he is as if he ate swine’s flesh.”

10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift[128] of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living[129] water.

[128] Eph. 2:8.

[129] Isa. 12:3; 41:17, 18; Jer. 2:13; Zech. 13:1; 14:8; Rev. 22:17.

10. If thou knewest the gift of God. Not, If thou knew that water is the gift of God; this knowledge might indeed have prevented her seemingly surly refusal, but it would not have led her to ask living water of him. Nor, If thou knewest the peace and joy which are the spiritual gifts of God; these constitute the living water, and if she already knew them, in her experience, she would not need to ask to receive them. Christ is the unspeakable gift of God; if she knew the full importance of this gift, the office and work of the Messiah, and that he who was asking her for a drink of water was he, she would have asked and received from him living water. The objection that the woman would not have so comprehended the reference, and therefore that it cannot be the primary meaning (Alford, Meyer), is not tenable, because by the very language itself it is implied that the woman will not comprehend it. Christ speaks of a mystery to provoke her to further inquiry.—Living water. This phrase signifies primarily spring water, as opposed to water in a cistern. In Gen. 26:19; Lev. 14:5; Jer. 2:13, the word rendered “springing,” “running,” and “living,” is in the Septuagint the one here rendered “living.” It is taken by Christ as a symbol of the spiritual life which he imparts, and so as a symbol of himself, for he gives himself to the soul, and is, by his indwelling, the bread and water of life. The spiritual meaning then is not life-giving; for that a different Greek word would be employed (ζωοποιών not ζῶν). It is true that living water is life-giving, but that is not the meaning conveyed by the phrase. The meaning is water that has life in itself, as in John 6:51; “living bread” means the living Christ, in contrast with the inert manna. The significance of the metaphor here is explained by its connection. Christ compares himself with water, not because of its cleansing power, nor because of its revivifying power on the soil, but because he satisfies the soul’s thirst. A similar metaphorical use of water is to be found in the O. T. See Psalm 23:2; Isaiah 55:1; Jer. 2:13; but especially Numb. 20:8-11, an incident which it appears to me probable Christ had in mind, and one with which the woman was probably familiar, as the Samaritans accepted and employed the Pentateuch. Observe that salvation is the gift of God (Rom. 6:23), and that the only condition of receiving it is asking (Matt. 5:6; 7:7; Rev. 22:17). The water’ is always ready; it is the thirst only that is wanting (Luke 14:17-19).

11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

11, 12. Sire, Thou hast no bucket, and the well is deep. Not spring; the water chamber, not the water source (φρέαρ not πηγή) See on ver. 6. The language is that of badinage. It is analogous to that of Nicodemus in ch. 3:4; though here, commingled with irony, there may well have been a real perplexity. The original indicates a change in the woman’s tone; she at first says, How is it that thou being a Jew? she now addresses him as “Sire” (kύριε).—Our father Jacob, etc. The Samaritans traced their origin back to the patriarchs, and her language here implies a claim to an ancestry superior to that of the Jews, among whom she classed Jesus. Observe an illustration of the spirit which says, What sufficed for our fathers is good enough for us, no one can be greater than they; a spirit which is fatal to all progress, in either material or spiritual things.

AT THE WELL.
“Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst.”

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever[130] drinketh of the water that I shall give[131] him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him[132] a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

[130] ch. 6:35, 58.

[131] ch. 17:2, 3; Rom. 6:23.

[132] ch. 7:38.

13, 14. Every one drinking of this water; accustomed to drink of it, and relying upon it. “The ‘drinking’ sets forth the recurrence, the interrupted seasons of the drinking of earthly water.”—(Alford.)—Shall thirst again. He appeals in this to the woman’s experience, who comes daily to re-supply the ever-recurring want.—But whosoever has drunk; once for all; the tense (aorist, πίῃ) indicates an historical act once performed.—That I shall give to him. Observe the representation throughout that the water is a gift, and a gift not received by Christ in common with humanity, but given by Christ to humanity. The Bible may be searched in vain for similar language from any prophet or apostle.—Shall not thirst unto eternity. That is, shall never, even unto eternity, thirst. “The whole verse is a strong argument in favor of the doctrine of the perpetuity of grace, and the consequent perseverance and the faith of believers.”—(Ryle.) Comp. ch. 10:28; Rom. 8:35-39; 2 Tim. 1:12.—But the water which I shall give him. This Christ does by giving his own life for the life of the world in his sacrifice for sin (ch. 6:51) and in his spiritual indwelling in the soul of the believer (ch. 14:19, 23).—Shall become in him a fountain of water. Not a well (not φρέαρ but πηγή). The reason he shall never thirst is that the water which Christ gives becomes itself a water source, a spring, a perpetual fountain of supply.—Springing up unto eternal life. Not into; the preposition indicates not something into which the fountain will be transformed, but the duration of its existence; it will forever spring up in the soul. The contrast throughout these verses is between earthly and spiritual supplies. The well (φρέαρ) is a symbol of earthly supply. This appeases but never satisfies; for it furnishes that which is external, and which is consumed in the using, so that the soul which relies on earthly cisterns for its satisfaction thirsts again. The living water, the spring (πηγή) which Christ gives, becomes a fountain in the soul, it enters into and becomes part of the character; using does not consume but increases the supply. In Christ’s promise here thirst is not equivalent to “desire,” nor is the declaration “shall never thirst,” equivalent to “shall never feel any spiritual want.” Thirst is of all bodily cravings the most painful and intolerable. Hence it is used in the Bible as a metaphor, not merely of spiritual desires, but of an urgent and intense desire, that cannot be denied (Psalm 42:2; 63:1; 143:6; Isaiah 55:1; Matt. 5:6, note). Here then the declaration is that Christ satisfies this painful longing, so that the soul shall experience it no more. Of soul-thirst we have striking illustrations in Psalms 41 and 42, and in Rom. 7:17-24; of soul-satisfaction in Christ, illustrations in Psalm 46 and in Rom. 8:31-39. Compare Christ’s promises in John 11:36; 16:32, 33. The continuance of earnest spiritual desires is not inconsistent with a rich spiritual experience. See Phil. 3:12-14.

15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

15. There is certainly a difference in tone between this request and the answer of verses 11, 13. The woman now dimly recognizes and vaguely appreciates Christ’s interpretation of her own soul-want, and replies half in jest, half in earnest. But her language “neither come hither to draw,” shows that she still gives to Christ’s words, as I think purposely misinterpreting them, a prosaic and literal meaning. Observe the implied misapprehension of the office of Christ, as one who relieves the soul of all further care and labor in the matter of religion. “There are many like her who would be glad of such a divine gift of religion as should take away all the labor and trouble of Christian life. ‘That I come not hither to draw’ is the desire of thousands who want the results of right living without the trouble of living aright.”—(H. W. Beecher.)

16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

16. Go, call thy husband, etc. This is in appearance a break in the conversation; it is in reality the first step toward granting the woman’s request: “Give me this water;” for the first step is to convince of sin. It is only if we confess our sins that “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Hence when Christ came to bring this water of life to the world he began by preaching the duty of repentance (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15). Other explanations, as that a longer conversation with the woman alone would be indecorous (Grotius), or that she was unable to understand Christ’s meaning and so he summoned her husband (Cyril, quoted in Alford), or that he wished her husband to share with her in the benefits of the conversation (Chrysostom), singularly ignore the moral meaning and continuity of the discourse. Observe Christ’s uniform way of dealing with skepticism. Its root is in sin; and he addresses not the reason, but proceeds directly to convict the conscience. It is only the sinner, conscious of sin, who ever truly finds a divine Saviour.

17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:

18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

17, 18. The word (ἀνήρ) in Christ’s reply, rendered husband, is one of more general import and is often translated man. But it is the ordinary word used in the N. T. for husband, and I see no reason to doubt that she had lived with five successive husbands.—From these she had been separated, from some perhaps by death, from others by divorce; at all events the last of these separations was unconcealedly illegal, and her present life was one which her own conscience condemned as licentious. Observe the severity in fact and the gentleness in form of Christ’s rebuke. It shows a full knowledge of her sin; yet it is couched in the language not of condemnation but of commendation.

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive[133] that thou art a prophet.

[133] ch. 1:48, 49.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain;[134] and ye say, that in Jerusalem[135] is the place where men ought to worship.

[134] Judges 9:7.

[135] Deut. 12:5-11; 1 Kings 9:3.

19, 20. The woman saith unto him. Her sentence is incomplete, either in the utterance or in the report. It is the basis of a question, implied, or perhaps expressed, but not given by John, in which place should worship be offered; which were right, Jew or Samaritan. The question was one fiercely debated between them (See on verse 5).—I perceive that thou art a prophet. It was a hasty conclusion; Christ might have known her character and life by other than supernatural means. Bigotry and vice are apt to be credulous and superstitious. Observe, however, the difference in tone between this declaration and the language of verse 9: “How is it that thou being a Jew.”—Our fathers worshipped. “The argument of ‘our fathers’ has always proved strong. Opinions, like electricity, are supposed to descend more safely along an unbroken chain. That which ‘our fathers’ or our ancestors believed, is apt to seem necessarily true; and the larger the roots of any belief, the more flourishing, it is supposed, will be its top.”—(Beecher.) Calvin’s comments are admirable though too long to quote. He suggests four errors into which men are apt to fall, from blindly following the “fathers,” all illustrated by the Samaritans: (1) When pride has created a false custom or religion, the history of the fathers is ransacked to find justification for it; (2) when men imitate the example of the evil-doers, because they are ancient, forgetful that they only are worthy to be reckoned as fathers who are true sons of God; (3) when we imitate the conduct but not the spirit of the fathers, as if one should defend human sacrifice from the example of Abraham in Gen. 22:1-10; (4) when we imitate the conduct of the fathers without considering the change of circumstances, as when the Christian church attempts to copy the ceremonials of the Jewish. “None of these are true imitators of the fathers; most of them are apes.”—In this mount, Gerizim. According to the Samaritan tradition it was here that Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac; and here, not on Ebal, as according to our Scripture (Josh. 8:30; Deut. 27:4), that the altar was erected by Joshua on which the words of the law were inscribed. The first view is sanctioned by some Christian scholars, prominent among whom is Dean Stanley. A temple was built on Gerizim by the Samaritans, according to Josephus, during the reign of Alexander, though the date is doubtful. The two temples intensified the bitterness of the feud between the Jews and the Samaritans, and the Samaritan temple was deserted and destroyed, B. C. 129, by John Hyrcanus (Josephus’ Antiquities 13:9, 11); but the Samaritans at Sechem (Nablus) still call Gerizim the holy mountain, and turn their faces toward it in prayer.—Ye say. She still treats Christ as a Jew.

Some have regarded the question presented by the woman here as a serious one; recognizing Christ as a prophet, she asks his solution of what was to her mind the great religious problem of the day; others see in it an endeavor on her part to evade the personal reference to her own sins. Both seem to me true. She endeavors to turn the conversation; recognizing the truth of Christ’s allegation, “He whom thou now hast is not thy husband,” not by confessing her sin but by acknowledging him as a prophet; but eludes the topic by opening a problem in controversial theology. In all this she is honest and in earnest. She is not the first inquirer who has deemed theoretical theology more important than practical duty. The moment her thoughts are turned to religious truth, they tend to its external aspects, and she naturally and honestly seeks a refuge from her conscience in the question, Where ought men to worship? The question, What ought I to do? is postponed. Observe that Christ suffers her to change the subject; leaves her conscience to press the sin to which he has awakened it, and teaches his followers how to deal with those who evade practical duty by doctrinal or ceremonial questions by his own response, No matter where or how the soul seeks God, if it only seeks him in spirit and in truth.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye[136] shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

[136] Mal. 1:11; Matt. 18:20.

22 Ye worship[137] ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation[138] is of the Jews.

[137] 2 Kings 17:29.

[138] Isa. 2:3; Rom. 9:5.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit[139] and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

[139] Phil. 3:3.

24 God[140] is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

[140] 2 Cor. 3:17.

21-24. Believe me. This expression is nowhere else used by our Lord. It answers to his “Verily, verily, I say unto you” (Matt. 5:18, note), and to Paul’s “This is a faithful (i. e., trustworthy) saying” (1 Tim. 1:15, 4:9; Tit. 3:8). He employs it here because his declaration is partly in the nature of a prophecy, which must be accepted, if at all, upon simple trust in him.—The hour cometh. The word hour is here equivalent to time or season; this use of “hour” is not infrequent in John’s Gospel (ch. 2:4; 5:25, 28, 35, “season;” 8:20, etc.).—When ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. A prophecy which was speedily, perhaps in the lifetime of this woman, fulfilled. The ravaging of Palestine by the Roman armies, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, has scattered the worshippers throughout the world. The Samaritan sect is indeed extinct, except the few survivors at Nablus, but the Jews continue their worship in exile in every land (Mal. 1:11).—Ye worship ye know not what. Their ignorance concerning the nature of the true God is indicated in their early history (2 Kings 17:24-34). The woman was solicitous concerning the place of worship; Christ directs her thought toward the person to be worshipped.—We know what we worship. This is the only instance in which Christ classes himself with the Jews by the pronoun we. He accepts, for the time, her estimate of him as a Jewish prophet, and declares that it is in the Jewish Scripture she is to look for a knowledge of the true God. In fact, all correct knowledge of the character, attributes, and dealings of God, possessed by the world to-day, has come through the Jewish people, by means of the Old and New Testaments (see Romans 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5). At the time of this conversation idolatry had entirely disappeared from the Jewish nation; and however inadequate, imperfect, and corrupt their worship, they at least recognized the one only true God. Notwithstanding some efforts to prove the contrary, I think it is historically demonstrable that Judaism is the source of all monotheistic religion. It is reasonably certain that the monotheism of Mohammedanism is due to Mohammed’s early instruction in the principles of Judaism.—For the salvation is of the Jews. The definite article in the original, unfortunately omitted in our English version, gives not only emphasis but significance to the language. The Jews know what they worship, because it is from them, as a nation, that there comes forth the divine salvation, typified by the sacrifices at Jerusalem, prophesied by Jewish Scripture, and fulfilled by the Messiah born at Bethlehem in Judea. It is therefore here equivalent not merely to the Saviour, but also includes all the preparations which preceded his personal advent.—But the hour cometh and now is. The last clause is added parenthetically as a suggestion that the woman is not to look to the remote future for the fulfillment of this word. Already the day has dawned, though it has not fully arrived. Her language in verse 25 indicates that a suspicion of Christ’s true nature was, perhaps by this declaration, awakened in her.—When the true worshippers. Not merely the sincere in opposition to consciously hypocritical worshippers (Isaiah 29:13), but also the true, inward worshippers, in opposition to those whose worship was one of external form and therefore not genuine. The word true is elsewhere used thus by John to indicate the inward and spiritual as contrasted with the external and earthly, e. g., the true light (1:9), the true bread (6:32), the true vine (15:1). Compare Luke 16:11.—Shall worship the Father, and therefore know what they worship; in spirit and in truth. Not in the Holy Spirit, though it is true that all spiritual worship is inspired and directed by his influence (Rom. 8:26; Zach. 12:10); nor with the breathing and aspirations of the heart, in contrast to worship with outward forms and symbols, for symbol is necessary in all public worship, language is but an external symbol of inward feeling; nor in holiness and righteousness of life, for that is not the meaning of spirit; nor in soundness of faith, in contrast to heretical worship, for the worship of the Jews was not heretical, Christ has just said, “We know what we worship.” In (ἐν) expresses not the instrument with which the worship shall be conducted, but the atmosphere in which it will live, an atmosphere of spiritual life and truth; worship in spirit, is in contrast with a worship in the flesh, the essence of which consists in the rite, the form, the language, the posture (Comp. Rom. 12:1; Phil. 3:3, 4; Heb. 9:9, 24); worship in truth is one which in its character harmonizes with the nature of him who is worshipped. The Lycaonians would have worshipped Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:11-13) in sincerity, but not in truth. Christ’s language condemns the spirit of ritualism, but not the employment of rites.—For the Father is seeking such to worship him. God is represented as in quest of such worshippers, among the many who are worshippers merely in form. Observe work is not worship; God is seeking not merely workers (Matt. 20:1) but also worshippers (Comp. Luke 10:38-42, notes).—God is a Spirit. This declaration is fundamental, and radically inconsistent with (1) all scientific theories which represent him as an abstract impersonal force; (2) with all metaphysical refinements which, ignoring his personality, treat him as a “power that makes for righteousness,” or as “the highest dream of which the human soul is capable;” (3) with much of the received theology, which often assumes that God is like nature, and deduces his attributes from such an imaginary likeness; (4) with all idolatry, whether the idol be in the imagination or in wood, stone, or canvas. But it justifies us in looking to man’s spiritual nature to interpret the divine nature to us. The spirituality of God is abundantly taught in the O. T., but by implication only. The abstract statement occurs only here and in 2 Cor. 3:17.—Must worship him in spirit and in truth. Nothing else is worship.

Observe (1) Christ answers the woman’s question not by pointing out the right place of worship, but by inculcating such a conception of the true nature of worship, that the controversy respecting Gerizim and Jerusalem shrinks into insignificance. The solution of many theological problems is to be found, not in any answer, but in a new, a higher, a more spiritual conception of religion as a spiritual life. (2) The place, and impliedly the forms and methods of worship, are matters of no importance. (3) It is important that we know what we worship, i. e., that our worship be intelligent, else it is superstitious. “Unless there be knowledge, it is not God that we worship, but a phantom or idol.”—(Calvin.) (4) That knowledge includes three elements, viz., that God is a spiritual being, with the sympathies, the flexibility, the life which belongs to spirit; that he is a Father, and is therefore to be approached with a filial, reverential, trusting affection (Matt. 5:9, note); that he is revealed to us through the Jewish Scripture and the Jewish Messiah. (5) He must be worshipped in spirit, i. e., with the heart, and in truth, i. e., in accordance with the realities of his nature as thus revealed to us; nothing else is worship. (6) Worship is essential to a religious life. God looks for it, as well as for work, as an evidence of love. The whole lesson is eloquently embodied by Henry Ward Beecher in his Life of Christ: “It expresses the renunciation of the senses in worship. It throws back upon the heart and soul of every one, whoever he may be, wherever he may be, the whole office of worship. It is the first gleam of the new morning. No longer in this nest alone, or in that, shall religion be looked for, but escaping from its shell, heard in all the earth, in notes the same in every language, flying unrestrained and free, the whole heavens shall be its sphere and the whole earth its home.”

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26 Jesus saith unto her, I[141] that speak unto thee am he.

[141] ch. 9:37.

25, 26. The woman saith unto him. Chrysostom well expresses her spirit: “The woman was made dizzy by his discourse, and fainted at the sublimity of what he said.” So she turns away from the present revelation, procrastinating its application with the expectation of a better opportunity when the Messiah comes.—He will tell us all things is not to be interpreted literally; it is the expression of a vague hope of a clearer light by and by.—I that speak unto thee am he. Christ did not until a much later period declare his Messiahship to his own disciples; he never declared it more clearly than to this sinful Samaritan woman. There is a reason for it, in that this declaration took from her all excuse of procrastination, and in fact made her a missionary of the Messiah. Perhaps, too, the very fact that she was an uninfluential woman and a Samaritan may have made him more ready to reveal himself; for it was certainly his general purpose not to disclose his character and mission to the public until his death (Matt. 17:9). We certainly have no right to say, with some rationalizing critics, that because we cannot fully understand his reasons it is incredible. Such a method of criticism would make havoc of all history. Most scholars suppose that the words “which is called Christ” were spoken by the woman. It seems to me more probable that they were added by John, as an explanation to his Greek readers of the Hebrew term Messiah. The word Christ is its Greek equivalent.

Note on Christ as a conversationalist.—Christ as a preacher has been studied; Christ as a conversationalist is quite as worthy the Christian’s study. Many of his so-called discourses were simply conversations; this is notably the case with the discourse to Nicodemus (ch. 3:1-21) and the discourse here to the woman of Samaria. Observe, I. The contrast. In the first the conversation is with a religious teacher, of honorable position, of unexceptionable life; in the second, with an abandoned woman, of licentious life; in the first, conversation with Christ is sought, in the second, repelled; in the first, Christ impresses the truth that the moralist must be born again, and without personal trust in a personal Saviour is condemned; in the second, he impresses upon the outcast the truth that for the lost there is new life in him; the first he discourages, the second encourages; to the first he proclaims duty, to the second he preaches deliverance. II. The harmony. Both are skeptical; both receive his declaration with scoffs; both invite argument; with both Christ refuses to argue; to both he simply proclaims the truth, but without strife or debate; with both he conquers cavilling by patience, not by argument. III. Christ’s method. (a.) Though wearied, he does not neglect the occasion and opportunity afforded to him. (b.) He commences the conversation by a natural request. (c.) He opens the woman’s heart by requesting from her a favor. (d.) He passes, by a natural transition, from the physical to the spiritual world, from nature to the truth which nature typifies. (e.) He presents to her not ethical, but spiritual truth; not the simple moralities, but the deep things of the Gospel. (f.) Her badinage does not affront him, nor does he reprove her for it, or indicate surprise, astonishment, or even objection. (g.) He answers it by a direct and unanswerable appeal to her conscience, by convicting her of sin. (h.) In this, while his rebuke is sharp, his language is courteous, the language of commendation clothing condemnation. (i.) Having once awakened her conscience, he does not pursue the rebuke; leaving conscience to do its work, he suffers her to change the subject. (j.) He answers her theological question not by direct response, but by asserting a principle of worship which lifts the soul above all controversies respecting forms and methods of worship. (k.) Finally, he makes his first and fullest disclosure of his Messiahship to this Samaritan woman, showing himself most a Saviour to her who most needs his salvation. IV. His example. It illustrates the enthusiasm (Rom. 10:1; Col. 4:13; 2 Tim. 4:2), the skill (Prov. 11:30), the patience (2 Tim. 2:24; 1 Thess. 2:7), and the spirituality (1 Cor. 2:13, 14) needed for the most efficient, direct, personal work of soul-saving.

Ch. 4:27-42. CHRIST IN SAMARIA.—The sustenance of Christian laborers.—The call for Christian laborers.—Their reward.—Their success.

27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?

28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,

29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.

27-30. And marvelled that he talked with a woman. There is no definite article in the original. The disciples knew nothing of the woman’s character except that she was a Samaritan. What amazed them was that Christ should descend to instruct a woman at all, and especially a woman of Samaria. See above on ver. 4.—No man said, What seekest thou? One of the many indications in the Gospel of the awe in which these life-companions of Christ stood toward him (Mark 9:32; 10:32; 16:8; Luke 8:25; John 21:12).—Left her waterpot. Lightfoot supposes in kindness, for the Lord to use; Calvin, with greater probability, in her haste forgetting it. In her eagerness to carry to others the news of the Messiah, she forgets her original errand, which was to draw water for her home.—Come see a man. Compare ch. 1:39, 46.—Which told me all things that ever I did. The natural exaggeration of enthusiasm. Observe the method of the spread of Christianity in its earliest years. The new convert became a missionary, propagating its faith. Compare Acts 8:4; 9:20. If ever a new convert might be excused from evangelical labors, this one might—a woman, living in an age when female preaching was more obnoxious even than now, and a woman of such ill-repute that she might well expect to be received with scorn, not with respect. But her strong convictions overbear all obstacles, secure for her a hearing, and obtain for her mission success (ver. 39). Chrysostom dwells upon her wisdom as well as her eagerness: “She said not, Come, see the Christ, but, with the same condescension with which Christ had netted her, she draws the men to Him; Come, she saith, see a man who told me all that ever I did. Is not this the Christ? Observe again here the great wisdom of the woman; she neither declared the fact plainly, nor was she silent; for she desired not to bring them in by her own assertion, but to make them to share in this opinion by hearing him. * * * Nor did she say, Come, believe, but Come, see, a gentler expression than the other, and one which more attracted them.”—Then they came out of the city. Wisdom and tact inspired by enthusiasm produced by a personal and profound conviction of Christ’s person and power, rarely fail in evangelical labor.

31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.

32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him aught to eat?

31-33. Master, eat. The disciples had brought food from the city, to obtain which they had originally left him (ver. 8).—I have meat to eat that ye know not of. The commentators generally assume that the doing of his Father’s will was this meat. This seems to me a false interpretation not required by and not really accordant with a correct reading of ver. 34 below (see note there); inconsistent with other teachings of Scripture, and practically misleading to the disciple. It is inconsistent with the metaphor; for in nature work is never a substitute for food, but physiologically exhausts it. It is inconsistent with other teachings of Scripture, which never represent work, but always divine sustaining grace, as the Christian food. It is practically misleading, for it leads the disciple to suppose that he can grow by simply doing the will of his Father, whereas he is to acquire the power to do that will by constantly receiving grace from the Father. Christ’s language here is interpreted by such passages as Matt. 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God;” Matt. 25:4, “The wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.” Compare John, ch. 6. That Jesus lived by this divine food is evident from his habit of prayer, and from such declarations as John 5:19, 26, 30; 14:10, 11. This meat then is the indwelling Spirit of God, conditioned upon entire consecration to God. It was this meat which fed Peter in prison (Acts 12:6), Paul and Silas at Philippi (Acts 16:25), and Paul in the shipwreck (Acts 27:23, etc.); this too which sustained Christ in the hour of Gethsemane and throughout his Passion. A faint type of it is afforded in earthly experiences by the strength which seems often to be imparted to even a feeble mother in the hour of her child’s sickness, and which carries her through vigils which, but for her love, it would be impossible for her to sustain. Her work is not her food: her love and faith are her food, and sustain her for her work. No Christian can live by or on his work; nor did Christ.—Hath any one brought him aught to eat. They thought, perhaps, that the woman had done so. “It is very characteristic of the first part of this Gospel to bring forward instances of unreceptivity to spiritual meaning. Compare ver.11; ch. 2:20; 3:4; 6:42, 52.”—(Alford.)

34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat[142] is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish[143] his work.

[142] ch. 6:38; Job 23:12.

[143] ch. 17:4.

34. For me meat is in order that I may do the will of him that sent me. The meaning is not, as our English version seems to imply, that meat and doing God’s work are synonymous. The above is a literal translation of the original; and the meaning is, The object of meat is that I may do the will of him that sent me and may finish his work. The expression is parallel to and interpreted by Paul’s in Acts 20:24, “Neither count I my life dear unto myself so that I might finish my course;” or in Phil. 1:21, “For to me to live is Christ.” The object of Christ was the accomplishment of his mission; for this purpose alone had meat any value to him; for this purpose he both needed and possessed meat that his disciples, in their then state of spiritual culture, did not and could not understand; and in the work which he had accomplished, by his conversation with the woman, he had received greater satisfaction than in any food which they could have brought to him from the city.

35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.[144]

[144] Matt. 9:37.

35. There is some uncertainty regarding the proper interpretation of this verse. Alford, Tholuck, De Wette, and some others, suppose that Christ is quoting a proverbial expression; perhaps referring to the time which elapsed between seed-time and harvest, perhaps to some time intervening between a local feast or a religious anniversary and the harvest. Meyer, Andrews, Ellicott, and others take it as a chronological indication that it was then four months to harvest, i. e., the month of December, a fact to which perhaps some reference had been made by the disciples in the course of their walk. Chrysostom, Meyer, and others, suppose moreover that the approaching Samaritans were seen through the corn-fields, and to them Christ pointed when he said, “Lift up your eyes and look on the fields.” “The approaching townspeople now showed how greatly the doing of the Father’s will was in process of accomplishment. They were coming through the corn-field, now tinged with green; thus they make the fields, which for four months would not yield the harvest, in a higher sense already white harvest fields. Jesus directs the attention of his disciples to this; and with the beautiful picture thus presented in nature he connects further appropriate instructions.”—(Meyer.) The phrase “Say not ye” seems to me clearly to indicate that Christ refers to some proverbial saying (comp. Matt. 16:2); the direction, “Lift up your eyes and look on the fields,” indicates some present appearance which gave point to his declaration that they were white already, a declaration which would have no significance if the fields were literally ready for the harvest. I therefore, with Tholuck, combine the two views and suppose that Christ did refer to a proverbial expression, probably indicating the time between seed-time and harvest, and appropriate then because it was then the seed-time. The spiritual meaning is very clear. Procrastination is a fault of the church as well as of the world, of the disciple as well as of the impenitent sinner. The Christian is constantly waiting for an opportunity; he should wait on, he never need wait for the Lord. Since Christ has ascended, and the Holy Ghost has been given, the field is always white for the harvest; we never need wait for God to ripen the grain. The message, “All things are now ready,” was given by the Lord to his servants; it is only as the servant understands and believes this that he can make the guests believe it (Luke 14:17).

SAMARITAN REMAINS IN GERIZIM.

36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit[145] unto life eternal: that both[146] he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

[145] Rom. 6:22.

[146] 1 Cor. 3:5-9.

37 And herein is that saying true, One[147] soweth, and another reapeth.

[147] Micah 6:15.

38 I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other[148] men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.

[148] 1 Pet. 1:12.

36-38. And he that reapeth receiveth wages and gathereth fruit unto life eternal. The Lord’s husbandman has both wages and heaven. The earthly wages of the successful evangelist is not in his salary, nor in his fame or position, but in the affections which reward him, and the personal present consciousness of work achieved, the highest and grandest which it is ever permitted man to do. To this is added the joy inherent in bringing souls to Christ, and through Christ into eternal life, a joy which will not be consummated until the reaper enters into glory, with an “abundant entrance,” and brings his sheaves to his Lord.—That both * * * may rejoice together. The sowing is in tears; the reaping is with rejoicing (Ps. 126:5); but in the future life both will rejoice in the ingathering; hearts that knew not whence they received the seed will learn to thank the unknown or the unrecognized benefactor; and the Lord of the harvest will say to both, “Well done, good and faithful servants.”—Herein is that saying true. Undoubtedly a reference to a proverbial saying, to which Christ gives a new and spiritual significance. Primarily, Christ is the sower, who sowed in tears and reaped but little; the apostles are the reapers, who gathered in a single day more souls into the church of Christ than Jesus himself in his whole lifetime.—But secondarily the prophets were sowers and the apostles reapers, a fact illustrated by their constantly quoting of the prophets in attestation of the divine character and mission of Christ. And finally, the twofold work of sowing and reaping goes on throughout all time, the same man sometimes being both sower and reaper, sometimes sowing all his life in tears that another may reap in joy. The truth of Christ’s saying in verses 37, 38, is illustrated, but as a prophecy it is not fulfilled, by the successful mission of the apostles to Samaria, where Christ sowed at this time and they reaped subsequently (Acts 8:5-8, 14-17).

39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying[149] of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

[149] ver. 29.

40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.

41 And many more believed because of his own word;

42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for[150] we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

[150] ch.17:8; 1 John 4:14.

39-42. This mission of Christ to the Samaritans is not inconsistent with his directions to his apostles, when they were commissioned, not to go into any Samaritan city, for the reason of that prohibition was not his unwillingness to open the Gospel to the heathen, but the fact that his apostles did not yet comprehend its catholicity, and could not therefore successfully preach it to the heathen. That the opening of the doors to others than Jews was neither an afterthought with Christ, nor a supplemental act originating with Paul, is evident from the incident recorded here. Notice that the faith of the Samaritans rested on Christ’s words—he apparently wrought no miracles; and that they recognized in him the Saviour not of the nation but of the world. “Universalism was more akin to the Messianic faith of the Samaritans than to that of the Jews, with their definite and energetic feeling of nationality.”—(Meyer.) Notice too, the forms of Christian experience illustrated in this passage; one (ver. 39) rests on the testimony of others, the other (ver. 42) rests on a personal communion with and experience of Christ as a Messiah and Saviour.

Ch. 4:43-54. THE CURE OF THE CENTURION’S SON.—Two kinds of faith; a poor faith requires miracles; a true faith accepts Christ’s word simply.

43 Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee.

44 For Jesus himself testified, that[151] a prophet hath no honour in his own country.

[151] Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24.

45 Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilæans received him, having seen[152] all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for[153] they also went unto the feast.

[152] ch. 2:23.

[153] Deut. 16:16.

43-45. After two days. Spent in preaching the gospel to the Samaritans. The nature of this ministry is left to conjecture. We must presume, however, that it was of the same type as Christ’s preaching in Galilee at this time, where his theme was, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17); the nature of that kingdom, and the character of the Messianic king, he probably made no attempt to explain. It was preparative; he sowed only, leaving the reaping to be done by others at a later day.—For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honor in his own country. The rationalistic critics cite this as one of the evidences that the Fourth Gospel is not the product of one of the Twelve. Thus, “In the Synoptics Jesus is reported as quoting against the people of his own city, Nazareth, who rejected him, the proverb, ‘A prophet has no honor in his own country’ (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24). The appropriateness of the remark here is obvious. The author of the Fourth Gospel, however, shows clearly that he was neither an eye-witness nor acquainted with the subject or country when he introduces this proverb in a different place. * * * * * He (Christ) is made to go into Galilee, which is his own country, because a prophet has no honor in his country, and the Galileans are represented as receiving him, which is a contradiction of the proverb.”—(Supernatural Religion, Vol. II, 447.) I have cited this objection at length because it is a not unfair illustration of the straits to which rationalism is reduced in its efforts to discredit this Gospel. Constructive dogmatism is bad enough; destructive dogmatism is much worse. The difficulties created by evangelical critics in the interpretation of the passage are equally curious as an illustration of forced and fanciful exaggerations. The curious will find them stated in Alford and Meyer. The English reader, who simply takes the context, will assuredly find no difficulty in the passage. Christ was received in Samaria, notwithstanding he was a Jew, with whom usually the Samaritans had no dealings (ver. 9), and this though he wrought no miracles, and merely because of his words, i. e., the purity and beauty and self-evident truth of his teaching (ver. 41).—In Galilee he was received only because he was a Jew, and had wrought miracles at Jerusalem (chap. 3:2), and brought with him a metropolitan reputation. He had no honor in his own country as a prophet, until he brought it back with him from the holy city; it was honor, not indigenous but imported.

46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made[154] the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

[154] ch. 2:1, 11.

47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judæa 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.

46, 47. Into Cana. For site see chap. 2:1, note. The fact that he went at once to Cana, gives color to the supposition that the marriage there may have been that of John, according to an ancient tradition; at all events it probably was one of some intimate friend of Christ.—A certain nobleman. Probably an officer of Herod Antipas who had a palace at Tiberias. It has been conjectured that he may have been the Chuza, whose wife became attached to Jesus with other women of Galilee (Luke 8:3). That he was a Jew is probable, since the manifestation of faith in a heathen is generally especially noted by the historian or by Christ.—Was sick at Capernaum. About twenty miles distant.—Was at the point of death. Literally Was about to die.

48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs[155] and wonders, ye will not believe.

[155] 1 Cor. 1:22.

49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die.

48, 49. Except ye see signs and wonders. Rather a soliloquy applied to the entire people, than a personal rebuke of the nobleman. For there is certainly no evidence that his faith was notably small; rather the reverse. He had traveled twenty miles to apply to Christ for assistance; his request that Christ should come personally was certainly not unnatural, for he could not be expected to assume that Christ would or could heal by a word; when the word was spoken he went away undoubtingly; and he evidently made no great haste (see note on verse 51), an indication of his restful assurance on Christ’s mere word. Analogous to Christ’s utterance here is that of Mark 9:19; see note there. It is certainly a rebuke to the skepticism which to-day demands signs and wonders as a basis for faith, and to the church which continually endeavors to satisfy this desire by demonstrating the miracles as though they were the evidences of Christianity. Christ himself never, in public discourse with skeptics, based his claims on his miracles; never performed a miracle for the purpose of proving his claims to an unbeliever (Matt. 11:4, 5 is not an exception; see note there); and rebuked the demand made on him for miracles as a basis of faith in his mission.—Come down. One of those geographical and incidental evidences of accuracy in the historian which demonstrate his familiarity with the country. Capernaum was on the shore of the sea of Galilee; Cana was in the hill country.

50 Jesus saith unto him, Go[156] thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.

[156] Matt. 8:13; Mark 7:29, 30; Luke 17:14.

51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.

52 Then inquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.

53 So the father knew that it was at the same[157] hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed,[158] and his whole house.

[157] Ps. 107:20.

[158] Acts 16:34; 18:8.

54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judæa into Galilee.

50-54. He went his way. The course of the nobleman was not that of one deficient in faith. On the contrary, he did not wait to see signs or wonders; he believed the simple word. That he did not hasten is evident from the next verse. Christ spoke the word of healing at the seventh hour, i. e., one in the afternoon. The father could have reached home that same night; but it was not until the next day that his servants, coming to relieve his fears, met him on the road. Faith neither worries nor hurries.—Thy son is living. He was so sick before the father left home, that the mere announcement that he was living demonstrated that he was recovering. The case was one in which life could not last long if a change for the better did not take place.—Himself believed. Believed what? He had believed before, when he came to Jesus, or he would not have come; and again when he went away, or he would not have been satisfied at the mere word of Jesus. But he before simply believed about Jesus, e. g., that he was a prophet, possessing certain healing powers, the extent of which he had not measured. Now he believed on Jesus; without as yet comprehending the Saviour’s mission or character, he yet had faith in him; that kind of faith which was ready to accept him as all that he claimed, whatever that might be. To believe, used absolutely, as here, always indicates not believing a doctrine about Christ, but personal belief in and allegiance to him.

This miracle is certainly not the same with the healing of the centurion’s servant, recorded in Matt. 8:5-13, with which it has been sometimes confounded, but with which it really has little in common. One is wrought at Capernaum, the other at Cana; one at the petition of a nobleman, an officer of the court, the other at the request of a centurion; one probably for a Jew, the other certainly for a Roman; one in behalf of a son, the other in behalf of a servant; one for a petitioner who entreats Christ to come to his house, the other for one who deprecates his doing so; one affording an illustration of the largest faith in a heathen, the other of the development of faith from a small beginning in an Israelite. The resemblances are superficial; the differences are radical. Accepting the narrative as true, it is one of the many which utterly refute the rationalistic explanation of miracles offered by such writers as Schenkel. This cure could not have been due to any natural means, as the inspiration of hope, or the infusion of nervous power by personal contact, or the like, for the sick man did not see Jesus nor even know when the father saw him.

CHAPTER V.

Ch. 5:1-47. HEALING OF IMPOTENT MAN AND DISCOURSE THEREON.—A parable of redemption; the nature and the condition of spiritual cure illustrated.—The Christian law of the Sabbath illustrated.—The authority of the Son of God: he is with the Father; comes from the Father; is to be honored and trusted as the Father; he raises the dead and judges the living.—The evidences of Christianity; the testimony of John; of Christ’s life and works; of the Scripture.—The cause of unbelief.

CHURCH OVER THE POOL OF BETHESDA.

After this there was a feast[159] of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

[159] ch. 2:13; Lev. 23:2, etc.; Deut. 16:16.

2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market, a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first[160] after the troubling of the water stepped in, was made whole[161] of whatsoever disease he had.

[160] Prov. 8:17; Eccles. 9:10; Matt. 11:12.

[161] Ezek. 47:8, 9; Zech. 13:1.

1-4. After this was a feast of the Jews. There were three great feasts of the Jewish nation, the Passover in the spring, usually March; the Pentecost, fifty days after, coming therefore usually early in June; and the Tabernacles, a feast in the Fall, usually October, analogous to our Thanksgiving. To these must be added the feast of Purim, which was kept in celebration of the deliverance of Israel, in the time of Esther, from massacre (Esther 9:17-19), and the feast of Dedication, instituted subsequent to the close of the O. T. canon, to commemorate the purging of the temple and the rebuilding of the altar, after Judas Maccabeus had driven out the Syrians, B. C. 164. There is nothing in the language of John to indicate which of these various feasts is the one here intended. Some manuscripts have indeed the words, the feast of the Jews, and if this reading were correct it would unquestionably designate the Passover; but the weight of authority is against it. The question is one which has provoked a vast deal of discussion, but no general agreement. It is important only in determining the chronology of the life of Christ, and is itself so far undetermined that it cannot be of great value even for that purpose. I think it clear (a) that it could not be the feast of Dedication, which took place in the winter, when it is not probable that the sick would be lying in the porches of Bethesda; (b) nor the feast of Purim, though this has been maintained by some eminent modern scholars, as Wieseler, Godet, Olshausen, Ellicott, and Meyer; for there is no evidence that the Jews generally went up to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Purim, and no reason to believe that our Lord would have gone there in honor of a festival which was purely national, not directed by the O. T., observed not in connection with the temple service, but privately at home, and often, if not generally, with rioting and excess, rather than with religious services. I agree therefore with Alford and Tholuck that we cannot gather with any probability what feast it was.—And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Presumptively to attend the feast.—By the sheep-market. Rather sheep-gate. See Neh. 3:1, 32; 12:39. The site is unknown. The traditional site, identical with the gate now known as St. Stephen’s, is pretty effectually disproved by Robinson, who shows that no wall was existing there at the time of Christ.—A pool. Properly a swimming-place. Pools for purposes of bathing were in use in the great cities of the old world; and recent excavations have brought to light the fact that ancient Jerusalem was in a remarkable degree supplied with water. See below.—Called Bethesda. The word means House of mercy. The location is entirely uncertain. Tradition places it near the modern St. Stephen’s gate; but this tradition dates back only to the 12th century.—Having five porches. Opening upon the bath or tank. In these the sick could lie and be partially protected from the weather.—In these lay a great multitude of impotent, blind, halt, withered. Four classes intended to embrace all forms of purely bodily disorder of a chronic character, but not including those possessed of evil spirits. The impotent are those simply suffering from special weakness and infirmity or from general debility; the halt are those deprived from any reason of the full and free use of their limbs; the withered are those affected by paralysis or kindred disorders.—Waiting for the moving of the water * * * * was made whole of whatever disease he had. Whether this explanation, i. e., the last clause of ver. 3 and the whole of ver. 4, is genuine or a later interpolation, is a question of dispute among the critics; the weight of authority is, on the whole, in favor of its omission; the weight of reason is wholly so. (a) The external evidence is, on the whole, against its retention. It is wanting in the Vatican, Cambridge, and Sinaitic manuscripts; in those manuscripts in which it occurs, the verbal variations are considerable. Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, and Tregelles all declare against it. (b) The internal evidence is conclusive. If it had been in the original, the early copyists would not have omitted it; for in the first centuries there was no such reluctance to accept the supernatural, and no such discrimination between wonders that are and wonders that are not miracles, as would have induced its omission. On the other hand, if no explanation of the reason why the sick were gathered in the porches of Bethesda were given in the original account, it would have been very natural for copyists to have supplied the omission by inserting one. (c) The explanation offered by the doubtful passage is itself incredible. It is a marvel, but it is in no sense a miracle. The irregular and fitful appearance of help by such an angelic visitor, would have witnessed to no truth, would have had no tendency to confer faith in God or his grace. “That God would thus miraculously interpose to throw down from time to time a boon among a company of cripples, to be seized by the most forward, selfish, and eager, leaving the most helpless and miserable to be overwhelmed again and again with bitter disappointment, is a supposition not admissible.”—(Jacob Abbott’s Notes on the N. T.) (d) These considerations have led the latest and best scholars, with substantial unanimity, to omit the explanatory words of ver. 4, and latter clause of ver. 3. So Alford, Tholuck, Ebrard, Trench, Olshausen, Meyer, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. But though it is no part of the sacred record, it probably correctly states what was the popular belief among the Jews, or at least among such as resorted to this spring for cure. The real basis of this belief is indicated by recent researches. These have made it evident that the pools in and about Jerusalem were connected with each other by underground aqueducts. Dr. Robinson gives an account of his exploration of such an aqueduct connecting two pools, the Fountain of the Virgin and the Pool of Siloam. He satisfied himself that water flowed from the one to the other reservoir, and he witnessed the “troubling of the water” in the Fountain of the Virgin. “We perceived the water rapidly bubbling up from under the lower step. In less than five minutes it had risen in the basin nearly or quite a foot; and we could hear it gurgling off through the interior passage.

In ten minutes more it had ceased to flow; and the water in the basin was again reduced to its former level.” His observation has been since confirmed by others. It is now difficult to see how the Fountain of the Virgin could ever have been surrounded by porches or made a resting-place for the sick; and it is quite certain that the Fountain of the Virgin cannot be asserted with any positiveness to have been the Pool of Bethesda. But these discoveries indicate the probably true explanation of the troubling of the water mentioned, not by John it will be remembered, but by some subsequent copyist, in the text. The Pool of Bethesda, probably, was connected by an underground passage with some intermittent spring, possibly possessing healing virtues, and the bubbling of the water from time to time gave rise to the legend of an angelic visitant, which certain of the Jews accepted, but which the Evangelist does not confirm, and to which there is no reference in other literature.

5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity[162] thirty and eight years.

6 When Jesus saw him lie, and[163] knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?

7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have[164] no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise,[165] take up thy bed, and walk.

9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on[166] the same day was the sabbath.

[162] Luke 8:43; 13:16.

[163] Ps. 142:3.

[164] Deut. 32:36; Ps. 72:12; 142:4; Rom. 5:6; 2 Cor. 1:9, 10.

[165] Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:11; Luke 5:24.

[166] ch. 9:14.

5-9. Which had an infirmity. The original implies rather a loss of power than a positive disease; probably it was a nervous disease of the paralytic type.—Thirty and eight years. The words “in that case,” are added by the translator, but they correctly convey the meaning, which is not that he had been at the Pool of Bethesda, but that he had been diseased that length of time.—Wilt thou be made whole? Why this question? Not necessarily because there was any reasonable doubt whether the man desired healing; nor because Christ required, as a conditional preliminary, the man’s assent to healing on the Sabbath; nor because he would imply blame, as though the man’s long infirmity were the result of his own weakness of will; nor, surely, because he would indicate that he was an impostor and desired to use his apparent but exaggerated infirmity to appeal to the compassion of others. All these hypotheses have been suggested. But Christ almost, if not quite, always requires on the part of the healed some act of the will precedent to and concurrent with his act of grace; the cured are never merely receptive and quiescent. I believe there is a deep religious meaning in this, for every miracle is a parable of redemption, and that our Lord would teach us that it is only as we will to be made whole that any wholeness is possible for us, even through omnipotent divine grace. In this particular case it is certainly true that the man might have traded on his infirmity and not really desired to be cured; and though Christ’s knowledge of character would have rendered the question unnecessary for his own information, it was not unnecessary to make it clear to others that he was acting in sympathy with the man, nor was it unimportant as a disclosure to the man himself that he must rouse himself from the lethargy of despair, and lay hold, by hope, on the salvation brought to him.—I have no man. It is the friendless who appeals peculiarly to the Friend of the sinful and the suffering.—Rise, take up thy bed and walk. The original (κράββατόν) implies a small, low bedstead. See for illustration Mark 2:4, note. Here, however, the term may be used in a more general way, and may imply simply a mattress which served as a couch by day and a bed by night. Observe the command to take up the bed. This apparently was not necessary; I can conceive but two reasons for it; one to emphasize the perfection of the cure, the other to provoke the controversy with the Pharisees respecting the Sabbath, and thus make it the occasion for the discourse which follows.—Immediately. The instantaneousness of the cure indicates its miraculous character; so does its permanence. He was cured instantly; he was cured so thoroughly that he could not only walk, but could carry his bed; and he remained cured.

I have already said that the miracles are parables of redemption. Of no one of the miracles is this more strikingly true than of the present one. The diseased man has been a long time sick. He is helpless, friendless, in despair. He waits for an imagined moving of the water, an expected divine cure that is to come without act or interposition on his part; and it never comes. Christ calls first his will into exercise: Wilt thou be made whole? then bids him do: “Rise, take up thy bed;” and in the choice and the obedience, by faith indeed, but by the faith which chooses and obeys, he is made instantly and permanently well.

10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day:[167] it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.

[167] Jer. 17:21, etc.; Matt. 12:2, etc.

11 He answered them. He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.

12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?

13 And he that was healed wist[168] not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed[169] himself away, a multitude being in that place.

[168] ch. 14:9.

[169] Luke 4:30.

10-13. It is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. The general Sabbath command was, Thou shalt do no work. Nehemiah, enforcing this command, forbade the carriage of commercial burdens (Neh. 13:19). From this the Pharisees, with their accustomed literalism, had deduced the doctrine that nothing must be carried on the Sabbath. To forbid this man from carrying his bed was like forbidding a modern, man to move a chair or a campstool. Either he must have left his bed at the pool, to be stolen, or he must have stayed there to watch it, or he must have been allowed to take it home with him. For the Pharisaic regulations respecting the Sabbath, see Matt. 12:2, note.—He that made me whole said unto me. The man knew nothing about Christ or his authority. His idea appears to have been that Christ proved his right to give the command, Take up thy bed and walk, by his miracle of healing.—What man is it that said unto thee, Take up thy bed. Observe the spirit of the Pharisees. Their question is not, Who healed thee? but, Who said unto thee, Take up thy bed and walk? They are blind to the miracle; they can see only the Sabbath violation, as they regard it.—A multitude being in that place. Christ had stopped a moment, spoken the word of healing, and passed on into the crowd. All was over in an instant, and because of the crowd Christ escaped the man’s identification. This was early in his ministry; he was not yet widely known and thronged, as later in life. Observe the indications of the nature of belief, an obedient trust, not a correct intellectual apprehension. This man had faith enough to be healed because faith to obey Christ’s directions despite Pharisaic criticism; yet he knew nothing of Christ’s person, character, or work; did not even know who he was. It is possible to have faith in even an unknown Christ.

14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin[170] no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

[170] ch. 8:11.

15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.

16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

14-16. In the temple. Possibly an indication that the divine grace of healing had already acted as a means of spiritual quickening.—Sin no more, lest, etc. A plain indication that the man’s disease, probably some form of paralysis, was an effect of sin. See note on ch. 9:1. Here, as almost everywhere, Christ makes the physical healing minister to a spiritual cure.—And reported to the Judeans that it was Jesus which had made him whole. They asked who bade him carry his bed; he replied that it was Jesus who healed him. They asked to condemn, he answered so as to honor Christ.—And therefore did the Judeans come in pursuit of Jesus. Here, as very generally throughout his gospel, John uses the word Jews (Ἰουδαῖος) to signify not generally the members of the Hebrew race, but distinctly the inhabitants of the province of Judea. I therefore render it here and elsewhere by the more distinctive word Judeans. His language indicates not a legal persecution, but a malicious pursuit. Norton translates as I have, Came in pursuit of Jesus. This is the literal rendering of the original verb (διώκω), which however generally, though not always, indicates a pursuit with an evil intent. Here the meaning is not that the general cause of the persecution which Christ suffered in Judea was his supposed Sabbath violation, but that in this particular instance they pursued him to call him to account for this particular act of Sabbath breaking. It is always the nature of the ceremonialist to care more for the ceremony than for man.—And sought to slay him. These words do not belong here. They have been added to explain and correspond with the expression in verse 18, Sought the more to kill him. They are omitted by Alford, Meyer, Norton, and all the best critical authorities.

17-47. In the study of the discourse which follows, beware of considering it simply verse by verse. It is not a collection of incidental aphorisms, but a connected address, the theme being the character, mission, authority, and credentials of the Son of God. The Pharisees call Christ to account for healing on the Sabbath; he cites in his defence the example of his heavenly Father. They seize upon his language, deduce from it the conclusion that he makes himself equal with God, and charge him with blasphemy. This serves as the text of the discourse which follows. He declares that he comes not to draw allegiance from, but to, the Father; that he acts under the Father’s will; that to him the Father has committed the whole work of grace on the earth; that he is even now raising the spiritually dead to life; that he is to raise the physically dead to a new life; and that he will finally complete this work entrusted to him, by declaring and executing the divine judgment. The evidence of his mission and authority is not in his own words; he is testified to by John the Baptist; by his own life and work; and by the Scriptures of the O. T. He closes by pointing out the secret cause of the Jews’ rejection of him, viz., their personal ambition. Beware, too, of imputing to the words a dogmatic meaning borrowed from later ecclesiastical controversies, which they did not bear in the minds of his hearers at the time. There is little or nothing here respecting the relations of the Son to the Father, except as the language throughout implies that the Son is subordinate to and dependent upon the Father; but the relation of the Son to the human race is clearly revealed, the relation of life-giver and judge, and is certainly not that of any man, however endowed, to his fellow-men. Nevertheless this address contains the christology of Jesus Christ, his own teaching concerning his own character and work; and it clearly implies, on the one hand, that he not only represents the Father, as an ambassador might represent a king, that he is not only clothed with divine authority, as Moses was clothed, in the administration of the theocracy, with the authority of God, but that he is a partaker of the divine nature; nor less clearly, on the other hand, does it imply that his authority is derived from the Father, that his power is conferred on him by the Father, that he executes in all things the will of the Father, that he is to be conceived of not as distinct from, but as one with the Father, and that his object is in all things to be a way unto the Father. Against every form of tri-theism, against all substitution of the Son in the place of the Father, this discourse is a solemn and earnest admonition, no less than against all belittling of either his character to that of man or angel, or his mission to that of mere messenger or teacher.

17 But Jesus answered them, My[171] Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

[171] chaps. 9:4, 14:10.

17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. The argument is very brief; it is based on the premises that we are to be followers of God as dear children (Ephes. 5:1), that the Father’s work is a pattern for our own working. It gives color to the opinion that the days of creation are long eons or periods; that the seventh day, which God blessed and on which he rested, is the present period in which the mere physical work of creation has given place to the higher work of redemption; thus the Sabbath of God becomes both interpreted and an interpreter to us of what our Sabbath should be. The divine work does not cease; the grass grows, the buds swell, the flowers bloom, the fruits ripen, the rains fall, the winds blow,—but all this is the work of love; over all this work God’s tender mercies brood (Psalm 145:9). The lesson of nature interpreted here by Christ is that the work of love is never a violation of the true Sabbath law. This verse, with Matt. 12:8 and Mark 2:27, give the three canons for the Christian observance of the Sabbath. (1) The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. It is then a Christian day, belongs to the Christian dispensation, is under the Lordship of Christ and in his kingdom, and is to be kept in that spirit of joyous freedom with which Christ makes free. (2) The Sabbath is made for man. It is therefore man’s day; belongs to all men, Gentile and Jew, poor and rich; a day to be used for man; so that whatever work is necessary to the real abiding welfare of the human race, is not foreign to this day. (3) My Father worketh hitherto. The Father’s work is the example and the law for his children; the work of love, the work for others, the work that has tender mercy for its inspiration and its overseer, is Sabbath work. It is to be our rest-day as it is our heavenly Father’s rest-day, and only so; a prophecy of that eternal rest which will be one of glorious activity: a rest from care, from worldliness, from the common temptations of life, but not a day of mere dull cessation of labor.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill[172] him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making[173] himself equal with God.

[172] ch. 7:19.

[173] ch. 10:30, 33; Zech. 13:7; Phil. 2:6.

18. Because he had not only broken the Sabbath. Literally relaxed (λύω) the Sabbath. See note on Matt. 5:19 for meaning of the word. The Pharisees then, as the literalists now, believe that the sanctity of the Sabbath could only be preserved by putting the soul under bonds to a literal compliance with specific regulations. Christ broke these bonds asunder, gave the soul liberty, and preserved the Sabbath by inspiring the souls of his disciples with allegiance to himself, love for humanity, and sympathy with the redeeming work of the Father. He did relax what they supposed to be essential to the preservation of the day, but what was really destroying it. To keep this poor man on his bed, or watching it to prevent it from being stolen, would have destroyed for him the rest of the day, in order that he might comply with the letter of the Pharisaic regulations. So he who rides in a horse-car rather than remain away from church, or travels late Saturday night or early Sunday morning rather than destroy his Sabbath by spending it with strangers, seems to the Sabbatarian of to-day to be relaxing the Sabbath, while he may be in truth preserving it.—But said also that God was his own Father. (πατέρα ἴδιον.) Norton renders the sense accurately though freely, Had spoken of God as particularly his Father. The meaning of the original will be indicated to the English reader by Rom. 8:32, “Spared not his own Son;” 1 Cor. 6:18, “Sinneth against his own body;” 1 Cor. 7:2, “Have her own husband.” It is clear that the Jews either did understand Christ by his language to claim peculiar relations with God, or pretended so to do. In his mere reference to God as Father there was no such claim, for he bids us all call him our Father (Matt. 6:6, 7). True, in the language “my Father,” most commentators see a ground for the interpretation put upon his language by the Judeans:—thus Meyer: “They rightly interpreted ‘my Father’ as signifying peculiar and personal fatherhood;” Bengel: “The Only-begotten alone can say, ‘my Father’;” similarly Alford, Tholuck, and others. There is perhaps some ground for this view. Yet I can hardly think that Christ’s mere designation of God as “my Father” implies more than Paul’s “Abba Father” (Rom. 8:15), which Luther renders “dear Father,” or the frequent designation of God as my God by the patriarchs, and especially by David. See for example, Exod. 15:2; 1 Chron. 28:20; 2 Chron. 18:13; Ps. 22:1, 10; 38:21; 71:12; 2 Cor. 12:21; Phil. 4:19. And in Psalm 89:26; Jer. 3:4, man is directed by God to apply this very phrase “my Father” in his address to God. I believe then that the statement that Jesus said that God was in a peculiar sense his Father, and the deduction that he thus made himself equal to God, are the malicious wresting of his words by the Judeans, for the very purpose of finding an occasion of offence. They manifested the same spirit in John 10:31, etc., though there they have better ground for the interpretation which they put upon his words. In the discourse which follows, Christ does not hold them to their original charge respecting the Sabbath. He follows them into the new ground which they have entered on, and expounds his true nature and mission.—Making himself equal with God. “On the same level with God” (Meyer); “On an equality with God” (Norton); “Of the same nature and condition” (Robinson). The language of Jesus, his claim of the right to work because the Father works, and his language My Father, the Judeans regard as embodying an assumption that he is of the divine nature and possesses the divine prerogatives. That they so interpreted his language does not prove that it is to be so interpreted. The Pharisees are not authorized interpreters of the words of Christ. His claim we must interpret for ourselves from the discourse which follows. How far does he correct and how far confirm their interpretation? It seems to me clear that at the very outset he materially modifies it, in his declaration of his obedience to and dependence upon and work under the Father (ver. 19), while he confirms the substantial idea that he possesses the same nature as the Father, is, so to speak, of kin to Him, by his declaration that he does what the Father does (ver. 19), shares in all the counsels of the Father (ver. 20), gives life to the dead as the Father (ver. 21), judges all men for the Father (ver. 22), is to be honored as the representative of the Father (ver. 23), is the door through which all must enter into eternal life in the Father (ver. 24), and is the final Resurrection and Judge for the Father (ver. 25-29); yet at the close he again emphasizes the truth that in all this he is not a second or even subordinate God, but the One through whom the Father does all (ver. 30), the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,[174] The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

[174] verse 30.

20 For[175] the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

[175] chaps. 3:35; 17:26; Matt. 3:17.

19, 20. Verily, verily. A formula used by Christ in cases of important and emphatic affirmation.—The Son can do nothing of himself, i. e., of his own will or authority. “Of myself (ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ), i. e., of one’s own will or accord, without authority or command from another.”—(Rob. 24, art. ἀπό.) This declaration cannot be limited, as by Calvin, to the power of Christ in his human nature, without, adding to the verse what is not in it, nor in its necessary connection; nor can we read it, as Chrysostom does, that Christ can do nothing contrary to his Father’s will, because of the perfect union between them, for this is clearly not the meaning of the original. Christ says not, I can do nothing contrary to my Father, but, I can do nothing of myself by my own independent and original power. The meaning of the original is transparent, though the truth is transcendent. This is that the power of Christ is not an original but a derived power; that it comes from the Father and is a power only to do those things which carry out the Father’s will. As the Christian can do nothing without Christ (ch. 15:5), yet can do all things through Christ strengthening him (Phil. 4:13), so Christ can do nothing without the Father, but does all things by virtue of a divine power imparted to him by the Father, and as a manifestation of the Father. This is a partial answer to the charge that Christ makes himself equal to the Father. He show’s that so far from doing anything calculated to draw away allegiance from the Father, he draws allegiance to the Father, since in all that he does he acts out only the Father’s will. He is divine because of the divinity with which he has, so to speak, been clothed by the Father’s love.—But what he seeth the Father do. “A familiar description, borrowed from the attention which children give to their father—of the inner and immediate intention which the Son perpetually has of the Father’s will, in the perfect consciousness of fellowship of life with Him.”—(Meyer.)—Whatsoever things he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. In like manner (ὁμοίως), that is, with like power and authority. This surely could be said of no man, no angel. It indicates not only a superhuman but also a super-angelic character. Thus this verse puts in a very compact form the paradox of Christ’s character—a paradox not to be explained away by either modifications of the first clause or denials of the second. The first clause asserts that Christ’s power comes from the Father, and thus, in a sense, is not equal to that of the Father, which is uncreated and underived. And with this declaration agree many other passages of Scripture. See for example, ch. 7:17, 18; 8:42; 14:10; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9; 3:2. The second clause asserts that this power, conferred upon the Son, is that of the Father, who has put all things into the hands of the Son that he may be Lord of all. Acts 10:36; James 5:9; Col. 1:16, 17; 3:11. It is noticeable that John, who of all Evangelists makes most clear the divine nature of Christ, as well as his divine mission, is the one who more clearly than any other of the evangelists asserts his dependence on the Father.—For the Father loveth the Son, etc. This is stated as the reason why the Son is able to do all things that the Father doeth. His power is derived from the Father through the Father’s love for him. Comp. Heb. 1:9.—And showeth him all things. “He who loves hides nothing.”—(Bengel.)—He will show him greater works than these. Greater miracles than the healing of the impotent man. Far greater works were done later in Christ’s ministry in Jerusalem and vicinity, the consummation being the raising of Lazarus from the dead.—That ye may marvel. Here the verb marvel (θαυμάζω) is used with the idea of praise as well as wonder. The object of the wonderful works of God is not merely to awaken the wonder of mankind, but, through the wonder, the reverence and so the allegiance of mankind to the Father through Christ his Son.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even[176] so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

[176] ch. 11:25; 17:2; Luke 8:54.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed[177] all judgment unto the Son;

[177] Matt. 11:27; Acts 17:31; 2 Cor. 5:10.

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

21-23. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and maketh them to live, even so the Son, whom he will, makes to live. Observe, (1) that the verbs in this sentence are in the present tense; Christ is therefore speaking of a present resurrection, one now taking place. (2) That this resurrection is one recognized among men, not one taking place in the invisible world (ver. 23). (3) That as the result of this resurrection, the raised pass from death unto life (ver. 24). (4) That a universal resurrection is not indicated, but only of those whom he wills to raise (ver. 21). It is then not of a future resurrection of all men at the last day, nor of a present resurrection of the literally dead taking place as they die, that Christ here speaks, but of a spiritual resurrection, taking place on the earth, confined to those whom the Saviour calls and who hear and answer his call, and so manifest to men that it is recognized as a sign of the Saviour’s power. As Christ has power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), so also he has power to raise the dead in trespasses and sins. Thus he is now, as he will be in another sense in the last day, the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). This theme of a spiritual resurrection and life-giving occupies verses 21-27; then by a natural transition Christ passes to the future resurrection of the physical dead. Be not surprised, he says in substance, at my declarations respecting the spiritual resurrection; for the final resurrection shall also be at my voice. Be not surprised at my claim to be now a judge, for the great day of judgment the Father has also committed into my hands.—Whom he will. This phrase does not indicate “that he specially confers this grace on none but certain men, that is, on the elect” (Calvin); nor can we say that “He will not quicken others because they believe not” (Meyer), for though this is true, it is neither asserted, nor even hinted at here; nor is the meaning merely that “in every instance where his will is to vivify, the result invariably follows” (Alford). Clearly the indication of the passage is that spiritual life has its source, not in the will of the sinner but in that of the Saviour (comp. ch. 1:13; Rom. 9:16); but the reason why the divine will apparently chooses some and not others, whether for reasons in human character and choice, or for inscrutable reasons, not explained nor indeed explicable, is not here hinted at.—For the Father judgeth no man. The whole work of judgment, the whole moral government of the world, the whole course of divine Providence, as regards the nation, the church, and the individual, is entrusted to the Son. See Psalm 2; Rev. 1:5.—That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. There is some reasonable ground for a difference of opinion as to the proper interpretation of the preceding verses, which treat of the relations of the Father to the Son; and Christian critics are not wholly agreed respecting their meaning. But there can be no room for difference of opinion as to the meaning of this verse, which gives the practical outcome of those which precede. Whatever opinion the theologian may entertain concerning the mystery of Christ’s nature, the Christian can hardly doubt the plain teaching of Scripture that the highest allegiance that the soul can pay to its God, the highest love it can offer, the highest reverence it can experience, are all due to the Son. Even as signifies the manner and the degree. So in heaven the highest praises are paid to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 5:12; 7:10).—He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him. Not because the failure to honor an ambassador is a failure to honor the king whom he represents, but because the honor paid to God belongs to his character, and of that character the Son is the manifestation; so that the soul that does not honor the Son, who is the brightness of the Father’s image, and who doeth all things which the Father does, and as the Father does them, does not really honor the Father. In truth, he who does not recognize in Christ the Son of the Father, the true image of the divine glory, has either no true conception of the Son or none of the Father; for the only way to the Father is the Son. And in fact, those forms of theological doctrine which have tended to belittle Christ have also tended, in the history of the church, to dwarf worship.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He[178] that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed[179] from death unto life.

[178] ch. 6:40, 47.

[179] 1 John 3:14.

24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth me and hath faith on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and comes not into judgment, but has passed out of the death into the life. The meaning of this declaration is not obscure, though it has been sometimes obscured by unbelief. To hear the word of Christ is to hear it with the spiritual ear, not merely with the physical ear. Thus those may be included who have never heard of the historic Christ; for as he is the Light of the world, who lighteth every man who cometh into the world (ch. 1:9, note), so those who, without the literal hearing of his words, do hear and attend to the message which he speaks to the soul, in the inner experience, are to be included among those who hear his words. To have faith on him that sent me, is not merely to believe his written word, nor to believe that he has sent Christ into the world, nor to believe any specific dogma respecting Christ, however important, but to have faith in an unseen divinity, in contrast to faith in either one’s self or in any human helper. It is to direct faith toward this unseen God that Christ came into the world; and to have faith in Christ is to have faith in the Father who sent him, in order that he might bring all unto the Father, and present all to him (ch. 17:8, 21, 24). Cometh not into judgment is mistranslated in our English version, Shall not come into condemnation. The verb is not future, and the noun is judgment, not condemnation. “There can be no good reason why the word (κρίσις, krisis) should be rendered judgment in the 22d verse, and condemnation in the 24th. But from a fear, I suppose, lest the one should seem to contradict the other—lest the Son should be thought not to execute the judgment that had been committed to him—they (the translators) were unfaithful to the letter, perhaps even more unfaithful to the spirit, of the passage.”—(Maurice.) The promise is one fulfilled in this life, a promise of present not merely future deliverance, and of a deliverance not merely from condemnation, but from judgment. If the Christian comes into judgment, he would also inevitably come into condemnation (1 John 1:8, 10). The meaning of this verse then is, that when the soul has accepted Christ as its Master, hearing his words, and following him, for spiritual hearing involves following (ch. 10:3, 4) so as to live by faith in God (Gal. 2:20), he is no longer subject to divine judgment; there is no more condemnation to them who are thus in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). With this is involved the further truth that there will be no true judgment for them in the last day. “The reckoning which ends with ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ is not judgment; the reward is of free grace. In this sense the believers in Christ will not be judged according to their works; they are justified before God by faith, and by God.”—(Alford.) Finally, the last clause of the verse, but hath passed out of death into life, indicates the true condition of both the impenitent and the believer; the one is already in death, from which he can only be delivered by the Life-giver; the other has already entered into eternal life. This is not a future reward reserved for him; it begins here and now, though it is to be consummated hereafter. The life is spiritual life, the death spiritual death. Of these great realities physical life and death are but tropes and symbols.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you. The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead[180] shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.

[180] verse 28; Ephes. 2:1.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life[181] in himself;

[181] 1 Cor. 15:45.

27 And hath given him authority[182] to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

[182] verse 22.

25-27. The hour is coming, and now is, when, etc. The resurrection here spoken of is then one already taking place. In order to meet this evident requirement of the verse, those commentators who regard Christ as throughout this passage speaking of the final resurrection suppose here a reference to the cases of resurrection which took place in connection with his ministry. But none such had as yet taken place; moreover, this construction requires us to suppose that Christ used the word life in one sense in the preceding verse and in another sense here, without giving any indication of the change of meaning. His reference then I believe to be here, as throughout this passage up to verse 28, to spiritual death and spiritual resurrection.—For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself. Norton renders this somewhat enigmatical verse liberally, thus: “For as the Father is the fountain of life, so hath he given to the Son to be the fountain of life.” This must be regarded rather as a paraphrase than as a translation; but it embodies well the meaning of the verse, as indicated by the context. No man is a fountain of life to any other man. He may be a conduit, but not a source. It is given to Christ to be a source of life himself to others. We live only as we draw continuously our life from God; to the Son the Father has given life in such a sense that he becomes himself the life of the world, and thus the life-giver to the dead.—Because he is a Son of man. Not, as in the English version, the Son of man. The omission of the article is significant, for without the article the phrase son of man means simply one of the human race; with the article it always means the Messiah. Here then the meaning is that Christ is to be the judge of all the earth, because he has taken on himself human nature. Why is this any reason that he should be the judge of the world? The answer is, I think, indicated by Heb. 5:15: “We have not an high-priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” Our judge is chosen, because he knows our frame, he understands sympathetically our temptations, is able to make allowances for all infirmities and weaknesses of humanity, and for all trials of life, and able, also, to measure at their true worth the false excuses with which we endeavor to excuse ourselves to ourselves and to our fellows. Other explanations, for which in detail see Meyer, as that judgment is a necessary part of redemption, or that it belongs to Christ as the Messiah, or that it is given to him as a reward for accepting the humility of human nature, seem to me to be inadmissible. Judgment is not a part of redemption; it is in no true sense redemptive; the phrase a son of man never means the Messiah; and it would be no reward to a tender and loving nature to exercise judgment, except as it afforded an opportunity for the exercise of mercy in judgment.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they[183] that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.[184]

[183] Dan. 12:2.

[184] Matt. 25:46.

28, 29. Marvel not at this. Not only because the greater wonder absorbs the less (Meyer), but also because there is nothing strange in the declaration that he who is to be the final judge of all flesh should exercise judgment now on men, and he who is to be the final resurrection and the life should be the resurrection and the life in the spiritual realm now.—For the hour is coming. He does not add and now is, for now he is speaking not of a present resurrection, but of one to take place only in the future.—All that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth. A voice like the sound of a trumpet (Rev. 1:10), and like the sound of many waters (Rev. 1:15), that is, like the roar of the ocean for fullness and power. Comp. 1 Thess. 4:16. The entire language is highly figurative. If literally interpreted it would seem to imply a bodily resurrection, and it is apparently so understood by some of the commentators, e. g., Alford and Olshausen; but it is evident that it cannot be literally interpreted. Thus the dead do not in a literal sense hear his voice; their arousing is not that of literal sleepers who have been awakened by a voice. The doctrine that death is a sleep, that the soul remains in an unconscious state till the resurrection, and that the life is then anew given to the soul simultaneously with the re-creation of the body from the dust, is so inconsistent with the plain teaching of Scripture in many passages (see 1 Cor. 15:36-38, 50, 51), that it cannot be sustained by doubtful interpretations of pictorial passages like the present one. How little ground there is for the opinion that the Bible supports a doctrine of a literal and universal bodily resurrection, will be evident to the student who considers the force of the following passages, which are said by Olshausen, and quoted with apparent approval by Alford, both of whom seem to believe in a literal resurrection of the body, to be the only passages in Scripture which imply a resurrection of the bodies of the impenitent: Acts 24:15; Matt. 10:28; Matt. 25:34, etc.; Rev. 20:5, 12; Dan. 12:2. No one of these directly asserts the resurrection of the body, and some of them can hardly be said even remotely to imply it. The doctrine is directly inconsistent with the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor., ch. 15. See notes there.—They that have done good unto the resurrection of life. That is, unto a resurrection the necessary result of which is life, life in the Messiah’s kingdom.—(Meyer.)—And they that have practised evil. The righteous have done good—their fruit remains; the wicked have only practised evil—their works do not follow them. The wheat is garnered into the storehouses; the chaff is destroyed. See ch. 3:20, 21.—Unto the resurrection of judgment. Observe again that only they that have done evil come into judgment (verse 24, note). Observe too that it is they that have done good to whom is given the gift of eternal life, and they that have practised evil that enter into judgment. The test, and the only test of character which the New Testament recognizes, is that of fruit in the actual life (Matt.7:20; 12:33; 25:31-46; Ephes. 5:6; 1 John 3:7, 8). The works of righteousness are the fruits of the Spirit; his gracious influences are received into the soul by faith, but the evidence of the abiding of that Spirit consists in the manifestation of these fruits in a righteous life (John 15:1, 2, 6; Gal. 5:22-24; James 2:14-26). Living a Christ-like life is the only evidence of possessing a Christ-like spirit.

30 I[185] can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just: because I seek not mine own will, but the will[186] of the Father which hath sent me.

[185] verse 19.

[186] ch. 4:34; 6:38; Ps. 40:7, 8; Matt. 26:39.

30. In this verse Christ returns to the statement made in the beginning of the discourse, ver. 19 (see note there); he does all things as the representative of the Father and the expression of the Father’s will.—As I hear I judge. As Christ is the image of the Father, so his voice is the echo of the Father’s voice.—My judgment is just, because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father. To the Father there is no law superior to his own will; to the Son the will of the Father is the law. In this declaration our Lord gives us an example of the way in which we may secure just judgments in ourselves. It is self-seeking which obscures the judgment. Unselfish seeking of the Father’s will is the great clarifier of the moral judgments of the disciple.

31 If I bear witness[187] of myself, my witness is not true.

[187] ch. 8:14; Prov. 27:2; Rev. 3:14.

31. This verse makes a transition from the subject-matter of the discourse thus far to a new subject. Christ has been speaking of his own character and authority; he now passes to speak of the evidences which attest it. The verse is to be read not affirmatively, but interrogatively. Do you say, if I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true? I will then point you to other testimony. That this is the true reading of the verse is evident from ch. 8:14, where Christ declares that though he bears witness of himself, his witness is true. He here anticipates the objection there made by the Pharisees (ch. 8:13), and replies to it. In his reply, which extends to verse 39, he cites in attestation of his mission three witnesses: (1) the testimony of John the Baptist (vers. 32-35); (2) his own works, including, but only incidentally, his miracles (ver. 36); (3) the personal testimony of the Father, speaking chiefly through the O. T. Scripture (vers. 37-39).

32 There is another[188] that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

[188] ch. 8:18; Acts 10:43; 1 John 5:7-9.

33 Ye sent unto John, and[189] he bare witness unto the truth.

[189] ch. 1:7, 32.

32, 33. There is another that beareth witness of me. Most of the modern commentators consider this another to be the Father. So Alford, Meyer, Bengel, Tholuck, and others. They understand the connection to be this: The Father testifies to me; John’s testimony I do not receive, because it is human and fallible, but in passing I refer to it, for your salvation. Thus verses 33-35 are parenthetical. The other interpretation seems to me the more natural and preferable. Christ gives, in an ascending climax, a threefold testimony to himself: first the testimony of John, a prophet, rather the prophet and forerunner of the Messiah; then his own works; finally the testimony of the Father, in the heart and through the written word.—And I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Such language confirming the testimony of John the Baptist is natural; such language in confirmation of the testimony of the Father seems to me strained and unnatural. What significance can be given to the statement, The Everlasting Father testifies of me, and I know that his testimony of me is true? It is apt if applied to John the Baptist, a human and fallible witness, whose language might be attributed by the Jews to extraordinary and mistaken admiration.—Ye sent unto John. The reference is probably to the delegation which came out from Jerusalem to inquire into John’s character and work (ch. 1:19).—He bare witness unto the truth. That is, To the truth concerning Jesus Christ. By this declaration Christ makes the christology of John the Baptist his own, and declares of himself that he is the Son of God and the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. See ch. 1:29, 34.

34 But I receive not testimony from man: but[190] these things I say, that ye might be saved.

[190] ch. 20:31; Rom. 3:3.

35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing[191] for a season to rejoice in his light.

[191] Matt. 21:26; Mark 6:20.

34, 35. But I receive not testimony from man. This is not equivalent to, I will not avail myself of human witness in this matter (Meyer); he does in fact avail himself of human witness, cites it, and declares the reason why he does so, that his auditors may by it be saved from fatal error; nor does it merely mean, as Calvin, that he cites this testimony out of regard to them rather than to himself, though this is true, and equally true of all his ministry, and of all the testimony which he cites in support of his divine claims. Here, as in so many other places in the N. T., especially in the reports of Christ’s words, the careful study of the original clears up obscurity which is felt in the translation, and sometimes which any mere translation fails to clear away. From (παρά), when joined to verbs of inquiring, asking, and learning, indicates that the matter to be learned is viewed as in the mental possession of the person cited (see Winer, § 47, p. 365), that is, as derived from him and dependent on his testimony. So in common language with us, “I know such a fact to be true, for I learned it from Mr. A.,” indicates Mr. A. as the authority for the statement. Christ’s declaration here then is, not that he will not use human testimony, but that his claims do not depend upon it. Compare Matt. 11:27, “No man knoweth the Son but the Father,” and Matt. 16:17, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it (the truth respecting Jesus) unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” The testimony of John the Baptist, like that of all the prophets, is not in truth testimony of or from man, but testimony from God, through man, the man speaking as he is moved by the Holy Ghost. And the moral for us is that all mere human argument for and witness to the character of Christ breaks down; it is only as the divine character has been divinely revealed to us, by the Spirit of God, that we can hope to persuade others of the truth, a lesson abundantly confirmed in the history of the church by its dealings with infidelity. Unbelief is to be vanquished by spiritual, not by mere intellectual power. Alford represents the idea well by a free translation, “I take not my testimony from man.”—These things I say that ye might be saved. Blind to the testimony of the O. T. (2 Cor. 3:14), unspiritual, and therefore deaf to the inner voice of God (1 Cor. 2:14), there is hope that they may heed the recent testimony of John, whom all men counted for a prophet (Matt. 21:26), and whose baptism even the Pharisees and the Sadducees had attended (Matt. 3:7). Therefore he cites it to them, that he may by any means save some. He seeks to outflank their prejudice.—He was the lamp, kindled and shining. Observe the difference between this translation and that of our English version. He was not a light, but the lamp; not burning, but kindled. A common title given to famous Rabbis was The candle of the law; Christ borrows it, applies it to John, and declares him to have been the lamp, lighting not the law, but the way to Christ. The lamp, because the one foretold in the prophets to light the way of the Lord and prepare for his coming. The lamp, not light. Two different Greek words (λύχνος and φῶς) are erroneously rendered by the same English word, light. Man is but a lamp; Christ is the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (ch. 1:9); and man (the lamp) can give light to others only as he is himself filled with Christ (the true and only light). This lamp is kindled (καιόμενος, passive), i. e., by the touch of God, as a lamp unable to give light until it is filled and lighted by the owner’s hand; and shining, as one of the lights of the world (Matt. 5:14), shining with divine light because kindled by a divine hand and partaking of the divine nature (lumen illuminatum, not lumen illuminans).—And ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. The two marks of a spurious religious enthusiasm. They were willing to rejoice, but not to repent; they were ready to “enjoy religion,” but not to “bring forth fruit meet for repentance;” they flocked in great crowds to John’s Baptism (Matt. 3:5), much as men now flock to camp and tabernacle meetings; but they were not ready to “do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.” And their enthusiasm was but “for a season,” as all merely emotional enthusiasm is. It made no practical and lifelong change in their character or conduct.

36 But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works[192] which the Father hath given me to finish,[193] the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

[192] ch. 10:25; 15:24; Acts 2:22.

[193] ch. 17:4.

36. But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish. From the testimony of John the Baptist, Jesus passes to the second authentication of his mission, the works which he is doing. These works are not merely nor primarily his miracles. Against this narrow and unspiritual interpretation the church should have been saved by even a careful study of the words. For (a) the word here rendered works

(ἔργον) is never used by John as equivalent to a miracle, but always, when in connection with Christ, as significant of his whole course of beneficent and redeeming activity; (b) in this very discourse Christ uses it in connection with and in reference to his work of spiritual life-giving to the dead in trespasses and sins (vers. 20, 21); (c) the phrase “hath given me to finish” points forward to the time when he should be able to say in prayer to his Father, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (ch. 17:5; comp. 4:34), and in his last triumphant cry upon the cross, “It is finished” (ch. 19:30). The matter is important because the church needs to recognize that the evidences of Christianity on which Christ relied are not the miracles, which are purely historical acts, the historic veracity of which must be proved like that of any other past events, but the whole work of redeeming love, the visible and indubitable fruits of which are to be unceasingly seen in the victories of Christianity over the individual and over communities.—The same works that I am doing. Not have done, which might have been said of miracles already wrought, but am now engaged in doing, which alone could be said of the unceasing work of him who ever went about doing good. Observe that the works which he is doing are those which the Father hath given him to do (vers. 19, 20, notes), and that whatever the Father hath given him, that he does (ch. 18:11).—Bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. Because they are manifestations of the Father’s love. The message which the Son has come to bring is the message of the Father’s grace (ch. 1:14).

37 And the Father[194] himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye[195] have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

[194] Matt. 3:17; 17:5.

[195] Deut. 4:12; 1 Tim. 6:16.

38 And ye have not his word[196] abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

[196] 1 John 2:14.

37, 38. And he which hath sent me, the Father himself, hath borne witness of me. The past tense of the verb indicates a completed testimony, borne in past time, but accessible to present hearers. The meaning therefore cannot be the witness of the Spirit to Christ’s character and mission, a continuously fresh testimony, which is however borne only to those that are already the sons of God, through a measurable faith in Jesus as Saviour and Messiah. The reference is possibly in part to the testimony which the Father had borne at the baptism to Christ as his well-beloved Son (Matt. 3:17), a testimony repeated on other occasions (Matt. 17:5; John 12:28); but the primary reference is to the testimony borne to God in the O. T. Scriptures, which were to the Jewish nation witnesses to the Messiah, whose coming they heralded, and whose work they described (Luke 24:27-44; Acts 13:27).—No voice of his have ye ever heard, no appearance of his have ye ever seen, and his word ye have not abiding in you. This gives as nearly literally as is possible the meaning of the original. Two interpretations are possible. One is that indicated by our English version. According to this interpretation Christ declares the general philosophic truth, that the Father is a Spirit, and therefore invisible and inaudible, to be spiritually discerned; and since the Jews have not spiritual discernment, since they have not God’s word abiding in them, they are without any knowledge of God or understanding of his witness. The other interpretation is that indicated by the more literal translation given above. According to this translation it is the language of “reproach for want of susceptibility to this (divine) testimony” (Meyer). This was the view of Calvin, who here, as in the interpretation of so many other passages, anticipated the results of later criticism. “When he says that they had never heard the voice of God or seen his shape, these are metaphorical expressions, by which he intends to state generally that they are utterly estranged from the knowledge of God.” This last I believe to be the correct interpretation, both because it more nearly accords with the literal rendering of the original, and because, according to the other interpretation, Christ inserts in the midst of his discourse an abstract statement of philosophic truth, in a manner which, if not absolutely artificial, is at least quite unlike his usual method. His word abiding in you is the word of the O. T. This they had; but it was external to them. They did not believe it “with the heart unto righteousness” (Rom. 10:10). It was not an abiding force in the shaping of their conduct or the formation of their character. He only can truly comprehend what the Scriptures teach concerning God, who yields obedience to whatever they teach concerning duty; for it is only as the divine attributes are reproduced in us that we can approximate an understanding of them in God.—For whom he hath sent, in him ye have not faith. This may be regarded either as the reason why they have not seen God nor heard his voice, because they have not faith in his Son; or as the evidence that they have not seen God, etc., since if they had they would have faith in his Son. The latter is the preferable interpretation, He that is truly and spiritually familiar with the Father will discern the Father’s lineaments in the Son; he that does not recognize the divinity in the Son bears thereby witness that he does not truly know in what divinity consists.

39 Search[197] the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are[198] they which testify of me.

[197] Isa. 8:20; 34:16.

[198] Luke 24:27; 1 Pet. 1:10, 11.

40 And ye will not come[199] to me, that ye might have life.

[199] ch. 3:19.

39, 40. Ye search the Scriptures because in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify concerning me; and still ye will not come unto me that ye might have life. The verb search (ερευνᾶτε) may be rendered either as imperative or as indicative. Alford and Tholuck make it, as does the English version, imperative, thus interpreting it as a direction to search the Scriptures; Meyer, Bengel, Olshausen, and Godet make it indicative, thus interpreting it as a statement of a fact and a basis for the condemnation which follows. Which interpretation is correct is to be determined wholly by the context and the circumstances; either is grammatically correct. It appears to me clear, both from the context and the audience, that Christ does not give here a command or an exhortation, but simply states a fact. For (1) he is addressing men who did not need a direction to Scriptural study; the great, almost the exclusive, study of the Jewish Rabbis was either the Scriptures or the commentaries thereon. It is true that their search was not spiritual; they stopped with the letter which killeth, and disregarded the spirit which giveth life; but this was a reason, not for an exhortation to more searching, but to a different spirit in the searching. (2) The theme of Christ’s discourse here would not naturally lead to an exhortation to Bible study. He is pointing them to himself; and their failure to find him was not because they were not familiar with the Scriptures, but because a veil was over their hearts when they read it (2 Cor. 3:15). I understand then that Christ in this verse notes a contrast between the Scriptures and himself; the Jews search the Scriptures because in them they think to find eternal life. But eternal life is not in the Book; it is in the person to whom the Book bears witness. And they search in vain who do not find in it the Christ to whom the Book bears testimony. In contrast with their searching, note the spirit and method of the Bereans, who searched to see if these things were so (Acts 17:10, 11), that is, with a docile and inquiring, not a predetermined mind.—Ye will not come unto me. Though the Scriptures which they searched so diligently contained testimony to a suffering and saving Messiah, they would not come to him. They were as one who reads a guide-board, but goes not whither it points.—That ye might have life. The object of Christ’s coming was to give life; the object of coming to Christ is to receive life (ch. 10:10). The kind of life imparted by him and to be received by us is indicated in Ephes. 2:10; Gal. 5:22, 23.

41 I receive not honour from[200] men.

[200] verse 34; 1 Thess. 2:6.

42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

41, 42. I receive not honor from men. It is true that at his name every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess him to be Lord, but to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10, 11). As the Christian lets his light shine that men may glorify Christ, so Christ’s light glorifies the Father. Moreover, this honor is not derived from men. What was said on the meaning of the original on ver. 34 (see note there) is equally applicable here. From men (παρά) indicates the original source. Christ’s glory comes from the Father (Phil. 2:9); human voices do but echo the divine voice.—I know you. As no man ever knows his fellow-men. For illustration of Christ’s divine insight into the hearts of men, see Matt. 9:4; John 2:24; Heb. 4:13.—That ye have not the love of God in you. They who were condemning Christ for a violation of the ceremonial law of the Sabbath were themselves guilty of violating the first and great commandment Of the law (Deut. 6:5).

43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which[201] receive honour one of another, and seek[202] not the honour that cometh from God only?

[201] ch. 12:43.

[202] Rom. 2:10.

43, 44. In my Father’s name. “The name of God, of Christ, is a paraphrase for God himself, Christ himself, in all their being, attributes, relations, manifestations.”—(Rob. Lex., art. ὄνομα.) See Matt. 28:19, note. Here, therefore, Christ’s declaration is primarily, I have come in the power of the Father, not in my own power, or with my own authority; and secondarily, I have come to manifest and glorify not myself, but Him.—If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. The reference is primarily to the false Christs, of whom many have been at different times received by Jews. See Matt. 24:5, note. But the declaration has a wider application to all times and nations. Wherever the minister is received, not as a guide to God, but as an independent object of hero-worship, he is received in his own name.—How can ye have faith which receive honor derived from (παρά) one another? Earthly ambition is inconsistent with spiritual growth. He that seeks the perishable cannot at the same time seek the imperishable crown.—And seek not the honor which cometh from the only God. Not, as in our English version, from God only. The structure of the sentence forbids that interpretation. The reference is to such passages as Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 20:3; Deut. 4:35, 39; 2 Sam. 7:22; Isa. 45:5, 6, etc. To those who seek from the one and only true God glory and honor and immortality, by patient continuance in well-doing, and to them alone, is the gift of eternal life promised (Rom. 2:6, 7).

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is[203] one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

[203] Rom. 2:12.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he[204] wrote of me.

[204] Gen. 3:15; 22:18; Deut. 18:15, 18; Acts 26:22.

47 But if ye[205] believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

[205] Luke 16:31.

45-47. Do not think that I will be your accuser before the Father. The imagery is borrowed from the course of judicial proceedings. In the last judgment Christ will be judge (ver. 37), not public prosecutor.—There is one that accuseth you. Observe the present tense, who is accusing you. The law is a perpetual accusation against the sinner (Rom. 2:15; 3:19, 20), from whose indictments there is no escape except in the pardon offered by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. For prophetic and specific accusations of the Jewish nation in the Mosaic writings, see Deut. 31:21, 26.—Even Moses. The law-giver is put for the law.—In whom ye have put your hopes. (εἰς ὃν) For the meaning of in whom (εἰς ὅν), see 2 Cor. 1:10. In (εἰς) signifies the end toward which any action tends; with verbs indicating a mental action, the object of that action. The hopes of the Jews looked toward Moses, i. e., toward an exact obedience of the letter of the law given by Moses, not toward a spiritual communion with the Father whose children they were called to be. For a portrayal, autobiographically, of this legal and self-righteous hope, see Phil. 3:4-6.—Had ye believed Moses. Not believed in or on him; the child of God believes the prophets, he believes in or on Christ only. If the Jews had really believed Moses, even as a teacher, they would have believed on Christ; for Moses testified of Christ.—For he wrote of me. An incidental testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the books usually attributed by the Jews to Moses, viz., the first five books of the O. T.; also an indication of the prophetic and typical character of the ceremonial law. Moses was a prophet because the entire O. T. ceremonial and service—temple sacrifices, ablutions, etc.—were prophecies, fulfilled in and by Christ. Thus Christ himself incidentally confirms that view of the O. T. ceremonial which underlies and is most fully expounded by the Epistle to the Hebrews.—But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? “The meaning is, Men give greater weight to what is written and published, the letter of a book, than to mere word of mouth; and ye in particular give greater honor to Moses than to Me: if then ye believe not what he has written, which comes down to you hallowed by the reverence of ages, how can you believe the words which are uttered by Me, to whom ye are hostile? This however is not all; Moses leads to Christ; is one of the witnesses by which the Father hath testified of Him; ‘if then ye have rejected the means, how shall ye reach the end?’ If your unbelief has stopped the path, how shall ye arrive at Him to whom it leads?”—(Alford.)

CHAPTER VI.

Ch. 6:1-15. FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND.—The grace, the bounty, the power, and the method of Christ illustrated.

Of this miracle accounts are given by the four Evangelists (Matt. 14:13-33; Mark 6:32-52; Luke 9:10-17); and it is the only miracle recorded by them all. There are some differences in their records; for details see notes below. In the main the three Synoptics agree, while the differences between them and the Fourth Gospel are more considerable. According to the Synoptics Jesus and his disciples crossed the Sea of Galilee to the east side; the people, going round by land, outran them, and apparently were waiting for them on the shore (Mark); Christ therefore abandoned his original design of rest, and devoted the day to instruction (Mark) and healing (Matthew and Luke). When evening was come the disciples asked him to send the people away to the villages to get necessary food; Jesus replied, Give ye them to eat; the disciples answered that they had nothing but five loaves and two small fishes to give; and from these Jesus fed them. According to John, Jesus crossed over the sea with his disciples, went up into the hills, and there sat with them; while sitting there he saw the people coming round by land, proposed to feed them, asked Philip where they should get the bread, and apparently going down to the plain to feed the people, took the five loaves and two small fishes and distributed them among the people. All agree, however, as to the main facts: the feeding of five thousand on five loaves and two small fishes, and the gathering of twelve baskets of fragments, are narrated by all four Evangelists; the subsequent departure of Christ into the mountain for solitude and prayer, the embarkation of the disciples by boat, and his walking to them upon the sea are recounted by all but Luke; Matthew alone gives the account of Peter’s attempt to walk upon the water to meet Jesus. Harmonists have endeavored to combine these accounts in one consistent narrative; this is the work, however, rather of imagination than of criticism; any such harmony is necessarily hypothetical. The attempts have succeeded in so far as to show that the accounts are capable of combination. It may be added that the variations are just such as we might expect in narratives coming from independent eye-witnesses, and not such as we might expect in different fictitious accounts, or in different versions of a myth, derived from the same tradition. The miracle took place immediately on the return of the twelve after executing the commissions given to them in Matthew, ch. 10; the immediate object of Christ in retiring to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee was to secure quiet for a personal conference with the twelve respecting their work (Mark 6:30). For further statement of the chronology of the event, and the most probable harmony of the four accounts, see Matt. 14:13-27, note. A topographical difficulty is presented by an apparent but not real inconsistency between Luke 9:10 and Mark 6:45. According to Luke, Christ took the twelve with him into a desert place belonging to Bethsaida, whither the multitude followed him; according to Mark, after feeding the multitude he told the twelve to sail across to the other side unto Bethsaida. Thus Luke seems to place Bethsaida on the eastern, and Mark on the western shore of the lake, and this has led to the hypothesis that there were two Bethsaidas, an hypothesis generally adopted by the commentators, without, it seems to me, sufficient inquiry. It has no historical confirmation, was invented to harmonize Luke and Mark, and is needless. Let the reader compare the map of the Sea of Galilee (Vol. I, p. 342) with the accompanying illustration, in which he looks down on the Sea of Galilee from the north. The ruins in the foreground are those of Bethsaida; the river is the Jordan. Probably in ancient times the town of Bethsaida reached to or near the shore of the lake. The mountains in the distance are those on the eastern shore of Galilee, and the plain at their foot is the plain of Butaiha, where the five thousand were fed. Christ was at or near Capernaum; sailed with his disciples across the Sea of Galilee to the plain of Butaiha, at the foot of the hills on the northeastern shore of the lake, not far from Bethsaida. After the attempt of the multitude to make Jesus king, he bade them embark and row along the shore toward (πρός) Bethsaida (Mark 6:45), where he proposed to meet them. A sudden wind rising and blowing down the Jordan valley from the Lebanon range (see on verses 16-18), drove the disciples’ boat out into the lake; and it was while they were rowing back, against the wind, toward Bethsaida, where their Lord had promised to meet them, that he came out upon the waves for that purpose. Thus it is true that when they left Capernaum for the plain of Butaiha in the morning, they were going over to a plain belonging to the city of Bethsaida, as Luke reports; and also true that when they started back in the evening in the direction of Capernaum, as John reports (ver. 17, εἰς indicating the ultimate point they had in view), they were also going toward Bethsaida, which lay on the northern shore, and not far from midway between the eastern and the western shores. See further, Mark 6:45, note.

BETHSAIDA.

After[206] these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.

[206] Matt. 14:15, etc.; Mark 6:34, etc.; Luke 9:12, etc.

2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

1, 2. After these things. Not a definite note of time. It was subsequent to the healing of the impotent man at the foot of Bethesda. But many and important events had intervened. See Tabular Harmony of Gospels, Vol. I, p. 44.—Which is the Sea of Tiberias. John, writing for Gentile readers, gives the name by which this body of water was best known in the Gentile world. For map and description, see Vol. I, p. 342. The eastern shore was not populous; it is to this day comparatively a solitude; Christ went thither with his disciples partly for rest and a quiet conference (Mark 6:30, 31), and partly in consequence of the death of John the Baptist, perhaps to avoid the possibility of danger to himself and to them from Herod. After the sermon which followed this miracle of feeding, reported in this chapter by John, he engaged no more in any public ministry in Galilee. See Matt. 15:29-39, note.—Because they saw his miracles which he did. John has not recorded any miracles done at this time in Galilee, and only two performed at any time in Galilee. This is one of those incidental references which makes it clear to my mind that John wrote not only with a personal knowledge of the writings of the other Evangelists or some of them, but with a recognition of the fact that their writings would be familiar to the readers of his own Gospel. The miracles referred to here are those performed in Christ’s Galilean ministry subsequent to his return from the second Passover at Jerusalem. They are recorded in Matthew, chaps. 8-13; Mark, chaps. 2-5; and Luke, chaps. 5-8.

3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.

4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

3, 4. And Jesus went up into the hill country. Up from the shore of the sea to the quiet of the hills. These, on the eastern shore, rise to a height of nearly 2,000 feet above the level of the sea, which is however itself depressed some 600 feet below the level of the Mediterranean.—The Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. This affords both a note of time and an explanation of the multitude present. The month was Nizan (our March). The grass was green; the trees were in full leaf; the palm trees were laden with blossoms; the orange and lemon trees with fruit; the barley was ripening in the fields. At such a season and in such a climate, to spend a night without shelter is no hardship, and is not unusual. The leisure of the Oriental is partly a characteristic of the people, partly an incident of a climate which compels less labor than ours. The fifteen days preceding the Passover were largely devoted to various preparations for it; the roads, streets, and bridges were repaired, and the caravans began to move toward Jerusalem. The gathering at such a time of a congregation of 5,000 men, besides women and children, attracted by the fame of such a prophet, is not at all incredible. The reader must also remember that Galilee was then the home of a large population. According to Josephus, there were six cities of considerable size on the thirteen miles of coast-line along the northern and northeastern shores of the Lake of Tiberias.

5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?

6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.

5, 6. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes. According to Mark the people going round by the shore outran Jesus, and he found them there upon his arrival (Mark 6:33). There is no irreconcilable inconsistency in the two statements. It may be that Jesus found a few of his disciples, those that knew his probable destination, and took them up with him and the twelve into the hills; for the term disciples (ver. 3) is not in the Gospels confined to the twelve apostles; that the larger multitude followed, looking for the Lord; and that their gradual congregating moved his compassion (Mark 6:34) and led him to descend from the retirement of the hills to teach and to heal them.—He saith unto Philip. He spent the greater part of the day in teaching and healing (Matt. 14:14; Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11). The people, absorbed by their interest, took no note of the passage of time. As the afternoon drew on, the disciples proposed to Christ to send the people away to procure food (Matthew, Mark, Luke); it was probably as a result of this proposition that Christ addressed to Philip the question here, Whence shall we buy? This question is reported alone by John. Why did Jesus address this inquiry to Philip? Some commentators have supposed that he was the purveyor for Christ and the apostles; others that his faith was especially weak and needed strengthening; still others that the question was addressed to him because he belonged to Bethsaida (ch. 1:44), and therefore would be the one to know where food could be procured; but there is no evidence to support either hypothesis. Christ frequently questioned his disciples in order to bring out to their own consciousness the measure of their faith (Matt. 9:28; 16:13; 19:17; Luke 24:17, etc.).—For he himself knew what he would do. A statement made by the apostle to emphasize the truth that Jesus himself was not in perplexity, and taking counsel with his apostles for his own guidance. This he is never recorded to have done. According to Matthew the question of providing for the multitude was not raised until “it was evening” (Matt. 14:15). Yet both Matthew and John say that “when evening was come” Jesus was left alone in the mountain (ver. 16; Matt. 14:23). The explanation of this discrepancy lies in the fact that there were two evenings recognized by the Hebrews, as by the Greeks, one beginning with the declining sun at or about three in the afternoon, the other with the setting sun. It was during the first evening, i. e., between three and six, that the people were fed; at the second evening, i. e., about sunset, they had departed and left Jesus alone.

7 Philip answered him, Two[207] hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

[207] Numb. 11:21, 22; 2 Kings 4:43.

8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him,

9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?

7-9. Two hundred pennyworth of bread. The penny, or denarius, was equal in value to seventeen cents American coin; but it was the day’s wages of a common laborer (Matt. 20:2); two hundred pennyworth therefore would be practically equivalent to $200 worth in our time.—One of his disciples said unto him. Christ bade them ascertain how much they had on hand for themselves (Mark 6:38). Andrew ascertained and reported in response to Christ’s direction. The lad here mentioned was therefore probably some one in attendance upon Christ and the twelve, and carrying their simple store for them. How much blessing the Lord can impart to the service of a little child. Comp. 2 Kings 5:2, 3. Here a little boy (παιδάριον) had but five loaves, and they of barley, and yet when given to the Lord, and blessed by Him, they feed five thousand.—Five barley loaves. The loaves of the Jews were thin round cakes or crackers; for illustration and description, see Mark 8:3-5, note. Barley was the food only of the lower classes. “One in the Talmud, speaking of barley bread, says, ‘There is a fine crop of barley.’ Another answers, ‘Tell this to the horses and asses.’ A Roman soldier who had quitted his ranks, had for part of his punishment that he received barley bread instead of wheaten.”—(Geike’s Life of Christ.) Thus we have here (1) an indication of the simplicity of the living of our Lord; without a place to lay his head, i. e., a permanent home, and with the plainest possible food for his fare, the bread of the peasant classes; (2) a suggestion of true benevolence; he did not create wheaten bread for the multitude; he gave such as he had. To share what we have, not to aspire to give what we have not, is true benevolence.—And two small fishes. The word here rendered small fishes (ὀψύριον) denotes any relish eaten with bread; hence, because fish was a common accompaniment, the most common from the animal kingdom, it came to be used for fish, generally salt fish, prepared for and used as a relish.

10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

11 And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.

10, 11. Make the men sit down. It requires little imagination to picture to the mind the wondering surprise with which the disciples prepared to obey a direction the object of which they could not conceive, and the perplexity of the people as they prepared to take their places, wondering what was to occur next. They sat down; Mark tells us in ranks, literally garden plats (πρασιαὶ πρασιαὶ; the repetition without καί denotes distribution). With their bright-colored Oriental dresses, these men sitting cross-legged on the ground in groups of fifty each (Mark 6:40), so that their number was afterward easily estimated, presented an appearance which recalled a brilliant garden in the early summer. The picture thus presented by Mark, but lost in our English translation, is one of the pictorial characteristics of his Gospel, and is thought to have been derived by him from Peter, the most effective and therefore probably the most pictorial of all the apostolic preachers.—There was much grass in the place. This is not inconsistent with its description by the other Evangelists as a desert place, the word desert implying simply solitude, not an arid soil. The location (Thompson’s Land and Book, Vol. II, p. 29) was probably the rich level plain of Butaiha, forming a triangle, of which the Eastern mountains make one side and the lake shore and the Jordan the other two. It was at the southeastern angle of this plain, near the point where the hills abut upon the lake, that the feeding took place. “From the four narratives of this stupendous miracle we gather: 1st, that the place belonged to Bethsaida; 2d, that it was a desert place; 3d, that it was near the shore of the lake, for they came to it by boats; 4th, that there was a mountain close at hand; 5th, that it was a smooth, grassy spot, capable of seating many thousand people. Now all these requisites are found in this exact locality, and nowhere else, so far as I can discover. This Butaiha belonged to Bethsaida. At this extreme southeast corner of it the mountain shuts down upon the lake, bleak and barren. It was, doubtless, desert then as now, for it is not capable of cultivation. In this little cove the ships (boats) were anchored. On this beautiful sward, at the base of the rocky hill, the people were seated.”—(Andrews.)—About five thousand. Besides women and children (Matt. 14:21), who perhaps sat separately from the men, as Oriental custom would require them to do.—When he had given thanks. The same act is differently expressed by the other Evangelists as blessing the bread. Asking a blessing upon food before meals was a universal custom among the Jews, and was practised both by Christ and by the apostles (Luke 22:17, 19; 24:30; Acts 27:35).—He gave [to the disciples and the disciples] to them that were set down. The words which I have put in brackets are not in the original according to the best manuscripts. They have been added from Matt. 14:19. They undoubtedly represent the actual fact, viz., that the bread was distributed by the hands of the twelve.

12 When they were filled,[208] he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing[209] be lost.

[208] Neh. 9:25.

[209] Neh. 8:10.

13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.

14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that[210] prophet that should come into the world.

[210] Gen. 49:10; Deut. 18:15-18.

15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

12-15. Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. “It was a custom and a rule (among the Jews) that when they ate together they should leave something to those that served. ‘Every one leaves a little portion in the dish, which is called the servitor’s part.’”—(Lightfoot.) The fragments thus gathered up by the apostles were probably preserved for their own use. The practical lesson is important: “He likewise exhorts his disciples to frugality when he says, ‘Gather the fragments which are left, that nothing be lost’; for the increase of the bounty of God ought not to be an excitement to luxury. Let those therefore who have abundance remember that they will one day render an account of their immoderate wealth, if they do not carefully and faithfully apply their superfluity to purposes which are good, and of which God approves.”—(Calvin.) This gathering up of the fragments demonstrates also the reality of the miracle. See below.—They filled twelve baskets (κοφίνος). These baskets were the common baskets used universally by the Jews in traveling to carry their food. See for description and illustration, Matt. 16:9, 10, note. Christ there distinguishes between this miracle and that of the feeding of the 4,000, which are evidently not to be confounded as one event.—That prophet that should come into the world. Foretold in Deut. 18:15, 16, and referred to by the delegation sent from Jerusalem to inquire of John the Baptist as to his character and authority (John 1:21). By some Rabbis this prophet was regarded as a forerunner of the Messiah; by others as the Messiah himself. Here apparently the people regarded the two as identical; this at least is indicated by their desire to take Christ at once and crown him as king.—Jesus knowing that they were about to come and seize him that they might make him king. Either by reading in their hearts the half-formed design; or perceiving it in their whispered conference; or informed of it by the apostles, who doubtless shared the enthusiasm of the multitude, and who may have been as eager as any for the coronation of their Lord. This attempt of the people to make Christ a temporal king was a renewal of Satan’s endeavor to tempt him to secure the kingdoms of the earth by Satanic methods (Matt. 4:8-10, note). The Jews anticipated a realm of material marvels and miracles with the advent of the Messiah. “Drought and famine should then be known no more. The prophecy of Isaiah (Isa. 65:13), ‘My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry,’ should be literally fulfilled. Israel should be gathered together. The young men should feed on bread, the old men on honey, the children on oil. Every palate should be pleased, every appetite satisfied, and the prolific profusion of the Garden of Eden should repeat itself in the land of the Messiah. These prophecies of the scribes, with which constant repetition in the synagogue had made the common people familiar, seemed to them about to be fulfilled.”—(Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth.)—He departed again into the mountain. For solitude and prayer (Matt. 14:23; Mark 6:46). He first constrained his disciples to embark for Bethsaida, a fact which Matthew and Mark state (Matt. 14:22; Mark 6:45) without giving the reason for it; John alone tells of the purpose of the multitude to make Christ a king. There is significance for us in Christ’s refusal of their homage. They desired to make him king, not to accept him as king; to give him a sceptre, not to own allegiance to the sceptre he possessed; to secure his power and authority in aid of their designs, not to recognize his royal authority and be obedient to his will. When they found out what that will involved, from his discourse on the following Sabbath at Capernaum, they would have him for their king no longer. It is one thing to attempt to make Christ serve our wills; it is a very different thing to make our wills obedient to his.

Various attempts have been made to explain this miracle on rationalistic principles. The two principal explanations offered are: (1) that the people were so satisfied with Christ’s instruction that they did not feel the claims of hunger (Schenkel); (2) that they had their hearts opened by the beneficence of Christ, so that those who possessed food themselves provided for those that had none, and thus all were furnished by a miracle of love, operating not by the literal creation of new supplies, but by the inspiration of a new spirit of benevolence in the people themselves. This, if I understand him aright, is Lange’s explanation. See his Life of Christ, Vol. II, p. 140. For a more elaborate classification of rationalistic theories, see Lange’s Commentary on Matthew, Am. ed., p. 266. Neither interpretation deserves serious refutation. The first is inconsistent with the fact that twelve baskets of the fragments were gathered up after the meal was ended; the second is contradicted by the language of the disciples, who plainly imply that the people are without food (Matt. 14:15; Mark 6:36; Luke 9:12), and by the enthusiasm of the people after the miracle has been performed. They were not of a kind to be ready to crown a prophet as king, merely because he had opened their hearts and inclined them to benevolence. It is, however, to be noted that here as elsewhere the Evangelists simply state the facts, leaving the reader to make his own deductions. These facts are that over 5,000 people were upon a plain, without provisions; that all the food which Christ had for them was five loaves and two small fishes; that he distributed this to the twelve, and they to the multitude; that all had enough; and that when the meal was over there were twelve baskets full of fragments remaining. Assuming these to be the facts, the explanation of a miraculous creation of bread is the only reasonable explanation; any other hypothesis impugns the historical verity of the four Gospels. The attempt to explain the miracle as an acceleration of the processes of nature (Olshausen), to which, as Dr. Schaff well says, “must be added an accelerated process of art, or the combined labors of the reaper, miller, and baker,” gives no help in understanding the process by which Christ provided for all. We can accept the fact without comprehending the method, which is indeed as entirely incomprehensible as are God’s methods in the ordinary phenomena of nature, e. g., the multiplication of a single kernel of corn into the many kernels upon the stalk. The parallel and contrast between this miracle and the analogous but different multiplication of food wrought by the O. T. prophets Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:16; 2 Kings 4:42-44) are instructive. Like all of Christ’s miracles, this multiplication is a parable. (1) It illustrates Christ’s method: the way to men’s hearts is often through ministering to their bodies; in the recent famines in India and China (1877), the missionaries have found the way opened for the gospel in many districts by their ability to provide the starving with food or employment. (2) It manifests the miraculous grace of God: “everything wastes in the hands of men; but everything multiplies in those of the Son of God.”—(Quesnel.) (3) It rebukes distrust: “He who feeds here five thousand men in an extraordinary manner and by a visible miracle, cannot He find means to support this numerous family, which raises in the mind of this father and mother so many unceasing and distrustful thoughts?”—(Quesnel.) (4) It is an inspiration and a prophecy of Christian love. It is “the brilliant inauguration of that fruitful miracle of Christian charity which has ever since gone on, multiplying bread to the hungry. The heart of man once touched, like the rock in the desert touched by the rod of Moses, has gone on pouring over thirsty crowds the inexhaustible stream of generosity.”—(Pressense.) (5) It is a symbol of the inexhaustible love of Christ himself; a symbol of that miraculous multiplying of sacred influences which, from one brief life of three active years, and one body pierced and broken on the tree, feeds innumerable thousands, a love which Christ imparts to his disciples, and which they in turn convey throughout the ages and to all lands.

Ch. 6:16-21. JESUS WALKS ON THE SEA.—Christ the Lord of nature: light in our darkness; peace in our storms.—He comes to those who are toiling to come to him.—His message to all his disciples: Fear not.—The ground of that message: he is the I am.

Compare Matt. 14:22, 23; Mark 6:45-52, and see Prel. Note at beginning of this chapter.

16 And[211] when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,

[211] Matt. 14:23; Mark 6:47, etc.

17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.

18 And the sea arose[212] by reason of a great wind that blew.

[212] Ps. 107:25.

16-18. And when even was come. This was the second evening, which began at sunset. See on ver. 6.—His disciples went down unto the sea. From the plain where the five thousand had been fed. By the disciples here is meant the apostles. They went reluctantly, yielding to Christ. This is implied by the language of Matthew and Mark, he “constrained his disciples.” While they departed by sea Jesus sent the multitude away.—And entered into a ship. A fishing-boat; large enough to carry Christ and the twelve; not too large to be propelled by oars. See for description, Mark 6:36, note.—And went over the sea unto Capernaum (εἰς Κ.). Mark says toward Bethsaida (πρός β.). John indicates the final aim of their journey; Mark the direction in which the boat was steered. They started for Capernaum via Bethsaida. See Prel. Note above, and Mark 6:45, note.—Jesus was not come to them. An evidence that they expected to meet him along the shore; probably (this is implied upon a comparison of the three gospel narratives) at Bethsaida, i. e., at or near the entrance of the Jordan upon the lake.—The sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew. It is a common occurrence for the winds to arise suddenly upon this lake, drawing down the Jordan valley from the Lebanon range in the north. See Mark 4:37, note. “My experience in this region enables me to sympathize with the disciples in their long night’s contest with the wind. I spent a night in that wady Shukaiyif, some three miles up it, to the left of us. The sun had scarcely set when the wind began to rush down toward the lake, and it continued all night long with constantly increasing violence, so that when we reached the shore the next morning the face of the lake was like a huge boiling caldron. The wind howled down every wady from the northeast and east with such fury that no efforts of rowers could have brought a boat to shore at any point along that coast. In a wind like that the disciples must have been driven quite across to Gennesaret, as we know they were. To understand the causes of these sudden and violent tempests, we must remember that the lake lies low—six hundred feet lower than the ocean; that the vast and naked plateaus of the Jordan rise to a great height, spreading backward to the wilds of the Hauran, and upward to snowy Hermon; that the water-courses have cut out profound ravines and wild gorges, converging to the head of this lake, and that these act like gigantic funnels to draw down the cold winds from the mountains.”—(Thompson’s Land and Book, 2:32.) Dr. Thompson adds a testimony to the suddenness with which these winds arise: “I once went in to swim near the hot baths, and before I was aware a wind came rushing over the cliffs with such force that it was with great difficulty I could regain the shore.”

19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.

20 But he saith unto them, It is I;[213] be not afraid.

[213] Ps. 35:3; Isa. 43:1, 2; Rev. 1:17, 18.

21 Then they willingly received him into the ship; and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.

19-21. So when they had rowed about five-and-twenty or thirty furlongs. Stadia; that is, a little over three miles. The lake at this point is about six miles across; they had therefore rowed about half way across the lake; but they were unable to make head against the wind, and could not reach the northern shore to keep their appointment with Jesus. It was while they were endeavoring to come to Jesus that he came out upon the sea to meet them.—They see Jesus walking on the sea. That he was really walking on the sea, not standing on the land and supposed to be on the sea because only dimly discerned through the storm and darkness (Bleek), is evident from the facts, (1) that Peter went out to meet him (Matt. 14:28-31); (2) that on receiving him into the ship they were immediately at the land “unto which they were going” (εἰς ἣν ὑπῆγον). This was the plain of Gennesaret, on which Capernaum was situated, and was two or three miles away from the point where they met Jesus; for they had as yet rowed only about half the distance across the lake.—He saith unto them, It is I. Literally, I am. The same language used by Jesus in Jerusalem (ch. 8:58), for which the Pharisees would have stoned him, and in the O. T. to designate Jehovah (Exod. 3:14). Here I should prefer to give it this meaning. Christ says not merely, “It is I, your Friend and Master;” he says, at least implies, It is the “I am” who is coming to you, the Almighty One who rules winds and waves, who made them, and whom they obey.—Be not afraid. This is the message of Christ to his people in the hour of his advent (Luke 2:10); of their tempest experiences of temptation and struggle (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; 1 Pet. 3:14); their sorrows (Matt. 28:10; Mark 5:36); and their hour of dangerous duty (Acts 18:9).—Then they willingly received him. Literally, Thereupon they willed to receive him. If this account stood alone we might perhaps doubt whether he actually did enter the ship, as some rationalistic commentators have done; but Matthew and Mark are explicit in their statements that he did so.—And immediately the ship was at the land to which they were going. That is, the shore at Capernaum. This, coupled with the statement of ver. 19 that they had only rowed twenty-five or thirty furlongs, i. e., about half way, seems clearly to imply a further miracle, unless indeed we give to the word immediately (εὐθέως) a large latitude of expression, understanding it merely to mean that since the wind at once ceased (Matt. 14:32) they had no further difficulty in reaching their destination. Matthew adds that they that were in the ship came and worshipped Jesus, saying, “Of a truth thou art the Son of God;” and Mark that they were amazed beyond measure, “for they considered not the miracle of the loaves, for their heart was hardened,” rather dull, stupid. They had been amazed at the miracle of the loaves, but they had not deduced from it the natural conclusion that Christ was the Lord of nature, so when a new manifestation of his power was made they were as much surprised as if they had never seen any previous manifestation. In this they were very typical of Christians in all ages of the church.

Ch. 6:22-71. SERMON ON THE BREAD OF LIFE.—The condition of eternal life: feeding on Christ.—The true nature of faith symbolized.—The meaning of the Lord’s Supper.

Preliminary Note.—Before entering upon this discourse in detail, some preliminary considerations are necessary. 1. The report. There is no reason to believe that we have a verbatim report of Christ’s discourse, but good reason to believe the reverse. John makes no claim to give the sermon in full. The language of ver. 59 implies that he does not. The whole sermon occupies in deliberate reading less than five minutes. We can hardly suppose that an actual discourse delivered in the synagogue would have been compressed in so brief a space. We have then, here, John’s subsequent report written out from memory, though from memory quickened by divine inspiration, of a discourse very much longer than the report. It embodies in John’s language the substance of Christ’s thoughts. 2. The circumstances and connection. After the feeding of the 5,000, the apostles embark in their boat; Christ goes up into the hills to pray; the people linger a while for his return, then conclude that he has returned to Capernaum, and go back to Capernaum themselves; on the following Sabbath morning he enters the synagogue; their astonishment at his approach is great; they break out in questioning, How did you get here? His answer diverts them from mere astonishment to a serious consideration of spiritual truth: “Ye are seeking me, not because of the evidence I have given of my divine commission, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.” Their response indicates some seriousness of desire: “What is the work which God would have us to do that we might have this bread of life as our reward?” This is the question of all religious aspiration, and Christ’s answer is the response of Christianity to the soul-hunger of the ages: “This is the work of God, that ye have faith in him whom he hath sent.” This I believe to be the text of the sermon which follows; it gives the subject; it is the key to its mysticism. The object of the discourse is to give Christ’s definition and interpretation of faith. This definition appears and reappears, first in metaphor, then in interpretation: My Father is giving you the true bread, which is coming down from heaven. I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; he that believeth on me shall never thirst. This coming is not a literal physical coming; it is a coming of the spirit; a coming drawn by divine influence; a coming of those who are taught of God. To thus believe in me, to thus eat my flesh and drink my blood, is to have everlasting life; for to thus eat my flesh and drink my blood is to dwell in me and have in me an indwelling life. Finally, to guard his followers against that literalism which has since converted this metaphor into a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, Christ adds to his discourse the decisive words of ver. 63, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” 3. Meaning of the metaphor. I believe then that the key to the metaphors of this sermon is to be found in the question and answer of verses 28, 29; that it is Christ’s metaphorical interpretation of the declaration that faith is a condition of spiritual life; that it is mystical, because experience is always mystical except to those that know it experimentally; that it is expressed in metaphor, because a spiritual experience can never be expressed in any other way; and that Christ has emphasized the importance of the metaphor by subsequently making it a permanent symbol in the Lord’s Supper. To eat his flesh and drink his blood is to have faith in him, to come unto him; to partake of his character and imbibe his spirit (verses 35, 40, 47, 54, 57). Faith, according to Christ, is not then merely believing what is revealed in the Word (Westminster Confession); nor merely receiving what God says to be true and resting on it (George Muller); it is feeding on Christ.

It is interpreted (a) by the physical phenomenon of eating and drinking. The food enters into us, becomes a part of us; builds us up; makes us what we are; different food going to different parts of the body—some to brain, others to muscle, etc.; different natures and different avocations needing different food. It is Christ in us who is the hope of glory. (b) By our own use of the same metaphor. We recognize in common language a higher than mere physical feeding; other gateways to the nature than the mouth and the stomach; other means that modify, develop, and make the character. Men are made by what they receive through interior faculties. So Christ’s metaphor constantly reappears in the language of our common life; we drink in a picture; imbibe ideas; devour books; e. g.,

“My ears have not yet drunk a hundred words

Of that tongue’s uttering.”—(Shakespeare.)

“Longing they look, and gaping at the sight,

Devour her o’er and o’er with vast delight.”—(Dryden.)

(c) By the Rabbinical use of the metaphor, common in Christ’s time, and well understood by the Jews. “There is nothing more common in the schools of the Jews than the phrases of eating and drinking in a metaphorical sense.”—(Lightfoot.) “To eat of my bread” was a phrase equivalent to partake of my doctrine. Christ borrows a common metaphor to emphasize a deeper truth; to have faith in him is not to “eat of my bread,” but to “eat of my flesh;” that is, it is to receive not merely the influence of Christ’s teaching, but yet more that of his life and character itself, an influence which could be imparted to the world only through his passion and death, through the literal rending of his flesh and shedding of his blood. (d) By the experience of faith in a lower sphere, our faith in each other. The highest faith of a child in his mother is not believing something about her, nor merely believing what she says; it includes an intellectual belief that she is his mother, and a filial trust in her, but it also includes such a reverence for her, an uplooking to her, an admiration of her, a feeding upon her, that all her best characteristics are reproduced in the worshipping child. So the character of the best teachers ever reproduces itself in the character of their admiring pupils. (e) By the actual record of the experience of faith contained in the O. T. and the N. T. (e. g., Ps. 42:5, 11; 63:5-8; 73:23-26; 2 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:8-14). (f) By other metaphors in the N. T. in which Christ is compared to a way on which we walk, a garment which we are to put on, a vine on which we are to be engrafted, a husband to whom we are to be married, a head from which we as a body are to derive all our life, the ground in which we are to be rooted, the foundation on which we are to be built, and the Spirit which is to dwell in us as in a temple. Faith in Christ then, as defined by Christ himself, if I have rightly interpreted this discourse, is not belief about him, nor trust in him, but appropriation of him. It is not mere belief in what the Bible teaches respecting him, though it is certainly founded on historical Christianity; it is not mere trust in his word or power or grace, though it involves the highest personal trust in him as a divine and gracious Saviour. It is making him the soul’s spiritual aliment, following after him, coming to him, dwelling in him, so drinking in his words, life, and spirit as to be conformed to his image. The soul enters into eternal, that is spiritual life, not by believing any teaching respecting Christ, not by trusting that Christ will bestow that life, but by so fastening its love and aspirations and desires upon Christ that he becomes the All and in all to the soul, and at once the model for and modeler of its future and final character.

22 The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;

23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias, nigh unto the [214]place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks;)

[214] verse 11.

24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.

22-24. The day following, etc. A part of the people undoubtedly had dispersed to the villages about; others of them remained, hoping for the reappearance of Jesus; when he did not reappear they thought it possible that he had returned to Capernaum, and went thither themselves. The other side of the sea indicates the eastern shore, i. e., the opposite side from Capernaum. In ver. 25 the same phrase indicates the western shore, i. e., the opposite side from that on which the multitude had left Christ. The construction of these verses is complicated and involved, but the original is fairly well rendered in our English version. The facts here stated, together with the surprise of the people (ver. 25) at Christ’s appearance at Capernaum, afford an additional though incidental evidence of Christ’s miraculous passing from the eastern to the western shore.—Tiberias. A town on the southwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee; mentioned in the N. T. only by John; built by Herod Antipas, and named in honor of the emperor Tiberius. The present city, Tubanyeh, contains about two thousand inhabitants.

TIBERIAS.

25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

25. And when they had found him. The greater part of the discourse which follows was apparently delivered in the synagogue (ver. 29), and presumptively on the Sabbath day. Maurice supposes that “the conversation commences on the borders of the lake of Tiberias, with the people who had just crossed and found Jesus there,” and is afterward continued in the synagogue, and he makes the synagogue discourse commence with ver. 43. This is certainly possible, though I should think it more probable, from the close connection between the beginning and close of the colloquy as reported, that all occurred at one time and in the synagogue. It is not at all incredible that such interruptions as are here reported should have occurred in the synagogue service.—Rabbi, when camest thou thither? “The question when includes how.”—(Bengel.) Wordsworth’s comment on the mysterious manner in which Christ crossed the sea and presented himself in the synagogue affords a curious illustration of the allegorizing method which he pursues throughout in dealing with this chapter. “By walking on the sea, invisibly to the eyes of the multitude, and suddenly presenting himself to them in the synagogue at Capernaum, in a manner unintelligible to them, he instructs us that, though he does indeed come by water in holy baptism, and is verily and indeed present in the holy eucharist, yet the manner of his presence is not to be scrutinized by us. * * * * Let us not speculate inquisitively into the time and manner in which he is present in the holy eucharist, but let us receive him joyfully in our hearts, as the disciples received him into the ship; and then we shall soon be at the haven of peace where we would be.”

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that[215] meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him[216] hath God the Father sealed.

[215] verses 54, 58; ch. 4:14; Jer. 15:16.

[216] ch. 8:18; Ps. 2:7; 40:7; Isa. 42:1; Acts 2:22; 2 Pet. 1:17.

26, 27. Verily, verily, I say unto you. See Matt. 5:18, note.—Ye seek me, not because ye saw the signs, but because ye ate of the loaves and were satisfied. Christ leads the people from the lower to the higher, from the earthly to the spiritual, making, as was his wont, a simple incident the text of a deeply spiritual discourse. See Matt. 11:7; 16:6; Luke 13:1; 14:7; John 4:10. The meaning here is this: You are not seeking me because you have seen and recognized the evidences of my divine commission, and really desire to put yourselves under me as your Lord and Master; you are seeking my gifts, and because you have eaten and been satisfied. He thus characterizes and impliedly rebukes those who seek not Christ but Christ’s, because they want not him, but something external to himself, which they think he can give them.—Busy not yourselves about the meat which perishes. It is not literally true that we are not to labor for the meat that perishes (Acts 18:3; Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 4:10-12); it is true that the meat which perishes is not to be the object of our life-work (Matt. 5:24). “If any be idle and gluttonous, and careth for luxury, that man worketh for the meat that perisheth. So, too, if a man by his labor should feed Christ, and give him drink, and clothe him, who so senseless and mad as to say that such an one labors for the meat which perisheth, when there is for this the promise of the kingdom that is to come, and of those good things? This meat endureth forever.”—(Chrysostom.) Comp. with Christ’s language here Isa. 55:2, to which perhaps he refers, and John 4:13, 14, where an analogous metaphor is used to enforce the same teaching.—But about the meat which abides unto everlasting life. Unto (εἰς) indicates the purpose for which it remains, namely, that it may nourish eternal life, i. e., the life which continues unto, not which begins in, eternity; for eternal life is a present possession (vers. 47, 54). This food abides in us. Chaps. 5:38; 6:56; 8:31; 15:4, 7; 1 John 2:6, 27; 4:12, 15; 2 John 2 indicate both what is the meat and what the abiding of which Christ speaks.—Which the Son of man shall give to you. The phrase Son of man is here, as everywhere in Christ’s use of it, equivalent to the Messiah (Matt. 10:23, note), and would be so understood by his hearers. This food of the spiritual life is the gift of God through the Messiah (Rom. 5:17; 6:23). We might well wonder that Christ’s characterization of it here as a gift should not have prevented the question of the multitude in the following verse, but for the fact that, despite the explicit teaching of the N. T. that eternal life is given, even the disciples of Christ have ever been seeking to earn it as wages by labor. Christ says shall give (future) because the great sacrifice was not yet offered, and so the unspeakable gift (2 Cor. 9:15) was not yet perfected.—For Him hath God the Father sealed. In the East the method of authenticating a document is not, as with us, by a signature, but by the impression of a seal (1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:12; 8:8, 10; Jer. 32:10). The meaning here then is that Jesus’ commission as the Messiah of God is authenticated by the Father, by the works given him to do (John 5:36).

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

28. What can we do that we may work the works of God? Observe can, not shall; subjunctive, not future. The works of God are not works wrought by God, but works pleasing to God (Jer. 48:10; 1 Cor. 15:58). The meaning is not, What are the works of God which we shall do? but, What can we do in order that we may please God by our works? This is the question which humanity has ever been asking, repeated in the pilgrimages and the self-mutilations of the Oriental religions, in the penances and appointed prayers of the mediæval religions, and in much of the so-called Christian activity of modern Protestantism. This was the question which Loyola asked by his vigils, and to which Luther found an answer when, climbing Pilate’s staircase on his knees, he heard the words, “The just shall live by faith,” and fled from the religion of works to that of faith. That the questioners of Christ were seeking, not guidance to devout activity, but to divine rewards, is clear from the sequel (ver. 31).

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This[217] is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[217] 1 John 3:23.

29. This is the work of God, that ye have faith in him whom he hath sent. They ask respecting the works of God (plural), he replies concerning the work of God (singular); they ask what they shall do, he replies have faith; they ask respecting work to be done for God by them, he replies that it is a work of God in them that is required. The condition of eternal life is not doing any work for God, it is having a work of God done in ourselves. See John 3:5; Titus 3:5-7. The condition of this work is faith in Christ. The nature of this faith it is the object of the discourse which follows to explain; it is certainly not equivalent to belief, and the use of the word believe is an unfortunate necessity from the poverty of the English language, which contains no verb corresponding to the noun faith. Of this faith I know no better nor more comprehensive definition than that of Webster’s dictionary, “That confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ which affects the character and life, and makes the man a true Christian.” See Heb. 11:1, and notice that it is there defined not only as the evidence of things unseen, i. e., the power of seeing and realizing the invisible world, which would include the imagination, but also as the substance of things hoped for, which clearly includes the activity of the desires and affections. The germ of all Paul’s subsequent teaching of justification by faith is contained in this one single sentence. The Epistles are but an amplification of the gospel as proclaimed by Christ himself. “I know not where we can find any passage, even in the writings of the apostles, which says more significantly that all eternal life in men proceeds from nothing else than faith in Christ.”—(Schleiermacher.)

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign[218] shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

[218] Matt. 12:38; 1 Cor. 1:22.

31 Our fathers[219] did eat manna in the desert; as it is written,[220] He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

[219] Exod. 16:15; Numb. 11:7; 1 Cor. 10:3.

[220] Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:24, 25.

30, 31. What therefore doest thou as a sign that we may see and believe thee? This response of theirs brings out the contrast between faith and belief. Christ has said, Believe in him whom God hath sent; the people, recognizing his reference to himself, reply, Why should we believe you? or, as Norton renders it, “give you credit.” He calls for an affectionate and confiding belief in his person and work, they decline to give him simple credence.—What dost thou work? This is not, as Maurice seems to interpret it, the language of a spiritual yearning, but, as Alford, Stier, Meyer, the language of unbelief and opposition, a sarcastic retort of his own words. “Thou commandest us,” say they, “to work; what dost thou work thyself?” This demand, coming so soon after the feeding of the five thousand, has given rise to some perplexity, and rationalistic commentators cite it as an evidence that no such miraculous feeding took place. If not, why should the people refer to the manna? The fact is that, though the five thousand were fed, no explanation was made to them of the way in which the food was provided; they were commanded to take their seats; the barley cakes, the bread of the poorest peasantry, were distributed among them; they were doubtless astonished; but no conclusions were drawn for them, and they were not in the habit of drawing conclusions for themselves. When, therefore, on the Sabbath, Christ met in the synagogue some of those who had been fed, together with others who had not been present, nothing was more natural than this demand, impliedly for both a repetition and an explanation of the miracle. This is the significance of the reference to the O. T. account of the miracle of the manna, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” (Ps. 78:24). It was as if they said, The Psalmist has explicitly pointed out the way in which the commission of Moses was confirmed; leave us not in the dark respecting the feeding of the multitude, which was, indeed, strange, but which has not been interpreted.—There is also implied a contrast between the work of Moses and the work of Christ; the manna came down from heaven, the bread was distributed upon the earth; the manna was given day by day as needed for forty years, the bread had been given but once; the manna was a sweet and delicate food, “the taste of it like wafers with honey” (Exod. 16:31), and it was among the rabbinical prophecies that the Messiah would cause manna to descend which would please all tastes, “bread for the young men, honey for the old, oil for the children;” but the bread which Christ had distributed was barley bread, the commonest fare of the poorest people.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my[221] Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

[221] Gal. 4:4.

33 For the bread of God[222] is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

[222] verses 48, 58.

32, 33. Verily, verily, I say unto you, not Moses gave to you that bread from heaven; but my Father is giving you that which is the true bread from heaven. The people have referred to the manna as the authentication of Moses; though they do not in words refer to him, the spirit of their response is analogous to that of ch. 4:12, Art thou greater than our father Jacob? Compare ch. 8:53. To this Christ replies (1) that Moses did not give the manna; it was given by God; Moses had nothing to do with bestowing it; the Israelites found it in the morning after the dew had dried off the ground (Exod. 16:4, 14). (2) This manna was not the true bread, but merely a type or shadow of the spiritual antitype; so the Red Sea, the rock, the brazen serpent, were mute prophets of spiritual verities, to be fulfilled through Christ (ch. 4:14, 15; 1 Cor. 10:1-11). (3) Hence, the bread of God was not a past, historic gift fulfilled in the days of the wilderness, but a present and a perpetual gift, which the Father is ever giving. The practical contrast suggested is that between the faith which reveres only a past religion, a providence and an inspiration in the days of the patriarchs and prophets and apostles, and that which holds fast to a present providence, an ever-living Spirit, and a continuous inspiration, a living bread ever given throughout all ages.—For the bread of God is that which comes down from the heaven and gives life to the world. Christ here lays down a general principle in which he defines the essential characteristics of God’s spiritual gift. That alone is the true bread (1) which is evermore descending from the heavens, a perpetual bestowment; (2) which bestows life; (3) which is for the world. The manna did not last over a single day (Exod. 16:19, 20), and finally ceased to fall when the Israelites entered the Holy Land (Josh. 5:12); they that ate it all died (ver. 49); and it was given only to a single nation. The type was brief in its duration, limited in its effects, confined to a few recipients. The antitype is for all mankind, confers everlasting life, and is bestowed evermore.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

34. Lord, evermore give to us this bread. Comp. ch. 4:15, note. Not spoken ironically (Calvin), nor with a definite idea of some miraculous kind of sustenance, a magic food or means of life from heaven (Alford, Meyer), nor with a serious comprehension of his spiritual meaning and a sincere desire for his spiritual gift (Maurice, Lucke). The people were shallow and superficial; without comprehending the meaning of Christ’s words, they yet saw in them the offer of something desirable, they knew not what, and asked for it. In the minds of some there may have been a dim sense of the value of the inner life, such as is sometimes borne in upon sensual and superficial natures by the mere power of the presence of a great soul. Comp. Luke 14:15. There, as here, Christ by his teaching rebukes the superficial and ignorant desire for an uncomprehended blessedness; there, by showing parabolically how the spiritual food is declined by those to whom it is offered; here, by interpreting the nature of spiritual food. The rejection of Christ by the people here, illustrates the parable uttered by Christ there.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he[223] that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he[224] that believeth on me shall never thirst.

[223] Rev. 7:16.

[224] chaps. 4:14; 7:38.

36 But I said unto you, That ye[225] also have seen me, and believe not.

[225] verse 64.

35, 36. I am the bread of life. They say, Give us this bread. His reply is, The bread is already given; it is for you to accept and feed upon it. And this is always the answer of the gospel to every soul that cries out for a Saviour and a salvation. How the soul is to accept this bread he then goes on to say.—He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that hath faith in me shall never thirst. It is clear that the “coming” and “believing in” here are equivalent to the eating and drinking of ver. 54. See notes there. The coming is a continuous coming (present participle with πρός); a coming into Christ’s likeness, and therefore into spiritual unity with him; a coming perfected only by the process of feeding upon him, drinking in his spiritual power so as to be transformed by it. It is the coming which David describes in Psalm 63:8, “My soul followeth hard after thee,” and Paul in Phil. 3:13, 14, “Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Comp. with the promise here Matt. 5:6; Rev. 7:16. All spiritual hunger and thirst are not ended when Christian experience begins, because in this life we are ever coming toward Christ, we have never come fully into him. This coming is consummated when we are one with Christ as he is one with the Father (John 17:21, 22); the promise of the gospel is then fulfilled in the glorious satisfaction of a perfected redemption (1 John 3:2; Ps. 17:15). We are not satisfied till we awake in his likeness.—Ye also have seen me and ye have not had faith. See ch. 20:29. The reference here may either be to words actually uttered in this discourse, but not reported by John, or to what he has said by implication though not by exact words, or to rebukes uttered on some previous occasion, e. g., John 5:38, 40, 43.

37 All[226] that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him[227] that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

[226] verse 45, ch. 17:6, 8, etc.

[227] Ps. 102:17; Isa. 1:18; 55:7; Matt. 11:28; Luke 23:42, 43; 1 Tim. 1:15, 16; Rev. 22:17.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but[228] the will of him that sent me.

[228] ch. 5:30; Ps. 40:7, 8.

37, 38. The all which the Father has given to me shall come toward me, and he that comes toward me I will in no wise cast out. Toward, not to me. The original (πρὸς) indicates the object toward which anything is directed, not ordinarily the goal actually reached. The promise then is that he who sets out in the direction of Christ shall not be rejected by him. He does not wait till we have come to him; he receives us when we start toward him. In this and the next verse all (πᾶν) is in the neuter gender, indicating, not that the body is included with the soul (Maurice), but that the whole is given by the Father in its totality, but is received by the Son separately and individually. “In Jesus Christ’s discourses, that which the Father hath given to the Son himself is termed, in the singular number and neuter gender, all; those who come to the Son himself are described in the masculine gender, or even the plural number, every one, or they. The Father has given to the Son the whole mass, as it were, that all whom he hath given may be one; that whole the Son develops individually in the execution of the divine plan.”—(Bengel.) Christ’s language here indicates his dependence upon the Father’s will and power, and is analogous to that in many of his discourses, especially in those reported by John. He has come to do his Father’s will; the works which he does are those which his Father has given him to do, and are done by his Father’s power; the words which he speaks are his Father’s words; his whole life is represented as the incarnate expression of his Father’s will; and those whom he saves are saved not by his own independent power, they are those whom his Father has given him (ch. 10:28, 29). Here then I understand Christ neither to limit his salvation nor to declare it to be without limit. He simply asserts on the one hand that his saving power is efficacious only over those whom the Father has given unto him, and on the other that there is nothing lacking in his grace or power which shall cause those thus given to fail of a perfected salvation. As a Saviour he is the representative of the Father’s gracious love and power. Here there is no indication who are the all thus given to him. From other Scripture, however, it appears clear that it includes many among the heathen nations (Ps. 2:8 with Matt. 8:11), and that it does not include the entire human race (ch. 17:6, 9, 25). This interpretation is confirmed by the verse which follows, which further expresses the subjection of the Son in his mediatorial work to the Father.—Because I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. The catholicity of Christ’s love is a disclosure of the love of the Father toward us. In these words Christ gives us a suggestion of the reason of his receiving sinners and making them companions and associates. His own earthy inclinations, tastes, and sensibilities, had he followed them, would all have been against such society; but all were subordinate to, and overridden by, his great controlling purpose that the world through him might be saved (ch. 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:15). For every Christian disciple there is a practical lesson in these words of Christ. We are all sent into the world as Christ also was sent into the world (ch. 17:18); and it is ours to see to it that no pride, or social taste, or moral irresolution, induce us to cast out those who would otherwise come to us for help; but we are also to remember that our power to help does not extend beyond those whom the Father in his own gracious wisdom has seen fit to give to us as the seals to our apostleship (1 Cor. 9:2).

39 And this is the Father’s will[229] which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that[230] every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will[231] raise him up at the last day.

[229] chaps. 10:28; 17:12; 18:9; Matt. 18:14; 2 Tim. 2:19.

[230] verses 47, 54; ch. 3:15, 16.

[231] ch. 11:25.

39, 40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that the all which he has given me, from it I should lose nothing, but shall raise it up in the last day. In omitting the word Father from verse 39 and inserting it in verse 40 I follow the best MSS. See Alford. The resurrection here spoken of is the resurrection of life, i. e., unto eternal life (ch. 5:29), which is given only through Christ (ch. 11:25; Phil. 3:10, 11).—For this is the will of my Father, that every one (πᾶς, not πᾶν), masculine, not neuter; the whole is given to the Son; but each one must come by and for himself to the Son.—Seeing the Son. Looking unto him, as those bitten in the wilderness looked unto the brazen serpent (ch. 3:14, 15; Numb. 21:9; Isa. 45:22).—And having faith in him. Making Christ the substance of his hope as well as the object of his faith (Heb. 11:1; ver. 29, note).—May have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. These verses clearly imply (1) that there is nothing in any secret decree or election of God, or in the nature or extent of the provisions of divine grace, to limit the gift of eternal life or prevent any one from receiving it through faith in the Son; (2) that the only condition required is one inherent in the nature of the case, namely, a sincere belief in, and desire for, that spiritual life which alone is eternal and of which Christ is the supreme manifestation; (3) that whoever has once thus looked to Christ with living faith has an absolute assurance of preservation from the weakness of his own will, as well as from external temptation, an assurance afforded by Christ’s declaration, “Of all which he has given me I shall lose nothing.” It does not imply a literal bodily resurrection. The literalism which so reads this promise is akin to that which misinterpreted Christ’s language respecting eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The whole spirit and tone of this discourse is poetic and metaphorical.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is[232] not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

[232] Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22.

41, 42. The Jews then murmured at him. The Jews are in the usage of John the Judeans; here, those who had come from Jerusalem, or who, dwelling in Galilee, partook of the character of the more bigoted and superstitious dwellers in the southern province.—Because he said, I am the bread, etc. Their reference is to what he has said in verses 33, 35, 38. Envy was the real cause of their murmuring. This claim to superiority offended their pride.—Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, etc. Comp. ch. 7:27; Mark 6:3. The Christ they knew was the Christ according to the flesh, whom Paul declared he would not know (2 Cor. 5:16); the Christ who came down from heaven, that is, the divine Spirit working in him and manifesting itself through him, they did not know. He is known and only can be known by spiritual apprehension.—How then saith this fellow (λέγει οὗτος). There is implied in the original Greek a contempt which may fairly be expressed by this translation. The same expression is so translated in Matt. 12:24; 26:61; Luke 23:2; John 9:29.

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw[233] him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

[233] Cant. 1:4.

45 It is written[234] in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man[235] therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

[234] Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:34; Micah 4:2.

[235] Matt. 11:27.

43-45. Jesus therefore answered, * * * * No one (not, no man) can come unto me except the Father which has sent me draw him. Parallel to this declaration is that of Matt. 16:17; the true knowledge of Christ is revealed to the soul by the Father. There has been much theological discussion as to the proper interpretation of this passage. On the one hand, Calvin declares that “it is therefore a false and profane assertion, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has framed their hearts to obey him;” on the other hand, Adam Clark, representing the Arminian school of theology, thus interprets the divine drawing: “A man is attracted by that which he delights in. Show green herbage to a sheep, he is drawn by it; show nuts to a child, and he is drawn by them. They run wherever the person runs who shows these things; they run after him, but they are not forced to follow; they run through the desire they feel to get the things they delight in. So God draws man; he shows him his wants—he shows the Saviour whom he has provided for him.” The true interpretation of the declaration involves the long disputed and yet unsettled problem of the psychology of the will, what is the nature of and what are the limits to its freedom of action, a problem which belongs rather to the domain of mental science than to that of theology or Biblical interpretation. In interpreting this passage, however, the student should consider: (1) the literal meaning of the word draw (ἕλκω). This primarily carries with it the idea of force, and is used by Homer of carrying one away captive; by Luke, of dragging persons before a court (Acts 16:19; comp. James 2:6); and by John himself of dragging a net (ch. 21:6, 11). Thus the metaphor involved in the word implies at least a certain resistance to the divine love and a certain difficulty to be overcome by the divine drawing. (2) Parallel teachings in the O. T. and N. T. (comp. Sol. Song 4:1; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; Luke 14:23, note; John 12:32; 1 Cor. 1:9), where the word called is parallel to the word draw here (Phil. 2:12, 13). (3) Christ’s own interpretation of the Father’s drawing, afforded by ver. 45. They that have learned of the Father are they that are drawn by him. (4) The nature of that coming to Christ which is the object of the divine drawing. “We do not come to Christ by walking, but by believing; not by the movement of the body, but by the free will of the heart. * * * * Think not that thou art drawn against thy will, for the mind is drawn by love.”—(Augustine.) Interpreting this passage in the light of these considerations, I understand not that God drags the unwilling by an irresistible grace, nor merely the willing by placing before the will in its natural condition such objects—a sense of its needs and a revelation of its Saviour—as attract the unsatisfied heart to himself; but that he makes the soul willing in the day of his power, working in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Ps. 110:3; Phil. 2:13).—It is written in the prophets (Isa. 54:13), They shall be all taught of God. The all here appears clearly from the reference in Isaiah to be all the children of God, not all humanity.—Every one, therefore, hearing from the Father and learning, comes unto me. Emphasis is placed by the structure of the sentence in the original Greek on the word learning. The Pharisees heard, but they did not learn. He that does not reverently recognize the divine glory in the life and character of Christ, who sees no beauty in him that he should desire him, does not possess true piety, has not heard and learned of God.

46 Not[236] that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God,[237] he hath seen the Father.

[236] ch. 5:37.

[237] Luke 10:22.

46. Not that any one has seen the Father. The object of this verse, which is parenthetical, seems to be to guard the Jews against an unspiritual interpretation of his words.—Save he which is from God. Evidently Jesus refers to himself. Comp. ver. 35, and observe how habitually he distinguishes himself from man, never classing himself with men. “Imagine a human creature saying to the world, ‘I came forth from the Father—ye are from beneath, I am from above;’ facing all the intelligence and even the philosophy of the world, and saying, in bold assurance, ‘Behold, a greater than Solomon is here’—‘I am the light of the world’—‘the way, the truth, and the life;’ publishing to all peoples and religions, ‘No man cometh to the Father, but by me;’ promising openly in his death, ‘I will draw all men unto me;’ addressing the Infinite Majesty, and testifying, ‘I have glorified thee on the earth;’ calling to the human race, ‘Come unto me’—‘follow me;’ laying his hand upon all the dearest and most intimate affections of life, and demanding a precedent love: ‘He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.’”—(Bushnell.)

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[238] He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

[238] verse 40.

48 I[239] am that bread of life.

[239] verses 33, 35, 51.

47, 48. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hath faith hath eternal life. The words on me are wanting in the best manuscripts, are omitted by Tischendorf and Alford, and are queried by Schaff; internal evidence is against them. The declaration is generic; faith in the largest sense of that word—the power which lays hold upon the invisible and the hope which reaches after it (Heb. 11:1), a faith which may be and is exercised by those who have never known Christ (Rom. 2:7), is the essential condition of spiritual life. This life is not, as in our English version, merely “everlasting life,” but life eternal, i. e., the spiritual life which is created in the soul when it is born from above, which is nurtured in the soul that follows after that it may apprehend Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:12), the fruits of which are love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal. 5:22, 23). This eternal life is a present possession; he that hath faith already hath this life.—I am the bread of that life. Faith may exist without Christ, as it did in the O. T. prophets and patriarchs, and as it does in greater or less measure in some at least of those in heathen lands; but Christ is the bread of that life; by him it is fed, strengthened, and made to grow; by him faith in invisible things is made rich and strong. The universal effect of a pure Christianity has been to turn the mind away from material things to unseen realities (2 Cor. 3:18).

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and[240] are dead.

[240] Zech. 1:5.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and[241] not die.

[241] verse 58.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: it any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh,[242] which I will give for the life[243] of the world.

[242] Heb. 10:5, 10, 20.

[243] ch. 3:16; 1 John 2:2.

49-51. In these verses Christ marks the contrast between the bread given in the wilderness through Moses, to which the people had referred (ver. 31), and for a repetition of which they had asked, and the spiritual bread of which this material manna was but a type. That manna was temporary in its effects, the fathers were dead, of this spiritual bread if one eats he shall not die, it is eternal in its effects; that bread was material, dead, this is a living and immortal bread; that was given to a few, the Jewish nation, this descends from heaven, that any one may eat of it, it is for universal humanity; that bread was bestowed without suffering, this bread is a divine sacrifice given for the sake of saving others from suffering.—This (fellow) is the bread. They had said (ver. 42), “How then saith this fellow?” He replies, repeating their language of contempt, This (fellow, οὗτός) is the bread which descends from heaven. Observe that his language here, as throughout this discourse, implies his pre-existence, if not his supernatural birth.—In order that any one may eat of it and may not die. Not merely “that one may eat;” his language, “that any one may eat,” implies the universality of divine grace; the bread is for whosoever will.—I am the living bread. Not equivalent to life-giving, for which another Greek word (not ζόω, but ζοωποιέω) would have been used. Here, as in John 4:10, is signified the spiritual life of the food itself which Christ affords by the bestowal of himself. It is true that Christ is life-giving, but he is so because he is ever-living. He is the life, therefore he gives life.—If any one eat of this bread. Again the universality of divine grace is implied. Comp. Acts 2:38, 39, note and refs. there.—He shall live unto eternity. Not merely forever. The idea here, as everywhere throughout the N. T., is not merely an endless existence, which might be no boon, but an immortal, a divine life, the very life of God, making the new-born soul a true son of God.—And the bread which I will give. Observe the future tense. He speaks therefore of a gift yet to be perfected by his passion and death.—Is my flesh, which I will give for the sake of (ὑπὲρ) the life of the world. Comp. ch. 3:16. It seems to me that these enigmatical words are added to guard the church from falling into the error of supposing that Christ’s doctrine is the bread of life, and that to hear and believe his words as a divine teacher is to secure the life eternal of which he speaks. This bread is not merely the teaching nor the example of Christ; the sacrifice is an essential principle of that spiritual food which he has provided for the world’s life.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How[244] can this man give us his flesh to eat?

[244] ch. 3:9.

52. How can this (fellow) give us his flesh to eat? The Judeans here interpret Christ’s words with precisely the literalism with which the church of Rome has interpreted them since. The rest of the discourse Christ devotes to guarding his hearers against this misapprehension of literal and prosaic natures, and to emphasizing the mystical doctrine to the elucidation of which the whole discourse is devoted. Verses 53-55 reiterate and re-emphasize the truth that the soul must feed on Christ, receive him, his life, his death, his character, as the supply of its own spiritual life; verses 57-59 and verses 61-63 interpret what he means by the metaphor. In the interpretation of Christ’s symbolic language here we are to guard ourselves against simplifying it, either by a literal rendering on the one hand, or, on the other, by that process of rationalism which, under pretence of interpreting a metaphor, does away with it altogether. If there were nothing mystical in the doctrine, we may be sure that Christ would not have clothed it in language seemingly so full of mysticism.

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except[245] ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

[245] Matt. 26:26, 28.

54 Whoso[246] eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

[246] verse 40.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed,[247] and my blood is drink indeed.

[247] Ps. 4:7.

53-55. Therefore Jesus said unto them. Therefore connects what follows with what has preceded; he emphasizes and explains the eating and drinking, in response to their interruption in ver. 53.—Verily, verily, I say unto you. These words give a solemn emphasis to the declaration which follows.—Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man. That is, of the Messiah (Matt. 10:23, note).—And drink his blood. The use of animal blood in any form was prohibited to the Israelites as food (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26, 27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deut. 12:16, 23; 15:23), and was exceedingly odious to the Jewish thought. Moreover, to touch even the corpse of a man rendered the Jew unclean. It is not, therefore, strange that Christ’s language here should have offended many even of his disciples (ver. 60).—Ye have no life in you. The mere physical life is accounted in the N. T. no life at all. The true life is that of God in the soul, the absence of which is death.—Whoso eateth my flesh. The Greek verb rendered in both places eat is different from that used above. The word here (τρώγω) signifies literally to chew or masticate, and seems to me to have been substituted by Christ for the more general one (φαγεῖν), in order to add still further emphasis to the doctrine which he is expounding.—And drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. A present possession. See ver. 47, note.—And I will raise him up at the last day. This is one of the passages on which the advocates of the doctrine of conditional immortality base their belief. The promise of resurrection here certainly is limited to those who through faith have received the gift of eternal life.—For my flesh is true meat and my blood is true drink. To Christ the material universe was but a shadow, and the realities were those things of which the material universe is a type. “Food and drink are not here mere metaphors; rather are our common material food and drink mere shadows and imperfect types of this only real reception of refreshment and nourishment into the being.”—(Alford.) In the interpretation of Christ’s language here, the student must remember the declaration respecting him, “Without a parable spake he not unto them” (Mark 4:34); unquestionably the language here is parabolic. It is also true that the phrases eating and drinking were used among the Jews in a metaphorical sense, and that bread especially was employed among them as a symbol for doctrine (Isa. 3:1; Jer. 15:16; Lightfoot on John 6:51; Geikie’s Life of Christ, ch. 44, note c). It seems to me, however, very clear not only that Christ here means something more than receiving his doctrines, but that he employs his peculiar language for the express purpose of emphasizing the truth that it is not merely enough to receive him as a teacher. If this had been his meaning, it would have been easy to correct the misapprehension of his Jewish hearers, and remove the offence which they felt at his discourse. This he does not do. On the contrary, he declares, not that they must eat the bread of the Son of man, but that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood (ver. 53); in a slightly different form, he reiterates this declaration in ver. 54; and finally, to avoid the possibility of the misinterpretation which substitutes his teaching for his personal presence and influence, he adds the emphatic declaration of ver. 55. If something more than accepting and following the teaching of Christ is not meant by these verses, then it would seem that Christ has embodied a very simple truth in very unnecessarily mystical language. That more than this is meant I take to be declared unmistakably by verses 53-55; what more than this is meant it is the object of verses 56-58 to show. The commentators have discussed at great length the question what relation the solemn assertions of these verses bear to the Lord’s Supper. There are three general opinions: (1) that no reference to the Lord’s Supper is intended; (2) that the whole passage exclusively relates to the Lord’s Supper prophetically; (3) that the idea involved in the Lord’s Supper, but not the ordinance itself, is referred to. For discussion of these opinions, see Alford’s note. To me it seems clear that Christ here teaches by a word-parable the same truth which he subsequently embodies in a parable in action in the ordinance of the Supper; whether he prophetically refers to it or not is a question of no great importance.

56 He that eateth[248] my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth[249] in me, and I in him.

[248] Lam. 3:24.

[249] ch. 15:4; 1 John 3:24; 4:15, 16.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so[250] he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

[250] 1 Cor. 15:22.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers[251] did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

[251] verses 49-51.

56-58. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abides (μένω) in me and I in him. This result of the eating and drinking interprets the kind of eating and drinking signified. The same truth is elsewhere interpreted by other metaphors, ask by that of being engrafted on Christ (John 15:4, 5); being rooted in him (Ephes. 3:17); being joined to him as the body to the head (Ephes. 4:15, 16); being married to him (Ephes. 5:23); receiving him as a temple receives and is made sacred by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 3:16); being clothed with him (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27).—And I in him. As Christ is in the Father and the Father in Christ, so the disciples are to be one in them (John 17:21).—As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This one verse should have prevented the three current errors of interpretation in this chapter: (1) that spiritual life is dependent on a literal feeding on Christ’s body and blood; (2) that it is dependent on a sacramental feeding on the sacred symbols of his body; (3) that it requires only a belief in him as a religious teacher. How did Christ live by the Father? Certainly not by any literal eating of the Father’s flesh or drinking of the Father’s blood; nor by any symbol or ceremonial whatever; nor yet by any mere hearing and obeying of the Father’s words. The Father was personally present in Christ; Christ, by his words and his acts, manifested the indwelling glory of the Father; so Christ fed on the Father because the Father was the source and supply of his spiritual life. In like manner we feed on Christ, not when we merely accept and endeavor to follow his precepts, but when, under the direct personal influence of his spiritual presence, we manifest his glory unto the world, having not merely a spirit like Christ, but having the very spirit of Christ himself in us (Rom. 8:9, 10).—This is that bread which came down from heaven. Christ thus interprets his own previous metaphor.—Not as your fathers did eat and are dead. Again he guards the Jews against their literal interpretation; the eating of which he has spoken is not the physical eating for the supply of the body; this can never give true life.

After this chapter had gone to press a remarkable article from the pen of Dean Stanley appeared on “The Eucharist” in the Nineteenth Century (May, 1878), in which he arrives at substantially the same conclusions that I have arrived at in these notes, and enforces them with his usual eloquence and learning. He urges that in all religious ordinances we ought to try to get beneath the phrases we use, and not to rest satisfied with the words, however excellent, till we have ascertained their meaning; that Christ’s words here and in the appointment of the last supper as a permanent memorial ordinance are evidently metaphorical; that the very strangeness of the metaphor should turn our thoughts from the outward form to the inward essence; that the body and flesh signify the personality and character of Christ; that we must incorporate in ourselves, that is in our moral natures, the substance—the moral substance—of the teaching and character of Jesus Christ; that this is the only true transubstantiation; that the blood of Christ is his spirit, the inmost essence of his character, the self of his self; and that to drink his blood is to imbibe this inmost spirit; that this spirit is love or charity, which is throughout the New Testament represented as the fundamental essence of the highest life of God, and therefore of his children; and he interprets verses 53-56 here, in accordance with these principles, as follows: “This is one of those startling expressions used by Christ to show us that he intends to drive us from the letter to the spirit, by which he shatters the crust and shell in order to force us to the kernel. It is as if he said: ‘It is not enough for you to see the outward face of the Son of man, or hear his outward words, or touch his outward vesture. That is not himself. It is not enough that you walk by his side, or hear others talk of him or use terms of affection and endearment toward him. You must go deeper than this; you must go to his very inmost heart, to the very core and marrow of his being. You must not only read and understand, but you must mark, learn, and inwardly digest, and make part of yourselves, that which alone can be part of the human spirit and conscience.’ It expresses, with regard to the life and death of Jesus Christ, the same general truth as is expressed when St. Paul says, ‘Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ’—that is, clothe yourselves with his spirit as with a garment; or again, ‘Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.’ It is the same general truth as when our Lord himself says, ‘I am the vine; ye are the branches.’”

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

59, 60. In the synagogue. I believe the whole discourse to have been delivered in the synagogue. See Prel. Note above.—Many of his disciples. Not of the twelve, but of those who had been theretofore inclined to accept him as a teacher.—This is a hard saying. Rather, an impious saying, or at least hard in the sense of harsh and repulsive, rather than in that of merely difficult. To the Jews then, as to the world ever since, a system of religion which proposes an amelioration of condition only by a revolution of moral character, by a new and divine life, seemed not only not attractive, but repellent.—Who can hear it? That is, Who can stay and listen to such teaching as this?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend[252] up where he was before?

[252] ch. 3:13; Mark 16:19; Ephes. 4:8-10.

63 It[253] is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

[253] 2 Cor. 3:6.

61-63. When Jesus knew in himself. Either miraculously or by a subtle sense which the delicately organized often possess.—Doth this offend you? Stumble you. See Matt. 5:29, note; 11:6, note. The teaching of the disciple, as the teaching of Christ, will sometimes be to men a stumbling-stone and a rock of offence.—What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Another admonition that they are not to take his words in a material sense, for in his glorified body he is to ascend into heaven before their sight. The language is a strong testimony to the historical verity of the ascension.—The spirit is the life-giver, the flesh profiteth nothing whatsoever; i. e., It is my spirit in your spirit which will give eternal life, not my flesh in your flesh. This is the natural meaning of these words, and they are to be taken in their material sense, not with such qualifications as that of Augustine, “The flesh alone and by itself profiteth not,” i. e., without the blessing of the spirit; or such as that of Alford, “He does not say my flesh profiteth nothing, but the flesh.” The flesh is my flesh; for it is only of his own flesh that he has spoken at all in this discourse. The flesh of Christ, if it could be miraculously reproduced by the benediction of a priest, would still be of no profit.—The words which I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life. The meaning is not that Christ’s words are themselves life-giving, though this is true; but that the words which he has just spoken to them respecting his flesh and his blood relate to the spiritual realm and the eternal life, and are to be so interpreted.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew[254] from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

[254] Rom. 8:29; 2 Tim. 2:19.

65 And he said, Therefore said I[255] unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

[255] verses 44, 45.

64, 65. But there are some among you who have not faith. Such could not receive the teaching of Christ, for it is true in spiritual as in physical gifts, according to one’s faith, so is Christ’s blessing (Matt. 9:29).—For Jesus knew from the beginning, etc. Compare this distinct statement of Christ’s foreknowledge with Christ’s own statement of the limitations of his knowledge in Mark 13:32. The contrast illustrates one of the inexplicable mysteries of Christ’s nature, whose knowledge transcended that of man, yet in his earthly condition was less than that of omniscience. To the question, Why, if he foreknew the betrayal of Judas, did he ordain him as an apostle? there is no satisfactory answer. The problem of divine foreknowledge and human free-will, of that divine law the inflexibility of which science has in these later days so strikingly demonstrated, and that freedom of moral action to which universal consciousness testifies, is one which transcends the limits of the human intellect.—Therefore said I unto you that no one can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father. Judas and the withdrawing disciples had, in a sense, come unto him; they had followed him, accepted him as their Master, and had given him for a time their allegiance. Yet they had not really come to him, for no one truly comes except he is drawn by a divine influence. Therefore connects the declaration of ver. 44 with the fact here stated that some of the disciples were without true faith. The practical warning to us here is this, that we have need to examine ourselves that we may know whether our coming to Christ has been merely that of a natural inclination or that of obedience to the impulse of the Spirit of God.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back,[256] and walked no more with him.

[256] Zeph. 1:6; Luke 9:62; Heb. 10:38.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

66, 67. From this many of his disciples went back. From this indicates both, as the English version represents, the time from which this withdrawal dated, and also the cause from which it proceeded. Observe that faithful preaching will drive some apparent disciples away from Christ. The minister, like his Master, will ever have the fan in his hand, and the gospel which he preaches will in some measure separate the chaff from the grain. This was illustrated in the experience of the apostle Paul. See Acts 13:44-46; 14:4; 17:12, 13, etc. “It will never be possible for us to exercise such caution that the doctrine of Christ shall not be the occasion of offence to many; because the reprobate, who are devoted to destruction, suck venom from the most wholesome food and gall from honey. The Son of God undoubtedly knew what was useful, and yet we see that he cannot avoid offending many of his disciples.”—(Calvin.)—Then said Jesus also to the twelve, Ye do not also wish to go away? The tone is one of pathetic protest; the language that of one who felt keenly the desertion, and yearned for an expression of the fidelity of his immediate friends, not as an assurance, for he knew from the beginning who believed not, and therefore who believed and would endure, but as an utterance of loyalty and love. At the same time he leads them to a confession which draws them more closely and binds them more tenderly to himself.

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the[257] words of eternal life.

[257] Acts 5:20; 7:38.

69 And [258]we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

[258] chaps. 1:29; 11:27; Matt. 16:16.

68, 69. Then Simon Peter answered. As in Matt. 16:16, he speaks quickly, for all.—Lord, to whom shall we go? To go away from Christ is to go out even here into the darkness; unto loneliness, hopelessness, despair.—Thou hast the words of eternal life. As Martha’s utterance of her faith in John 11:27, so Peter’s declaration here is not wholly responsive to the discourse that has preceded. He does not fully comprehend the meaning of that personal feeding on Christ of which the Lord has been speaking; but he believes that Christ’s words, though he does not fully understand them, are words of, that is full of, eternal life, and that he is the Messiah and the Son of God. And in this faith he is content to await humbly till the full meaning of Christ’s enigmatical discourse shall be revealed to him, as it could not be till Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a[259] devil?

[259] ch. 13:27.

71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

70, 71. Have not I chosen you twelve? Chosen them, not to be heirs of eternal life, but to be apostles; in the inner circle of his disciples; receiving his most sacred influence and intimate instruction. And one of you is a devil. Not the devil; not merely devilish; but belonging to the kingdom of the devil; one of his ministers and agents. To Christ all men belong to either the one or the other kingdom.He here, as it were, looks forward to the time when Judas should have gone to his own place, forecasts his future, and characterizes him in the present by what he is to be when the germinal sin, now in him, has brought forth its final fruit. On the character of Judas Iscariot, see Vol. I, p. 307, Note on character and career of Judas Iscariot.

CHAPTER VII.

Ch. 7:1-52. JESUS AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. The demand of the unbeliever for an exhibitory Christ.—The world never ready for its reformers and regenerators; always ready for those who have for it no message.—The true authority and ordination of the christian teacher.—Lay preaching sanctioned by the example of Christ.—The law of the Christian Sabbath and the law of Christian judgment.—Whence Christ cometh; whither he goeth.—The power of faith: to receive; to impart.—The moral power of Christ illustrated.

Preliminary Note.—Between the close of ch. 6 and the beginning of ch. 7 occurred a period of retirement, employed by Christ in giving to his apostles especial instructions concerning the kingdom of God. The fullest account of these instructions is afforded in Matthew, chaps. 15, 16, 17, 18. During this time occurred the healing of the Syrophenician woman’s daughter and the transfiguration. The public ministry of Christ in Galilee was substantially brought to an end by his sermon in the synagogue at Capernaum and his consequent rejection by the people. The ministry in Judea begins with this chapter and continues to ver. 39 of the tenth chapter, verses 40-42 affording a concise statement of that ministry in Perea, of which Luke alone gives any extended account. The journey to Jerusalem mentioned below (ver. 10) is, I think erroneously, identified by some harmonists with that described by Luke, ch. 9:51, 52. That journey was immediately before his passion, and was notably public, messengers going before his face to prepare the way for him; this was “as it were in secret,” and six months of instruction in Judea and Perea intervened between it and his death. See Luke 9:51-56, Prel. Note, and Tabular Harmony, Vol. I, p. 45.

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

BOOTH ON THE HOUSETOP.

2 Now the Jews’ feast[260] of tabernacles was at hand.

[260] Lev. 23:34.

3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judæa, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

4 For there is no man that doeth anything in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

2-4. Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand. This was one of the three greater festivals to be observed by Israel. It was also called the feast of Ingathering, from the fact that it was held at the year’s end, when all the labors of the field were consummated. It thus resembled nearly our own Thanksgiving Day. It commenced on the fifteenth of the seventh month, answering to our October, and lasted seven days. It was instituted to commemorate the dwelling in tents when in the desert; accordingly, while the feast lasted the people dwelt in booths or tents placed on the flat roofs of the houses, in the courts of the temple, and in the squares and open places, and the streets when their width allowed. The particular sacrifices to be offered are detailed in Num. 29:1-38, and notices of the observance are to be found in Neh. 8:13-18; Hos. 12:9; Zech. 14:16-19.—His brethren. Their names are given in Matt. 13:55. I believe his half brothers, children of Joseph and Mary, are intended. See Note on Brethren of the Lord, Vol. I, p. 187.—That thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. This was after the commission, the missionary tour, and the return of the twelve (Matt., ch. 10), through whose ministry probably many had become in a certain loose sense disciples of our Lord, regarding him as a Jewish rabbi, and perhaps as an inspired prophet, who had never seen him personally. The language of Christ’s brothers is that of contempt. Leave this province, said they, and go up into Judea, the religious centre of the Holy Land, and show yourself to those who have heard of you, and exhibit to them what you can do. Additional significance is given to this language if we remember that it was used after a period of retirement of more than six months. See above.—For no one does anything in secret, and yet seeks himself to be frank and open (ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ). The intimation is that the reason why Jesus does not make more public exhibition of himself and his work is that he is deceiving the people. His brothers attempt to compel him to adopt their policy by imputing to him, because of his course, a lack of frankness and fearlessness.—If thou do these things, show thyself to the world. If implies a doubt. In a worldly view the policy of these brothers would seem wise; but it was really, in a more subtle form, the policy suggested by Satan in the second temptation (Matt. 4:5-7). Christ would be accepted by faith and love, not by wonder and fear; for the sake of his truth, not because of his miracles. These he persistently refused to show to the world as a means of compelling allegiance.

5 For neither did his brethren[261] believe in him.

[261] Mark 3:21.

5. For neither had his brethren faith in him. This verse seems to me quite conclusive that none of the brethren here mentioned were among the twelve, and therefore that James, Simon, and Judas, the brethren of the Lord, cannot be the apostles who bore the same name. They afterward became believers (Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5). They may at this time have recognized that Jesus possessed extraordinary powers, without recognizing in him the Messiah, or even an inspired teacher, whose instructions they were willing to follow. “They expected him to make a startling exhibition of his power to the eye. They did not believe in Him; for faith rests upon that which is not seen; it confesses an inward vital power.”—(Maurice.)

6 Then Jesus said unto them, My[262] time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.

[262] verses 8, 30; chaps. 2:4; 8:20.

7 The[263] world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

[263] ch. 15:19.

8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

6-9. My time is not yet; but your time is always prepared. The context indicates the meaning. They had urged him to show himself to the world; his answer is, My time to show myself to the world is not yet. This manifestation of himself is gradual and successive; he partially manifested himself in the discourse delivered in Jerusalem at this very feast (see vers. 16, 18, 28, 29, 37, 38); more fully by his subsequent discourses in the temple during the Passion week (Matthew, chaps. 21, 22, 23); still more fully by his crucifixion, in which was disclosed that love which is the wisdom and power of God unto salvation (1 Cor. 1:24), and in which, even at the time and by the manner of his death, his divine Sonship was revealed to the Roman centurion (Mark 15:39); yet again by his resurrection from the dead (Acts 2:32-36; 3:15); increasingly in the ages since, by his personal presence and power in the church (Matt. 28:18, 20; Rom. 1:3, 4); a manifestation to be finally consummated when he is revealed from heaven in his second coming (Matt. 24:27; Col. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:7). For this final coming the church is ever preparing the world, casting up a highway for him; and not till this highway is completed and he comes again shall all flesh see the salvation of God (Luke 3:4-6). The time of his brothers was always prepared; for the world is always ready for him who has no message for it. “If I,” said Luther, “would speak what the Papists like to hear, I would be very glad, too, to take lodgings with the Bishop of Magdeburg at Rome.” “The Son of man feels all the difference between those whose time was always ready, who could go up to the feasts whenever it pleased them, merely with the expectation of meeting friends and mixing in a crowd, and him who had the straitening consciousness of a message which he must bear, of a baptism which he must be baptized with.”—(Maurice.)—The world cannot hate you, etc. Comp. chaps. 15:18; 17:14; 1 John 3:13; Luke 6:26. He that would preach the gospel of salvation to the world must first testify of it that its deeds are evil. The Holy Spirit convinces the world of righteousness only after convincing it of sin (John 16:8, 9). For illustrations of Christ’s preaching against the works of the world, see Matt. 5:20; 6:1, 2, 5, 16; 7:22; 11:16-24; 12:39-15; Luke 6:46; 10:12-16; 11:45-54; 12:54-57, etc. A study of the preaching of Christ and the apostles, and of the writings of Paul, will show that the divine method is always to convince of sin as a preparation for proclaiming the good news of salvation from it.—I go not unto this feast. The word yet is not in the original, though it probably correctly interprets the real meaning of Christ’s answer. This was not, I shall not go (future), but, I am not now going (present). Perhaps Christ did not know whether he should go or not; he who acted constantly under the guidance of the Divine Spirit may not have received guidance on this point. It would at all events have defeated his purpose to have gone up with those who were determined that he should make an exhibition of himself and his work. There is no ground for either the reproach that he deceived his brethren, or that he acted in a fickle manner in subsequently going up to the feast.

10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

11 Then[264] the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?

[264] ch. 11:56.

12 And[265] there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.

[265] ch. 9:16.

13 Howbeit, no man spake openly of him, for fear of the Jews.

10-13. Not openly, but as it were in secret. Not secretly, but as if in secret, that is, quietly, unostentatiously, incognito, in contrast to the way in which his brothers wished him to go up. “Not in the company of a caravan of pilgrims or in any other way of outward observation, but so that the journey to that feast is represented as made in secrecy, and consequently quite differently from his last entry at the feast of the Passover.”—(Meyer.) The description of this journey to Jerusalem renders it improbable that it is to be identified with the journey described in Luke 9:51, 52. See Prel. Note.—Then the Jews sought him. By the Jews John generally if not invariably means the inhabitants of Judea, in contradistinction to the other inhabitants of the Holy Land. See ch. 6:41, note.—Where is that fellow (ἐκεῖνος)? The language is derisive. “Thus contemptuously can they speak of the man, that they cannot name him.”—(Luther.)—And there was much murmuring. The original (γογγυσμός) implies suppressed discourse.—Some indeed said. The Greek particle which I have rendered indeed (μέν) implies a concession, at the same time pointing forward to something antithetic. The implication is that among the Judeans the believers were a minority.—No! but he deceiveth the people. He that is popular with the multitude is generally looked upon with aversion by the hierarchy.—No one spoke openly. “Both mistrusted the hierarchy; even those hostile in their judgment were afraid, so long as they had not given their official decision, that their verdict might be reversed. A true indication of an utterly Jesuitical domination of the people.”—(Meyer.) Hostility to Christianity fears nothing so much as free discussion; and it quite accords with human nature that the consideration of Christ’s claims by the people at all should be dreaded by the priesthood. The interpretation of Alford, Godet, Tholuck, and others, that only the friends of Christ feared to speak openly, is in direct conflict with the explicit language of the narrative.

Maurice pictures the scene well: “It is a hum of voices. There is a fear of something, the people do not well know of what. It is a fear of the Jews; the apostle says each fears the other. There is a concentrated Jewish feeling in the Sanhedrim, among the rulers, which all tremble at. Till that has been pronounced—above all, while there is a suspicion that it will come forth in condemnation—it is not wise for any to commit themselves. Brethren, do we not know that this is a true story? Must it not have happened in Jerusalem then, for would it not happen in London now?”

14 Now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.

15 And[266] the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

[266] Matt. 13:54.

14, 15. About the midst of the feast. Bengel calculates that on this year the middle of the feast would be the Sabbath; the temple would in that case be especially crowded, and the day would suggest the remarks respecting the Sabbath.—Jesus went up into the temple and taught. He came to Judea privately, he went into the temple publicly; he would not exhibit himself, he would not conceal his doctrine.—And the Judeans marvelled, saying. The form of the question which follows indicates a hostile spirit; but it may have been raised, not by the scribes or teachers (Meyer, Alford), but by the people (Tholuck).—How knoweth this fellow learning, never having been taught? “A rule analogous to that which still prevails in most church communions forbade any rabbi to teach new truths except he was a regular graduate of one of the theological schools. He might catechise, but he could not preach. This rule the Jews cited against Jesus. ‘How,’ said they contemptuously, ‘does this man know anything of sacred literature, being no graduate?’”—(Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth.) Letters (γράμμα) is here the sacred writings of the Jews, i. e., the sacred Scriptures and the comments thereon. This question affords the key to the interpretation of the discourse which follows, which is upon the authority, primarily of Christ, secondarily of every Christian teacher, an authority derived, not from theological schools or clerical ordination, but from the indwelling Spirit of God. Christ was himself a “lay preacher;” his example and his precept alike sanction unordained preaching.

16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not[267] mine, but his that sent me.

[267] chaps. 8:28; 12:49.

17 If[268] any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

[268] ch. 8:43.

16, 17. My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. For doctrine read teaching; for not merely the subject-matter taught, but the power with which it was presented, was divine. My teaching is not mine is not a hyperbole. It is not merely equivalent to “not acquired by any labor on my part in learning” (Bengel), or “not an invention of my own” (Geikie). Neither in origin nor in aim was Christ’s teaching his own. Ever about his Father’s business, he was ever teaching his Father’s words and doing his Father’s works (ch. 5:19, 30). In a sense every true Christian teacher should be able to repeat this saying of Christ (chaps. 14:26; 16:13). It does not follow that the Christian teacher need not be a Christian student; but it does follow that he should be a student only of those things which enable him better to understand and interpret the Father’s will and nature. Only so far as schools of theological thought help him to do this are they truly Christian schools.—If any one wills to do his will, he shall know concerning the teaching, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself. An often misunderstood declaration. The promise is not that if any man does God’s will all theology shall be made clear to him, nor even that he shall be brought to a correct apprehension of the most important truths of the Christian system. The last clause qualifies the first; the declaration is that if any man purposes to do God’s will, makes that his ultimate and supreme choice (1 Tim. 6:11-16), he shall know respecting Christianity whether it is of divine or human origin. The declaration is both a promise and the enunciation of a spiritual law. The purpose to do God’s will itself clarifies the spiritual sight, so that the soul recognizes the Spirit of God in the life, the character, and the teachings of his Son. The degree of advancement which one subsequently makes in comprehending the full significance of those teachings will depend partly upon the purity of his spiritual purposes, but partly upon other conditions. Not the mere outward obedience to God’s commandments, but a true spiritual purpose, is declared to be the condition of spiritual light; and to that purpose is attached, not a promise of all light, but only of so much as will enable the soul to know the source from which it may obtain constantly increasing illumination. Nevertheless, the first step toward the solution of any theological difficulty whatever, is repentance of sin and practical obedience to the voice of God in the soul. Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.

18 He[269] that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that[270] seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

[269] ch. 8:50.

[270] Prov. 25:27.

19 Did not Moses[271] give you the law, and yet none[272] of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill[273] me?

[271] John 1:17; Gal. 3:19.

[272] Rom. 3:10-19.

[273] ch. 5:16, 18; Matt. 12:14.

18, 19. He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory. From (ἀπό) represents the remote cause; out of (ἐκ) represents the more immediate cause. The former refers to what is general, the latter to what is special. See Rob. Lex., ἀπό. Every Christian teacher must speak out of himself, i. e., out of his own experience of truth internally possessed and become a part of his nature; but no Christian teacher may speak, from himself, i. e., of his own notions and by his own authority. The inward experience out of which he speaks is powerful only as it is derived from the Spirit of God. Egotism is the natural expression of him who speaks from himself, and has not the rhetorical skill to conceal the inherent weakness.—But he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. This is a general proposition. In so far as any one seeks the divine glory he is preserved both from error and from unrighteousness (Rom. 8:1, 2; 1 John 1:5, 7; 3:6). Christ is the only one who is absolutely true, and in whom is no unrighteousness, because he is the only one in whom there is no self-seeking.—Did not Moses give you the law, etc. The connection is well given by Alford: “There is a close connection with the foregoing. The will to do his will was to be the great key to a true appreciation of his teaching; but of this there was no example among them; and therefore it was that they were no fair judges of the teaching, but bitter opponents and persecutors of Jesus, of whom, had they been anxious to fulfil the law, they would have been earnest and humble disciples” (ch. 5:46).—Why go ye about to kill me? The reference is to the purposed assassination at a previous visit to Jerusalem (ch. 5:18), a purpose from which the Pharisees had evidently not relented (ch. 7:1).

20 The people answered and said,[274] Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?

[274] ch. 8:48.

21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.

22 Moses[275] therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but[276] of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

[275] Lev. 12:3.

[276] Gen. 17:10.

23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because[277] I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

[277] ch. 5:8.

24 Judge[278] not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

[278] Deut. 1:16, 17.

20-24. Thou hast a devil; who goeth about to kill thee? It is evident from ver. 25 that some of his auditors knew the secret design which had been formed for Christ’s assassination. Their language here is that of foulest abuse. I judge then that they were startled by Christ’s sudden revealing of the secret designs against him; and with that inconsistency which is common to the self-condemned, they in the same sentence denied that his death had been compassed, and implied that the fact that it was compassed had been disclosed to him by an evil spirit which possessed him.—Jesus answered * * * * I have done one work, and ye all marvel. The work referred to is that described in the fifth chapter of John, the only miracle in Jerusalem up to this time which is described in detail; not the only one which he had wrought (chaps. 2:23; 3:2), but presumptively the last one. They wondered not at the miracle, but at the fact that he had performed it on the Sabbath day (ch. 5:16). It is not necessary to give to the word wonder here any accessory idea, as of doubt (Bengel) or disquietude (Chrysostom); Christ begins with the mildest characterization of their sentiment as that of mere surprise. Here, as habitually, he does not proceed to severe language till milder language has proved unavailing.—Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision. There is some doubt whether the word therefore belongs to this or to the preceding verse; i. e., whether Christ says, I have done one work, and ye all therefore marvel, or, Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers. The latter reading is preferred by the later scholars, e. g., Bengel, Meyer, Alford, against Olshausen, Tholuck. Either is grammatically possible; and the purely grammatical considerations appear to me to be about equally balanced. The latter interpretation is preferable, because it gives a better meaning to the sentence. Accepting this rendering, the meaning appears to be, Moses gave unto you circumcision for this reason, viz., because it was patriarchal, not because it originated with him. And this statement of the reason of the Mosaic law respecting circumcision affords a basis for the argument which follows. It was a saying of the rabbis “that circumcision drives away the Sabbath,” and they held that the rite, notwithstanding the work which it necessarily entailed, might be performed on the Sabbath day, because it was of patriarchal origin, and so antedated the Mosaic institution of the Sabbath. Christ, referring to this fact, convicts the Jews of inconsistency in being angry with him for placing the law of mercy above the law of the Sabbath. For the law of mercy was older than either; it belongs to the eternal law of God’s nature.—That the law of Moses should not be broken. That law prescribed that circumcision should be performed on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3); to allow that day to pass by, therefore, without circumcision would be a breach of the law.—Because I have made an entire man (ὅλον ἄνθρωπον) well on the Sabbath day. We can hardly suppose, with Bengel and Olshausen, that the entire man here signifies the healing of both soul and body; for there is no evidence in the original account that the physical was accompanied with a spiritual healing, and no likelihood that Christ’s auditors would have understood him here to refer to spiritual healing. The contrast rather seems to be between circumcision as an act of wounding, which brought only ceremonial cleanness, and the miracle at the pool of Bethesda, which gave relief from the consequences of sin (ch. 5:14), and gave health to the whole body.—Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. See Zech. 7:9. One of Christ’s Sabbath laws; we are ourselves to avoid, but we are not to condemn in others, the appearance of evil. What is Sabbath observance and what Sabbath transgression is to be determined, not by the external act, but by the inward motive and the ultimate end.

25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill?

26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do[279] the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

[279] verse 48.

27 Howbeit[280] we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.

[280] Matt. 13:55.

25-27. Then said some of them of Jerusalem. Residents of Jerusalem, who were therefore more likely than the pilgrim strangers to know the designs of the hierarchy.—Whom they seek to kill. See chaps. 5:18; 7:19, 32.—Surely (μήποτε) the rulers do not know that this is indeed the Messiah? The form of the sentence is an inquiry, strongly implying a negative answer.—Howbeit as to this fellow, we know whence he is; but when the Messiah cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. It is true that prophecy foretold that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:6); but according to the Rabbinical teaching he was straightway to be snatched away by spirits and tempests, lie hidden for a while, and unexpectedly and supernaturally reappear to enter upon his miraculous mission (Lightfoot on Matt. 2:1). The people here bore an unconscious testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus; for they neither knew his earthly nor his heavenly origin. They believed him who was born in Bethlehem to be a native of Nazareth, and the Son of God to be the son of a carpenter.

28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and[281] I am not come of myself, but he that sent me[282] is true, whom[283] ye know not.

[281] ch. 5:43.

[282] Rom. 3:4.

[283] chaps. 1:18; 8:55.

29 But[284] I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

[284] ch. 10:15; Matt. 11:27.

28, 29. Then Jesus cried aloud teaching in the temple, and said, Ye do indeed know me, and ye know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but it is the True One who hath sent me; him ye do not know. I know him, for I have come from him, and he it is that hath sent me forth. As I read it, this is one of those outbursts of indignation with which we occasionally meet in the teachings of Christ. The obduracy and resoluteness in evil of the Jews aroused his indignation and elicited his stern rebuke. Comp. chaps. 8:41, 44; 9:41; Matthew, ch. 23. I understand then his language to be neither ironical nor interrogative, but affirmative, and not to refer to his human nature and origin, but to his divine character and mission. In his miracles and his instructions they had seen and heard enough to assure them that he was from God (chaps. 3:2; 11:47, 48). Their contemptuous declaration, We know this fellow, he transformed into an indictment against them. They had whispered it; he proclaimed it aloud. “Ye do know me,” he says, “and ye know whence I am, for the authentication of my divine mission is ample. Ye do know that I am not come of myself, for my whole life is a conclusive demonstration that I am not a self-seeker.” The True One is not equivalent to the Truthful One nor the Really Existent One merely, but the One True God (2 Chron. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20). Him they did not and could not know, because the knowledge of God is only for the pure in heart (Matt. 5:8). Jesus knew him, for he had been his companion from eternity. In a sense we are all from God, but not in the sense in which Christ here indicates that he is from God. The preposition used (παρά) has the sense of from beside, from near, French de chez (Rob. Lex.). The declaration is interpreted by ch. 1:1; Phil. 2:6. The public exposure of their whispered contempt, the equally public exposure of the secret thought of their own hearts, which they had not themselves read as clearly as Christ read it for them, and the tone of fearless assumption in which he at once claimed to be the companion of the Only True God and declared that they did not even know Him, whose peculiar people it was their peculiar boast to be, angered the Judeans, and especially the hierarchy, and led to the unsuccessful attempt to arrest Jesus recorded in the succeeding verse.

30 Then[285] they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.

[285] ch. 8:37; Mark 11:18; Luke 20:19.

31 And many[286] of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

[286] ch. 4:39.

30, 31. They sought therefore to arrest him. An arrest for the purpose of bringing him before the authorities, not a mere lawless act of a mob, is indicated by the original (πιάζω). The attempt, however, was probably made by some of the people, acting without special authority; this is implied by the account of the official action subsequently taken (ver. 32).—Because his hour was not yet come. The hour appointed in the divine counsel for his passion and death. The immediate cause of the failure to arrest may have been a fear of the Galileans and others with whom Christ was popular; but John passes this wholly by to speak of the real reason in the divine counsels. Predestination is quite as strongly marked in John as in Paul.—But of the multitude many believed on him. The degree of faith is not indicated. Its spirituality may have been very slight; yet the rest of the sentence certainly indicates that they were inclined to think that this might be the promised Messiah.—More miracles than these which this one hath done. To those which had been wrought in Jerusalem were probably added, in their thought, those which had been wrought in Galilee; some of these had doubtless been witnessed by many of the Galileans present.

32 The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him.

33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet[287] a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.

[287] chaps. 13:33; 16:16.

34 Ye[288] shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.

[288] ch. 8:21; Hos. 5:6.

32-34. The Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. This was an official act on the part of the Sanhedrim or its officers, carrying out the design of certain of the people, as indicated in ver. 30; and it is the first official endeavor to arrest him, the beginning of a course of action consummated in his final arrest, trial, and crucifixion.—Therefore said Jesus unto them. A break evidently occurs between verses 31 and 32. The discourse up to ver. 31 is continuous, and took place about the middle of the feast, that is, the third or fourth day; the discourse in verses 37-39 was on the last day of the feast; between the two the orders for Christ’s arrest were given. Verses 33, 34 are founded on Christ’s knowledge of those orders, and it is a reasonable surmise that the presence of the officers suggested it to him and interpreted its meaning to some at least of his auditors.—Yet a little while am I with you. About six months after this address he was crucified.—And I go unto him that sent me. With this explicit statement of his meaning, interpreted as it was by the previous declaration that it was the true God who had sent him, it is difficult to understand how the Jews could have been perplexed respecting his meaning. De Wette’s explanation that they knew not the One who had sent him, and therefore that this saying was a dark one to them, is not wholly satisfactory, for surely they did know who was meant by the phrase, he that sent me, and as surely they could not fail to understand that going to God was equivalent to death. Meyer supposes that the words him that sent me in this verse were not a part of Christ’s discourse, but added, perhaps by John himself; but they are not wanting in any of the manuscripts; and that is both a doubtful and a dangerous kind of criticism which removes a difficulty by the summary process of removing the difficult words, without any external authority for so doing. I believe therefore that Christ was explicit, that he was understood, and that the assumed perplexity of his hearers was a piece of hypocrisy. See on verses 35, 36.—Ye shall seek and shall not find me; and where I am ye cannot come. The key to the true interpretation of this passage, is afforded by Luke 17:22; John 8:21; 13:33. Christ does not refer to an inimical seeking; the search here is the same as the desire to see one of the days of the Son of man in Luke 17:22; i. e. the Jewish desire for a manifestation of the Messiah. He does not refer to a true spiritual seeking, for in ch. 8:21 he declares, to the same Jewish auditors, Ye shall seek me and ye shall die in your sins. Eusebius declares that many Jews in consequence of the judgments of God on Jerusalem became believers; such did indeed seek Christ, but they found him. The meaning then is that in the coming days of travail and sorrow, when many should go out after false Christs (Matt. 24:23, 24), the Jews would earnestly desire a Messiah for their deliverer, whom, however, they could not have, because with their own hands they had put him to death. They would seek, but theirs would be a temporal, not a spiritual seeking; the seeking of fear and self-interest, not of repentance, faith, and love. This verse affords no authority whatever for the opinion that any earnest spiritual soul ever seeks Christ in vain.

35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed[289] among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

[289] Isa. 11:12; James 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1.

36 What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come?

35, 36. Then said the Jews among themselves. Their utterance has been by some regarded as the utterance of a genuine perplexity. So apparently Maurice: “He had broken down the barriers between different classes of Israelites—between

Galileans, Samaritans, and Jews. Why might he not carry his designs further? Why might he not go to the dispersed tribes in heathen lands? Why might he not preach to the heathen themselves?” By others it is regarded as the language of scorn and contempt. So Meyer: “An insolent and scornful supposition, which they themselves, however, do not deem probable (therefore the question is asked with μή), regarding the meaning of words to them so utterly enigmatical. The bolder mode of teaching adopted by Jesus, his universalistic declarations, his partial non-observance of the law of the Sabbath, would lead them, perhaps, to associate with the unintelligible statement a mocking thought like this, and all the more because much interest was felt among the heathen, partly of an earnest kind, and partly (comp. St. Paul in Athens) arising from curiosity merely, regarding the Oriental religions, especially Judaism.” The latter view seems to me the more probable, because (1) it is inconceivable that the Jews should have misapprehended Christ’s meaning (ver. 33, note); (2) his analogous language in the next chapter they clearly did understand to refer to his death (ch. 8:22); (3) the fact that what was said was “among themselves” indicates that it was not an honest perplexity, in which case they would have asked Christ for an explanation, but of the same quality as the murmuring reported in verses 26, 27.

37 In the last[290] day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If[291] any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

[290] Lev. 23:36.

[291] Isa. 55:1; Rev. 22:17.

37. In the last day, that great day of the feast. The feast of the Tabernacles proper lasted for seven days (Lev. 23:34, 41, 42), but on the eighth day a solemn assembly kept as a feast-Sabbath was directed to be held (Lev. 23:36; Numb. 29:35; Neh. 8:18); and though the people dwelt in the booths only the seven days, this eighth day was reckoned by the Jews as a part of the feast. Whether the seventh or the eighth is intended here by the “last day of the feast” is a little uncertain, as it also is whether the drawing of water from the brook Siloah, which was a characteristic ceremonial of the other days of the feast, took place also on the eighth day. This ceremonial recalled the miraculous supply of water in the wilderness from the riven rock; it was connected by the more superstitious of the people with the notion that at this time God determined the amount of rain which should fall during the year; and the more spiritual saw in it a symbol of the time when the promised gift of the Holy Spirit should be bestowed upon Israel (Isa. 12:3). Whether the words of Christ were uttered, as Dr. Geikie supposes, during this ceremonial, or, as Alford supposes, the day after this service had come to an end, the reference to it is unmistakable. Dr. Geikie’s supposition certainly makes this reference more striking, and gives, if not peculiar significance, at least peculiar force, to Christ’s words. “The last day of the feast, known as ‘the Hosanna Rabba’ and the ‘Great Day,’ found him, as each day before, doubtless, had done, in the temple arcades. He had gone thither early, to meet the crowds assembled for morning prayer. It was a day of special rejoicing. A great procession of pilgrims marched seven times round the city, with their lulabs, music, and loud-voiced choirs preceding, and the air was rent with shouts of Hosanna, in commemoration of the taking of Jericho, the first city in the Holy Land that fell into the hands of their fathers. Other multitudes streamed to the brook of Siloah, after the priests and Levites, bearing the golden vessels with which to draw some of the water. As many as could get near the stream drank of it amidst loud shouting of the words of Isaiah—‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,’ ‘With joy shall we draw water from the wells of salvation’—rising in jubilant chants on every side. The water drawn by the priests was, meanwhile, borne up to the temple, amidst the boundless excitement of a vast throng. Such a crowd was, apparently, passing at this moment. Rising as the throng went by, his spirit was moved at such honest enthusiasm, yet saddened at the moral decay which mistook a mere ceremony for religion. It was burning autumn weather, when the sun had for months shone in a cloudless sky, and the early rains were longed for as the monsoons in India after the summer heat. Water at all times is a magic word in a sultry climate like Palestine, but at this moment it had a double power. Standing, therefore, to give his words more solemnity, his voice now sounded far and near over the throng, with soft clearness, which arrested all: If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.”—(Geikie.)—If any man thirst. This is not an unconditional promise; it is conditioned, not merely on desire, but on a fervent desire. Comp. Isa. 55:1; Matt. 5:6; Rev. 22:17. “None are called to obtain the riches of the Spirit but those who burn with the desire of them. For we know that the pain of thirst is most acute and tormenting, so that the very strongest men, and those who can endure any amount of toil, are overpowered by thirst.”—(Calvin.) An illustration of this spiritual thirst is afforded by David in Psalms 42, 43, and by Paul in Phil. 3:8-14.—Let him come unto me. If one can imagine these words spoken to the throng while the procession is marching into the temple, or even just after the solemn service is over and the minds of the people are still full of it, he will form a faint conception of the divine assumption implied in them; and if he further considers the effect produced, both on the multitude (verses 40, 41) and on the officers sent to arrest Jesus (ver. 46), he will form a faint conception of the divine dignity with which those words were uttered.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out[292] of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

[292] ch. 4:14; Prov. 18:4; Isa. 58:11.

38. He that hath faith in me. As in ch. 6 to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to have faith in him and live by him, so here, to come unto him and drink is to come with the affections and receive him into the soul.—As the Scripture hath said. There is no passage in the O. T. which directly sustains this citation, and no reason to suppose that Christ refers to any lost book. Alford refers to Ezek. 47:1-12, where the river of the water of life is described as flowing from under the temple, which Alford regards as a symbol of the believer; similarly Olshausen; but both this reference and that to Zech. 14:8 are remote and unnatural. We are either to suppose that the phrase “as the Scripture hath said” refers only to the preceding clause, “he that believeth on me,” so that the meaning is, He that according to the O. T. believeth on me; or else we are to suppose that John by the following verse (39) not only interprets the meaning of Christ’s promise, but also the meaning of his reference, and that we are to look for the Scripture in those passages which refer to and promise the gift of the Holy Ghost. The former of these interpretations is that of Chrysostom, the latter that of Meyer, who refers to Isa. 44:3; 55:1; 58:1; Joel 3:18; Zech. 13:1.—Shall flow rivers of living water. This declaration is not to be limited so that it shall be simply equivalent to the promise in John 4:14, “Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst.” The language out of his belly clearly implies something received that it may flow from the recipient unto others. The water which he drinks becomes in him a spring from which living waters flow, as the light which illuminates him makes him in turn one of the lights which illuminate the world (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15). That this is the meaning is clear, not only from the language here, but from John’s interpretation in the succeeding verse. “The mutual and inspired intercourse of Christians from Pentecost downwards, the speaking in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, the mutual edification in Christian assemblies by means of the charismata even to the speaking with tongues, the entire work of the apostles, of a Stephen and so on, furnish an abundant historical commentary upon this text.”—(Meyer.)

39 (But this spake he of the[293] Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

[293] ch. 16:7; Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17, 33.

39. But this spake he of the Spirit. This declaration of John makes the second chapter of Acts and the succeeding history of the Church of Christ the true commentary on Christ’s promise.—For the Spirit was not yet. The meaning cannot of course be that the Holy Spirit had no existence, for “this would be not only in flat contradiction to chaps. 1:32, 33; 3:5, 8, 34, but to the whole O. T., in which the agency of the Spirit in the outward world is recognized even more vividly than in the N. T.” (Alford.) And it is not only in the outward world that the O. T. recognizes the Holy Spirit, but also in the hearts of individual prophets, who thus became the ministers of divine grace to others (Gen. 41:38; Exod. 4:11, 12; 31:3; 2 Chron. 15:1; Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:11, 14). Nor does the addition by the translators of the word given adequately represent the meaning, for the Holy Ghost was given before the glorification of Christ, but not to all men; he was not a universal gift. The meaning is that the dispensation of the Holy Ghost had not yet begun; he had not yet been so given that whoever had faith in the Son of God received the gift of the Holy Ghost and became one of the Lord’s prophets (Acts 2:38). See Acts 2:4, note.—Because Jesus was not yet glorified. The death and resurrection of Christ were the conditions precedent of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost (ch. 14:16, 17; 16:7; Acts 1:7-9).

40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.[294]

[294] ch. 6:14; Deut. 18:15, 18.

41 Others said, This is the[295] Christ. But some said, Shall[296] Christ come out of Galilee?

[295] chaps. 4:42, 6:69.

[296] verse 52; ch. 1:46.

42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ[297] cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem,[298] where David[299] was?

[297] Ps. 132:11; Jer. 23:5.

[298] Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4.

[299] 1 Sam. 16:1-4.

43 So there was a division among the people because of him.

44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.

40-44. These verses give the impressions produced on different auditors by Christ’s discourses at the feast. The word many is wanting in the best manuscripts, and is omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Schaff; for it read some. Some regarded Jesus as the prophet foretold in Deut. 18:15

(comp. ch. 1:21; Matt. 16:14); others thought that he might even be the Messiah. See ver. 31. The opponents of Christ based their opposition not upon his character or that of his teaching, but upon their Jewish prejudice to his supposed Galilean origin. There is no good ground for the conclusion, arrived at by some rationalistic critics from John’s language here, that he did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Writing his Gospel many years after the main facts of Christ’s birth, life, and death were known throughout the church, he here simply narrates as an historian the objections which the Judeans made to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah; to have pointed out their mistake would have been a work of supererogation. Alford’s note on this point is quite conclusive: “De Wette’s ‘probability that John knew nothing of the birth at Bethlehem’ reaches much further than may appear at first. If John knew nothing of it, and yet the mother of the Lord lived with him, the inference must be that she knew nothing of it—in other words, that it never happened.”

OFFICERS OF THE CHIEF PRIESTS.

45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?

46 The officers answered, Never[300] man spake like this man.

[300] Luke 4:22.

45, 46. Then came the officers. Not Roman soldiers, but temple police, answering to the modern constable or the Roman lictor or the English beadle. They had been directed by the officers of the Sanhedrim to arrest Jesus (ver. 32). Presumptively this return of the officers occurred several days after their commission to make the arrest. They had been watching him during the feast.—Never man spake like this man. They were not overawed by the multitude, but by the words of Christ himself. There is no stronger testimony, even in the Gospels, to the marvellous moral power of Christ’s personality and words than this declaration of the temple police, who were probably ignorant but also simple men, without the culture, but also without the religious prejudices, of the rulers. In the life of Whitefield are several illustrations of analogous moral power over roughs who had come to the preaching to break it up, but who remained spell-bound under its influence. To have elicited such testimony as this from such men as these, Jesus must have possessed the power of a true oratory.

47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?

48 Have any of the rulers[301] or of the Pharisees believed on him?

[301] ch. 12:42; Jer. 5:4, 5; 1 Cor. 1:26.

49 But this people, who knoweth not the law, are cursed.

47-49. The language of the Pharisaic rulers is that of unbounded scorn for Jesus and for the multitude. The latter are declared to be under divine wrath and cursed with moral blindness because they have an admiration for such a Sabbath-breaker. “All here is wonderfully living and characteristic. The faint effort of the officers to execute the command of their masters; the awe which held them back; their simple confession of the power which they found in the words of Jesus; the surprise of the Sanhedrim that the infection should have reached even their servants; their terror lest there might be traitors in the camp, lest any Pharisee or lawyer (probably some eyes were turned on Nicodemus) should have been carried away by the impulse to which the crowd, naturally enough, had yielded; their scorn of the people, as wretched, ‘accursed’ men, utterly ignorant of the law—who does not feel as if he were present in that convocation of doctors? as if he were looking at their perplexed and angry faces? as if he were hearing their contemptuous words?”—(Maurice.)

50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he[302] that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)

[302] ch. 3:2.

51 Doth[303] our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth?

[303] Deut. 17:8; Prov. 18:13.

52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search and look: for out of Galilee[304] ariseth no prophet.

[304] Isa. 9:1, 2.

50-52. On the character of Nicodemus, see notes on ch. 3. The impression which Jesus had made upon him in that interview was an abiding one. There is a covert sarcasm in his question here, Doth our law judge the man except it first hear him and know what he doeth? They themselves knew not the law, and were openly disregarding it. The Rabbinical laws explicitly required that every accused person should have a hearing, with an opportunity to confront the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them. See Vol. I, p. 298. That Nicodemus’ rebuke was felt by the Pharisees is shown by the tone of their answer. They replied, not by argument, but by a sneer, Art thou also of Galilee? and by a falsehood, Out of Galilee hath arisen (perfect, not present) no prophet. Jonah was of Galilee (2 Kings 14:25), Elijah very probably so (1 Kings 17:1;—Alford), and Nahum either of Galilee or of Assyria, a heathen land (Nahum 1:1). The prejudices of the Pharisees led them to forget their history as well as their law. In lieu of doth our law judge any man? read the man, i. e., this man; Nicodemus refers specifically to Jesus. In lieu of ariseth read hath arisen; though there is some uncertainty. Alford gives the present tense, ariseth; Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Meyer, with greater probability, the past tense, hath arisen. With either reading the meaning is substantially the same; not, as Godet, The promised prophet is not now arising, but, as Meyer and Alford, No prophet ever ariseth from Galilee.

53 And every man went unto his own house.

53. This verse belongs with the next chapter.

CHAPTER VIII.

Ch. 7:53 to 8:11. THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.—Illustrates: The tact of Christ—The precept, Judge not, that ye be not judged—The power of conscience—The Christian treatment of the fallen.

Preliminary Note.—Verse 53 of ch. 7 belongs unquestionably with the first eleven verses of ch. 8. Whether the whole passage is really a part of John’s Gospel or no is one of the most difficult and doubtful questions in Biblical criticism. The weight of critical authority is against it; the weight of internal evidence is in its favor. For a complete discussion of the considerations pro and con, the student must be referred to the commentaries of Alford, Meyer, Luthardt, and Godet, the last being, of the three, the most comprehensive in its treatment. Here I give briefly (1) the facts, (2) the different opinions, (3) my own conclusion.

I. The facts. (1) The passage in question is wanting in many if not most of the best MSS.; pre-eminently the Alexandrian, the Vatican, the Ephraem, and the Sinaitic. Of the great manuscripts, the Cambridge alone contains it. (2) It is transposed in some documents; one places it in John after 7:36; ten at the end of John; four in the Gospel of Luke, at the close of ch. 21. (3) In those MSS. which contain it there are great variations. Griesbach distinguishes three entirely different texts; the ordinary text, that of the Cambridge MS., and that resulting from a collection of other MSS. Alford gives these three in his Greek Testament. Sixty various readings are found in these twelve verses. “No genuine apostolic text has ever undergone such alterations.”—(Godet.) (4) The style and character of the narrative is strikingly unlike John. These differences are partly verbal, and are apparent only to the Greek scholar. Ten expressions are given by Meyer as non-Johannean. They are partly structural, and as easily recognized by the English reader as by the Greek scholar. Such are the propounding of a question concerning the law to tempt Christ, and the departure of Christ at night from the temple, both of which agree rather with the Synoptics’ account of the last sojourn in Jerusalem than with John’s account of this period of Christ’s ministry. If the account is omitted altogether, the discourse in ch. 7 and that in ch. 8 appear to be in close connection; the interruption of this incident is not very clearly cognate to either discourse; and it is not John’s habit to narrate incidents that are not connected with and do not lead to some discourse of the Lord. (5) Among the fathers Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Tertullian are altogether silent about the passage; Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine recognize it as authentic; among critical scholars Lucke, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Schenkel, Godet, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and Schaff apparently agree in regarding it as an addition by some other hand to John’s Gospel; Bengel and Hilgenfeld are the only scholars of widely recognized reputation who defend its Johannean authorship. (6) But though the narrative is unlike John, the act is very like Jesus. The whole scene possesses an air of historic reality: the arrest of the woman, the demand on Jesus, the Pharisaic contempt for public morality in obtruding the crime and the criminal on public attention in the temple courts; the attempt to entrap Jesus; the skill of his reply; the subtle recognition of the woman’s shame and despair, and the gentle avoidance of adding to it, in turning the public gaze from her to himself by writing on the ground; the final confusion of the Pharisees and release of the woman. It is impossible to believe that any monkish mind conceived of this and added it to the narrative. The deed is the deed of Christ, whether or no the record is the record of John.

II. Opinions. These are three: (1) That the narrative belongs here; was written by John, and was expunged from the Gospel at an early date because it was feared that an immoral use would be made of it. This was Augustine’s opinion. But this hypothesis does not account for the variety of readings, nor for peculiarities in character and diction which make it unlike John’s Gospel. (2) That it is an interpolation of a later age, for a purpose, by some early copyist. But the copyist who could have conceived this incident must have possessed the moral genius of Christ himself. “It is eminently Christlike, and full of comfort to penitent outcasts. It breathes the Saviour’s spirit of holy mercy, which condemns the sin and saves the sinner. It is parallel to the parable of the prodigal, the story of Mary Magdalene, and that of the Samaritan woman, and agrees with many express declarations of Christ that he came not to condemn, but to save the lost (John 3:17; 12:47; Luke 9:56; 19:10; comp. John 5:14; Luke 7:37, etc.). His refusal to act as judge in this case has a parallel in a similar case related in Luke 12:13-15.”—(Schaff.) (3) That it is a tradition of the apostolic age, and was incorporated in the present evangelical narratives, probably in the second or third century, but in different forms and in different places. It may have been originally part of one of the lost Gospels. Eusebius relates that the work of Papias contained “the history of a woman accused before the Lord of numerous sins, a history contained also in the Gospel of the Hebrews.” This opinion, which is substantially that of Godet, Meyer, Luthardt, and Alford, accounts for the existence of the narrative, the apparent truthfulness of it, the variations of form, and the non-Johannean characteristics of style. It seems to me inherently the most probable. On internal grounds it seems to me clear that the narrative is historical; on critical grounds that it is not John’s; who was its author and how it became incorporated in John’s Gospel is a matter only of conjecture.

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

Ch. 7:53 to 8:1, 2. Every man went unto his own house; Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. The force of the contrast is impaired by the unfortunate and unnatural break between the two clauses of what should be printed as a single sentence. The auditors had homes; Jesus had no where to lay his head; and if, as is probable, this incident belongs to the Passion week, it was not safe for him to spend a night within the city walls. He either spent it on the mount or went beyond it to Bethany, the home of his friends Martha and Mary.—He sat down and taught them. One of the indications that this passage is not from John; for “it is not in John’s manner to relate that Jesus taught them, without relating what he taught” (Alford).

THE MOUNT OF OLIVES. (From the wall of Jerusalem.)

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now[305] Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

[305] Lev. 20:10.

3-5. Brought unto him a woman. There was no reason why they should have brought her to him, except for the purpose of involving him in difficulty.—When they had set her in the midst. This public exposure to shame was itself a terrible punishment, and aroused the pity, the shame, and the indignation of Jesus.

It was not done in the interest of public morals. They were flagrantly disregarded in this obtrusion of a public scandal into the midst of the temple worship, by accusers who cared not for her, nor for the general public, if they could but involve in perplexity and bring into disrepute the Rabbi whom they so bitterly hated.—In the very act. The man was equally amenable under the Mosaic law to the death penalty (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). But the man they had let go; for then, as now, society punished the guilty woman, but not the guilty man.—That such should be stoned. Stoning was only commanded by Moses for unfaithfulness in a betrothed virgin (Deut. 22:23, 24). But infidelity in a wife is made by the preceding verse punishable with death, and perhaps, by implication, the same form of death.

THE WOMAN AND HER ACCUSERS.
“He that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her.”

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

6. This they said tempting him. The commentators have been needlessly puzzled to explain how Christ’s answer to this question could have furnished matter for accusation. The Pharisees would have accused him to the people, not to the Roman government. The law of Moses was a dead letter. There is no authentic instance in post-Mosaic history of an execution under it. Divorce was easy, and the injured husband generally avoided public disgrace by simply separating from his unfaithful wife. Could Christ refuse to adjudge the case? He had claimed to be King of Israel, in the Sermon on the Mount, had put his own precepts above those of Moses, and had proclaimed a far more stringent law of purity than Moses ever enacted (Matt. 5:27-32). Could he acquit her, and so set aside the Mosaic law? He had declared that not one jot or tittle of it should pass away till all was fulfilled, and that whoever relaxed the least of its precepts should be least in his kingdom. Could he condemn her? He would thus revive an obsolete statute, and enforce it against a hapless and defenceless woman—he who had come to seek and to save the lost, who had received the publican and harlot among his disciples, and had accepted the homage of a notorious woman of the town (Luke 7:36-39). It often happens that people are unwilling to have a teacher set aside in theory a law which they are equally unwilling to see enforced in practice. Only a small minority is willing in our own day to abolish capital punishment; but only rarely is a jury willing to inflict it. There are comparatively few persons who are willing to live according to the Sabbath law which they wish their minister to preach.—But Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground. The words as though he heard them not are an addition of the translators, though at least one manuscript contains the idea. What was the meaning of this action? Various opinions have been suggested, e. g., a usual act signifying preoccupation of mind (Alford); to hide his own confusion, the shock to his own moral sensibility by the grossness of the Pharisees’ public abuse of the woman (Geikie); as a judge, for a judicial sentence is not only pronounced, but written (Godet); as a refusal to interfere, a sign that he paid no attention to their question (Meyer, Luthardt). His object in this writing seems to me to be interpreted by its result. It turned all eyes from the wretched woman, in an anguish of shame and terror, to himself. She stood alone and forgotten; all eyes were then and have ever since been fixed on the figure of Christ, wondering what and why he wrote in the dust. It is not fanciful to note the contrast between this writing and that prescribed in case of the trial of a suspected adulteress by the Mosaic law (Numb. 5:23). The priest was to write certain curses in a book, then wash them with bitter water, which the accused was required to drink, that the curses might enter into her if she were guilty. Christ, on the contrary, writes his sentence on the sand, where, in a moment, it will be effaced by the pardon, “Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.” What he wrote has been made a matter of ingenious rather than profitable conjecture. The most probable conjecture is that he wrote the sentence, “He that is without sin amongst you,” etc., thus enabling the Pharisees, if they had not been too passionately intent on their design, to avoid his public rebuke.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you,[306] let him first cast a stone at her.

[306] Deut. 17:7; Rom. 2:1, 22.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

7-9. So when they continued asking. They would not take the rebuke of his quiet contempt. Had they stopped to think, conscience would have answered their inquiry; but they were too eager; they did not hear what it had to say to them; Christ must interpret its voice; and he did so with a poignant rebuke.—He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Christ puts on them the problem with which they had sought to perplex him. In their vindictive haste they had forgotten the provision of the law that the witnesses on whose testimony the accused was condemned should cast the first stone (Deut. 17:5-7). They had also forgotten the provision of the Rabbinical law that, in case of accusation, if the husband was not guiltless, the wife could not be condemned (Lightfoot). Christ recalls these two principles, and leaves them to solve their own problem. Go on, he says in effect, and try and condemn the accused according to your own law. Let the sinless cast the first stone. But a deeper meaning is in his words. Unchastity was a universal sin in the first century. Its extent in Palestine is illustrated by the licentious lives of the Herods, father and sons. Nowhere was this vice more flagrant and unrestrained than among the priests, whose licentiousness was no secret to the common people (see Matt. 12:39; James 4:4). It was this revelation of their own guilt, implied in the words and easily understood by the people, which stung them, and drove them, self-condemned, one by one, from the presence of both the accused and the judge.—And again he stooped down. To give conscience in them an opportunity to assert itself, with as little resistance as possible from pride. He gave them no opportunity to answer; he did not look to see who was first to withdraw.—Beginning with the elders. The word rendered eldest (πρεσβυτέρων) is almost universally rendered elders, generally as an official designation, and frequently in connection with the word ruler (e. g., Matt. 15:2; 16:21; Mark 8:31; 15:1; Luke 7:3; 22:52). Here it seems to me more probably to designate rank (Lucke, De Wette) than age (Luthardt, Godet). The leaders in the accusation were the first to withdraw. The words “even unto the last” are wanting in most MSS.—Jesus was left alone. The circle of accusers had all withdrawn. The people and the disciples may have still remained; hence the woman is described as “standing in the midst;” that is, of the auditors who, before this interruption, had been listening to the teaching of Jesus (ver. 2). The woman remains waiting, as if to receive the sentence of Jesus. The people remain waiting to hear the end of this strange episode.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn[307] thee: go, and sin[308] no more.

[307] ch. 3:17.

[308] ch. 5:14.

10, 11. Hath no man condemned thee? They had then all withdrawn?—Neither do I condemn thee. He contrasts himself with the accusers; they could not, he will not. He does not, however, pronounce her forgiven. There is no evidence of repentance or of faith, as, for example, in the case of the woman that was a sinner in Luke 7:37. His language condemns the sin, and it gives opportunity for repentance to the sinner. “It is a declaration of sufferance, not of justification.”—(Godet.)—Go, and sin no more. Comp. ch. 5:14. The object of divine forgiveness is a divine life in the forgiven.

Ch. 8:12-20. CHRIST’S DISCOURSE CONCERNING HIMSELF.—He is light, liberty, life.—He gives light to those that follow his example, liberty to those that obey his word, life to those that put their faith in him.—He is attested by his own character and by his Father’s witness.—He is made known in and by his passion and death.—His Father is the source of his teaching, his works, and his character.—His characterization of wilful oppugners of the truth: children of the world; children of the devil.—Christ’s short method with deists (ver. 46). See note at end of chapter.

The exact chronology of the events from this point to the close of the tenth chapter is very uncertain and quite unimportant. One characteristic feature of the feast of the Tabernacles was the illumination of the temple; the two great candelabra of the Court of the Women were lighted, and it is said in the Rabbinical hooks that the light shone all over Jerusalem. Since Christ was accustomed to take his text from passing events, it is a not improbable surmise that this illumination afforded the suggestion for the discourse on the divine light which follows. The illumination of the temple commemorated the pillar of fire, as the ceremony of drawing water (see ch. 7:37, etc., notes) commemorated the striking of the rock in Horeb and the gift of water from it, and the dwelling in booths recalled the time when Israel dwelt in tents and booths in the wilderness. We may therefore see in Christ an antitype of the fiery cloud that guided Israel in their pilgrimage, and in the Shechinah filling the Tabernacle (Exod. 40:34, 35), an illustration of the light which Christ imparts to those that follow him.

12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I[309] am the light of the world: he that[310] followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

[309] chaps. 1:4; 9:5.

[310] ch. 12:35, 46.

12. I am the light of the world. The illumination of the temple lighted Jerusalem; that of the fiery cloud, Israel. Christ is the light, not merely of his disciples, or of the Jewish nation, but of the world, a word which here, as always in the N. T., stands for the whole human race. Comp. ch. 1:4, 9, notes. He is the light as well as the life, coming to instruct as well as to revive; a Saviour from ignorance as well as from wilful sin. Therefore no ignorance or doubt need keep the soul that desires light away from Christ. He need not wait for instruction, any more than for reformation, before he comes to Christ.—He that follows me need not walk in darkness. The best reading is subjunctive, not indicative. Following Christ, not believing something about him, is the way out of darkness into light. Comp. ch. 7:17, and note the fact that in no single instance did Christ call on any one of his disciples to form correct opinions about him before becoming his follower. They followed first and learned afterward. Even he who doubts whether Christ is not a myth can still follow the ideal life.—But shall have the light of life. That is, the light which guides and nourishes the true, the spiritual life. Comp. ch. 6:48, “bread of life.” See Ps. 119:105, where the Bible is compared to a lantern carried to light the path on a dark night. He is a light not for the illumination of doubtful questions in science or metaphysics or abstract theology, but for the solution of practical problems in the moral and spiritual life.

13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou[311] bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

[311] ch. 5:31.

14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but[312] ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

[312] chaps. 7:28; 9:29, 30.

13, 14. Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. See ch. 5:31, note; perhaps the Pharisees here refer to Christ’s declaration there.—Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true; for I know whence I have come (my origin) and whither I go (my destiny). In general no man can bear testimony of himself, however truthful he may be, for no man understands his own mission. He may faithfully do from day to day the work which God gives him to do, and yet not comprehend the relation which that work bears to the great problems of life and destiny which the Eternal Spirit is working out in the race. But Christ could bear record of himself, for he knew himself; he knew the Father; he knew his own origin and his own destiny; and he knew the relation which his life and death sustained to the world’s life.—Ye know not (not merely cannot tell) whence I am coming and whither I am going. Christ knew whence he had come (ἠλθον, past tense), i. e., from the glory he had with the Father from the beginning of the world (chaps. 1:1; 17:5); the Pharisees did not know whence he was ever coming (ἔρχομαι, present tense), i. e., they had no spiritual sense to perceive and appreciate that divine grace of which he was ever the recipient, and that constant communion with the Father from which he was ever bringing divine light and life wherewith to bless his followers.

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I[313] judge no man.

[313] chaps. 3:17; 12:47.

16 And yet if I judge, my[314] judgment is true: for[315] I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

[314] 1 Sam. 16:7; Ps. 45:6, 7; 72:2.

[315] verse 29; ch. 16:32.

15, 16. Ye judge according to the flesh. They therefore rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah, because he did not come with the earthly pomp, or bring the earthly deliverance, which they had expected.—I judge no one. Yet his fan is in his hand; and even while he lived he was sifting the wheat from the tares. He judges not; the world is self-judged and self-condemned. Every soul that rejects the light doth thereby write its own condemnation. “Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).—Yet if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. Comp. ch. 5:30. The Spirit of the Father, given without measure to Christ, makes his spiritual judgments absolutely without error. In the measure in which this spirit is received and followed by the disciple, it similarly makes the disciple’s judgments true. See Matt. 16:19, note; John 20:22, 23.

17 It is also written[316] in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

[316] Deut. 17:6; 19:15.

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father[317] that sent me beareth witness of me.

[317] ch. 5:37.

19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye[318] neither know me, nor my Father: if[319] ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

[318] verse 55; chaps. 16:3; 17:25.

[319] ch. 14:7, 9.

20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury,[320] as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for[321], his hour was not yet come.

[320] Mark 12:41.

[321] ch. 7:30.

17-20. Also in your own law. Not in our law; Christ never classes himself with the Jews, nor counts himself as under their law. He obeys it, not because it is binding, but by a voluntary subjection, for example’s sake (Matt. 3:15; 17:27). The reference here is to Deut. 17:6; 19:15.—I am one that bear witness concerning myself. Not merely nor mainly by words; for Christ said comparatively little in public concerning his character; but by his life and works. See John 14:11.—And the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. By direct declarations to his divine character and mission (Matt. 3:17; John 12:28); by the testimony of prophets and apostles, especially of John the Baptist (Luke 2:28-32, 38; John 1:32-34, 36); by the voice of angels (Luke 2:9-14); by the miracles wrought (John 11:42); but still more by that manifestation of the divine presence which made itself felt in many ways in Christ’s person, as in his attraction of publicans and sinners to himself, his expulsion of the traders from the temple, his passing through the mob at Nazareth, etc. Godet tells a story in illustration of the power of this witness of the Spirit. About 1660, Hedinger, chaplain to the Duke of Wurtemberg, took the liberty of censuring his sovereign, at first in private, but afterward in public, for a serious fault. The latter, much enraged, sent for him, resolved to punish him. Hedinger, after seeking strength by prayer, repaired to the prince, the expression of his countenance betokening the peace and the presence of God. The prince, after looking at him for a moment, asked, in agitation, “Why did you not come alone?” and dismissed him unharmed. The vital communion of this servant of God with his God was a sensible fact, even to one whom anger had exasperated. Comp. Acts 4:13; 6:15.—Who is your Father? Asked, not in perplexity, for Christ’s reference to God as his Father had been so frequent at Jerusalem that they could not have misunderstood his meaning, but in scorn. Christ’s reply is adapted to the spirit of their inquiry.—Ye neither know me nor my Father. They gloried in being the peculiar people of God; but they as little apprehended him as they did Christ his Son.—If ye had known me ye would have known my Father also. For the Son is the way to the Father. The converse of this proposition is also true, He that knows the Father will know the Son. Both are known by the spiritual sense; and the same faculty which appreciates the divine qualities resplendent in the Son will answer to and be ready to receive and be impressed by the divine qualities in the invisible Spirit, the Father whom no one hath seen or can see.—In the treasury. See Luke 21:1, note. The thirteen trunks or chests placed for the reception of the gifts of the worshippers, and properly called the treasury, were in the Court of the Women. Each bore an inscription, indicating the use to which the money placed therein was devoted. Probably either that part of the Women’s Court where these chests stood, or, more probably, an adjoining apartment used in connection with them, perhaps where the money was kept, was also designated the treasury, and it is this apartment that is indicated by the word here.—For his hour was not yet come. See ch. 7:30, note.

21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye[322] shall seek me, and[323] shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye[324] cannot come.

[322] ch. 7:34.

[323] Job 20:11; Ps. 73:18-20; Prov. 14:32; Isa. 65:20; Ephes. 2:1.

[324] Luke 16:28.

21. I go away. Not my way, a translation for which there is no authority whatever in the original.—And ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins. In your sins means not, by reason of your sins, but, while continuing in a state of sin. This verse is not to be taken as an evidence that a sincere and contrite seeking of Christ as a pardoning and redeeming Saviour will ever be in vain. It is interpreted by many a so-called death-bed repentance, in which deliverance from a future penalty is sought, without any real contrition of heart for past sins. But, coupled with the next clause, it seems to me strongly opposed to the doctrine of a universal restitution.—Whither I go ye cannot come. Compare ch. 7:34, “Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come,” and contrast ch. 14:3, “I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” See also ch. 17:24.

22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said[325] therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for[326] if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

[325] verse 21.

[326] Mark 16:16.

22-24. Will he kill himself? This they said to each other, partly in perplexity, partly in scorn. Contrast their different interpretation but similar spirit in ch. 7:35. Christ, in his reply, repels the idea that he had referred to his death; they cannot come where he is going, because he is going to that heaven from which he first came, and they are of the earth earthy. Comp. 1 Cor. 15:50, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”—Ye are from beneath, I am from above. This statement is interpreted by the clause which follows.—Ye are of (from, ἐκ) this world, I am not of (from, ἐκ) this world. Man is born of the flesh, and therefore is flesh, needing to be born anew and from above in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven (ch. 3:5, 6). Christ was born, even in his earthly nature, of the Spirit (Luke 1:35), was from his birth the Son of God, and therefore did not need to experience the new birth. Though John does not describe his supernatural birth, he recognizes it. Christ’s language here would be incomprehensible but for the interpretation afforded by the narratives of his advent in Matthew and Luke. The declaration “Ye are from beneath” here is not equivalent to the declaration of ver. 44, “Ye are of your father the devil.” Here he speaks only of the earthly nature inherited; there of the wilful sin superadded.—If ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins. In the phrase “I am” there is a reference to Exod. 3:14, and the language implies the divinity of Christ, and would be so understood by his Jewish auditors, and was so understood by them. See ver. 38 and note. But it is not equivalent to a general statement that belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ is essential to salvation. It was addressed to men who had abundant reason to believe that Christ was the divine Messiah of prophecy, and who were wilfully ignorant of the truth. We must not give the words any wider application than our Lord gave to them himself. To reject Christ is fatal; to be ignorant of him is not.

25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

25. Who art thou? A question asked possibly partly in perplexity and partly in scorn, but more for the purpose of evoking an answer which would give them a point for an attack upon Christ.—Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. The grammatical difficulties in the correct rendition of this passage are almost insuperable, and no two scholars give exactly the same shade of meaning to it, while none of the interpretations afforded are altogether satisfactory, even to the interpreter. The principal interpretations are: (1) What I from the beginning am teaching you? do you ask that? An interrogative expression of surprise. According to this view Christ does not answer the question at all. (2) Why indeed do I still speak to you at all? A language of reproach. (3) Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning, the rendering of our English version. (4) Essentially that which also I discourse to you; i. e., You are to ascertain my nature by a study of my discourses. Neither one of these interpretations, it will be seen, affords a direct answer to the question.

26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but[327] he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

[327] ch. 7:28.

27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

26, 27. Many things I have which I might say, and many sentences which I might pronounce concerning you. The meaning and the connection is obscure, and the translation which I have given is not so literal as that of the English version. But Christ elsewhere declares that he has not come to judge the world (ver. 15; chaps. 3:17; 12:47), and to understand him here to assert the contrary makes his utterances contradictory. Moreover, if we interpret his declaration as the English version does, it is difficult to see any connection with the preceding or the subsequent clause. I understand therefore that he means that he has many things to say, and many judgments formed in his own mind, which he might pronounce, but that he will only speak those things which he has been commissioned by the Father to speak; and his commission at this time is not to judge, but to save the world.—They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. Strange! Less strange, perhaps, than it now seems to us, for we read this discourse in the light of eighteen centuries of Christianity. So far, too, Christ had not designated by any title the One who had sent him. He had veiled his meaning, as he did in the parables, that he might not be fully understood at once; for he could hope to get lodgment for the truth only by gradually unfolding it. “There is no accounting for the ignorance of unbelief as any minister of Christ knows by painful experience.”—(Alford.)

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up[328] the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

[328] chaps. 3:14; 12:32.

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

30 As he spake these words, many[329] believed on him.

[329] ch. 10:42.

28-30. When ye have lifted up the Son of man. The phrase Son of man was used by the rabbis, who borrowed it from David, for the Messiah (see Matt. 10:23, note). The Greek verb here rendered lifted up (ὑψόω) is used by John only with reference to the crucifixion (chaps. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34), but everywhere else in the N. T. is used in the sense of exalted, and is so translated except in James 4:10. See Matt. 11:23; Luke 1:52; Acts 2:33; 5:31, etc. This fact is of itself an indication that John’s Gospel was written after the cross had been seen to be the means by which Christ was himself exalted, his glory, not his shame. It is the cross which has led to his recognition among men as the Son of God (Mark 15:39; 1 Cor. 1:23, 24); to his exaltation by the Father (Phil. 2:8-10); to his adoration in heaven (Rev. 5:12).—Ye shall know that I am. See on ver. 24. The passion and death of Christ is the attestation of his divinity (Mark 15:39).—I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me I speak these things. In Christ’s time the things done, i. e., the miracles, were recognized as signs of divine presence and power; more and more the words spoken are recognized as still greater signs of the divine presence and power. The word is more than the external work, the truth is greater than the miracle.—He that sent me is with me. The Son is a manifestation of the Father, because the Father is ever in and working and speaking through the Son. He is not merely an ambassador sent by, he is a tabernacle in which dwells, the Eternal King. So Christ, who sends forth his disciples (ch. 17:18), is ever with them (ch. 14:17, 23; Matt. 28:20).—The Father hath not left me alone; for I do those things that please him always. Always is emphatic. In this uniformity of obedience to the Father’s will is the secret of the abiding of his presence; it is true for us, as for Christ, that doing the Father’s pleasure secures the divine fellowship (chaps. 14:21; 15:10).—Many believed on him. Comp. ch. 12:42. Faith, like knowledge, is of different degrees, and the quality of this faith is not indicated. It may have been like the seed received on stony places (Matt. 13:20, 21). But beware of understanding here, or anywhere, by this phrase a mere intellectual belief in Christ as either Rabbi, Prophet, or Messiah. To believe on always signifies an emotion or heart action. “Our Lord’s words did not appeal to the understanding; they were not argumentative; we cannot account for their influence by any processes of logic. So far as we can judge from a very simple statement, they went straight to the heart; the faith which they called forth was a faith of the heart.”—(Maurice.)

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue[330] in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

[330] Rom. 2:7; Col. 1:23; Heb. 10:38, 39.

32 And ye shall know[331] the truth, and the truth shall make you free.[332]

[331] Hos. 6:3.

[332] ch. 17:17; Ps. 119:45; Rom. 6:14, 18, 22; James 1:25; 2:12.

33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in[333] bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

[333] Lev. 25:42.

31-33. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed. A promise and a condition. The thing promised is discipleship. “They should be—what? Saints? divines? doctors? No; but what is much better than any of the three—what all the three should wish to be raised into—disciples. They will then be learners, learners sitting continually at the feet of the true Teacher.”—(Maurice.) The theology of Christ is a progressive theology; the promise to his followers is not that they shall be learned, acquiring the truth once for all, but learners, ever acquiring it more and more. This promise is conditioned on—what? Receiving his word? defending his word? No; but abiding in his word, i. e., living, moving, and having their being in it. The word of Christ cannot be accepted once for all; the soul, to be nourished on it, must abide in it, as the body abides in and is nourished by the atmosphere (comp. chaps. 5:38; 6:56; 15:4-10; 1 John 2:6, 10, 14, etc.; 3:6). To be Christ’s disciples indeed, we must continue (Matt. 13:20, 21; John 6:66; Col. 1:23; Heb. 10:38; Rev. 2:7-11, 17) in (John 15:1-7; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27) the word of Christ (Matt. 11:29, 30; 1 Cor. 3:11; Gal. 1:8).—And ye shall know the truth. Living according to the word of Christ is the condition precedent to a true apprehension of the truth. Christ teaches that life precedes creed; the church has too often reversed this, making the creed precede life. But a creed that does not grow out of spiritual experience is dead. There is no virtue in the doctrine of native depravity except as an outgrowth of personal humility; nor in belief in a personal God, except as it is rooted in a living experience of faith in him.—And the truth shall make you free. This, too, the church has often reversed, bringing men into bondage unto a creed, instead of using the creed as an instrument to enlarge their intellectual independence.—We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any one. This is the language of pride, and it is not more true than the language of pride is ordinarily. Politically the nation had been in bondage to Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome. Spiritually it had been in bondage to idolatries in past times, e. g., the reign of Manasseh, and was now in bondage to the rabbis, literalists in interpretation, and without spirituality or sympathy (Matt. 23:4). Christ, however, rarely enters into argument; he makes no attempt to refute their statement, pays no heed to their interruption, but goes on with his discourse.

34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever[334] committeth sin is the servant of sin.

[334] Rom. 6:16, 20; 2 Pet. 2:19.

35 And the servant[335] abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

[335] Gal. 4:30.

36 If[336] the Son therefore shall make you free, ye[337] shall be free indeed.

[336] Isa. 61:1.

[337] Rom. 8:2; Gal. 5:1.

34-36. Whosoever committeth sin (lives in the commission of sin) is the slave (not servant) of sin. He is in bondage to sin. For action forms habit, and habit becomes second nature. Thus every sinful act tends to bring the soul into bondage to the law of evil habit. Striking illustrations of this law of human nature are afforded by self-indulgence in appetite; but the same principle is involved in all evil-doing—it tends to fasten evil habits on the soul. See Rom. 6:16-18; 7:9-24. And this law belongs to human nature; it is equally operative in Jew and Gentile, in church-member and in man of the world. Every sin helps to weld a chain.—The slave abideth not in the house forever, but the Son abideth ever. The language is parabolic; the meaning seems to me to be this: The world is in bondage; it seems to be under Satan; his promise to Christ, “All these things will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me,” appears not like a vain promise. But this bondage is short-lived. The kingdoms of the world are in truth the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ. He shall reign forever and forever (Rev. 11:15). He, therefore, who yields to the yoke of bondage by conforming to the world gets only a brief advantage, for the period of bondage to sin and Satan will soon be over. He that accepts Christ as his Lord, and acknowledges allegiance to him, will have an eternal freedom in the house which God has built, and over which Christ is to have eternal rule (Heb. 3:2-6). The world is God’s house, not Satan’s.—If the Son therefore shall make you free. From past penalty, by himself bearing it for us; from the bondage of sin, by giving us power to become the sons of God; from the law, by imparting to us a new spiritual life. See Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, especially chaps. 4 and 5, which may be regarded as his sermon on this text.—Ye shall be free indeed. Made free by the truth (ver. 32) as it is in Christ Jesus. For freedom is not independence of all law—that never is and never can be; God himself is not thus free; it is the comprehension and the right use of law. We are free when we perfectly comprehend the laws of nature, i. e., of God, perfectly and cheerfully comply with them, and so know how to get the advantage and profit of them. All progress in material civilization has been attained by increasing knowledge of the divine laws, and consequently an increased use of them. We have yet to learn the gain that there is in a similar comprehension of and obedience to the intellectual and the spiritual laws of the universe. Thus it is that the truth makes free (ver. 32).

37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed: but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38 I[338] speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

[338] ch. 14:10, 24.

37, 38. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed. Not equivalent to I know that ye regard yourselves as Abraham’s seed. The reference is to the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 17:4-8), which involved a promise of divine protection and blessing to the nation. The Pharisees adhere to the idea of political freedom. Christ assents to their declaration that they are the seed referred to in that covenant, but returns to the spiritual idea which underlies his discourse, and emphasizes the extent to which, in character, they have wandered from the pattern set by Abraham.—Nevertheless (ἀλλὰ, notwithstanding you are Abraham’s seed) ye seek to kill me (chaps. 7:1, 19, 32; 8:59; 10:31, 39). To whom were these words spoken?—to the believing Judeans mentioned in ver. 30, or to enemies? The true answer is that believers and unbelievers were intermixed in the crowd, and that it is as little possible for the reader now as it would have been for the observer then to distinguish between them.—Because my word makes no progress in you. They heard it—nay, crowded round him to hear it, were willing and interested listeners. But the truth did not get entrance into their hearts, nor permeate their character. It was not like the leaven hid in three measures of meal. They were thus a type of many modern hearers who listen to the truth, but in whom the truth does not work. The words rendered hath no place (οὐ χωρεῖ) signify, literally, does not work, spread, go forward.—I do that which I have seen with my Father, and ye do that which ye have heard with your father (ἠκούσατε, heard, not ἑωράκατε, seen, is the better reading). Christ approaches a truth whose depths, in our ignorance of the spirit world, we cannot sound. This is that every soul draws its inspiration from an invisible world—either belongs to the kingdom of light and is taught of God, or belongs to the kingdom of darkness and is taught of evil spirits. The unseen companions of the soul are the most influential. Demoniacal possession is only an exceptional fruitage of a universal demoniacal inspiration. See below, on ver. 44.

39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham[339] is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If[340] ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

[339] Matt. 3:9.

[340] Rom. 2:28, 29; 9:7; Gal. 3:7, 29.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this[341] did not Abraham.

[341] Rom. 4:12.

39, 40. Abraham is our father. They recognize, as we all recognize, that there is a source from which are drawn the ideas and the influences which mould our character. This fountain is, according to their conception, Abrahamic. It is true that character is moulded by national influences; but these are not the profoundest nor the most potent.—If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham. Seed they are, children they are not. Descendants? yes! disciples? no! They do not do that which they have heard from Abraham. We are the children of a noble ancestry, the Reformers, the Puritans, and the like, only as we show their spirit in dealing with the men and the problems of our own time.—This did not Abraham. Called of God to leave his country, and his kindred, and his father’s house, he did not resist, but left all to go out, not knowing whither he went. Abraham obeyed the divine message; the seed of Abraham would kill the divine messenger.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we[342] have one Father, even God.

[342] Isa. 63:16; 64:8.

42 Jesus said unto them, If[343] God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but[344] he sent me.

[343] Mal. 1:6; 1 John 5:1.

[344] ch. 17:8, 25.

41, 42. Ye do the deeds of your father. A generic truth; the spiritual paternity of any soul may be known by its deeds; the source of its life is witnessed by the life itself.—We be not born of fornication. It is a Jewish legend to this day that Jesus was born of adultery. This is the Jewish explanation of his premarital birth. I believe that this legend had been invented in Christ’s own time to account for his supernatural birth, and that the expression here is a scornful allusion to this dishonoring report. This, at least, though I do not find it suggested by any of the commentaries, seems to me the most natural explanation of the language of the Pharisees, which has given the scholars no little difficulty. Other explanations suggested—e. g., that Sarah was not an adulteress, and therefore the Jews were certainly children of Abraham (Meyer), or that, unlike the Samaritans, there was no taint of heathen blood in their veins (Alford, Godet)—seem to me unnatural and far-fetched, and are apparently not very satisfactory even to those who suggest them.—We have one Father, even God. They abandon their claim to have derived their life from Abraham, and substitute a claim to derive it from the God of Abraham. Or we may suppose that, the first interlocutors being silenced, others make this assertion.—If God were your Father ye would love me. The practical and present application is that every soul whose life is truly rooted in God will be drawn toward Christ by spiritual sympathy.—For I came forth and am here from God. The first verb (ἐξῆλθον) indicates Christ’s coming forth from the glory which Christ had with the Father from the beginning of the world (John 17:5); the second verb (ἥκω, present formed from a perfect) indicates the perpetual presence of the Father with Christ, and Christ’s continuous manifestation of the Father to the world.—Neither came I of myself. Therefore that phase of theology which represents the Son as interceding to make a just God merciful, and thus induce him to forgive the sinful, is thoroughly false. The mercy of Christ originated with the Father; the mission of Christ was wrought out by the Father. Christ came not of his own will, but of the Father’s. See chaps. 3:16, note; 6:38, note.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my[345] word.

[345] Isa. 6:9.

44 Ye[346] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode[347] not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

[346] Matt. 13:38; 1 John 3:8.

[347] Jude 6.

43, 44. Why do ye not understand my speech? He has thus far spoken parabolically, as though reluctant to characterize them openly as children of the devil. He now abandons the dark saying, and speaks plainly.—Even because ye cannot hear my word. Word is the doctrine taught, speech is the form in which it is clothed; to hear is to receive with the heart, as in Matt. 13:16, 20; John 5:24; 8:47, etc.; to understand is to comprehend intellectually. The implication then is that he who is unwilling to receive and act upon the doctrine of Christ in his heart and life cannot comprehend the forms in which it is couched. The declaration is thus the converse of ch. 7:17.—Ye are from your father the devil. God is the Father of Christ, and of all those who through faith in Christ are born again; they become by adoption his children (Rom. 8:15-17), are sent into the world by their Father (ch. 17:18), and manifest their Father unto the world (Phil. 2:15). In like manner they that resist the truth are children, by their own choice, of the devil, commissioned by him, serving him, and manifesting his spirit, in their selfishness, cupidity, malice, and all uncharitableness. In each case the soul derives its spirit from its own chosen father. The whole contrast would be almost meaningless if by the devil Christ understood only a poetic personification of evil in human nature. There are two households, one of God, the other of Satan; two churches, one of truth and love, the other of falsehood and malignity. “This verse is one of the most decisive testimonies for the objective personality of the devil. It is quite impossible to suppose an accommodation to Jewish views, or a metaphorical form of speech, in so solemn and direct an assertion as this.”—(Alford.)—The will (lusts is too narrow a word; the original signifies earnest desire, but generally of a bad sort) of your father ye are determined to do. Literally, will to do. Resolute determination to evil is clearly indicated by the form of the sentence (θέλετε ποιεῖν). The language of Christ here, therefore, does not apply to sins of ignorance and inattention. He is speaking to wilful opposers of the truth.—He was a murderer from the beginning. Not because he inspired Cain’s murder of his brother Abel, but because, from the very outset, he endeavored to seduce into disobedience, and so to destroy, the human race. His declaration “Ye shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4) was not merely a lie, but a lie having for its object the death of mankind.—Stood not in the truth. It seems to me that there is here a reference to the fall of the devil. So Augustine and the Roman Catholic commentators generally; contra, Meyer, Alford, and the moderns. Satan was in a high position, but he did not stand, because truth was not his foundation, and—Because truth is not in him. No definite article is appended to truth here. Satan did not stand on the truth of God, because in him, in his inner character, truth found no place. We can only stand by the truth when truth is in our inward parts (Ps. 51:6), i. e., in our desires and our affections. The truth must be in us to be under us.—He speaketh of his own. Out of (ἐκ) his own treasury of evil things. So the evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things (Matt. 12:35).—For he is a liar, and the father of it. Or of him; either the father of lying or the father of the liar. Either rendering is grammatically possible. The latter better fits the context.

45 And because[348] I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

[348] Gal. 4:16; 2 Thess. 2:10.

46 Which of you convinceth[349] me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

[349] Heb. 4:15.

47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

45-47. But because I tell you the truth ye believe me not. “A thoroughly tragical because; it has its ground in the alien character of the relation between that which Jesus speaks and their devilish nature, to which latter a lie alone corresponds.”—(Meyer.) Truth has not always its evidence in human nature; for human nature may be so warped as to be more ready to believe a lie than the truth (Rom. 1:21; Ephes. 4:18; 2 Thess. 2:11). If Christ had told a lie they would have believed him, just as many of those who now rejected him did subsequently believe the false Christs of a later date.—Which of you convinceth me of sin. Not of error (Calvin), but of sin (Alford, Godet, Meyer). Indeed, error in Christ’s teaching in this matter would be sin; for if his declaration respecting himself, that he came not from the earth but from above, from the Father, and was the long-anticipated Messiah, was not true, it would have been false and fraudulent—not merely a mistake, but a lie. By this question he asserts, by implication, his sinlessness; he defies his opponents to point out a single sin in his life, a single flaw in his character. And they were speechless, as scepticism has been ever since, before his incomparable character. The argument is this: If I am not the Son of God, find out some human defect that indicates a human origin and kinship. And this has never been done. I imagine a pause, a moment’s expressive silence, no answer from the Pharisees, and then the crushing words that follow, calmly uttered:—If I say the truth, why do ye not believe?—He that is of God—as the Pharisees had claimed to be (ver. 41)—heareth (receiveth) God’s words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. This is Christ’s method with deists. Point out a single flaw in his stainless character. You cannot? Then at least listen with reverent attention to the words of the sinless man. To refuse a hearing to such an one demonstrates hostility to purity and truth, and so to God.

48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and[350] hast a devil?

[350] ch. 7:20.

49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

50 And I[351] seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

[351] ch. 5:41.

48-50. Say we not well thou art a Samaritan and hast an evil spirit? The Jews take to the common resort of men silenced and convinced against their will; they reply to argument by calling names. Devil is an unfortunate translation, giving the English reader the impression that they use the same word which Christ has used in ver. 44. Their word is demon (δαιμόνιον), and signifies primarily, in classic usage, a tutelary demon or genius; in N. T. usage, an evil spirit. These spirits are represented as fallen angels (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), subject to Satan (Matt. 9:34; 25:41; 2 Cor. 12:7; Rev. 12:9), possessing the power of working miracles (Rev. 16:14), dwelling in the idols of the heathen and uttering the heathen responses and oracles (Acts 16:17; 1 Cor. 10:20; Rev. 9:20), and the authors of evil to mankind (2 Cor. 12:7; 1 Tim. 4:1). See Rob. Lex., art. δαιμόνιον. The charge had before been made by the Pharisees that Christ cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils (Matt. 12:24). It is not necessary to trace any connection between the two epithets a Samaritan and possessing a demon. Passion is never coherent. The language is wild, bitter, passionate, but illogical and inconsequential.—I have not a devil * * * * ye do dishonor me. He passes by the charge of being a Samaritan in silence, for the author of the parable of the Good Samaritan refuses to recognize opprobrium in it; he calmly denies the charge of having a demon, and declares that by the discourses which they attribute to a demon he honors the Father, while they dishonor him. Peter’s declaration (1 Pet. 2:23), “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously,” is illustrated by Christ’s response here. Contrast his indignation at the wrong done to others (Matt. 23:14, 15, 23, etc.) with his mildness when wrong is done to himself. And the next verse gives the secret reason of his calmness.—I am not seeking my own glory. Therefore he is comparatively indifferent to public abuse and dishonor.—There is one who seeks and judges. Because God cares for the honor of his children, they can well be unconcerned respecting it; because God judges them righteously, they can well disregard the unrighteous judgments of men.

51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

51. Verily, verily. With Calvin and Godet, I regard Christ’s discourse to his opponents as ended with the preceding verse. Recognizing the fact that some of his auditors have been inclined toward him, though with but a feeble faith, he addresses them in the words that follow, that he may strengthen their faith. The connection which Alford and Meyer endeavor to trace between this and the preceding verse I cannot perceive: e. g., “Ye are now the children of the devil; but if ye keep my word ye shall be rescued from that murderer.”—(Alford.) The very words with which Christ begins the sentence, “Verily, verily” (ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν) indicate a new topic.—If any one. Emphasis is put on the pronoun. The promise is universal; it embraces Jew and Gentile.—Keep my word. Keep, as a guard his prisoner, with watchfulness (Matt. 19:17, note), against all seductions and assaults; Christ’s word, that which he had taught, and therefore pre-eminently that faith in him as a divine Saviour which had been the pre-eminent theme of his teaching. We are to keep not merely the sayings in memory, or the teaching in the heart, but, with sentiments of reverence and affection, the truth in our life, both in the inward experience and in the outward conduct.—Shall not see death for ever. Not, Shall not see eternal death, but, Shall never see death. “The death of the body is not reckoned as death, any more than the life of the body is life, in our Lord’s discourses. See ch. 11:25, 26.”—(Alford.) Christ puts himself in contrast with the devil, whose slaves, by evil-doing, the Jews have become (ver. 34). The devil is a murderer, a life-taker (ver. 44); Christ is a life-giver, even to those that are dead in trespasses and sins (Ephes. 2:1).

52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead,[352] and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

[352] Zech. 1:5.

53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

52, 53. The Judeans. Not the believers of ver. 30. The opponents of Christ reply to words which were not addressed to them.—Abraham is dead. * * * *—Art thou greater than our father Abraham? * * * Whom makest thou thyself? Their argument is, as Chrysostom interprets it: “They who have heard the word of God are dead, and shall they who have heard thee not die?” Their perplexity was real, for the unspiritual never comprehend either spiritual natures or spiritual teaching. They are literalists, and understand Jesus to speak of natural death. They are dull and will not comprehend his declaration that he is the Messiah in hope of whom Abraham and the prophets had lived. Compare with their question here that of the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:12), “Art thou greater than our father Jacob?” but contrast their spirit with hers. She is in doubt; they are scornful. See also Christ’s declaration in Matt. 12:42, “Behold, a greater than Solomon is here.”

54 Jesus answered, If[353] I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father[354] that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

[353] ch. 5:31, 41.

[354] ch. 17:1.

55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he[355] saw it, and was glad.

[355] Gen. 22:13, 14; Heb. 11:13.

54-56. If I glorify myself my glory is nothing. To honor or glorify (δοξάζω) is to attribute honor, generally by words. Christ’s reply to the question, Whom makest thou thyself? is that he makes nothing of himself; he leaves others to interpret his character from his life and teachings. And this is singularly true; Christ is to each soul what its spiritual sight is able to discern in him. He does not declare himself.—It is my Father that glorifieth me. He leaves his reputation in the hands of his Father, an example to his followers when belied and misrepresented. See on ver. 18.—Ye have never learned him, but I know him. There is a double contrast in the two verbs (γινώσκω and οἶδα), the one signifying acquired, the other direct intuitive knowledge; and in the tenses, the one signifying a past act, never have known, the other a perpetually present possession, I always know. The sense may be expressed: Ye have never acquired any knowledge of God, but I am always in fellowship with him.—I should be a liar like unto you. To boast of one’s spiritual experience is to glorify one’s self; such glory is nothing. To deny it, under pretence of humility, is to become a liar. There may be hypocrisy in disavowing the sense of God’s presence and love, as well as in falsely pretending to it. The true method is that of Christ, who showed it by his life, not by his professions.—Your father Abraham exulted that he might see my day (i. e., that it was promised to him); and he has seen it and was glad. There is some difficulty in the interpretation of this passage, to which I have given a literal translation. Some scholars regard it as wholly prophetical, “Abraham rejoiced in anticipation of Christ’s advent;” others as historical but typical, “He rejoiced, seeing in the birth of Isaac a type of the advent of the Messiah,” and they even suppose that Christ refers to Abraham’s laughter (Gen. 17:17); still others interpret it as partly prophetic and partly historical, “He rejoiced in anticipation of the promised advent; he has since seen it from his home in paradise, and was glad.” The latter view seems to me best to accord with the original and with the context. So Godet, Meyer, Alford. For a statement of different views, see Meyer. The declaration is responsive to the question, Art thou greater than our father Abraham? The answer is, Your father Abraham rejoiced because he was promised that he should see my advent, and the realization of his hope has given him new joy in the heavenly kingdom. If this interpretation be correct, the language incidentally confirms the doctrine that the saints in heaven are cognizant of what passes upon earth.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you. Before Abraham was, I[356] am.

[356] ch. 1:1, 2; Exod. 3:14; Isa. 43:13; Col. 1:17; Rev. 1:8.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

57-59. The Judeans therefore said to him, Thou art not yet fifty years old. No indication of his actual age. The fifty years was specified because this was the age of a perfected maturity, according to Jewish notions (Numb. 4:3, 39; 8:24—Lightfoot).—And hast thou seen Abraham? He did not say that he had, but that Abraham had seen him. They pervert his words, partly through stupidity, partly through wilfulness.—Verily, verily. The precursor of a specially solemn declaration.—Before Abraham was born, I am (γίγνομαι-εἰμί). Two Socinian explanations are afforded of this passage: (1) Before Abraham was born I (Christ) existed in the divine counsels, i. e. I was purposed by God and foretold by him; (2) Before Abram can become Abraham, a spiritual father of nations, I (Christ) must be sent forth as the Messiah. They both seem to me to be shifts devised to accommodate Scripture to a theological preconception. All independent Greek scholars (Meyer, Luthardt, Alford, Godet, Tholuck, etc.) agree substantially in their interpretation of the language. Its meaning is made clear by a consideration of the original Greek, in which the contrast is strongly marked between Abraham, who began to be, and Christ, who eternally is; by the context, in which the pre-eminence of Christ above Abraham is clearly implied; by the unexpressed but hardly doubtful reference to the appellation given by the O. T. to Jehovah as the I am (Exod. 3:14; comp. Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; 14:62; John 8:24, 25); and by the interpretation which was put upon Christ’s words by his auditors, who understood them as a claim of divinity, and took up stones to stone him as a blasphemer. Christ, then, by these words, as I understand him, identifies himself, as the N. T. manifestation of the unseen God, with the I am of the O. T., the One who had manifested the Invisible to Israel in all their history.—Then took they up stones to cast at him. The building of the temple was still going on, and stones were probably lying about in the temple court. Stoning was the O. T. punishment for blasphemy, but it could not be lawfully inflicted without trial and judgment.—Jesus hid himself. There is no good ground to suppose any miraculous escape, either here or in Luke 4:30. And there is good reason to believe that there was not a miraculous interposition, for Christ never availed himself of any miracle for his own benefit. See Matt. 4:6, note. The clause “going through the midst of them, and so passed by,” is wanting in the best MSS., and is omitted by Alford, Meyer, Godet, Luthardt. The latter traces a curious analogy between this typical expulsion and the final crucifixion of Christ. He hides himself from the eyes of those whom the God of this world has blinded; he leaves the Pharisees apparent victors and in possession of the field; in taking up stones to stone him they show themselves to be murderers at heart, as they afterward became in outward act.

In this discourse, or these discourses, for it is not quite clear whether it is one or more, the connection is sometimes obscure, and the meaning accordingly difficult. The student must remember (1) that Christ addresses a very different audience from that in Galilee. There he spoke to willing but ignorant disciples; in Jerusalem he speaks to obstinate and perverse enemies. (2) Hence the difference in spirit. In Galilee gentleness is predominant, in Jerusalem severity. (3) The continuity of the discourse is affected by the sudden transitions of feeling in Christ, which are great, as in all natures of deep and ready sympathy. He speaks now with great pathos, as in the question, a semi-soliloquy, Why do ye not understand my speech? (ver. 43), then with indignation, Ye are of your father the devil (ver. 44); now with self-abnegation, I judge no man (ver. 15), If I honor myself my honor is nothing (ver. 54), again with divine self-assertion and the power of an unconcealed divinity, I am from above (ver. 23), Before Abraham was I am (ver. 58). (4) The continuity of his speech is constantly broken in upon by rude interruptions (verses 19, 22, 39, 41, 48, 52, 53, 57), and by changes in the direction of his discourse, which is sometimes addressed to his disciples (ver. 31), and sometimes to his opponents (verses 42, 49, etc.). (5) Nevertheless we may say generally that the discourse embodies Christ’s teaching respecting himself, and embraces the following points: He is (a) the light, i. e., the moral and spiritual illuminator, of the world (ver. 12); (b) superhuman in his origin (ver. 23); (c) the manifestation of the Father, because the tabernacle (ch. 1:14) in which the Father dwells (ver. 29); (d) the emancipator of all those that accept and obey the truth as manifested by him (verses 31-36); (e) sinless (ver. 46); (f) the life-giver (ver. 51); (g) the great I am (ver. 58). To receive the benefit of the light which he confers, we must follow his example (ver. 12); to receive the benefit of the freedom he brings, we must live habitually in the truth which he teaches (verses 31, 32); to receive the life which he bestows, we must be born from above (ch. 3:3) by faith in him as our Messiah (ver. 24).

CHAPTER IX.

Ch. 9:1-41. THE HEALING OF THE MAN BORN BLIND.—A miracle of Christ attested by a judicial investigation.—A parable of redemption.—A lesson in faith. See note at ver. 38.

Preliminary Note.—This miracle is reported only by John. There is nothing peculiar in this, since John alone reports Christ’s Judean ministry, in which it occurred. The place was Jerusalem; the time is uncertain; it was on a Sabbath (ver. 14), in the fall of A. D. 29 (Vol. I, p. 45), between the feast of Tabernacles in October (ch. 7:2) and the feast of Dedication in December (ch. 10:22). Some identify it with the last day of the former feast (ch. 7:37), which was a Sabbath, supposing ch. 7:53 to 8:11 to be an interpolation. It is not probable that it occurred at the time which seems to be indicated by its place in the report furnished by the Evangelists. That Christ stopped on escaping from a mob who threatened to stone him, in order to work this miracle, is not probable; that under such circumstances his disciples should have asked him the abstruse question of ver. 2 is still more improbable. I put it therefore at some other time in his Judean ministry, which lasted a little over two months. See ch. 7, Prel. Note. In studying this chapter the student will do well to observe its natural division into three parts: (1) the miracle (verses 1-7); (2) the investigation (verses 8-33); (3) the result (verses 34-38).

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

1. And passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. To the ordinary reader the connection of this verse with the last verse of the preceding chapter indicates that this miracle was wrought as Jesus passed from the temple driven by the mob. But the latter clause of that verse is of doubtful authenticity. The phrase “passing by” appears to be used here simply to indicate that the miracle of mercy was called forth by the occasion, not by the blind man’s petition nor by any previously formed purpose. “It was he who saw the blind man, not the blind man who came to him; and so earnestly did he look upon him that even his disciples perceived it.”—(Chrysostom.) Compare this case with that in Luke 18:35-43. There the blind man appeals to Christ, here Christ heals without being appealed to. There, in the stillness of the country, the noise of the multitude awakens the attention of the blind man. Here, in the crowded city, there is nothing to announce to the blind man a healer until Christ speaks to him. There, therefore, he awaits the petition; here he does not. Congenital blindness is incurable by modern science. How it was known to the Evangelist that this man was blind from his birth has been questioned. The man appears, from the following narrative, to have been a well-known mendicant. Perhaps he proclaimed the nature and extent of his misfortune as a means of awakening charity.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

2. Who did sin? It was not only a Jewish opinion that such afflictions were a divine punishment for sin, it is the teaching of experience that special diseases are frequently the natural consequence of sin either in the sufferer or in his ancestry, and the teaching of Scripture that all disease, and even death itself, is the fruit of sin. This truth Christ had already recognized in at least two instances (Mark 2:5; John 5:14), and it is enforced both by warnings and by historical illustrations in the O. T. (Lev. 26:16; Deut. 28:22; Numb. 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27). The Jewish error consisted in believing that all special afflictions were divine visitations for special sins (Job 4:7; 8:6), an opinion which was not confined to the Jews (Acts 28:4). This error Christ here corrects. The form of the disciples’ question has given rise to some needless perplexity. How could they, even in imagination, attribute a blindness from birth to the blind man’s own sin? All such explanations as that some among the Jews believed in the transmigration of souls and others in a pre-existent state, and therefore in sins committed in a previous life, and still others in the possibility of sin committed by the unborn babe in the womb, a doctrine deduced by the rabbis from such passages as Gen. 25:22 and Psalm 51:5, are inadmissible, because these refinements in theology, even if actually entertained among the Jewish rabbis, certainly were not accepted among the common people, from whom Christ drew his disciples. The question appears to be in spirit this: What is the explanation of this man’s blindness? his own sin? That cannot be, for he was born blind. Is he then punished for his parents’ sin?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that[357] the works of God should be made manifest in him.

[357] ch. 11:4.

3. Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents. That is, his blindness is not a punishment for his or their sin.—But that the works of God should be made manifest in him. Manifest to us by his miraculous cure; but this is not all. The work of God is to believe on him whom he hath sent (ch. 6:29), and to this belief the blind man was brought by his cure (ver. 38). Thus the work of God was made manifest, not only through him to us, but in him. Thus Christ gives the key to the Christian doctrine of suffering. It is inflicted sometimes as a special punishment for special sins (see references above), but more frequently it is a means of grace, inflicted either that by our endurance we may manifest the grace of God to others (2 Cor. 12:9), or may be taught of God ourselves (Heb. 12:6, 11). Compare with Christ’s language here his declaration concerning the sickness and death of Lazarus (ch. 11:4).

4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

5 As long as I am in the world, I[358] am the light of the world.

[358] chaps. 1:5, 9; 8:12; 12:35, 46.

4, 5. While it is day; the night cometh. The day is life; the night is death. Christ in his human estate was subject to the law under which all his disciples are placed. Death cut short his human work. The day for work is short, the night is at hand; therefore the greater need of earnest and urgent labor. Sleep is a parable of death (Ps. 104:23) that should perpetually remind us that our day is short.—The light of the world. It was prophesied that the Messiah should open the eyes of the blind (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). The direct reference is to Christ’s fulfilment of these prophecies (Luke 4:18, 21). But it is true, in a larger sense, that just so far as Christ is in the world, and accepted by the world, he becomes its light, intellectual, moral, and spiritual (ch. 1:9, note).

6 When he had thus spoken, he spat[359] on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

[359] Mark 8:23.

7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,[360] (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He[361] went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

[360] Neh. 3:15.

[361] 2 Kings 5:14.

6, 7. Spat on the ground * * * * and he anointed the eyes with the clay. Clay and spittle were both believed in ancient times to possess curative properties. Why Christ used them here is a matter only of conjecture. Certainly not as remedies, for one blind from birth could not be cured by a remedy so simple, and he who healed the blind men at Jericho by a touch (Matt. 20:34) had no need here to resort to other means. Not to conceal the miracle, as may have been the case in analogous instances

(see Mark 7:33; 8:23, notes), for here his object was to manifest the works of God, and the result was a public and protracted investigation of his own character. It is noticeable, however, that Christ never cured without giving the healed something to do, as a test of his faith and obedience. Even in the three cases of raising from the dead he called on the mourners, to indicate by their obedience to his direction their faith in him (Matt. 9:24, 25; Luke 7:14; John 11:39, 40). When he was asked to heal, the simple request served as an indication of faith; when, as here, he volunteered the cure, he seems always to have required some act as an evidence of faith. Comp. ch. 5:6-8.—Go, wash in the pool of Siloam. One of the pools in the vicinity of Jerusalem, entitled also Siloah or Shiloah (Neh. 3:15; Isa. 8:6). It is identified with a pool or tank still found in the vicinity of Jerusalem, which stands to the south of the Temple mount, and consists of an oblong tank, partly hewn out of the rock and partly built of masonry, measuring about fifty-three feet in length, eighteen feet in width, and nineteen feet in depth, with a flight of steps leading down to the bottom. Several columns stand out of the side walls, extending from the top downward into the reservoir, the design of which it is now difficult to conjecture. The water passes out of this reservoir through an open channel cut in the rock, which is covered for a short distance, and a few yards off is partly dammed up by the people of the adjoining village of Siloam, for the purpose of washing their clothes, and then divided into small streams to irrigate the gardens below. The water flows into this reservoir from an artificial cave or basin under the cliff. This cave is entered by a small archway hewn in the rock. It is irregular in form, and decreases in size as it proceeds from about fifteen to three feet in height. It is connected with what is known as the Fountain of the Virgin by a remarkable conduit cut through the very heart of the rock in a zigzag form, measuring some seventeen hundred and fifty feet, while the distance in a straight line is only eleven hundred feet. This remarkable fact was discovered by Dr. Edward Robinson, who had the hardihood to crawl through the passage.—Which is by interpretation Sent. The meaning of this addition has been doubted, but does not seem to me to be doubtful. The pool, by its very name, was a symbol of Him who was sent into the world to work the works of God (ver. 4), and who gives light to the world by providing a fountain in which not only all uncleanness is washed away, but all ignorance and blindness of heart.—He went therefore, etc. Compare with the cure of Naaman (2 Kings 5:11, 13), who was in like manner bid to wash in Jordan, and only reluctantly and after angry resistance consented. Observe how great the trial to this blind man’s faith, directed to take so considerable a walk, in his blindness, as a condition of cure. Observe, too, in the miracle a parable of redemption. The whole world lieth in darkness from the beginning (Ps. 107:10; Matt. 4:16; 1 John 5:19); Christ, the light of the world, comes to call us out of darkness into marvellous light (Acts 26:18; 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:13; 1 Pet. 2:9); the condition of receiving that light is faith, exemplified by obedience, without which the soul remains in darkness (chaps. 1:5; 3:19); and he often calls us to prove our faith by walking, in obedience to his direction, in the darkness for a while, in order that we may come into the light (Mark 8:22-26, notes).

8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

8, 9. The neighbors therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was a beggar. The best manuscripts have beggar, not, as in our English version, blind. So Alford and Tischendorf.—Is not this he that sat and begged? Apparently he was a well-known beggar, like the one described in Acts 3:2, 10. Comp. Luke 18:35. He is described as one that sat and begged, in contrast with such as beg from door to door. Beggars of this description having a regular place, where they may always be found soliciting alms, are a not uncommon sight in the East.—Some said, This is he. Others, No! but he is like him. He himself said, I am he. This is the correct rendering of the best reading; it varies slightly from our English version. His own response seems to have settled the question of his identity among the common people. That some should have at first doubted is not strange, considering the alterations in appearance made by the clear eye in place of the sightless eyeballs, and the fact that he was no longer to be found in his accustomed place, begging.

10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?

11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay,[362] and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash; and I went and washed, and I received sight.

[362] verses 6, 7.

12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

10-12. The first investigation is made informally, and without prejudice, by the common people. It is curiosity alone which inquires, and it is easily convinced of the facts in the case.—The man’s reply to his questioners is more laconic in the original than in our English version. It is literally, “And going and washing, I saw.”

It reminds one of Cæsar’s famous report, “I came, I saw, I conquered.” The verb rendered I saw or I received sight (ἀναβλέπω) is literally, I saw again. Sight being the prerogative of humanity, he speaks as though it were really once his prerogative (though in fact he never possessed it), had been lost, and was now recovered to him again.—The question, Where is he? appears to be asked, not in a spirit of enmity, but simply from a natural curiosity and interest to see him who had wrought the cure. Christ’s escape from the blind man and the multitude is analogous to his course on other occasions (comp. ch. 5:13), and is characteristic of one who ordinarily avoided all occasions of public triumph and enthusiasm (ch. 6:15; Matt. 8:4; 9:30; Mark 5:43).

13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

13. Verses 13-34 report a semi-official investigation by the Pharisees, instigated not by a sincere desire to ascertain the truth, nor by mere curiosity, but by a determination to break the force of the miracle that had been wrought. For this purpose they first examine the man (verses 15-17) and his parents (18-21), in hope to prove an imposture; next they subject the man to a further cross-examination in an unsuccessful endeavor to break down his testimony (verses 24-33); failing in that, they do what they can to discredit his testimony by excommunicating him (ver. 34).—The Pharisees. It is generally supposed that this phrase indicates the Jewish court formally assembled, either the Sanhedrim, i. e., the supreme court of the nation, or the lesser Sanhedrim, i. e., one of the local courts in Jerusalem. But the passages cited to show that John uses the term “Pharisees” to designate a court rather indicate the opposite. In both John 7:32, 45-47 and John 11:46, 47, he distinguishes between the “chief-priests and Pharisees” who constituted the council, and the Pharisees who constituted not a body, but a party. I judge then that the investigation which follows is an informal one. It must be remembered that in that age, and even to the present time in that country, no such clear line was drawn as with us between an official and an unofficial trial.

14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How[363] can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And[364] there was a division among them.

[363] verse 31; ch. 3:2.

[364] ch. 7:12, 43.

14-16. The Sabbath day. For analogous case of Sabbath healing, see ch. 5, notes.—Then again the Pharisees also asked him. Not that they had asked him before; the “again” refers to the question by the people in ver. 10.—Some said * * * * Others said. It is a mistake to suppose that all the Pharisees were hypocrites. Among them were such men as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, Saul of Tarsus. See Matt. 3:7, note. But the honest Pharisees were timid, and were easily overborne by their opponents. For account of a similar conflict, see ch. 7:47-52. Observe the inherent vice of Pharisaism, ancient and modern; it puts the ceremonial above humanity; it is of the essence of Christianity that it regards all ceremonials and observances as for humanity (Mark 2:27; note on Matt. 12:8).

17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.[365]

[365] ch. 4:19.

18 But the Jews did not believe[366] concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

[366] Isa. 26:11.

19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?

20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

17-21. What sayest thou of him because he hath opened thine eyes? They ask for the man’s opinion, each party perhaps hoping to get support for its own views.—He is a prophet. At first to the blind man Christ was only “a man that is called Jesus” (ver. 11). The discussion has not only deepened, it has clarified his convictions.—But the Jews did not believe * * * * until they had called the parents. The Pharisees make a twofold endeavor to break the force of the miracle, first by questioning the identity of the man, second by questioning the method of his cure.—So they ask the parents if this is their son, and how he was cured.—His parents answered them, etc. The answer of the parents was probably literally true, but it was evasive.—Their knowledge of the cure was probably derived from their son; hence they justify themselves in referring the inquirers to him. But duty, both to truth and to their son, required that they should have sustained his testimony by their own expressed belief in the miraculous cure.

22 These words spake his parents, because they[367] feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he[368] should be put out of the synagogue.

[367] chaps. 7:13; 12:42; Prov. 29:25.

[368] verse 34; ch. 16:2.

23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

22, 23. Because they feared the Jews.

The term “Jews,” as John uses it, generally means the Judeans, i. e., the inhabitants of Judea, as distinguished from the Galileans or other dispersed Israelites. Living in the vicinity of Jerusalem, they were most attached to its ritual, and most intolerant of any departure from Jewish ceremonials or any fellowship with the Gentiles. Through their influence the Sanhedrim had resolved that any one who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah should be excommunicated. When this resolution was arrived at does not appear. It clearly indicates that even in Judea there was growing a feeling, if not a faith, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Promised One.—He should be put out of the synagogue. That is, excommunicated. According to the Jewish scholars, there were three kinds of discipline known in the ancient synagogues, all of which are entitled excommunication or cutting off. Excommunication in the slightest degree involved separation from the synagogue, and the suspension of intercourse with all Jews whatever, even with one’s wife and domestics. A person who had exposed himself to excommunication was not allowed to approach another nearer than a distance of four cubits. This separation was continued for thirty days; and in case the excommunicated person did not repent, the time might be doubled or tripled, even when the transgression, by means of which it was incurred, was of small consequence. The second degree of excommunication is denominated the curse, and was more severe in its effects. It was pronounced with imprecations, in the presence of ten men, and so thoroughly excluded the guilty person from all communion whatever with his countrymen, that they were not allowed to sell him anything, even the necessaries of life. The third degree of excommunication was more severe in its consequences than either of the preceding. It was a solemn and absolute exclusion from all intercourse and communion with any other individuals of the nation; and the criminal was left in the hands, and to the justice of God. It is probable that in the time of Christ the second degree of excommunication was not distinguished from the third. It is uncertain what degree of excommunication was here threatened; but it is quite unimportant, since the first was sure to be succeeded by the others, unless the condemned repented, and made confession of his wrong-doing; in this case retracted his confession of Jesus as the Messiah.

24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God[369] the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

[369] Josh. 7:19; Ps. 50:14, 15.

25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

24, 25. The Pharisees attempt to overawe the blind man. The conference with his parents has been held in his absence. They then summon him into their presence with the declaration that they have discovered the imposture, and call on him to confess it.—Give God the praise is not equivalent to Give to God the glory of your cure; they do not admit that any cure has been wrought. It is a solemn form of adjuration to confess the fraud which they pretend to have discovered (Josh. 7:19).—We know that this man is a sinner, indicates that their investigation has discovered the imposture. The man’s reply is shrewd and wise. He will not undertake to dispute the conclusion which these doctors of the law pretend to have reached; but neither will he abate in the slightest his testimony to the miraculous cure.—One thing I know, that being blind, now I see. No testimony to Christ is more pertinent or potent than this personal experience of his grace. Comp. Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:12-18.

26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?

27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?

26, 27. Defeated in an attempt to overawe the blind man, the Pharisees resort to the common artifice of cross-examination; they call on him to repeat his story, in the hope of detecting some real or imaginary discrepancy in his two accounts, by which they may discredit him. He refuses to be cross-examined; grows impatient at their manifest injustice; answers defiantly.—Ye will not hear. Equivalent to, Ye will not heed, will not accept. It is useless to repeat testimony which they have resolved to reject. He thus illustrates Christ’s precept, Neither cast ye your pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6).—Will ye also be his disciples? Ironical. The man affects to misunderstand their object, and to think that they are inquiring for the purpose of becoming Christ’s disciples. The mere suggestion elicits an indignant disclaimer, and so brings out clearly that they are not honestly seeking to get at the truth respecting Jesus, but are attempting to discredit him. The word also scarcely indicates, as some suppose, that the man is resolved to become Christ’s disciple. We know too little concerning him, as yet, to come to that conclusion (ver. 36).

28 Then they reviled[370] him, and said. Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.

[370] 1 Pet. 2:23.

29 We know[371] that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we[372] know not from whence he is.

[371] Ps. 103:7; Heb. 3:5.

[372] ch. 8:14.

28, 29. A curious illustration of the inconsistency of bigotry is afforded by a comparison of the language of the Pharisees here and in ch. 7:27. There, because they suppose they know the parentage of Jesus, they say he cannot be the Messiah; here, the pretence that he is an unknown, affords an equally satisfactory reason for rejecting him.

30 The man answered and said unto them, Why[373] herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened[374] mine eyes.

[373] ch. 3:10.

[374] Ps. 119:18; Isa. 29:18, 19; 35:5; 2 Cor. 4:6.

31 Now we know that God[375] heareth not sinners: but if[376] any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

[375] Job 27:9; Ps. 66:18; Prov. 28:9; Isa. 1:15; Jer. 11:11; Ezek. 8:18; Micah 3:4; Zech. 7:13.

[376] Ps. 34:15; Prov. 15:29.

30, 31. The argument of these verses is, (1) founded on the Pharisees’ doctrine that man is made acceptable to God by his good works. The Pharisees could furnish no reply to it, because they believed that God only heard the prayers of the pious (see Neh. 13:14, 22, 31; 2 Sam. 22:21). The doctrine that he hears and answers the prayers of the penitent, though abundantly taught in the O. T. (Ps. 25:11; 32:5; Isaiah 55:6, 7), they wholly ignored; (2) It is founded on the Scriptural doctrine that God does not hear the prayer of deliberate, willful and persistent sinners, while continuing in their sins. If this “man that is called Jesus” was the impostor that the Pharisees declared him to be, God would not accompany his ministry with such manifestations of divine blessing (Isaiah 1:11-15; 59:1, 2; Prov. 15:8, 29; 21:27; 28:9; Jer. 14:11, 12; Amos 5:21-23; Micah 3:4); (3) It accords in fact with the N. T. doctrine of prayer, which teaches us to pray in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ, in and through whom we are heard, though sinners (chaps. 14:13, 14; 15:16; 16:23, 24). Observe the double condition of prayer, as indicated by this man: (1) a true reverence of God, (2) a sincere practical obedience to his will. Comp. ch. 15:17; Heb. 11:6; James 5:16. In the failing of one or the other of these conditions we may find one principal reason why so many prayers are not answered.

32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

32, 33. It was prophesied of the Messiah that he should restore sight to the blind (ver. 5, note). This peculiar form of miraculous cure is not narrated to have been performed by any one except Christ, unless 2 Kings 6:18, 20 be regarded as an instance; it was performed by Christ on several occasions (Matt. 9:27-30; 11:5; 12:22; 20:30-34; Mark 8:22-25); but this is the only case of the cure of one blind from birth.—If this man was not from God he could do nothing. The man now openly confesses his conviction, which in his previous answer he has concealed. Observe that he enunciated the same principle as Nicodemus, and in almost the same words. The declaration is spiritually true of Christ (ch. 5:19-30) and of every one of Christ’s disciples (ch. 15:5; comp. Phil. 4:13).

34 They answered and said unto him, Thou[377] wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him[378] out.

[377] verse 2.

[378] Isa. 66:5.

34. Failing in their attempt to break the force of the man’s testimony, the Pharisees endeavored to discredit it by excommunicating him. Religious persecution is generally the last resort of intellectual weakness and defeat. Their declaration Thou wast altogether born in sins is a reference to the fact that he was born blind. Thus they become themselves unconscious witnesses to the miracle; for their language here shows their belief that he was born blind, and the man himself affords ocular demonstration of the cure. The declaration They cast him out means, not they drove him out of the court-room, as interpreted by Chrysostom, Tholuck and others, but they excommunicated him, in conformity to the resolution previously taken (ver. 22).

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe[379] on the Son of God?

[379] 1 John 5:13.

36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and[380] it is he that talketh with thee.

[380] ch. 4:26.

38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.[381]

[381] Matt. 14:33.

35-38. When Jesus heard that they had cast him out. Perhaps he purposely waited, that the man’s fidelity to the truth might be fully tested. This trial of the blind man symbolizes the trial to which Christ subjects his church (1 Pet. 1:7). When men cast the faithful witness out, Christ comes to him (Ps. 27:10). Thus the man realizes the promise of Luke 6:22.—Dost thou believe on the Son of God. There is an emphasis on Thou in the original, which cannot well be repeated in the English. Christ contrasts his belief with the disbelief of the Pharisees. “Believest thou, whilst so many others are disbelievers” (Trench).—Who is he, Sire, that I might believe on him. The word translated lord (κύριος) is only a general term of respect. It is sometimes translated Sir (Matt. 21:30; chaps. 4:11, 15, 19, 49; 5:7; 12:20; 20:15). It does not imply here that the man recognized in Jesus the Son of God. But his language, That I might believe on him, indicates that he was ready to believe when the Messiah should be made known to him. This spirit of desire always brings the answer of disclosure (Matt. 5:6; Acts, ch. 10).—Thou hast both seen him. A reminder of the benefit which has been conferred upon the man.—And it is he that talketh to thee. To no one did Christ disclose his divine nature more clearly than to this blind man, whose fidelity to truth showed him worthy to receive the disclosure of further truth, and one which even the disciples but imperfectly apprehended.—Sire, I believe. And he reverenced him. Not necessarily worshipped. The original does not necessarily signify anything more than a form of salutation paid by an inferior to a superior, by falling upon the knees and touching the forehead to the ground. For meaning of both words, “lord” and “worshipped,” see Matt. 8:2, note. It is clear, however, that the man accepted fully Christ’s declaration respecting himself, though not so clear that he fully comprehended his meaning.

The cure of the man born blind. It is safe to assume that John has narrated no event at such length as this miracle and its subsequent investigation without a definite purpose. The general lessons taught by this account, apart from those incidentally conveyed in single utterances, appear to me to be three. (1) This is the only one of Christ’s miracles which was subjected to a judicial or quasi judicial investigation. That investigation originated not with the disciples, but with the people, and was carried on before a hostile tribunal. The identity of the blind man was established by his own testimony and corroborated by that of his parents. That he was born blind was established by the same indisputable evidence. That he was cured was ocularly demonstrated. The cure necessarily involved a miracle, since congenital blindness is not curable by natural means. The value of the evidence is increased by the facts that the parents were reluctant witnesses; that the man himself had no interest to further the cause of Christ, since he did not even know who he was; that the Pharisees themselves were forced to the unconscious admission that a miracle had been wrought (ver. 34, note); and that, defeated in their attempt to browbeat the witness, they endeavored to discredit his testimony by excommunicating him. (2) There is an instructive contrast in the characters so briefly but graphically portrayed. (a) The people, moved by mere wonder, investigate curiously but not earnestly, reach no conclusion, and so learn nothing of Christ; (b) The Pharisees, instigated by malice and religious bigotry, investigate thoroughly, and are compelled to adopt the conclusion that a miracle has been wrought, but refuse to accept the Worker as even a man sent from God, and so learn nothing of Christ. (c) The parents, honest but timid, accept the facts, but are unwilling to risk persecution for truth’s sake, and so learn nothing of Christ. (d) The man himself, who is faithful to his convictions, and whose convictions grow by reason of his fidelity, is brought to a knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. Thus is illustrated the principle that to find the truth as it is in Christ Jesus it is not enough to investigate curiously, earnestly, honestly; it is necessary also to confess fearlessly the truth so far as it is apprehended. (3) The history of the blind man illustrates the growth of faith, as well as its conditions. At first he knew nothing of Jesus; but without knowledge or definite hope he obeys Christ’s direction, goes to the pool of Siloam, washes, sees. He still knows nothing of the Healer but that he is “a man that is called Jesus.” Despite the timidity of his parents, and the threatening of the Pharisees, he maintains the truth, defends the unknown, asserts him to be a prophet, and a man of God. Finally, he finds in him the Messiah, the Son of God. Fidelity, in that which is least, is the condition of receiving larger gifts in knowledge and faith.

39 And Jesus said, For[382] judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not[383] might see; and that they which see might be made blind.[384]

[382] ch. 5:22, 27; 12:47.

[383] 1 Pet. 2:9.

[384] ch. 3:19; Matt. 13:13.

39. For judgment am I come into this world. Contrast chaps. 8:15; 12:47. Christ does not hesitate to state truths at different times in forms which make his statements apparently contradictory. He does not come to announce judgment or condemnation, but to provide mercy; nevertheless, he has come for judgment, since he draws to himself all that love the divine character and the divine life, and repels all that are worldly and selfish. He does not condemn, but they that reject him are self-condemned, testifying that they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.—That they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind. The meaning is not, That they which see not their own blindness might be made to see it; this interpretation makes the second clause of the sentence either a mere repetition of the first, And that they which think they see might be made aware that they are blind, or unmeaning. Nor is it to be rendered, That they which see not spiritual things might be made to see them, and they which see the world might be made blind to that as a preparation for seeing Christ; for though this would be in analogy with Paul’s metaphor (Rom. 6:11; 7:9), it would not interpret Christ’s declaration that he has come for judgment. The two clauses of the sentence are to be interpreted alike. Christ’s coming gave moral and spiritual sight to the publicans who were without moral culture, but opened their hearts to receive Christ’s instructions; and it darkened such moral sense as the Pharisees already possessed, since they closed their eyes to the clear revelation which Christ brought. Thus Christ is both savor of life unto life and of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16), both the corner-stone and the stone of stumbling (1 Pet. 2:6-8; comp. Matt. 3:12, note).

40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we[385] blind also?

[385] Rom. 2:19; Rev. 3:17.

41 Jesus said unto them, If[386] ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see: therefore[387] your sin remaineth?

[386] ch. 15:22, 24.

[387] Is. 5:21; Luke 18:14; 1 John 1:8-10.

40, 41. Some of the Pharisees which were with him. That is, who happened to be present. But their presence as auditors, coupled with their question, perhaps implies that they were of that class which were inclined to regard Jesus as a prophet (ver. 17; ch. 10:21).—Are we blind also? The form of the original implies a strong expectation of a negative reply. It might be rendered, Surely we are not blind also.—If ye were blind ye should have no sin. This is not to be interpreted away, as equivalent to, Your sin would be less. It is literally true, that sin is in the proportion of knowledge, so that one who is, by no fault of his own, absolutely ignorant of moral distinctions, is absolutely free from moral responsibility.—Ye say, We see; therefore your sin remains. They had the law and the prophets which foretold the Messiah (ch. 5:39), and they had the knowledge of his works and the moral capacity to judge them, and did adjudge that God was with him (ch. 3:2), and that he could not be a sinner (ch. 9:16). This was enough to render them guilty in not following out their convictions by a public confession of Christ as a prophet, which they really saw him to be. Comp. ch. 15:24; and with the entire passage (vers. 39-41), Rom. 2:17-24.

CHAPTER X.

Ch. 10:1-21. THE PARABLE OF THE SHEEPFOLD AND THE SHEPHERD.—The church of Christ as one flock.—To this flock there is but one door, Jesus Christ.—This door is opened to the soul by the Holy Spirit of God.—Every one who enters in by this door is saved.—And becomes a minister of grace (a shepherd) to others.—The pattern is Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd.—Every true shepherd lives for the flock.—He who does not is a hireling, and is recreant in time of danger.—The life of the flock is assured by the death of the Good Shepherd.—That death was not compelled; it was voluntary.

This parable was probably uttered in Judea, and in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. The figure is drawn from the spectacle, likely at any evening to be witnessed on the hillsides of Judea, a flock of sheep gathered from the different fields in which they had been wandering, and following their shepherd, who conducts them to the sheepfold, which they enter, one by one, for protection, the shepherd going before and leading them in. To understand aright its meaning, two facts, often forgotten, must be borne in mind: (1) that the metaphor is used in the O. T., and for a double purpose; sometimes the shepherd is the religious teacher of Israel, whose unfaithfulness is rebuked in the prophets (Jer. 23:1-4; Ezek., ch. 34); sometimes the shepherd is the Lord, who leads, defends, and feeds the soul which trusts in him (Ps. 23; Isaiah 40:11); (2) the parable is closely connected with the discourse concerning blindness, growing out of the cure of the blind man, and is given for the purpose of emphasizing and carrying out the warnings therein contained against the Pharisees as blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 15:14). I understand, then, that it is a parable with a double application. First, Christ compares the Pharisees to shepherds, himself to the door, and declares that they alone are true shepherds who enter into Israel through, i. e., under command from, and with the authority of, Christ as the Messiah—all others are thieves and robbers (vers. 7-10); he then changes the application, retaining the figure, declares himself to be the shepherd, whose praises David and Isaiah sang, and indicates the nature of the service which he will render to his sheep, namely, giving his life for them. The parable itself embraces verses 1-6; the first application, a lesson against the false Pharisaical teachers, verses 7-10; the second application, a lesson concerning himself as the good shepherd, verses 11-18. The first application is interpreted by Ezekiel, ch. 34; the second, by Psalm 23 and Isaiah 40:11. The ordinary interpretation, which regards Christ as referring to himself throughout as shepherd, necessarily supposes that he employs a mixed metaphor, in which, without any apparent reason, he alternately represents himself as the door and the shepherd.

Verily, verily, I say unto you,[388] He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

[388] Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.

1. He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold. Sheepfolds, as usually constructed in the East, are low, flat buildings, erected on the sheltered side of the valleys, and when the nights are cold, the flocks are shut up in them, but in ordinary weather they are merely kept within the yard. During the day, of course, they are led forth to pasture by the shepherds. The folds are defended by a wide stone wall, crowned by sharp thorns which the wolf will rarely attempt to scale. The leopard and panther, however, when pressed with hunger, will overleap the thorny hedge, and make havoc of the flock. In Greece, folds are sometimes built merely of a parapet of bushes or branches, placed at the entrance of caves, natural or made for the purpose, in the side of hills or rocky ledges. A porter guards the door of the larger sheepfolds. See Thompson’s Land and Book, I, 299, and Smith’s Bible Dict., Art. Sheepfold. The sheepfold, in this parable, answers primarily to Israel, the then visible and organic church of God, but secondarily to the church of Christ in all ages, the visible and external organization, in which the professed disciples of Christ, his sheep, are gathered for better protection. He that enters not by the door, but furtively climbs up some other way, marks himself thereby as evil disposed.

AN EASTERN SHEEPFOLD.

2 But he that entereth in by the[389] door is the shepherd of the sheep.

[389] Verse 7, 9.

2. He that entereth in by the door the same is a shepherd of the sheep. Not, as in our English version, the shepherd. The definite article is wanting. Christ does not declare that the evidence that he is the Shepherd consists in the fact that he entered through the door, for he is himself the door. He declares to the Pharisees, who reject him as their Messiah, that there is a double test of the religious teacher: (1) he must enter into the church by the way by which he directs the sheep to enter. There is not one salvation for the teacher and another for the taught; the door is the same to all; and (2) he must enter by the one only door, Jesus Christ. Whoever comes in the name and with the authority of Jesus Christ is a shepherd of the sheep; whoever comes to preach any other Gospel, comes to rob the sheep of their Saviour and salvation (Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 John, ver. 10).

3 To him[390] the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth[391] his own sheep by name and leadeth[392] them out.

[390] Rev. 3:20.

[391] Ezek. 34:11; Rom. 8: 30.

[392] Isa. 40:11.

3. To him the porter openeth. “The Holy Spirit is especially He who opens the door to the shepherds; see frequent uses of this symbolism by the apostles (Acts 14:27; 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Col. 4:3); and instances of the porter shutting the door (Acts 16:6, 7).”—(Alford.) There is the implication here of a truth elsewhere abundantly taught in Scripture, that the teacher has access to the heart of the church only through the influence of the Spirit of God, who opens and closes the heart of the hearer (1 Thess. 1:5; 2:1), and the door of opportunity (Acts 4:7, 8; 16:9; 17:10, 11).—And he calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them out. This figure exactly corresponds with the actual facts of shepherd life in the East. “As we eat and looked, almost spell-bound, the silent hillsides around us were in a moment filled with life and sound. The shepherds led their flocks forth from the gates of the city. They were in full view, and we watched them and listened to them with no little interest. Thousands of sheep and goats were there, grouped in dense, confused masses. The shepherds stood together until all came out. Then they separated, each shepherd taking a different path, and uttering, as he advanced, a shrill, peculiar call. The sheep heard them. At first the masses swayed and moved, as if shaken by some internal convulsion; then points struck out in the direction taken by the shepherds; these became longer and longer, until the confused masses were resolved into long, living streams, flowing after their leaders. Such a sight was not new to me, still it had lost none of its interest. It was, perhaps, one of the most vivid illustrations which human eyes could witness of that beautiful discourse of our Lord recorded by John.”—(Porter.)

4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.[393]

[393] Cant. 2:8; 5:2.

5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee[394] from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

[394] 2 Tim. 3:5; Rev. 2:2.

4, 5. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him. The true pastor is an example and leader as well as a teacher of his people (1 Cor. 11:1; Gal. 4:12; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:6).—A stranger will they not follow. The stranger is not the shepherd of another flock, but one who is a stranger and a foreigner, outside the fold and separated from the great flock of the Israel of God. The true Christian is never a stranger to the disciples of Jesus Christ (Ephes. 2:19).—They know not the voice of strangers. The shepherd knows his own sheep by name, and they know his voice; but the stranger’s voice they do not know. The figure is all true to the life. “The shepherd calls sharply to them from time to time to remind them (the sheep) of his presence. They know his voice and follow on; but if a stranger calls, they stop short, lift up their heads in alarm, and if it is repeated, they turn and flee, because they know not the voice of a stranger. This is not the fanciful costume of a parable; it is a simple fact.”—(Thompson’s Land and Book, I, 301.) This personality of relation between the true religious teacher and the taught, abundantly illustrated by Christ’s personal love for his disciples, and by Paul’s love for the converts gathered under his ministry, is in strong contrast to the distance which was maintained between the Pharisees and the common people. It is not then a fanciful deduction that, under ordinary circumstances, the pastor should have a personal acquaintance with his people, should not have so large a charge that he cannot know his people by name, and should ordinarily depend for his influence upon his personal acquaintance with them, and their personal confidence in him.

6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.

6. This parable spake Jesus unto them. Rather allegory or obscure saying. The original word (παροιμία) is different from that in the other Evangelists translated parable, and the structure of the teaching is somewhat different from that of the parables narrated by the other Evangelists. See on the nature of the parable, Matthew, ch. 13, Prel. Note. This, however, more nearly approximates a true parable than any other of Christ’s instructions reported by John.—But they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. That is, the Pharisees to whom he was speaking did not understand the meaning and application of his imagery. “They did not feel the application of it; they did not see what shepherds and sheepfolds had to do with them. They could hardly have given a greater proof how little they understood the things which were written in the books they prized most—how their worship of the divine letter had destroyed all commerce between their minds and the realities which it set forth.”—(Maurice.)

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I[395] am the door of the sheep.

[395] Eph. 2:18.

7. Verses 7-10 inclusive, contain the first application of the parable, primarily to the Pharisees as religious teachers of Israel, and secondarily to all that claim to be shepherds of God’s people, then or now.—I am the door. “That is, through me all the truths and blessings of religion are to be communicated to the flock, or people of God. Whoever addresses them as an authorized teacher must enter through me.”—(Norton.) It is the Holy Spirit (the porter, ver. 3) who opens Christ to the heart and the heart to Christ, and makes it possible for either the sheep (the learners) or the under-shepherd (the teacher) to enter into the fold through him (chaps. 6:37, 44; 14:26; 15:26).

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

8. All whosoever came before me are thieves and robbers. This verse is declared by Tholuck to be “one of the most difficult sentences in the N. T.” If before (πρό) be taken as an adverb of time, as is generally done, then Christ’s declaration is that all religious teachers who preceded him were thieves and robbers, and this would on its face include the long line of prophets from Moses to Malachi; or if the sentence is modified, as some propose, by the fact that the verb is in the present tense, are thieves and robbers, so that Christ embraces only the then living teachers, still this would include such instructors as Gamaliel and Nicodemus, if not John the Baptist, who belonged to that generation. The qualification of this, by the supposition that Christ did not include true teachers but only the false, not only falsifies his declaration which points out the way in which the true may be distinguished from the false, but reduces the sentence to a truism, viz., All false religious teachers who came before me, are thieves and robbers, i. e., teachers of falsehood, depriving men of the truth. The other proposed qualification, All who have come claiming to be Messiah, are thieves, etc., not only adds an important qualification to Christ’s declaration, but is historically an anachronism, inasmuch as there is no historical evidence that any false Messiah preceded the time of Christ. I am inclined, therefore, to take before (πρό) as an adverb signifying precedence in rank or authority, as it does in Col. 1:17, James 5:12, and 1 Pet. 4:8, and to understand the passage, All whosoever come claiming precedence above me are thieves and robbers. The verb come (ἦλθον) is in the aorist tense, and does not necessarily indicate a coming in the past only, but would be properly used for the enunciation of a general principle. The prophets of the O. T. claimed no such precedence above Christ; on the contrary, they were but his heralds; and John the Baptist distinctly disavowed such precedence (Matt. 3:14; chaps. 1:26, 27; 3:30). The Pharisees, on the other hand, denied Christ’s right to teach, because he did not belong to their schools (ch. 7:15), and in their conference with the blind man had put themselves above Christ (ch. 9:16, 24). Where there is no general agreement among scholars, I hesitate to offer an interpretation which differs from all, but this appears to me on the whole more consistent with the context, and with the teaching of the N. T. elsewhere, than any other, and not inconsistent with the original. If this be a correct interpretation, Christ’s claim here is directly antagonistic to those who would make an eclectic religion, by selecting truth from all the world’s religious teachers, including Christ among the rest. For he declares all to be robbing the world of truth, not imparting it, who deny him the pre-eminent rank as a religious teacher. On the other hand, he does not stigmatize genuine moral teachers, such as Buddha or Socrates, as thieves and robbers, for they had no knowledge of Christ, and claimed no precedence above him.—But the sheep did not hear them. This has been eminently true of all teachers in the church who have put themselves above Christ; it is the preachers of Christ who alone have secured the world’s attention. This is illustrated by the history of Paul (2 Cor. 4:5), Luther, Wesley, and in our own times Spurgeon, Moody, and others.

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

9. I am the door; by me if any enter in, he shall be safe. Christ is not only the door by whom the shepherd (the teacher) can alone enter in to feed the flock, he is also the door by which alone the sheep (the disciples) can enter into the church and into security (Acts 4:12). The extent and assurance of this safety is expressed below (vers. 28, 29). And observe, the promise is not merely shall be saved in the future, but shall be safe, i. e., from the time of entering the door (ch. 3:18, 36; Rom. 8:1, 28, 31, etc.)—And shall go in and out and find pasture. To “go in and out” was a common Hebraistic phrase to denote the whole life and action of man (Deut. 28:6; Psalm 121:8). Here, therefore, the meaning is that he who thus enters the door, shall be blessed in all his ways. His pasture is the bread of life and water of life, promised in chaps. 4:14; 6:48-51. So that Christ is at once the door, the shepherd, and the pasture; the entrance, the guardian and guide, and the food of the disciple.

10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

10. The thief cometh not but for to steal * * * * I am come that they might have life, etc. A contrast between false religion and the true, heathenism or Pharisaism and Christianity. The false religion comes to deprive men of their liberty, their property, their earthly happiness, to kill their natural and free life, and to destroy, finally, the soul. The true religion comes first to give this present life more abundant development, and then through that to give eternal life. Hence, whatever form of religion tends to deprive mankind of its free, natural, and joyous life is anti-Christian; the constant tendency of Christ’s teaching and influence is to make the whole life, social, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, more abundant.

11 I[396] am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

[396] Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25.

12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth[397] the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

[397] Ezek. 34:2-6; Zech. 11:17.

11, 12. With these verses Christ gives a new direction to the preceding parable. He has thus far spoken of religious teachers in general, and of himself as the door by which they alone can enter in to feed the flock, and by which alone the flock can enter in to find safety. He now speaks of himself as the Great Shepherd and Bishop of souls (1 Pet. 2:25), under whom are all the shepherds, and in contrast with whom are the hirelings.—I am the Good Shepherd, more literally the beautiful Shepherd; but this word (καλός), though strictly speaking esthetic, was used by the Greeks to designate moral beauty, and referred to the most symmetrical and perfect goodness. Throughout the O. T. the church of God is regarded as a fold, Israel as a flock, and Jehovah himself as the Shepherd (Ps. 23; Isa. 40:11; Ezek., ch. 34; Jer., ch. 23; Micah 5:3; Zech., ch. 11). It is impossible but that Christ’s auditors should have understood him as claiming to be this Shepherd of Israel. Observe the difference between the phraseology here and in verse 2; here the good Shepherd; there a Shepherd.—The good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. This is not a prophecy, equivalent to, I am about to die for my sheep; it is the enunciation of a general principle by which every good shepherd can be distinguished from the hireling; for every good shepherd is ready to sacrifice his life for his sheep because they are his; the hireling flees when danger threatens, because he is an hireling and has no real interest in the sheep. Neither is the expression to lay down the life a circumlocution for die. Christ rarely uses circumlocution of any kind. The good shepherd may or may not be called on to die for his sheep; but he always lays down his life for them. To lay down the life is to consecrate it, devote it to the flock; as a mother, who is always ready to die for her children, but who, living or dying, belongs to her children and surrenders herself to them. So we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16), though comparatively few are ever called on to die for them. Wickliffe and Luther as truly laid down their lives for the flock as Huss and Tyndale. The sacrifice of Christ consisted not merely in his death—which was indeed in its mere physical aspects the least part of it—but in his whole incarnation. His entire life from his advent to the grave was laid down for his sheep. This laying down of his life includes his death; but it includes much more. The whole thirty years was a living sacrifice for sinful humanity (Phil. 2:5-8).—But he that is an hireling, not being a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and fleeth. Every clause in this sentence must be carefully weighed by the student; for every clause is full of weighty significance. There is nothing in the sentence, if the whole be considered, adverse to a paid ministry. Not every one who is hired is an hireling (1 Tim. 5:18); only he who serves for hire, whether emoluments or reputation; who accordingly is not a shepherd, i. e., has none of the shepherd’s instincts and none of the shepherd’s love for his flock; whose own the sheep are not, i. e., who has none of that sense of ownership in his flock which Paul experienced and expressed (1 Cor. 4:14, 15; 1 Thess. 2:11; 1 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 10); who, therefore, careth not for the sheep (ver. 13), but only for himself. Here, as everywhere in Christ’s instructions, it is the evil spirit which he condemns and the right spirit which he exalts. The hirelings of Christ’s day were those among the chief rulers and the priests, the religious teachers of Israel, who believed on Jesus, but would not confess their faith for fear of the hierarchy (ch. 9:22; 12:42, 43; 19:38). The hirelings ever since have been those in the church, whether paid preachers or no, who have feared to withstand falsehood and danger, and have suffered popular sins to pass unrebuked lest they should bring obloquy upon themselves, or loss of friends, or personal peril, or any martyrdom, large or small. The hireling, too, does not merely flee; the true shepherd has sometimes to do this (Matt. 10:23); Christ himself did this repeatedly (Matt. 14:13; Luke 4:30; John 8:59; 10:39). It is characteristic of the hireling that he leaveth the sheep and fleeth. Caution may lead the true pastor to avoid a conflict which will bring greater disaster on the flock than battle; but his caution is always to be exercised for the sheep, not for himself. It is caring for one’s self more than for the church that marks the hireling.—The wolf catcheth them and scattereth the sheep. Any and every willful and determined opponent to truth and righteousness is a wolf; whether he is a persecuting power like that of pagan and papal Rome, or a false teacher, a wolf in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:29). The wolf at this particular juncture was the Pharisaic party, which was ravaging the church of God, and binding heavy burdens on the people, whom Christ denounced, and in battle with whom he suffered death.

13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

14 I am the good shepherd, and[398] know my sheep, and am known[399] of mine.

[398] 2 Tim. 2:19.

[399] 1 John 5:20.

15 As[400] the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and[401] I lay down my life for the sheep.

[400] Matt. 11:27.

[401] ch. 15:13; Isa. 53:4,5.

13-15. The hireling * * * careth not for the sheep * * *—I know my sheep. Christ reiterates the contrast between the hireling and the good shepherd; and indicates anew points of distinction between the two. The hireling careth not for the sheep; he cares only for his wages; the good shepherd knows his sheep and is known by them. In a limited way this is true of the good pastor or shepherd; he knows his flock personally and sympathizingly; he is not merely a preacher to them; he is their best friend and adviser (ver. 3, note). But this knowledge is never perfect, and never can be, in the under shepherd. His insight is imperfect; his sympathy is partial. It is only Christ who can say I know my sheep. “If you would think rightly of the Son of Man, think of the Person who knows thoroughly everything that each one of you is feeling, and cannot utter to others or to himself—every temptation from riches, from poverty, from solicitude, from society, from gifts of intellect, from the want of them, from the gladness of the spirit, from the barrenness and dreariness of it, from the warmth of affection and from the drying up of affection, from the anguish of doubt and the dulness of indifference, from the whirlwind of passion and the calm which succeeds it, from the vile thoughts which spring out of fleshly appetites and indulgences, from the darker, more terrible suggestions which are presented to the inner will. Believe that he knows all these, that he knows you. And then believe this also, that all he knows is through intense, inmost sympathy, not with the evil that is assaulting you, but with you who are assaulted by it. Believe that knowledge, in this the Scriptural sense of it—the human as well as the divine sense of it—is absolutely inseparable from sympathy.”—(Maurice.)—And am known of mine. Christ’s knowledge of the Christian is the basis of the Christian’s knowledge of Christ. Both are sympathetic and personal, the knowledge of love. It is because the Good Shepherd knows his sheep that he is known of them. It is because by his knowledge he is able to enter into our innermost experience, and to give us comfort and strength when all human helpers fail, that we come to know him as our Helper and our Strength. We know him as the Good Shepherd only as we follow his guidance, accept the food and water he gives us, are restored by him when wandering, and delivered by him from danger and death.—As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. The connection is not very clear between this sentence and the preceding one, or between the different clauses of this sentence. It seems to me, however, that Christ refers to this knowledge between himself and the Father, not merely to illustrate the knowledge between himself and his disciples, but to turn their thoughts from himself to the Father. Christ has been accused of blasphemy by the Jews; that is, of endeavoring to deflect the reverence and allegiance of the people from God to himself. It must be confessed that there has often been a tendency in his disciples to substitute the Saviour for the Father, to believe in the sympathy of Christ, but not in the sympathy of God, to believe in the love of the Redeemer, but to attribute justice and wrath to Jehovah. Christ guards against this tendency, and refutes this accusation, by the declaration that he knows perfectly every wish and will of the Father, and in the whole course of his self-sacrifice, in all the laying down of his life for humanity, he is carrying out that will. Thus the declaration of this verse leads one to that of verse 17: “Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life.”

16 And[402] other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and[403] there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

[402] Isa. 49:6; 56:8.

[403] Ezek. 37:22; Ephes. 2:14.

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because[404] I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

[404] Isa. 53:7-12; Heb. 2:9.

18 No man taketh it from me, but[405] I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I[406] have power to take it again. This[407] commandment have I received of my Father.

[405] Phil. 2:6-8.

[406] ch. 2:19.

[407] ch. 6:38.

16-18. Other sheep I have which are not from (ἐκ) this fold. Not, Which are in other worlds; for the Bible does not anywhere recognize this world as the fold of God: nor, Others from among the dispersed Jews scattered among the Gentiles; for these were already in “this fold,” none the less belonging to Israel because they were geographically separated from their brethren. The reference is to those whom Christ has among the Gentiles, and, as I believe, still has among the heathen (Acts 10:35; 18:10). They are not, however, in a flock or fold, but scattered (ch. 11:52). Observe, Christ does not say I am to have—the present is not used in lieu of the future. He already has them; they are his sheep; he recognizes as his own those whose spirit is akin to his, though they do not recognize him as theirs (Matt. 25:37-40).—Them also I must lead. Not bring, i. e., to the Jewish nation, but lead as a shepherd. He must be leader to all who will follow him, whether Jew or Gentile.—And there shall be one flock, one Shepherd. Not one fold, as unfortunately translated in our English version (μία ποίμνη, not μία αὐλή). “Not one fold, but one flock; no one exclusive enclosure of an outward church—but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd, and known of Him.”—(Alford.) And one flock because one Shepherd; one not in creed, or organization, or method of worship, but one in Christ Jesus (see ver. 30).—Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life. Not because I have laid it down, as though the love of the Father were caused by the earthly love and sacrifice of Christ, but because I lay it down. That is, because Christ’s Spirit is one of self-sacrificing love, manifested by, but not alone embodied in the incarnation, he is loved by the Father. See Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9.—In order that I may take it again. Beware of understanding this, as many of the commentators seem to do, as equivalent to, I die in order that I may rise from the dead. The meaning is interpreted by Christ’s declaration to his disciples: “He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” Christ lays down his life by his humiliation, his incarnation, his passion and his crucifixion, that he may take it again in the life of the myriads whom he has redeemed from death by his own death. He takes it again when he sees of the travail of his soul and is satisfied (Isa. 53:11), which he does when those who have been washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb stand before him (Rev. 7:14, 15). So every mother, laying down her life in continued self-sacrifice for her children, takes it again in their developed manhood and womanhood.—No one taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. No one is not equivalent to no man, a translation which weakens if it does not destroy the sense. The sacrifice of Christ, the whole experience of humiliation and suffering, commencing with the laying aside of the glory which he had with the Father and culminating in the crucifixion, was not imposed upon him by any one, neither by man, nor by Satan, nor even by the Father; it was self-assumed. This fact is the answer to all those objections to the N. T. doctrine of the atonement, which misrepresent it as portraying a God who inflicts on an innocent victim the punishment which was deserved by others.—I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. The word rendered power (ἐξουσία), includes both power and right (see ch. 1:12, note); the word rendered commandment (ἐντολὴ), is not equivalent to authority; the original word always means law or command. Christ’s disciples have no authority to frame self-sacrifices for themselves; doing this is always characteristic of a corrupt and quasi pagan religion. They are to bear with cheerful heroism whatever self-sacrifice the providence of God may lay upon them. So also they have never a right to seek death, but are always to seek to live to the glory of God and for their fellow-men. But Christ voluntarily chose his life of humiliation and cross-bearing; voluntarily sought its privations; and finally went, not to an inevitable death, but to one which he might easily have avoided by flight, if he had acted according to the directions which he gave his followers, and on which the apostle subsequently acted. He might have fled from Jerusalem on the fatal night of his arrest, as he had done before, and this without leaving his sheep to be seized or scattered by the wolf; or he might have been protected by supernatural power (Matt. 26:53). He did not because he had a peculiar authority given to him, which his followers do not possess, to lay down his own life, both in the self-assumed humiliation of the incarnation, and in the final tragedy of his death. And this peculiar authority he possessed because in all his incarnation and passion and death he was carrying out the will and obeying the command of his Father. To us the divine command is interpreted by providence; Christ needed no such interpreter, for he knew the Father’s will, knowing the Father even as he was known by the Father.

19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

20 And many of them said, He[408] hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

[408] ch. 7:20.

21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open[409] the eyes of the blind?

[409] ch. 9:6, etc.

19-21. There was a division therefore again among the Jews.—Christ’s fan was in his hand. His teachings were tests of the character of his auditors.—He hath a devil. Rather an evil spirit (see ch. 8:52, note).—Why hear ye him? Why listen to him at all? The words were addressed by the opponents of Jesus to those who were inclined to believe on him, and indicate the uneasiness with which the Pharisees observed the impression which Christ was making on the less prejudiced and better disposed among the people (comp. ch. 7:46-49).—These are not the words of one possessed by an evil spirit. A pregnant saying. Infidelity must afford some explanation of the teachings and life of Christ; and they are not the teachings and life of either a fanatic or a deceiver.—Can an evil spirit open the eyes of the blind? These words show that the whole discourse of this chapter was not distant in time from the healing of the blind man narrated in Chapter IX, and was probably closely connected with it.

Ch. 10:22-42. DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION.—The gift of Christ: eternal life.—The power of Christ: the power of the Father.—The contrast between the O. T. prophets and Christ.—The evidence of Christ’s divinity; his works.

There is no reason to suppose that Christ left Judea during the time which elapsed between the feast of Tabernacles (ch. 7:2) and the feast of Dedication; on the contrary, the intimate connection between the discourse here reported and the preceding parable of the Good Shepherd (see vers. 26, 27), indicates that this discourse followed almost immediately after that one; certainly while the latter was still fresh in the minds of the people. I believe that the ministry in Judea, reported in John, chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10, was a continuous one, unbroken by any departure into Galilee or Perea.

22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.

23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.[410]

[410] Acts 3:11; 5:12.

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

22-24. The feast of the Dedication. A Jewish feast instituted by Judas Maccabeus, in commemoration of the cleansing of the second temple and altar, after they had been polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes. The profanation took place B. C. 167, the purification B. C. 164. The festival commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month, Kislev, answering to our December, and lasted eight days. It was also called the feast of Lights, from the fact that the Jews illuminated their houses as long as the feast lasted. Instituted by the Maccabean dynasty, and observed chiefly by the more rigid Judeans, it afforded to Christ an audience only of the more narrow-minded and bigoted of the Jews, a fact which must be borne in mind in studying his teaching on this occasion.—It was winter.—The fact is stated to explain our Lord’s walking in Solomon’s portico. For description and illustration of this portico, see Acts 5:12, note. This minute detail, the exact locality where he gave this instruction, is one of the many indications which this Gospel affords of being written by an eye-witness.—The Judeans therefore surrounded him. The verb (κυκλόω) is generally used in a hostile sense, e. g., of armies encompassing a city (Luke 21:20; Heb. 11:30; Rev. 20:9). This is the meaning here; an excited and threatening crowd hedged about Jesus as he was quietly walking in the porch. “Their fixed design was, not to leave him at liberty till he should have uttered the decisive word.”—(Godet.) This was the earliest manifestation of that design which was finally accomplished when the oath was administered to Jesus by the High Priest, and he was adjured to say whether he was the Son of God (Matt. 26:63, note).—How long dost thou keep our souls in suspense? This English idiom almost literally answers to the Greek idiom (τὴν ψυκὴν αἴρεις), which is still more exactly, How long dost thou keep our souls lifted up? i. e., with expectation and uncertainty. Commingled and contradictory feelings in the crowd were probably represented by this question; some hoped that Jesus was the Messiah and desired to compel him to declare himself; others were enraged with him, and desired to extort some utterance which would give them the opportunity to condemn him for blasphemy, or to excite the mob against him.

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not; the[411] works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.

[411] ch. 5:36.

26 But[412] ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

[412] ch. 8:47.

27 My[413] sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

[413] verse 4.

25-27. I told you * * * the works * * * bear witness of me. He had told them (ch. 5:19; 8:36, 56, 58, etc.), not it is true as plainly as he had told the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:26), but more plainly than he had told his own disciples previous to Peter’s confession of faith, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16); and he now answers them as he answered John the Baptist, who, in a very different spirit, preferred the same request for a definite answer to the question, “Art thou He that should come?” (Matt. 11:2-6.) He refers them to his works. The evidence of Christ’s divinity is not in his declaration about himself, nor in the declarations made concerning him by others, but in his life, his character, and the work which he has done and is still doing in the world. Works (ἔργα) includes his miracles but is not equivalent to miracles. See ch. 14:12, note. The reason why he did not answer more directly is well given by Godet: “He could not answer ‘I am,’ for the meaning which they attached to the word Christ had, so to speak, nothing in common with that in which he used it. Still less could he reply, ‘I am not;’ for he was indeed the Christ provided by God, and in that sense he whom they expected.”—Because ye are not of my sheep, as I said to you. The reference is either to the implied teaching of the parable of the Good Shepherd, or to some specific statement not reported by the Evangelist. The genuineness of the words as I said to you is doubted by some, but they are regarded as authentic by most critics. What does he mean by ye are not of my sheep. If we look back we shall see that the sheep of Christ are those that hear (i. e., accept and obey) his voice, and follow him (i. e., imitate his life and example). See verses 3, 4, 14, 16, 27. The declaration, then, Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, is that those who do not spiritually recognize the beauty of Christ’s teaching, and do not attempt to follow his incomparable example, are not to be expected to be convinced of his divinity by purely intellectual arguments.—The answer to the skeptic is generally, You cannot believe in Christ as your personal Saviour till you begin to recognize and to follow his teaching and example as a prophet and a man. The declaration is the converse of John 7:17. Comp. 2 Peter 1:5-8, where the possession of the Christian virtues is declared to be the efficient cause of a sound Christian knowledge. The creed does not precede but follows spiritual life.

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they[414] shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

[414] ch. 17:12; 18:9.

29 My[415] Father, which gave[416] them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

[415] ch. 14:28.

[416] ch. 17:2.

30 I[417] and my Father are one.

[417] ch. 17:11, 22.

28-30. And I give unto them eternal life. Life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ (ch. 1:12; 4:10, 14; 6:27, 32, 51; Rom. 5:17; 6:23; Eph. 1:17), but the necessary condition of receiving it is faith in his Son, i. e., the ability to appreciate spiritual life in its highest and most perfect manifestation, and a readiness to follow after it, by leaving all things else to attain it, as did Paul (Phil. 3:13, 14).—And they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. The word rendered perish is literally destroy themselves (ἀπόλωνται, middle voice); and this seems to me to be the meaning here; otherwise there would be a repetition, the second clause of the promise only reiterating the first clause. The word man is not in the original; any includes all powers, human and superhuman. I, then, understand Christ’s declaration to be that the souls which trust in him shall never destroy themselves, and no one shall pluck them out of his hand; i. e., he promises to protect his disciples both against their own weaknesses and also against the strength of assailants; from fears without and foes within; from treachery in the soul, and from assaults on the soul. See 1 Cor. 10:13; 15:10; Phil. 4:19; Col. 1:11, etc.—My Father which gave them to me, is greater than all. There is some uncertainty as to the reading, but the best critics agree in sustaining the received text.—No one is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. Without entering into any doubtful disputations respecting the relation of the Father and the Son, a problem which I believe transcends human knowledge, it is evident that the connection here requires us to understand Christ as declaring himself one with the Father, not merely in will or desire, as the disciple is to be one with his Lord, but also in spiritual power. The argument is, “My sheep shall never perish, since my Father who gave them into my hand is greater than all, and I who hold them, am one with him.” This argument would be without force if the meaning was not that Christ’s power is equal to that of the Father. His will might be perfectly in harmony with the divine will, he still could not be trusted as a divine Saviour unless his power was commensurate with his will. So all the best expositors, Alford, Godet, Meyer, Luthardt, Tholuck.

31 Then[418] the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

[418] ch. 8:59.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because[419] that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

[419] verse 30; ch. 5:18; Ps. 82:6; Rom. 13:1.

31-33. The moral power of Christ is singularly illustrated by the manner in which he restrains the mob by his voice and compels them to answer his question. That question implies that punishment is due only to wrong actors, and he asks them before they execute sentence, to designate any wrong that he has done. The question is thus analogous to that of ch. 8:46, “Which of you convinceth me of sin.”—Blasphemy was a regularly recognized crime under Jewish law; it consisted in any endeavor to draw away the allegiance of the people from the one true God, and answered to treason with us, Jehovah being under the theocracy, the Supreme head of the nation (see Matt. 12:32, note). The reply of the Jews to Christ’s question plainly shows how they regarded his declaration, “I and my Father are one,” not as indicating mere unity in spirit and purpose, but also in power and essential being. This is not indeed conclusive, for the Jews constantly misunderstood Christ; but it is an indication of his meaning. One practical lesson of the unity of the Godhead, of Christ and the Spirit with the Father, is eloquently presented by Maurice: “The unity of the Father and the Son is the only ground of the unity between the Shepherd and the sheep; undermine one and you undermine both * * * *. Do you think sects would last even for an hour, if there was not in the heart of each of them a witness for a fellowship which combinations and shibboleths did not create, and which, thanks be to God, they cannot destroy. The Shepherd makes his voice to be heard through all the noise and clatter of earthly shepherds; the sheep hear his voice and know that it is calling them to follow him into a common fold where all may rest and dwell together; and when once they understand the still deeper message which he is uttering here, and which the old creeds are repeating to us, ‘I and my Father are one;’ when they understand that the unity of the church and the unity of mankind depends on this eternal distinction and unity in God himself, and not upon authority or decrees of any mortal pastor, the sects will crumble to pieces, and there will be in very deed, one flock and one Shepherd.”

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified,[420] and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am[421] the Son of God?

[420] ch. 6:27; Isa. 11:2, 3; 49:1, 3.

[421] Phil. 2:6.

34-36. Is it not written in your law. He does not say in our law, nor in the law, but in your law. Christ does not identify himself with the Jews, nor regard himself as subject to the law, though made under it, and yielding himself to it for a season. Comp. ch. 7:19; 8:17. The reference is to Psalm 82:6. There is no passage in the law, i. e., in the Pentateuch, which corresponds exactly to Christ’s words here, or to those of the Psalmist; but in Exodus 22:28, the title of “gods” is given to the judges. The Psalm in question is believed to have been written on the occasion of Jehosaphat’s reform of the courts and re-establishment of the law (2 Chron., ch. 19), and it contrasts the unjust judges of Israel, who had been called gods in the law, with God the Judge of all the earth.—Unto whom the word of God came. The word of God is not the mere saying, “I have said ye are gods” (Meyer); it is never used in the N. T. in so limited a sense, to signify merely a particular phrase or utterance. It is either, The Spirit of God, i. e., God revealing himself to and through the prophet, as in ch. 1:1 (see note there) and Heb. 4:12; or it is the word given to the prophets by the Holy Spirit and by them repeated to the nation, i. e., nearly equivalent to the O. T. Scripture, as in Mark 7:13; Luke 5:1, etc.—And the Scripture cannot be broken. Literally loosened (Matt. 5:19, note). This parenthetical declaration is a very significant testimony to the inspiration of the O. T.—Whom the Father hath sanctified. The original (ἁγιάζω) may be rendered either made holy, in the sense of made clean and pure in character, or made holy in the sense of set apart to a holy use. It is evidently in the latter sense that it is employed here.—And sent into the world. The sanctifying of Christ preceded the sending into the world. Evidently, therefore, the reference is not to any act recorded in the life of Christ, as the descent of the Holy Spirit at the baptism, but to a consecration in the will of God to the work of redemption, and which preceded the Advent.—Thou blasphemest. That is, art guilty of diverting the allegiance of the people from God to thyself.—Because I said I am a Son of God. The article is wanting in the Greek, and ought not to be added in the translation.

These verses (34-36) have been sometimes regarded as a partial retraction, or at least a material modification of the declaration, “I and my Father are one;” as indicating that Jesus Christ is a Son of God only as every obedient soul is a child of God (1 John 3:1). If this passage stood alone, such an interpretation might possibly be given to it; but if the audience, the circumstances, the effect, and the other utterances of the speaker be taken into account, it cannot be fairly so understood. This sentence is spoken to a mob for the purpose of checking their rage. They have understood Christ to claim divinity. He does not in terms explicitly disavow it. On the contrary, when his explanation is ended, they resume their design (ver. 39), and he is obliged to flee for his life. We should not look in such an utterance for a disclosure of the profoundest truths respecting Christ’s character, not because Christ would conceal or modify the truth to save his life, but because an angry mob is not the sort of an audience to whom he would choose to reveal it, or indeed could reveal it, a certain receptiveness of soul being necessary to the comprehension of spiritual truth. The argument of these verses seems to me to be this: He to whom the Spirit of God comes, and who receives it and becomes in so far an exponent and manifestation of God, is in a sense divine; he becomes partaker of the divine nature; a sharer of the divine life (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 12:10; 2 Pet. 1:4). This is the testimony of the Scriptures which cannot be set aside. He, then, who is not of this world but from above (ch. 8:23), and whom the Father consecrated above and sent down into this world, is not guilty of blasphemy in calling himself a Son of God. In other words, Christ compares himself with inspired men only to contrast himself with them; he shows that, even according to the principles of the O. T. Scriptures, by which the Jews pretended to condemn him, he was not guilty of blasphemy, even if, being but a man, he had made himself a son and so a representative of God, while he, at the same time, clearly claims to be other and higher than the O. T. prophets and judges. But for the full disclosure of Christ’s character, we must look to his quiet conferences with his own disciples, who were at least willing, if not able, to understand him.

37 If[422] I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

[422] ch. 14:10, 11; 15:24.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

37, 38. If I do not the works of my Father, put no faith in me. Works which show forth his power and glory and are in accordance with his will and character (ch. 17:4).—But if I do, though ye put no faith in me, put faith in the works. Beware of understanding faith, rendered in our English version by believe, as a mere intellectual act. The idea is, If prejudice against the person of Christ prevents an affectionate regard for him, the soul may still have respect and reverence for the work he has done, and is doing in the world. That ye may perceive and know (γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε) is the best reading.—Alford, Meyer. To perceive, or recognize, denotes the outward act; to know denotes the permanent state.—That the Father is in me and I in the Father. A spiritual unity, such as cannot be predicated of any other son of God. The Father is in the Son because he lives and moves in him; is the spirit which animates and controls and makes divine the man Jesus. The Son is in the Father because his thoughts, wishes, purposes, desires, all centre in Him. The argument of these verses is substantially the same as that addressed by Christ to the Jews in verse 25 (see note there), and that addressed to his own disciples in ch. 14:11. The best evidence of the divinity of Christ is his own character; next is a consideration of the divine work which he has done and is doing in the world.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand;

40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place[423] where John at first baptized: and there he abode.

[423] ch. 1:28.

41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake[424] of this man were true.

[424] ch. 3:30-36; Matt. 3:11, 12.

42 And many believed on him there.

39-42. They sought again to take him. To arrest him. Their passion had time to cool, and they abandoned the idea of mob violence, which would have brought, as in Paul’s case (Acts 21:31, 32), the interference of the Romans. Instead, they endeavored to seize Christ and bring him before the authorities for trial.—But he escaped out of their hand. There is no reason to suppose a miracle. In the throng were some at least who believed in him, and under cover afforded by them he could have escaped.—Where John at first baptized. See ch. 1:28, note.—All things that John spake of this man were true. Being dead he yet spake. Gave his testimony to Christ. See ch. 1:15-34. This was the end of Christ’s Judean ministry proper, which had lasted three months. It had been one of continuous storm. Twice during this period he had been mobbed (ch. 8:59; 10:31); once an attempt was made to arrest him (ch. 7:32, 45); secret plans for his assassination were laid (ch. 7:19, 25; 8:37). All that we know of this ministry is contained in John, chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10; though it is not improbable that the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Pharisee and the Publican, and the incidents at the house of Mary and Martha belong to the same era (Luke 10:25-42; 18:9-14).—And many believed on him there. A period of a little over three months, from some time in December to the first of April, intervened between the retreat of Christ from Judea and his final entry into Jerusalem at the Passover week. I believe that this time was devoted to his ministry in Perea, the district beyond Jordan; a ministry of which John here gives a hint, to which Matthew and Mark also refer (Matt. 19:1, 2, etc.; Mark 10:1, etc.), but of which Luke alone gives any full account. See Luke, ch. 10, Prel. Note. Many thronged his ministry there (Luke 11:29; 12:1; 14:15, 25; 15:1). This ministry was broken in upon by the message from the sisters of Lazarus, as recorded in the next chapter. See Prel. Note there.

CHAPTER XI.

Ch. 11:1-44. THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.—The divine object in all seeming evil: not human death but divine glory (4).—The mystery of the divine silence in our sorrow illustrated and partially interpreted (6, 12).—The conditions of divine protection and the Christian’s safety (9, 10).—The Christian’s death a sleep (11).—The anguish of “if” (21, 32).—The Pharisaic creed and the Christian’s faith concerning death and the resurrection contrasted (23-27).—Christ’s indignation at human falsehood (33, 38).—Christ’s sympathy with human sorrow (35).—The resistance of faithlessness; the obedience of faith (39, 41).—The prayer of assurance of faith (42).—The Resurrection and the Life (43, 44).—A parable of human sorrow and divine comfort.—A parable of human sin and divine redemption. See Supplementary Note.

Preliminary Note.—There is nothing in John to indicate the time at which this miracle took place; and there is no general agreement among harmonists respecting it. Robinson places it immediately at the close of Christ’s Judean ministry and prior to his ministry in Perea; Andrews and Ellicott place it at the close of the Perean ministry and immediately preceding the Passion week. The reasons for so doing are: (1) It seems the immediate occasion both of the triumphal procession accorded to Jesus by the spontaneous action of the common people, and of the more deliberate determination on the part of the ecclesiastics of Jerusalem to put him to death. It does not seem reasonable, therefore, to suppose that a long period of active service in another part of the Holy Land intervened between this the greatest miracle wrought by Christ and the effects which it produced, both upon the church party and upon the common people. (2) Immediately after this miracle, and in consequence of the excitement produced by it, Christ retired into the wilderness, and is said by John to have continued there with his disciples; and the implication is that he remained in this retirement until after the Passover (vers. 54, 55). To suppose that the Perean ministry, which lasted something like three months, was interjected into this period of retirement, which is Robinson’s supposition, breaks into the continuity of John’s narrative, and does violence to its order and symmetry, without any adequate reason. (3) Jesus was at a considerable distance from Bethany at the time when Lazarus was taken sick. The sisters sent unto him at once; after receiving their message, he remained where he was two days; but when he reached Bethany, Lazarus had been four days dead (comp. vers. 6 and 39). Presumptively, therefore, he was at least one day’s journey from Bethany, even if we assume that Lazarus had died before the messengers had reached Jesus; more probably he was two days’ journey distant, for verse 11 indicates that the death of Lazarus took place after Jesus had received word of his sickness. Thus the narrative of this miracle tallies with the supposition that Christ was carrying on his ministry in the region beyond the Jordan, rather than with the supposition that he was anywhere in Judea; the more so that we have no intimation in the Gospels of any ministry in Judea except in and about Jerusalem, of which Bethany was practically a suburb. (4) In Luke 13:32, Christ uses the following language: “Behold I cast out devils and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” This occurs in the Perean ministry, and the “two days” here referred to, have been hypothetically identified with the “two days” during which, according to John’s narrative here, Jesus tarried where he was after receiving the message of Lazarus’s sickness. The coincidence between the two passages is at least curious, though it may be nothing more than a coincidence. These reasons make the chronology of Andrews and Ellicott more probable than that of Robinson. I believe, then, that the resurrection of Lazarus took place in the latter part of February or the early part of March A. D. 30, and that it was followed, after the brief retirement at Ephraim, by the triumphal march of Christ and his disciples up to Jerusalem, and by his Passion and his death there. See Tab. Har., Vol. I, p. 45; for some general considerations respecting this miracle, see Sup. Note, ver. 44.

Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of[425] Mary and her sister Martha.

[425] Luke 10:38, 39.

2 (It was that Mary which[426] anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

[426] ch. 12:3; Mark 14:3.

1, 2. Now a certain one was sick named Lazarus. The only historic person of this name mentioned in the Bible; the indications are that he was a younger brother. From the incident in Luke 10:38-42, we judge that Martha was the head of the household. Simon, probably the father, though possibly the husband of one of the sisters, was a leper; he had probably died or been banished by the law, because of his leprosy (Matt. 26:6). The family appear to have been one of wealth and social distinction; this is indicated by the facts that they owned their house, had their tomb in their garden, and were able to give three hundred dollars worth of ointment as a costly token of honor to Jesus (John 12:5). I say three hundred dollars worth because the penny, or denarius, was a day’s wages, and therefore equivalent to our dollar. How and where the household first became acquainted with Jesus, we do not know. An ingenious writer in Smith’s Bible Dictionary endeavors to identify Lazarus with the rich young ruler who had great possessions, and went away from Christ sorrowful because he was bid to sell all that he had to give to the poor (Matt. 19:16-22); but this ingenious hypothesis has only its ingenuity to commend it. Of Lazarus’s life after his resurrection, nothing whatever is known; there are traditions respecting him, and his bones were discovered by some of the credulous relic-worshippers of the ninth century in the island of Cyprus; but the traditions are as little to be trusted as the relics.—Of Bethany. This village lies on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, less than two miles (ver. 18, note) southeast of Jerusalem. See for description and illustration, ch. 12:1, 2, note. Its present name is El-Azarieh, derived from, and memorializing the resurrection of Lazarus. Of course, the house of Simon and of Lazarus, and the tomb of the latter are pointed out to the traveler by the accommodating monks, and of course, nothing is known about either of these sites, except that the tomb cannot possibly be the real one. It is a deep vault partly lined with masonry, entered upon by a long, winding, half-ruined staircase; the masonry is comparatively modern, and the situation of the tomb in the centre of the village is inconsistent with the Gospel narrative; the genuineness of the site is repudiated by Porter, Robinson, Thompson, and defended by no scholar.—The town of Mary and her sister Martha. It is so characterized because their home served as a retreat to Jesus during his ministry in Jerusalem, and it is thus distinguished from the Bethany beyond the Jordan mentioned in ch. 1:28, note. There is no reason whatever for identifying this Mary with Mary Magdalene or with the “woman which was a sinner,” or the anointing referred to here and described in ch. 12:1-8 with the anointing performed by that unnamed woman and described in Luke 7:36-50; see note there.—The designation of Bethany as the town of Mary and her sister Martha, whom John has not before mentioned, as well as his incidental reference in the parenthetical sentence following, to the anointing of the Lord by Mary, are indications that John wrote not only with a knowledge of the other Gospels, or at least with the main facts, incidents, and characters described in the other Gospels, but also with the assurance that they were familiar to most of his readers. The fact that Mary’s name is mentioned first, would, taken by itself, imply that she was the elder sister, and the head of the household; but the fact that Martha took the responsibility of providing for the guests in the two instances recorded in Luke 10:38-42 and John 12:1-8, indicates that Martha was the elder sister and the housekeeper.

3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he[427] whom thou lovest is sick.

[427] Heb. 12:6; Rev. 3:19.

4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but[428] for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

[428] verse 40; ch. 9:3.

3, 4. Lord, behold whom thou lovest is sick. They have complete confidence in the sympathy of their Lord; they do not urge him to come; they do not present any petition; they simply report their trouble to him.—He said, This sickness is not unto death. That is, has not death for its object; (πρὸς with the accusative, marks strictly the object towards which anything is directed.) Christ does not say that Lazarus will not die, but that death is not the end for which this sickness is ordained of God.—But for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. Comp. ch. 9:3, note. He was glorified, (1) perhaps by the development of a higher spiritual life in Lazarus through his sickness, death and resurrection (Trench), though of this the Evangelist gives us no hint; (2) by the manifestation of the divine power of Jesus Christ, as one whom the Father always hears (ver. 42); (3) by the Passion and death of Jesus Christ, to which the resurrection of Lazarus directly led (vers. 47-53). This saying of Christ seems to have been uttered not merely to his disciples; it was apparently his message to the sisters, and to it he refers in verse 40 (see note there).

5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.

7 Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judæa again.

5-7. Now Jesus loved Martha, etc. This statement is made in explanation of verse 6, that the reader may not fall into the error of supposing that Christ’s delay was due to any indifference or unconcern on his part.—He abode two days in the same place where he was. Why? Either because this delay was necessary to complete the work in which he was engaged, and from which he would not suffer himself to be drawn away even by considerations of personal sympathy, he himself acting on the principle “Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60); or because this delay was necessary to the consummation of the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus in such form as to forever prohibit the impression that death had not really taken place. The former is the better hypothesis, since in no case does Christ seem to have wrought a miracle for the mere purpose of producing by it a profound impression, and it is therefore hardly consistent to believe that he would have delayed merely for the purpose of making the miracle more startling and marvelous.—Let us go into Judea again. This plainly implies that Jesus and his disciples were not then in Judea, and thus incidentally confirms the supposition (see Prel. Note) that the resurrection of Lazarus was subsequent to the close of the ministry in Perea, and that he was summoned from Perea.

8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late[429] sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?[430]

[429] ch. 10:31.

[430] Acts 20:24.

9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If[431] any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

[431] ch. 12:35.

10 But if a man walk in the night,[432] he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

[432] Eccles. 2:14.

8-10. The disciples say to him, Master, the Judeans were just now seeking to stone thee. On the chronological hypothesis adopted above, the mob in Jerusalem had threatened the life of Jesus about three months previous. But he had not been in Judea since. The disciples attributed Christ’s remaining in Perea to the fear of the Jews, and remonstrated against his again braving them.—Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day, etc. In interpreting Christ’s enigmatical saying here, the student must remember that it was his habit to speak in parables, and that he rarely gave any interpretation of them. This is to be regarded as a condensed and uninterpreted parable. John has himself given us the key to its interpretation by his use of the same metaphor in his Epistle (1 John 1:5-7). God is the light. As he has appointed the hours of activity for the human race, the twelve hours of the day, so he has appointed the hours of service for each individual man. What was true of Christ is true of every one; he cannot die until his time has come (John 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20). He therefore who walks with God in the path of duty, fulfilling the divine will, cannot stumble; no harm can come to him; not a hair of his head can be injured (Psalm 91; Matt. 10:29-31; Luke 10:19; 21:18). He may and must come to his death; but not until his twelve hours have passed away.—But if a man work in darkness, i. e., not with God, not in the path of duty, not endeavoring to fulfil the divine will, for him there is no assurance of protection; he is always liable to stumble and fall. This is the general principle which Christ parabolically asserts; its immediate application here is that to Christ there is no danger in going into Judea, for he will not die until his appointed time has fully come. Comp. ch. 9:4, note.

11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth:[433] but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

[433] Deut. 31:16; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 15:18, 51.

12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.

13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

11-13. Our friend Lazarus sleepeth. An interval is indicated as having taken place between the previous discourse and the present declaration, by the words, after that he saith unto them. Our friend, implies that Lazarus was loved by the disciples as well as by their Lord. This language, coupled with that of verse 3, indicates that he possessed a peculiarly lovable character. Sleep is used both in the O. T. and N. T. as a metaphor of death (2 Chron. 14:1; Ps. 13:3; Jer. 51:57; Job 14:12; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 27:52; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thess. 4:13, 14, 15). Some of the rationalistic critics think that the disciples were extraordinarily stupid, not to understand Christ’s metaphor; and yet they are guilty of a similar but greater stupidity. Thus, the author of Supernatural Religion says (Vol. II, 460): “The disciples reply with the stupidity with which the fourth Evangelist endows all those who hold colloquy with Jesus: (Lord, if he has fallen asleep he will recover;)” and yet, on the immediately preceding page, he interprets Christ’s similar declaration respecting the daughter of Jairus (Matt. 9:24): “The maid is not dead but sleepeth,” as “an express declaration” that the case is “one of mere suspension of consciousness.” The misapprehension of the apostles here was not extraordinary; certainly not more so than that afforded by some analogous instances in the first three Gospels (see Matt. 16:7; Luke 22:38). They had understood from verse 4, that Lazarus was to be restored; they had interpreted Christ’s words as a promise of healing; they had witnessed cases of miraculous healing in at least two instances, wrought by a word on an absent patient (Luke 7:10; John 4:50-53); so when Jesus said, “Lazarus is sleeping,” they thought the crisis of the disease had passed, and that there was no reason why their Master should brave the dangers of a Judean mob to go to the bedside of a convalescent friend.

14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead;

15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.

16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

14-16. Then Jesus said unto them plainly (παῤῥησίᾳ). That is, dropping all metaphor.—And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there. He accompanies the declaration of the friend’s death with words of consolation and inspiration. Plain as those words are to us, they must have been inexplicable to the disciples. They did not forecast the resurrection; how could they understand why Christ should not have been present to prevent so great a sorrow. The sympathy of Christ with us in our sorrow does not prevent him, who sees the end from the beginning, from rejoicing even when he sees our tears. He sees the sheaves brought home with joy even while the seed is sown in tears, and rejoices at the tears because of the harvest. To him, faith wrought in the soul is worth immeasurably more than all the sorrow which soul-culture involves (Rom. 5:1-5; 8:18).—Then said Thomas which is called Didymus, that is, the twin.—Let us also go that we may die with him. With Christ, not with Lazarus. The little that we know about Thomas shows him to have been a man of strong passions and of little faith and hope; to such a man life is full of pathos. He could not believe that Christ could with safety go into Judea again; in this, indeed, he really forecast the result, which was the crucifixion of his Lord; but neither could he bear to be separated from him. Chrysostom notes the power of Christ on this timid nature: “The very man who dared not to go in company with Christ to Bethany, afterwards traveled with him through the inhabited world, and dwelt in the midst of nations that were full of murderers desirous to kill him.” On the character of Thomas, see further, Vol. I, p. 149; John 20:24, note.

17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already.

18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:

17, 18. He had lain in the grave four days already. Various explanations are made respecting these four days; they are given in detail in Andrews’ Life of Our Lord. Since, however, we do not know definitely where Christ was, except that it was some point apparently beyond Jordan, and we do not know at all what engagements and duties detained him there, surmises as to the way in which these four days were taken up are decidedly unprofitable. The narrative seems to me clearly to imply that Lazarus was not dead when the messengers first reached Jesus. Probably of these four days, two were occupied by Christ in completing his ministry where he was when he received the message, and two, or part of two days, in a leisurely journey to the home of Lazarus.—Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem. The use of the past tense was, not is, indicates that Bethany had ceased to exist at the time when John wrote his Gospel; it thus incidentally confirms the opinion that he wrote a considerable time after the destruction of Jerusalem, and when that city and its environs were lying waste.—About fifteen furlongs off. Literally, stadia. The stadium, is about six hundred feet; fifteen stadia or furlongs were, therefore, about nine thousand feet, or a little less than two miles.

19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to[434] comfort them concerning their brother.

[434] 1 Chron. 7:22; Job 2:11; 42:11; Rom. 12:15; 1 Thess. 4:18.

19. And many of the Judeans came to Martha and Mary. The word Jews, as used by John, indicates always the inhabitants of Judea, as distinguished from those of other provinces in the Holy Land, and therefore generally those who were prejudiced against, if not absolutely hostile to Jesus. The fact that most of those who were present at the scene about to be described were these Judeans, is an important one, and must be borne in mind by the student, for it gives a peculiar color and significance to the entire narrative.—To comfort them concerning their brother. The Jewish mourning rites were most carefully defined by the Rabbinical law; they included rending the clothes, dressing in sackcloth, sprinkling of ashes or dust on the person, fasting, loud lamenting. Professional mourners were employed to increase the noisy demonstrations of grief (see Mark 5:38, note). The days of mourning were thirty, which were divided into three for weeping, seven for lamentation, and twenty for less demonstrative mourning. During the first three days the mourners were forbidden to wear their phylacteries or to engage in any servile work, or to bathe or anoint themselves; during the seven days they fasted or ate nothing but an occasional egg or some lentiles. After the funeral services were over (for account of which see Luke 7:12, note), friends and professional mourners came and sat with the afflicted ones upon the ground, no one speaking until the bereaved ones had done so, but every sentence of theirs was followed by some word of sympathy and comfort or by the wail of the mourners. Everything was done according to a prearranged system; in Phariseeism there was no liberty, even in the hour of grief.

20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house.

21 Then said Martha unto Jesus. Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever[435] thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.

[435] ch. 9:31.

20-22. Then Martha * * * went and met him. Jesus did not enter into the village, but stopped without and sent some one to let the sisters know that he had come. Geikie supposes that he thus remained without from fear of the Jews; but Christ never stopped in the performance of a duty from considerations of fear; his reply to the remonstrances of his disciples (vers. 8-10) should have prevented this prosaic interpretation of Christ’s action. To him the conventional mourning customs of Oriental society were exceedingly distasteful. He who put all the noisy mourners out of the room in which the daughter of Jairus lay dead (Mark 5:40), and who so gently rebuked the noisy and ostentatious lamentations of the women of Jerusalem at the time of his own crucifixion (Luke 23:27-31), might naturally be expected to decline to enter into the circle of formal mourners, with the alternative of either violating the precedents and rules of good society, or of submitting himself in such an hour to the bondage which they imposed.—But Mary sat still in the house. It would appear from verse 29, that she did not know that Jesus had come; yet the contrast between the two sisters, the one of whom with bustling activity waited upon her Lord, the other of whom, in the quieter offices of love, sat at his feet to listen to his words, or anoint those feet with precious ointment (Luke 10:38-42; John 12:1-8), reappears here. Martha, who was probably the head of the household, was naturally the first to hear of Christ’s coming, and even in her grief found comfort in activity; to Mary, in the solitude of her sorrow, no one at first reported Christ’s approach.—Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. This is the language both of reproach and of lamentation, though the reproach is implied rather than asserted. Her language expresses the very essence of soul torture at such times. We are slow to believe that our sorrow is “for the glory of God that the Son of God may be glorified thereby,” and in our affliction continually echo Martha’s “if,” saying to ourselves, if we had not done this, or if we had not done that, if it had not been for our blunder or that of our friends or our physician, our beloved would not have died. Chance is the God of Atheism, and is a comfortless God in the time of our trouble.—But I know that even now whatsoever thou shouldst ask of God, God will give it thee. This is interpreted by Meyer and Godet as an expression of Martha’s faith that Jesus is able to raise even the dead to life again; but in order to sustain this interpretation, they are obliged to depart from a natural and simple interpretation of Christ’s declaration in vers. 25, 26, to suppose that Martha desired or was anticipating her brother’s resurrection, and yet was so obtuse as to entirely miss the meaning of Christ in that declaration, and, finally, to suppose that the faith which she possessed when she first beheld Christ disappeared when she reached the tomb, where she remonstrated against opening it that the resurrection might be accomplished. I understand Martha’s utterance here to be that simply of an undefined hope. She had counted so much on Christ; he had not come in the hour of her need; all was over now; and yet now that he had come, although too late, she went out to him with a vague, restless hope of some succor or consolation, she knew not what. In our own experience in the unreasonableness of grief, like vague and delusive hopes are not uncommon. Calvin’s interpretation of Martha’s experience better accords both with what we elsewhere know of her character and with the narrative here, than does that of those who eulogize her extraordinary faith: “When she assures herself that her brother would not have died if Christ had been present, what ground has she for this confidence? certainly it did not arise from any promise from Christ. The only conclusion, therefore, is that she inconsiderately yields to her own wishes, instead of subjecting herself to Christ. When she ascribes to Christ power and supreme goodness, this proceeds from faith; but when she persuades herself of more than she had heard Christ declare, that has nothing to do with faith. * * * Martha’s faith, mixed up and interwoven with ill-regulated desires, and even not wholly free from superstition, could not shine with full brightness; so that we perceive but a few sparks of it in these words.”

23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.

24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the[436] resurrection at the last day.

[436] ch. 5:29.

23-24. Thy brother shall rise again. Evidently these words were not understood by Martha to contain a promise of immediate resurrection, and therefore we are not justified in saying that they were so intended by Jesus. They are vague, and are intended to be vague and suggestive, in order to lead on the mind of Martha, and to evoke an expression of her faith. This method of calling out the experience of his pupil was a customary one with Jesus in all his instruction.—I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. This statement of Martha’s faith is to be interpreted by the belief of the orthodox Jews. This was that all the dead departed to Hades or the Under-world, where they dwelt in a shadowy prison-house; the righteous in Paradise; the wicked in Hell; and awaited the coming of the Messiah, who would call all the righteous from the Under-world, while the wicked would be thrust back into it again. Martha believed that her brother had gone to this abode of the dead, and there was awaiting a day of judgment and of resurrection; but she found in this faith very little consolation. Her brother, to her thought, was as if he were not, and dwelt among the dead. A vague hope of a far-distant revival did not comfort her. It is in contrast to, and in correction of this creed, that Christ utters the declaration of verses 25, 26.

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the[437] resurrection, and the life;[438] he that believeth in me, though[439] he were dead, yet shall he live;

[437] ch. 6:40, 44.

[438] ch. 14:6; Isa. 38:16; 1 John 1:2.

[439] Job 19:26; Isa. 26:19; Rom. 4:17.

26 And whosoever[440] liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

[440] chaps. 3:15; 4:14.

25, 26. I am the resurrection and the life. He that believeth in me even if he could die (κἄν ἀποθάνῃ) yet he should live, and every one that liveth and believeth in me never can die. The various and conflicting interpretations afforded by the commentators of this declaration of Christ agree only in being complicated and abstruse. It is essential to comfort that it should be simple truth simply expressed; and that Christ should offer as a consolation to Martha a truth so subtle and involved in so much mystery that skillful scholarship can scarce unlock its meaning, seems to me utterly incredible. I understand these words as an embodiment of Christ’s creed respecting life and immortality. Jesus is the source of the resurrection, and the fountain of life. Whoever, therefore, by faith in Christ, has Christ in him the hope of glory, never knows death; to him there is no Hades, no dark and dismal abode of the dead, no long and weary waiting for a final great jail delivery—a judgment and an acquittal. He passes at once from the lower to the higher state; he has already come to the general assembly and church of the first-born (Heb. 12:22-24). What we call death summons him simply to depart and be straightway with Christ (Phil. 1:23; Luke 23:43). The eternal life which Christ here and now gives to those who are by faith united to him (John 5:24), is never suspended. So immortal and potent is this life principle which Christ offers to those who have received him, that, if it were possible that one having died should receive it, he would by it be made to live again. Against the conception, common now as then, of death as a long sleep or a long and dreary waiting for a final resurrection, is Christ’s teaching here that “There is no death; what seems so is transition.” In confirmation of this view, observe, (1) That Christ’s declaration is present, not future: “I am the resurrection,” not, I shall by-and-by become so. (2) The conditional clause though he were dead, is literally even though he should die, and is fairly rendered by the phrase adopted above, even if he could die. (3) Thus interpreted, Christ’s declaration is responsive to Martha’s confession of faith, and leads on to and agrees with the event which follows, the restoration of Lazarus to his earthly life. (4) It accords with the general teaching of the N. T., in which Christ is represented as the source of eternal life, and the death of the saints as a doorway into his immediate presence (Acts 7:59; Rom. 14:8; 2 Cor. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:8; 2 Peter 1:11, etc.). It is not necessary to give here other interpretations, for they are complicated, incongruous, and almost impossible to classify. They are the results of various and unsuccessful endeavors to bring Christ’s declaration into accord with the Pharisaic faith, which still lingers in the Christian church, of a resurrection and an eternal life postponed to the future, and an abode in death, meanwhile, in some sort of an intermediate state.

27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

27. Yea, Lord; I have believed that thou art the Messiah, the Son of God, he who was to come unto the world. I have believed (πεπίστευκα), the perfect tense, indicates the expression of a well-established faith; perhaps of one which Christ well knew that she had entertained. Martha still adheres to her Pharisaic creed; we do not give up our religious beliefs easily. At Christ’s question, “Believest thou that I am the Resurrection and the Life, and that they that believe in me shall never die?” she replies in effect: “Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Messiah of the prophets at whose word all the dead shall come forth from Hades unto judgment.” And in this faith she does have some comfort, because she supposes this day of general resurrection cannot, in the nature of the case, be far distant.

28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly,[441] saying, The Master[442] is come, and calleth[443] for thee.

[441] ch. 21:7.

[442] ch. 13:13.

[443] Mark 10:49.

29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him.

30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him.

28-30. She went her way and called Mary her sister secretly. Evidently, from her words The Master calleth for thee, she did this in obedience to Christ’s direction. She went secretly because she did not desire the presence of the Judeans at the quiet conference between Jesus Christ and herself and sister.—The Master is come and calleth for thee. She represses the name, perhaps because she does not desire it to be overheard by those who are present. The general designation, however, the Master or the Teacher is enough. To Mary there is no one else worthy to be called the Teacher.—As soon as she heard that, she rose quickly. Therefore presumptively, Mary had not before heard that Jesus had arrived.—Jesus * * * was in that place where Martha met him. Not at the grave where Lazarus was buried (ver. 34), but at some point a little outside the village.

31 The Jews[444] then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.

[444] verse 19.

32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if[445] thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

[445] verses 21, 37; ch. 4:49.

31, 32. She goeth unto the grave to weep there. It was the custom of Jewish women often to visit the graves of their dead, especially during the first days of mourning. These too obtrusive mourners could not comprehend that Mary might desire solitude in her sorrow. They would not allow her to retreat from them. Thus the private interview which Jesus desired with the two sisters was denied him. Consequently there was no real conference between Jesus and Mary; as soon as she came he asked to be shown the grave.—She fell down at his feet. With a more passionate nature than that of Martha, her action and her attitude were both more strongly indicative of her uncontrollable emotion. Possibly she threw herself prostrate at his feet in the form of salutation ordinarily paid by an inferior to a superior in the East; yet, with her face upon the ground, she could hardly have carried on any conference whatever. More probably, therefore, she flung herself at first at his feet, then partially raised herself again to break forth in her reproachful complaint.—Lord, if thou hadst been here my brother would not have died. Her language is nearly the same as that of Martha, but she adds no expression of hope; her profounder nature refuses to entertain a hope for which she can give herself no reason.

FELL AT HIS FEET.

33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,

34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.

35 Jesus wept.[446]

[446] Isa. 63:9; Luke 19:41; Heb. 2:16, 17.

33-35. When Jesus therefore saw her lamenting and the Judeans also lamenting which came with her. The word translated in the English version weeping, but which I have rendered lamenting, is not the same as that employed in the declaration of verse 35, “Jesus wept.” It implies not only the shedding of tears but also every external expression of grief—the loud outcries, the rending of garments, and the whole vociferous and ostentatious manifestation of mourning.—He groaned in the spirit and was troubled. There seems to be no doubt that the Greek word rendered groaned, necessarily involves in it the idea of anger or indignation; it is so rendered in the Vulgate and in Luther’s translation. “The words brimaomi (βριμάομαι) and embrimaomi (εμβριμάομαι) are never used otherwise than of hot anger in the classics; the Septuagint and N. T. (Matt. 9:30; Mark 1:43; 14:5), except where they denote snorting or growling proper.”—(Meyer.) With this agree both the lexicons and the critics generally. What was the cause of this indignation? According to some of the older commentaries, Christ was indignant with himself for his weakness in yielding to his emotions; his divinity was irritated at the emotion of his humanity, and violently repressed it. This opinion needs no refutation with those who believe that Christianity tends to intensify, not to suppress the natural affections—that Christian sympathy weeps with those that weep as well as rejoices with those that rejoice; and who find in the tears of Christ at the grave of Lazarus, not a manifestation of human weakness, but an expression of divine sympathy which draws God very near to every sorrowing heart. Others suppose that Christ saw in this scene a type of the woe that sin has wrought in the world; seeing its effects his indignation was aroused. Thus Trench: “He beheld death in all its dread significance, as the wages of sin; the needs of the whole world, of which this was but a little example, rose up before his eyes; all its mourners and all its graves were present to him.” We may certainly believe that this profound sense of the significance of this scene of sorrow affected Christ and intensified his sympathy; that the tears that he shed were tears of sympathy, not only with Mary and Martha, but also with all sorrowing households. This, however, interprets rather his sorrow than his indignation. A simple and natural interpretation of this indignation is afforded by a consideration of the circumstances and surroundings. He was indignant at the display of the affected grief of those who were bitter enemies of the truth, and who would, as he well knew, make use of this very miracle to promote his death, and would even join with those who would seek to put Lazarus himself to death again (ch. 12:10). He was indignant when he saw the Jews also lamenting, and again when he heard the sneer uttered by them (see ver. 37, note). To this effect is Meyer: “He was angered, then, at the Judeans, when he saw them lamenting with the deep-feeling Mary, and professing by their cries (of condolence) to share her feelings, whilst at the same time aware that they were full of bitter hostility to him who was the beloved friend both of those who mourned and of him whom they mourned.”—And was troubled. Literally, he troubled himself. The words “indicate a physical emotion, a bodily trembling, which might be perceived by the witnesses of this scene.”—(Godet.)—Lord, come and see. They did not anticipate his purpose; they simply invited him to come to the grave, as would be natural in such circumstances.—Jesus wept. The Greek (δακρύω) signifies simply shedding of tears, weeping silently. This silent dropping of the tears from his eyes is in contrast with the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41, κλαίω). That was a public lamentation of a prophet; this was the expression of the personal sympathy of a friend. Beware of that false philosophy which represents Christ as weeping only as a man. In this, as in every utterance of his nature, he was God manifest in the flesh. By his tears at the grave of Lazarus he interprets to us the divine sympathy which shares all our sorrows, however much the great Sympathizer, with his clear view of final results, may, like Christ, be glad of the brief experience of grief that is soon to produce so much joy (ver. 15).

36 Then said the Jews, Behold, how he loved him!

37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which[447] opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?

[447] ch. 9:6.

36, 37. Then said the Judeans, Behold how he loved him; but some of them said, Could not this fellow who opened the eyes of the blind have caused that even this man should not have died? Some, touched by Christ’s genuine though silent sorrow, in striking contrast with the noisier demonstrations of grief of the less sincere mourners, expressed their sense of the Rabbi’s love for his friend; others replied with a sneer. This is indicated in the original by the Greek particle (δέ), which our English version renders and, but which should be rendered but; and by the phrase This fellow, which fairly represents the spirit of the original (see ch. 6:42, note). They referred, not to previous resurrections, for these had taken place in Galilee, and with them they were not familiar, but to the healing of the blind man, which had only a little previously taken place in Jerusalem, and which had led to a formal investigation by the Sanhedrim, and no little public excitement (ch. 7).

38 Jesus therefore, again groaning in himself, cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

38. Jesus therefore, again indignant in himself. He is indignant at the sneer, and his manner gives some expression to his indignation, though it is not uttered in words.—Cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. The grave was sometimes cut perpendicularly in the rock, but the declaration that it was a cave implies that the tomb of Lazarus was in a horizontal chamber. The phrase A stone lay upon it, may as well mean that a stone was laid against the open doorway as upon a perpendicular opening. “The family vaults of the Jews were sometimes natural (Gen. 23:9), sometimes, as was this, artificial, and hollowed out from a rock (Isa. 22:16; Matt. 22:60), in a garden (John 19:41), or in some field, the possession of the family (Gen. 23:9, 17-20; 35:8; 1 Kings 2:34), with a recess in the sides (Isa. 14:15), wherein the bodies were laid, occasionally with chambers one beyond another. Sometimes the entrance to these tombs was on a level; sometimes, as most probably here, there was a descent to it by steps. The stone which blocked up the entrance and kept aloof the beasts of prey, above all the numerous jackalls, which else might have found their way into these receptacles of the dead and torn the bodies.”—(Trench.) For further description and illustration of Jewish tomb, and the manner of closing it with a circular stone, see Mark 16:2-4, note. Presumptively, in this case, the stone was rolled away from the door of the cave, and Jesus and the friends stood in the doorway, while from the inner chamber or recess where the body of Lazarus had been laid, he issued forth at the word of the Lord. The accompanying illustration (p. 146) better represents the nature of the scene than it is possible to do by description only.

39 Jesus said, Take ye away[448] the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time[449] he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

[448] Mark 16:3.

[449] Ps. 49:7, 9; Acts 2:27.

40 Jesus saith unto her, Said[450] I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

[450] verses 4, 23.

39, 40. Martha * * * saith unto him, Lord, already he stinketh. This is taken by Alford as the statement of the plain fact, and he apparently believes that it was made sensible by the ill odor which proceeded from the cave. Trench objects that this supposition gives to the miracle almost “a monstrous character.” The text seems to me to determine the question. Martha asserts the decomposition of the body, not as a fact known, but as a conclusion deduced from the length of time that had passed since the death. With her it clearly was an opinion—whether correct or not is purely a matter of surmise. Apparently the body had not been embalmed; no explanation is offered of this singular fact. In the East it was usual to embalm the corpse at once.—For he hath been four days (dead). We may supply either the word dead, as the translators have done, or the word buried; it will make little difference, for burial in the warm climate of the East usually took place on the day of the death. It was a Jewish notion that for three days the spirit wandered about the sepulchre hoping that it might return unto the body; but on the fourth day it abandoned this expectation and left the body to itself. Thus Martha’s expression involves the idea that all hope of resuscitation was past, and negatives the interpretation of Meyer that her language in verse 22 implies her hope of a present resurrection.—Said I not unto thee. The reference is probably to the message sent to the sisters as reported in verse 4.—If thou wouldst believe, thou shouldst see the glory of God. The faith of the sisters was to be displayed, not in any definite expectation of the work which their Lord was about to accomplish, but in obedience to his directions; and in fact Martha tacitly withdraws her remonstrance, and the stone is rolled away from the grave. The performance of the miracle was itself dependent on the fulfillment of the condition, If thou wouldst believe. The New Testament throughout treats faith as the power of moral and spiritual discernment, and therefore the fundamental condition of receiving the divine blessing. “To unbelieving Martha, Jesus could no more have restored the dead brother, than to the unbelieving Jairus his child (Luke 8:50), or to the widow of Nain her son, if her attitude toward his compassion and his injunction ‘Weep not’ (Luke 7:13), had been one of unbelief.”—(Meyer.) Observe the order in which Christ put seeing and believing. Men are always desirous to see in order to believe. Martha is called upon to give an example of the contrary course: to believe that she may see.

41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said,[451] Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

[451] ch. 12:28-30.

42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

41, 42. They took away therefore the stone. The words where the dead man was laid are wanting in the best manuscripts.—And Jesus lifted up his eyes. Toward heaven; not because God is in heaven more truly than upon earth (Ps. 139:7-12), but because the visible heaven is ever suggestive to the human mind of the invisible God; and Jesus thus quickened his own faith in the Father, as we may well do. He prayed toward the heavens as the devout Jew prayed toward the temple (1 Kings 8:30; Dan. 6:10).—Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. It is not necessary to suppose, as Alford does, a reference to some previously uttered prayer, in Perea, for example, when the message respecting Lazarus’s sickness was brought to Jesus. The language is that of the assurance of faith—faith in a God who hears the desire before it is expressed in prayer, who teaches the believing soul how and for what to pray, and who thus continually answers our prayers by anticipation. Christ regards his prayer as answered before it is presented.—And I knew that thou hearest me always. Alike when the prayer is granted and when it is denied; at the grave of Lazarus and in the agony in Gethsemane. God hears us when his providence says No to our petition none the less than when it says Yes. The true Christian’s faith, like Christ’s faith, rests not on the answer but on the direct personal consciousness of spiritual communion with God.—But because of the people which stand by I said it. Thus Christ on occasion violates the letter of his own rule which prohibits men to pray “that they may be seen of men” (Matt. 6:5, 6), just as in Gethsemane he seemed to violate the letter of his rule against repetitions in prayer (comp. Matt. 6:7 with Matt. 26:44). Here his prayer was public in order that men might know that he did pray, and that his resurrection power was not his own but was given to him by his Father, and thus might glorify not him, but the Father in him.—That they may have faith that thou hast sent me. Not merely that they might believe intellectually that he was a messenger or representative sent by the Father, but that their thoughts might be turned from him, who was but the instrument, the voice of God, to the invisible Father himself, who spoke in him and wrought through him. This prayer of thanksgiving is in instructive contrast with the prayer of Elijah when he raised the dead (1 Kings 17:20, 21). There was the earnestness of an anxious faith; here is the assurance of a restful faith; there the importunity of request intensified by a fear of denial; here the calmness of thanksgiving already assured of a favorable response. The simple grandeur of this prayer has not prevented it from being criticised as artificial (Supernatural Religion), “a show prayer” (Weisse), “a sham prayer” (Baur). If prayer were only petition there would be ground for this criticism; but if prayer is the frank and free communion of the soul with its Father, there is none. It will seem artificial only to those who are unable to comprehend the filial relation between a Son and his heavenly Father.

43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

44 And[452] he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes; and his face[453] was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

[452] 1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:34, 35; Luke 7:14, 15; Acts 20:9-12.

[453] ch. 20:7.

43, 44. He cried with a loud voice. The previous prayer had been spoken in a subdued voice; apparently, this is implied by the suggested contrast, was only heard in Christ’s immediate vicinity. The others knew that he was praying, and thus recognized the miracle as a result of his appeal to his Father; but they did not hear the words of the prayer. The “loud voice” was a type, a suggestion of that voice like the sound of many waters (Rev. 1:15), at which all who are in their graves shall come forth (John 5:28; 1 Thess. 4:16).—Lazarus, come forth. Literally Here! out! “The simplicity of these two words, are in glorious contrast with their efficacy.”—(Godet.)—And he that had been dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes. Literally swathing-bands (χειρία). The supposition of Chrysostom, Lightfoot and others that this coming forth bound necessitated a new miracle is entirely unnecessary. It was the Jewish custom to wrap the dead comparatively loosely in a winding sheet or shroud, which would have impeded though not prevented arising and walking. The exact nature of the swathing-bands does not appear to be known. The word occurs nowhere else in the N. T. There is, however, no reason to suppose that the limbs were so tightly bound that motion would be impossible. The same word is used in classic literature to signify a flounce worn about the bottom of the dress of the living. The accompanying cut, which in its representation of the tomb and grave-clothes, is produced from a careful study of the best archæological authorities, illustrates the probable appearance of Lazarus better than descriptive words could do. —His face was bound about with a napkin. A handkerchief; probably, as sometimes with us, to prevent the falling of the lower jaw.—Loose him and let him go. Christ gives them something to do. This is partly to recall them from their speechless and dazed astonishment, partly to prevent the too great and dangerous revulsion of feeling, partly because he has done his work and would bid them to do what in them lies to be sharers with him in the restoration of the loved one to life and liberty. In this is a moral significance; we cannot raise the spiritually dead; but we can bring Christ to their grave by our prayers, and we can aid in their perfect liberation when the divine voice has called them from their sleep of death.

Note on the Resurrection of Lazarus.—This miracle is recorded only by John. Why? It was not only the climax of all Christ’s wonderful works, but it also led directly on the one hand to the triumphal procession into Jerusalem, which is recorded by all, and on the other to the final plans for Christ’s arrest and crucifixion. Several explanations have been suggested for the silence of the synoptists: (1) That the miracle aroused hostility to Lazarus and his sisters, and involved them in danger (ch. 12:10), and that therefore all mention of it was omitted (Godet, Olshausen). But this hostility could hardly have continued to threaten any real danger to Lazarus for twenty-five or thirty years; and if it did, we can hardly think that he or his sisters would have shrunk from being designated as living witnesses to the resurrection power of their Lord. They would rather have gloried in being permitted to suffer for him. (2) That the narration of the resurrection would have made the household “the focus of an intense and irreverent curiosity” (Farrar). But it would also have made them the focus of an intense and reverent desire to know something with greater certainty respecting Jesus and his work. And if the miracle were wrought for the glory of God, to keep silence respecting it was to weaken if not to destroy its intended effect. (3) That the Synoptists confine themselves to a narrative of Christ’s Galilean ministry and exclude all the events in Judea prior to the Passion week (Meyer). But this does not explain the omission of this miracle; it simply reiterates the fact, and leaves the perplexing problem unsolved. Why should the Synoptists avoid all mention of miracles and teachings in Judea, especially one so notable as this? I agree with Trench in saying that to this question it is now difficult to find a satisfactory answer. Possibly Peter, from whom Mark is believed to have derived all his information, and Matthew were not present, and each may have limited himself to facts actually witnessed by them. This still leaves Luke’s omission of the miracle unexplained.

RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.

The significance of this miracle as an evidence of Christ’s divine character, authority and mission has always been felt, even by the more resolute unbelievers in historic Christianity. Thus Spinoza declared that “could he have persuaded himself of the truth of the raising of Lazarus, he would have broken in pieces his whole system, and would have embraced without repugnance the ordinary faith of Christians.” Various rationalistic explanations have been attempted, of which the chief are the following: (1) The mythical (Strauss), i. e., that the story is a myth which grew up out of some slight foundation, assumed its present form in the second or third century, and then was embodied in this narrative by an ecclesiastical forger, who used John’s name to give sanction to his story. (2) That the story was created by the writer for the purpose of illustrating the truth that Christ is the resurrection and the life, and that it was developed by him out of some conversation of Jesus, or perhaps out of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, or possibly out of some incident in the life of Lazarus. It is even suggested that Nain is an abbreviation of Bethany, and that the narratives of the resurrection of Lazarus and of the widow of Nain’s son have a common origin (Schenkel). To such straits is naturalism reduced in dealing with the miraculous. (3) That the death of Lazarus was apparent, not real; that the resurrection was a fraud contrived by the friends of Jesus in order to give eclat to his anticipated entry into Jerusalem, and that to this fraud he lent himself, in a moment of intense fanatical enthusiasm (Renan). The various explanations are stated more in detail by Meyer, but may all be reduced to these three: a denial that John wrote the account; a suggestion that he invented it, building on a very slight foundation; and a suspicion that it was a fraud perpetrated by Lazarus and the sisters and acquiesced in by Jesus. The only alternative is belief in the miracle. The evidence of John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel (see Introduction) refutes the first hypothesis; the simplicity of the narrative and the character of John, the second; the character of Christ himself, the third. The narrative itself is neither ideal nor dogmatic, neither an artistic picture nor a concealed argument. It is a perfectly colorless narrative of events concerning which there was no possible room for mistake. The writer does not draw from the narrative any conclusion; he does not say that any miracle was wrought or even that the dead was raised. He simply tells his readers what he saw and heard, and leaves them to draw their own conclusions. He was with Jesus beyond Jordan; word came to them that Lazarus was sick; Jesus remained where he was two days; then he told the disciples that Lazarus was dead; when they reached Bethany they found a scene of mourning; the friends had come according to Jewish custom to console the sister’s family; both sisters stated impliedly and reproachfully that Lazarus was dead; when they arrived at the grave, one of them said that he had been dead four days, and that corruption—though this apparently was only her presumption—had already commenced; Christ directed the stone to be rolled away, commanded in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth,” and he came forth bound in his grave-clothes. A scientific commission could not have reported the facts with more absolute impartiality. The writer expresses no opinion whatever respecting the occurrence. This is not the method of an idealist who has invented the occurrence for the purpose of glorifying his Master, or of a dogmatist who has written it to prove a doctrine; it is the language of a pre-eminently honest, fair-minded and impartial witness. And upon this narrative the great mass of readers and students have come to but one conclusion—that to which both friend and foe came at the time—that it was a genuine resurrection of the dead, a great and notable miracle.

An instructive parallel may be traced between the experience of these sisters in their sorrow and that of many a Christian household since. (1) The burden of grief. When the sisters first sent for Christ to come, he delayed. Still he often delays to answer our petitions. The house of mourning is sometimes a Christless house, not only because of our infirmity (Psalm 77:10), but also because of his will. We, like our Master, seem sometimes to be forsaken of our God (Matt. 27:46). (2) The aggravation of grief. Both sisters approach Christ with an “if”:—“If thou hadst been here my brother had not died.” But his death was not the result of an “if,” but for the glory of God. There is no “if”; nothing ever happens. Even the cup which Judas, Caiaphas, Herod and Pilate mingle for Christ is the cup which his Father gives him (ch. 18:14; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28). (3) The sympathy of Christ. The tears of Jesus are a witness to the breadth and depth of the divine sympathy. He feels the anguish of our present sorrow though he stands by a grave so soon to be opened, perceives prophetically the resurrection so soon to take place, and knows that weeping is but for the night and joy cometh in the morning. See Heb. 4:15, 16. (4) The true and false conception of death. We too often imagine, as Martha, the believer awaiting in Hades a future resurrection and a remote restoration to life. Our hearts are dead because buried in the grave of our loved ones. To us Christ declares here that the believer never dies, but steps at once from the lower to the higher life, through the grave into heavenly companionship (Luke 23:43; Phil. 1:23). (5) The power of Christ. This scene is a witness to the truth that all the dead shall hear his voice and come forth in resurrection. Death is but a sleep; from it he will awaken all that sleep in him (Dan. 12:2; John 5:21-29; 6:39; 1 Cor. 15:26, 54; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 1:18; 20:14). (6) A parable of redemption. Sin a spiritual death; Christ the spiritual life-giver.

Ch. 11:45-57. THE EFFECT OF THE MIRACLE.—It produces faith in some; it intensifies enmity in others.—An unprincipled man an unconscious prophet.—Christ’s sacrifice: vicarious; for sinners; for all people.—Christ fears neither to flee from nor to face danger.—False seeking for Christ illustrated.

45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen[454] the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

[454] chaps. 2:23; 10:41, 42; 12:11, 18.

46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

45, 46. Many of the Jews * * * believed on him. Not necessarily were spiritually converted.

They recognized in him a prophet, perhaps even the Messiah.—But some of them went to the Pharisees. But (adversative) marks the contrast between the two classes, and indicates their hostile purpose. The term Pharisees here, as frequently with John, indicates the rulers of the Jews, the Jewish hierarchy.

47 Then[455] gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What[456] do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

[455] Ps. 2:2.

[456] Acts 4:16.

48 If we let him thus alone, all[457] men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

[457] ch. 12:19.

47, 48. A council. A meeting of the Sanhedrim. On its constitutional character and methods of procedure, see Vol. I, p. 298. Geikie gives us no good reason for accepting his dogmatic statement that the Sanhedrim had before this time been broken up by Herod.—What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. Not, What shall we do? but, What are we doing? They reproach themselves for their inaction. There is an ellipsis in the sentence; the meaning is, Something must be done, for this man, etc. For similar instance of perplexity see Acts 4:16. It always exists where conscience gives a clear command which ambition and selfishness refuse to obey.—If we let him thus alone. This was a causeless self-reproach; for they had already condemned him without trial (ch. 7:30, 50, 51), and determined to excommunicate all his followers (ch. 9:22). It indicates a purpose which the speaker dared not put in words, to proceed to more extreme measures.—The Romans shall come and take away both our place and our nation. Our place, it seems to me, designates neither the city, the land, nor the temple; but the office of these rulers. They were placemen, and feared the loss of their dignities and authority in the utter overthrow of the nation, which did, indeed, subsequently take place. But why should they fear this from any increase of Christ’s popularity? Not, as Augustine interprets, because he would persuade all men to live peaceful lives, and so prevent any successful revolt against the Roman government. In common with all the Jews, they expected in the Messiah a temporal king; the people had already attempted to crown Christ as king (ch. 6:15); the council did not believe that he was the Messiah, did not believe that any attempt by him to emancipate the nation would succeed; and yet his popularity was such, and the popular movement which they anticipated was likely to be such, as to provoke from the Romans the destruction of what little national life was left. Their selfishness blinded them utterly to the true nature of Christ’s mission.

49 And one of them, named[458] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

[458] ch. 18:14; Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6.

50 Nor consider that it is[459] expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

[459] Luke 24:46.

49, 50. Caiaphas puts boldly into words thoughts which others less unscrupulous dared not phrase. He overrules all scruples, whether those of conscience against the murder of an innocent man and evident prophet, or those of the Pharisaic party against appealing to the Roman government to put a prophet to death, which was necessary to carry out their purpose (Matt. 27:1, 2, note).—This he does by a Jesuitical casuistry: It is better that one innocent man should die than that the nation should be destroyed. Thus a pretended patriotism is made to cover a proposed judicial murder. The argument is that of an unprincipled politician: the end justifies the means. The signification here and in verse 51 of the phrase “high priest that year” is somewhat uncertain. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, really held the office from A. D. 27 to A. D. 36 or 37. The high priesthood was originally a life office. It was now bestowed and taken away by the Romans at their will. In 107 years there were twenty-seven appointees. I am inclined to think the language here a sarcastic reference to the degenerate nature of the office; John refuses to give to Caiaphas the honor once but no longer due to the high priesthood. Prof. Fisher (Beginnings of Christianity) explains it “on account of the supreme importance which ‘that year’ of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus had in his (John’s) mind.” The language of Caiaphas here agrees with his course in Matt. 26:62, 67. He was an unscrupulous, vehement, and self-seeking ecclesiastical politician, such a leader as is often produced by a degenerate and turbulent era.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not[460] for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered[461] abroad.

[460] Isa. 49:6; Rom. 3:29; 1 John 2:2.

[461] ch. 10:16; Ephes. 2:14-17.

51, 52. The meaning of the Evangelist is plain. It is not merely that by accommodation a prophetic reference to Christ’s sacrifice can be put upon the words of Caiaphas, but that, unwittingly, he prophesied of that death and its signification. So Balaam prophesied blessing to Israel despite himself (Numb., ch. 23). “He who believed in no angel or spirit was compelled to be the spokesman of the Divine Word, even when he was plotting his death. Strange and awful reflection! And yet so it must be—so experience shows us continually that it is. Our words are not our own; we are no lords over them whatever we may think.”—(Maurice.) Observe the two truths connected with the atonement here indicated: (1) that Jesus Christ dies for the nation which by its constitutional rulers is plotting his death; he dies for sinners, not for the righteous (Rom. 5:6-8); (2) by his death he gathers into one, i. e., into one nation or kingdom (see Matt. 21:43, note) the children of God from every nation under the heavens (Matt. 8:11; John 10:16; 17:20, 21; Ephes. 2:16-18; Col. 3:11; Rev. 5:9). “The cross was emphatically a message to mankind, to all tribes and races within the circle of the empire that had appointed this punishment for rebels and slaves. It is a thought which possessed the minds of all the apostles—of none more than St. John. The cross was to do what the eagle had tried to do. It was to bind men in one society.”—(Maurice.)

53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together[462] for to put him to death.

[462] Ps. 109:4, 5.

53. The speech of Caiaphas was successful; it united Pharisee and Sadducee in an agreement to do whatever might be necessary to compass the death of Jesus. The effect of this agreement is seen in their subsequent course (Matt. 22:15, 16, 23; 27:1, 2).

54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly[463] among the Jews: but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim,[464] and there continued with his disciples.

[463] chaps. 7:1; 18:20.

[464] 2 Sam. 13:23; 2 Chron. 13:19.

54. The site of Ephraim is involved in some uncertainty. The “wilderness” probably designates the wild uncultivated hill country northeast of Jerusalem, lying between the central towns and the Jordan valley. Dr. Robinson identifies Ephraim with the Ophrah referred to in Josh. 18:23; 1 Sam. 13:17, the Ephraim or Ephram referred to in 2 Chron. 13:19, and the modern et-Taiyibeh, and Ewald supposes it to be the same Ephraim near which occurred the murder of Amnon (2 Sam. 13:23). Taiyibeh is four or five miles east of Bethel and sixteen from Jerusalem, is situated on a conspicuous conical hill, and commands an extended view over the whole eastern slope, the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. But the identification with Taiyibeh is only hypothetical. See Andrews’ Life of our Lord, p. 385. Christ must have returned to this place immediately after the resurrection of Lazarus, and his place of retirement was evidently unknown to the public (ver. 57). The “disciples” who abode there with him undoubtedly included the twelve, but may have also included others. The length of his stay is uncertain. If the chronology which I have adopted (see ch. 11, Prel. Note), be the correct one, it could only have been for two or three weeks, not five or six weeks as supposed by Andrews and Ellicott. It is not improbable that the special instructions concerning prayer, reported by Luke, were given during this period of retirement (Luke 11:1-8: 18:1-14). There is nothing in Luke to fix the time or place of these instructions; but as Christ was accustomed to draw his illustrations from circumstances and events occurring about him, it is probable that at least the parable of the Pharisee and the publican was given in or near Judea. From Ephraim Christ went up to Jerusalem to attend the last Passover, and to his passion there. See ch. 12, Prel. Note.

55 And[465] the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

[465] chaps. 2:13; 5:1; 6:4.

56 Then[466] sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?

[466] ver. 8; ch. 5:16, 18.

57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.

55-57. Out of the country. From different parts of the country: not only from Palestine, but from remote provinces where the dispersed Jews were scattered. (See Acts 2:9-11.)—To purify themselves. No special purifications were required by the O. T. before the Passover, but the people were commanded to purify themselves before any important event (Gen. 35:2; Exod. 19:10, 11), and were accustomed to go through certain special rites of purification prior to the Passover (2 Chron. 30:13-20).—Then sought they for Jesus, etc. “Verse 56 graphically describes the restless curiosity of these country people, who were collected in groups in the temple and discussing the approaching arrival of Jesus.”—(Godet.) His miracles and teachings in Galilee and Perea, and above all the resurrection of Lazarus, led his friends and quasi disciples to expect his immediate revelation of himself as the Messiah (Luke 19:11); while the fact that the Sanhedrim had pronounced against him and given orders for his arrest coupled with his sudden disappearance, led others to think that he had fled from the country, or at least would for the present conceal himself (comp. John 7:11, 12).—But the chief priests and the Pharisees, etc. (δὲ οἱ ἀρχ.; the first καὶ is spurious). This is stated as an explanation of the doubt of the people whether Christ would appear or no. Godet’s suggestions that the order was given to intimidate Christ and his disciples is reasonable; for it could not have been difficult to ascertain Christ’s place of retreat, and when he emerged from it, and came up with peculiar publicity to the feast, no attempt was made to arrest him. According to a

Hebrew tradition, as reported by Lightfoot, an officer of the Sanhedrim, during the forty days preceding this Passover, “publicly proclaimed that this man, who by his imposture had seduced the people, ought to be stoned, and that any one who could say aught in his defence was to come forward and speak. But no one doing so, he was hanged on the evening of the Passover.” To some such public proclamation John here perhaps refers.

CHAPTER XII.

Ch. 12:1-11. ANOINTING OF JESUS BY MARY.—A costly expression of a fervent love is not waste.—Hypocrisy sets philanthropy and piety in contrast.—None are so deaf as they that will not hear.

Preliminary Note.—This anointing is not to be confounded with that of which Luke (7:36-50) gives an account. The reasons for distinguishing it from that anointing I have stated in the preliminary note there. This anointing is not mentioned by Luke. It is reported by Matthew (26:6-13) and Mark (14:3-9). It is true that some harmonists have supposed two distinct anointings in Bethany, but that opinion is entertained by very few scholars and by none of the moderns, and is not a reasonable hypothesis; the differences between John’s account and those of Matthew and Mark are not greater than might have been expected in accounts given by independent witnesses. Matthew and Mark say that Mary anointed Jesus’ head, John that she anointed Jesus’ feet; but certainly she may have anointed both the head and the feet. The principal difference lies in the fact that Matthew and Mark impliedly place the anointing two days before the Paschal feast (Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:1), while John impliedly places it six days before the feast (ver. 1). The chronology is uncertain; some scholars adopt that of Matthew and Mark (Robinson, Geo. W. Clark, Hackett)—others, that of John (Townsend, Andrews, Alford). The former of these opinions appears to me the more probable for reasons stated in the note on Matthew 26:6-16. In such a case as this, where there appears to be a conflict in the chronology of the evangelists, neither of whom puts any emphasis upon chronological data or gives what may properly be called a date, we may reasonably allow the order of events to be determined by a consideration of the probable way in which one event leads on to another. In this case the discourses of Jesus in the temple and the overthrow of the ambitious hopes of Judas Iscariot naturally led to his complaint at this anointing, and Christ’s sharp rebuke of his spirit here naturally led in turn to his final act of treachery. The note of time afforded by John in verses 1 and 12, though they certainly indicate that the anointing took place prior to the triumphal procession, are not conclusive; for verses 2-9 may be regarded as parenthetical. Thus Dr. Hackett: “John is the only one of the evangelists who speaks of the Saviour stopping at Bethany on the way between Bethany and Jerusalem. Hence, this feast being the principal event which John associates with Bethany during these last days, he not unnaturally inserts the account of the feast immediately after the speaking of the arrival at Bethany. But having (so to speak) discharged his mind of that recollection, he then turns back and resumes the historical order, namely, that on the next day after coming to Bethany Jesus made his public entry into Jerusalem as related by the Synoptists.” We suppose, then, that after the tarry in Ephraim Christ came up to the Passover; stopped at Jericho, where occurred the healing of the blind man, the conversion of Zaccheus, and the parable of the ten pounds (Luke 18:35 to 19:28); from Jericho proceeded to Jerusalem, stopping on the way at Bethany, where, perhaps, he spent the Sabbath; entered Jerusalem in triumph on the following day, and drove from the temple the traders (Luke 19:28-48), and there gave the instructions recorded more or less by all the Synoptists, but most fully by Matthew (chaps. 21:12 to 25:46); and thence retreated to Bethany, where this supper, made for him by Martha and her sister Mary, led directly to the conspiracy of Judas Iscariot for his betrayal (Matt. 26:14-16). See Tabular Harmony, page 45.

BETHANY.

Then Jesus, six days before the passover, came to Bethany, where[467] Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

[467] ch. 11:1, 43.

2 There they made him a supper, and Martha[468] served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.

[468] Luke 10:38-42.

1, 2. Six days before the passover. This note of time is quite inconclusive, because it is uncertain whether the day of Christ’s arrival and the first day of the passover should be excluded or included, or one should be excluded and the other included, and also because it is uncertain on which day of the month the passover is to be considered as having begun. For various chronological views, see Andrews’ Life of our Lord, page 397. The most probable hypothesis, and the one commonly accepted, makes Christ arrive at Bethany on Friday night, spending there the Sabbath and going on to

Jerusalem on the following day, the first day of the week.—Came to Bethany. A well known village about fifteen stadia (ch. 11:18), that is, about a mile and a half, east of Jerusalem, on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, not far from the point at which the road to Jericho begins its more sudden descent toward the valley. Fruit and other trees growing around—olive, almond, and oak—give the spot an air of seclusion and repose. It is not mentioned in the O. T., but is intimately associated with the life of our Lord. Here Lazarus was raised from the dead; here Christ found a secluded retreat and the refreshment of friendship during the stormy periods of his ministry in Jerusalem; thence he ascended when the cloud received him from the side of his disciples. The present village, El-Azariyeh, is a ruinous and wretched hamlet of some twenty families, the inhabitants of which display even less than the ordinary Eastern thrift and industry.—They made him a supper. The word supper (δεῖπνος) represents the chief meal of the Jews and also of the Greeks and Romans, taken at evening after the labors of the day were over, and sometimes prolonged into the night. The same word is sometimes used to signify a banquet or feast (Matt. 23:6; Mark 6:21; Luke 14:12; 20:46; Rev. 19:9). Who made the supper is not directly stated, by either John or the other Evangelists. It was in the house of one Simon the leper (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3). Godet supposes that he was a leper who had been healed by Jesus and who claimed the privilege of entertaining, in the name of the rest of the inhabitants of Bethany, Jesus, who had conferred on their town so great a favor by raising Lazarus from the dead. This seems to me a wild hypothesis on the part of a very sober and cautious scholar. The fact that Martha served is at least an indication that the supper was given at the house of Martha and Mary, who were certainly Christ’s most intimate friends in the village. There is nothing to indicate that Simon was present or had been cured. The common hypothesis is more reasonable, that he was the father of the sisters, or possibly the husband of Martha, and was either dead or through his leprosy exiled from his home, and that the house is described by the two Synoptists as his house because he was a well-known resident, and also because they wished to avoid concentrating the attention of the Pharisees, who had already determined upon the death of Lazarus, on him and his two sisters. They are not mentioned by name in the Synoptical narratives. The difference in character between Martha and Mary, as indicated both by their conduct here and the incident narrated in Luke 10:38-42, is one of those incidental coincidences which attest the historic truth of the Gospels.

ANOINTING OF FEET.

3 Then[469] took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

[469] ch. 11:2; Matt. 26:6, etc.; Mark 14:3, etc.

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief,[470] and had[471] the bag, and bare what was put therein.

[470] 2 Kings 5:20-27; Ps. 50:18.

[471] ch. 13:29.

3-6. A pound of ointment of spikenard. Mark and John both add a word characterizing this ointment, which is not elsewhere found, in either Biblical or classic Greek (πιστικῆς). Commentators disagree in their translation of this word, and the English translators seem to have avoided the difficulty by omitting it altogether. Some scholars derive it from a Greek verb (πίνω) meaning to drink, and suppose it to indicate that the ointment was liquid, perhaps drinkable. By other scholars it is derived from the verb (πιστεύω) to believe, and is supposed to signify a trustworthy or a reliable ointment; that is, one that was pure or unadulterated. This is the more probable meaning. Spikenard was liable to all kinds of adulteration. Pliny enumerates nine plants with which it might be mixed in preparing it for the market. The spikenard appears to have been procured from an Indian plant of the family of valeriana, and to have been imported from India by way of Arabia. It was highly prized among the ancients. Horace, writing to Virgil, asks his guests to bring as contribution to the feast a little spikenard, and by way of equivalent he would match it with a cask of wine. The use of fragrant oils and ointments were very common among the ancients, who anointed themselves twice or three times a day in order that the delicious fragrance might not be dissipated. The wealthier classes carried their ointments and perfumes in small boxes of costly material and beautiful workmanship. This ointment was contained in an alabaster box (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3). This box Mary broke, pouring the ointment first on Christ’s head and then on his feet. There is doubt as to the meaning of the expression “she brake the box;” some suppose that she simply broke the seal; others, that she broke off the neck of the box with a sharp blow, so pouring out the whole ointment as an offering to Christ, a very little of which would have sufficed for the purpose of an ordinary anointing. For an illustration of alabaster boxes see Luke 7:38, note.—Very costly. A pound was an enormous quantity to lavish on a single anointing.—Wiped his feet with her hair. So did the woman who was a sinner (Luke 7:38). But there is this characteristic difference between the two cases: the unknown woman in Luke washed his feet with her tears, and it was the tears which she wiped off with her hair. Here there are no tears; all is joy and gladness.—And the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. The service rendered to Christ did not stop with him alone. Such service never does; it becomes fragrant to all who are within the reach of its influence.—One of his disciples. The objection was started by Judas Iscariot. The others, however, shared this feeling; they too had indignation (Matt. 26:8; Mark 18:4), and regarded Mary’s action as wasteful. To prosaic natures the expression of love always seems a waste, but to ardent natures nothing seems too costly to express the enthusiasm of love.—For three hundred denarii. The denarius, or, as the word is translated in the New Testament, penny, was a coin of about seventeen cents in value, but at that time was a day’s wages (Matt. 20:10). Thus, this offering of Mary was practically equivalent to an offering in our time of three hundred dollars.—And given to the poor. A pretended regard for the poor is often made a cloak for an attack upon the Christian church, and especially upon Christian worship. In the case of Judas, as in many other cases, it was but a cover for a more sordid motive, but it served its purpose.—But because he had the bag. Possibly a box; more probably a money bag or purse (Latin, sacculus), in which the funds of Jesus and his disciples were carried. These funds were doubtless small and were made up of gifts from other disciples (Luke 8:3). This is implied by the language here, “what was put therein,” signifying literally what had been cast therein; that is, by friends of Jesus.—And bare what was put therein. The original is capable of being translated “purloined what was put therein.” This is the significance given to it by most of the scholars (Meyer, Alford, De Wette, Godet).

ANCIENT MONEY BAG.

7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

8 For[472] the poor always ye have with you; but[473] me ye have not always.

[472] Deut. 15:11; Matt. 26:11; Mark 14:7.

[473] verse 35; chaps. 8:21; 13:33; 16:5-7.

7, 8. If we combine the reports of the three Evangelists, it will appear that Christ’s words were substantially as follows: “Let her alone. Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me; she hath done what she could; against the day of my burying hath she kept this, and is come beforehand to anoint my body for the burial. The poor always ye have with you, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good; but me ye have not always.” Let her alone is the language of sharp rebuke. Christ was indignant at the hypocrisy which made a pretended consideration of the poor an excuse for attacking and condemning an act of love towards himself. Why trouble ye the woman? indicates that Mary was herself abashed and downcast by the criticism of the twelve. Perhaps, as Maurice says, “she could not herself have answered Judas Iscariot’s complaining question.” For she hath wrought a good work upon me, is a strong expression of approbation of an act which was service only as it was an expression of love. The word rendered good is literally beautiful; but with the Greeks, who were an æsthetic race, the word expressive of moral beauty was one of the highest commendation. To express love to Christ is to render a good work unto Christ. She hath done what she could, commends Mary in the same spirit in which the poor widow was commended (Mark 12:44). Whether her act was wise or not was not to be questioned. It was the outpouring of a heart full of love, and there is no condemnation to those who are thus in Christ Jesus. There is some question respecting the reading of the phrase Against the day of my burying hath she kept this. Some critics (Meyer, Alford) understand its meaning to be, Against the day of my burying let her preserve this. And Meyer supposes that only a part of the ointment was used in the anointing, and that Christ expresses the idea that the rest is not to be sold for the poor, but to be preserved to complete Mary’s unfinished act. But there is no question respecting the reading of the text in Matthew. That the anointing was treated by Christ as a prophetic act is more in accordance both with the reports of the other Evangelists and with the spirit of the entire narrative. Christ’s declaration then is, not that Mary should reserve the rest of the ointment for the anointing of his corpse, nor that she had deliberately and intentionally preserved it for a prophetic anointing, but that it was in accordance with a divine purpose that she had poured it upon him while he lived. His body was not anointed at the time of his death, the completion of the funeral honors being prevented by his resurrection (Mark 16:1, 2).—The poor always ye have with you, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good, is founded upon the great principle that philanthropy needs no special emotion, only opportunity, and that is never wanting; while the expression of love can only be made when the love itself burns ardently in the heart, and that must of necessity be occasional and exceptional; in other words, philanthropy may always exhibit itself in acts of charity, but emotion can only occasionally exhibit itself in acts of reverence and love. Matthew and Mark add the declaration by Christ, that Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world over, shall also this that this woman hath done be told for a memorial for her. See Matt. 26:13, note.

9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.

10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also[474] to death;

[474] Luke 16:31.

11 Because that[475] by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

[475] verse 18; ch. 11:45.

9-11. Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there. This is an indication that he tarried there at least over one day, probably the Sabbath preceding the passion. See Prel. Note.—But that they might see Lazarus also. They were drawn together by curiosity.—But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus to death. That is, they were at this time consulting. While the people were drawn to Lazarus by curiosity, and others were led by the story of his resurrection, confirmed by himself, to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the chief priests in Jerusalem were consulting how they might get rid both of Jesus and of the witness to his divine power. Thus they demonstrate the truth of Christ’s saying, “Neither will they believe though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31).—Believed on Jesus. That is, they believed that he was the Messiah. Nor was this a mere intellectual opinion. It involved attachment to Christ and hope in him; a looking forward to a revelation of himself in some miraculous and decisive display of divine power against the Romans. The period was one of a brief but great popularity, which accounts for the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and the Pharisees’ fear of the people which kept them from openly arresting Christ during his teaching in the temple on the eventful days that immediately followed.

12 On[476] the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,

[476] Matt. 21:8, etc.; Mark 11:8, etc.; Luke 19:36, etc.

13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried,[477] Hosanna! Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

[477] Ps. 118:25, 26.

14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is[478] written,

[478] Zech. 9:9.

15 Fear not, daughter of Sion; behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt.

16 These things[479] understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified,[480] then remembered[481] they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

[479] Luke 18:34.

[480] ch. 7:39.

[481] ch. 14:26.

17 The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record.

18 For[482] this cause the people also met him, for that they heard that he had done this miracle.

[482] verse 11.

Ch. 12:12-18. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Comp. Matt. 21:1-17; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-44. The account is on the whole the fullest in Luke. See notes there. The statement that some from Jerusalem took palm branches and came out to meet the procession as it approached the city is peculiar to John. So also is his account of the effect produced on the Pharisees (ver. 19). The statement in Luke 19:39, that some of the Pharisees called on Jesus to rebuke his disciples is equally indicative of their feeling, which was one of intense though suppressed hostility. The next day, verse 12, might mean the day after the anointing, but I believe means the day after the visit to Bethany, the account of the anointing being parenthetical. See Prel. Note. Those who came out to meet Jesus are not described as Jews, and may have been, as Meyer surmises, unprejudiced pilgrims who had come to the feast and had there heard the fame of the Messiah. For account of how the young ass was found, see Matthew 21:2-7.

Ch. 12:19-50. GREEKS VISIT JESUS—HIS DISCOURSE THEREON.—Death the condition of life (24, 25).—Following Christ the condition of companionship with him (26).—The soul conflicts of Christ illustrated (27-30).—The achievements of the cross of Christ; it judges the world; defeats of the world’s false prince; draws all men to the true king (31-33).—Disobedience of the inner light of the soul quenches it; faith in and following of that light nourishes and perfects it (34-40).—The crime of cowardice illustrated (42, 43).—Christ a guide to the Father (44-46).—Christ’s words man’s judge (47, 48).—The source of Christ’s authority and power (49, 50).

19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive[483] ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

[483] ch. 11:47, 48.

20 And there were certain[484] Greeks among them that[485] came up to worship at the feast:

[484] Acts 17:4; Rom. 1:16.

[485] 1 Kings 8:41, 42.

21 The same came therefore to[486] Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.

[486] ch. 1:44.

22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.

19-22. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves. Some among the Pharisees were friendly to Jesus, but dared not come out openly in his favor. Of this number was Nicodemus. To the same class belonged the lawyer that answered Christ discreetly and the ruler whom it is said Jesus loved (Mark 10:21; 12:34). Chrysostom supposes that the Pharisees here referred to were of this sort, and that their language is that of remonstrance against the endeavors of the rest to destroy him. The language seems to me rather that of approval of Caiaphas’ counsel. They point to the fact that the cautious methods have availed nothing. So Bengel and most modern critics.—The world is gone out after him. Literally are departing after him; that is, are leaving us, the old and acknowledged teachers, to go after him, this new and unordained rabbi. The world signifies the multitude, not especially the wicked; but it is a term of reproach.—But there were certain Greeks. But, not and. The particle (δέ) is adversative, and indicates a contrast between the persons mentioned in the previous sentence and those here referred to. So do the terms Pharisees, who were Hebrews of the Hebrews, and Greeks who were, not Jews dispersed in Greece and coming up thence to the feast, but men who belonged to the Greek nationality and had adopted the Hebrew religion, i. e., Greek proselytes. On the character of these proselytes from foreign nations, see Matthew 23:15, note. That these were Greeks, not Grecian Jews, is evident from the word employed to describe the Greeks (Ἕλληνες), which is one signifying nationality, not location; that they were proselytes is evident from the characterization as among them which were accustomed (present participle signifying habit—Meyer) to come up to worship at the feast. They were of the same character as the centurion whose son Christ healed, the Cornelius who sent for Peter, and the Eunuch to whom Philip preached (Matt. 8:7-10; Acts 8:27-40; ch. 10). The pilgrims to Jerusalem were increased considerably in the increasing decay of the polytheistic worship of Greece and Rome, with such converts to the simple and sublime monotheism of Judea.—The same came therefore to Philip. Why to Philip is purely a matter of conjecture. In fact, Philip and Andrew are both Greek names, and the only names of Greek origin among the twelve.—Sir (κύριε). The term is the same one translated lord when used in addressing Christ. Its fair equivalent in the English language is Sire. They address Philip with marked respect.—We would see Jesus. Rather, we have desired to see him. They assume that a private interview will be readily granted them. That this is what they desire is evident, because Christ was publicly teaching in the temple during the four days preceding his arrest, and therefore it was very easy for them to both see and hear him in public. The motive of this request may probably have been a mixed one; partly a curiosity to see and hear more of this extraordinary Rabbi, partly a real moral and spiritual appreciation of and drawing to him; possibly a dim and unconfessed wonder whether he might possibly be the promised Messiah. Stier compares this visit to that of the Magi at the birth, one a coming to the cradle, the other to the cross. Godet refers to the tradition narrated by Eusebius, that an embassy was sent by the king of Edessa, in Syria, to invite Jesus to take up his abode with him, and to furnish him such a royal welcome as should compensate him for the obstinacy with which the Jews rejected him.—Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. The two were of the same city (ch. 1:44). The fact that Philip takes Andrew with him is one of the not unfrequent indications of the awe with which, despite the fullness and even familiarity of his love, Christ inspired his most intimate disciples (Luke 9:45; Mark 9:32, etc.). So Bengel: “Philip feared to introduce the Greeks alone; with a friend he ventured to do so.” It is to be remembered, however, that the request would seem a doubtful one to them, since the Rabbinical theology forbade to teach the truth to a Gentile, who was regarded as unworthy of it, and Jesus himself had confined his ministry to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5; 15:24).

23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is[487] come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

[487] chaps, 13:32; 17:1.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[488] Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

[488] 1 Cor. 15:36.

25 He[489] that loveth his life shall lose it: and he that hateth his life in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal.

[489] Matt. 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33.

26 If[490] any man serve me, let him follow me; and where[491] I am, there shall also my servant be: if[492] any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

[490] ch. 14:15; Luke 16:46; 1 John 5:3.

[491] chaps. 14:3; 17:24; 1 Thess. 4:17.

[492] 1 Sam. 2:30; Prov. 27:18.

23-26. But Jesus answered them. But (δέ) not and; the adversative particle indicates that the request was refused. So also does the word (ἀποκρίνομαι) rendered answered, literally to distinguish, then to reject after inquiry; then to make response; but primarily a negative response. So also, it appears to me, does the discourse which follows. Neither, however, is conclusive. Tholuck apparently thinks the request granted; Meyer supposes that Christ intended to grant the request, but was interrupted by the voice from heaven; a quite improbable conjecture. Whether the interview was granted or refused, is a point on which John lays no emphasis. He narrates the request only because it leads to a brief utterance by Jesus, called out by it, and which he could not intelligibly report without reporting the incident which led to it.—The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified. Hour is here equivalent to the more general word time or era. The prophets of the O. T. foretell the ingathering of the Gentiles through the Messiah. This is both his glory and the glory of the Jewish nation in him (Psalm 2:8; Isaiah 53:11). In this application of these Greek proselytes, Christ sees a prophetic indication of the time when, with a profounder meaning, the Gentile world will everywhere put forth a request to see Jesus, when, being lifted up, he will draw all men unto him, when they will come from the north and the south, the east and the west, to sit down with Jesus in his kingdom (Matt. 8:11), when he will break down the partition wall between Jew and Gentile (Ephes. 2:14), and gather into one nation the dispersed children of God (John 11:52; Col. 3:11; Rev. 7:9). The term Son of man is here, as always when used by Christ in reference to himself, equivalent to the Messiah.—Verily, verily, I say unto you. A customary prelude to an important saying (Matt. 5:18, note). Here it is used by Christ to emphasize a truth which the disciples had already proved themselves so loth to receive that they were practically unable to understand it (Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34), namely, that the Messiah’s death must precede this ingathering of the Gentiles and prepare the way for it, and itself become the instrument for its accomplishment. He states this truth, first under a figure drawn from nature (ver. 24), then as a general law, alike applicable to the Master and his disciples (ver. 25).—Except a kernel of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone. In the granary it is safe, but useless. Its death is the precursor of its usefulness. Paul employs the same figure in a different connection in 1 Cor. 15:36. Christ embodies it in the Lord’s Supper, which reminds us of this law of self-sacrifice. It is the wheat ground to powder that makes the bread, and the body bruised that makes the bread of life; it is the grape crushed that makes the wine, and the blood poured out as a libation that makes the wine of life. This truth of self-sacrifice symbolized by nature is one of the universal laws of spiritual life.—He that loveth his life shall lose it. The life or soul (the same Greek word, ψυχή, is indiscriminately rendered by both English words in our English version) is the æsthetic and intellectual part of man in contrast with the spiritual nature (ὅ πνεῦμα). If one gives himself to the saving of this soul or life he destroys it; for this is but the adjunct of the spiritual nature, and perishes if that is left to perish. “Lange points out that this saying involved a condemnation of Hellenism. For what was Greek civilization but human life cultivated from the view-point of enjoyment, and withdrawn from the law of sacrifice.”—(Godet.) The same judgment Paul re-affirms in 1 Cor. 1:18-21; and it is equally applicable as a judgment of modern unreligious culture. Culture without religion destroys what it would preserve.—He that hateth his life in this world shall guard it unto life eternal. Two different Greek words (ψυχή and ζωή) are rendered by the same English word life in the two clauses of this sentence. Yet if we were to render it, He that hateth his soul shall guard it unto life eternal, the rendering would be at least equally liable to misapprehension. If the reader understands soul to mean the earthy side of human nature, in contrast with the spiritual, as explained above (and this is the N. T. use of the term), this substituted rendering will give him the true meaning of the original. Beware of understanding hate to mean merely does not love, or guard as merely equivalent to keep, as it is rendered in our English version. The meaning is that he who finds no satisfaction in earthly sources of enjoyment, who turns away from them with a sense of satiety that, at least at times, becomes a generous contempt and a noble loathing, toward the higher spiritual life which mere intellectual and æsthetic culture does nothing to satisfy, is by that very hate protected from the excesses and the demoralization which of necessity inheres in a life contented with the provisions for the earthly nature. The hate inspired in a noble nature by every unworthy thing is the best protection against subtle temptations.—If any man would serve me, let him follow me. This is Christ’s answer to the request of the Greeks. Service of Christ is to be sought, not by secret interviews, not by sacred and saintly communings, which he gives to whom he will, but by practical following of him in a life of daily self-sacrifice for others.—And where I am, there shall my servant be. This practical following is the way that leads to intimate fellowship. The sacred conversations of Christ with the twelve, recorded in John, chaps. 13-16, did not come till for three years they had followed him, forsaking all things for the sake of his companionship. This following has the promise both of heavenly companionship with Christ on earth (ch. 14:21-23), and eternal companionship with him in heaven (Rom. 8:17; 2 Tim. 2:11, 12).—If any man serve me, him will my Father honor. For it is with the Father, not with the Son, to determine who shall sit at his right hand and his left (Mark 10:40), who are to receive the honors, what is to be the allotment of rank in the kingdom of God. The Christian’s ambition, therefore, is to be Christ-like in the life of earthly service, and leave all else to the will of the Father concerning him.

27 Now[493] is my soul troubled: and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but[494] for this cause came I unto this hour.

[493] ch. 13:21; Matt. 26:38, 39; Luke 12:50.

[494] ch. 18:37.

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice[495] from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

[495] Matt. 3:17.

29 The people therefore that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

27-29. Now is my soul troubled. Literally, stirred up, in conflict. In 11:33 it is said that Jesus was indignant in spirit, here that his soul is in conflict. See note on 11:33, and on this contrast between soul and spirit, see above on verse 25; the one links man to God, the other to the animal. At the grave of Lazarus the higher spiritual nature was indignant at the exhibition of formalism and false pretence; here the lower and earthly nature was in conflict between the instincts of self-preservation and the impulse of love and duty. “A horror of death and an ardor of obedience concurred.”—(Bengel.) It was a real struggle; the narration of it refutes the rationalistic hypothesis that John omitted the agony at Gethsemane because he desired to portray a Son of God superior to all trial and conflict. It illustrates and is interpreted by Heb. 2:18; 4:15; 5:7; see Notes on Temptation of Christ, Matt. 4:1-11; and on Lessons of Gethsemane, Matt. 26:36-46.—And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? This is to be taken not affirmatively but interrogatively. Christ does not first pray to be delivered from his passion and then change his mind, recall the prayer and put up another and a different one. Nor is it uttered didactically, to teach his disciples. The contrast between the two petitions is explained by the precedent declaration, “Now is my soul in conflict;” the nature of that conflict is hinted at in the twofold prayer, the first hypothetical, the second final: Shall I ask my Father to save me from this hour? (That is the suggestion of the natural instincts.) No! for this cause came I unto this hour. Rather, Father, glorify thy name. (That is the victory of the spiritual nature.) “The struggle is like one of those fissures in its crust, which enables science to fathom the bowels of the earth. It lets us read the very inmost depths of the Lord’s being.”—(Godet.) Beware of understanding this conflict as one between the God and the man in the God-man. The spirit is in every child of God, increasingly dominant, though in none absolutely, unquestionably and always supreme as in Jesus Christ. This hour is the hour of the passion toward which Christ had steadfastly set his face (Luke 9:51) in coming up for the last time to Jerusalem.—For this cause came I unto this hour. In order to be a sacrifice he had both come from heaven to earth, and also, at this very moment, from the safety and comparative popularity of Perea to Jerusalem.—Father, glorify thy name. Comp. Matthew 26:39. In both cases there is not merely resignation to a superior will, an invincible fate, but a real and supreme desire to fulfil that will whatever it may entail.—Then came there a voice from heaven. The critics since, as the people then, have discussed whether this was really an articulate voice, speaking words, or only a sound of thunder which Christ interpreted as a divine response to his prayer. The word voice (φωνὴ) is not conclusive, because it signifies sometimes an inarticulate sound, as of a trumpet, chariots, waters, thunder, and the like (Matt. 24:31; 1 Cor. 14:7, 8; John 3:8; Rev. 9:9; 6:1; 14:2; 18:22, etc.). But the plain implication of the narrative is that this was an articulate voice, the words of which were understood by others than Jesus, though not by all. So at Paul’s conversion his companions heard the sound, but understood not the words of the voice that spake to him (Acts 9:7 with 22:9, notes). This is the view of nearly all evangelical scholars, e. g., Alford, Meyer, Godet, etc. The latter’s illustration is apt: “The whole multitude heard a noise; but the meaning of the voice was only perceived by each in proportion to his spiritual intelligence. Thus the wild beast perceives only a sound in the human voice; the trained animal discovers a meaning, a command, for example, which it immediately obeys; man alone discerns therein a thought.”—Here the multitude (ὁ ὄχλος, the people) did not comprehend; but some (ἄλλοι, others), a smaller number, did.—I have both glorified it and will glorify it again. The Father had glorified his name by giving Jesus daily and hourly the power to do and to bear all that had been laid on him up to that moment; and he would glorify it by continuing to give him the power to do and to bear all that should be laid on him to the end. The prayer and the promise are both for us. In our passion-hour true prayer will be the cry, not of the soul, but of the spirit; a cry, not to be saved from our Calvary, but to be enabled to glorify our Father’s name in and through it. And the answer is interpreted by our experience in the past (Psalm 77:10-12); the grace that has been sufficient will be sufficient to the end.

30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but[496] for your sakes.

[496] ch. 11:42.

31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall[497] the prince of this world be cast out.

[497] ch. 16:11; Luke 10:18; Acts 26:18; Ephes. 2:2.

32 And I, if I be lifted[498] up from the earth, will draw all[499] men unto me.

[498] ch. 8:28.

[499] Rom. 5:18.

33 This he said, signifying[500] what death he should die.

[500] ch. 18:32.

30-33. Not for me but for you. If there were no articulate words, if Christ simply imputed to the sound of thunder the meaning, there would have been in it no value to the bystanders. This declaration, therefore, seems to me conclusive that a voice spoke comprehensible words; and even to indicate that the hypothetical explanation “It thundered,” was not an honest one.—Now is the judgment of this world. The language is anticipative. Christ speaks as though the passion on which he was entering were already accomplished. That passion he declares will be characterized by a threefold result: the world will be judged, the devil conquered and cast out, and the all-conquering Christ brought in. The judgment of the world has already begun. It “dates from Good Friday” (Godet). While Christ came not to judge the world but that the world through him might be saved, his cross is in fact a judgment-seat, and men are discriminated morally and spiritually by their reception of the suffering, self-sacrificing Redeemer.—Now the prince of this world is cast out. The Prince of this world was a phrase much used by Jewish writers to designate the spiritual monarch of the Gentiles in opposition to the one true God whom they regarded as in a peculiar sense the God of Israel. Christ employs their language; he sees in the application of the Greeks for an interview with him a prophecy of the time when Satan will be cast out and all the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. This he regards as accomplished now, that is, by the sacrifice of Calvary. The world’s battle was fought and the victory won there. The second coming is not to redeem the world, but to realize for the world the fruits of redemption, in an established and eternal kingdom of righteousness, after, by the cross, humanity has been judged, the devil cast out, and the redeemed race lifted up into oneness with Christ Jesus. The passages of the N. T., which imply the continuing influence of the devil (Rom. 16:20; 2 Cor. 4:4; Ephes. 2:2; 6:12, etc.) are not inconsistent with Christ’s language here, because it is prophetic; he speaks of that as already accomplished which is absolutely certain to be accomplished by the power of that divine sacrifice so soon by him to be consummated.—And I, if I be lifted up will draw all men toward myself. If is not to be rendered as equivalent to when. The language is sympathetic with that of verse 27; it is the last trace of that soul-storm. His crucifixion was contingent; it was made, to the last, dependent on his own voluntary submission. Even in the hour of his arrest the way of deliverance was open to him (Matt. 26:53). He is still, as it were, arguing with himself. The whole language is that of quasi soliloquy. The phrase lifted up from the earth certainly does not refer to his ascension, as Meyer interprets it. John’s own interpretation in the next verse is conclusive on that point. Apart from inspiration, he, as a sympathetic ear-witness, is to be trusted as a correct interpreter. Nor does it refer to the mere physical elevation from the ground of a foot or two in the crucifixion. The N. T. use of the original word rendered lifted up (ὑψόω) as well as the added words from the earth, is conclusive on that point. To give a physical interpretation to the phrase is to belittle and degrade it. The word here rendered lifted up is generally rendered exalted (Matt. 11:23; 23:12; Luke 1:52; 14:11), and is used in reference to Christ’s divine exaltation in consequence of his voluntary sacrifice (Acts 2:33; 5:31). The crucifixion is exaltation because self-sacrifice is divine glory (1 Cor. 1:23, 24). From the earth is added to mark the contrast between the kingdom of the Prince of this world which is to be overthrown and that of the Prince of Light which takes its place. The one is of the earth earthy; the other is not of this world (ch. 18:36), but over it, a kingdom lifted up from the world but dominating it. In each individual soul the kingdom of God begins, as it began in the world of humanity, in crucifixion. When we take up our cross and follow Christ, we are lifted up from the earth and in us the Prince of this world is cast out (Mark 9:49, 50; Luke 14:27, notes). The word drawing here refers not primarily to the influence of the Holy Spirit winning men to Christ (ch. 7:39; 14:18, 19; 16:7), certainly not to what theologians call effectual calling, but to the attractive power of the cross itself. Self-sacrifice always draws us toward the sacrificed one, the soldier, the martyr, the mother; and has drawn all hearts toward Christ as the pre-eminent martyr. This is not, however, a promise that all men shall be actually brought to Christlikeness of disposition. The original does not imply this. The preposition to (ηρός) should rather be rendered towards; for it indicates direction, not result, the place or person toward which anything moves or an affection is directed, not that to which anything comes or upon which an affection is finally centered. All men must not be rendered with Calvin as equivalent to “all the children of God;” nor does it merely mean men of both Gentile and Jewish origin, i. e., all classes of men. Christ’s words need no mending. All men to whom the simple story of the cross is told are drawn toward him who gave himself for us; whether they follow him and become like him through a like voluntary cross-bearing is another question. Of that Christ says nothing here. The whole sentence, then (vers. 31, 32), may be paraphrased thus: Already is the judgment of this world beginning to take place; already is the Prince of this world beginning to be cast out; and I, if I am faithful to the end in enduring that cross for which I came into this hour, will draw all hearts toward me, even as now these stranger hearts are drawn toward me.

34 The people answered him, We have heard[501] out of the law[502] that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

[501] Ps. 89:36, 37; 110:4; Isa. 9:7.

[502] Rom. 5:18; Ps. 72:17-19.

35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light[503] with you.[504] Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he[505] that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

[503] ch. 8:12.

[504] Jer. 13:6.

[505] ch. 11:10.

36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be[506] the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

[506] Ephes. 5:8.

34-36. We have heard out of the law that the Messiah abideth forever. They evidently understand Christ’s language to refer to his death, at least to his departure from the earth, and are really perplexed. For the idea of an earthly Messianic kingdom was so firmly fixed in the public mind that they were absolutely incapable of receiving any other; and the O. T. in many passages does describe that kingdom as an everlasting one (Ps. 89:36; 145:13; Isaiah 9:5, 7; Dan. 7:13, 14).—Who is this Son of man? The language is that of sneer. What strange sort of a Messiah is this, that must die in order to draw all nations unto him, and enter into his kingdom?—Then Jesus said unto them. His reply is not responsive to their question. He rarely if ever replied to sneers.—Yet a little while is the light with you. The commentators generally regard the phrase the Light as Christ’s designation of himself. So Alford, Godet, Meyer, among the moderns, and Chrysostom and Calvin among the older commentators. But this interpretation entangles the whole sentence. Christ then bids his auditors to walk, i. e., “be not slothful but spiritually active” (Meyer), for the two or three days that intervene before his death; for his death will bring darkness on them, and make it impossible for them to walk intelligently thereafter. The direction is thus deprived of all significance to us, and is contradicted by history; for the death of Christ brought light, not darkness, and was itself the necessary precursor of highest spiritual activity in all that believe on him. The light here, as in Matthew 6:23, is the moral and spiritual nature of man, that which links him to the divine and makes it possible for him to become a child of God. God is the Light of the world (1 John 1:5) because he is the fountain, the central sun which supplies and keeps alive this moral and spiritual nature in men. Christ is the Light of the world (ch. 9:5), because in him this spiritual nature shone out without any dimness from sin or moral infirmity. Christians are lights in the world (Matt. 5:14), because this spiritual nature in them is their guide, illuminating them and through them others. If one follows this inner light it grows brighter and brighter unto perfect day (Prov. 4:18); if he disobeys it he quenches it and goes into moral darkness, losing the very power of moral and spiritual discrimination (1 John 2:8-11). I understand Christ’s meaning then to be this: You have yet for a little while longer the light of conscience; it is not utterly quenched. Beware. Walk according to such light as you possess, lest utter moral darkness come upon you. And he who walks in such darkness knows not the future fate that awaits him. Walk while ye have the light should rather be rendered, Walk as ye have the light (ὡς not ἕως is the best reading, so Alford, Meyer, etc.); that is, According to the light ye possess. The phrase Come upon you is hardly forcible enough to express the meaning of the original (καταλαμβάνω) which is literally to seize or take violent possession of. See Mark 9:18; John 8:3; 1 Thess. 5:4. Knoweth not whither he goeth indicates the awful mystery which hangs about the final fate of those who refuse to follow the light of their own better nature, and so to accept the light which comes from God through Jesus Christ his Son.—As ye have the light, have faith in the light, that ye may become the children of light. Observe the difference between this rendering, which accurately follows the original, and that of the English version, from which it differs in three important particulars. Christ does not say while ye have the light, but according as ye have the light, that is, faith is to be exercised according to the opportunity; he does not say believe, a word which indicates an intellectual act, but have faith, a word which indicates a spiritual habit; he does not say may be the children of light, as though a single act of belief perfected the soul in sonship, but may become the children of light, faith in such light as the soul possesses being the way unto a final perfection in the divine life. Faith is the evidence of things unseen (Heb. 11:1), that is, the power of the soul by which it appreciates unseen moral qualities; hence the divine qualities in Christ: hence, by direct, immediate communion, the invisible spirit of God. The direction here is the natural outcome of the preceding warning, and may be paraphrased thus: “As you have moral and spiritual illumination, exercise faith toward it, apprehend, appreciate, obey the sacred inner monitions of your moral nature; so shall you be led constantly into clearer light, and shall at last become children of light, wholly possessed and pervaded by it.” This of course includes the exercise of faith in Christ according to the measure in which he is revealed to the soul; but it certainly is much more than a mere exhortation to the Jews to believe in Jesus as the Messiah while he remained in the flesh among them. Both the warning against quenching this inner light by disobedience, and the exhortation to nourish it by appreciating and following it are applicable to all men and for all time.—And departed and hid himself from them. The very fact that these were among Christ’s last words, and that immediately on uttering them he departed into a concealment from which apparently he did not issue till the time for his passion, should have sufficed to prevent the common but unspiritual interpretation controverted above. “This was the farewell of Jesus to Israel. He then retired and did not reappear on the morrow. This time it was no mere cloud which obscured the sun; the sun itself had set.”—(Godet.) This statement fixes the time of this incident; it was concurrent with his farewell to Jerusalem, that is, on the same day with, and probably just subsequent to the discourse recorded in Matthew, ch. 23. In the discourses of which that was the culmination, Christ plainly foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, and indicated the calling of the Gentiles (Matt. 21:43; 23:37-39). It may be that those prophecies led to this application of the Greeks for a more private interview with the prophet who thus foretold the ingathering of the Gentiles.

37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake,[507] Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

[507] Isa. 53:1.

39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said[508] again,

[508] Isa. 6:9, 10.

40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart: that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

41 These things said Esaias, when[509] he saw his glory, and spake of him.

[509] Isa. 6:1.

42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but[510] because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

[510] ch. 9:22.

43 For[511] they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

[511] ch. 5:44; Rom. 2:29.

37-43. These words are John’s comments on the whole incident and teaching. The passages from Isaiah (6:9, 10; Isaiah 53:1) illustrate Christ’s warning, and Christ’s warning interprets Isaiah’s prophecy. The blinding and hardening are here attributed to God because they take place in accordance with the divine law which Christ has enunciated, namely, that disobedience to the light quenches and destroys it. In Matthew 13:13-15, the Jews are represented as blinding their own eyes, etc., because they have done so by their disobedience. See notes on Matthew. To those who recognize the authority of John, his language here is conclusive that Isaiah spoke as a prophet, and under divine inspiration. Observe that Isaiah, though living seven centuries before Christ, saw his glory, which the blinded eyes of the Pharisees, though they were his contemporaries, could not see. Putting out of the synagogue, that is, excommunication, was in those days a very serious matter. See ch. 9:22, note. I make no attempt to follow other commentators in a discussion here respecting the relation of divine decrees and human free agency; that belongs not to the commentator but to the metaphysician and theologian. Taking the whole passage together with its context, it seems to me clear (against Alford) that the statement of John Therefore they could not believe, refers not backwards to the precedent prophecy of Isaiah, so that the meaning is that they could not believe “because it was otherwise ordained in the divine counsels,” but forward to the subsequent prophecy of Isaiah, so that the meaning is that they could not believe because their eyes were blinded and their hearts hardened. Either interpretation is grammatically possible; this one makes John’s comment germane to Christ’s discourse respecting the light, and the effect of refusing obedience to it; the other does not. An interpretation which represents God as blinding the eyes and hardening the heart, so as to prevent the exercise of faith, and this in order that a prophecy may be fulfilled, cannot be reconciled with the divine righteousness, much less with the divine infinite mercy.

44 Jesus cried and said, He[512] that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

[512] Mark 9:37; 1 Pet. 1:21.

45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

46 I[513] am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

[513] chaps. 1:5; 3:19.

44-46. But Jesus cried and said. What follows, to the end of the chapter, is not to be regarded as a report of a further discourse by Jesus, but as a summary furnished by John, of his Lord’s previous discourses. This view is required by the context, what follows being closely connected with John’s previous comments, by the structure of the discourse, which is substantially a repetition of previously reported discourses (see notes), and by the consideration that, not only no time or place is indicated, but that none is allowed, since it is expressly asserted, immediately before, that Christ departed and hid himself from the people (ver. 36). This view is taken by all the moderns (Alford, Meyer, Godet, Luthardt). Bengel is hardly self-consistent. In his Grammar he characterizes this as “the peroration and recapitulation, in

John’s Gospel, of Christ’s public discourses;” in his Harmony he suggests that Christ “spake in the very act of departure, when he was now at a considerable distance from the men; wherefore he is said to have cried, in order, doubtless, that those very persons with whom he had spoken might hear;” an hypothesis which Luthardt justly characterizes as artificial, unwarranted by the Gospel account, and disagreeable.—He that hath faith in me, hath faith not in me but in him that sent me. In (εἰς) indicates the ultimate end or object of the faith. The negative is not to be omitted or reduced to a mere rhetorical expression, or read as though it was equivalent to “hath not faith in me alone.” True scriptural faith in Christ does not stop with him, but finds in him the way to the Father, the Spirit who is to be worshipped in spirit as well as in truth, and whom no man hath seen at any time. Hence Paul’s declaration, “Yea, though we have seen Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth we know him no more.” “Christ descended to us that he might unite us to God. Until we have reached that point, we are, as it were, in the middle of the course. We imagine to ourselves but a half Christ, and a mutilated Christ, if he do not lead us to God.”—(Calvin.) For parallel teaching of Christ, see ch. 5:24, 30, 38, 43; 8:19, 42; 10:38; 14:10, 11.—And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. See is here used not of external but of spiritual perception, as in chaps. 4:19; 6:40; 14:19; 17:24. He that has a spiritual perception and appreciation of the glory of Christ’s character has a perception and appreciation of the divine glory; for the Son is the express image of the Father’s person and the brightness of his glory (Heb. 1:3). “Jesus’ essence does not consist in his merely external appearance, but in his internal relation to the Father.”—(Luthardt.) Comp. ch. 14:9, where the language is almost precisely the same.—I am come a light into the world. A light to lead to the Father, and to the divine life which is lived only by communion with the Father through the Spirit.—In order that whosoever believeth in me should not abide in darkness. The object of Christ’s incarnation and atonement is that through faith in him we may be delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col. 1:13), and thus walk no longer in the darkness but in the light, by walking in fellowship with God (1 John 1:5-7; 2:8-11). This light is the illumination and inspiration of the moral and spiritual nature afforded by faith in and a life of following after Jesus Christ. Comp. ch. 8:12; 9:5.

47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came[514] not to judge the world, but to save the world.

[514] ch. 3:17.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words,[515] hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

[515] Deut. 18:19; Luke 9:26.

49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

50 And I know that his commandment[516] is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

[516] 1 John 3:23.

47-50. I judge him not * * * * The word that I have spoken the same shall judge him. This declaration is not inconsistent with other passages of the N. T. which declare that Jesus Christ shall judge the world (ch. 5:25-27); but it interprets them. That judgment shall not be an arbitrary one; nor one pronounced by a judge after trial, like a human judgment, in which questions of law and fact are involved. The book of each man’s life shall be opened, and compared with the life of Christ which is the pattern; and the life and teaching of Christ will itself be the judgment; the comparison will be conclusive; there will be no need of investigation or of sentence. Hence every man is judging and condemning himself, and if unrepentant and unpardoned is condemned already. Comp. ch. 3:18, 19; 5:45.—He that rejecteth me (ἀθετέω). Literally, displaces me. To reject Christ does not necessarily involve a deliberate decision against him. Simply putting him one side as of no practical importance is a rejection of him.—And receiveth not my words. We receive them only by obeying them. See Matthew 13:23.—Because I have not spoken out of myself. Christ is not the ultimate source of his own authority. His words are divine because they are God-given. The Father is the reservoir from whom Christ draws. Compare ch. 5:30; 7:16-28; 8:26, 28, 38.—What I should say and what I should speak. “The former is to be understood of the contents and the latter of the external act of speaking.”—(Luthardt.) To the same effect Meyer. The double expression indicates that not only the substance but also the form and method of expression of Christ’s teaching are God-given.—And I know that his commandment is life eternal. It has for its aim to produce life eternal; it has for its subject-matter the conditions and nature of life eternal; it is, in other words, the law of the spiritual life. As science has to do with the laws of the external, so Christianity with the laws of the internal or spiritual world. Comp. ch. 6:63, 68. There is a weighty significance in the words “I know.” By his own acceptance of and obedience to the Father’s commands Christ made, as it were, trial of them, and spoke out of his own personal experience of their value and effect. It is only as the Christian thus knows and speaks that his testimony is effective (2 Cor. 4:13).

CHAPTER XIII.

Ch. 13:1-30. CHRIST WASHES HIS DISCIPLES’ FEET AND FORETELLS HIS BETRAYAL.—The nature of humility illustrated: not self-abasement but self-abnegation (3, 4).—Trust and obedience here; knowledge hereafter (7).—The double cleansing wrought by Christ: the washing of the whole nature in regeneration; the washing away of specific sins in sanctification (10).—Christ’s designation of himself: Master and Lord (13).—The utility and the inutility of ceremonial.—Christ our example in the spirit and in the letter (14, 15).—The office of prophecy (19).—Christ seen bearing the sin of the sinner (21).—Christ’s endeavor to reclaim the irreclaimable (26-29).

Preliminary Note.—John alone of the Evangelists gives no account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. But he alone gives us a report of the last words of Christ, and his last prayer with his disciples at the time of the institution of the Supper. This report occupies chapters 13-17. This most sacred legacy which the Lord has left to his disciples can never be interpreted except by the heart which enters into the secret place of the Most High. All that the commentator can hope to do is to point out the significance of the original, and the connection between the various parts of this uninterpretable disclosure of divine love. That the supper referred to in ver. 2 here is the same described in Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:19, 20, I think is beyond question, and is indeed questioned by few if any of the scholars except Lightfoot, who endeavors to identify it with the supper at which Mary anointed the feet of Jesus (Matt. 26:1-16; John 12:2-8). The time when the Last Supper was celebrated, whether it was a true Paschal feast or one which ante-dated and anticipated it, is confessedly one of the most difficult questions in Biblical chronology. If we had only the Synoptical Gospels no one would doubt that the Last Supper was the real Jewish Passover; if we had only John, few would question that it was previous to the Passover. This question I have stated and discussed in the notes on Matthew (note on Lord’s Supper, Vol. I, p. 286), and to the discussion there refer the student. I have no doubt, on a careful comparison of the four accounts, that the four Evangelists refer to the same supper, and that it was taken at the time of and was for them the true Passover Supper. In that case Christ’s act here receives new significance from a comparison with the events recorded by Luke (ch. 22:24-30 and notes). The disciples sat down to the meal without washing their feet, after a hot and dusty walk. There was no servant to perform the menial act for them; and no one would volunteer to do it for the rest. They quarreled as to which should have the pre-eminence at the table. Christ said nothing, waited till the quarrel was over and they had taken their seats, and then rose from the table, and girding himself as a servant, performed the slave’s office in washing their feet. This was his answer to their unseemly strife for the post of honor at the table.

Now[517] before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour[518] was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having[519] loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

[517] Matt. 26:2, etc.

[518] ch. 17:1, 11.

[519] Jer. 31:3; Ephes. 5:2; 1 John 4:19; Rev. 1:5.

1. Now before the feast of the Passover. That is, immediately before; just as he was about to sit down with his disciples to the Paschal feast.—Jesus knew that his hour was come. In the full consciousness of his approaching agony and passion. At the time when above all others he needed that friends should sustain him, he carried them in his heart; their burdens were his own.—Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. The end both in time and in accomplishment; that is, he loved them till death broke in on his life of love; he loved them till love had finished its purpose in them by their redemption—loved them despite their quarrels and contentions, that by love he might brood and perfect the new life in them. Properly the word (τέλος, τελέω) signifies not merely end but also completion. So in 1 Thess. 2:16: “Wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (εἰς τέλος), i. e., till it has accomplished its purpose; and 1 Tim. 1:5, “The end of the commandment is love,” i. e., love is the purpose which the commandment is designed to accomplish. The phrase his own which were in the world, does not imply a limitation of love, as though his love were for a limited number; but it is only in his own that his love accomplishes its designs. The language does imply that he has others who are his own who are not in this world; either the O. T. saints who had died in hope of him, or inhabitants of some other world who belong to him by the purchase of his love, who are his own because redeemed by his blood (Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9).

2 And supper being ended, the[520] devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;

[520] ch. 6:70; Luke 22:3, 53.

3 Jesus knowing[521] that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that[522] he was come from God, and went to God;

[521] Matt. 28:18; Heb. 2:8.

[522] ch. 17:11.

4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost[523] thou wash my feet?

[523] Matt. 3:14.

2-6. And supper being in progress. Not being ended; for (ver. 12) he sat down to supper again; nor does the original require the translation given to it in our English version (see Godet, Alford, Meyer). Christ waited till all contention was over, all had taken their seats and were ready to begin the meal, before he rose to wash their feet.—The devil having already dropped into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray him. The devil was the sower, but the soil was ready to receive the seed. A past suggestion is indicated. The time when and the way in which this suggestion was made is reported by Matthew. It was at the time when Christ rebuked Judas for complaining of the anointing of her Lord by Mary at Bethany (comp. John 12:4-7 with Matt. 26:14).—Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands. See Col. 1:16. He acted in the full consciousness of his divine power and majesty. Humility consists not in a low estimate of one’s powers, but in a willingness to use them in a lowly service.—That he was come from God and went to God. This divine sense shone out in him, so that it was seen and felt by the apostles, perhaps most of all by John, who was the most susceptible to such spiritual impressions. For illustration of other times in which the divinity of our Lord thus shone out upon men, see Matt. 21:12; Mark 9:15; 10:32; Luke 4:20, 30; John 7:44-46; 18:6.—He laid aside his garments (ἱμάτια). His outer mantle or cloak (see note on Matt. 24:18). Then the inner tunic was girded about the loins with a towel, used partly in lieu of a girdle, partly to wipe the feet. Thus Christ put on the ordinary habit of a servant for a servant’s work. In this feet-washing the feet were not put into the basin; the water was poured over the feet and then they were wiped by the servant. The accompanying cut, from an original sketch by Mr. A. L. Rawson, shows the manner of feet-washing, dress of servant, etc., as observed to-day in the East.—And began to wash the disciples’ feet. Some of the commentators suppose that he came first to Simon Peter (Alford); but I see no ground in the narrative for this supposition, which indeed seems to me to be negatived by the natural reading of the original. The objection of Peter was an unexpected episode and interruption. So Meyer, Chrysostom, and others. Feet-washing did not rise to the dignity of a ritualistic observance, except in connection with the service of the sanctuary (Exod. 30:19-21). It held a high place, however, among the rites of hospitality. “Immediately after a guest presented himself at the tent door, it was usual to offer the necessary materials for washing the feet (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; Judges 19:21). It was a yet more complimentary act betokening equally humility and affection, if the host actually performed the office for his guest (1 Sam. 25:41; Luke 7:38-49; John 13:5-14; 1 Tim. 5:10). Such a token of hospitality is occasionally exhibited in the East either by the host or by his deputy. The feet were again washed (Sol. Song 5:3) before retiring to bed.”—(Smith’s Bible Dictionary.)—Dost thou wash my feet? There is an emphasis on the word thou. Dost thou, my Lord and Master, act as my menial? “‘With those hands,’ he saith, ‘with which thou hast opened eyes, and cleansed lepers, and raised the dead!’”—(Chrysostom.)

WASHING OF FEET.

7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet, Jesus answered him, If[524] I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

[524] 1 Cor. 6:11; Ephes. 5:26; Titus 3:5.

7, 8. Thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. The meaning is not merely that he would explain to them the significance of his act, nor that they would understand it and him in the future kingdom, though both may be indicated. But spiritual truth is only spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14, 15), and the most significant acts and teachings of Christ can be comprehended only as the character is conformed to his character (2 Pet. 1:5-8). The meaning for Peter was that he must submit to Christ’s authority and wait till time and spiritual development enabled him to understand it; the meaning for us is that if Christ is our Master, we must accept in his word, his life and his providence much that is now incomprehensible, and wait for the future to make it plain. But if this implies a limit to our present knowledge, it also promises revelation hereafter. “Thou shalt know” assures that all will be made plain by-and-by.—Thou shalt never wash my feet. Literally, Thou shall not wash my feet to eternity. Pride in Peter could not comprehend humility in Christ. He thought the act, which was a manifestation of the true glory of the Lord, dishonored him. The same spirit in our day accounts the declaration of the incarnation and of the atonement dishonorable to God; it sees no glory in the humiliation of love.—If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. The phrase to have part with another signifies to share in his riches and glory (Josh. 22:25; 2 Sam. 20:1). Here it includes the idea of a partnership in the divine nature of Christ (2 Pet. 1:4) as well as in the glory of Christ which he has with the Father (John 17:22-26; Rev. 20:6). Washing was, it must be remembered, a symbolical act, recognized so among the Jews, and signifying purification from uncleanness. Christ’s act in rising from the table and washing the feet of the disciples was the severest rebuke to their pride. See Prel. Note. Peter’s refusal to be washed was a resistance to this rebuke. That Christ’s language was understood by Peter to signify a spiritual cleansing is indicated by his reply.

9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

11 For[525] he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

[525] chap. 6:64.

12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?

9-12. Not my feet only, but also the hands and the head. This is generally regarded as the expression of an impulsive revulsion of feeling in Peter. “We have here the same Peter who one minute rushes into the water, and the next calls out ‘I perish’; who now smites with the sword and now flees; who goes even into the high priest’s palace and who denies his Lord.”—(Godet.) I should rather regard it as the language of argument and remonstrance still continued. “If,” he says in effect, “this is the reason of your washing, why stop with the feet? why not go on and wash the rest, the hands and the head?” i. e., the face and neck. To this argument Christ replies—He that is bathed needeth not save to wash the feet, but is wholly clean. In the original there is a distinction between bathing of the whole person and washing of the feet which our English translation ignores, but which is important. The meaning is, As he that has been once bathed, and so cleansed, needs only to wash what has become soiled in his walk, so he who by the washing of regeneration has been once cleansed of his sins (Titus 3:5), needs only to come to Christ hereafter for partial cleansing, i. e., for forgiveness and redemption from those sins which are in some sense the product of his daily walk and life. He does not need to come again and again for the washing of regeneration, but only for the cleansing of special faults. But even he who has been bathed still needs to be constantly washed by Christ (1 John 1:8, 9).—Ye are not all clean. Not all that seem to have come to Christ and to have entered his service, are really cleansed by him (Matt. 7:21-23).—He knew who should betray him. Among those whose feet were washed was Judas. No love can touch or change the heart resolutely set to do evil.—Know ye what I have done to you? That is, do you comprehend the reason why it is done, and the meaning of the action. The disciples are silent. In the following verses Christ goes on to explain its significance.

13 Ye[526] call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

[526] Matt. 23:8-10; Phil. 2:11.

14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.

15 For[527] I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

[527] 1 Pet. 2:21.

16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

17 If[528] ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

[528] James 1:25.

13-17. Ye call me the Master (literally

Teacher) and the Lord. Observe the definite article, not merely a teacher, or your teacher, but the teacher and the Lord. For instances in which they had done so, see ver. 6, 9, 25, 36, 37; ch. 14:5, 8, 22. Stress is perhaps not to be laid on the fact that the phrase the Lord (ὁ κύριος) is used in the Septuagint (Greek O. T.) for Jehovah; but it certainly is here more than a mere title of respectful address; and the declaration of Christ here, coupled with the declaration of Matthew 23:8, One is your Master (Teacher), and all ye are brethren, distinguishes him clearly from his disciples, as not merely the chosen leader among them, but having a divine authority over them.—Ye say well; for I am. The humble office of feet-washing had been done by one who was not only fully conscious of his supremacy, but who in the very act claimed that supremacy. This divine authority Christ never abdicated; his divine consciousness he never lost.—If I then, the Lord and the Master. TheLord, not merely yourLord. He might have been their Lord and teacher by their selection; he was the Lord and teacher by divine appointment, and by virtue of his own character.—Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. If we are to interpret literally the commands of Christ, the command of feet-washing as a perpetual observance is even more explicit than that for the observance of the Lord’s Supper. That is in form a simple request: “Do this in remembrance of me;” this is a request thrice repeated: “Ye ought also to wash one another’s feet;” “I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you;” “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” Nevertheless feet-washing has never been generally practised by the Christian church. There is no indication of its introduction into the apostolic church. The only reference to it in the N. T. is 1 Tim. 5:10, and the probability is that the reference there is to a rite of hospitality, not to a religious or symbolical service. We first meet with feet-washing in ecclesiastical history in the fourth century. It was practised in connection with baptism, on the catechumens in some parts of the early church, especially in Gaul, possibly in Africa and Spain. It is practised in some of the Greek convents of to-day; by the R. C. church once a year on Maunday-Thursday, when the Pope washes the feet of twelve pilgrims in Rome; and by the Brethren (popularly known as Dunkards), a sect of German Baptists chiefly found in Pennsylvania; the Mennonites, a sect of Dutch Anabaptists, chiefly confined also to the eastern district of Pennsylvania in this country; and possibly by some other minor sects. With these exceptions, it has never been attempted to maintain feet-washing as a religious observance in the Christian church. This apparent disregard of Christ’s seemingly explicit command can be defended only on the general ground that no ceremonial is of the essence of Christianity; that the thing symbolized, not the symbol, here the spirit of self-sacrifice and serving love, not the form by which it is typified, is the essential thing; that as eating the bread and drinking the wine, not discerning the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:29), is not a true observance of the Lord’s Supper, so, on the other hand, the spirit that is willing to serve others to their cleansing, in humbleness of love, is a true observance of the rite of feet-washing, though the rite itself is disused. “It is not the act itself, but its moral essence which, after his example, he enjoins upon them to exercise. This moral essence, however, consists not in lowly and ministering love generally, in which Jesus by washing the feet of his disciples desired to give them an example, but, as ver. 10 proves, in that ministering love which, in all self-denial and humility, is active for the moral purification and cleansing of others.”—(Meyer.)—I have given you an example. It is the inward spirit of Christ, not the mere outward act, that is an example for us to follow; the cleansing love, not the girded garment and the washing of feet, that is our pattern. For the spiritual signification of this declaration, see ch. 17:18; 1 John 3:16.—The servant is not greater, etc. The repetition of this seemingly self-evident truth indicates that Christ apprehended for his followers that spiritual pride which has been in the history of the church almost their greatest danger. See ch. 15:20; Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40.—If ye know these things. This language itself should have sufficed to guard against the literalism which would maintain feet-washing as a perpetual ceremonial. Know what things? That he had washed their feet? Of course they knew that. The meaning clearly is, If ye understand the meaning of my act, happy are ye if ye exemplify the same spirit in your lives. Per contra, he that does not know, that does not comprehend the spirit, is not blessed in going through the mere form, and this is equally true respecting all ceremonials. He only is blessed in them who comprehends their spiritual significance.

18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the[529] scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me.

[529] Ps. 41:9.

19 Now I tell[530] you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

[530] ch. 14:29; 16:4.

20 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[531] He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me: and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

[531] Matt. 10:40.

18-20. I speak not of you all. The highest service of Christ is serviceable only to those who will receive it. The fact that Christ washed the feet of Judas, and broke bread with him, added to the blackness of his treachery and the enormity of his guilt. The church, the Bible, the Sabbath, the Lord’s Supper will rise up in judgment against those who have participated in them but have not imbibed the spirit of Christ from them.—I know whom I have chosen. Couple this with the declaration of ch. 15:16, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” The meaning is that Christ comprehended the character of those whom he had selected for his work; he was not deceived; and he is not now deceived by false professions, however they may deceive the church, the world, and even the false professor himself. Why Christ should have chosen Judas is one of the unsolved enigmas of N. T. history. We can see (1) that there was in every apostle the same conflict between the spiritual and the earthly nature which there was in Judas Iscariot, though the final issue was so different. (2) We cannot say that there was not a possibility that it might have been different in the case of Judas Iscariot. In other words, we cannot say what are the limits to the freedom of the will, what the possibility of good for the evil soul, what the possibility of evil for him who is preserved from it by accepting the grace of God and so becoming his child. (3) The case of Judas Iscariot has been full of warning to the church in all ages; thus the development of his character in the apostolate has been made a means of service to mankind. His spirit was that of the Pharisee; his position simply gave that spirit an opportunity to exhibit itself.—But that the Scripture might be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me, now I tell you before it come. Observe the difference in the punctuation, from that of the English version. The meaning is not, I have chosen Judas that the Scripture might be fulfilled, for (1) this interpretation, though that of Alford and Meyer, requires us to supply or imagine a most important hiatus in the text. Christ says nothing about his choice of Judas; he lays emphasis on the fact that all the twelve were chosen by him, and therefore all were known to him. Nor is the meaning, I speak not of you all, in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled, which would make Christ withhold a blessing for the purpose of fulfilling a prophecy, an incredible interpretation. But that the Scripture(which he parenthetically quotes) may be fulfilled, i. e., that the disciples may recognize its fulfillment in the events soon to take place, I now tell you before it is come to pass. Thus the particle but(ἀλλά) connects this sentence not with the declaration which precedes, but with that which follows. The Scripture is Psalm 41:9. The Psalm is clearly not, in strictness of speech, a prophetic Psalm, uttered as by the Messiah, for ver. 4 contains a confession of sin and a prayer for redemption. “I said, Lord be merciful unto me and heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee.” In that Psalm, ver. 9, “Yea mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me,” primarily refers to some treachery displayed towards the Psalmist, perhaps that of Ahithophel to David (2 Sam. 15:31; 16:23). But events as well as words are prophetic; and the treachery of Ahithophel towards David was itself a prophecy of the treachery of Judas towards David’s greater Son. To eat bread with another is, in the East, the highest possible confirmation of a sacred covenant with him. To lift up the heel is a figure taken from the kick of a horse, who turns suddenly upon one who has been feeding him. This seems to me a better interpretation than that of Canon Cook, who sees in it a figure taken from the act of a conqueror putting his heel on the neck of a prostrate foe.—That when it is come to pass ye may believe that I am. The office of prophecy is here intimated. It is not designed to give us in the present a definite knowledge of future events. The most spiritually minded among the Jews did not comprehend the O. T. prophecy of Christ, and did not understand the nature of his advent. It is rather so to depict the future as (1) to awaken hope or serve as a warning; and (2) to serve as an evidence of the inspiration of the writer of the book after the fulfillment of the prophecy has demonstrated the prescience of the author. On the phrase I am, see ch. 8:58, note.—He that receiveth you, etc. See Matt. 10:40, note, where the same declaration is made in a different connection. Here Christ, in order to encourage the disciples, reiterates a principle with which they were already familiar. Although, he says, you are to serve in humble ways, as I have served you, and although you will meet with many a discouraging rebuff from without and with treachery from among your own number, yet you are not to forget that you are sent into the world as your Master was sent into the world, so that to receive you will be to receive me.

21 When[532] Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

[532] Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21.

22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.

21, 22. An account of this prophecy of the betrayal is given by all the Evangelists (Matt. 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:21-23). See notes on Matthew. There is some difficulty in determining the exact nature and order of the events, though not more than we might expect in a comparison of four independent accounts of circumstances involved in so great confusion. The fullest account is that of John. He alone mentions Judas’ departure from the room. Matthew declares that Christ replied directly in the affirmative to Judas’ question, Is it I? John, on the other hand, asserts that no one in the room knew why Judas went out (comp. Matt. 26:25 with vers. 28, 29 here). The differences are not irreconcilable. Comparing the four accounts, it would appear that Christ’s declaration, “One of you shall betray me,” produced the utmost consternation and excitement; that all the disciples eagerly asked, “Is it I?” “Is it I?” that Peter asked John to tell him who it was, assuming that John knew, or could ascertain (see ver. 24); that at the same time Judas, thunderstruck at the disclosure of his treachery, which had been already planned (Matt. 26:14-16), asked, perhaps somewhat tardily, the question, “Is it I?” to hide his confusion; that Jesus replied in an aside to him, “Thou hast said” (Matt. 26:25), a reply that in the confusion either was not heard or was not heeded; that John, turning toward Jesus so as to rest upon his bosom (ver. 25), asked who the betrayer should be; that Jesus seemed to give the information, but really refused to do so, in his reply, “He it is to whom I shall give a sop” (ver. 26), since he gave a sop in turn to all; so that when a moment or two later Judas went out angered by what he erroneously believed to be a public disclosure of his treachery before all the disciples, no one, not even John, knew why he had gone. The question whether Judas was at the Lord’s Supper has been greatly discussed. The question seems to me of no practical importance; and it is one impossible to answer with positiveness, for John, who alone mentions his going out, gives no account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. I believe, however, on a comparison of the four accounts, that he was not at the Last Supper, but went out immediately before its institution. According to Matthew, the prophecy of the betrayal preceded the institution of the Supper; according to John, Judas went out immediatelyafter receiving the sop (comp. Matt. 26:25, 26 with ver. 30 here). And the explanation of Christ’s course, as described by John, appears to me to be his desire to have, in this last sacred conference, only those who were really his friends, and measurably in spiritual sympathy with him. This I believe to be the explanation of the direction to Judas in ver. 27. For an elaborate discussion of this question, see Andrews’ Life of our Lord; for a fuller harmonic account of the events, Lyman Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth.—He was troubled in spirit. Compare ch. 11:33; 12:27. Our own experience helps to interpret this, which Alford calls a “mysterious troubling of spirit.” The presence of an uncongenial soul often suffices to destroy the sympathy of a sacred circle; the presence of a known traitor might well have prevented Christ from an outpouring of his soul in confidential converse which renders the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th chapters of John the most sacred in the Bible to the disciples of Christ.—One of you shall betray me. Christ had before foretold his betrayal, Matt. 17:22; 20:18; 26:2, etc., but now for the first time he declares that he should be betrayed by one of the twelve. No wonder that they were startled.—The disciples looked one on another doubting of whom he spake. And asking one another (Luke 22:23) and eagerly asking Christ (Matt. 26:22; Mark 14:19). Not one of them ventures to question the truth of the Lord’s prophecy, and each asks the personal question, “Is it I?” No one accuses, even by implication, his neighbor. Is not this a pattern for us in that self-examination which should always precede our seasons of sacred communion with our Lord (1 Cor. 11:28)? an examination which should look forward rather than backward; prepare for the future rather than attempt to measure the past; and always be a selfexamination.

23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one[533] of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

[533] ch. 20:2; 21:7, 20.

24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

23-25. There was leaning on Jesus’ bosom. The party were reclining at the table according to the Greek and Roman fashion. For illustration, which better than any description shows the manner, see Matt. 26:20, note. John was lying next to Jesus.—Whom Jesus loved. “Here, out of the recollection of that sacred and by him never-to-be-forgotten moment, there first breaks from his lips this nameless, and yet so expressive designation of himself.”—(Meyer.) The phrase “whom Jesus loved” occurs seven times in John’s Gospel; twice as a designation of Martha, Mary and Lazarus (John 11:3, 5); five times as the designation of one of the disciples (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). It has been almost universally regarded as a designation of John, the author of the Fourth Gospel, who is accordingly known in the church as the “beloved disciple,” though this designation is not found in the Gospels themselves. The main reasons for this opinion are two. (1) John is not once named in the Fourth Gospel, while an unnamed disciple is frequently referred to (John 1:35, 40; 18:15; 19:27; 21:3, 4, 8; 21:23; and see refs. above). It is not easy to conceive of any reason why the author should leave unnamed any other disciple, but it is not at all strange that he should use a circumlocution to designate himself. (2) His character, so far as we know it, corresponds with his designation as the “beloved disciple.” See Introduction. It has been, indeed, objected that there is a certain appearance of egotism in his singling himself out as the disciple whom Jesus loved, a designation never given to him by either of the other Evangelists. The reply to this is, or at least may be, that the designation was employed by John, not because he desired in any sense to claim or imply a supremacy above the other disciples, but because the wonder of his life was that Jesus should love such an one as he, and by love should transform him. All facts in his life sink into insignificance in his thought by the side of this fact, that he was beloved of Jesus, chosen to be the witness of his transfiguration, his nearest companion at the Last Supper, the sympathizing sharer in his agony at Gethsemane, and the guardian of his mother after the death of her son (Matt. 17:1; 26:37; John 13:23; 19:26, 27).—Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him and said, Tell us who it is. This is the true reading, adopted by all critics, Alford, Meyer, Lachmann, Tischendorf, etc. The expression has been altered to that of the Received Text in order to adapt Peter’s question to John’s account as described in the next verse. The Sinaitic manuscript has the Received Text, “That he should ask who it should be,” as an explanatory gloss or comment alongside the original expression, “Tell who it is.” Peter seems to have assumed that John would know. Possibly in the general tumult the latter preserved his composure, and conscious of his own supreme love for his Lord, did not join in the general exclamation, “Is it I?”—He then throwing himself back on Jesus’ breast. (See Robinson’s Lexicon, ἐπιπίπτω.) The language of the English version is inadequate and incorrect, since it merely repeats the phrase used in verse 23, as though to identify the person; whereas the original implies an action on John’s part, by which he turned and rested more closely than before on Christ’s bosom. He had before been reclining next to Jesus in the manner indicated in the illustration on page 282 of Vol. I of this Commentary. He now raises himself, and turns so as to rest upon Jesus’ breast and whisper in his ear. The graphic details of this entire narrative are unmistakably those of an eye-witness.

DIPPING THE SOP.

26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave itto Judas Iscariot, the sonof Simon.

26. He it is to whom I shall give a sop. This reply, and Christ’s accompanying action, is generally regarded as a designation, at least to John, of the traitor. I think this is a mistake. It is no uncommon act in an Eastern meal for the host, as a special act of consideration, to dip a piece of bread or meat in the sauce or gravy and pass it to a special guest, or even put it into his mouth. In the Passover feast, the head of the house habitually took from the passover cake a piece, dipped it in the sauce of bitter herbs (Exod. 12:8), and passed it in turn to the persons at the table. Christ’s answer to John, therefore, was simply a more solemn reiteration of the declaration of ver. 18, “He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up the heel against me.” He dipped the piece of bread in the sauce, and passed it to the disciples in turn. In doing so he gave it first to Judas. John may have understood the significance of the act; but it is plain from ver. 28 that none of the others at the table did so. I should rather regard the act as a new endeavor on the part of Christ by love to turn Judas from his evil purpose. He has answered without designating him. He now endeavors to draw him to himself by singling him out for a manifestation of special love. In the same spirit are the last words he addressed to the apostate—words not of angry rebuke, but of pathetic remonstrance: “Friend, wherefore art thou come? Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” (Matt. 26:50; Luke 22:48.)

27 And after the sop Satan[534] entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

[534] Luke 22:3.

28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.

29 For some of them thought,[535] because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast: or, that he should give something to the poor.

[535] chap. 12:6.

30 He then, having received the sop, went immediately out: and it was night.

27-30. Satan entered into him. It is a mistaken literalism which interprets this phrase as indicating that Judas was from this time demoniacally possessed. Nor, on the other hand, is it to be regarded as a merely figurative expression, indicating that Judas gave himself up wholly and unreservedly to evil. The N. T. teaching assumes the existence of evil spirits and their influence over human beings (Matt. 13:19, 38; Luke 4:6; 22:31; John 14:30; Acts 5:3; 26:18; 2 Cor. 2:11; Ephes. 2:2; 4:27; 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:26; Jas. 4:7; 1 John 3:8; 5:18), and the language here is in accordance with its spiritual philosophy. It simply indicates that Judas’ determined resistance to the warning words and the winning love of Christ gave to the Evil One a new advantage and influence over him. The solemn lesson for us is that, as every faithful performance of known duty opens our heart to the incoming of God (ch. 14:23), so every determined resistance of sacred influences and every persistence in sin, opens our nature to the incoming of unknown but tremendous Satanic influences. It has before been said of Judas that Satan entered into him (Luke 22:3). There is growth in the kingdom of darkness as in that of light. As God enters by successive manifestations of himself into his saints, so Satan into those that give themselves up to him.—That thou doest, do quickly. Literally, more quickly (τάχιον); i. e., hasten it. This is not to be regarded as merely permission, as Adam Clarke: “What thou art determined to do, and I to permit, do directly; delay not; I am ready;” nor yet as mandatory, and involving the utterance of a divine decree, as Alford: “The course of sinful action is presupposed, and the command to go on is but the echo of that mysterious appointment by which the sinner in the exercise of his own corrupted will becomes the instrument of the purposes of God;” but as the expression of Christ’s desire to be rid of the oppressive proximity of the traitor, as Ambrose and Tholuck. He sees that the purpose of Judas is fully fixed; he will not have him remain there, contaminating the very atmosphere, and increasing his own guilt by his dissembling. We are apt to judge men by the external act; no wonder then that Christ has been accused of pushing Judas over the precipice. But he who judged by the heart, and accounted him already a murderer who has murder in his heart (Matt. 5:22), would not have the resolute apostate increase the guilt of betrayal by that of hypocrisy. Moreover, Christ wishes the few minutes that remain for sacred converse with his faithful friends; and that he cannot have in the presence of the hypocrite and traitor. So he bids him begone. “Play the hypocrite here no longer,” he says to him; “but since you are determined on treason, go on and consummate it.”—Now no one at the table knew why he thus spake to him. Perhaps the writer himself, that is John, is to be excepted from this general statement. This is the opinion of most of the commentators. Yet it is not at all impossible that not even John comprehended the significance of Christ’s act in handing the sop to Judas first of the disciples.—Because Judas had the bag. Being treasurer of the little band. See ch. 12:6, note.—Buy those things we have need of against the feast. From this phrase it is argued by Alford and Meyer that the supper at which our Lord was sitting with his disciples could not have been the Passover Supper. “Had it been the night of the Passover, the next day being hallowed as a Sabbath, nothing could have been bought.”—(Alford.) But Tholuck has shown that according to Rabbinical rules a purchase could be made on the Sabbath by leaving a pledge and afterwards settling the account. The feast lasted for the week; therefore the disciples may well have supposed that a purchase for a later period of the feast was contemplated. And the fact that Christ hastened Judas would have been better understood if the following day was the Sabbath, when the shops would be shut.—Or that he should give something to the poor. Evidently this little band carried out the precepts of Christian love which their Master inculcated. Small as was their store, it is clear that out of it they were accustomed to bestow alms on the more needy.—Went out immediately. There was then, clearly, no opportunity for the institution of the Lord’s Supper during his presence, unless it was instituted either before the feet-washing, which the order of the narrative and its probable connection with the contest about places described in Luke, makes exceedingly improbable, or between verses 20 and 21, which seems from the connection to be also very improbable. I believe it is to be regarded as occurring between the departure of Judas and the beginning of Christ’s discourse in ch. 14. Matthew and Mark both put it immediately after the prophecy of the betrayal; Luke before.—And it was night. A graphic addition to the picture; significant of the fact that the narration is that of an eye-witness in whose memory every detail was indelibly impressed; and suggestive of the darkness of the deed about to be consummated, and of the traitor’s heart. It is always night when a deed of determined sin is entered upon. “The night which this miserable wretch has in his heart is, without comparison, blacker and darker than that which he chooses for his work of darkness.”—(Quesnel.)

31 Therefore when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now[536] is the Son of man glorified, and God[537] is glorified in him.

[536] ch. 12:23; 17:1-6.

[537] ch. 14:13; 1 Pet. 4:11.

32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

31, 32. When he was gone out Jesus said. The departure of Judas is a relief. Now for the first time Christ can speak freely, unoppressed by the presence of a traitor and a hypocrite.—Now has the Son of man been glorified, and God has been glorified in him (ὲδοξάσθη, aorist). If God has been glorified in him, God also shall glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him. The significance of this utterance has been, it seems to me, misapprehended by the commentators, from a failure to consider the mental attitude and expectation of the disciples. The phrase Son of man was a common Jewish designation of the Messiah, borrowed from Daniel, and would have been so understood by the disciples (Matt. 10:23, note). They had come up to Jerusalem anticipating the coronation of the Messiah as King of the Jews. They had entered Jerusalem in triumph, hailing him as such (Matt. 21:1-11). Two of the disciples on the way had come to him privately for the best offices (Matt. 20:20, 21). The twelve even had quarreled for pre-eminence as they were sitting down at the table (Luke 22:24). The immediate object of Christ in the discourse which follows is to prepare them for the terrible revulsion of feeling, the shock of disappointment and despair which the morrow had in store for them. He begins, therefore, with the declaration that the glory of the Messiah is an already accomplished fact. He has been glorified; by his incarnation, his life of loving self-sacrifice, his patience, courage, fidelity, love; and in his life and character, God has been glorified. The disciples have beheld already the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (ch. 1:14). Then he adds a prophecy of further glory; not that of the death; not that of the resurrection; not that of the ascension; but that of being again one with the Father.—The Father shall glorify him, in himself. He foresees and foretells the answer to be given to the prayer “Glorify thou me, with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (ch. 17:5). And for this there is to be no waiting; no delay for an earthly coronation. There must be a long interval of redeeming work before he can see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; before every knee will bow and every tongue confess him Lord; before he can reign King of kings and Lord of lords; but for this the Father will not wait. Immediately that his work of suffering and self-sacrifice is over, he will return to the bosom of the Father, to share with him the glory which he had from the foundation of the world.

33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and[538] as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.

[538] chaps. 7:34; 8:21.

34 A new[539] commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

[539] ch. 15:12, 17; Lev. 19:18; Ephes. 5:2; 1 Thess. 4:9; Jas. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 2:7, 8; 3:11, 23; 4:20, 21.

35 By this shall all menknow that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

33-35. Little children. The only place where this phrase is used by Christ in addressing his disciples. But we find it more frequently in the Epistles of Paul (1 Cor. 4:14, 17; 2 Cor. 6:13; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:1). It “affectingly expresses his, not only brotherly, but fatherly love (Isa. 9:6) for his own, and at the same time their immature and weak state, now about to be left without him.”—(Alford.)—And as I said to the Jews (ch. 8:21), Whither I go ye cannot come, so now I say to you. But though they could not go to him, he would come to them, and abide with them (ch. 14:18, 23). The longing to depart and be with Christ is to be gratified only by our having Christ with us, until the time of final departure comes. It is one thing to desire him here, willing to fill up the measure of his suffering in our own life, if he is in us and with us (2 Cor. 12:10); it is another and very different thing to desire to depart and be with him that we may escape the suffering. The first is a Christian longing; not so the second.—A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. The commandment to love is not new (Lev. 19:18). But Christ’s life gives to it a new interpretation and makes it new. Love has, ever since the life and death of Christ, taken on a new signification. To forgive is now to bless those that curse us, and do good to those that despitefully use us. The language here is parallel to and interpreted by ch. 17:18, “As thou (Father) hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.” It is the interpretation of the direction, “Follow me.” We are to be followers of his spirit, especially of his love. This general definition includes other special definitions that have been given, e. g., it is new because with it there comes a new motive power, the love of Christ experienced in the heart, which becomes in turn the fountain of love to all others (Meyer); a renewed commandment, rejuvenated, cleansed of the overlay of ceremonialism which Pharisaism had put upon it (Calvin); new to the disciples, unexpected by them, who were looking for a new disclosure of divine glory in a very different direction (Semler quoted in Meyer); new because love is ever new, never can grow old (Olshausen); new because the law of the new covenant, the firstfruits of the Spirit in the new dispensation (Gal. 5:22). It is notable how this one law of love runs through and colors all this last sacred discourse of Jesus. Comp. ch. 14:15, 24; 15:9, 10, 17. The last words of Jesus are words full of the comfort and inspiration and exaltation of love.—By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples. Not by professions, or creeds, or ceremonials, or religious services, but by love one towards another. Love is the Christian water-mark, the Christian uniform. The banner over Christ’s church is love (Sol. Song 2:4).

36 Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but[540] thou shalt follow me afterwards.

[540] ch. 21:18; 2 Pet. 1:14.

37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will[541] lay down my life for thy sake.

[541] Matt. 26:33, etc.; Mark 14:29, etc.; Luke 22:33, etc.

38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

36-38. Prophecy of Peter’s denial. This is probably identical with the prophecy of Luke 22:31-38, see notes there; but distinct from that of Matt. 26:31-35; Mark 14:27-31. Thou canst not follow me now. Because it was not the divine will that the apostles should share in their Master’s death.—But thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter, according to tradition, was crucified; thus he followed Christ in death, and through death into glory. Comp. John 21:18.—The cock shall not crow. The second crowing at dawn is intended. See Matt. 26:34, note.

CHAPTER XIV.

Ch. 14:1-31. THE HEART OF CHRISTIANITY—THE DIVINE IMMANENCE.—The promise of the Comforter: invisible, indwelling, abiding.—The condition of the promise: the obedience of love.—The result: a fruitful, spiritual life, comfort, instruction, peace, joy, love.

Preliminary Note.—The 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th chapters of John are the Holy of Holies of the Bible. Christ is about to depart from his disciples; the cloud of the coming trouble casts its shadow on their hearts; he sees clearly, they feel vaguely the impending tragedy. They are to behold their Master spit upon, abused, execrated; they are to see him suffering the tortures of a lingering death upon the cross; they are to be utterly unable to interfere for his succor or even for his relief; they are to see all the hopes which they had built on him extinguished in his death. It is that he may prepare them for this experience, that he may prepare his disciples throughout all time (ch. 17:20) for similar experiences of world-sorrow (ch. 16:33), and that he may point out to them and to the church universal the source of their hope, their peace, their joy, and their life—moral and spiritual—that he speaks to the twelve, and through them to his discipleship in all ages, in these chapters, and finally offers for them and for us that prayer which we may well accept as the disclosure of his eternal intercession for his followers. The discourse is sympathetic, not philosophical or critical; it is addressed to sympathetic friends, not to a cold or critical audience; and it is to be interpreted rather by the sympathies and the spiritual experience than by a philosophical analysis. It sets forth the source of all comfort, strength, guidance and spiritual well-being in the truth of the direct personal presence of a seemingly absent but really present, a seemingly slain but really living, a seemingly defeated but really victorious Lord and Master. This truth appears and reappears in various forms in these chapters, like the theme in a sublime symphony. Now it is plainly stated, “I will come to you” (ch. 14:18); now it is interpreted by a metaphor, “Ye are the vine, I am the branches” (ch. 15:5); now it is a promise of the Spirit’s presence, now of Christ’s, now of the Father’s (ch. 14:16, 18, 21, 23); now the disciples are bid to turn their thoughts toward this spiritual presence, this Divine Immanence, for their own sake (ch. 16:7), now they are appealed to by the love they bear the Master (ch. 14:28). The conditions of this personal experience of the unseen spiritual presence of their God and Saviour is declared to be obedience in the daily life to the law of love (ch. 14:21, 23; 15:10); the result is declared to be a constant growth in the knowledge of divine truth (ch. 14:26; 16:12, 13); a sacred peace and joy (ch. 14:27; 15:11); a supernatural strength in sorrow (16:20-22). These truths are not logically arranged; the structure of the discourse is not that of a sermon, but that of a confidential conversation, in which in different forms the same essential truth is repeated and re-repeated, because the heart is so full that a single utterance does not suffice, and the truth is so transcendent that no logical statement is adequate. After the conversation is closed and the disciples rise to depart, Christ recurs to the theme in a new form, and continues the discourse, while the disciples wait standing for a new signal to go out (ch. 14:31; ch. 15, Prel. Note); and, finally, when for a second time he draws his discourse to a close, he re-embodies the same consolatory and inspiring truth in a prayer, breathing the aspiration that the reward and secret and source of his own power may be given to his disciples, sent into the world to complete the mission which he has but inaugurated (ch. 17:18). Thus these chapters of John contain a disclosure of the very heart of Christianity, the personal knowledge of a living God by direct communion with him, as a teacher, a comforter, an inspirer, the one and only true source of faith, hope, love. The commentator must point out the connection of the verses and the meaning of the words; his work must be in a measure critical and cold; but only the devout heart, which knows by experience that love of Christ which passes the knowledge of the intellect, can interpret the spiritual meaning of the truth, since the condition of understanding it is not a critical knowledge of words or an intellectual apprehension of theology, but a love for Christ that keeps Christ’s words, that recognizes Christ’s mission to be also the mission of the Christian, and that abides in Christ in the spirit that it may follow Christ in the life. Without this spirit the student in vain addresses himself to the study of this “wisdom of God in a mystery,” hidden except to the soul to whom God hath revealed it by his Spirit (1 Cor. 2:7-10).

Let[542] not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe[543] also in me.

[542] verse 27; Isa. 43:1, 2; 2 Thess. 2:2.

[543] Isa. 12:2, 3; Ephes. 1:12, 13; 1 Pet. 1:21.

2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go[544] to prepare a place for you.

[544] Heb. 6:20; 9:8, 24; Rev. 21:2.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will[545] come again, and receive you unto myself: that[546] where I am, thereye may be also.

[545] Heb. 9:28.

[546] ch. 12:26; 17:24; 1 Thess. 4:17.

1-3. Let not your heart be troubled. In this hour of unparalleled sorrow, with Gethsemane, the betrayal, the denial, the mock trials and the crucifixion full in view, Christ thinks not of himself, but of his disciples. He does not seek comfort, but imparts it. We may well imagine a momentary silence after the prophecy of the preceding verses. The disappointment of the Judaic expectation of temporal and political deliverance, the prophecy of treason, the sudden and unexpected departure of Judas, the prophecy of Peter’s denial, and of the abandonment of their Lord by the other disciples, have all tended to sober and sadden them.—Ye have faith in God, have faith also in me. The forms of the indicative and the imperative are the same (πιστεύετε). Some critics read both verbs indicative, Ye have faith in God, ye have faith also in me; some both imperative; treating both as an exhortation, Have faith in God; have faith also in me; and some, as our English version, which makes the statement of the first clause the ground of the exhortation of the second clause, Ye have faith in God, have faith also in me. Either rendering is grammatically legitimate; the latter seems to me preferable. As Jews they had faith in the one only true and living God; a faith which, in the experience of patriarchs and prophets, trial and trouble had not been able to shake (Hab. 3:17, 18). Christ urges them to a like faith in him, a faith strong enough to survive the brief though terrible separation of death. Theism is the foundation of Christianity; faith in one only living and true God precedes and prepares the way for faith in Christ his Son, the living and true way to the Father. To believe in him is not to believe anything about him, nor merely to trust in him, but to have such a spiritual apprehension of his character, that when he is crucified the disciples shall not lose their confidence in him as the Messiah. He warns them against that doubt which augmented and intensified their distress when they saw him whom they had trusted should have redeemed Israel put to an open shame and a cruel death (Luke 24:21). They were trusting in themselves. Peter’s declaration, “I will lay down my life for thy sake,” expressed the common confidence of all (Mark 14:31). Christ first demolished this false confidence, then seeks to build up a new and better confidence in himself.—In my Father’s house are many dwelling-places. The phrase “my Father’s house” is generally regarded as a circumlocution for heaven; Christ’s declaration as tantamount to the general statement that in heaven there is room enough for them all (Alford, Meyer, etc.); and in support of this view such O. T. passages as Ps. 23:13, 14; Isaiah 63:15, are quoted, which refer to the heavens as God’s habitation. I would rather regard the universe as God’s house according to the spirit of Isaiah 66:1, “Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool,” and the declaration that in it are many dwelling-places, as a new light thrown upon the abode of the dead who die in Christ Jesus. The ancients regarded Hades, or the abode of the dead, a deep and dark abode in the under-world, fastened with gates and bars, a ghostly abode, a prison-house of the disembodied (Job 10:21, 22; 11:8; Ps. 88:6; 89:48; Eccles. 9:4; Isa. 5:14; 14:9-20, 38:10; Ezek. 31:17; 32:21). The O. T. thought of death and the abode of the dead was hardly more hopeful than that of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Homer makes the dead Achilles declare:

“I would be

A laborer on earth and serve for hire

Some man of mean estate, who makes scant cheer,

Rather than reign over all who have gone down

To death.”

Parallel to this, in some respects more gloomy, were the ancient Hebrews’ thoughts of Hades. Dying was bidding farewell to God. “Wilt thou show wonders to the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise thee? * * * Shall thy righteousness be known in the land of forgetfulness?” (Ps. 88:10-12). “In death there is no remembrance of thee” (Ps. 6:5). Comp. Isaiah, ch. 38, and Job, ch. 14. The hope of better things is but an occasional gleam in a night of great darkness and almost despair. See Job 10:21, 22; Ps. 89:45-49; Eccles. 9:4; Isaiah 5:14, 15; 14:9-20; Ezek. 31:16, 17; and especially Isaiah, ch. 38, and Job, ch. 14. In contrast with this gloomy view of death is that of the N. T., the germ of which is afforded by Christ’s declaration here, which may be paraphrased thus: “The earth is not the only abode of God’s children; in my Father’s house (the universe) are many dwelling-places for them; and I, in leaving you, am not going to the dark abode of the voiceless dead, but to prepare for you a place, and to return again to take you to myself, that you may witness and share the glory which I have with the Father.” Out of this declaration grows, as a fruitful tree out of a seed, the whole of the discourse contained in this and the two following chapters. Out of it grows, too, the Christian’s conception of and experience in death. See for example 2 Cor. 5:1-4. It should be added that the word house (οἰκία) is never used in the N. T. as a designation of heaven, but with the analogous word (οἷκος) household, is used of the world (John 8:35), the temple (John 2:16), and the whole kingdom of God (Heb. 3:2-6); so that N. T. usage confirms the interpretation here given. The word rendered mansions (μονή) occurs nowhere else in the N. T., but is derived from a verb (μένω) signifying to abide, and here unquestionably indicates not a mansion, but simply a permanent dwelling-place. This was indeed the original meaning of the English word mansion (Fr. maison).—If not, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? The reference is to some previous statement not preserved in our Gospels. The argument is this: I could not have assured you, as I have done, that I am going to prepare a place for you, if the place of the dead were the dark abode which you have imagined it to be. This, which is the interpretation of the French translation, seems to me, notwithstanding the objection of the modern writers (Meyer, Godet, Tholuck, etc.), better than the construction of our English version, though either is grammatically admissible. If we take the other construction, the connection is as Godet gives it: “If our separation was to be an eternal one, I would have forewarned you; I would not have waited for this last moment to declare it unto you.”—And if I go and prepare a place for you. The implication of this entire passage is not merely “heaven large enough for all,” but a heaven with various provisions for various natures. In the Father’s house is not merely a large mansion, but manymansions; and there is prepared a place not merely for all but for you, a personal preparation in glory foreach child as by grace ineach child; a room, a house for each nature adapted to its needs. But how does Christ preparea place for us? To that question revelation makes no answer. We can only say that redemption did not end with Christ’s death, that he is still carrying on his work of redeeming love for us as well as in us. In every death of a friend he lays up treasure in heaven for us; those that have gone before and entered into their rest, and await our coming, are a part of this divine preparation. The sorrow here is a part of the preparation of unmeasured joy hereafter.—I will come again and receive you unto myself. In order to understand this, we must bear in mind what Stier well calls the perspective of prophecy. “The coming again of the Lord is not one single act—as his resurrection, or the descent of the Spirit, or his second personal advent, or the final coming in judgment—but the combination of all these, the result of which shall be his taking his people to himself to be where he is. This coming is begun (ver. 18) in his resurrection; carried on (ver. 23) in the spiritual life (see also ch. 16:22, etc.), the making them ready for the place prepared; further advanced when each by death is fetched away to be with him (Phil. 1:23); fully completed at His coming in glory when they shall be forever with Him (1 Thess. 4:17) in the perfected resurrection state.”—(Alford.)—That. In order that(ἵνα). The going, the preparing, the returning are all for the sake of them, his disciples.—Where I am there ye may be also. Death is no longer “farewell to God;” it is going home to be forever with the Lord (ch. 17:24; Phil. 1:23; 1 Thess. 4:17).

4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

4, 5. And whither I go (ye know and) the way ye know. There is some doubt as to the reading; most critics (Meyer, Alford, Tischendorf, Lachmann) either omit or doubt the words I put in brackets. But their omission obscures without changing the sense; the meaning is undoubtedly that conveyed by our Received Version. While in form a statement, it is in fact an inquiry; its object is to provoke questioning, as it does from Thomas. Whither he goes is to the Father (ch. 20:17); the way he goes is the way of death and resurrection, already foretold them (Matt. 16:21; 17:22, 23; 20:17-19).—Thomas saith unto him, We know not, etc. On the character of Thomas, see ch. 20:26. The few indications of his character afforded by the Gospels (John 11:16; 20:24-29) show him to have possessed an affectionate but unimaginative nature, desiring much, hoping little, and easily given to despair. Such a nature takes nothing for granted; it wants every statement explained, nothing left to the imagination, nothing to the interpretation of the future. “The heavenly whither, however distinctly Jesus had already designated it, Thomas did not yet know clearly how to combine with his circle of Messianic ideas; but he desired to arrive at clearness.”—(Meyer.)

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the[547] way, and the truth,[548] and the life:[549] no[550] man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[547] ch.10:9; Isa. 35:8, 9; Heb. 10:19, 20.

[548] ch. 1:17; 15:1.

[549] ch. 1:4; 11:25.

[550] Acts 4:12.

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

6, 7. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. This is not directly responsive to the implied question of Thomas. That is theoretical; this is practical. The disciples desire to understand the way by which Christ is to depart, and the place to which he is going; Christ’s answer points out the way in and by which the disciple can follow his Lord and be with him where he is. There is here, therefore, not merely a play upon the word “way,” though Christ uses it in one sense in ver. 4 and in a different sense in ver. 6; but the same word is used to turn the thoughts of the inquirer from a purely theoretical question about Christ to a practical truth concerning himself. It was always the habit of Christ to answer questions in theoretical theology by directions helpful to the spiritual life (see ver. 22-24; ch. 3:4-6; 4:19-24). The phrase, I am the way, the truth, and the life, may be interpreted, according to Lightfoot, as a Hebraism equivalent to the true and living way; but it is better to take the two latter phrases as explanations of the former. Christ is the way unto the Father, not because he points out the way, but because he is the truth concerning the Father, and possesses in himself the divine life, and has power to impart it to us. He does not merely reveal the truth; he is the truth; the truth incarnated in a living form; the truth of God, whom he manifests to the world (Matt. 11:27; John 1:1, 2, 14; 10:30; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:13), and the truth of life, which he illustrates more forcibly by his example than by his words, so that all his precepts are summed up in the one command, “Follow me.” He is the life, having life in himself (ch. 5:26), imparting it to others (ch. 10:10), and so giving them power to become sons of God (ch. 1:12) by the possession of that divine life without which no man can ever see God (ch. 3:3; Heb. 12:14). To come to the Father by Christ as the way is not, then, merely to accept him as an inspired teacher respecting the Father, nor merely as an atoning sacrifice, whose blood cleanses away the sins which intervene between the soul and the Father (Heb. 10:20); it is to be conformed to him as to the truth, and to be made partaker of his life (Phil. 3:8-14).—No one cometh to the Father but by me. He now says “to the Father,” not to the Father’s house, because, as Godet well says, “It is not in heaven that we are to find God, but in God that we are to find heaven.” By me is equivalent to, by me as the way, the truth, and the life. This does not necessarily require a knowledge of, still less a correct theological opinion concerning Christ. The conception of God’s character may be really derived from Christ’s teaching, the life may be conformed to Christ’s example, and the soul may be partaker of his spirit, and yet the individual may be unconscious of the source from which he has derived his knowledge of God, his ideal of life, and his inspiration. This declaration is inclusive rather than exclusive; it is equivalent to that of ch. 1:9 (see note there),

“That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” All spiritual life comes through Christ, but not necessarily through a clear and correct knowledge about Christ.—If ye had known me ye should have known my Father also. Comp. ch. 8:19. The practical lesson for us clearly is that the way to come to a true spiritual knowledge of the Father is by a study of the life and character of Christ, and above all by a sympathetic and personal spiritual acquaintance with him. His disciples had not known Christ. They had up to this time believed in him as a temporal Messiah. Of a Messiah crucified, the power of God and the wisdom of God unto salvation to Gentile as well as Jew (1 Cor. 1:24), they had known nothing, and hence of God as their Father and their Friend they knew nothing.—From henceforth ye have known him and have seen him. From this time. He refers to what he has already disclosed of the divine nature, in the washing of the disciples’ feet, in the prophecy of his own betrayal and death, and in what he is about to tell them of the spiritual presence of himself and the Father, through the Holy Spirit, in their hearts. From the time of this disclosure it will indeed be their own fault if they fail to comprehend, at least in some measure, “the breadth and length and depth and height, and to know the love of Christ (and so the love of the Father revealed in and through Christ), which passeth knowledge” (Ephes 3:18, 19).

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him. Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he[551] that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

[551] Col. 1:15.

8, 9. Philip saith unto him, Shew us the Father and it sufficeth us. On Philip’s life and character, see Vol. I, p. 149. Compare the request of Moses (Exod. 33:18). Philip has in mind the O. T. appearances of God; he wants such a manifestation of the Deity, a seeing of God. “One such sight of God would set at rest all these fears, and give him perfect confidence.”—(Alford.) He wants to walk by sight, and not by faith. He expresses the universal longing of humanity for a vision of the unknown. This request furnishes the text on which the following discourse is founded. Christ replies that the unknown Father is manifested to the world in his Son (ver. 9-11), and in the spiritual life, the inward experience, of those that love him and keep his commandments (ver. 15-21); he points out the way to secure this inward experience, namely, by loving the Son and keeping his commandments (ver. 22-26); he declares that this indwelling of the Father in the soul of the believer brings abundant peace (ver. 27-31); it is more than a vision, it is an abiding, by which the life of God flows into the soul of man, making it partaker of the divine nature and fruitful in works of divine love (ch. 15:1-8); this love, patterned after and imbibed from Christ, extends to the world that hates both the Lord and his disciples (ch. 15:9-27); this love, born and kept alive by the indwelling of the unseen Father, is the illuminator, the instructor, and the inspirer of him who possesses it, and gives him assurance of the divine love and intimacy of spiritual communion with the divine Being (ch. 16). See, further, Prel. Note. There is a real connection in this discourse, though not that of an oration; the unity is spiritual rather than intellectual; but it all circles about a single central truth, the provision which divine love has made for satisfying the soul-hunger for a vision of the unseen and invisible God. In a sense Philip is right, though the sight, if the sight of a spirit was possible, would not satisfy; but we see God only as we become like him, and we shall be satisfied when we awake in his likeness and so see him as he is (Ps. 17:15; 1 John 1:2).—Have I been so much time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? Not merely the length of time is indicated; it had been but about three years, probably a little less; but during that three years he had been constantly with his disciples; they had eaten, slept, journeyed, lived together; the companionship was most intimate, the opportunity for familiar acquaintance perfect.—He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? There is a physical and there is a spiritual sight. The disciples had known Jesus after the flesh; but Christ according to the spirit they did not know till after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. To admire the Son of man is one thing; to receive the Spirit of God manifested in and through him is quite different. He that has a spiritual discernment of Christ will recognize the spiritual character of the unknown Father, the truth, mercy, love of God, shining in and through the Son. There is and can be no physical vision of God; he is a spirit, and is to be spiritually known, to be worshipped in spirit as well as in truth (ch. 4:24). The language of Christ here, and indeed throughout this whole discourse, is utterly inconsistent with the conception of him as a mere human or superhuman ambassador of God. He represents not merely the divine government, but the divine Being. The Father is so in him that whoever looks within the tabernacle beholds the glory as of the only begotten of the Father (ch. 1:14). He is the manifestation in the flesh, not of the divine government, but of God (1 Tim. 3:16). It is impossible to refer this answer to the mere union in sympathy and purpose of Jesus with God. “No Christian, even if perfected, could say, ‘He that has seen me has seen Christ.’ How much less, then, could a Jew, though perfect, have said, ‘He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.’”—(Godet.)

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

10, 11. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? God is in everything which he has made; the All and in All (Jer. 23:24; 1 Cor. 15:28). We also are intended to be temples in which he is to dwell (Ps. 91:1; Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:14). But sin, which has been admitted to dwell in us (Rom. 7:17), has driven out the Spirit of God, so that the temple is destroyed by defilement (1 Cor. 3:17, marg.); it ceases to be the temple of God. He dwells no longer in it. In Christ Jesus there was no sin; in Christ Jesus, therefore, dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9); and it is by union with him, and a new life received in and by and from him, that the fullness of the divine indwelling is to be at length restored to all that are his (ch. 17:21-23; Ephes. 3:17).—The words that I speak to you I speak not of myself. From myself (ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ). From signifies the fountain or source; the source of Christ’s authority is not in himself, but in the Father, who dwells in and speaks through him. See ch. 5:19, note.—But the Father, he who abides in me, he doeth the works. Some read, doeth his own works. So Tischendorf and Meyer. The Received reading is preferable, but the meaning is much the same. Whether we read, He that dwelleth in me doeth his own works (ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα ἀυτοῦ), or, He that dwelleth in me, he it is who doeth the works (αὐτὸς ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα), the emphasis is equally put upon the Father as the One who, abiding in the Son, does all things through him. The works are here, not merely the miracles, but the whole range of beneficent action of the Son, including certainly the miracles, but those only as a part of the whole service of love. This word work (ἔργον) is rarely, I think never, used in the N. T. as equivalent to miracle (σημεῖον).—Have faith in me, that I am in the Father. Beware of understanding this as equivalent to, Believe me, on my mere personal assurance; this is apparently the interpretation of our English version, and is sustained by even so eminent an authority as Meyer. It is grammatically possible; but it neither accords with Jesus’ use of the word believe (πιστεύω), which he habitually uses to signify a spiritual apprehension, not merely an intellectual opinion; nor with the spirit of this discourse, which, beginning with ver. 1, is throughout addressed, not to the formation of correct opinions, but to the building up of a right spiritual apprehension of Christ, and through him of the eternal Father. The meaning is, Have faith in me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; i. e., Look beneath the surface, the flesh; behold in the inward grace, manifesting itself in the outward speech and action, the lineaments of the divine character; so have faith in me as one in whom the Father dwells, and through whom the Father is made manifest. But if this spiritual sense is lacking, then—Through (by reason of, διά) the works themselves believe. Μοι is omitted by Godet, Meyer, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, on the authority of the Sinaitic, Cambridge, and Vatican manuscripts. Christ places his own character in the front rank, as the principal evidence of the divine origin and authority of Christianity. He is his own best witness. But, for those who cannot discern the divinity of his life and character, he appeals to the works wrought by him and by the religion of which he is the founder, and which was more powerful after his death than during his life. The evidence from the miracles, and from the whole miraculous history of Christianity, is secondary to the evidence from the character and person of Christ himself.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He[552] that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

[552] Matt. 21:21.

12. Verily, verily, I say unto you, * * * greater works than these shall he do; because I go to my Father. If by works was meant merely miracles, this declaration would be difficult of interpretation; for none of Christ’s disciples have ever wrought greater miracles than the Master, nor is it easy to conceive of a greater miracle than the resurrection of the dead. But if by works was meant Christ’s whole life of beneficent activity, then this promise has been abundantly fulfilled. For Christ worked in a very narrow sphere, both of time and place; for three years, in a province no larger than the State of Vermont. More souls were converted at Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost than during the whole of Christ’s personal ministry. At Christ’s death the whole number of Christian converts does not seem to have exceeded five hundred, and Christianity was utterly unknown outside of Palestine. At John Wesley’s death Methodism had spread over Great Britain, the Continent of Europe, the United States, and the West Indies, and its communion embraced over eighty thousand members. Whitefield, Wesley, Spurgeon, Moody preached during their lives to immensely greater numbers than Christ ever personally taught; and probably many Christian physicians have healed more sick than Christ ever healed. Thus in extent the disciples have already done greater works than their Master. And this for the reason here assigned, namely, because he has gone to the Father; and because of that going the Comforter has come to bless the labors of the disciples with a wider and more powerful divine influence than could, in the nature of the case, proceed from God incarnate in a single human life (ch. 16:7). But we have no right to say that this promise does not await even further fulfillment. When the fullness of time shall have come, and God dwells in all his children in the fullness foreseen in ch. 17:21, there may be in them a power over nature of which modern science gives possibly a foreshadowing, and which will be, in its effects, much greater than that which Christ exercised over it, because they that exercise it will have the whole earth as their inheritance. Only thus can I understand such promises as that here and in Mark 11:23, etc.

13 And[553] whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

[553] 1 John 5:14.

14 If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

13, 14. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do. For analogous promises of answers to prayer, see Exod. 22:27; Deut. 4:29; Ps. 34:15; 37:4, 5; Jer. 29:12, 13; Joel 2:32; Matt. 7:7, 8; Mark 11:24; John 15:16; 16:23; James 1:5; 1 John 3:22; 5:14, 15. A comparison of these passages shows clearly that God does not give an unconditional promise of affirmative answer to every prayer. This would be to place omnipotence at the command of ignorance and selfishness; it would be a curse, not a blessing. The condition here is embodied in the words, In my name; the promise is only to those petitions asked in the name of Jesus Christ. To ask in the name of Christ is not to introduce his name into the petition, as in the familiar phrase, For Christ’s sake; nor is it merely to approach the Father through the mediatorship of Jesus; this, but much more than this, is included. “In the name” of any one, as used in the N. T., generally, if not always, signifies representing him, standing in his stead, fulfilling his purposes, manifesting his will, and imbued with and showing forth his life and glory. With John it always has this signification. Thus, “The works that I do in my Father’s name” (ch. 10:25) is equivalent to, The works that I do in my Father’s stead, for him and by his power and authority; “Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord” (ch. 12:13) is equivalent to, That cometh as the representative and manifestation of the Lord; “The Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name” (ch. 14:26) is equivalent to, The Holy Ghost who comes to represent me, and teach the truths concerning me, and implant and keep alive my life in the souls of my disciples; “I kept them in thy name” is equivalent to, I, as one with thee (ch. 10:29, 30), have kept them within the circle of thine influence, because within mine own, which is thine. Comp. Acts 3:6; 4:7; Phil. 2:10; Col. 3:17, and notes. Here, then, the declaration is that whatsoever we ask, speaking for Christ, seeking his will, representing him and his interests, and his kingdom, not merely our own special and personal interests (Phil. 2:21), will be granted. So in Matt. 6:9 (see note there) the Lord makes the petition, “Hallowed be thy name,” the portico to every prayer—so teaching us that in every prayer the desire for the glory of God should be supreme. So again in Rom. 8:26 the apostle represents us taught both how and for what to pray by the Spirit of Christ within us. But every prayer thus offered in the name of Christ and with a supreme allegiance to him, representing his kingdom and imbued by his spirit, will be in character, like his prayer at Gethsemane. It will carry with it the petition, “Not my will but thine be done,” and thus, as Meyer says, “The denial of the petition is the fulfillment of the prayer, only in another way.” See 2 Cor. 12:8, 9.—That the Father may be glorified in the Son. When the church is a true representative of Christ, filled with his spirit, manifesting his character and life, so that it prays in his name, in his name casts out devils (Luke 10:17), and in his name suffers, filling up what is behind of the Lord’s affliction (Col. 1:24), and doing all in his stead, as his representative, and because imbued with his spirit, then the Father is glorified in the Son, because he is glorified in humanity, whom he hath redeemed; for then the glorified and redeemed church is the body of Christ (Ephes. 1:23), the visible manifestation of his invisible presence, his perpetual incarnation.—If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it. The promise is specific; a promise not merely to provide generally for the wants of the disciples, but to hear and answer their specific requests. Comp. Matt. 7:9, 10. Observe, too, the language, I will do it, and compare the phraseology here with that of the analogous promise in ch. 16:23, “Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.” What inspired prophet or angelic messenger could make such a promise? “This I already indicates the glory” (Bengel), the glory of him who is one with the Father.

15 If[554] ye love me, keep my commandments.

[554] ver. 21, 23; ch. 15:10, 14; 1 John 5:3.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,[555] that he may abide with you for ever;

[555] ch. 15:26.

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom[556] the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and[557] shall be in you.

[556] 1 Cor. 2:14.

[557] Rom. 8:9; 1 John 2:27.

15-17. If ye love me keep my commandments. The object of the Gospel is the inspiration of love, not mere obedience; but obedience is the test because the manifestation of love. The N. T. recognizes no other test of love to Christ than compliance in the daily life with his will. See for striking illustration of this, ch. 21:15-17.—And I will pray the Father. The poverty of the English language has prevented our translators from producing in the English Bible the distinction between three Greek verbs, which bear different significations, but are all indiscriminately translated by the word pray. These are to request (προσεύχομαι), to ask (ἐρωτάω), and to entreat (αἰτέω). Christ is said in the N. T. to request the Father (Matt. 14:23; 26:36; Mark 1:35, etc.), and to ask of the Father (ch. 16:26; 17:9; 15:20), but never to entreat the Father. Here the second of these words is used. “Our Lord never uses entreat (aitein, aitesthai, αἰτεῖν or αἰτεῖσθαι) of Himself in respect of that which he seeks on behalf of his disciples from God; for his is not the petition of the creature to the Creator, but the request of the Son to the Father. The consciousness of his equal dignity, of his potent and prevailing intercession, speaks out in this, that as often as he asks or declares that he will ask, anything of the Father, it is always requesting or inquiring (erotas, erotaso, ἐρωτάω, ἐρωτήσω), that is, as upon equal terms, never entreating (aiteo, aiteso, αἰτέω or αἰτήσω).”—(Trench.) See further ch. 16:23, 24, note.—And he shall give you another Paraclete. The original word, inadequately rendered in our English version by the word Comforter, is simply untranslateable. It is composed of two Greek words (παρά καλέω), to call to one’s side, and signifies one who is called to aid another. And this etymological signification of the word indicates the office of the Holy Spirit in his relations to us; he is our present help in every time of need, the one with whom we walk, our Consoler, our Strength, our Guide, our Peace-giver, our ever present God. The word Comforter must then be taken in its etymological and old English sense, as one who gives not mere consolation, but strength (con fortis). He is here called another Comforter; yet a little below, Christ seemingly identifies him both with the Father and with himself, in the declaration “I will manifest myself to him (ver. 21), and we” (i. e., the Father and I,) “will make our abode with him” (ver. 23). In the Comforter Christ himself is ever present with his church (Matt. 28:20), for the Comforter is one with Christ as both are one with the Father, so that the presence of one is the presence of all (Rom. 8:9, 10; Gal. 2:20; 4:6). We know too little of the interior nature of the Deity to be able to draw any clear distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We only know that as God in the Father is manifested to us as providing for us, and in the Son as making atonement for us, so in the Spirit he is manifested by being spiritually ever present with us. The mystery of their diversity in unity defies philosophical analysis. But Christ is speaking to the experience, not to the intellect; and to the spiritual experience the father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Provider, the Atoning Saviour and the Indwelling Spirit, God in nature, in the flesh, and in our own souls, are one.—That he may abide with you forever. In contrast with the Son, who came but for a time, and because he was God manifest in the flesh, could abide only with a few and only for a limited period. To long for the laws of the O. T., or even for the visible presence of the limited and earthly manifestation of God afforded by the N. T., is to desire to go back from the broader, deeper, fuller manifestation, to one narrower and more limited. To be governed by precedents or rules of the past is to ignore the perpetually abiding presence of the Comforter, the promised guide into all truth. Of his office Christ speaks more fully in ver. 26 and ch. 16:7-15.—The Spirit of Truth. So called, (1) because it is by giving a spiritual knowledge of the truth that he ministers to those that receive him. The Comforter strengthens, guides, liberates, Sanctifies by the truth (ch. 8:32; 16:13; 17:17, 19; 1 Cor. 2:4; 1 Thess. 1:5). (2) Because his ministry is perfectly true without any admixture of error. All teaching that is ministered through human language, even that of Christ and the apostles, is subject to the errors and the misapprehensions of the human medium through which it passes. The instruction of the Spirit, ministered directly to our spirits, though still liable to be misapprehended and perverted by us, is not subject to error in the interpretation. It is perfect truth; all other teaching is truth with alloy, from which we must separate it, as best we may.—Whom the world cannot receive. To be literally understood. Cannot is not here equivalent to will not. He that is of the world, living unto it, making it his end, cannot receive spiritual truth or spiritual influences. His mind is blinded by the god of this world (Isa. 6:9, 10; 2 Cor. 4:4). The declaration here is analogous to that of Christ in John 3:3, “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God,” and to that of Paul in 1 Cor. 2:14, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them; because they are spiritually discerned.”—Because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him. There is no visible manifestation of the Comforter; he is not and cannot be discerned by the senses as Christ could be and during his life was, by the manifestation of his miraculous power; and the unspiritual has no inward consciousness of his presence, no spiritual experience of his comfort, strength, or guidance. Hence, since the Comforter is not discernible by the outward sense, and the unspiritual have never had developed within them the inward sense of faith, they cannot receive him. In contrast with the world in this respect is the disciple of Christ, in whom the spiritual life has been awakened in the new birth.—But ye know him because he abides with you, and shall be in you. There is no hint here that the disciples can see the Comforter any more than the world. This should have prevented Godet’s misapprehension of this passage, that “before receiving they must have seen and known the Spirit.” To see (θεωρέω) is to recognize with the senses, or to recognize intellectually by deductions from what is perceived by the senses. Neither by sight, nor by deduction from sight can the Comforter be known. He is known only by those with and in whom, as a conscious Presence, he abides. Some texts read is in you instead of shall be in you. The future is the preferable reading, and the antithesis between the first and last clauses of the verse indicates a progressive development in the spiritual life. The Comforter was even then with the disciples, though they were not yet ready to receive him; he was in them, inspiring and moulding their life and character, after the day of Pentecost. So he is ever with the church and the individual Christian; but he is in the church and in the Christian only when they wait and watch for his appearing, as the apostles waited and watched before the day of Pentecost.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I[558] will come to you.

[558] ver. 3:28.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more: but ye see me: because[559] I live, ye shall live also.

[559] Heb. 7:25.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

18-20. I will not leave you orphans. This, which is the marginal reading, exactly renders the original. Our English version, I will not leave you comfortless, though made sacred by many an association, deprives the promise of the singular significance involved in the original. An orphan is not a person without parents, but one who is separated from his parents by death; memory looks back to them, hope looks forward to them, but they are not personally present. Christ declares that he will not thus leave his disciples. Their Saviour shall be more than a memory, more than a hope; he will be their personal present God.—I will come to you. He refers here not to his reappearance in the resurrection, for that was followed by his disappearance in the ascension, so that if on this the disciples alone depended they were left more than ever before in orphanage. Nor did he then make his abode with the disciples; he vouchsafed them only brief and transient appearances of himself. He does not refer to his second coming; for the world, as well as his own disciples, will then see him (Rev. 1:7; 6:15-17). He refers to that spiritual manifestation which he makes of himself, and of the Father through him, by the gift and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whom the Father sends in his name. This is clear from vers. 19, 20, 23, 26, etc.—Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me, because I am living and ye shall live also. According to the punctuation of our English version there is here a double promise, first that the disciples shall again see their Lord, secondly that they shall share his life. According to the punctuation which I have adopted, the second promise is implied rather than asserted, and is made the basis of the first. Either is grammatically possible; the second rendering is preferable, because the whole of Christ’s teaching here refers not to the life of the disciple, but to the manifestation to him of his Lord, and because thus the two clauses of the sentence are brought into close connection. The soul’s perception of the personal presence of Christ is then dependent upon sharing his spiritual life; and this is abundantly taught, both here and elsewhere. We are changed into the image of Christ by beholding him (2 Cor. 3:18), and we behold him by conforming to his image (2 Pet. 1:5-9). The promise is one of spiritual sight, dependent upon spiritual life. Since the world does not and cannot see him (ver. 17), arguments based on visible phenomena to prove the reality of that which is a spiritual experience are always in vain. Hence the futility of the ordinary methods of arguing with skeptics. They are endeavors to prove to the blind; whereas the blind must first see, then learn.—At that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me and I in you. That day was in the history of the church the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was first revealed with power to the entire body of believers. But each believing soul has also its Pentecost, when it first learns the meaning of Christ’s promises in this chapter. This is to it that day, the one great day of its existence. It is not said that the disciple will understand how the Father, the Son, and the disciples are in one another, but he will know it as a fact; the unity of the Father and the Son, and the indwelling of both in the believer, will become a part of his experience. This experience, promised here, is expressed as a realized fact by Paul in Gal. 2:20: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

21 He[560] that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

[560] ver. 15, 23.

21. Having given expression to the mystical truth of the spiritual manifestation of their Lord to the believers, Christ next states the conditions under which it is realized. These are not external; this spiritual revelation is not made dependent upon retiring from the world and living a life of asceticism and artificial self-denial. They are not intellectual; this revelation and indwelling of Christ is not made dependent upon the creed of the disciple. They are moral; practical obedience to the words of Christ assures spiritual enjoyment of his presence and companionship.—He that hath my commandments and keepeth them. These clauses are not to be read as repetitions of the same idea, made for the sake of emphasis. To have is not the same as to keep. He hath Christ’s commandments not who has a knowledge of them, so that the promise is conditional upon a certain degree of Christian education, but who has a spiritual apprehension of them, who appreciates their spirit. Since all of Christ’s commands are comprised in the one direction “Follow me,” the first condition of receiving this spiritual manifestation of Christ as a real and living Presence in the daily life, is a spiritual appreciation of his life and character as they are disclosed in the N. T., and therewith a like appreciation of the precepts, principles, and spirit of the life which he has inculcated. He keeps Christ’s commandments who carefully guards them in his daily life, regarding them as a possession which he is in danger of losing. See Matt. 19:17, note.—That one is he that loveth me. The evidence of love which Christ recognizes is not profession, or ceremonial, or emotional experience, or intellectual opinion, but spiritual appreciation of his precepts and practical obedience to them. The good Samaritan is a more acceptable lover than the priest or the Levite.—He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him. Every disciple may thus become a “beloved disciple.” For the love here spoken of is not that love of compassion which the Father and the Son have for the whole world (ch. 3:16), even while it was dead in trespasses and sins (Ephes. 2:4, 5), but the love of spiritual fellowship and personal friendship (ch. 15:14, 15; Gal. 4:7). “There is between these two feelings the same difference as between a man’s compassion for his guilty and unhappy neighbors and the affection of a father for his child or of a husband for his wife.”—(Godet.) Christ is here speaking not of the condition on which men may become his disciples; he is instructing his disciples, is pointing out the condition on which each one of them may come into a higher spiritual experience of their Master’s love and spiritual presence. This is indicated not only by the context and general character of the discourse, but also by the peculiar language here, That one it is who loveth me. That one (ἐκεῖνος) indicates an exceptional individual, one among many, who, by his course, becomes the special friend of Jesus.

22 Judas[561] saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

[561] Luke 6:16.

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and[562] we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

[562] 1 John 2:24; Rev. 3:20.

22, 23. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot. The same person called Lebbeus in Matt.

10:3 and Thaddeus in Mark 3:18. In Luke 6:16, etc., and Acts 1:13, he is called “Judas (the brother) of James.” See Note on Twelve Apostles, Vol. I, p. 149.—Lord, and what has happened that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, but not at all (οὐχὶ) to the world? His question is not, as represented by our English version, the expression of a mere curiosity, In what way wilt thou make this manifestation of thyself? it is the expression of amazement and perplexity. All the disciples were anticipating that Christ would manifest his Messiahship in some unexpected manner, striking terror into the hearts of all his opponents, and becoming, by some miraculous forth-putting of power, King of kings and Lord of lords. Judas, hastily concluding that there is to be no other manifestation than that of which Christ is now speaking, expresses his amazement and perplexity. What has happened to lead to the abandonment of a world manifestation of the Messiah? is the meaning of his question. But Christ has not said that he will not at all be manifested to the world; only that the world cannot see that manifestation of him of which he is now speaking.—Jesus answered and said unto him. He does not reply to the question of Judas; enters into no explanation; simply reiterates that the condition of receiving the spiritual manifestation of Christ as a personal Presence is obedience to his directions. Christ never suffers himself to be turned aside from practical instruction by inquiries in theoretical theology.—If any one loves me, he will keep my word. Word, not words; singular, not plural. His command is but one word: love.—My Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him. This promise is more than the preceding one (ver. 21). There Christ promises simply that the obedient disciple shall see his Lord; here that he shall become a temple in which his Lord will constantly dwell; there that Christ shall manifest himself to the soul; here that the Father and the Son shall dwell in the soul. “They shall come like wanderers from their home and lodge with him; will be daily his guests, yea, house and table companions.”—(Meyer.) Thus Christ by his commandments knocks at the door of the heart; he that hath those commandments hears the voice; he that keeps them opens the door (Rev. 3:20). Thus, too, the Christian’s experience on earth is a foretaste of his experience in heaven. “Here below it is God who dwells with the believer; above, it will be the believer who will dwell with God.”—(Godet.) By his language here, We will come unto him, Christ identifies himself as the companion of the Father in the spiritual experience of the disciple. See ver. 15-17, note.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

24. In contrast with the disciple who has and keeps the word of Christ, our Lord portrays the opposite character. He loves not Christ; he makes no attempt to treasure and guard his instruction; and in rejecting the word and its Bearer he rejects the Father whom the Bearer represents and by whom the word is given. Beware of reading the negative, “The word is not mine,” as equivalent to The word is not merely mine. Christ here, as in many other passages, disavows the paternity of his own instructions. They are not his; they are the Father’s who dwells in him, and inspires the words and performs the works. See ch. 12:49, note.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But[563] the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he[564] shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

[563] verse 16.

[564] ch. 16:13; 1 John 2:20, 27.

25, 26. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. That is, As far as this I am able to carry my instructions, but no farther; the Spirit shall complete them. Christ has already contrasted the work of the Spirit with his own: his own dwelling with his disciples is temporary, the abiding of the Spirit is forever; he speaks to his disciples, the Spirit speaks in them (ver. 16, 17). He now indicates a further point in the contrast. His own teaching was partial; for he had many things to say which they could not bear (John 16:12), and much which he did say they could not understand till their experience, developed by the indwelling of the Spirit of God, had prepared them to comprehend it. But the promised Spirit shall, as the Christian is able to bear the truth, teach all things.—But the Comforter. See above on ver. 16.—The Holy Spirit. That is, the Spirit of holiness. As he is the Spirit of truth, because all experience of the higher spiritual truth comes in and through him, so he is the Spirit of holiness, because all holiness of life and character is wrought out by the soul only as the Holy Spirit works in and with us the good pleasure of God (Phil. 2:12, 13; Heb. 13:20, 21).—Whom the Father will send in my name. As the disciple is to pray in Christ’s name (see ver. 13, note), so the Father will answer him in Christ’s name. That name is Jesus, i. e., Saviour, because he saves his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21), and Christ, i. e., The Anointed

One, because he is the High Priest who makes atonement for the sins of his people, and reconciles them unto God. See Vol. I, p. 57, Note, etc., on Names of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is, then, sent in his name, not because he is sent in his stead; he is not; the work of the Spirit and of the Son are not the one in lieu of the other; nor because he is sent in answer to the intercessory prayer of the Son; the love of the Father is the cause of the dispensation of the Spirit, as of the incarnation and the atonement of the Son; but because he is sent to complete the work of the Son, to perfect that salvation which is represented by the name Jesus, and that atonement and reconciliation which is represented by the word Christ (John 3:5, 6; 7:39; Rom. 8:14-16, 26; 14:17; Gal. 5:16, 17; Ephes. 2:18, etc.).—He shall teach you all things. That is, all things respecting the divine life.—And bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you. “He will teach new truths by recalling the old, and will recall the old by teaching the new.”—(Godet.) In its application to the apostles, this is a promise of inspiration and a guarantee of substantial accuracy, both in their reports of events and of the instructions of Jesus Christ, and in their interpretation of the laws and principles of the spiritual life. “It is in the fulfillment of this promise to the apostles that their sufficiency as witnesses of all that the Lord did and taught, and consequently the authenticity of the Gospel narrative, is grounded.”—(Alford.) But there is no reason to limit this promise to the twelve to whom it was immediately spoken. It occurs in the middle of a discourse which by universal consent belongs to the church universal. There is no consistency in claiming the promise of the manifestation of Christ in ver. 21, the indwelling of the Father and the Son in ver. 23, and the peace of God in ver. 27, and rejecting the promise of inspired instruction in ver. 26. This promise, then, like that of Matt. 28:20, is made to the church for all time; it is a promise of a continually progressive instruction in the spiritual life, adapted to varying needs and exigencies, both of the community and of the individual, carrying on to its consummation the necessarily incomplete instruction of the N. T., as well as making clear to the spiritual apprehension that which preceding generations either imperfectly understood, wholly failed to understand, or only partially comprehended. The spiritual guide of the church is not an official hierarchy, nor ecclesiastical tradition, but the living experience of those that love Christ, have his words and keep them. This promise points to and assures the church of a progressive Christian theology, and corresponds with the apostle Paul’s declaration, “We know in part and we prophesy in part” (1 Cor. 13:9, 10).

27 Peace[565] I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

[565] Ephes. 2:14-17; Phil. 4:7.

27. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you. As the peace of a child depends on the presence of his mother, so the peace of these disciples on the presence of their Lord. He speaks to their unuttered forebodings, and declares that he will leave this peace in his departure as a legacy to them. But he will do more than this. Thus far they have had peace in his presence; he will henceforth impart to them his own source of strength in sending to them the indwelling Spirit of God, so that they shall have, as he had, peace in themselves. “My peace” implies the peace which belongs to himself, is a characteristic of his own experience and a part of his own nature. So in Phil. 4:7 the “peace of God” is that peace which is characteristic of the Divine Being. It was this peace which enabled Christ to stand unmoved and unperturbed in the court of Caiaphas and the hall of Pilate. It was the fulfillment of this promise which enabled the apostles to meet in like manner, unfearing and untroubled, the threats and persecutions of the authorities in Jerusalem immediately after the day of Pentecost (Acts 4:8, 19, 31; 5:29, 41); which gave Stephen serenity in the storm of stones (Acts 6:15; 7:59, 60); enabled Peter to sleep in chains (Acts 12:6); gave to Paul and Silas their songs in the night (Acts 16:25); kept Paul unmoved in the midst of the mob at Jerusalem (Acts 21:31-40), and in the peril of shipwreck (Acts 27:21-26, 31-35). Compare also, for expressions of this peace of Christ in the Christian’s experience, Rom. 5:1-5; 8:35-39; 2 Cor. 4:7-9; Phil. 4:11-13; Heb., ch. 4. This peace is a characteristic of the divine nature (Phil. 4:7), therefore a characteristic of Christ, who is called Prince of Peace, because one of the distinguishing characteristics of his kingdom is peace (Isa. 9:6; Rom. 14:17); therefore a fruit of the Spirit in the experience of the followers of Christ (Rom. 8:6; Gal. 5:22); therefore the privilege and duty of every disciple, who because of his peace and his power to bestow it upon others is called a son of God (Matt. 5:9). It is therefore not the peculiar luxury of a favored few, but the duty and privilege of all (Rom. 2:10); not dependent on temperament or circumstances, but on a faith which receives and recognizes an indwelling God (Rom. 5:1; Ephes. 2:14; Phil. 4:9); not the occasional siesta of the wearied worker, but the abiding spirit and sacred power of his work (Phil. 4:7; Col. 1:11; 3:15). It is not without Spiritual significance that Christ’s last words, as of “one who is about to go away and says goodnight and leaves his blessing” (Luther), are a promise of peace.—Not as the world giveth give I unto you. The wish of peace was a customary leave-taking among the Jews (1 Sam. 1:17; Luke 7:50; Acts 16:36; 1 Pet. 5:14; 3 John 14. Compare Gen. 43:23; Judges 6:23). Christ distinguishes his promise here from the salutations, which were often, as with us, mere empty formalities, and which at best were but wishes or possibly prayers. This salutation is more than a benediction, it is the promise of an actual gift.—Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. He thus returns to the opening words of his discourse, words of strength-giving and reassurance (see ver. 1).

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I[566] go unto the Father: for my[567] Father is greater than I.

[566] verse 12.

[567] 1 Cor. 15:27, 28.

28. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away (verses 2, 3, 12).—If ye loved me ye would rejoice. There is a gentle rebuke in this language. It does not involve a denial or even a doubt of their love, but it recalls them from the selfish thoughts fixed wholly on their own sorrow to their allegiance and love to him. It may well be repeated to ourselves in the hour of death—parting from any Christian friend. Their thought of their own future gives them comfort (ver. 2 and 3); their thought of Christ’s love for and presence with them gives them peace (ver. 26, 27); their thought of his glory and their love for him gives them joy. Thus in the fruit of the Spirit joy and peace follow because they grow out of love (Gal. 5:22). We, as well as they, should rejoice, not sorrow, because Christ no longer dwells incarnate on the earth, but has gone to the Father.—Because I said I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. His departure to be with the greater Father was to be a cause of rejoicing, not merely to the eleven, but to his church universal. This is not because he is thus enabled to ensure his disciples a more powerful and perfect protector, for the protection of the Father is accorded through the Son, and as a protector the Son is one in power as well as in will with the Father (John 10:30, note). Moreover, it is our love for Christ, not the thought of our own interest, not even our spiritual interest, which is the secret of the joy which the Christian should experience in the exaltation of his Lord. Nor is the cause of that joy the fact that Christ was about to enter into glory and blessedness; for it is of the greatness, not of the blessedness of the Father, nor of his own heavenly condition, Christ speaks; the phrase, “The Father is greater than I,” cannot, without violation of the meaning, be rendered, The Father is more blessed than I. It is true that because the Father is greater than Christ, Christ in going to the Father went to a condition of greater power for his own redemptive work, for the up-building of that kingdom to which he and his followers are consecrated. Christ is more to his followers, more powerful in his work of redeeming love, in the Spirit than in the flesh, absent from his disciples and with the Father than absent from the Father and with the disciples. But more than this, more than in our ignorance of both the Father and Son we can comprehend, is meant by the declaration that Christ’s going to the Father was an exaltation, and in that exaltation we, his followers, ought to rejoice with and in him, if indeed we love him. The declaration, “The Father is greater than I,” is not inconsistent with the preceding declaration, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” for that declaration is interpreted by the one which immediately follows, “I am in the Father and the Father in me;” he that has a spiritual apprehension of Christ has a spiritual apprehension of the Father, who is manifested in and through him. Nor is it inconsistent with Christ’s declaration, “I and my Father are one,” for Christ as the protector of his people may be one with the Father, and yet the Father may be greater than the Son in the eternal relation between the two. Nor is it inconsistent with John’s declaration that “The Word was God,” for the Word is not Jesus Christ (see ch. 1:1, note), but God as manifested to the race, Jesus Christ being the Word made flesh (ch. 1:14). It is inconsistent with any view of Christ’s character which denies the essential divinity of his nature; for the creature cannot say of God, without an extraordinarily irreverent egotism, “My Father is greater than I.” “The creature who should say, ‘God is greater than I,’ would blaspheme no less than one who should say, ‘I am equal with God.’ God alone can compare himself with God.”—(Godet.) It accords with Christ’s habitual teaching concerning himself, as one who is sent forth the Father, derives his authority from the Father, does all things through the power of the Father, in all things obeys the will of the Father, and will return to the Father again (Matt. 11:26, 27; 20:23; John 5:19, 22, 26, 27; 6:57; 8:18, 29; 10:18, 36; 15:15; 17:18); and with that of the N. T. generally, which constantly represents Christ as receiving his divine power as Creator, Redeemer, and Judge from the Father (Ephes. 1:20-22; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:8, 9; 1 Cor. 15:28). Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, and God in his absolute essence is greater than any manifestation of him is or can be. As the artist is greater than his picture, the architect than his house, the orator than his oration, so God is greater than the Word through which he utters himself to human apprehension. In thus interpreting this much debated passage, according to the plain and natural meaning of the words, and, as it seems to me, the teachings of Christ and his apostles, I accept substantially the interpretation of Meyer, who sees in this declaration an illustration of “the absolute monotheism of Jesus (ch. 17:3), and of the whole N. T., according to which the Son, although of divine essence, of one nature with the Father (ch. 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15-18), nevertheless was and is and remains subordinated to the Father, the immutably higher one, since the Son as Organ, as Commissioner of the Father, as Intercessor with Him, etc., has received his whole power in the kingly office from the Father (ch. 17:5), and, after the accomplishment of the work committed to him, will restore it to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28).” To the same effect, but more concisely, Edward H. Sears (Heart of Christ): “God as absolute is more than God as revealed.” Similarly Olshausen and Ellicott’s Commentary. Observe, however, that Christ’s language here involves only the relations between the Son as incarnate and the Father; in saying that the Son was and remains subordinated to the Father, Meyer attributes to the words here a meaning confessedly borrowed from other passages.

Two other interpretations have been offered from the orthodox point of view: (1) That Christ speaks here of himself as a man. But this ancient interpretation, invented in the early controversy with the Arians, and revived recently by Ryle, has not, I think, despite the authority of Augustine in its favor, the sanction of a single modern exegetical scholar of any eminence. It is repudiated by Schaff, Godet, Luthardt, Meyer, Alford, Tholuck. This easy method of solving the seeming contradictions of Christ’s mysterious nature is utterly untenable, for whatever opinion may be entertained respecting his twofold nature as both God and man, no reader is authorized to say what acts and words were manifestations of the human and what of the divine nature. It is utterly inapplicable here, for “this interpretation implies a mere platitude. Who needs to be told that the human nature is inferior to the divine?”—(Schaff.) (2) That Christ here compares his present earthly condition with that to which he will attain in going to the Father. This is Calvin’s interpretation. “Christ does not here make a comparison between the divinity of the Father and his own, nor between his own human nature and the divine essence of the Father, but rather between his present state and the heavenly glory to which he is afterwards to be received.” To the same effect, substantially, are Alford, Luthardt, and Tholuck. This is certainly involved in the language; the return from union with humanity to union with the Father was a change from a lower and lesser to a higher and greater condition. But much more is involved, for Christ by his words institutes a comparison, not between his earthly and his heavenly condition, as does Paul in Phil. 2:6-11, but between himself and his Father.

29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince[568] of this world cometh, and hath nothing[569] in me.

[568] ch. 16:11; Ephes. 2:2.

[569] 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 John 3:5.

31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as[570] the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

[570] Ps. 40:8; Phil. 2:8.

29-31. And now I have told you * * * that when it is come to pass ye might have faith. That is, before the Passion he foretells it and directs the thoughts and hopes of his disciples to a point beyond, to the results which are to be produced by the crucifixion, so that when the night of darkness comes these words may remain to keep alive their faith in him as one not dead, but only gone to the companionship of the Father, and coming again with the Father to be the spiritual and indwelling companion of his own. Indirectly the office of prophecy is implied in these words; it is not to give in the present a clear view of the future, but to sustain faith and hope and courage, and make it clear to the believer, when the events themselves take place, that nothing is unexpected and unprovided for by his Father and Saviour.—The prince of this world is coming. See note on ch. 12:31. “Jesus sees the devil himself in the agents and executors of his designs (ch. 13:2, 27; 6:70; Luke 4:13).”—(Meyer.) And yet the cup which they presented to him he accounts the cup which his Father giveth him (ch. 18:11), for even the prince of this world is not beyond the supreme control of God. The language here, as in ch. 12:31, plainly implies

Christ’s belief in a personal devil, and the devil’s influence over and use of men as his instruments.—Hath nothing in me. Satan never succeeds in the accomplishment of his evil designs except when he finds in the tempted something that recognizes him and pays allegiance to him. He that is only in the world but not of the world may be under the power of Satan, but cannot be in his power. The declaration here is confirmatory of that implied by ch. 8:46.—But that the world may know that I love the Father, etc., * * * arise, let us go hence. Our English version is erroneously punctuated. There should be no break in the verse. Christ knew that Judas had gone out to perfect arrangements for the betrayal, knew the shame and torture that were before him, knew also the power of the Father to accomplish the world’s redemption by that suffering if it was endured to the end, and bade his disciples arise that they might go forth with him, as he went forth to show the world his love for and obedience to the Father. Thus, as he has just told his disciples that they are to show their love to him by their obedience (ver. 21, 23), he prepares to show his love to the Father by his obedience. But though they arose, they did not go immediately out. See Prel. Note to next chapter, and ch. 18:1.

CHAPTER XV.

Ch. 15:1-27. CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH.—Christ abides in the soul.—The soul is safe only as it abides in Christ.—This abiding is the condition of successful prayer; of practical godliness; of self-sacrificing love; of spiritual joy.—Christ a revealer, not a law-giver.—The world and the church.—The persecution of the world; the witnessing power of the church.

Preliminary Note.—Some scholars suppose that Christ, at the close of the preceding discourse, arose with his disciples and passed out of the room where they had been at supper into the valley of the Kedron, the vicinity of the garden of Gethsemane, and that the discourse was continued there, in or near one of the vineyards which abound in the neighborhood of the city. Others suppose that they arose to go; that, the heart of the Master being surcharged with the truth which he was endeavoring to express to them, the Divine Immanence, he broke forth afresh with the same truth in a new form, and that the discourse recorded in this and the next chapter, and the prayer recorded in ch. 17, were uttered in the same room in which the preceding discourse was uttered. Both suppositions are purely conjectural; the latter appears to me the more rational, because: (1) The truths embodied in this and the succeeding chapter are the same as the one embodied in the preceding one; the form alone varies. The structure and the fibre of the discourse is that of one which flows from a heart burdened with a profound truth which can be expressed only by reiteration, and even then only inadequately. (2) It is hardly credible that such a conversation could have been uttered, as some have imagined, while Jesus and his disciples were on their way out of the city; and no reason is offered for the hypothesis that it was abruptly broken off and transferred to another and apparently less convenient place. (3) Ch. 18:1 plainly implies that Jesus did not go forth, i. e., from the room where they were gathered, till the end of this conversation with them and after the prayer with which it was closed. Various hypotheses have also been proffered respecting the probable circumstance that suggested to Christ the metaphor which underlies the first part of this chapter: Vineyards on the way to Gethsemane (Lampe), the carved vine on the great doors of the temple (Rosenmuller), a vine trained about the window of the great chamber (Knapp), the cup so lately partaken (Meyer, Stier), O. T. symbolism of the vineyard and the vine (Alford). These are also all conjectural; it is enough to say that the parable here must be studied in the light of the teachings both of nature and of the O. T. use of nature in the passages below referred to. The use of the vine as a symbol by O. T. prophets was so familiar that it could hardly have been absent from the minds of both Christ and the apostles. Examine with care Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 15:2, 6; and especially Psalm 80:8-19, and Isaiah 5:1-7. The truth taught here by a metaphor is the same as that taught in the preceding chapter unmetaphorically, and in other passages by other metaphors. (1) The vine and its branches are a perpetual parable of Christ and his church. It is not enough to learn of Christ as from a teacher, to follow him as an example, or to accept forgiveness through him as both priest and sacrifice; we must be personally united to him, and from him draw our spiritual life, and so grow into his image. As the branch draws its sap by a continuous flow from the vine, and becomes identified with it in character, and bears its fruit, and dies when separated from it, so we must abide in a living Christ, draw our spiritual sustenance from him, become more and more Christlike in our nature, and bear his fruit in our lives. See John 6:56-58, note, and refs. there cited. (2) In the O. T. imagery the vine planted by the husbandman was the house of Israel. But despite the divine cultivator it brought forth wild grapes; it proved to be no true vine. Wherefore it was broken down, laid waste, burned, and a new vine was planted in its place. This true vine is Christ; not the man Christ Jesus, but the living, abiding Christ, the Christ who is with his people alway, even unto the end of the world (Matt. 28:20), the Christ whose true body is his church (1 Cor. 12:27), who is the head from which they all draw their life (Ephes. 4:15; Col. 1:18), who reproduces himself in every true disciple, since only they in whom is the spirit of Christ are truly his (Rom. 8:9), and who is thus far more widely and potently in the earth to-day than he ever was or could be in the flesh. This living and perpetually incarnate Christ is in a sense identical with his living church, as the vine is identical with its branches; for as there could be no vine without branches, so neither could this Christ be without the church which he animates. This Christ incarnate, not in the body of a single man, but in the church universal which is now his body, is the true Israel of God, the nation to whom the kingdom of God has been given, that was taken from the old Israel because it brought not forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43). This true vine is contrasted with the old Israel which proved to be no true vine. No longer is there any possibility that the vine shall be broken down and destroyed with fire as the old vine was (Isa. 5:5; Ps. 80:16); but each branch that abides not in this everlasting vine, this living, perpetually incarnate and ever extending Christ, is broken off from the vine and destroyed. In brief, in studying this parable, the student must not forget, what the commentators have often forgotten, that throughout this last discourse with his disciples Christ speaks of himself not as a man about to die, but as a living Christ, forever incarnate in the hearts and lives of his own, living on in the world with mightier and wider influence, and in more intimate communion and companionship with his disciples after his crucifixion than before. It is this ever-living Christ, reproduced in all his members, and spreading over the whole earth, that is the true vine, in contrast with the old Israel, which proved to be no true vine; of this vine the Father is the husbandman; in this vine each individual disciple is a branch or shoot.

I am the true vine,[571] and my Father is the husbandman.[572]

[571] Isa. 4:2.

[572] Cant. 8:12.

2 Every branch[573] in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth[574] fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

[573] Matt. 15:13.

[574] Heb. 12:15; Rev. 3:19.

1, 2. I am the true vine. So he is the true light (ch. 1:9) and true bread (ch. 6:32, 33), the spiritual being the true, the external and material being the shadows that are “figures of the true” (Heb. 9:24). The images of the Bible, especially those employed by Christ, are not merely poetic figures. The outward world is a real symbol of the invisible world, physical growths are a parable of spiritual growths, the kingdom of nature a picture of the kingdom of grace, because both come from the same creative hand, are made subject to the same great laws, and are under the same great King. The physical vine is the shadow; Christ is the true, real vine, whom the shadow symbolizes; and it will last when the shadow has passed away; as he is the true priest and sacrifice, outlasting the apparent priest and sacrifice of the O. T. dispensation.—My Father is the husbandman. Cultivating the vine, and superintending its growth. This cultivation has been going on through the centuries, in all the growth of that invisible but perpetually incarnated Christ whose body is the church, and who dwells in and is therefore represented by all his members. The language shows clearly that it is not of the man Christ Jesus about to die upon the cross, but of the ever-living Christ, immanent in the Holy Catholic Church, that he here speaks.—Every branch in me that beareth not fruit. How can a branch be in Christ and bear no fruit? Calvin’s explanation that in me is equivalent to supposed to be in me is inadmissible. It does not explain Christ’s words, but substitutes others for them. Alford’s explanation is better, but it labors under the serious disadvantage of substituting for Christ’s declaration “I am the vine,” the very different declaration, The visible church is the vine. “The vine is the visible church here, of which Christ is the inclusive head; the vine contains the branches, hence the unfruitful as well as the fruitful are in me.” But to be in the visible church and to be in living communion with Christ are very different things. I should rather say that Christ here lays down, in a simile, the general law that to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. If the soul, in the measure in which it has knowledge of Christ, bears Christian fruit, it will grow more and more into oneness with and likeness of Christ; if, on the other hand, it does not realize the fruits of its knowledge in a life fruitful in Christian works, it will gradually lose its knowledge and become separated from Christ. Thus both the grafting into and the separating from the vine are in the spiritual experience gradual processes, and they depend on the fidelity with which the conscious branch avails itself of its privilege, and shows itself worthy of larger privilege. Thus Christ gives grace for grace (ch. 1:16).—He taketh away. The same word (αἴρω) is used in 1 Cor. 5:2 of excommunication; that indicates the meaning here. It is not declared that the fruitless Christian shall be destroyed, though later, in ver. 6, destruction is declared to be the final result of cutting off from Christ. Fruitlessness cuts off (excommunicates) the soul from communion with and drawing life from Christ; this ends in spiritual withering, death, and destruction (ver. 6). Thus this declaration is the converse of that of ch. 14:23, “If a man love me he will keep my words (bear my fruit), and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him.” If he keep not Christ’s words (bear not Christ’s fruit), he will not have the abiding of the Father and the Son. The fruit of Christ is the same as the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22, 23); and in the measure in which this fruit is borne in the life, is the soul enriched in the spiritual knowledge of Christ which enables it to bear still more fruit. Thus fruitfulness in the life develops the consciousness of Christ’s indwelling, and the consciousness of Christ’s indwelling in the soul develops Christian fruitfulness in the life. The whole truth is well illustrated by 2 Pet. 1:5-9.—And every branch that beareth fruit, he cleanseth it that it may bring forth more fruit. The word rendered in ver. 2 purgeth and that rendered in ver. 3 clean are radically the same. Christ cleanseth the soul (1) by the operation of the law that right doing develops right feeling and opens the heart to higher influences (ch. 7:17); (2) by the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit, which is given to each soul in the measure in which each proves itself worthy of and willing to receive him; (3) by the discipline of life, which is the manifestation of God’s special love to the soul (Heb. 12:6). The object of all this redemptive work is in order that (ἵνα) the soul may bring forth more fruit. Thus Christian fruitfulness in the life is both the condition and the final result of the divine purifying process in the life of the soul.

3 Now ye[575] are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

[575] ch. 17:17; Ephes. 5:26; 1 Pet. 1:22.

4 Abide[576] in me, and I in you. As[577] the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

[576] 1 John 2:6.

[577] Hosea 14:8; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:11.

3, 4. Already ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Ver. 3 must be read in connection with ver. 4, to which it is introductory. Through (δὶα) always indicates the instrument, never the cause. The spoken word is the instrument in God’s hand for the cleansing of the soul (ch. 17:17); and when received by an obedient faith, becomes the means of regeneration (James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23) and the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). This word is not any particular utterance of Christ, but his whole ministry, both of promise and teaching, including his gift of pardon and peace, and his call to Christian activity. The meaning, then, is this: You are already cleansed from past sin through your acceptance of and obedience to my word. But you are not to imagine that my work is done when I depart and cease to be visibly present with you. You are still to abide in me spiritually; for without this spiritual abiding all your past cleansing can accomplish nothing; without me as a living and life-giving Saviour you can bear no Christ-like fruit in your lives. The lesson for us is that Christ’s work was not finished (though his sacrifice was) on the cross, that our work is not finished in accepting forgiveness through him and consecrating ourselves to obedience to his will, but that the finished work of his death was only preparatory for the entire work of his life in us (Rom. 5:10), and that our acceptance of pardon is only a preparation for a life continually hid with Christ in God (Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:3).—Abide in me and I in you. This is not a direction and a promise, equivalent to, If you abide in me I will abide in you; it is a twofold direction: Abide in me; see to it that I abide in you. It thus implies that Christ’s indwelling in us is dependent upon ourselves. If any man hear Christ’s voice and opens the door, Christ comes in to him and sups with him (Rev. 3:20). He that hungers and thirsts after righteousness is filled (Matt. 5:6). By fidelity and obedience we abide in Christ; by docility and spiritual obedience we open the door that Christ may abide with us.—As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself (ἀφ ἑαυτοῦ) except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me. So the Son can do nothing of himself (ch. 5:19, note), but does all things abiding in and through the power of the Father. The disciple abiding in Christ comes at last to abide with Christ in the Father; and this is the consummation, when the Father becomes all in all (ch. 17:21, 24; 1 Cor. 15:28). Thus all spiritual life comes from the Father by Christ, through the instrumentality of the word, to the soul that abides in and with Christ as Christ abides in and with the Father.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches; He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a[578] man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

[578] Matt. 3:10; 7:19.

5, 6. I am the vine, ye are the branches. Note the contrast. No mere teacher or prophet could have spoken thus to his fellow-creatures.—He that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit. This mystical dwelling with a living and present Christ is the condition of a fruitful Christian character.—Because apart from me ye can do nothing. Rather severed, as a branch from the vine; and the negation is intense, a double negative: ye can by no means do anything. All Christless activity counts for nothing; it harvests “nothing but leaves.” Thus moral excellence is not the preparation for and the condition of spiritual life; spiritual life is the preparation for and the condition of moral excellence. Though each promotes the other, the first step for the reforming soul should be to seek union with Christ, without whom we can do nothing. Contrast with Christ’s declaration here Paul’s in Phil. 4:13, “I can do all things through Him (Christ) that strengtheneth me.” No conclusion can be drawn from this utterance respecting the vexed question of the natural ability of the soul to repent of sin and accept Christ by faith. For Christ is here speaking to those who have thus accepted him, and he declares simply the condition of fruitful Christian activity for all those who are, at least in avowed purpose, already his.—In case any one shall not have abided in me he has been cast out like the branch that is withered, and they gather them together and they are burned. This translation is Meyer’s, who thus comments on the significance of the change in the tenses: “Jesus places himself at the point of time of the execution of the last judgment, when those who have fallen away from him are gathered together and cast into the fire, after they have been previously cast out of his communion and become withered, having completely lost the true life.” They that gather the withered branches for the fire are not men, but the angels (Matt. 13:49, 50). The metaphorical language ought not, however, to be too far pressed. The parable ends in a tragic consummation, but Christ pictures only the end of the fruitless and severed branches, as a warning to the disciples; he does not declare that this fate actually impends over any truly new-born soul. Hence we cannot deduce from his language the conclusion of Meyer and Alford that the verse involves the possibility of falling from grace. The whole teaching is full of warning to every one to make his calling and election sure, not to rest in a “finished salvation;” and in this it corresponds with the uniform teaching of the N. T. (Phil. 2:12, 13; Heb. 4:11; 12:15; 2 Pet. 1:10). The admonition is somewhat analogous to and may be interpreted by that of Paul in Ephes. 5:6, 7, and Col. 3:5, an admonition pertinent to all who substitute a supposed faith in Christ’s perfect work for practical obedience, a faith that works by love. Alford’s interpretation “burneth, not is burned in any sense of being consumed,” is a striking illustration, such as Alford does not often afford, of modifying the text to escape an unwelcome conclusion. The verb (καίεται) is in the passive tense, and the figure is certainly one of destruction, not of torment. But it is not to be taken literally. The essential truth which underlies the metaphor is simply this, that the soul which is separated from Christ is separated from the source of spiritual life, withers away, and is eventually destroyed. What is soul destruction is a question not here considered.

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye[579] shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

[579] ch. 16:23.

8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

7, 8. If ye abide in me and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Therein is my Father glorified; so that ye shall bear much fruit and shall become my disciples. The words of Christ are his whole teaching, his commandments, revelations, promises; to be accepted by obedience, faith, hope. They are said to abide in the soul only as they spring up and bear fruit in the life (Matt. 13:8, 23). Thus to have Christ’s words abiding in us is the same as to bear Christian fruit. To him who thus abides in Christ and bears his fruit this promise is made, analogous to and interpreted by that of ch. 14:13, 14. The prayers of those who are thus pervaded by the spirit of Christ are, like their Master’s, those of not merely a humble submission to, but a supreme desire for, the will of God (Matt. 6:9, 10; 26:39).—Hence in answering them the Father is glorified. For the prayer of him in whom Christ’s words abide will always embrace a supreme desire for the Father’s glory. Comp. Christ’s prayer in ch. 17. Answer to such prayers is given that the praying Christian may both bear much fruit and become a disciple; both fruit-bearing in the life and docility of spirit, i. e., both practical obedience to Christ and the spiritual capacity to appreciate Christ’s instructions, are the result of this life of prayer, and are a divine answer to prayer. The translation given in the English version, so shall ye be my disciples, is possibly legitimate, but it reverses the true order of the spiritual life, by representing that fruit-bearing is the condition of becoming a disciple of Christ; and the other construction is both more in harmony with the general teaching of the N. T. and also with the original here. That (ἵνα is telic) is equivalent to in order that, but the meaning is not that God is glorified for the purpose of perfecting Christian character, but that prayer in the name and spirit of Christ is answered for that purpose.

9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10 If ye[580] keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

[580] ch. 14:21, 23.

11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your[581] joy might be full.

[581] ch. 16:24; 17:13.

9-11. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you. Abide ye in my love. As indicates the quality and character of the love. Christ’s love for the disciples is, like the Father’s love for Christ, a love personal, warm, strong; but one that does not shield from all temptation, suffering, or even injustice. The word rendered continue in ver. 9 is the same rendered abide in ver. 7. My love is Christ’s love for us, not our love for him. The meaning then is, I have loved you with the love which the Father has for me; so live as to retain this love. And the next sentence indicates how this is to be done.—If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love, even as, etc. On the meaning of the word keep, see ch. 14:21, note. The commandments are all summed up in the one command, “Follow me,” and this again is interpreted by the command, “That ye love one another as I have loved you.” Love is the key to Christ’s character; to love is to follow Christ. A life of asceticism or of retirement and meditation is not the way to this indwelling with Christ. The condition is love in activity of service; a love and life like that of Christ, which was neither one of asceticism nor one of repose.—These things have I spoken unto you that my joy might remain in you, and your joy might be full. One object of his address (comp. ver. 17; ch. 16:1, 4, 33) is that he may perfect in them and in us that Christian joy which is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22; Rom. 14:17), joy in the Lord, i. e., in his companionship, in fulfilling his will, in suffering with and for him, in doing his service (Acts 5:41; Phil. 2:17, 18; 4:4); the joy which Christ sets before himself, and for which he endured the cross, despising the shame (Luke 24:26; Heb. 12:2). By my joy is meant, not joy concerning Christ, nor joy derived from Christ, nor joy of Christ himself in us, his disciples, though this last is a possible interpretation, but his own joy, i. e., joy like his, having the same source in God and the same quality, enduring and invincible. And if this joy is in the soul, the soul is full; it leaves nothing to be desired. In words there is, in experience there is not, a contradiction in the implication that he who was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief was also one possessing the most radiant joyfulness. This promise of joy, uttered by Christ just before Gethsemane and Calvary, is itself a song in the night, and a promise of one to every Christian soul in its own passion hour.

12 This[582] is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

[582] ch. 13:34.

13 Greater love[583] hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

[583] Rom. 5:7, 8.

14 Ye[584] are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

[584] verse 10.

12-14. This is my commandment, that, etc. Comp. ch. 13:34, note. Christ reiterates the commandment which he has before given, and points to his own life as the true interpreter of that commandment, in order that he may guard them and us against that Pharisaic obedience of external rules which selfishness and earthliness are continually substituting for a spiritual obedience to the one interior law of Christian character, self-sacrificing love.—Greater love hath no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. Beware of reading this as though laying down the life were equivalent to dying. To die for a friend is not the greatest manifestation of love; to live for him, by consecrating the whole life to him, is far greater. See ch. 10:11, 17, notes.—As Christ consecrates not only his earthly life, but, in his intercession with us and for us, his eternal life, to his friends, so, if we are his friends, we shall lay down our lives for him, not necessarily by dying for him, but by doing whatsoever he commands us, that is, by living for him. Thus Christ points out at once both the perfection of his love for his disciples and the perfection of that love which he desires from his disciples. He does not here say, however, that to lay down one’s life for one’s friends is the highest manifestation of love; still higher is that manifestation made by laying down the life for enemies. (Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:10.)

15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends:[585] for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

[585] James 2:23.

15. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. There is a verbal but not a spiritual inconsistency between the language here and that of ver. 20. The service which Christ expects of his disciples is that of love. His declaration here explains his previous language, which is that of authority. He has said, “I am your Lord and Master” (ch. 13:13), and has reiterated again and again that the condition of their spiritual life is obedience to his commandments (ch. 14:15, 23; 15:10). He now explains the sense in which he is a lawgiver. He does not issue an imperial ukase and demand of his disciples a blind and unquestioning obedience; he speaks as a divine friend, interpreting to his disciples those laws of the spiritual life which he has himself learned in the indwelling of the Father.

16 Ye[586] have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained[587] you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever[588] ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

[586] 1 John 4:10, 19.

[587] Ephes. 2:10.

[588] verse 7; ch. 14:13.

16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you. Primarily the reference is to the choice of the twelve from among the disciples of Christ to be witnesses and apostles (Luke 6:13; John 6:70; Acts 9:15); and this choice did not prevent one of them from becoming an apostate. It is Christ who chooses for each one of us his place and work in life. That this is the primary meaning is evident, not only from the parallel language employed in the passages above cited, but also from the second clause of the verse here. The word rendered ordained is literally placed; and that is the meaning in this passage: I have chosen you and appointed you your place in life. So in Acts 13:47; 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:12. But it is also clear from the language of ver. 19, I have chosen you out of the world, that Christ refers not merely to a choice of the twelve from among the whole discipleship for a particular work, but also to a choice of them from the world to be followers of him. And as an historic fact, so far as we know the history of the twelve, each one was first called by Christ. See for example Matt. 9:9; Mark 1:16-20; John 1:43. The vine precedes the branches; the first life flows from the vine into the branches; the first choice is the choice of the dead soul by the living Christ, not the choice of the living Christ by the dead soul. We love him because he first loves us (1 John 4:10, 19; Ephes. 2:4, 5), and choose him because he first chooses us. And, however difficult it may be for us to reconcile this truth with our a priori conceptions of divine impartiality, rightly held it is an inspiration to Christian activity and a source of Christian humility. “Even when this doctrine of election has taken a narrow form—even when it has been recognized chiefly as exclusive—it has had a mighty power over the hearts of men. They have given themselves up, as they never could do when they thought they had selected their own destiny, or were going on errands of their own. But when it takes the form it has here * * * there cannot be any principle which is at once so humbling and so elevating, which so takes away all notion from the disciple that there is any worth in his own deeds or words, which gives him so confident an assurance that God’s word, spoken through him or through any man, will not return to Him void.”—(Maurice.)—That you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain. They were chosen that they should go forth as apostles, everywhere carrying the gospel of reconciliation, and bringing back to their Master the fruits, in sinners converted and saints edified. So every Christian is chosen that he may go forth out of himself, out of a life of mere personal enjoyment of religion, and bring forth fruit that shall abide in other lives after his life comes to its close. And he is bound to take heed that both in his life (2 John, ver. 8), and in other lives (Rev. 14:13), there is fruit that abides unto life eternal.—That whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. Both clauses of the verse are dependent on the general declaration, “I have chosen you.” For analogous construction, see ch. 13:34. Christ chooses his disciples that they may go out into the world and bring forth much fruit, and also that they may ask of the Father in his name what they need; that is, both for a life of Christian activity and of Christian devotion. And the one is necessary to the other. The Christian brings forth much fruit only as he has power in prayer, the power of a faith that God is able to do much in and through him (Phil. 4:13); and he has power in prayer only as he brings forth much fruit (ch. 9:31; 14:7). Besser notes an evidence of emphasis which Christ lays upon prayer in the fact that prayer in the name of Jesus is urged in all three chapters of this farewell discourse.

17 These things[589] I command you, that ye love one another.

[589] verse 12.

17. These things I command you that ye love one another. These things are all the precepts which have preceded from the beginning of this interview, ch. 13:12. The whole object of Christ’s precepts is to produce a loving spirit and a loving life in his followers. See Matt. 22:37-40; Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14; 1 Tim. 1:5.

18 If the world[590] hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

[590] 1 John 3:13.

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore[591] the world hateth you.

[591] ch. 17:14.

20 Remember[592] the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they[593] have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

[592] ch. 13:16; Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40.

[593] Ezek. 3:7.

21 But all[594] these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.

[594] ch. 16:3; Matt. 10:22; 24:9.

18-21. From this point to the end of the chapter Christ passes to speak of the relation of the disciples to the world, and continuing the theme in the next chapter, points out (ch. 16:1-4)

the particular manifestation of the world’s enmity which the disciples may expect.—If the world hates you, know that it hated me before you. The world, in John’s use of the term, signifies the unspiritual portion of mankind, those who have not been taken out of an animal and sensual condition by being born from above. See for illustration of his meaning ch. 1:10, 29; 3:16; 4:42; 12:31, etc. Many in the visible church may be of the world; some without the visible church may not be of the world. It was the church which most bitterly hated Christ; the publicans and sinners were drawn to him, and their enthusiasm for him was his protection against the machinations of the hierarchy (Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19; 22:2). Christ does not assert that the world will necessarily hate the disciples. The disciple’s life may be so ordered of God that it is never brought into direct collision with the self-interest, the pride, and the ambition of the world. But if the collision does arise, and the disciple suffers the world’s enmity, he is to be strengthened and comforted by the reflection that that has befallen him which previously befel his Master. Comp. ch. 7:7, where Christ declares that the world cannot hate those that act in accordance with worldly policies and principles, and 1 Pet. 4:12, 13; 1 John 3:13, 14; 4:4, 5, where the apostles employ the same consideration employed by Christ here, and for the same purpose. It is better to take know as an imperative than as an indicative, as an exhortation than as a mere statement of a fact. It is thus analogous to remember in ver. 20.—If ye were of the world * * * because ye are not of the world. The Christian is in but not of the world, because he is born from above (John 3:3), and so is made a member of a kingdom which, like its king, is not of this world (ch. 8:23; 18:36).—Therefore the world hateth you. Not merely because the disciple is chosen by Christ, but because he is chosen out of the world, and by his life of nonconformity bears a perpetual testimony against the world. This enmity is illustrated by the case of Daniel (Dan. 6:1-5), Peter and John (Acts 4:21), and Christ himself (John 11:49, 50). It is aroused whenever Christian principle comes into collision with worldly interests.—Be mindful of the word which I said unto you. Bear it in mind as a talisman in time of persecution. See marg. ref. This truth, employed here and in Matt. 10:24 for encouragement, is assigned in ch. 13:16 as a reason for humility.—If they have kept my saying they will keep yours also. This is not to be regarded as ironical, as rendered by Grotius, nor is the word keep to be rendered watch with a hostile intent, a forced meaning given to it by Bengel, nor is the language merely general and hypothetical, which is apparently Meyer’s interpretation. Some will persecute, others will accept and carefully keep, the gospel. The disciple must anticipate both results, persecution and glad reception. So it was in Paul’s experience (Acts 13:42, 45, 48, 50; 14:4; 17:4, 5, etc.). The most popular preachers are also the most reviled and persecuted, from the days of Christ down through those of Luther and Whitefield, to the present day.—They will do unto you for my name’s sake. As the name of Christ inspires the Christian with peculiar courage and devotion, so it incites in his enemies peculiar hostility. The fact that this hostility is directed against Christ, and that in enduring it the disciples are suffering for Christ and in his stead, gives them peculiar strength and joy in their sufferings (Acts 5:41; 21:13; Rom. 5:3; 2 Cor. 11:23; 12:10, 11; Phil. 2:17, 18; Gal. 6:14; 1 Pet. 4:12, 13). Thus the declaration here interprets the promise of Matt. 5:11, 12.—Because they know not him that sent me. See ver. 23; ch. 8:42.

22 If I[595] had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but[596] now they have no cloke for their sin.

[595] ch. 9:41.

[596] James 4:17.

23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

24 If I had not done among them the works[597] which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

[597] ch. 7:31.

25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated[598] me without a cause.

[598] Ps. 35:19; 69:4.

22-25. If I had not come * * * they had not known sin. The meaning is not, They would not have had the sin of hating me without a cause; there is no definite article attached to the word sin; the declaration is general, as it is rendered by our English version. Moreover, to say that men would not have been guilty of the sin of hating Christ if Christ had never come to their knowledge is to utter the merest truism. This, though it is the common interpretation, and is adopted, though not defended, by such scholars as Meyer and Alford, seems to me utterly untenable. Nor is the meaning, They would not have had so great sin; Christ often uses metaphor, but he never exaggerates. By his death the Lamb of God has taken away, not some sins from the world, but the sin of the world. See ch. 1:29, note. Hence the only sin for which men are condemned is that of deliberately rejecting the offer of free forgiveness and a new life through Jesus Christ (ch. 3:18, 19, notes). Other sins are not reckoned against them (Acts 17:30; Rom. 3:25). They are judged by Christ, because they are judged worthy of life if they accept his free offer of it, and unworthy of life if they put it away when it is offered to them (Acts 13:46). Hence those to whom Christ has been offered are not condemned because of their past sins, which are freely forgiven; they are measured by their acceptance or rejection of Him. “No man shall die in his sins, except him who through unbelief thrusts from him the forgiveness of sin, which in the name of Jesus is offered to him. This is the real sin which contains all others. For if the word of Christ was received every sin would be forgiven and remitted; but since men will not receive it, this constitutes a sin which is not to be forgiven.”—(Luther.)—But now they have no cloak for their sin. No cover or excuse. Ignorance is an excuse; but when the offer of pardon and a new life is refused, the sin is shown to be deliberately chosen. Every man naturally seeks an excuse for his sin (Gen. 3:12, 13). Christ takes away every excuse and leaves the sinner, at the judgment day, to the sentence of condemnation. “I would * * * but ye would not” (Matt. 23:37).—He that hateth me hateth my Father also. Because Christ is the manifestation of the Father, therefore anti-Christ is anti-God. See ch. 8:42.—If I had not done among them works which none other did. Not merely miracles; the whole life-work of beneficent activity is that which attested to the Jews Christ’s character; and the whole work of beneficent activity wrought by him in the church universal is the ever-living testimony to the divine nature and authority of Christianity. The evidence of a divine redemption through Jesus Christ is cumulative; and the sin of hating Christ, as embodied in Christian principles, truths, and lives, is consequently continually enhanced.—They have both seen and hated both me and my Father. This was literally true in respect to the hierarchy at Jerusalem, who even as these words were spoken were plotting with Judas for the arrest and execution of Christ. They determined to slay him, because in no other way could they countervail his wonderful works (ch. 11:47-50).—They hated me without a cause. See marg. ref. The language was employed by the original author—whether David or not is not quite certain—not with any distinct understanding of its prophetic significance. It is here applied by Christ to himself, not by an accommodation, but because all godly suffering in the O. T. was itself a type of the great sacrifice for God and man consummated by the cross of Christ, as all suffering in the Christian church fills up what is lacking of that sacrifice to perfect the world’s redemption (Col. 1:24). “These (verses 21-25) are perhaps the most terrible words in the O. T. or the N. T. No descriptions of divine punishment which are written anywhere can come the least into comparison with them for awfulness and horror. This gratuitous hatred, this hatred of Christ by men because they hate God, this hatred of God because he has manifested and proved himself to be love, is something which passes all our conception, and yet which would not mean anything to us if our conscience did not bear witness that the possibility of it lies in ourselves. Do not let us put away that thought, brethren, or the one which is closely akin to it, that such hatred is only possible in a nation which, like the Jewish, is full of religious knowledge and of religious profession.”—(Maurice.)

26 But when the Comforter[599] is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he[600] shall testify of me:

[599] ch. 14:17.

[600] 1 John 5:6.

27 And ye[601] also shall bear witness, because ye[602] have been with me from the beginning.

[601] Luke 24:48; Acts 2:32; 4:20, 33; 2 Pet. 1:16.

[602] 1 John 1:2.

26, 27. But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the presence of (παρὰ) the Father (ch. 14:16), even the Spirit of truth (ch. 14:17, note), which proceedeth from the presence (παρὰ) of the Father. On the meaning of the particle here rendered from, see ch. 5:34, note. These two clauses are not repetitions; the one defines the other. The Comforter whom Jesus sent at the day of Pentecost to the church is that Spirit of truth who ever proceeds from the Father. Christ attributes all blessed redemptive influences in the last instance to his Father; as he is himself from the Father, so the Spirit is from the Father (ch. 7:29; 8:26, 38; 10:18; Gal. 4:6), and is sometimes called his (Christ’s) Spirit (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1:19; 1 Pet. 1:11). To trace out from this verse the eternal relations between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is to import into this spiritual converse the unspiritual metaphysics of the scholastic period of theology.—He shall testify of me (ch. 16:13-15). And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning (Luke 1:2; Acts 1:22). A double testimony to the truth of Christianity, the spiritual and the historical. After Christ’s death and resurrection the Spirit made clear to the apostles the meaning of the enigma, interpreted the prophets to them, and opened unto them the true nature of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, that they might testify unto others (Acts 1:8; 1 Cor. 2:9, 10; comp. Matt. 10:20; Mark 13:11). The apostles also testified to the facts which they had themselves witnessed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, as evidences of his Messiahship (Acts 1:22; 3:15). But, secondarily, every Christian is a witness of Christ by his own life and conversation, testifying things which in his own experience he has both seen and heard; and the Spirit of truth bears witness both in him and through him to the power of God in a devout life (Rom. 8:16; 9:1; 1 Cor. 12:8-11; 1 Pet. 1:11; 1 John 3:24).

CHAPTER XVI.

Ch. 16:1-33. CLOSE OF CHRIST’S DISCOURSE.—The presence, office, and work of the Holy Spirit more fully described.

These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.

2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever[603] killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

[603] Acts 26:9-11.

1, 2. These things have I spoken unto you that ye should not be offended. Scandalized; caused to fall into sin. See Matt. 5:29, note; 15:12; 17:27; John 6:61; 1 Cor. 8:13. The object of Christ’s teaching in these chapters is not merely to impart consolation to the apostles in their impending sorrow in his death, but to impart strength to his disciples throughout all time in their experience of temptation.—They shall put you out of the synagogues. Excommunicate you. This was not in that age a mere ecclesiastical censure; it involved the most serious consequences, in exclusion from all business and secular relations with men. See ch. 9:22, note.—Yea, the hour cometh that whosoever killeth you will think that he is offering a sacrifice to God. Illustrated by Saul of Tarsus (see Acts 25:9), and by the proverb found in the Rabbinical books, “Whoever sheds the blood of the impious does the same as if he had offered a sacrifice;” not less illustrated by the history of religious persecutions, in which the persecutor has very generally believed that by slaying the heretic he was appeasing God’s wrath against the community and the church. Such an experience, if it came without forewarning, would endanger their faith. “It would be a strange result; fellowship with their brethren destroyed because they proclaimed the ground of fellowship; death inflicted upon them because they preached that death was overcome. Might not poor Galileans, conscious of folly and sin, often say to themselves: ‘We must be wrong; the rulers of the land must be wiser than we are. Ought we to turn the world upside down for an opinion of ours?’”—(Maurice.) This is always a temptation in times when Christian principle seems counter to public sentiment, a temptation not merely to abandon Christian principle in order to conform to public sentiment, but to think the principle which commends itself to so few and arouses the hostility of so many cannot be sound. [The Greek student will find in Alford’s and Meyer’s interpretation of ἵνα, that, a curious illustration of the straits to which the commentator is put who insists on giving it always its accurate (telic), never its more popular (ecbatic) signification. They are compelled, in order to be consistent, to read this declaration, The hour cometh in order that whosoever, etc., that is, that which shall happen in the hour is regarded as the object of its coming; it is ordained for that purpose.]

3 And these[604] things will they do unto you, because they[605] have not known the Father, nor me.

[604] ch. 15:21.

[605] 1 Cor. 2:8; 1 Tim. 1:13.

4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.

3, 4. And these things will they do unto you because they have not known the Father nor me. The root of all religious intolerance is a narrow, false, pagan conception of God. Intolerance is impossible in a heart which rightly appreciates God as manifested in Christ Jesus, and sincerely seeks to please him by imbibing his Spirit and imitating his example and method. On the other hand, a conscience uninstructed by a measurably correct conception of God becomes itself an instigator of the most remorseless cruelty. The cause of the wrong is in not receiving as a little child the teaching of Christ, and even of nature (Matt. 5:45), respecting the comprehensiveness of the Divine love. All intolerance is rooted in self-worship, making a god of our own self-will.—But these things have I told you that when the hour has come ye may call to mind these things, that I have told you them. But these things I have not told you from the beginning, because I was with you. What are these things? Most commentators understand Christ to refer to his prophecies in verses 2 and 3, and they understand his meaning to be, I have forewarned you of those persecutions, that when they come upon you you may remember that I did forewarn you of them. But this interpretation is not consistent with the added words, These things I have not told you from the beginning; for the prophecies of future perils which threatened them are quite as clear in Matt. 10:17-22, 28; Mark 13:9-13; Luke 21:12-17, as they are here. Meyer and Godet even suppose that Matthew has inserted the warnings in his Gospel (ch. 10) out of their place, taking them from Christ’s discourse here; and the explanations given by other commentators, if they violate the text less, violate its meaning more. Luthardt gives them all briefly. These things, I think, are not merely the prophecy of the persecutions which are to fall upon the disciples; they are the whole comforting and inspiring instructions of this discourse respecting the person, advent, presence, and indwelling grace and power of the Spirit of Truth and Holiness. The phrase is used here as in ch. 14:25; 15:11, 17; 16:1, 6. Combining these verses, we get Christ’s object in this whole instruction in the truth of the Divine Immanence, namely, that the disciples may be prepared for the progressive teaching of the Spirit of Truth; that their Master’s joy in the Holy Spirit may be theirs, and so their joy may be full; that their lives may abound in the fruits of a love that is nourished only by the indwelling of the Spirit; that in trial and persecution they may not be offended and induced to abandon faith in him as their Master; and he urges them when this trial hour comes upon them to recall to mind this teaching respecting the indwelling and ever-abiding Comforter, teaching not given before except in hints and suggestions, rudimentary and fragmentary, because while he was yet with them in the flesh they could and notably did depend upon him.

5 But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?

6 But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow[606] hath filled your heart.

[606] verse 22.

5, 6. But now I go away. Not my way; the idea of departure simply is conveyed by the original.—And no one of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? but because I have said these things unto you sorrow hath filled your heart. The first clause is not literally true. Peter directly, Thomas indirectly, had asked, Whither goest thou? (ch. 13:36; 14:5). It is to be interpreted by the latter clause. The meaning is, Instead of turning your thoughts towards me and my future glory, and asking after my Father and my home, which you would do with rejoicing if you loved me supremely (ch. 14:28), your thoughts are on your own loneliness in the future when I shall have left you, and because of it sorrow has completely filled your heart, that is, to the exclusion of every other thought. My words should bring you comfort; they bring you pain. There is a pathetic reproach in Christ’s language, easily comprehended by every pastor who has attempted to point sorrowing souls to the invisible world, only to see their grief burst out afresh at the awakened recollection of the earthly loss. Notice, your heart, not hearts; the singular is used, as in Rom. 1:21, because they are so thoroughly a unit in their common feeling of sorrow. Stier notices the contrast between the experience of these same disciples now and at the subsequent parting at the ascension: “These are the same disciples who afterwards, when their risen Lord had ascended to heaven, without any pang at parting with him, returned with great joy to Jerusalem (Luke 24:52).” A practical lesson to every mourner here, as in ch. 14:28, is that he should not allow a selfish sorrow to fill his heart so completely that he cannot follow in his thoughts the loved one to his heavenly home.

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

7. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is for your benefit that I am going away. The original is stronger than our English version; the implication is plainly, as Alford gives it, “that the dispensation of the Spirit is a more blessed manifestation of God than was even the bodily presence of the risen Saviour,” and the reasons why it is so are intimated in previous parts of this discourse. See especially ch. 14:16, 17, notes.—For if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you. He does not say will not come, but will not come unto you. Hitherto the Spirit had been given only to men especially fitted by their spiritual nature to receive its teachings and to become in turn teachers to others. After the death and resurrection of Christ the Spirit was given to the church universal, to all believers. See Acts 2:8. The language therefore does not prove, according to Alford, that “the gift of the Spirit at and since Pentecost was and is something totally distinct from anything before that time.” The difference consisted in its universal bestowal, whereas before it was limited to a few. Why could not the Spirit be sent until Christ had first gone away? Because it is impossible for men to live at the same time by faith and by sight. So long as the disciples had a visible manifestation of God with them, they would not and could not turn their thoughts inward to that more sacred but less easily recognized manifestation which could not be seen, and therefore could be known only by spiritual apprehension.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

8. And coming, that one shall convince the world respecting sin and respecting righteousness and respecting judgment. In this and the three succeeding verses Christ describes briefly the office and work of the Holy Spirit. As the advent of Christ was itself a preparation for the dispensation of the Spirit, and as in his departure he points his disciples to the indwelling of that Spirit as the source of their hope, their joy, their love, their entire spiritual life, these verses, in which he points out specifically the manner in which the Spirit will develop this spiritual life, may be regarded as the heart of this discourse. To attempt to give the various opinions of conflicting commentators on this passage would almost inevitably entangle the mind of the student in a mesh of contradictory interpretations, and would obscure rather than clarify the meaning. I have therefore, with Alford, “preferred giving pointedly what I believe to be the sense of this most important passage, to stringing together a multitude of opinions on it, seeing that of even the best commentators no two bring out exactly the same shade of meaning, and thus classification is next to impossible.” Much depends on the right reading of the five words rendered in our English version reprove, world, sin, righteousness, and judgment, and I believe that very much of the difficulty in interpretation has grown out of imputing to these words a theological and scholastic meaning instead of taking them according to their most simple and natural meaning. (1) The word reprove, which I have rendered convince, properly signifies to convince one of truth in such a way as to convict him of wrong-doing. It is rendered tell him his fault (Matt. 18:15); reprove (Luke 3:19; John 3:20); convict (John 8:9); convince of sin (John 8:46; 1 Cor. 14:24); rebuke (Titus 2:15; Rev. 3:19). Here, then, the meaning is that the Holy Spirit will so bring to the world’s consciousness the spiritual truths respecting sin, righteousness, and judgment that the world will stand self-convicted. (2) The world is here, as always with John, the great mass of humanity, not necessarily excluding believers, but in contrast with the distinctive body of believers. This world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth, for it seeth him not, neither knoweth him (ch. 14:17). Nevertheless it is this unseen and unknown Spirit who can alone convince and convict the world. The disciples “are to despair of its ever coming from them; they are to be sure it will come from the Spirit with which He will endue them. Not they, but He, will convince the world; because, though the world may not receive Him neither know Him, it has been formed to receive all quickening life from Him; it must confess His presence, even if it would hide itself from His presence.”—(Maurice.) (3) Sin is primarily a miss or wandering, but in the N. T. only in a moral sense, that is, a wandering or turning away from the line of truth and righteousness. It is the first office of the Holy Spirit to show the world how this turning away from righteousness is the great folly, the mistake in comparison with which all other mistakes are as nothing (Prov. 1:32; 8:36). (4) Righteousness is primarily rectitude, uprightness, perfectitude of character. John’s use of the term is indicated by his employment of it in 1 John 2:29; 3:7, 10, “He that doeth righteousness is righteous.” To understand the language here to refer to any doctrine of an imputed or transferred righteousness is to import into the simple language of the Master theological ideas born of scholasticism and belonging to a later date. The meaning is that he who convicts the world of having departed from righteousness will also bring to the world’s consciousness a realization of the elements of true righteousness of character. (5) Judgment is primarily moral discrimination, whether exercised by God or man; its use, to signify a tribunal, whether human (Matt. 5:21, 22) or divine, as in the frequent use of it to signify the day of judgment (Matt. 12:42; Luke 10:14; Heb. 9:27), is secondary. John always uses it in the primary sense of moral and spiritual discernment, except in 1 John 4:17, where he defines his meaning by employing the phrase day of judgment. The third truth of which the Holy Spirit will convince the world will be the true divine canons of moral judgment. The general declaration, then, is that the Holy Spirit when he comes will convict the world, by bringing to its spiritual consciousness the truth respecting sin, or wandering from God and his law; righteousness, or the divine ideal of character; and judgment, or the true principles of spiritual discrimination.

9 Of sin,[607] because they believe not on me;

[607] Rom. 3:20; 7:9.

10 Of righteousness,[608] because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

[608] Isa. 42:21; Rom. 1:17.

11 Of judgment,[609] because[610] the prince of this world is judged.

[609] Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:2; Rev. 20:12, 13.

[610] ch. 12:31.

9-11. Concerning sin, because they have not had faith upon me. Because indicates, not the reason why the Spirit shall convince of sin, but the nature and evidence of the sin itself. It may be rendered in that. The meaning is not, The Holy Spirit will convince of sin because they have not had faith, but, That they have sinned in that they have not had faith. The fact that the character of Christ does not call forth the moral and spiritual affections of the soul is the strongest evidence of that soul’s insensibility; and the fact that the offer of free pardon and the impartation of a new spiritual life is not accepted, demonstrates that continuance under condemnation and in sin is the soul’s free choice. Thus the sin of the world both consists in and is demonstrated by its rejection of Christ (ch. 3:18-21); not by any intellectual opinion entertained respecting him, but by the lack of spiritual appreciation and the failure to give to him and his teaching the welcome of an affectionate and obedient faith.—Concerning righteousness, because I go away to my Father and ye see me no more. Christ is himself the ideal of human character, the divine righteousness interpreted by a human life. But this righteousness was not, and could not be, comprehended while Christ still lived in the flesh among men. The eyes of men were fastened upon the apparent ignominy of his position and circumstances, and the divine love which is interpreted to us by his humiliation was to his contemporaries obscured by it. It was necessary that he should go away to his Father before the world could begin to appreciate the sacred meaning of a life which was so wholly laid down for others. So, habitually, the world learns the meaning of a life after it has ended, and honors after death those whom it has despised while living, and forgets after death those whom it has honored while living. The Holy Spirit convinces the world respecting true righteousness of character, by spiritually interpreting to it, through the ages, the glory of one who could only be understood after he had gone away to the Father and the world saw him no more. To appreciate his righteousness they must look on him by faith and not by sight. The more common explanation (see Godet and Meyer) that he who was put to death as a sinner was proved to be righteous by his resurrection and ascension is inadmissible, because Christ here says nothing of his resurrection or his ascension; he uses the same phraseology which he has previously employed in this discourse in speaking of his death (ch. 13:33, 36; 14:28; 16:5); and because he adds emphasis to the truth that it is his departure from them, not his visible exaltation or ascension to which he refers, by adding to the words “because I go to my Father” the explanatory clause “and ye see me no more.”—Concerning judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. Comp. John 12:31. In the history of the race, the methods, principles, and policies of the world and its prince are being perpetually tried and perpetually proved false by their results. Thus the world and its prince are ever being judged, and humanity, by the progressive teaching of the Holy Spirit, interpreting the book of God’s Providence, are being taught the divine canons of moral and spiritual judgment. This work is represented here, as in ch. 12:32, as being completed in the death of Christ (κέκριται, perf.), because the crucifixion of Christ, the consummate work of the Evil One, was at once his apparent victory and his real defeat. In the crucifixion he pre-eminently had his own way, and by the crucifixion he is defeated throughout the ages. Thus it is in and by the cross that he is pre-eminently judged. On the phrase prince of this world, see John 12:31; 14:30; and comp. Ephes. 2:2. Interpreting it to mean Christ is contrary to all N. T. usage. In all this threefold work the Holy Spirit glorifies Christ (ver. 14); it convicts the world of sin, by showing what a Saviour it has rejected; it teaches the world of righteousness, by showing the world in Christ the divine ideal of sanctified humanity; and it educates the world in judgment, by the perpetual contrast between the policies of the world and the enduring and peace-bringing principles of Christ, demonstrating in the cross that the weakness of Christ is stronger than the strength of Satan, and the defeat of Christ is a victory over Satan. See 1 Cor. 1:23-25.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye[611] cannot bear them now.

[611] Heb. 5:12.

12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. This was Christ’s last conference with his disciples, and in his interviews with them after the resurrection he added very little to the instructions previously given to them. Clearly, therefore, he here implies a progressive teaching to be afforded by him through the Spirit to the church in the future ages. It is of this future teaching he speaks in this and the next three verses. These truths the disciples could not then bear, that is, lift up and take away with them (βαστάξω), because they had not yet the mental and spiritual strength. Among the truths which were thus too much for them, and which were mercifully concealed from their knowledge, was the long period which must intervene before the spiritual work of the church could be completed and the world be ready for the Second Coming of its Lord. Christ’s language clearly implies that he held back phases of truth for which his disciples were not ready, and thus affords a clear example and divine authority for the religious teacher, who may never suppress the truth because it is unpopular—this Christ never did—but who may and should adapt his teaching of the truth to the spiritual capacity of his hearers.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he[612] will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he[613] will shew you things to come.

[612] ch. 14:26.

[613] Rev. 1:1, 19.

13. Howbeit when that one (ἐκεῖνος, emphatic), the Spirit, is come, he will guide you into all the truth. “The term guide (ὁδηγέω, to show the road) presents the Spirit under the image of a guide conducting a traveler in an unknown country. This country is truth.”—(Godet.) This guidance is given to the church throughout all ages, leading them by gradual processes into ever higher and broader conceptions of divine truth.—For he shall not speak from himself. From (ἀπό) marks the remote or ultimate origin or cause. As Christ traces all the source of his own authority back to the Father, who dwelleth in him (ch. 5:19, 30; 7:28; 14:20), so he traces back to the same source the authority of the Holy Spirit. Thus he guards his disciples against that subtle tritheism which regards the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as practically three deities. See ch. 15:26. Both the Son and the Spirit take those things which they receive of the Father and give to the believer, and the object of their ministry is to bring the believer into fellowship with the Father.—And he will show you things to come. Rather the coming things. As the coming one (ὁ ἐρχόμενος) (Matt. 3:11; Rev. 1:4) is the Messiah, and as the coming world (Mark 10:30) is the Messiah’s kingdom, so the coming things (τὰ ἐρχόμενα) are those things which are connected with the future advent and the final kingdom of the Messiah. The Holy Spirit shall not merely bring all things which their Lord has taught them to the disciples’ remembrance (ch. 14:26), but shall also teach them concerning the things of the future; he shall inspire their hope as well as clarify their memory. This promise of Christ was primarily fulfilled in the prophetic hopes and anticipations inspired in the early church, and in the prophetic character given to many of the apostolic utterances, e. g., Rom. 11:25-32; 1 Cor. 15:50-53; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Titus 2:11-14. But this office of the Spirit was not consummated in apostolic times; those who submit themselves to his guidance and instruction will still press forward toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, ever looking for that blessed and glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. “He will not allow us to be satisfied with our advanced knowledge or great discoveries, but will always be showing us things that are coming; giving us an apprehension of truths that we have not yet reached, though they be truths which are ‘the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.’”—(Maurice.)

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

14, 15. He shall magnify me. That is, the office of the Spirit shall be to magnify Christ, his character, his work. See above on verses 9-11. Any pretended dispensation of the Spirit which draws the thought of the world away from Christ to some other and independent authority is spurious, whether it be that of ecclesiastical tradition as of the Church of Rome, or that of the mysticism which substitutes an inner light for the word and authority of Christ, or that of spiritism, introducing in lieu of that word communications with the spirit world. That only is the message of the Holy Spirit which tends to magnify Christ.—He shall receive of mine, and shall it show unto you. To receive of Christ (λαμβάνω) is to accept, acknowledge, and follow his instructions as a teacher. This use of the word is especially marked in John’s employment of it in respect to Christ, e. g., ch. 1:12; 5:43; 13:20. The declaration, then, is that the Holy Spirit comes not to gainsay or cancel, and not even, in strictness of speech, to add to the instructions of Christ, but to accept them, and accepting, interpret them, giving to them in the future apprehension of the church a profounder significance than they had or could have in the apprehension of his own contemporaries.—All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I, etc. We are not, however, to imagine that Christ’s teaching is confined to the words uttered by him in the flesh and reported to us in the Gospels. All things that the Father hath are his; the book of nature and the book of Providence are his as truly as the spoken and reported word. And in receiving and spiritually interpreting the testimony of nature and life, the Holy Spirit is receiving from him and showing to us. If we understand his teaching aright, we shall always see in it Christ magnified.

In these verses (7-15) Christ points out more specifically than he has previously done to his disciples, and through them to us, the office of the Holy Spirit and the nature of his dispensation. It is for our benefit that the manifestation of God in the flesh and to the sense has ceased, in order that the inward manifestation to the faith—profounder, broader, and more universal—may take its place. This invisible but indwelling Spirit comes that he may teach the world the reality and greatness of its sin, the true conception of righteousness, and the canons of a divine spiritual discernment. This work of the Spirit is a perpetually progressive work, guiding, by successive steps, the church into the way of all truth. In it the Spirit speaks from and by authority of the Father, and concerning the future, turning the thoughts of the believer ever toward a larger knowledge and a higher and diviner life; albeit in all he acts not as a revealer of a new Gospel, but as an interpreter of the teachings of Christ, in the written word and in all the things of God, in nature and life, which are themselves the things of Christ; so that the dispensation of the Spirit is not an addition to but an essential part of Christianity, the revealing in its fullness to the ever-growing spiritual apprehension of the church the truth of and from Christ.

16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

16. Yet a little while and ye shall not see me (θεωρέω), and again a little while and ye shall perceive me (ὁράω), because I go away to the Father. There is some doubt respecting the last clause, because I go to the Father; it is omitted by Alford, Meyer, Luthardt, and Tischendorf, queried by Lachmann, retained by Godet. But the fact that the phrase reappears in the disciples’ expression of their perplexity, in the next verse, seems to me to furnish very nearly conclusive evidence that it belongs here. Those who omit it here suppose that the disciples put with what he has just now said, what he had previously said in ver. 10. Observe the contrast between the first and second seeing; two different verbs are both rendered see; the one signifies properly an external perception by the senses; the other is also used to indicate a mental or spiritual perception, and that appears to be its meaning here. In a little while Christ should be no longer visibly present with his disciples; a little while more, and, in the dispensation of the Spirit inaugurated at Pentecost, they should again perceive him by spiritual apprehension. It is evident that Christ does not refer to his Second Coming, both because he changes the form of the verb, so indicating another and unsensuous seeing, and because not a little but a long while was to elapse between the departure of the Lord and his Second Coming.

17 Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?

18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith.

19 Now Jesus knew[614] that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves of that I said, A little[615] while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me?

[614] ch. 2:24, 25.

[615] verse 16; ch. 7:33; 13:33; 14:19.

17-19. The disciples, however, had no other thought of any second advent of their Master than that in which they should sensuously see as well as spiritually perceive him. They therefore ask among themselves what he means by this distinction between seeing and perceiving him. Their difficulty was the same as that previously expressed by Judas, with the analogous declaration of Christ that he would manifest himself to them (ch. 14:22). It was enhanced by Christ’s statement that this new manifestation to the spirit should be in a little while; for in his discourse on the Last Day (see Matt., ch. 24, notes) he had plainly implied that a long interval of trial and persecution must intervene before his Second Coming in power and glory. They therefore inquire in whispers of one another what he means by this, “Ye shall not see me, and ye shall perceive me,” and what by “A little while.” Their fear to ask Christ is one of the many indications of the peculiar awe which his presence inspired in them; their love was reverential, not familiar; the love of a child for an honored teacher, not that of an equal (Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45). See further, note on verses 29, 30, below.

20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye[616] shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.

[616] Luke 24:17, 21.

20. Ye shall weep and lament * * * ye shall be sorrowful. These three different words are used to express the same substantial idea; not to convey different shades of meaning, but to give emphasis, and to indicate the largeness and breadth of the impending anguish of the disciples. To weep (κλαίω) is a general word including every external expression of grief; to lament (θρηνέω) is somewhat more specifically to wail, and is used respecting the lamentation of hired mourners (see notes on Mark 5:38; Luke 23:27); to be sorrowful (λυπέω) is more spiritual, and expresses the feeling of the heart rather than any outward expression. The disciples lamented the death of Christ at the time of his crucifixion, and their lamentation was in striking contrast with the malignant joy of the world (comp. Matt. 27:39-44 with John 19:25-27). They experienced in the apparent shame of their Master’s ignominious death a deep, heartfelt sorrow, but it was turned into joy when later they saw in the cross the manifestation of the wisdom and glory of God (1 Cor. 1:23-25).

21 A woman[617] when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

[617] Isa. 26:17.

22 And ye[618] now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your[619] heart shall rejoice, and your joy[620] no man taketh from you.

[618] verse 6.

[619] ch. 20:20; Luke 24:41, 52.

[620] 1 Pet. 1:8.

21, 22. A woman when she brings forth hath sorrow. The figure of a woman in travail is used in the O. T. to illustrate sudden and great anguish (Isa. 21:3; 26:17; 66:7; Hos. 13:13; Micah 4:9, 10). Christ lays hold upon this familiar figure and gives it a new signification, indicating that the pain is but a preparation for and a presage of a greater joy. And this is generally the N. T. use of the figure (Matt. 24:8, note; Rom. 8:22). The contrast is an instructive illustration of the difference between the O. T. and the N. T. We are not mystically to interpret the figure here by saying that the travail of the Son of God was necessary in order to bring the Messiah forth as a King and lawgiver. However true this may be, it is not the truth here enforced. Christ speaks not of his own suffering for sinners, but of the suffering of the disciples in and because of him; and this suffering he declares will be forgotten when it has accomplished its purpose and brought forth its fruits in and for them. See the same general truth illustrated by Rom. 5:3-5; Heb. 12:11. Observe that, as above, the sorrow is not merely displaced by joy, but is turned into joy; the travail is not merely followed by gladness, but brings forth that which is the cause of the gladness. Comp. Rom. 8:18, where the glory is represented as revealed in us because of the sufferings, and Heb. 12:11, where the fruits of chastening are promised only to those that are “exercised thereby.” Comp. Rev. 7:14.—I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice. But he does not say, Ye shall see me again. He is speaking not of his second and visible coming, but of his spiritual and invisible presence. His words are interpreted to us by history, and the distinction between the two is plain; to the apostles they were not so interpreted, and upon the traditional report of such words as these the apostolic church may have built its hope of Christ’s Second Coming in their own time. I will see you expresses Christ’s sympathy for his church in all their experiences, whether of joy or sorrow. See Rev. 1:12, 13; 2:1. He weeps with those that weep, and rejoices with those that rejoice; not a hair of the head perishes, not a sparrow in the church falls without his knowledge. Your heart shall rejoice foretells such experiences as those of Peter and other apostles (Acts 5:41), Stephen (Acts 6:15), Paul and Silas (Acts 16:25), etc.—And your joy no one taketh away from you. Because it is Christ’s joy (ch. 15:11), a joy in God (Phil. 3:1; 4:1), which is in the new-born soul, not merely given to it, and therefore cannot be taken from it by any experience whatever (Rom. 8:28, 37-39).

23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name; ask,[621] and ye shall receive, that your[622] joy may be full.

[621] Matt. 7:7, 8; James 4:2, 3.

[622] ch. 15:11.

23, 24. And in that day ye shall inquire nothing of me. Verily, verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father he will give it to you in my name. In our English version two different Greek words are rendered by the word ask in this verse, suggesting a contrast which does not exist in the original. Christ does not distinguish between two epochs in Christian experience; in the earlier and more imperfect one prayer being offered to Christ, in the later and perfected one prayer being offered directly to the Father. He specifies two distinct blessings which shall attend upon the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. The disciples, perplexed by Christ’s enigmatical language, had desired but feared to ask an explanation (verses 17, 18). Christ tells them that when the Holy Spirit shall have come with his illuminating and quickening influences, they shall no longer be perplexed by truths which now they cannot understand. In that day they shall no longer need to interrogate him for an interpretation. Then he adds that this dispensation shall be one of great power in prayer: Whatsoever ye shall request the Father he will give it you. “There is not in this verse a contrast drawn between asking the Son, which shall cease, and asking the Father, which shall begin; but the first half of the verse closes the declaration of one blessing, namely, that hereafter they shall be so taught by the Spirit as to have nothing further to inquire; the second half of the verse begins the declaration of a new blessing, that whatsoever they shall seek from the Father in the Son’s name, he will give it them.”—(Trench.) And in fact one of the first and most notable influences of the descent of the Spirit was to make clear to the minds of the apostles those spiritual truths concerning the character of Christ and his kingdom which had theretofore been hidden from their eyes. And ever since, growth in spiritual life has made clear sayings which are dark and incomprehensible to the unspiritual. The reading, He will give to you in my name, is preferable to the reading of the Received

Text, Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, (Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford.) But the fact that the Father gives in the name of Christ, by whom He made, sustains, and governs the world (Col. 1:16-20; Heb. 1:1, 2), and through whom all his redeeming love is manifested to his earthly children, presupposes that they present their requests through him as their Mediator, that is, in His name.—Until now ye have asked nothing in my name; ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. Not until the descent of the Holy Spirit did the disciples recognize Christ as a Divine Mediator and Intercessor. Prayer out of Christ is offered to a God from whom the soul is separated by a consciousness of sin (Isa. 59:2). Such prayer is often one of wrestling and of anguish; and the deeper the consciousness of sin the greater the mental and spiritual stress. Christ lays emphasis here upon the fact that his disciples are to pray in his name, that is, standing in his stead, the prophecies of the O. T. fulfilled and their sins and iniquities blotted out as a thick cloud (Isa. 44:22), and they themselves brought into filial relations with the Father, reconciled unto God, and receiving the Spirit of Adoption whereby they cry Abba Father (Rom. 8:15). Thus prayer, which in the O. T. was often characterized by fear and wrestling (Gen. 18:27, 30, 32; Exod. 32:31, 32; Psalms 42, 43), is in the N. T. almost always characterized by joy and thanksgiving (Ephes. 3:14-21; Col. 1:9, 12; 2 Thess. 1:11, 12). In the reading of this direction of Christ respecting prayer we are to interpret the direction to ask in Christ’s name and the declaration that the Father will give in Christ’s name by the experience of the apostolic church, who did all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 20:31; Acts 2:38; 3:6; 5:28; 9:27; 10:43; 16:18; Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 6:11; Ephes. 1:21; Phil. 2:9, 10; Rev. 2:3, 13; 22:4).

25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

26 At that day[623] ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

[623] verse 23.

27 For the Father[624] himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I[625] came out from God.

[624] ch. 14:21, 23.

[625] verse 30; ch. 17:8.

25-27. These things have I spoken unto you in figures; * * * but I shall show you plainly of the Father. In the imperfection of human language all teaching respecting spiritual things is of necessity in figures. Christ’s teaching, not only to the multitude, but to his own disciples, and in this last interview, was figurative. See for example ch. 14:2, 16, 18; 15:1; 16:21. But he foretells a time in which these spiritual truths shall be spiritually revealed (1 Cor. 2:9, 10). “The entire human language is a parable, as it does not admit of adequate expression concerning some things. The Lord therefore contrasts with the use of this feeble medium of communication the employment of one more internal and more real. By the impartation of his Spirit, the Lord teaches the knowledge of the nature of God freely and openly (παῤῥησίᾳ), without any fear of a misunderstanding.”—(Olshausen.)—At that day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not to you that I will request the Father on your behalf, for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me and have had faith that I come from the presence of the Father. Or from God; there is some uncertainty as to the reading. Christ does not say that he will not request the Father on behalf of his disciples; but if we take the whole sentence in its connections he does clearly teach, not only that no intercession is required to win the love of the Father, but also that they who have loved Christ, and have spiritually recognized the divine life manifested in him, are thereby brought into direct personal communion with the Father, and need no intercessor. “While their hearts are the temples of the Holy Ghost and they maintain communion with the Father they will need no other advocate; but ‘If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous’ (1 John 2:1).”—(Watkins.) Beware of supposing that this passage impliedly teaches that the Father’s love depends on the prior faith and love of the disciple. The contrary doctrine is abundantly taught in the Bible, and nowhere more clearly than in the writings of John (ch. 3:16; 1 John 4:9, 10, 19). But love has many inflections, and the fullness of the Divine love is possible only to those who by love and faith enter into the adoption of the children of God. The love of the father to the prodigal in the far country is not the same as the love to the same son, clothed and in his right mind, sitting at his father’s board.

28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

28. “This verse,” says Bengel, “contains the most important recapitulation;” “a simple and grand summary of Christ’s entire life, his origin, his incarnation, and his destiny,” Meyer calls it. It is this, but also more than this. The disciples have believed that Christ came from the Father; Christ seizes on this belief that he may awaken their hope by leading them to see that in going from the world he must return to the Father. Thus he leads back their minds to the declaration, “If ye loved me ye would rejoice because I go unto the Father” (ch. 14:28).

29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

29, 30. These verses clearly show a change in the spirit of the disciples. They had begun the supper by a contention for the first place at the table. They had almost scouted at Christ’s prophecy of their desertion (Matt. 26:33-35). The questionings of Thomas, Philip, and Judas (ch. 14:5, 8, 22) indicate not only perplexity, but a state of semi-skepticism, removed from absolute disbelief on the one hand and from unquestioning faith on the other. This spirit is abated as the conference proceeds, and it is because the disciples are ashamed to confess it that they question with bated breath among themselves the meaning of his words, “A little while and ye shall not see me, and again a little while and ye shall perceive me” (verses 17-19). Now they declare their doubts allayed; there is no need to question him further; they are convinced that he knows all things; they are willing to take his declarations without questioning; this absolute credence they declare as the evidence of their faith that he came forth from God. They do not profess fully to understand their Master, only fully to believe him. Augustine’s remark, therefore, is more epigrammatic than just: “They so little understand that they do not even understand that they do not understand. For they were babes.”

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold,[626] the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I[627] am not alone, because the Father is with me.

[626] Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27.

[627] ch. 8:29; Isa. 50:7, 9.

31, 32. Do ye now believe? Most of the commentators take this affirmatively, Ye do now believe, and the original is capable of either construction. Our English version seems to me preferable. Christ does not indeed deny their faith, but he questions it, that he may lead them to question themselves. He cautions them that their faith in his divine origin, sweet as it may be to them in this hour of quiet conference, is not sufficiently strong to stand in the hour of treachery, peril, and death. So many a disciple has had faith in divine principles and truths in the hour of his quiet meditation upon them, which he has deserted when holding fast to them would involve suffering.—And ye shall leave me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. This sentence is one of those parenthetical asides which give us a glimpse of the inmost heart of Christ: his spiritual loneliness, and the temper of his solitude. See Robertson’s Sermon on the Loneliness of Christ.

33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me[628] ye might have peace. In[629] the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world.

[628] ch. 14:27; Rom. 5:1; Ephes. 2:14.

[629] ch. 15:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:12.

33. These things I have spoken unto you that in me ye might have peace. By these things is meant the whole discourse contained in chaps. 14, 15, and 16. Comp. ch. 14:27; 16:4, notes.—In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good courage, I have conquered the world. Thus Christ ends as he began this discourse, with encouragement. In Christ we have peace, because in Christ we are more than conquerors (Rom. 8:37. Comp. 2 Cor. 4:7; 6:4-10). Meyer well remarks that Paul’s whole life is a commentary on this verse; and Luther, whose life was a scarcely less eloquent interpretation, thus paraphrases it: “The game is already won. Do not be afraid that I will send you thither to venture it at your own risk. The victory is already there, only be undespairing and hold fast to it.”

CHAPTER XVII.

Ch. 17:1-26. CHRIST’S INTERCESSORY PRAYER.—His prayer of preparation for the Passion.—His prayer of intercession for his church.—His mission and its fulfillment.—The mission of his followers.—His fourfold petition for them: preservation; consecration; sanctification; glorification. See on ver. 24.

Preliminary Note.—We rightly hesitate to analyze or criticise any prayer; the language of devotion is too sacred. How much more when the prayer is the intimate communing of the only begotten Son with his Father, a prayer which no soul can ever comprehend, and none can therefore ever interpret. Nevertheless, it would not have been recorded if it had not been intended for our profit; and it can only be for our profit as it is made the theme of our reverent study. In this exposition of it I avoid as far as possible verbal and textual criticism, giving results rather than discussions. These the student can find in other commentaries, especially Tholuck and Meyer. For the same reason I eschew theological polemics. Socinian, Arian, and Trinitarian have fought over the words and phrases of this sacred prayer, each, and perhaps the one not more than the other, evolving from it arguments for his philosophy of the character of Christ, and of life here and hereafter. Into such conflicts I have no heart to enter. The student will find them indicated, and even illustrated, in Alford. I have sought by meditation to enter into the spirit of this, the most sacred utterance of our Lord, and I seek with simplicity to aid others in meditating upon it; if through such meditation the spirit of the believer is brought into unity with the Spirit of his Lord, it is enough. The prayer is not didactic; certainly not dogmatic. The office of public prayer—and by giving to his church a record of this prayer our Lord has made it public—is not to teach a system of theology, but to deepen the springs of spiritual life, by leading the sympathetic soul into the presence of God. This prayer has a twofold aspect. It is a revelation of the communings of the only begotten Son with the Father; it thus presents to the church Christ as the Son and Intercessor, pleading for his church, and shows us what are his most secret and sacred desires for us. These are four: election out of the world and preservation from its evil; sanctification and consecration unto and in the truth; the perfect unity of love, in God and with one another; and spiritual appreciation of and participation in the glory of the Father and the Son in the eternal life. But since we are all brought through Christ into the adoption of the sons of God, this prayer is also an example and inspiration for us. It is, in a sense, Christ’s second and fuller answer to the request of his church universal, “Lord, teach us how to pray.” The Lord’s prayer is given at the outset of our Lord’s ministry to those who are just learning the Fatherhood of God. This prayer of intercession is given at the close of our Lord’s ministry, to those that had learned from him both what were their own wants and what their heavenly Father’s grace had provided for them. The former is the model for the universal church, young and old in Christian experience; the latter is an inspiration to those who, through the teachings of their Lord, have come into fellowship with God and his Son Jesus Christ. It is not without significance that it follows close upon the teaching that Christ is the vine and we are the branches, that we see the Father in seeing the Son, that after Christ is gone and is seen no more, he will yet be really present and spiritually perceived, and that we are to ask in his name of the Father, who has himself loved us. It is thus the Holy of Holies to which the preceding instructions have been as outer courts conducting us. The key to its true interpretation I believe will be found in two facts: (1) that it immediately precedes and is a spiritual preparation for the impending Passion, which in a measure the disciples shared with their Master; and (2) the only glory which the N. T. recognizes is a glory of character, not of circumstance or condition. Thus Christ’s prayer here is that he may be sustained by divine grace in the hour of trial, so that the character of the Father may be manifested by him in his patient fidelity to the end, and that, through his example and his Father’s influence, his disciples may be made like the Father and like the Son in the glory of their love. See further on ver. 1.

There is some question whether we have the exact words of the Lord or no. Alford goes beyond the declaration or even clear implication of the sacred narrative, in saying, in opposition to Olshausen and the German commentators generally, that we have here “the very words of our Lord himself, faithfully rendered by the beloved apostle, in the power of the Holy Spirit.” We can only say that the Lord has just promised his disciples that the Holy Spirit will bring all things to their remembrance which he has said to them (ch. 14:26); that on no heart would these sacred words be more deeply impressed than on that of the apostle who was leaning on Jesus’ bosom at the supper; that we cannot conceive any utterance in the rendering of which that promised inspiration would be more likely to be sought by John and vouchsafed by the Lord; and that if we cannot be sure that we have the very words of our Lord, we can be sure that no modern commentator has the right to sift out the prayer and tell us what were Christ’s words and what were the Evangelist’s. That the Holy Spirit did not consider the very words essential to our profit is evident from the fact that, while the prayer was almost certainly in Hebrew, John’s record is in Greek, and our version of it is in English; but that we have in these words the very spirit of the prayer, expressed as the Holy Spirit would have it expressed for the guidance and inspiration of the church universal, is as certain as the doctrine of inspiration itself.

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour[630] is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

[630] ch. 12:23; 13:32.

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he[631] should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

[631] verse 24; ch. 5:27.

3 And this[632] is life eternal, that they might know thee[633] the only[634] true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou[635] hast sent.

[632] 1 John 5:11.

[633] Jer. 9:23, 24.

[634] 1 Thess. 1:9.

[635] ch 10:36.

1-3. And lifted up his eyes to heaven. See ch. 11:41, note. This is not an indication that he and his disciples had gone out from the chamber and were now in the environs of the city, though Godet even undertakes to fix the exact location: “Jesus had spoken the preceding words on the road from Jerusalem to Gethsemane; he was therefore on the point of passing the brook of Kedron.” In fact, these words indicate nothing as to locality. “The eyes may be lifted to heaven in as well as out of doors; heaven is not the sky, but the upper region, above our own being and thoughts, where we all agree in believing God to be especially present, and which we indicate when we direct our eyes or our hands upward. The Lord, being in all such things like as we are, lifted up his eyes to heaven when addressing the Father.”—(Alford.)—And said, Father. Not our Father, for Christ never identifies himself with his disciples; nor my Father, for that would too strongly emphasize the separation between him and them; without identifying himself with his disciples, he yet uses language on which their spirits too can ascend towards God.—The hour is come. The hour of the Passion, to which all prophecy had pointed, for which all the O. T. dispensation had prepared, and from which all redemptive influences proceed. Comp. Matt. 26:45; Mark 14:41; John 7:30; 8:20, etc.—Manifest thine own Son in his glory, that thy Son also may manifest thee in thy glory. The changed position of the words, in the two clauses, in the original (σοι τὸν υἱὸν in the first clause, υἱὸς σοι in the second), justifies the rendering thine own Son. To glorify (δοξάζω) in N. T. usage nearly if not quite always signifies to manifest glory. The authorities which Robinson (Lex., δοξάζω) cites in justification of the definition to make glorious are at best of doubtful interpretation. The glory of Christ is his self-sacrificing love. The noblest manifestation of this glory is his patient and peaceful endurance of the Passion. In the cross of Christ alone would Paul glory (Gal. 6:14); it is the Lamb slain that is the glory of heaven (Rev. 5:6). Christ here prays that the Father will so enable him to endure the cross that it may become glorious, and so a manifestation of the Father’s glory; it is Jesus Christ “lifted up” who draws all men unto him, and this in order that through him they may be drawn to the Father. He prays that every knee may bow and every tongue confess him Lord, but only to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:11). Throughout this prayer the thought is always the same; glory is of character, not condition; the glory of a divine love manifested in self-sacrifice; making the Son worthy to receive the peculiar love of the Father; making all that, through Christ, become partakers of the same divine nature, participators also in the same divine love, sons of God, and therefore one with the Father and with his Son.—Inasmuch as thou hast given him power over all flesh, in order that (for the very purpose that) unto the all which thou hast given to him, to them he should give eternal life. Maurice’s criticism on our English version is just: “Our translators would have appeared to themselves and to many of their readers to be using an uncouth and strange form of speech, if they had rendered the words literally. But I think they were bound to encounter any apparent difficulty of construction, rather than to incur the risk of contracting or perverting the sense.” Christ has authority (the original implies both power and authority; see ch. 1:12, note) not merely over all mankind, but over all terrestrial life and the earth itself, the abode of flesh and the realm of his redemptive work (Col. 1:14-18); but this authority and power is conferred upon him by the Father (ch. 5:19, 30) for a purpose, namely, that out of the world he may gather a kingdom, receiving the entire body which God has given to him, and conferring on each individually, in that body, eternal life. Thus here, as in ch. 6:37 (see note there), Christ speaks of the all (πᾶν, neuter singular) as given to him in a body by the Father, but of each one as receiving individually (αὐτοῖς) the special, personal gift of eternal life. Observe on the one hand that Christ declares himself, by implication, Lord of all, not of Jews, or elect, or Christendom merely; but on the other hand he also declares, by implication, that not all will receive from him the gift of life eternal. There is implied a redemption universal in its offer, but not in its results. The whole is given to him, but only that he may impart eternal life to the chosen. Who are thus chosen is indicated in ch. 6:40, namely, every one that seeth (spiritually) the Son and hath faith in him. Because the Father has thus conferred divine authority on the Son, for the work of redemption, the Son pleads with the Father to so carry him through the Passion hour that this redemptive work may be consummated and eternal life imparted to the believer. Beware of reading eternal life here as equivalent to everlasting life or age-abiding life. The duration is merely incidental; spiritual life is everlasting; but that which is essential is its spirituality, not its endurance. The nature of this life is indicated in the next sentence.—But this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent forth, Jesus the Messiah. That (ἵνα) cannot here be rendered in order that, and curiously both Alford and Meyer, who insist that it is always telic, i. e., always signifies intention, here render it without that signification. “This knowledge of God here desired is the eternal life” (Meyer); “is, not is the way to” (Alford). Spiritual knowledge and spiritual life are in so far the same that neither is possible without the other. We become like God only as we know him (2 Cor. 3:18;

1 John 3:2); we know him only as, becoming like him, we become sharers of his life (Matt. 5:8; John 3:3; Heb. 12:14; 2 Pet. 1:5-9). For this knowledge (γιγνώσκω) is not intellectual understanding of the truth about God, but a personal and spiritual acquaintance with him; it is not psychological, but sympathetic. See Jer. 9:24; Ephes. 3:19; Phil. 3:10; comp. 1 Cor. 8:2. The connecting particles are important. Christ prays that the Father will glorify him in the approaching Passion, in order that he may be able to give eternal life to those whom the Father has given to him, for this life can be given only by giving them a true apprehension of the one God, and he can be made known to them only through him whom he hath sent into the world, Jesus the Messiah. The knowledge of the only true God is in contrast with polytheistic paganism; knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah is in contrast with Jewish pride and prejudice. The first was the burden of Paul’s preaching at Athens; the second of Peter’s preaching at Jerusalem (Acts 2:22-36; 17:22-34). The use of the third person here, and the phrase Jesus Christ, often found together in the Epistles, but never in Christ’s previous discourses, have been cited by rationalistic critics as an evidence that this prayer was the work of a later writer, who with doubtful dramatic license put it into the mouth of Christ. The answer is (1) that the time had now come for Jesus to declare in unmistakable language his Messiahship, and that no more natural or suitable form could be employed than that of such a prayer; (2) that the very fact that the names appear so frequently in conjunction in the Apostolic writings, and in the early church, is itself a reason for believing that the apostles derived them from their Master.

4 I[636] have glorified thee on the earth: I[637] have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

[636] ch. 14:13.

[637] ch. 19:30; 2 Tim. 4:7.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with thine own self, with the glory which I[638] had with thee before the world was.

[638] ch. 1:1, 2; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:3, 10.

4, 5. I have manifested thy glory on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. By anticipation Christ regards that as consummated, the consummation of which is so near at hand. In fact, not the least part of his work was the endurance of the Passion of the next twenty-four hours. Comp. Paul in 2 Tim. 4:7, “I have finished my course,” etc.—And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with that glory which I have always had with thee before the world was. That is, Manifest my glory in and with thee, that glory which I have always possessed. The word glorify is used throughout this prayer, I believe, always with the one signification, viz., to show forth glory, not to confer it (see on ver. 1), and that the glory of inherent character, not of circumstance or condition. I have had (εἶχον, imperfect) is, as above rendered, equivalent to always or habitually had. The language before the world was clearly implies Christ’s pre-existence with the Father from the creation of the world. It is not, and by no candid interpretation can be made, the language of a merely human experience. God is said to have chosen his saints (Ephes. 1:4), but not to have loved and glorified them, from before the beginning of the world; but Christ’s grace was prepared and his glory was manifested before the foundation of the world (Col. 1:17; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2). Christ declares that he has manifested the glory of the Father by the fulfilling of the Father’s work thus far; and he prays the Father to remember the glory of love which bound the Son and the Father together in the eternal life of the past, and to so sustain him in the trying experiences of the present, that this divine glory, which he has had with the Father from before the beginning of the world, may be made manifest.

6 I[639] have manifested thy name unto the men which thou[640] gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy[641] word.

[639] verse 26; Ps. 22:22.

[640] verses 2, 9, 11; Rom. 8:30.

[641] Heb. 3:6.

6. Christ here passes from the prayer for himself to the intercessory prayer for his disciples, with whom, by the request in ver. 20, he includes all who have faith in him, through all time.—I have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou entrusted to me out of the world. Thine they were, and thou entrusted them to me; and they have guarded thy teaching. To manifest is literally to cause to shine (φανερόω, from φαίνω). The name that was enveloped in darkness, of him whom no one by searching can find out, who was, and apart from Christ ever is, the unknown and unknowable, Christ has made to shine forth out of the darkness. The name represents all that which lies back of and gives meaning to the name, here the power and character of God. See Matt. 28:19, note. Especially his name of Father Christ has made to shine out upon a before orphaned world, both by manifesting in himself the character of God the Father, and by his life, and notably by this prayer, manifesting also the relation which may and should subsist between the children and the Father to whom Christ gives access (Rom. 5:2; Ephes. 2:18; 3:12). The verb rendered gave, here and below (δίδωμι), is equally capable of being rendered entrusted or committed (Rob. Lex.). This is clearly its meaning in Matt. 16:19; 25:15; John 5:22; and I think represents the meaning here and in John 10:29 better than the word gave. The Father entrusts his children to the guardian keeping of his Son, but will at the end receive them again unto himself when the Son delivers up the kingdom to God, even the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). They were the Father’s (thine) before they were entrusted to the Son, not because they were Israelites; for Christ includes all, Gentiles as well as Jews, in this prayer, and elsewhere makes it clear that he does not regard any one as of God because descended from Abraham (ch. 8:37, 39, 40; comp. Luke 3:8); nor because they were chosen by God from the foundation of the world; for there is no distinct declaration nor any necessary implication of election, either absolute or conditional, here. The disciple of Christ is the Father’s, because he is born from above, by the Spirit of God, before he can see the kingdom of God, certainly therefore before by faith he can enter it. Thus he is of the Father before he hears Christ’s voice; he is given by the Father to the Son before he comes to the Son (John 3:5; 6:37, 44; 8:47). Teaching or word (λόγος), a different Greek word from that rendered words in ver. 8, indicates the whole system of divine truth entrusted by the Father to Christ and by him taught to his disciples, and pre-eminently that truth of God which was embodied in the Son’s life and death even more than in his verbal instructions (ch. 7:16; 12:48, 49). It is called the Father’s word or teaching because the words of Christ were not his, but the Father’s (ch. 14:24). To keep (τηρέω) is to guard watchfully, as one guards a prisoner; it therefore includes the idea both of watchful attention to the word and solicitude to preserve it by obedience in the life and heart (ch. 8:51, note). Christ then declares that he has made luminous the name of God, by interpreting the divine Fatherhood, not to the whole world, but to those selected out of the world and entrusted to his guardian keeping; and that those thus entrusted to him by the Father, to whom they owe the first impulse of divine life that sent them to Christ for light, have been attentive to hear and careful to preserve the instructions they have received from him. In the succeeding two verses he indicates what was the heart of this divine instruction.

7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

8 For I have given unto them the words[642] which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

[642] ch. 6:68; 14:10.

7, 8. Now. Already; the word is emphatic.—They know. Assuredly know; the perfect tense has the present signification, but indicates completed knowledge; not that the disciples were perfect in knowledge of Christian truth, but they were fully convinced of the fundamental truth of Christianity, viz., that it is a divine revelation, not an earth-born and human philosophy.—That all things whatsoever thou hast entrusted to me are bestowed by thee. Are of thee (παρὰ σοῦ ἐστεν) signifies bestowed by thee; the former is the more literal, the latter is the truer translation, because it renders the Greek idiom into its English equivalent (see Rob. Lex., παρά, I:2). Christianity is a gift of the Father through Christ.—That the words which thou hast entrusted to me I have entrusted to them. This clause, like the preceding one, is dependent on the first clause; the disciples have assuredly known that whatsoever truths are possessed by Christ came from the Father, and that whatsoever the Father has entrusted to him he has in turn entrusted to them, keeping nothing back for fear or favor. Comp. Acts 20:20, 27. I see no reason for translating the same Greek particle (ὅτι) that in ver. 7, for or because in ver.8, first clause, and that again in the last clause of the same verse. Christ before spoke of doctrine or teaching (λόγος), i. e., the system as a whole; he now speaks of words (ῥήμα), thus emphasizing the truth that each specific word in his teaching, whether of promise, commandment, or instruction, is from the Father. These words were entrusted by the Father to Christ, and now that Christ is about to leave his disciples he entrusts these words in turn to them, sending them forth, as he himself was sent forth, to teach only what they are commanded. See ver. 18; Matt. 28:20. He does not merely give these words to us for our own behoof; he entrusts them to us to be used for others.—And they have received (not them, an addition by the translators which the context does not warrant), and known assuredly that from thee I came forth. They have just declared their reception of this central truth of Christianity, that Jesus Christ came forth from the Father (ch. 16:29, 30). They not only have known that Christ has taught only what the Father imparted to him, i. e., is a teacher sent from God (ch. 3:2, note), but they have gone on from this knowledge to the spiritual reception by faith of the truth that Christ himself has come forth from the Father. Their faith has laid hold on not only his divine teaching, but also his divine character. Whosoever begins by accepting

Christ as a divine and authoritative teacher, and holds fast to that faith, grows into the experience of continuous acceptance of him in his person and character as a manifestation of the Father from whom not only the words, but he himself, came forth.—And have had faith that thou didst send me. “That I came out from thee is more a matter of conviction from inference, hence they have known; whereas the other side of the same truth, thou hast sent me forth, the act of the Father unseen by us, is more a matter of pure faith, hence they have had faith.”—(Alford.)

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world,[643] but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

[643] 1 John 5:19.

10 And all mine[644] are thine, and thine are mine; and I[645] am glorified in them.

[644] ch. 16:15.

[645] Gal. 1:24; 1 Pet. 2:9.

9, 10. I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world. It is monstrous exegesis to conclude from this that Christ never prays for the world; he simply says, I am not now praying for the world, but for my own disciples. He enjoined on his followers to pray for the unbelieving (Matt. 5:44); he prayed upon the cross for them, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34); in this very prayer, in ver. 23, he prays “That the world may know that thou hast sent me,” etc. The tense here is present, and the above translation accurately represents the original. In asking for those who have accepted him as a manifestation of the glory of the Father, that they may be kept even unto the end, he is praying for his own. “The most he asked for the world is that it may be converted, not that it may be sanctified or kept.”—(Luther.) To the same effect are Godet, Alford, Meyer, and the modern commentators generally.—But for those whom thou hast entrusted to me; for they are thine; and mine all are thine, and thine mine, and my glory is manifested in them. All is emphatic; the only begotten Son has nothing in reserve from the Father. What Luther says is true: “Any man may say, What is mine is thine, but only the Son can say, What is thine is mine;” nevertheless there are few that can utter with the whole heart, and without any reserve, even the first clause, “Mine all are thine.” Christ pleads for his own on two grounds: (1) They are the Father’s in the ownership of love; thus the covenant mercy of God for his own is plead as one ground of intercession. Comp. Ps. 51:1; 69:13, 16. (2) They are entrusted to the Son’s safe-keeping, and their preservation and sanctification will manifest the Son’s glory, i. e., the glory of his redeeming love and power; thus the Father’s love for the Son is plead as a second ground of intercession. Thus also his example indicates what it is to pray to the Father in the name of the Son, viz., in order that his glory of redeeming love may be manifested. While this declaration, “Mine all are thine and thine mine,” is to be taken in its more comprehensive sense, as indicating the unity of the Son and the Father in all things, yet the context gives a peculiar and spiritual significance to it. All that come to Christ by faith, so becoming his, are born from above and are the children of God; and all that are truly born from above and are the children of God come to Christ by faith, and so become his (ch. 6:44, 45; 8:42, 47).

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep[646] through thine own name[647] those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

[646] 1 Pet. 1:5; Jude 1:24.

[647] Prov. 18:10.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture[648] might be fulfilled.

[648] Ps. 109:8; Acts 1:20.

11, 12. And now I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I am coming to thee. An additional plea for those whom he is leaving behind. He can no longer be with them, their guide and guardian; therefore he pleads for the guidance and the guardianship of the Father.—O Holy Father, guard them in that name of thine which thou hast entrusted to me, in order that they may be one in like manner as we are. There is some uncertainty as to the reading; (ὅ, and οὕς and ῶ are all found in MSS.) Some manuscripts give authority for our English version, Keep those whom thou hast entrusted to me; others give as above, Keep those in thy name which thou hast entrusted to me. The latter is sustained by the best critics (Alford, Meyer, Bengel, Groesback, Tischendorf). Every word in this sentence is weighty. The meaning of holy is pure, clean, without blemish. The divine holiness is ever going out of itself, imparting of itself to others, aiming to make all other natures holy; thus by the appellation Holy Father Christ appeals to the cleansing nature of the Father. To keep is to guard with watchful care. See above on ver. 6. In (ἐν) is instrumental; as the life of the flower is preserved in the sunshine, so the life of the soul in the name of the Father, in whom we live and move and have our being. The name stands here, as above (ver. 6), for all which that name represents: the paternal God. This name was not given to Christ, he does not bear it; but it was entrusted to Christ, that he might manifest it to his disciples, by teaching them the Fatherhood of God; and it is to this name that Christ commends his disciples, for it is by faith in this name, i. e., in the essential fatherly character of God, that the disciple receives the spirit of adoption whereby he becomes a child of God (Rom.

8:15-17), and it is this faith in his Father’s holy keeping which is a shield to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked (Ephes. 6:16). In order that may grammatically express either the object for which the Father’s name was entrusted to Christ, or the object of the holy keeping which Christ seeks for his disciples. In fact, the object of the manifestation and of the fatherly guardianship is the same, namely, that the disciples who have by faith received that name, and are protected by it, may become partakers of the divine nature, and so become one with the Son and the Father, not only in general purpose, but in all essential elements of character (Heb. 12:10; 2 Pet. 1:4).—While I was with them I guarded them in that name of thine which thou didst entrust to me. The reading here, as above, is involved in some uncertainty, but this is the better reading. The words in the world are a gloss, and are needless.—And I preserved them. Our English version obscures the meaning by rendering two different Greek words (τηρέω and φυλάσσω) by the same English word (keep) in this and the preceding verse. Christ declares above that he has kept watch, here that this watch has been successful, and that he has preserved those over whom he has watched.—And no one of them has destroyed himself. This, which is the sense of the middle voice in Greek, it is important to preserve. “Christ did not lose Judas, but he lost himself.”—(Alford.) But the language implies that every one might have destroyed himself but for the guardian care of Christ.—Except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. See John 13:18; Acts 1:20; Ps. 41:9. It was predetermined, not that one who might have been saved should destroy himself in order to fulfill prophecy, but that one who would destroy himself should be among the twelve. Judas was not lured to destruction in order to fulfill prophecy, but prophecy was fulfilled in his self-destruction. See ch. 19:28, note. “Judas fell that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But it would be a most unfounded argument if any one were to infer from this that the revolt of Judas ought to be ascribed to God rather than to himself, because the prediction laid him under a necessity. * * * Nor was it the design of Christ to transfer to Scripture the cause of the ruin of Judas, but it was only intended to take away the occasion of stumbling by showing that the Spirit of God had long ago testified that such an event would happen.”—(Calvin.) It is a noticeable fact that the phrase son of destruction, here employed to designate Judas, is employed by Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3 to designate the Anti-Christ.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world[649] hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

[649] ch. 15:18, 19.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but[650] that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

[650] Gal. 1:4.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

13-16. But now I am coming to thee. and therefore can no longer be an earthly guardian. As a mother dying entrusts her children to God, so Christ his disciples.—And these things I speak in the world that they may have my joy filled to overflowing in themselves. These things include not only the prayer now offered for the disciples, but also the whole course of instruction given to them and immediately preceding the prayer. The object of both instruction and prayer is the same, that his disciples may be brought into that oneness with the Father, that life in him, and that consequent consecration to his will and service, which filled the Son with an abiding peace and joy, and that so they might be filled to the full with the same joy. See ch. 14:27; 15:11, notes.—I have entrusted to them thy teaching. Not given, but entrusted. See above on ver. 6. The teaching which the Father entrusted to the Son, the Son in turn entrusted primarily to the apostles, secondarily to his disciples throughout all time, that they may become lights of the world as he was the Light of the world, teachers of the truth of God as he was the Great Teacher (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15). That this is the meaning is indicated by what follows. It is only as the disciples become, by their life and words, teachers of the truth, that the world hates them.—And the world has hated them, because they are not from (ἐκ) the world, in like manner as I am not from the world. The disciple of Christ is born from above (ch. 3:3; Gal. 6:15; 1 Pet. 1:3), and thus is spiritually like his Master (ch. 8:23). The origin of the divine life in Christ and his followers is the same; in both it proceeds from the Father.—I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest guard them from the Evil One. Not as Norton renders it, and as our English version implies, from what is evil, though that is included by implication; but from the Evil One, i. e., Satan. The original is, indeed, capable of either meaning; but the latter interpretation agrees best with John’s usage elsewhere. See 1 John 2:13, 14; 3:12; 5:18. The Evil One is treated by Christ as the source, or at least the representative, of all that is evil, as the prince of the kingdom of darkness and sin. Compare Matt. 13:25, 38, 39, where the tares, i. e., the children of the wicked, are represented as sown by the enemy, i. e., the devil.—If Christ does not desire for us that we should be taken out of the world, we are not to desire it for ourselves. Temporary retreat from the world, the better to prepare us for it, is legitimate; so Christ sometimes retreated, seeking strength in solitude and communion with his Father. But Christianity is not asceticism. The disciple is sent into the world that he may be a light to the world, and the measure of his Christian life is not his experience in hours of retirement from it, but the fidelity of his life in it.

17 Sanctify[651] them through thy truth: thy word[652] is truth.

[651] Acts 15:9; Ephes. 5:26; 2 Thess. 2:13.

[652] Ps. 119:151.

17. Consecrate them in thy truth; thy teaching is truth. The original (ἀγιάζω) may be rendered either consecrate or sanctify. It means both to set apart from a common to a sacred use, and also to make holy for that use; in other words, it may mean to make holy in mission or in character. But the former is evidently the meaning here; for it cannot be said that Christ made himself holy in character for the sake of his disciples (ver. 19). Christ prays that the Father will set apart his disciples to a life of divine service, as priests unto God (Rev. 20:6). This consecration of the disciple involves his sanctification; for the sinner cannot be set apart to a holy work while yet in his sins. It does not involve sanctification in the Son, because he had no sins to be cleansed away. This consecration of the disciple is effected both by imparting to him through the Holy Spirit the truth of God (ch. 14:26), and by commissioning him to serve that truth by bearing witness of it unto others (Matt. 28:20; Acts 1:8). In thy truth (ἐν, dative) expresses the idea that the truth is both the instrument by which and the service to which the disciple is consecrated. We are consecrated unto the truth as we live in the truth; so Samuel was consecrated to the temple by being brought while yet a child to live in the temple. Christ designates the teaching or word which he has imparted, and which the Holy Spirit will further impart to his disciples, thy teaching, because all that comes through the Son and the Spirit comes from the Father (ch. 14:10; 16:13).

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And[653] for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

[653] 1 Cor. 1:2, 30.

18, 19. In like manner as thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. Full weight is to be given to the phrase as, i. e., in like manner as (καθὼς). This is the most weighty and solemn declaration of the mission of the disciple, I think, in the N. T., albeit it corresponds with the universal teaching of both Gospel and Epistle, viz., that Christ is the first-born among many brethren, and that those who are his disciples are also to be in all things his followers; like him teachers of the truth; like him manifesting the life and character of God in the world, by the divine life begotten in them from above; like him bearing the sins of others in their own person, and so filling up what is behind of the sufferings Of Christ (Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24; 1 Pet. 4:13). Christ does not merely leave his disciples in the world, he sends them into it, as he was sent, each disciple to be in his narrower sphere a saviour of others, and the whole discipleship to be the body of an ever living, ever incarnate, ever teaching, and ever atoning Lord. Thus, too, not only because they are left alone, but yet more because they are sent forth to complete his work, does the Son ask the Father to be to them what he has been to their Lord in his earthly mission.—And for their sakes I consecrate myself, in order that they also might be consecrated in the truth. As above, both in, i. e., by means of, and unto, i. e., to serve the cause of the truth. The definite article is wanting, and Meyer reads the phrase consecrated in truth, as simply equivalent to “truly consecrated”; but the other interpretation is warranted by Greek usage, and better accords with the context. While Christ identifies himself with his disciples in his prayer that they may become one with him, in his declaration that they are in the spiritual life born of the same divine Father, and in his commission to them to carry out his work, he distinguishes between himself and them; for he consecrates himself; they must be consecrated by a higher power. The consecration which the Lord made of himself was not made, though it was consummated, at Calvary. His death was a crowning act, not the whole act. “Our Lord possessed a human nature like our own, endowed with inclinations and dislikes as our own is, though of such only as are perfectly lawful. Of this nature he was continually making a holy offering; he constrained it to obedience; negatively by sacrificing it when it was in contradiction with his mission; positively by devoting to his divinely appointed task all his powers, all his natural and spiritual talents. It was thus that ‘He by the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot unto God’ (Heb. 9:14).”—(Godet.) So also substantially Calvin, Alford, Hengstenberg. Comp. John 10:11, note.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one;[654] as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

[654] Rom. 12:5.

20, 21. Not for these only am I praying, but also for those who have faith upon me through their teaching. The statement is not general, I am accustomed to pray for believers, but special, It is for all believers that I am now praying. His intercessory prayer is for us no less than for them.—That all may be one; in like manner as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee, that also they in us one may be; that the world may have faith that thou hast sent me. The emphasis of the Greek is partially represented in this nearly literal rendering. Observe the close connection with what has gone before. The burden of Christ’s prayer has been that his disciples may be preserved in the world, and consecrated for their mission as truth-bearers to the world; he now adds, I ask this in order that they may be one in us. His prayer is not merely that they may be one, but that they may be consecrated in and to the truth, so that they may become one. The implication is that whenever Christians are thoroughly consecrated to the service of Christ all differences so disappear that they work together in unity of the spirit and of faith; and this truth history abundantly confirms. This unity is not in creed, ceremonial, or ecclesiastical organization, but in the Father and the Son, i. e., the unity of personal devotion to, and love for, and spiritual communion and fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3). This spiritual union in and with God will finally lead to but it is not founded on unity in opinion. It is a union that is apparent as well as real. The world will see it, and seeing will be led to believe that the Father has sent the Son, i. e., that Christianity is of divine origin, so marvellous will seem to be the power of love uniting in one kingdom elements, opinions, and nationalities so diverse. This spiritual unity of the discipleship of Christ is almost the consummation of Christ’s prayer. He has only one higher request to prefer for his church, namely, that through this unity in him and the Father who has sent him, the church may come to a true spiritual appreciation of the Son’s eternal glory with and in the Father (ver. 24).

22 And the glory[655] which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

[655] 2 Cor. 3:18.

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

22, 23. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be one in like manner as we are one. I is emphatic. The Father has given glory to the Son; the Son makes all his followers participators in that glory. In what does this glory consist? Not in the power of working miracles (Chrysostom), for this he has not given to all those that believe in his name. Not the glory of the heavenly state (Meyer), for this he will give, but had not given to his disciples when he uttered this prayer. Not the glory of unity with the Father and the Son (Hengstenberg), for the glory is given in order that this unity may be attained; this unity with the Godhead is not the glory, but the result of it. The glory which the Father gave the Son was the glory of being the Son of God (Matt. 3:17; John 1:14; Heb. 1:5; 3:6). This glory Christ imparts to his followers, who through him are received into the adoption of God by faith, and become themselves sons of God (ch. 1:12; 1 John 3:1). And it is as we become thus sons of God that we become one with each other because one in him, one household of faith only as we are united to one Father (Rom. 8:29; Ephes. 1:10; 2:19). This glory of sonship involves not only filial relations with the Father, but the possession of a divine life begotten by the Father, and therefore a nature akin to that of the Father, who is love, and whose children we are only as we dwell in love (1 John 3:9, 10; 4:8, 16).—I in them and thou in me. And therefore the Father in them through the Son, by whom they have access to the Father.—That they may be perfected unto unity. This unity of love with the Father and the Son, and therefore with one another, is the culmination of the divine life, as well as the disclosure of it. Comp. Ephes. 4:11-13: “Till we all come in the unity of the faith of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man.”—In order that the world may know that thou hast sent me forth. It shall no longer have faith merely; it shall know assuredly the divine origin and authority of the Christian religion, and this conviction shall be compelled by the moral and spiritual power of a spiritually united church.—And that thou hast loved them in like manner as thou hast loved me. Comp. ch. 16:27. With a love not merely of compassion, but now, all quarrels with one another ended because all separation and estrangement from God are at an end, with a love of cordial approbation. Then the voice shall speak to the universal discipleship, Behold my beloved sons in whom I am well pleased; and the whole world shall hear and acknowledge him who has wrought this redemption (Phil. 2:10; Rom. 14:11).

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be[656] with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

[656] 1 Thess. 4:17.

24. Father, whom thou hast entrusted to me, I will that where I am they also may be. (The sense is the same whether the reading ὅ or οὕς be adopted.) Christ changes his expression; he no longer says I pray, but I will. “He demands with confidence as a Son, not as a servant.”—(Bengel.) There are two Greek verbs which are capable of being rendered I will; the one (βούλομαι) expresses an inclination, the other (θέλω) a positive purpose. The latter is the word used here. It might justly be rendered It is my will. It is nowhere else used by Jesus. With the close of his prayer there comes such assurance of his own unity with the Father that he no longer prefers a request; he declares his purpose. In this declaration of his purpose he recurs to the promise which he had made at the opening of this most sacred interview, “I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also” (ch. 14:3). In this expression I will, Christ’s prayer can hardly be a model for his followers. We may say to our Father, I wish; but we can never be so sure of his gracious purposes and of our union with him in them, that we can safely say to him, Father, I will.—That they may behold my glory, which thou gavest me, because thou lovedst me before founding a world. Observe, not before the foundation of the world, but before founding any world; the definite article is not in the original. On the significance of this declaration as a testimony to the pre-existent glory of Christ, see on ver. 5. To behold (θεωρέω) is primarily to be a spectator of, and in its primary signification includes the idea of attention, wonder, admiration. It is, however, here used certainly of spiritual apprehension; we shall be filled with wonder and surprise when the veil drops from our eyes and we see him as he is. The glory which Christ had with the Father from the beginning is the glory of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), the glory of a character whose radiance is infinite love, of which the sacrifice of Christ, purposed from the remote past, is the highest manifestation; and this is the glory which the saints, redeemed by his blood, behold in heaven (Rev. 5:8; 7:9; 21:23). Christ’s will, then, for his disciples is that they may be so spiritually exalted that they may be able to apprehend the full glory of that self-sacrificing love which now they look upon with so feeble appreciation, and which to the unbelieving world is inglorious (1 Cor. 1:23). This is the consummation of his prayer; what a climax in what an ascending scale! First that his disciples may be guarded in his absence by the divine care in which he himself has trusted (11-13); then that, guarded in the world, they may be consecrated to their Christly mission, to teach, to manifest God, to suffer (15-19); then that, with all believers, they may be brought into spiritual unity with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, being made sons of God, and so sharers in the glory of him whose greatest glory it was and is to be the well-beloved Son of the Father (20-23); and finally that, thus preserved, consecrated, adopted, they may be able to realize the glory of that love of self-sacrifice, to which we all sometimes find it difficult even to submit without rebellion, and in which only the most consecrated are ever able to rejoice.

25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

25, 26. O righteous Father. Christ first appealed simply to the Fatherhood of God (ver. 1), then to his holiness (ver. 11), now at last even to his righteousness or justice. For since the Son has finished the work which the Father gave him to do, he may ask of righteousness itself to complete it. Thus justice and purity compete with love in pleading for the fulfillment of redemption. So in 1 John 1:9 it is said that “he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.”—Though (καὶ) the world has not known thee, I have known thee, and (καὶ) these have known that thou hast sent me forth. The world, the Son, and the disciples stand here in a triple contrast; to the world God is the absolute unknown; to the Son he is known; to the disciples God is manifested in the Son, who comes forth from God and goes to God again.—And I have made known thy name to them, and will make it known. And with the name all that the name represents—the justice, the holiness, and pre-eminently the Fatherhood. See on ver. 6. These words attest the consciousness in Christ that an answer has been vouchsafed to his prayer. He began by asking the Father to glorify the Son, that the Son might glorify the Father. He closes by declaring, not only that he has thus far made known the name of the Father (ver. 5), but that in the impending hour of passion and death he will make the Father known, and so will glorify him. It is true that the whole work of the church ever since, and of Christ in his church, has been making known the name of the Father; but it has been by interpreting the meaning of the cross of Christ, by preaching Christ and him crucified, as the wisdom and power of God (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:23, 24; 2:2). Thus this prayer ends, as it began, with an implied reference to the impending Passion; but it begins with petition; it ends with assurance of victory.—In order that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. That is, both that they may possess an experience of the Father’s love for them, and may possess a love like the Father’s, being made perfect in love, even as their Father in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48); so also that the Spirit of Christ may dwell in them, and that by this indwelling their own spirit may be conformed unto his (2 Cor. 3:18). In this simple and sublime sentence the Son embodies the object of his mission as the Divine Teacher, the Divine Revealer, and the Divine Sufferer. The object of his teaching, incarnation, and atonement is that he may make known the Father to those that will learn of his Son; and this that he may make them one with the Father and his Son—one in spiritual fellowship, because one in spiritual character.

It is a shallow criticism which imagines an incongruity between this prayer recorded by John and the prayer in Gethsemane which immediately followed, and which John has not recorded. Here Christ asks that he may be enabled to glorify the Father’s name to the end; there he asks that the same results may, if it is possible, be accomplished without the terrible ordeal of the betrayal, the desertion, the mock trials, the mob, the crucifixion, the veiling of the Father’s face. But in the agony of Gethsemane, as portrayed by the other three Evangelists, the Son never for a moment wavers from the supreme wish that the Father’s will may be accomplished and the Father’s name made manifest. The power, not merely to resign himself to the Father’s will, but affirmatively to pray, “Not my will but thine be done,” was a part of that very glory with which he besought the Father to invest him. The devout student will recognize in the prayer of Gethsemane a partial answer to the prayer in the upper chamber; for in Gethsemane, no less than in the court of Caiaphas, the judgment hall of Pilate, and the death on Calvary, the Father glorified the Son and the Son glorified the Father.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Ch. 18:1-11. The Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus.—The Divine Majesty of Our Lord Exemplified.—Narrated by all the Evangelists: Matt. 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53. As usual where the four Evangelists narrate the same events, John gives particulars omitted by the others—the falling back to the ground of the guard, and Christ’s interposition for the disciples (ver. 6-9)—and omits events recorded by the others—the conference between Jesus and Judas, and the traitor’s kiss (Matt. 26:49, 50; Mark 14:44, 45). That John wrote with the other accounts before him, and to supply their omissions, is the most reasonable explanation of these and like variations in their accounts. He does not describe the agony in Gethsemane, because he can add nothing to what is already told; he narrates of the arrest only what is not already known. Even in describing the attempted resistance to the arrest, this peculiarity is to be seen; for he alone of the Evangelists mentions the name of the disciple who drew the sword and of the servant who was wounded by it. The discrepancies in the four accounts of the arrest are such as we should expect in four individual accounts of a scene of such confusion. The probable order of events, as indicated by a comparison of the accounts, I have given in the notes on Matthew, which consult throughout. Here I treat only what is peculiar to John’s account.

When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron,[657] where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.

[657] 2 Sam. 15:23.

1. With his disciples. That is, with the eleven. Judas was with the priests, consummating arrangements for the arrest of Jesus.—Beyond the brook of the Cedars. Or the black torrent, which is the meaning of the Hebrew, from which the Greek is derived. The word rendered brook (χείμαῤῥος) indicates a winter torrent, flowing in the rainy season, but dry in summer. It flowed through a ravine to the east of Jerusalem, and between it and the Mount of Olives.—Where was a garden. Rather an orchard. The original signifies any place planted with herbs and trees. This was called Gethsemane, and was a customary resort of Christ and his disciples. See next verse; and compare Luke 22:39. On its location, see Matt. 26:36 and illustration there. On the agony in this garden, see notes on Matt.

26:36-46. It occurred between Christ’s entering the garden and the arrival of Judas and the guard.

2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.

3 Judas[658] then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

[658] Matt. 26:47, etc.; Mark 14:43, etc; Luke 22:47, etc.

2, 3. Judas then, having received the band, and, from the chief priests and Pharisees, temple officers (ὑπηρέτης), cometh thither. The band was composed of Roman soldiers; the officers were temple police; the former were armed with swords, the latter with staves. Servants of the priests, and some of the priests themselves, accompanied the force. See Matt. 26:47, note; Luke 22:52.—With lanterns and torches. “The fact of its being full moon did not make the lights unnecessary, as in searching for a prisoner they might have to enter dark places.”—(Alford.) They appear also to have had a fear of attempted flight or rescue. See Matt. 26:48, note. I doubt whether any definite distinction is intended between lanterns and torches. The annexed cuts give illustrations of two kinds of night torches used among the Romans. The one (fax), (Rich., p. 280) was made out of a piece of resinous wood, cut into a point and dipped in oil or pitch, or of inflammable materials enclosed in a tube. The other (lampas), (Rich., p. 365) was in the nature of a candlestick, with a handle beneath and a large disk above, to protect the hand from the drippings of the pitchy or resinous matter of which the torch consisted. This lampa was carried by the youth of Athens in a peculiar race, in which the winner had to outstrip his competitors without extinguishing his light. The ancient Oriental lantern, like those still employed in Egypt (see Lane’s Modern Egypt), consisted of a wax cloth, strained over a sort of cylinder of iron rings and a top and bottom of perforated copper. Both the Roman torch and the Oriental lantern may have been used on this occasion.

ROMAN TORCHES. ORIENTAL TORCH.

4 Jesus therefore, knowing[659] all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

[659] ch. 10:17, 18; Acts 2:28.

5 They answered him, Jesus of[660] Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

[660] ch. 19:19; Matt. 2:23.

4, 5. Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him. Not merely knowing that the guard had come to arrest him (Matt. 26:45), but with the full consciousness of all the agony of the morrow (Matt. 20:17-19; Luke 18:31-34). Of his own will he submits to the Passion (Matt. 26:53; John 10:18).—Went forth. Possibly from the shadow of the trees into the moonlight, or from the garden walls, or perhaps simply advanced to meet the guards. His object in so doing is indicated by ver. 8. He put himself between the guards and his disciples to prevent the arrest of the latter. Judas preceded the band (Luke 22:47), and Christ’s questions addressed to the apostate, and the traitor’s kiss (Matt. 26:49, 50; Luke 22:48), seem to have taken place before Christ spoke to the guard.—Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus, or Joshua—the names are the same—was a common one among the Jews, and the term “Nazarene” was a customary appellation, especially by his foes, to designate our Lord. Its tone, to the Judeans, was one of contempt (Matt. 2:23; John 19:19).—And there stood Judas, he that betrayed him, with them. If we suppose that Jesus hurried forth from the garden, before the three disciples were well awake, to the spot where the others had been sleeping, then, not improbably, John did not see the traitor’s kiss, but, arriving after, saw Judas standing with the guard, who had meanwhile come to the spot; thus he narrates only what he personally witnessed. His language, by its very simplicity, suggests to the imagination the contrast between Jesus and Judas, the betrayed and the betrayer.

6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they[661] went backward, and fell to the ground.

[661] Ps. 27:2; 40:14.

6. They (the guard) went backward and fell to the ground. That this states a literal fact will not be questioned by any who believe in the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel narratives. That it describes a miracle, that is, a sign of the superhuman character of Christ, is equally certain. Whether it is to be regarded as an effect produced by the will of our Lord, or by the mere majesty and dignity of his mien, and his reply, is the only question which believers in the N. T. have to consider. I think the latter. The scene is interpreted, though not fully explained, by similar instances of moral power excited by noble over savage natures. History records several analogous cases, as when before Mark Antony, Marius, and Coligny, the murderers recoiled panic-stricken. So Avidius Cassius, “springing to the door of his tent in nightdress, quelled a mutinous army by his mere presence.”—(Farrar.) Lange cites Matt. 28:4; Luke 4:30; John 7:44-46; 8:59; 10:39; Acts 5:5, 10, as partially parallel. The historical cases above referred to illustrate the human power of a noble soul; this case differs from them in that it shows the divine power of Him who not only spake as never man spake, but who carried in his person the evidence that he was in very deed the image of God and the brightness of his glory. This view is confirmed by the reflection that he came forth to meet the guard from an hour of sacred and solemn communion with God, of ecstasy unfathomable by us. “I regard it,” says Alford, “rather as a miracle consequent upon that which Christ said and did, and the state of mind in which his enemies were, than as one in the strict sense wrought by him; bearing, however, always in mind, that to Him nothing was unexpected or a mere result, but everything foreknown.” Thus interpreted it is a striking testimony, one of many, to the personal glory of Him who was ever full of “grace and truth,” and gives a solemn significance to such passages as Matt. 25:31; Rev. 1:7; 6:15-17. “If he did this when about to be judged, what shall he do when he shall sit in judgment? If he did this on the eve of death, what shall he do when reigning?”—(Augustine.)

7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me,[662] let these go their way:

[662] Isa. 53:6; Ephes. 5:25.

7, 8. I surmise that the attack on the guard followed their sudden terror. The disciples were eager to make it (Luke 22:49), though Peter was the only one who carried the will into action. Only one other disciple was armed (Luke 22:38). The request of Christ, “Let these go their way,” was interpreted by the disciples as a direction for them to flee, which they did. That there was anything cowardly or wrong in this flight is by no means clear. To sanction it, both Christ’s precept (Matt. 10:23) and his example (Luke 4:30; John 8:59; 10:39) might be quoted. Nothing would have been gained for Christ or his cause by the disciples subjecting themselves to arrest.

9 That the saying might be fulfilled which he spake,[663] Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.

[663] ch. 17:12.

9. That the saying might be fulfilled. The saying is quoted from Christ’s prayer, John 17:12. The present deliverance of the eleven from physical danger was not a final fulfillment of the saying, but was itself a historical prophecy of its further spiritual fulfillment, as God’s providential care of us in respect to present and temporal wants is a testimony of the love that provides even more abundantly for every spiritual want. See Matt. 2:15, note.

10 Then[664] Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

[664] Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49, 50.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup[665] which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

[665] Matt. 20:22; 26:39, 42.

10, 11. Christ follows his rebuke of Peter by healing Malchus (Luke 22:51). John alone gives the name of either assailant or assailed. See for reason, note on Matt. 26:51. Compare Christ’s language here with Matthew’s report.—Observe that the evils brought upon us by wicked men are yet recognized here as given by God. The sufferings inflicted by Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate, and rendered necessary by the sins of the world, are yet to Christ’s faith the cup which his Father hath given him.

12-27. The Preliminary Examination Of Jesus before Caiaphas, and the Denials By Peter.—This examination, narrated by John, is distinctive from the trial reported by the Synoptists (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:63-71). For a general consideration of the harmony of the Gospel narratives, and of their lessons, see notes on Matthew. If John is the other disciple referred to in verses 15, 16, he is the only one of the Evangelists who was an eye and ear witness of these events, and his order is presumptively the correct one. For reasons appearing partly in the notes on Matthew, partly in the notes below, I believe that Jesus was sent at once from Annas to Caiaphas, though the two may have occupied different apartments in the same palace; that the preliminary examination was conducted by Caiaphas; that while it proceeded Peter was in the adjoining courtyard, and there denied his Lord; that at its conclusion Jesus was conducted to the Sanhedrim, where the formal trial reported by the Synoptists took place; and that this trial is not described by John, perhaps because he was not present, and wrote only of the events which he personally witnessed.

12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

12. Then the band * * * bound him. John alone describes the binding. This it was, probably, which called forth the remonstrance and rebuke of Christ recorded in Matt. 26:55, 56; Luke 22:52, 53. “To apprehend and bind One, all gave their help: the cohort, the chiliarch, and the Jewish officers. This the Evangelist brings prominently forward, to show how deep the impression of that previous incident still was: only by the help of all did they feel themselves secure. And thus it was ordered that the disciples might escape with the more safety.”—(Luthardt.)

13 And led him away to Annas[666] first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

[666] Luke 3:2.

14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel[667] to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

[667] ch. 11:49, 50.

13, 14. Annas first. Annas was appointed High Priest of the Jews A. D. 7, but had been removed by the Roman Procurator several years previous, and Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, had been appointed in his stead. In Luke 3:2 both are designated as high-priests, and in Acts 4:6; 23:2, the title is given to Annas. The probable explanation is that while Caiaphas held the office, he was really controlled by his father-in-law, who may have been regarded by the Jews as their true high-priest, notwithstanding his deposition by the Romans. He seems to have been one of that class of politicians who are willing that others should possess the honors and offices, provided they may wield the powers of the state.—Caiaphas. See Matt. 26:57, note.—That same year. The high-priest was originally appointed for life, but the office was now filled by appointees of the Roman government. There were no fewer than twenty-eight high-priests from the reign of Herod to the destruction of the temple by Titus. Of these, five besides Caiaphas were sons of Annas. It is possible that there is a delicate sarcasm in John’s incidental allusion to the transitoriness of the office. This, at least, seems to me better than to render the original (ενιατός) era instead of year, though that is a possible translation, or to suppose, with Prof. Fisher, that John thus simply emphasizes the supreme importance which that year, of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, had in his mind.—Which gave counsel. See John 11:49-51.

15 And[668] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

[668] Matt. 26:58, etc.; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54.

15. Another disciple. Who this other disciple was is not certainly known, though Alford says “there is no reason to doubt the universal persuasion that by this name John intends himself, and refers to the mention in ch. 13:23 of a disciple whom Jesus loved.” The notion that it was Judas Iscariot is refuted by the language of this verse. Judas did not follow Jesus, but accompanied the band; and that Peter should have entered the palace under the protection of Judas after the betrayal is incredible. Some manuscripts have the reading the other disciple, which would identify him with John (ch. 20:2, 3, 4). But it seems more probable that the article was added by some copyist to give definiteness to the expression, than that it was subsequently omitted.—Was known unto the high-priest. How, we have no means of ascertaining. John 19:27 is, however, thought to indicate that the apostle John had a house in Jerusalem.—Into the palace of the high-priest. Since John describes Caiaphas as high-priest, this verse clearly indicates that Jesus was taken at once from Annas to Caiaphas. See on ver. 24.

16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.

16, 17. See Matt. 26:69, note, and illustration there. The doorkeeper was not unfrequently a maid (Acts 12:13). The language here, Art not thou also one of his disciples? indicates that John was known to her as a disciple, and that Peter’s first denial was uttered on entering, and for the purpose of gaining an entrance. Observe that it is not being in bad company, but fellowship in it, that is dangerous. Peter and John were both in the same company, but one concealed his discipleship, the other did not.

ANCIENT FIRE UTENSILS.
1, 2. Braziers. 3. Fire-hod. 4. Bellows. 5. Tongs.

18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

18. The servants * * * had made a fire of coals. Probably an open fire in a portable stove or brazier, in the open courtyard around which the Jewish house was customarily built. It is doubtful whether chimneys were known to the ancients; they were certainly very rare. Fires were built sometimes in a little brazier or chafing-dish, sometimes in a small portable stove or fireplace. The fire was always carried from one room to another in a fire-basket made of iron, with perforated sides, to create a draft of air. Bellows and tongs were also in use among them. The accompanying illustrations, taken from ancient bronzes and paintings, will give the reader an idea of these articles. Peter, by joining the group around the fire and concealing his true character, identified himself with the persecutors of Christ.

19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

20 Jesus answered him, I spake[669] openly to the world. I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and[670] in secret have I said nothing.

[669] ch. 7:14, 26, 28; 8:2; Luke 4:15.

[670] Acts 26:26.

21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

19-21. The high-priest then asked Jesus. It was customary among the Jews to subject an accused person to an examination analogous to that practised at a later day in the Inquisition. Witnesses concealed behind a screen reduced his replies to writing. To such an examination, preliminary to his formal trial, Jesus Christ was now subjected.—Of his disciples and of his doctrine. The object of the first question was to get evidence against his adherents, the object of the second to get evidence against Jesus himself. To the first Jesus pays no attention; to the second he interposes a calm and dignified protest.—I spoke openly. Rather freely, boldly. The original (παῤῥησία) signifies literally speaking out all, that is, free-spokenness. Observe that boldness and frankness of utterance are essential qualifications of the true preacher.—In secret have I said nothing. Some truths he had reserved because they could not be understood (John 16:12, 25), and others which he had taught were not understood (Matt. 13:13; 1 Cor. 2:7, 8); but there were no mysteries in his religious teaching which he had sought to conceal and for which he was amenable.—Ask them which heard me. Not improbably some of the very officers so strangely affected by his preaching were present. If so, this appeal to their own subordinates would have incensed the priests, by making manifest their own injustice.

22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck[671] Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

[671] Job 16:10; Jer. 20:2; Acts 23:2, 3.

23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but[672] if well, why smitest thou me?

[672] 1 Pet. 2:19-23.

22, 23. With the palm of his hand. Or with a staff; either meaning is admissible. Contrast with Christ’s calm rejoinder Paul’s response to similar maltreatment (Acts 23:3).—The commentators note in Christ’s course here his own interpretation of Matt. 5:39. “An angry man may turn in sullenness the other cheek visibly to the smiter; better is he who makes a true answer with mildness, and prepares his heart in peace to endure great sufferings.”—(Augustine.) “Christ forbids self-defence with the hand, not with the tongue.”—(Luther.) “Christ’s precept does not exclude the remonstrance against unjust oppression, provided it be done calmly and patiently.”—(Alford.)

24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

24. Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas. Some scholars (so Alford, Lange, and Meyer) render this verse, Sent him bound, and suppose that Jesus was sent from Annas to Caiaphas at this time; but Winer (p. 275, § 40, 5a) and Buttman (p. 200, § 137) show that the aorist is sometimes used for the pluperfect, as rendered by our English version, and that the sentence may be accordingly regarded grammatically as parenthetical. I believe (see ver. 15, note) that this is the true construction, and that the parenthesis is introduced at this place for the purpose of showing that Jesus was still bound when the indignity here described was inflicted upon him.

DENIALS OF PETER.

25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

27 Peter then denied again: and[673] immediately the cock crew.

[673] ch. 13:38; Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:60.

25-27. Peter stood and warmed himself. In apparent indifference to his Lord; concerned only for his comfort, and absorbed in his curiosity.—Did not I see thee? This question was apparently put to Peter after he had retreated to the porch. It must be remembered that Peter’s danger was real and imminent; for his assault on Malchus had rendered him amenable to legal penalty. On the denial and its lessons, see notes on Matt. 26:69-75.

JESUS BEFORE PILATE.
“Art thou the king of the Jews.”

Ch. 18:28 to ch. 19:16. TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE PILATE.—The conscience of the ceremonialist (28).—Jesus a king; his kingdom truth; its defences not worldly; it conquers only the willing (33-38).—In Christ no fault (38; ch. 19:4, 6).—The world chooses Barabbas and rejects Christ (39, 40).—Crowned suffering (ch. 19:1-3).—Behold the man (5).—Behold your King (14).—The testimony of the Jews to the divinity of Christ (7).—The silence of Jesus (9).—The end of rejecting Christ is rejecting God: We have no king but Cæsar (15).—The crime of cowardice illustrated by Pilate.

This trial is reported also in Matt. 27:11-31; Mark 15:1-23; Luke 23:1-25. John’s account is the fullest, and has indications of being by an eye and ear witness; but he does not mention Pilate’s wife’s dream and Pilate’s washing of his hands in attestation of his innocence, recorded only by Matthew, nor the accusation preferred by the priests and the sending of Jesus to Herod, recorded only by Luke. For chronological order of events, see Matt. 27:11-31, Prel. Note. For a consideration of the character of Pilate, the reasons for his vacillating course, and the practical lessons to be drawn from it, see note below, ver. 16. The place of this trial I believe to have been the tower of Antonia; the reason for the trial is explained in ver. 31 (see note there).

28 Then[674] led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment; and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest[675] they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

[674] Matt. 27:2, etc.; Mark 15:1, etc.; Luke 23:1, etc.

[675] Acts 10:28.

29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

28, 29. Unto the hall of judgment. Literally Prætorium—the name given among the Romans to the headquarters of the Roman military governor, wherever he happened to be; here it is the residence which Pilate occupied in Jerusalem. Whether that was the palace of King Herod, as Farrar and others have supposed, or the tower of Antonia, is uncertain; more probably the latter, which was at the time and long afterwards the citadel of Jerusalem, the headquarters of the army, and the residence of the Roman governors. It was built upon the same broad platform of solid rock upon which the temple stood, and so adjoined the walls of the latter that the Gentile camp seemed a part of the Jewish sanctuary. Four towers at its four corners gave it the appearance of a castle and the strength of a fortress. One of these towers looked down into the broad courts of the temple, and thus subjected all the gatherings there to the oversight of the hated heathen, while its gates, opening directly into those courts, rendered it easy, at a moment’s notice, to quell any disturbance which might occur there.—And it was early. The original (πρωΐᾳ) properly signifies the period between daybreak and sunrise (John 20:1), but it is also used in a more general sense to signify the early part of the forenoon (Matt. 21:18), and that must be its meaning here, for this trial before Pilate occurred certainly after the cock-crowing, and probably the formal trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim and the subsequent deliberations of the Sanhedrim to secure the execution of the death-sentence intervened between the cock-crowing and their conducting Jesus to Pilate.—Lest they should be defiled. According to the Pharisaic ideas they could not enter a Gentile house without defilement, and this precluded their participation in the passover, which in such case must be postponed by those who were defiled (Numb. 9:6-11). A curious illustration of the fallibility of conscience is this superstition of the Pharisees, who feared defilement from entering the house of a heathen, but none from the endeavor to secure by fraud and violence the condemnation of their Lord.—That they might eat the Passover. Here not the paschal supper, but the festival which followed it, and which lasted for seven days. See Note on the Lord’s Supper, Matt. 26:30. The paschal supper itself I believe to have been observed the night before. An incidental confirmation of this opinion is afforded by Wieseler, quoted in Lange, who asserts that chronological calculations show that in the year 30, the 14th of Nisan, on the evening of which the supper proper took place, actually fell on a Thursday; and it is certain that the crucifixion of Christ occurred on Friday. If Wieseler is correct, the Lord’s Supper must have been the true paschal supper.—Pilate went out unto them. Pontius Pilate was the Roman procurator or resident governor of Judea at this time. On his authority, see Matt. 27:2, note; on his character, career, and course here, see note below, ch. 19:16. His going out to them was itself a concession.—Against this man. Probably he knew something of Jesus (Matt. 27:18, 19); for a guard had been furnished from his headquarters for the arrest of Jesus (John 18:3, note).

30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

30. They answered, etc. It seems to have been their endeavor to secure the ratification of the death-sentence without any hearing, partly because they knew that the Roman governor would be indifferent to the charge of blasphemy (Acts 18:14-17), and partly because their pride revolted against submitting the decision of their court to the hated Gentile.

31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us[676] to put any man to death:

[676] Gen. 49:10; Ezek. 21:27.

31. Then said Pilate, Take ye him and judge him. * * * It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. It seems to have been the custom of the Romans to take into their own hands in conquered provinces the power of life and death, as one of the principal attributes of sovereignty. There is no good reason to doubt that this had been done in Palestine, and that the Sanhedrim had no longer power to execute the death-sentence. The execution of Stephen, though in a certain sense sanctioned by the Sanhedrim, was the act of a mob (Acts 7:57, 58). Pilate’s answer to the demand of the priests is ironical, a bitter reminder to them that they had no longer the power of sovereignty. Other interpretations, such as that they had no power to crucify, or none to execute on the feast-day, or none to punish crimes against the state, are both unnecessary and improbable.

32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake,[677] signifying what death he should die.

[677] Matt. 20:19; Luke 18:32, 33.

32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, signifying, etc. See ch. 12:32, 33; Matt. 20:18, 19, where Christ foretold his crucifixion. It was also hinted at in O. T. prophecy (Numb. 21:8, 9, with John 3:14; Ps. 22:16, 18; Isa. 53:8, 9). Death was inflicted under the Jewish law by stoning (Deut. 13:9, 10; 17:5-7). Calvin observes the indication in this that Christ’s death in all its particulars fulfills the eternal purpose of God. Comp. Acts 2:23.

33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

33. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again. Meantime the priests had framed and presented their accusation of sedition (Luke 23:2). This accusation may well have perplexed Pilate. Christ had claimed to be King; promulgated laws; organized in the heart of Cæsar’s province the germ of an imperishable kingdom; entered Jerusalem in triumph, hailed by the throng as King of the Jews; and his arrest had been forcibly resisted by one of his followers. These facts a wily priesthood could easily pervert and exaggerate so as to give color to their accusation. How unscrupulous they were is evident from a comparison of Luke 23:2 with ch. 20:22-25.—And called Jesus. For a private examination apart from the priests and the gathering mob.

34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own[678] nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

[678] ch 19:11; Acts 3:13.

34, 35. Jesus answered him, etc.—This question is not asked for information as to the nature of the charge preferred against him and the character of his accusers, for evidently Jesus was present when they preferred it; nor as a means of ascertaining in what sense Pilate used the title king, whether in the Jewish sense, to signify the promised founder of the kingdom of heaven, or in a Roman sense, to signify a political kingdom antagonistic to Jewish authority. For he who knew what was in man, understood Pilate’s character and mind. It was the most forcible possible reply to the accusation. Who, he asks, has preferred this charge? The Jews. Pilate’s mind instantly grasps the conclusion. “If it had been preferred by a Roman centurion, it would have been worthy of examination. But when was it ever known that the Jewish priesthood complained of one who sought the political emancipation of the nation? None knew better than Pilate how uneasy were the people under the Roman yoke. The voices of the mob before the judgment-seat crying out for Jesus’ blood were unwitting witnesses of his innocence.”—(Lyman Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth.)—The reply had the desired effect. Pilate’s response, “Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me,” shows how quickly he filled out the argument which Christ by a question suggested to his mind.—What hast thou done? An honest question. He rejects the testimony of the priesthood to the sedition of the prisoner (Luke 23:2), and appeals to Jesus himself to explain their enmity.

36 Jesus[679] answered, My[680] kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

[679] 1 Tim. 6:13.

[680] ch. 6:15; Ps. 45:3, 6; Isa. 9:6, 7; Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Zech. 9:9; Luke 12:14; Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13.

36. Jesus answered. Honest perplexity he would not refuse to answer. Contrast his silence before Caiaphas (Matt. 26:62), Herod (Luke 23:9), and later before Pilate himself (John 19:9).—My kingdom is not of this world. Its origin is not from the earth. The preposition of (ἐκ) signifies the source or origin from which anything springs. Christ’s kingdom is in the world and over the world, but not from the world nor maintained by worldly means.—If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight. Not angels, of which Pilate knew nothing; nor the twelve, of whom it is doubtful whether he knew anything. The argument was one which readily addressed itself to Pilate’s understanding. If Jesus were an earthly king, his followers would have defended him from arrest by his enemies and theirs. It is true Peter had done so (ver. 10), but he had been rebuked, and the wound he inflicted had been miraculously healed, so that the priesthood could not appeal to this resistance in support of their charge, except by misrepresenting it.—That I should not be delivered to the Jews. Jews generally in John means the Judeans, the inhabitants of the southern province of Palestine, who were Christ’s especial opponents.—But now is my kingdom not from hence. Now is not here a particle of time, but of connection. That is, the meaning is not, My kingdom is not now of this world, as though its temporal power and glory was to come by and by, but, Thus you see my kingdom is not, etc. The former meaning has been given to the word by some Roman Catholic commentators, to break the force of the declaration as a testimony against the temporal power of the Pope and the priesthood. For similar connective use of the particle (νῦν) now, see Acts 12:11; 22:16; 1 Cor. 14:6. Observe in this verse: (1) A distinct declaration of the supernatural origin and character of Christ’s kingdom. Christianity is not a development of human thought, but a gift to man from God. Comp. John 3:3; 8:23; 13:3; Rev. 21:2. (2) It is to be defended by spiritual, not by earthly or physical means. With the spirit of this declaration all attempts to maintain the church or its truth by civil enactment or the power of the sword are inconsistent. How little the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom was understood in the middle ages is indicated by the fact that even Calvin, on this passage, argues that kings and princes may “employ all the power they possess in defending the church and maintaining godliness.” (3) The strength and permanence of Christ’s kingdom as compared with kingdoms built up on or defended by might of arms. “Here he sheweth the weakness of kingship among us, that its strength lies in servants; but that which is above is sufficient for itself, needing nothing.”—(Chrysostom.)

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear[681] witness unto the truth. Every one[682] that is of the truth heareth my voice.

[681] Isa. 55:4; Rev. 1:5; 3:14.

[682] ch. 8:47; 1 John 4:6.

37. Art thou then not a king? Or perhaps, with a touch of irony, Thou art then a king. Either rendering is admissible (see Winer, p. 512).—Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest (truly); for I am a king. This is truer to the original than our English version. The first clause of the sentence, “Thou sayest,” is a common form of Jewish affirmation, and was not confined to the Jews (Matt. 26:64, note). The second clause gives emphasis to this affirmation, and the reason for it, for I am a king. Observe how the solemn testimony of Christ to his divine Messiahship before Caiaphas is here, in a different form, reiterated before Pilate.—To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world. The first clause does not necessarily imply a pre-existence, because, in a sense, every creature is born to fulfil a divine purpose; but the second clause would be tautological, a mere repetition of the first, if it did not indicate a coming into the world from a pre-existent state and for a particular purpose. And Pilate seems to have partially, at least, so understood it (ch. 19:9, note).—Every one that is of the truth (ἐκ τῆς ἀληθειάς). Proceeding from the truth; that is, who has so far come under the influence of truth, is so far born anew by the power of the truth on his own soul, as to be a sincere seeker after truth, and hence, in a deeper sense, so far under the influence of the Spirit of God, who is the Truth, as to be seeking to know Him who is the Truth incarnate in human life. Parallel to this declaration are John 6:45; 8:47. Observe, (1) Jesus Christ is not only a teacher, an example, and a Saviour, but a King; and we can accept him as a Saviour only as we accept him as our King (John 15:10; 1 John 3:22-24); (2) the object of his incarnation is to testify to the truth, which he does by his words, and yet more by incarnating the truth in living forms, perfectly in his own life, imperfectly in the lives of his followers; (3) they only hear (receive) him, in whom the spirit of truth-seeking already exists. Comp. Matt. 13:13-15.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

38. What is truth? This famous inquiry of Pilate is certainly not the inquiry of an honest seeker for truth (Chrysostom), for he does not even wait for an answer; nor apparently the disconsolate question of one who despaired of ever arriving at a standard of truth (Olshausen), for there is no evidence that he had ever sought to know the truth, either in philosophy or in religion; nor the scoffing question of one who believes that truth can never be found (Alford), and whose modern type is the positivist who believes that all creeds are false, and God, immortality, and the soul are unknowable, for there is nothing to indicate that such problems had any interest for him. It is rather asked, half in pity, half in contempt, the question of the practical man of the world, to whom this conception of a kingdom built on truth and maintained without army or exchequer seemed but the baseless phantom of a harmless religious enthusiast (Ellicott).

39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

39, 40. It is apparently at this point in the trial that Pilate sends Jesus to Herod; on his return the demand is made by the people for the customary release of a prisoner (Mark 15:8), and in reply to this demand he makes the proposition, reported by all the Evangelists, to release Jesus.—On the character of Barabbas, see note on Matt. 27:15-18. On the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus, see Acts 3:14. The origin of the custom here referred to is not known. It is difficult to conceive why John should omit the sending of Jesus to Herod (Luke 23:5-7) and Pilate’s wife’s dream and Pilate’s washing of his hands (Matt. 27:20-25), unless he wrote with the other Gospels before him, and therefore omitted what they had sufficiently described.—At the Passover. Not necessarily on the day of the paschal feast, but during the Passover week.

CHAPTER XIX.

Then[683] Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged[684] him.

[683] Matt. 27:26, etc.; Mark 15:16, etc.

[684] Isa. 53:5.

2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.

4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that[685] I find no fault in him.

[685] verse 6; ch. 18:38.

5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!

1-5. The scourging of Jesus is recounted by all the Evangelists except Luke, and the mockery more fully by Matthew than here. See notes on Matthew. Scourging was a common precursor of the death-sentence; here, however, it appears to have been proposed by Pilate as a compromise (Luke 23:16).—And said, Hail, King of the Jews. Some manuscripts insert the words they came unto him, and this reading is approved by Tischendorf and Alford. It indicates a mock reverential approach as to a crowned king, with obeisances and pretended homage.—Behold the man. Pilate’s own sympathies were awakened by the sight of this patient sufferer, and he made one more attempt to release him by appealing to the sympathies of the people. In this act the commentators see an unconscious symbolical teaching parallel to that of Caiaphas (John 11:51, 52); Jesus is the man, the only perfect man, the ideal toward which all aspiration is to strive (Ephes. 4:13). The scene has been a famous one in art, and the picture of Christ thorn-crowned receives its customary title, Ecce Homo, from two Latin words meaning Behold the man.

6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

6. When the chief priests, therefore, and attendants. The original here signifies an officer answering to the modern constable or policeman.—They cried out. The priests mingled in and joined their voices with those of the crowd. The sight of blood, so far from appeasing, only whetted their revengeful appetite.—Take ye him and crucify him. This was not a sentence, but rather an endeavor to cast the responsibility of its execution upon the priesthood. Comp. Matt. 27:24; Luke 23:25. That they felt the reproach is indicated by their reply.

7 The Jews answered him, We[686] have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because[687] he made himself the Son of God.

[686] Lev. 24:16.

[687] ch. 5:18; 10:33.

7. The Jews answered him, We have a law, etc. Not because their previous accusation had failed, and they wished to present a new one (Lange); but because, the death-sentence being already pronounced and ratified by the act of scourging, they felt safe in disclosing their real animus. The object of their reply is to justify themselves to his rebuke.

8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;

9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But[688] Jesus gave him no answer.

[688] Ps. 38:13; Isa. 53:7; Matt. 27:12, 14; Phil. 1:28.

8, 9. He was the more afraid, * * * and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate’s was not a superstitious fear, but a genuine awe produced by the personal presence of Jesus, the power of which was conspicuously manifested on other occasions in his life (Luke 4:30; 5:8; John 7:45, 46; 18:6). It was doubtless enhanced by the report of his wife’s dream (Matt. 27:19). His question, Whence art thou? is to be interpreted by this awe; not from what province, for he knew this (Luke 23:6, 7), nor of what parents, for this was a matter of indifference. The question indicates that even skeptical Pilate vaguely felt that the prisoner before him—the King of a kingdom of truth—was no ordinary man. Christ’s silence was a bitter rebuke. Pilate was no longer an honest seeker after truth. Christ “kept silent, in fine, because he knew as well when to hold his peace as when to speak, and no word that he ever uttered was fuller of inspiration than that silence; no, not even does that lofty declaration to Pilate, ‘Yes, I am a King, and every true man is my subject,’ show a more regal dignity of mind. From every feature, from his whole person, it spoke—spoke of a world of power in him, power to rise above all personal considerations, and, under the most terrible circumstances, to find entire serenity in the perfect possession of himself.”—(Furness.)

10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest[689] thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

[689] Dan. 3:14, 15.

10. Then said Pilate unto him. His pride is piqued by the silence of the prisoner. He boasts of his power, and so seeks to extort an answer from the prisoner’s fears. Observe that power he had, but right he had not. “This very boast was a self-conviction of injustice. No just judge has any such power as this to punish or to loose (see 2 Cor. 13:8), but only patiently to inquire and give sentence according to the truth.”—(Alford.)

11 Jesus answered, Thou[690] couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above:[691] therefore he[692] that delivered me unto thee hath the greater[693] sin.

[690] ch. 7:30; Luke 22:53.

[691] Ps. 39:9.

[692] ch. 18:3; Mark 14:44.

[693] Heb. 6:4-8; James 4:17.

11. The connection of Christ’s answer here is difficult. It appears to me to be as follows: All civil and political power comes from God (Rom. 13:1; comp. Ps. 75:6, 7; Dan. 2:21). Even on earth kings are recognized as the administrators of the divine will (Isa. 44:28; 45:1). Caiaphas and the priesthood, therefore, in delivering Jesus to Pilate, are endeavoring not only to accomplish a deed of injustice, but to induce a divinely appointed minister of God to prove false to the trust reposed in him. Therefore their sin is greater than his; they are the instigators, he the partially ignorant and unwilling instrument. Comp. Luke 12:47, 48. Stier observes that Pilate’s ignorance includes him in the Lord’s prayer, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). That most wonderful declaration of the O. T., “He knoweth our frame, he remembereth that we are dust” (Ps. 103:14), receives its most wonderful illustration in Christ’s compassion for the perplexed but guilty Pilate.

12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend: whosoever[694] maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cæsar.

[694] Luke 23:2; Acts 17:7.

12. From thenceforth. Or rather, on this account. The original is capable of either rendering; but Pilate had already sought to release Jesus; he now made a new effort, moved thereto apparently in part by his awe for Christ, and in part by Christ’s expression of compassion for him.—Thou art not Cæsar’s friend. Of all the Cæsars, Tiberius was the most suspicious and exacting; and of all crimes, that of indifference to his interests was in his eyes the worst. In these words of the priesthood there is implied a threat of an accusation to Tiberius against Pilate if he release Jesus.

13 When[695] Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

[695] Prov. 29:25; Acts 4:19.

13. Upon the judgment-seat in a place called Pavement. The judgment-seat was probably a small elevated platform, such as was used among the ancients, on which orators stood to address a concourse, generals to harangue their troops, or magistrates to hear causes. The accompanying illustration from a bas-relief represents Trajan sitting on such a judgment-seat to receive the submission of a Parthian king. The employment of a similar platform both by Pilate and by Florus is referred to by Josephus (Wars of Jews, Rom. II: 9, 3; 14, 8). The Pavement was probably a tessellated or mosaic square in front of the tower of Antonia, on which the judgment-seat or bema was placed.

ROMAN JUDGMENT-SEAT.

14 And[696] it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

[696] Matt. 27:62.

14. It was the preparation of the passover. That is, the preparation for the Passover Sabbath. The strictness of the Mosaic law respecting the Sabbath necessitated special preparations for it on the previous day, and in process of time the whole day prior came to be known as the preparation (Mark 15:42). If we so understand the passage, there is nothing in it inconsistent with the fact indicated by the other Evangelists that the paschal supper was taken by Christ and his disciples, in common with the rest of the nation, on the evening preceding.—About the sixth hour. But according to Mark it was the third hour (Mark 15:25); and this is sustained by the whole course of the transactions and the circumstances, as also by the statements of Matthew (27:45), Luke (23:44), and Mark (15:33), that the darkness commenced at the sixth hour, after Jesus had for some time hung upon the cross. Of this discrepancy many explanations have been proposed, but only two are worthy of any consideration. One that by an early error in transcription the sixth was substituted for the third hour here; the other that John here only indicates that the sixth hour was approaching, or, as Lange renders it, it was going on towards the sixth hour; that is, the third hour, which closed the preceding watch into which the day was divided, had already passed, and that Mark’s language simply implies that the third hour had already passed before the crucifixion. It is certain that the ancients did not fix the time with as great precision as we do, and that in particular, as Godet says, “the apostles did not count with the watch in their hands.”—Behold your King. The previous appeal (ver. 5) had been to the pity of the people; this was to their national pride.

15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We[697] have no king but Cæsar.

[697] Gen. 49:10.

16 Then[698] delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

[698] Matt. 27:26, etc.; Mark 15:15, etc.; Luke 23:24, etc.

15, 16. We have no king but Cæsar. This was true. By this very act they disavowed allegiance to Jehovah as their King (1 Sam. 12:12). They were thus emphatically guilty themselves of the crime of blasphemy, for which they had condemned Jesus. Some of these very men subsequently perished in rebellion against Cæsar, thus by their death testifying to the hypocrisy of their pretended zeal. He who refuses Christ as his King subjects himself to the despotism of worldly authority.—Then delivered he to them to be crucified. Giving them a guard of soldiers to execute the decree. Thus Roman and Jew shared in both decreeing and executing the sentence.

On the Character of Pontius Pilate.—Concerning Pilate’s life before he became procurator nothing is known, except that his name indicates a probability that he was a freedman, or the descendant of a freedman, connected with the Pontian house. He succeeded Valerius Gratus as procurator of Judea and Samaria, about the year 26 A. D., and he held the appointment for a period of ten years. Secular history shows him to have been unscrupulous in the exercise of his authority; and instances are recorded by Josephus of his contempt of the Jews. His behavior was equally tyrannical toward the Samaritans; and on their complaint to Vitellius, president or prefect of Syria, Pilate was ordered to go to Rome to answer for his conduct before the emperor. His deposition must have occurred in A. D. 36, most probably prior to the Passover. Before he arrived in Rome, however, Tiberius was dead. According to tradition, Pilate was banished by Caligula to Vienne, in Gaul; according to Eusebius, he died by his own hand.

Though in the oldest Christian creed his name is indissolubly linked with the crucifixion, in the phrase “suffered under Pontius Pilate,” and though he was directly responsible for it, since it could not have been consummated without his judicial approbation, yet that approbation was wrested from him by a mob, and he yielded only when further resistance would have hazarded his office, if not his life. The story of the trial of Christ before Pilate is the story of a conflict between a judge who appealed in vain to the moral sense of the priesthood, and a priesthood who appealed not in vain to the fears of the judge. First he scornfully bids the Jews try Jesus according to their own law, knowing that they cannot put their prisoner to death (ch. 18:31); then catches, in the clamor, the word “Galilee,” and endeavors to rid himself of responsibility by sending the prisoner to Herod (Luke 23:4-12); on the return of the prisoner to his custody, proposes to release him, as a customary act of good-will, to the populace (Matt. 27:19-23; Mark 15:8-14); orders the scourging, in an idle hope so to satisfy the clamor of the mob (Matt. 27:26-30; Mark 15:15-19; John 19:1-3); having appealed in vain to their pity, appeals, also in vain, to their patriotism (John 19:4-15); and finally pronounces sentence of death only under an implied threat of complaint to the jealous Tiberius Cæsar (John 19:12, 16). But it would be a mistake to suppose that in this pitiable conflict with a mob, which it was Pilate’s first duty to quell, he was influenced by considerations of either humanity or justice. The contempt which a Roman soldier would naturally feel for the Jewish priesthood was intensified into a bitter personal hate by the fact that their cunning had twice overmatched his strength—once when, immediately after his inauguration, they had compelled him to remove the hated Roman standards from the city of Jerusalem to the old-time Roman military headquarters at Cæsarea Philippi; once when they had secured orders from Tiberius Cæsar directing him to take down the Roman shields from the vicinity of the temple. The one sentiment which was strong in a Roman soldier was that of justice; to be compelled by a Jewish mob, instigated by the Jewish priesthood, to assume the judicial robes only to do flagrant injustice in them, and that in executing the Jewish will, angered him. He was a tool in the hands of an unscrupulous and despised hierarchy; knew it, and fought against the humiliation weakly, and therefore in vain. He was also powerfully affected by the personal bearing of Christ. “If there is any power in the human countenance, in the eye, in the voice, in the whole air and manner of a man, that power must have been manifested in Jesus in the very highest degree. * * * Not that he (Pilate) had the slightest insight into the lofty nature of that power. His very ignorance of it served, by creating a feeling of mystery, only to heighten the effect of it upon his mind.”—(Furness.) And this effect was still further increased by the dream of his wife; for skepticism and superstition are twins, and the skeptical Pilate was not above the universal superstitions of his times. All these elements made Pilate angry with himself and with the hierarchy, but they did not serve in lieu of a noble resolution, which alone could have enabled him to resist the threatening danger of an emeute. So he dallied, argued, appealed, yielded. The crime of Pontius Pilate was the crime of moral cowardice. It was more appalling in its results, but it was not different in its nature, from the many manifestations of that crime which we all often witness, and which most of us sometimes have experienced.

Ch. 19:17-42. DEATH AND BURIAL OF JESUS.—A false judge writes a true epitaph (19).—A weak judge proves himself obstinate (22).—The inhumanity of man (24).—The sympathy of Christ illustrated (27).—The fulfillment of all Scripture (28).—Redemption a finished work (30).—The hypocrisy of ceremonialism (31).—The nature, meaning, and certainty of Christ’s death (34, 35).—The power of that death to make cowards courageous (38, 39).—The sepulchre in the garden; the tomb amid flowers (41, 42).

The accounts of all Evangelists should be compared. For chronological harmony and for full notes on what is common to them all, see Matt. 27:32-56. Several incidents are peculiar to Luke; some to John. The latter gives more fully the division of Christ’s garments among the soldiers (verses 23, 24); alone speaks of Christ’s parting words to his mother (verses 25-27), and of the piercing of his side (ver. 34).

17 And he bearing his cross went[699] forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha:

[699] Numb. 15:36; Heb. 13:12.

18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

17, 18. The cross was usually borne by the condemned. In this case it was transferred from Christ to Simon the Cyrene. See Matt. 27:32, note. The Hebrew word Golgotha is the same as the Latin word Calvary (Calvaria), and means a skull. The location is uncertain. For statement of different hypotheses and picture of most probable site, see Matt. 27:33, note.—The two others crucified with Christ were brigands, one of whom joined in the taunts of the multitude; the other rebuked his companion, and sought and obtained the blessing of the dying Redeemer. See Luke 23:39-43, notes.

19 And[700] Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

[700] Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38.

20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

19-22. And Pilate wrote a title. It was customary to bear before the condemned an inscription which designated his crime; this was subsequently attached to the cross, as a warning against similar offences.—The inscription in this case was written in the three languages of the time—that of the court (Latin), that of the Gentile population (Greek), and that of the Jews (Hebrew or Aramaic).—It really affixed a stigma rather upon the Jews than upon Jesus. Hence their attempt to have it altered, and Pilate’s refusal. The Jews were insulting Jesus; Pilate took a petty revenge upon them for their victory over him by insulting them. The inscription is reported by the four Evangelists, in all of them substantially, in none of them verbally, the same. Thus:

- This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.—(Matthew.)

- The King of the Jews.—(Mark.)

- This is the King of the Jews.—(Luke.)

- Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.—(John.)

Apparently there were three inscriptions, in the three different languages; some commentators suppose that they differed slightly, and that the variations in the language of the inscription indicate the variations in the original. See this ingeniously argued in Townsend’s N. T. But the better opinion is that the inscription was the same in the three languages, and that the verbal differences are such as we might expect from individual narrators, who, in minor details, were left to their own recollection. So Robinson, Alford, Greenleaf, etc. Analogous verbal differences are to be constantly met with in the Evangelists: Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27—Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30—Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28—Matt. 16:6-9; Mark 8:17-19—Matt. 20:33; Mark 10:51; Luke 18:41—Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9; Luke 19:38—Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42—Matt. 28:5, 6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5, 6. Pilate illustrates the difference between firmness and obstinacy. In yielding the crucifixion of an innocent man, Pilate showed a pitiable lack of firmness; in insisting on retaining an insulting inscription, he showed a petty obstinacy. In this inscription he was an unconscious prophet of the truth to all on-lookers—Greek, Roman, Jew. Comp. John 11:51, 52.

23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven[701] from the top throughout.

[701] Exod. 39:22.

24 They said therefore among themselves. Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith,[702] They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

[702] Ps. 22:18.

23, 24. The account of John of this incident is fuller and more exact than those of the other Evangelists. Comp. Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34. There were four soldiers—a quaternion—detailed to watch the execution of the sentence of the procurator. The clothing of the convicted was the perquisite of the soldiers. The outer garments of Christ were divided among them, one to each. The inner garment, or tunic, was a seamless robe, woven in one piece, probably of wool. There is no ground for the fanciful comparison of this robe with those worn by the priests, as though it indicated a priestly function on Christ’s part. There is more reason in the surmise that it was a gift to him by some of the women who had followed him from Galilee (Luke 8:1-3).—But this is a mere surmise, having no other support than the fact that the soldiers seem to have recognized in it a peculiar value, a garment which it were a pity to destroy. Dice were in Rome what cards are in modern life. One of the soldiers took a set out of his pocket; the helmet would have served as a dice-box; and thus, under the shadow of the cross, they gambled for this seamless robe. The incident affords a most striking illustration of the inhumanity of man, and scarcely less of the indurating influence of the passion for gambling. “No earthly creatures but gamblers could be so lost to all feeling as to sit down coolly under a dying man to wrangle for his garments, and arbitrate their avaricious differences by casting dice for his tunic, with hands spotted with his spattered blood, warm and yet undried upon them.”—(H. W. Beecher.) The twenty-second Psalm, to the prophecy of which John refers, was regarded by the Jews, as it has been universally regarded by all Christian critics, as a Messianic Psalm. A curious illustration of fanciful interpretation is afforded by Wordsworth’s treatment of this scene, though he quotes Augustine as his authority: The parted garments is an emblem of the church in its universality, to be sent out into the four quarters of the globe; the unparted garment is emblematic of the church in its unity, to be kept whole and unparted; the gambling soldiers are an emblem of those who treat the unity of the church of Christ as a matter of indifference.

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas,[703] and Mary Magdalene.

[703] Luke 24:18.

26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by,[704] whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman,[705] behold thy son!

[704] ch. 13:23.

[705] ch. 2:4.

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother![706] And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own[707] home.

[706] 1 Tim. 5:2.

[707] ch. 16:32.

25-27. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, etc. There is some question whether we are to understand by this verse that there were four women there, or only three. Some scholars read the phrases “his mother’s sister” and “Mary of Cleophas” as in apposition, and suppose them to refer to the same person; but the better opinion regards them as different persons, the mother’s sister being identified with Salome, the mother of James and John, who, if this interpretation be correct, were own cousins to Jesus. See Note on the Twelve Apostles, Matthew, ch. 10, Vol. I, p. 148, where this question is more fully discussed. It is important only in its bearing on the question of the relationship of Jesus to James and John.—Woman, behold thy son; * * * behold thy mother. Some doubt has been thrown on this incident by rationalistic critics, who have thought it improbable that these women could have been standing near enough to the cross to hear the words of Jesus; or that they could have been willing to do so; or that the incident, if it really occurred, could have escaped the other Evangelists; for it is peculiar to John. The answer to this criticism is admirably given by Dr. Furness: “Unquestionably it must have been agonizing to her to witness that awful sight. And it would have been no less agonizing to her to keep at a distance from him. May she not have thought within herself, ‘It kills me to see him suffer so, but I cannot lose a word that may fall from his lips; perhaps he may speak to me’? The women friends of Jesus stood looking on at a distance; but if there were one among them who stood nearer to the cross than the others, it must have been his mother. Here again the words of Jesus to his mother and the beloved disciple lose the living truth of nature in our Common Version, which gives them in the form of complete sentences, ‘Woman, behold thy son,’ and to John, ‘Behold thy mother.’ But in the original it is ‘Woman! look! thy son!’ and to John, ‘Look! thy mother!’ brief as possible, ejaculatory, broken, and in the fullest accord with the physical condition in which he then was—a state of extreme torture, admitting only at the moment of such imperfect utterance. His mother was not very near the cross, but near enough to allow Jesus, by a strong effort mastering his agony, to gasp out these few words, leaving it to the keen sense of his mother and John to make out his meaning. Indeed, if I could suspect such an incident as this to be an invention, I should not know what limit to assign to the inventive power of the authors of the Gospels.”—(Notes on Schenckel’s Character of Jesus.)—And from that hour that disciple took her to his own. The words from that hour are not to be taken literally, as though John and the mother of Jesus did not remain till death had brought the lingering tortures of the crucifixion to an end. The words his own are more significant without the addition of the word home, added by the translators. John took the mother into his own circle, and as his own mother, from that time. The language does not imply that he had a fixed domicile in Jerusalem. This is not inherently probable, for he was a Galilean; and certainly nothing recorded had occurred to make any of the disciples prior to this time inclined to take up a permanent residence in Jerusalem.

28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture[708] might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

[708] Ps. 69:21.

29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It[709] is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave[710] up the ghost.

[709] ch. 17:4.

[710] Isa. 53:10, 12; Heb. 2:14, 15.

28-30. See Matt. 27:47-49, notes. The incident is common to all the Evangelists, but their accounts are quite different. John alone repeats the utterance, “It is finished,” which is to be regarded not merely as a presage of death, equivalent to, The era of suffering is ended, the era of joy begins; but as triumphant and prophetic: The work which thou gavest me to do is finished (ch. 17:4); and this because Christ died once for all, thus perfecting a sacrificing which needs never to be repeated (Heb. 9:28), and because by it he offers to the believer a redemption which is finished, and which needs not to be supplemented to make it efficacious. The cry of almost despair, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” was followed by the cry of triumph, uttered with a loud voice (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46); and then, with the prayer, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46), he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. Some scholars (Chrysostom, Hengstenberg, Godet, etc.) hold that the reference to prophecy here is to Psalm 69:21, and that the meaning is that Christ said “I thirst” in order to fulfill prophecy; others (Meyer, Luthardt) make the phrase “that the Scripture might be fulfilled” dependent on the preceding clause, and the meaning to be that all things were accomplished that the Scripture might be fulfilled. This seems to me to be the better interpretation. The other makes Christ utter the expression of thirst for the purpose of calling forth in others the fulfillment of a prophecy. It may be remarked here that the constant use of the phrase that the Scripture might be fulfilled gives to a casual reader the impression that a multitude of minor incidents were ordered by God, and unimportant acts were performed by Christ, merely to fulfill O. T. prophecy. The reader must, however, remember that the Gospels were written primarily for Jewish readers in large measure, and that the test by which every Jew determined whether or no Jesus was the Messiah was by asking the question, Does he fulfill the ancient prophecies? While, therefore, it is true that Christ’s life does fulfill, even in marvellously minute details, the prophecies of the O. T., it is also true that these fulfillments are pointed out by the Evangelists with an emphasis which in our time seems excessive, but which was not so in their age and for their immediate purpose. Compare the apostolic speeches to Jewish audiences, as reported in Acts, which are almost wholly devoted to proving that Christ’s life and death were in accordance with ancient Jewish prophecies.

31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation,[711] that the bodies should not remain[712] upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for[713] that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

[711] verse 42.

[712] Deut. 21:23.

[713] Lev. 23:7, 8.

32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood[714] and water.[715]

[714] Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 John 5:6, 8.

[715] 1 Pet. 3:21.

35 And[716] he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

[716] 1 John 1:1-3.

36 For these things were done, that the scripture[717] should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

[717] Exod. 12:46; Numb. 9:12; Ps. 34:20.

37 And again another scripture[718] saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

[718] Ps. 22:16; Zech. 12:10; Rev. 1:7.

31-37. Because it was the preparation. That is, for the Sabbath. At first the hours, then the entire day, immediately preceding the Sabbath, was called by the Jews the Preparation. See on ver. 14, and more fully on Mark 15:42. The Jews, who had no hesitation about compassing by the most unscrupulous methods the death of an innocent man, were scrupulous about leaving his corpse to hang on the cross over the Sabbath—a notable illustration of Sabbatical ceremonialism. It was the Roman custom to leave the corpse to putrefy; this was forbidden by the Jewish law, which, partly as a sanitary, partly as a ceremonial regulation, required immediate burial. See Deut. 21:23.—That their legs might be broken. A barbarous but not uncommon method of accelerating death, adopted in order to enhance rather than mitigate the horrors of the execution.—Then came the soldiers and brake the legs, etc. The implication is, of course, that this was done under the orders of Pilate. Nor is there anything inconsistent in this account with that in Mark (Mark 15:44), that Pilate was surprised to learn that Jesus was dead, and inquired into the certainty of the fact before giving permission to Joseph of Arimathea to remove the body. For when the death of Jesus was reported to him, the circumstances would also have been reported; and thus Pilate would have known that the soldiers found him already dead when they came to break the legs of the three.—But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and water. On the physical significance of this fact, see below, Note on the Physical Cause of Christ’s Death. From it the spiritualizing commentators have drawn many mystical lessons, most of them of very doubtful profit; e. g., the comparison of the drawing of Eve from the side of Adam and the drawing of the church from the side of Christ; the necessity of both blood and water to regeneration (ch. 3:5); the use of both as emblems of the sacraments, etc. All such uses of this incident belong at best to the poet, not the commentator, and its use even by the poet must be cautious, or it becomes unprofitable. The object of the spear-thrust was not to determine whether death had actually taken place so much as to ensure death, if there were any doubt. The record is given partly to set at rest the ancient Gnostic skeptical whim that the death took place only in seeming; it equally does set at rest the suggestion of more modern skepticism that Christ merely fainted from exhaustion and was subsequently restored by the disciples.—And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true, etc. The use of this phraseology shows the importance which John gave to this particular fact; partly, perhaps, because it established the all-important fact of the actual death of the Lord, the culmination of his life of self-sacrifice, and equally the foundation of that proof of his divinity which is afforded by his resurrection from the dead. But I believe that it also gives emphasis to the real cause of the death of our Lord—a broken heart, broken for the sins of the world, which he bore on the tree. It is also a water-mark of authorship. “The testimony thus declared to be veracious is just the record itself which the narrator was setting down; and, as he says it comes from no other than the eye-witness, he certainly gives us to understand that he, the Evangelist, is also the disciple whom Jesus loved.”—(James Martineau.)—The prophetic Scriptures referred to are Exod. 12:46 and

Zech. 12:10. The first passage, “A bone of him shall not be broken,” refers primarily to the paschal lamb; but that lamb was regarded by the Jews, and is treated both by the Old Testament and the New, as a type of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.

Note on the Physical Cause of Christ’s Death.—The immediate cause of Christ’s death is veiled in obscurity; for a brief statement of various critical opinions on this subject, see Meyer’s notes on this passage. I believe that there is at least good reason for the opinion that he died of a literally broken heart. Crucifixion produced a very lingering death. No vital organ was directly affected. The victim rarely died in less than twenty-four hours. Instances are recorded of his lingering a full week. It was customary to dispatch the condemned after a few hours of torture by speedier means. This was done in the case of the thieves. Pilate was surprised at the intelligence that Jesus was already dead. The guard seems to have shared that surprise. Up to the last moment there was no sign of weakness, no decay of power or vitality. Jesus conversed with the thief and spoke to his friends. His last cry was not that of exhausted nature; he cried with a loud—literally great, i. e., strong—voice. His death was instant. There was something remarkable in it—something that attracted the attention of the centurion and his band. It followed immediately after the cry, “My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?” This agony succeeded that of Gethsemane. In that midnight struggle the heart and blood-vessels were affected. The palpitation of the heart was so intense as to cause bloody sweat—a phenomenon rare, but not unknown, and produced by intense mental excitement. That this was a truly bloody sweat, see Luke 22:44, note. The heart would probably have been weakened by such an experience. A repetition of the agony then endured might truly rupture the membrane of the heart. Such an experience has been known to produce such a result. If it did, death would instantly ensue. The blood would flow into the pericardium, an outer sac in which the heart is enclosed; there it would be liable to separate very rapidly into clots of extravasated blood and water. When the soldier thrust the spear into Jesus’ side, it was probably with a double purpose: to ascertain whether Jesus was dead; to ensure his death if he were not. For this purpose he would aim at the heart. The spear would pierce, of course, the left, not the right side, as portrayed in nearly all art representations of the crucifixion. The water, followed and accompanied by the clots of blood, would flow from the wound. It is impossible to account for this phenomenon, not only recorded by John, but evidently regarded by him of considerable importance, except upon the hypothesis of a broken heart, or of some organic disease. Andrews’s hypothesis that it was supernatural has nothing but a devout surmise to sustain it. The reader who desires to investigate this subject more thoroughly will find by far the fullest and ablest discussion of it in Stroud’s Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, London, 1847, especially ch. iv, pp. 73-156, and notes iv and v, pp. 389-420. If this is not within his reach, he will find a brief but adequate statement of the argument in M’Clintock and Strong’s Biblical Cyclopædia, art. Crucifixion.

38 And after this Joseph of Arimathæa, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for[719] fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

[719] ch. 9:22; 12:42.

39 And there came also[720] Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and[721] brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

[720] ch. 3:1, 2; 7:50.

[721] 2 Chron. 16:14.

40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound[722] it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

[722] Acts 5:6.

41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

42 There[723] laid they Jesus therefore because[724] of the Jews’ preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

[723] Isa. 53:9; 1 Cor. 15:4.

[724] verse 31.

38-42. After this came Joseph of Arimathea. Of him nothing is known except what may be gathered from the accounts of the Evangelists concerning him in this connection. Mark implies that he was a member of the Sanhedrim (Mark 15:43), and Luke that he had nothing to do with the condemnation of Jesus; probably was not present (see Luke 23:51, note), either because he knew what was coming before them and that his resistance would be in vain, or because the others knew his character, and did not summon him. Luke also describes him as a “good man and just.” His act in requesting the body of Christ after the crucifixion was one requiring some courage. In later martyrdoms such a request cost men their lives; in this case it must at least have cost Joseph much obloquy. The site of Arimathea is entirely uncertain. The effect of Christ’s death to make the cowardly strong is noticed by all commentators.—Pilate gave him leave. After making sure that Christ was really dead (Mark 15:44, 45).—Took the body of Jesus. This taking down from the cross was probably done by the loving hands of the disciples; this is more probable than that it was done by the Roman soldiers. Their last duty was performed when they made sure of the death of the condemned.—There came also Nicodemus. It was now even, that is, the early evening, probably between four o’clock and sunset. See Matt. 27:57, note. On the character of Nicodemus, see ch. 3:1, note.—Brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. “Myrrh-resin and aloe-wood; these fragrant materials (Ps. 45:8) were placed, in a pulverized condition, between the bandages. But the surprising quantity (comp. ch. 12:3) is here explained from the fact that superabundant reverence in its sorrowful excitement does not easily satisfy itself; we may also assume that a portion of the spices was designed for the couch of the body in the grave” (Meyer); or to be burned. See below.—As the manner of the Jews is to bury. There is no evidence that the Hebrews ever practised systematic embalming, as the Egyptians did. In the O. T. there is but one mention of any such practice, that of the case of Asa, and he was not properly embalmed, but laid in the bed which he had prepared for himself “with perfumes and spices” (2 Chron. 16:14). It appears to have been the custom in the time of Christ to wash the body and anoint it, then to wrap it in fine linen, with spices and ointments enveloped in the folds, and afterwards to pour more ointment upon it, and sometimes to burn spices. In the case of Christ, the approach of the Sabbath hurried the preparations of the body, which were not yet completed at sunset, and were left to be finished the day after the Sabbath.—Comparing the four accounts of the burial, it appears that the body was wrapped in fine linen, with some of the spices, and laid hurriedly away in a rock-hewn sepulchre in a garden near the place of the crucifixion, one in which no previous burial had ever taken place. According to Matthew, it belonged to Joseph (Matt. 27:59, 60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53, 54). For illustration of the body prepared for burial, see Acts 5:6, note; for illustration of Jewish tomb, see Mark 16:2-4, notes. For a striking sermon on the Significance of the Sepulchre in the Garden, sorrow amid flowers, see Harper’s edition of H. W. Beecher’s sermons.

CHAPTER XX.

Ch. 20:1-31. THE RISEN LORD.—The testimony of eye-witnesses to the resurrection.—The intuitions of love (8).—The consolation of life to grief at the empty tomb.—The power of Christ’s voice.—The commission of Christ’s disciples: sent as Christ; their endowment: the gift of the Holy Ghost; their authority: to save, to judge.—Modern unbelief in an ancient experience.—Christ’s answer to the reluctant skeptic.—The object of the Fourth Gospel.

The accounts of the resurrection and the incidents in the life of our Lord between the resurrection and the ascension given by the four Evangelists are very different, and in some respects seemingly inconsistent. The discrepancies have been magnified, and dwelt upon by rationalizing critics as a reason for regarding the accounts as unhistorical. For a comparison of the four narratives, a statement of the differences between them, and a hypothetical harmony, see Note on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Matthew, ch. 28, Vol. I, p. 330. Alford goes too far in saying that all attempts at harmony are fruitless, though certainly all harmonies are hypothetical, and perhaps at best only show that there is no radical and essential inconsistency in the four narratives.

The[725] first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

[725] Matt. 28:1, etc.; Mark 16:1, etc.; Luke 24:1, etc.

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom[726] Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

[726] ch. 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 24.

3 Peter[727] therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

[727] Luke 24:12.

1-3. Matthew says the women came “as it began to dawn,” Mark “at the rising of the sun.” John is the one most likely to have been well informed, as he was the first one to whom the women reported the facts; and his language, therefore, is probably the most minutely accurate. The time indicated by a comparison of the three accounts is the early dawn, before the sun was fairly up.—With Mary Magdalene came Mary the mother of Joses, Salome, and apparently Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1, 10). That John recognized that there were more than one is indicated by the use of the plural here in the report made to the other disciples of the disappearance of the Lord’s body: “We know not where they have laid him.” Meyer, indeed, argues that the reason borrowed from we know, in verse 2, for the plurality of the women at the grave, is outweighed by I know, in verse 13; but this is fallacious, for the fact that Mary was alone at the grave when Jesus spoke to her would not prove, nor even indicate, that she was alone when she first came to it. On the contrary, it is evident that she, with the other women, returned to the city when they found the grave empty (ver. 2; comp. Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:9), and it is probable that she returned again to the tomb, following Peter and John, to sorrow there. For illustration of sepulchre and rolling stone door, see notes on Mark 16:2-4. For account of the rolling away of the stone, see Matt. 28:2 and note. The report of the women, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him, shows that they had no expectation of the resurrection of their Lord, such as rationalism has imputed to them in explaining their belief in the resurrection appearances as freaks of a sanguine and excited imagination. They supposed that the grave had been robbed by Christ’s enemies, and the body hidden; and, in fact, this method of accounting for the disappearance of the Lord’s body is to be found in some of the later Jewish writings, though it has never gained credence even among rationalistic critics.

4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun[728] Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

[728] Luke 13:30.

5 And he, stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes[729] lying; yet went he not in.

[729] ch. 19:40.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin,[730] that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

[730] ch. 11:44.

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

9 For as yet they knew not the[731] scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

[731] Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:25-31; 13:34, 35.

10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

4-10. This narrative bears the unmistakable impress of coming from an eye-witness, and all the commentators recognize its striking accordance with the well-known characteristics of the two disciples. The information, which from Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts we should suppose to have been given to all the disciples, appears from John’s more minute narrative to have been given only to Peter and John, for there is little doubt that John refers to himself in the phrase “the other disciple whom Jesus loved.” See ch. 13:22, note. They were both greatly excited by the news of the supposed desecration of the tomb, and hastened to the spot to see for themselves. Mary Magdalene, as the sequel shows, followed them more slowly.—John, who there is reason to believe was the younger, and therefore not improbably the more agile of the two, reached the sepulchre first, but was awed at approaching the grave of his Lord, and waited without, simply looking in through the open door to assure himself that the tomb was really empty.—Peter, who was never hindered by his sense of reverence, entered the sepulchre boldly as soon as he arrived, and John followed him. They found the tomb empty, but the winding-sheet in which the body was wrapped (ch. 19:40, note), and the napkin that was about the head, were folded and laid in so orderly a manner as to negative the opinion that the grave had been rifled.—The moment John saw the contents of the tomb the truth flashed upon his mind. His quick intuitions recalled and interpreted Christ’s misunderstood prophecies of his own resurrection: he saw and believed. To interpret this phrase as meaning simply “he saw that the body of Jesus was not there, and believed that it had been removed, as Mary Magdalene had said” (Bengel), is to do violence to the original, for John habitually uses this word believed (πιστεύω) of spiritual apprehension. Nor is there any boast in the implication that he alone believed; the fact is important, for we thus learn when the faith in a risen Saviour first dawned on humanity; and John could not state it more modestly.

11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked[732] into the sepulchre,

[732] Mark 16:5.

12 And seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

11-13. Mary, who apparently had followed Peter and John to the sepulchre, remained after their departure, to weep. She also stooped and looked into the sepulchre, but she was so preoccupied with the conclusion which she had already hastily formed, that the orderly arrangement of the grave-clothes produced no effect upon her mind.—For her some further disclosure of the truth was necessary; to her, therefore, the angels appeared. Mary is not startled either at their appearance or their words (comp. Luke 1:29); perhaps she is too entirely absorbed in her grief at the disappearance of the Lord’s body.—In answer to their question she repeats what she had reported to the disciples: “They (the Lord’s enemies) have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.” It is by a very forced accommodation that this text is applied to or used to illustrate that philosophy which denies the divinity and atonement of Christ; for here it was the outward crucified tabernacle which had been taken away, that the victorious Spirit might be more effectively imparted. The objection of rationalistic critics that the angels had not been seen by Peter and John is well answered by Godet: “Angels are not visible and immovable, like stone statues.”

14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and[733] saw Jesus standing, and knew not[734] that it was Jesus.

[733] Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9.

[734] ch. 21:4; Luke 24:16, 31.

15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and[735] I will take him away.

[735] Cant. 3:2.

14, 15. Mary turned back from looking into the tomb, not attracted by any sound of Christ’s approach—at least of this there is no intimation in the narrative—but more probably in the very restlessness of grief. Her failure to recognize Jesus is best explained, not by any natural cause, as the dimness of the morning light, or her inattention to the person of the supposed stranger, but by the analogous experience of the disciples in their walk to Emmaus, when Christ appeared to them “in another form” (Mark 16:12), and “their eyes were holden, that they should not know him” (Luke 24:16).—Mary’s surmise that the unknown was the gardener was a natural one. “Who else could it be in the garden so early in the morning?”—(Meyer.) The elaborate discussion of the question whether he had on the clothing of a gardener is a somewhat striking illustration of the profitless and wholly fruitless debate which is unhappily only too common in Biblical interpretation. In the wildness of her grief she surmised that the gardener might know what had become of the body, might even have taken part in its removal—a wild surmise, since the tomb and the garden both belonged to a disciple of Christ (Matt. 27:60). Her assurance, “I will take him away,” is made in the strength of a love which promises without reflecting whether it can perform.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary.[736] She turned[737] herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

[736] ch. 10:3; Isa. 43:1.

[737] Cant. 3:4.

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren,[738] and say unto them, I[739] ascend unto my Father, and[740] your Father; and to my[741] God, and your[742] God.

[738] Ps. 22:22; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11.

[739] ch. 16:28.

[740] Rom. 8:14, 15; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26; 4:6, 7.

[741] Ephes. 1:17.

[742] Gen. 17:7, 8; Ps. 43:4, 5; 48:14; Isa. 41:10; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:28; Zech. 13:9; Heb. 11:16; Rev. 21:3.

18 Mary Magdalene came[743] and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

[743] Matt. 28:10.

16-18. Christ’s utterance of her name in well-remembered accents disclosed him to her. She had before but listlessly regarded him; she now turned fully toward him, instantly recognized him, responded to her name with a word full of reverential affection—“Rabboni, Master”—and would have thrown herself at his feet and embraced him but for his prohibition. In an instant she was translated from the profoundest grief to the most exalted ecstasy of love, but her intended expression of that love did not accord with that spiritual communion which the risen Lord proposed to vouchsafe to his disciples. The original rendered touch (ἃπτω) signifies literally to hang upon some one. “She desired to seize, grasp, hold Jesus, in order to enjoy his society and to satisfy her love (comp. Luke 7:36).”—(Luthardt.) Or, perhaps, to convince herself that she was not under an illusion, and to hold fast to the Christ whom she had already twice lost—once in the crucifixion, once in the disappearance of the body from the tomb. There appears to be an inconsistency between Christ’s prohibition here and the statement in Matt. 28:9 that the women “came and held him by the feet.” I believe the account there to be an imperfect report of the event more accurately reported here. See note on Matt. 28:9, 10. Why the fact that Christ had not yet ascended to his Father should be assigned as a reason for not embracing him has given rise to much discussion among the commentators. An account of the explanations which have been afforded, some of which are fanciful to the verge of absurdity, may be found both in Luthardt and Meyer. The true interpretation seems to me to be this: Christ had promised to his disciples that after he had gone to his Father he would return to be with them, that they might be in him and he in them, as he was in the Father and the Father in him. This interpretation of his death as a departure to be with the Father, and this accompanying promise to return and be with them, form the burden of his discourse in John, chaps. 14-16. He restrained Mary from embracing him by declaring that he had not yet gone to the Father, that the time for the fulfillment of this promise of his fellowship had not yet come, and that she must yet look forward to the future for that intimacy of intercourse which he had foretold. He did not stop to enter into fuller explanations, but his words point to that spiritual acquaintance with Christ to which Paul gives expression in the declaration, “Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor. 6:16). But though refusing to allow Mary to embrace him, he conferred upon her a far greater honor in commissioning her to be the first preacher of the resurrection. By characterizing his disciples as his brethren, he indicated that he was still in the flesh. The body with which he had risen was the same in which he was crucified. See Luke 24:39, note. The language of his message, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God,” indicates certainly that the sonship of the disciple is not the same as the sonship of the only begotten Son of God. He does not say our Father. Cyril’s interpretation, “My Father by nature; your Father by adoption,”

is just, though attributed to rather than found in the words. The Father is by Paul called “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephes. 1:17).

19 Then[744] the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

[744] Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36; 1 Cor. 15:5.

20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then[745] were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

[745] ch. 16:22.

19, 20. Of this interview Mark gives a briefer, Luke a quite different report (Mark 16:14-16; Luke 24:36-49). As John was the only one of the Evangelists present who has given any account of the interview, it may be assumed that his is the more accurate. It is possible that Luke’s account of Christ’s eating broiled fish and a honeycomb, to convince them that he was in the flesh, may have been derived from the subsequent interview in Galilee, reported by John in ch. 21:12-14. The event here recorded took place after the appearance of Christ to the two disciples in their walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). This was the first appearance of Christ, after the resurrection, to the apostles in a body. The doors were probably not only shut, but locked, as a protection; the fear of the Jews was natural, for it was reasonable to expect that the crucifixion of the Master would be followed by an attempt to pursue and punish the disciples; and this natural expectation was increased by the prophecies of persecution which formed a part of Christ’s final instructions. The fact that Jesus entered through the closed door does not indicate that the body was other than the natural body which had been laid in the grave; and Christ’s language at this very time, as reported by Luke, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have,” appears to be conclusive that his resurrection body was his physical body. It is as futile to ask how, with a natural body, he could enter through the closed door, as to ask how he could walk upon the water. Miracles defy explanation. It is to be observed, however, that the Evangelist does not state that Jesus entered through the closed door. He simply states the two facts which came within his own observation: the doors were closed, and while so closed, suddenly Jesus was seen standing in the midst of the disciples, within the room. The greeting, “Peace be unto you,” was a common Jewish salutation. Like the salutation “It is I, be not afraid,” with which Christ greeted the frightened disciples in the storm-tossed boat on the Sea of Galilee (ch. 6:20), it was addressed to calm their natural perturbation at the sudden apparition. This it must have done the more effectually in that it recalled to their minds the benediction of his final discourse, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth give I unto you” (ch. 14:27). The showing of his hands and side was further to convince them of his identity; and it appears probable, from the language of Thomas (ver. 25), from the report of Luke (Luke 24:39), and from the language of John in his Epistle (1 John 1:1), that the disciples handled as well as looked upon the body of their Lord.

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace[746] be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so[747] send I you.

[746] ch. 14:27.

[747] ch. 17:18; Matt. 28:19; 2 Tim. 2:2; Heb. 3:1.

21. This is John’s report of the commission given by Christ to his disciples after the resurrection, and should be compared with that of Matthew (28:18-20), which, however, appears to have been given later. Mark’s report of the apostolic commission (Mark 16:15-18) is of doubtful authenticity, and Luke’s account (Luke 24:45-49) is to be regarded rather as a summary of Christ’s post-resurrection instructions than as the report of any single commission. It is, as Meyer well remarks, significant that the mission of the disciples previously implied was formally and solemnly ratified at the first meeting after the resurrection. On the significance of this commission, see ch. 17:18, note. It was his response to their exhibition of gladness upon seeing him again, and implied that their joy in their Lord was not to be consummated until they had followed him in his ministry of humiliation and sacrifice.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive[748] ye the Holy Ghost.

[748] Acts 2:4, 38.

23 Whose soever[749] sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

[749] Matt. 16:19; 18:18.

22, 23. He breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Breath is a natural symbol of life; in the Bible it is used as a symbol of the divine life. God breathes into man the breath of life (Gen. 2:7); in the vision of Ezekiel the wind breathes on the dry bones and clothes them with life (Ezek. 37:9, 10); in Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus the life-giving power of God is compared to the breath of wind (ch. 3:8); and it is significant of the extent to which this symbol underlies Scripture that the Greek word used for spirit is the one also used for wind, which is poetically represented as the breath of God. Here, by breathing on the apostles, Christ symbolically imparted to them that divine life which man never acquires, which God alone can give. Receive ye the Holy Ghost is not to be regarded as a promise to be fulfilled at Pentecost—it is not equivalent to, Ye shall receive the Holy Ghost; nor as a full bestowal of the power of the Spirit, which came not till Pentecost; but as an earnest of the gift yet to be more fully bestowed in successive endowments through all the future ages of the church. This gift of the Holy Ghost is to be connected with the commission which precedes: “As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.” It is given to all who accept this Christian commission, that is, who believe in Christ through the word of the apostles, and, believing, become true followers of him. It is also to be connected with the authority conferred in the verse which follows. See below. There is a possible significance in the omission of the definite article in the original, which, if literally translated, would read, Receive ye a holy spirit. We receive a spirit of true holiness only as the divine life is breathed upon us by the inspiration of God (Titus 3:4-6).—Whose soever sins ye put away, they are put away from them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. This passage is confessedly difficult of interpretation. In considering it I endeavor, first, to put the English reader in possession of the exact meaning of the original; next, to suggest to him what seems to me to be the true interpretation of the passage; and finally to give him briefly other interpretations. (1) The word rendered remit signifies primarily and properly to dismiss, put away, get rid of. As applied to sin in the N. T., it indicates not a mere release from the threatened penalty of transgression, but redemption from the power of the sin itself. See Matt. 6:12, note. The divine forgiveness of sins is interpreted by such promises as those of Micah 7:19: “He will subdue our iniquities, and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea;” and Isaiah 44:22: “I have blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgressions, and as a cloud thy sins.” In the first clause of this verse, therefore, there is no hint of any power in apostle or apostolic successor to forgive sins, or to declare with authority sins forgiven, or to declare under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to what character and on what terms sins shall be forgiven. There is simply the declaration that when the disciple of Christ, acting under his Master’s commission and with the power given by the inbreathed gift of the Holy Ghost, does in fact put away, dismiss, get rid of sin, in the individual or the community, the work shall not be in vain in the Lord—the devil so cast out shall not return to find the house swept and garnished and take possession of it again (Matt. 12:44, 45). The work shall abide. Thus the first clause of this verse embodies a promise like that of Isaiah 55:11, and is interpreted by its fulfillment in Paul’s experience, as in 1 Thess. 1:4-7. The second clause, Whose soever sins ye retain shall be retained, is more difficult of interpretation. The word rendered retain primarily signifies to possess power, then to exercise it. It is employed both in classic and later Greek, with many derivative significations—to rule, conquer, subdue, seize, keep, hold fast. It is translated in the N. T. by the terms hold or hold fast, keep, lay hand on, obtain, take, and, here only, retain. It is sometimes used in a material sense, that is, of the exercise of physical power, as in Matt. 9:25, he took her by the hand, or Matt. 26:48, hold him fast (comp. verses 50, 55, 57); sometimes it is used in an immaterial sense, that is, of the exercise of a mental power, as in Col. 2:19 of Christians who fall away from grace not holding the head, or Mark 7:3 of the Pharisees who hold the traditions of the elders. But it never loses wholly its primary and germinant significance of the possession and exercise of power. It cannot therefore here be rendered, without a violation of the original, Whose soever sins ye permit to retain their hold on the sinner shall be allowed to be retained; some real exercise of power on the part of the person receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is indicated. There is also an antithesis apparent in the original, as in our English version, between the two clauses of the verse, i. e., between remitting or letting go and retaining or not letting go. We have the same antithesis, between the same words, though there used in a physical sense, in Mark 12:12, They sought to lay hold on him, * * * but they left him and went their way. It seems to me that by this latter clause a power is conferred, the more awful that it is not clearly, and perhaps cannot be by any possibility clearly defined—a power to fasten sin on the sinner by sentence of condemnation, as there is power to put away sin by the proclamation of the salvation. This power is given upon the conditions implied in the commission, As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you, and in the gift, Receive ye the gift of the Holy Ghost; that is, it is conferred, not on the apostles merely, all of whom were not present (ver. 24); nor on them and their successors, for of successors the N. T. furnishes no limit; nor on an ordained priesthood or ministry; but on all who accept Christ’s commission, and in that commission seek and obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost; and it is theirs just in the measure in which they receive and act under his divine influence. (2) I read, then, in this language of Christ, the bestowal of a twofold spiritual power—one of salvation, the other of judgment. The disciple is sent into the world as his Master was sent into the world, like him to become a teacher of divine truth, an example to others, a manifestation of the divine character, a bearer in his own person of the sins of others. See ch. 17:18, note. But also like him he is to be a judge. The Master’s fan is to be in his hand. He who has power to proclaim salvation has also authority to pronounce condemnation, and the one declaration no less than the other, when uttered under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God, is uttered with divine authority. Instances of this judgment against wilful and determined sin are afforded by Christ’s denunciation of the Pharisees; by Peter’s condemnation of Ananias and Sapphira, and of Simon Magus; by Paul’s judgment against the offender in the church of Corinth. Illustrations of perversions of this power are afforded by the anathemas of the church of the middle ages, and perhaps by some of the severe denunciations of the Puritans. It has been variously illustrated by preachers of judgment from the days of Jeremiah to those of John Knox. Such a sentence, when uttered, as it often has been, under the influence of malign passion, or of ecclesiastical ambition, is but an ill-spent breath; but when it is the voice of a spirit of truth and holiness, aroused to righteous indignation in the presence of inveterate sin, and is uttered by a soul acting under the conscious influence of the Divine Spirit, the sentence becomes an awful one, because it is an echo of the inaudible sentence of God himself. I must add emphasis to the statement that, as I read this passage, this power belongs, not to a hierarchy, priesthood, or ministry, but to the Christian soul, by virtue of its direct life in and with God, and to such soul only when acting in its highest moods and with the direct and conscious influence of the Spirit of God upon it. This authority, here bestowed on all who are inspired by a divinely imparted spirit of holiness, interprets and measurably explains the power of a holy soul, before which often, in the history of the race, the most august personages have trembled, they knew not why. Of course this interpretation will be at once rejected by those who would abolish judgment from eternity, much more from this present life, and treat sin only as an immaturity or a disease; but possibly the church would be more efficient in its proclamation of the gospel to penitent sinners, if its spirit of holiness were sometimes aroused to pronounce the sentence of God against persistent sin; perhaps it would call to the Lord more of the publicans and sinners, if it had more of his spirit of judgment against the temple traders and the Pharisees. (3) The principal other interpretations of this passage are the following: (a) That the Lord gave power to the apostles to absolve men from sin and fasten sin upon them, but that this was a purely personal power, belonging to the apostolic age, and ceasing with the gifts of miracles, of tongues, etc. But this interpretation dissociates the power here conferred from the accompanying commission and gift, or confines the latter to the apostles, while the general teaching of the Scriptures gives both to all believers. See ch. 17:18, 20; Acts 2:38, 39. It would exclude Thomas, who was not present at this interview, and Paul, who was not one of the eleven. (b) That a power of infallibly absolving and anathematizing is here conferred, but that it belongs exclusively to the apostles and their successors, the self-perpetuating hierarchy. This is the ecclesiastical view, held very generally by the Roman Catholic church, and in a modified form by many among the hierarchical denominations generally. But there is neither here nor anywhere else in the N. T. any hint of any power in the apostles to appoint successors, nor any hint that they ever did so. And indeed the very nature of their office, which was to bear personal witness to the facts of Christ’s life and death and resurrection, was such that in the nature of the case no successors were possible (ch. 15:27; Acts 1:21, 22; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8). On this point the dictum of an English dean is significant: “This gift belongs to the church in all ages, and especially to those who by legitimate appointment are set to minister in the churches of Christ: not by successive delegation from the apostles, of which fiction I find in the N. T. no trace, but by their mission from Christ, the bestower of the spirit for their office, when orderly and legitimately conferred upon them by the various churches. Not, however, to them exclusively, though for decency and order it is expedient that the outward and formal declaration should be so; but in proportion as any disciple shall have been filled with the holy spirit of wisdom is the inner discernment his.”—(Alford.) (c) The power here promised is one which in a very general way accompanies the preaching of the gospel; that it is a promise that “they should be taught by the Holy Ghost to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins.” This, which is Mr. Barnes’s interpretation, seems to me entirely inadequate. It reduces a definite and positive promise of divine ratification of human judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to a mere enunciation of the general principle that the ministers of Christ shall be ministers of the truth. (d) That the two clauses of the sentence are, the one a promise, the other a warning; that Christians remit sin when, by their influence, their example, or their teaching, they induce sinners to repent of sin and abandon it; that they retain sin when, by their negligence, their acquiescence, or their approval, they directly or indirectly help to fasten sins on the individual or the community; and that Christ promises his disciples great results if they are faithful, and warns them of equally great but terrible results if they are remiss or culpable. The original does not seem to me capable of this rendering, for it ignores the fundamental meaning of the word rendered retain (κρῦέω), which always indicates some real exercise of power, never a failure or a neglect to exercise it. See above. The view which I have adopted is not very widely different from that of Alford, Meyer, Ryle, Calvin, Watkins, and the best of the Protestant commentators generally, except that, with Godet, I regard the promise as conferring on the moral judgments of the disciple a real efficacy, while the commentators generally regard it as simply a promise of wisdom spiritually to perceive and declare judgments which shall be in accordance with the divine will. This interpretation is also adopted by some of the more evangelical of the Roman Catholic divines, e. g., Quesnel in modern and Chrysostom in ancient times, both of whom regard the priest as an ambassador of God, and as speaking by authority only in so far as he is filled with the Holy Ghost. “But why speak I of priests? Neither angel nor archangel can do anything with regard to what is given him of God; but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost dispenseth all, while the priest lends his tongue and affords his hand.”—(Chrysostom.) “That such a judgment may be pronounced upon sinners as is fit to be approved of God, and to be confirmed in heaven, it must be such as is according to the Spirit of God, who is given for that purpose, and to the rules prescribed by Christ to sinners, of which the priest is only the minister.”—(Quesnel.)

24 But Thomas,[750] one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

[750] ch. 11:16.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he[751] said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

[751] Ps. 78:11, 32.

24, 25. Didymus is the Greek equivalent of Thomas, which is of Hebrew origin. Very little of his life is known; but the two other occurrences recorded in the N. T. (John 11:16; 14:5) indicate an affectionate spirit but a skeptical intellect, a man who loved much, but believed and hoped but little. He has been well called “the rationalist” among the twelve; but he was a rationalist with a warm heart. The incident here recorded shows that the fact of the resurrection was so attested that it was accepted by one who could only be convinced by the clearest and most convincing proof. The reason of Thomas’s absence is not stated, nor even implied; but the conjecture that he had abandoned hope, and therefore the companionship of the disciples, is not unreasonable.—His language, Except I thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe, is that not merely of dejection, but also of defiance. His position is that of modern positivism, which refuses to believe anything not verified by actual sensuous observation; his demand is that of M. Renan, who, to substantiate the doctrine of the resurrection, calls for the successful raising of the dead before a commission composed of physiologists, physicians, chemists, and skilled critics. See Life of Jesus, Intro. But Thomas’s spirit was very different.

26 And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace[752] be unto you.

[752] Isa. 26:12.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand,[753] and thrust it into my side: and be[754] not faithless, but believing.

[753] 1 John 1:1.

[754] 1 Tim. 1:14.

26, 27. This meeting after eight days, i. e., on the eighth day, is the first intimation in the N. T. of a commemoration by the disciples of the resurrection; and there is nothing to show that the disciples had not kept together in a continuous meeting during the entire week, which, it will be remembered, was the Passover week. But it is certainly significant that Christ chose the first day of the week, on which he rose from the dead, to make his second appearance to his infant church, and thus gave an impulse to, if not a suggestion of, that apostolic commemoration of the day, which by insensible degrees led to the transfer of the Christian’s weekly festival from the seventh to the first day of the week.—Christ appears as suddenly and mysteriously as before, and in his address to Thomas echoes his words, a severe yet a tender and loving rebuke. The evidence which he would have refused to the Pharisee he grants to the disciple; the inimical demand of the determined skeptic he always disregards; for the intellectual difficulties of a reluctant skeptic he shows great compassion. But he shows this compassion for unbelief that he may rescue the unbeliever from it, and bids him become not unbelieving, but believing. Through his doubt of the actual occurrence of the resurrection, Thomas was in danger of becoming a disbeliever generally, and against this danger of lapsing from a state of faith to one of unfaith Jesus warned Thomas, and through him warns the feeble and vacillating believers of all ages.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My[755] Lord and my God.

[755] ch. 5:23; Ps. 118:28; 1 Tim. 3:16.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed[756] are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

[756] 1 Pet. 1:8.

28, 29. Thomas was overpowered and convinced by the grace of his Master, not by the physical evidence which he had demanded, and which was vouchsafed to him; not because he handled, but because he saw, he believed (ver. 29). In this appears the difference of his spirit from that of the modern rationalists; his faith finally rested, not in the sensuous evidence, but in the invisible love and mercy of his Lord. The mere fact that Jesus rose from the dead did not demonstrate his divinity, nor give ground for Thomas’s appeal; for Lazarus, too, rose from the dead. “It was an evidence addressing itself not to his eyes, but to his heart, which forced him to cry, My Lord and my God.”—(Maurice.) To interpret this utterance as a mere expletory outcry is the shallowest of criticism. It reduces a sublime and exalted confession of faith to an irrelevant and semi-profane exclamation. It is grammatically, psychologically, and spiritually untenable; grammatically, because it is expressly said that Thomas addressed the words to Jesus—he said “unto him”; psychologically, because it is equally irrational to suppose that Thomas, just convinced of the resurrection of his Lord and Master, should break out into a mere meaningless exclamation, or that John should have reported it if it had been uttered; spiritually, because Christ on the strength of this confession of Thomas recognizes his faith: “Thou hast believed.” Equally untenable is the suggestion of Norton (Notes on the Gospels), that “the name God was employed by him, not as the proper name of the Deity, but as an appellation, according to a common use of it in his day,” for no such common use existed, and its existence would have been utterly inconsistent with the Hebrew laws against the use of God’s name in vain. The fact that Thomas recognized Jesus as both Lord and God might not of itself be conclusive; there would be possible ground for Norton’s argument: “Considering into how great an error he had fallen in his previous obstinate incredulity, there would be little reason for relying upon his opinion as infallible”; but Christ not only accepts, he distinctly approves and ratifies Thomas’s confession, and the faith of the church rests not on the words of the disciple, but on their approbation by his Lord. Thomas’s words here, then, are to be read in the light of Christ’s words in chaps. 13-17; the disciple accepts in a single sentence Christ’s teaching respecting himself as the one sent from and manifesting to the world the eternal Father. It is the answer of a suddenly awakened faith to the before ill-comprehended declaration, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. In his response, Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed, Jesus recognizes two kinds of belief, one which rests on seeing or on the witness of those that have seen, the other and higher that which rests simply on spiritual apprehension. Parallel to the implied contrast here is that in John 14:11, “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very work’s sake.”

30 And[757] many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

[757] ch. 21:25.

31 But[758] these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and[759] that, believing, ye might have life through his name.

[758] Luke 1:4.

[759] ch. 3:15, 16; 5:24; 10:10; 1 Pet. 1:9.

30, 31. These verses constitute the formal close of John’s Gospel, ch. 21 being an appendix. See Prel. Note there. The “many other signs” referred to are not necessarily only or chiefly those wrought after the resurrection, but include those recorded by the other Evangelists, as well as such as have not been recorded.—On the object of John in his Gospel as here indicated, see Intro., p. 11. That object was threefold: (1) That the readers might have faith that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of prophecy; (2) that they might spiritually recognize in this Messiah the well-beloved Son of God; (3) that, believing in his Messiahship and divinity, they might become partakers of his life. Life (ζωή) in John’s usage always signifies spiritual life, and the name of Christ, in which this life is to be attained, stands for Christ himself in all the gracious offices which his names indicate, as Jesus or Saviour, Christ or Messiah, and Emmanuel or God with us.

CHAPTER XXI.

Ch. 21:1-25. APPENDIX TO JOHN’S GOSPEL.—Waiting for Christ while we work (3).—The power of the Lord over nature (6).—Love sees most quickly; zeal acts most quickly (7).—Christ provides for our simplest wants; fire for the cold, food for the hungry (9).—A true proof of love for Christ: shepherding his sheep (15-17).—Service and suffering are both following Christ (18).—The impertinence of curiosity rebuked (21-23).—The last word and the first word of Christ the same, Follow Me.

Preliminary Note.—All modern critics agree in regarding this chapter as in the nature of a supplement, the original Gospel having been brought to a close in the last verses of the preceding chapter. This opinion is based chiefly upon the formal close afforded by those verses. That this supplemental chapter was written at a very early period, and probably before the Gospel itself was given to the public, is indicated by the fact that it is found in all the manuscripts. Whether it was written by John himself or by some disciple or friend is not altogether clear, and certainly not very important; but the evangelical critics generally agree, from a careful consideration of its internal characteristics, in attributing it to John himself. Thus Alford: “The reader will have perceived in the foregoing comment on the chapter a manifest leaning to the belief that it was written by John himself. Of this I am fully convinced. In every part of it his hand is plain and unmistakable; in every part of it his character and spirit is manifested in a way which none but the most biassed can fail to recognize. I believe it to have been added some years probably after the completion of the Gospel; partly, perhaps, to record the important miracle of the second draught of fishes, so full of spiritual instruction, and the interesting account of the sayings of the Lord to Peter; but principally to meet the error which was becoming prevalent concerning himself.” To the same effect Meyer: “In accordance with all that has been advanced, the view is justified that John, by way of authentic historical explanation of the legend in ver. 23, some time after finishing his Gospel, which he had closed with 20:31, wrote ch. 21:1-24 as a complement of the book, and that this appendix, simply because its Johannean character was immediately certain and recognized, already at a very early period, whilst the Gospel had not yet issued forth from the narrower circle of its first readers, had become an inseparable part of the Gospel.” Similarly, though somewhat more doubtfully, Luthardt and Godet. See also Ezra Abbot, in Smith’s Bib. Dict., Vol. 2, p. 1430, note b.

After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.

2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and[760] Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons[761] of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

[760] ch. 1:45.

[761] Matt. 4:21.

3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.

1-3. The departure of the disciples into Galilee is not to be regarded as an abandonment on their part of hope; for Christ’s direction to his disciples after his resurrection was to go into Galilee and meet him there (Matt. 28:7; Mark 16:7). We are rather to regard it, therefore, as an evidence that they were convinced by his repeated appearances of the resurrection of their Lord, and went into Galilee in anticipation of meeting him there. For the same reason we are not to regard Peter’s declaration, I go a fishing, as an indication that he had abandoned his sacred for a secular calling. His restless temperament did not allow him to wait in inactivity, and he sought relief in work. The response of the other disciples, We also go with thee, has been rightly used by the homiletical commentators as an illustration of the influence of example. John was one of the sons of Zebedee. Assuming that the 21st chapter is from his pen, we have in it the description of an eye-witness. There is nothing to indicate who were the two unnamed disciples, but the fact that they are unnamed has been regarded as an indication that they were not two of the twelve. The ship was, of course, simply a fisherman’s boat, probably not very different in shape and size from those to be seen in the Sea of Galilee at the present day, as represented in the accompanying illustration.

4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew[762] not that it was Jesus.

[762] ch. 20:14.

5 Then[763] Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.

[763] Luke 24:41.

4, 5. The night of labor spent in vain might naturally have recalled to the disciples that other night of toil after which Christ first called some of these disciples to be his followers (Luke 5:1-11). In the gray twilight they saw a stranger on the shore; that they did not recognize him may have been due in part to the dimness of the early light, but more probably to the fact, illustrated by other post-resurrection appearances, that he was recognized only as he chose to reveal himself (ch. 20:14; Luke 24:16). Certainly it indicates that the disciples had no such expectation of his appearance as would lead them, according to the theory of M. Renan, to conjure up a spectre. There is nothing in the words, and we may presume there was nothing in the tones of Jesus, to quicken their perception. His language is that of a fisherman: Boys (παιδία), have ye no fish? The word rendered meat (προσφάγιον) is literally what is eaten therewith, i. e., with bread, and here is equivalent to fish, which in Galilee was a common accompaniment of bread in the peasant’s meal.

ANCIENT BREAD.

6 And he said unto them, Cast[764] the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

[764] Luke 5:4-7.

7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

8 And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.

6-8. There was nothing to the disciples especially suggestive in the direction to cast the net on the right side of the ship. They might naturally suppose that he had perceived indications of a school of fishes there.—In the effect produced on the two disciples, Peter and John, by the miraculous draught of fishes which followed, the character of each is strikingly illustrated. John, with his quicker intuitions, recalling that other fishing scene, recognized the Lord first; Peter, with his greater boldness to act, leaped into the water, and partly swam and partly waded ashore. Comp. ch. 20:6, 8, notes. The distance was about two hundred cubits, that is, about three hundred feet. The fisher’s coat, which Peter girt unto him, appears to have been a sort of loose garment, like the workmen’s blouse of to-day, which Peter had laid off during his night’s work. This he put on, counting it unseemly to appear without it in the presence of his Lord, at the same time drawing it up and tucking it in about the waist, that it might not impede his swimming to the shore.—The accompanying illustration shows the probable style of the fisher’s coat, in contrast with the long robe worn by one not engaged in manual labor. The net itself was so full of fishes, and they so great, that the disciples abandoned the attempt to bring them into the boat, but dragged them in the net to the land.

HE GIRT HIS FISHER’S COAT UNTO HIM.

9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.

10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.

11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

9-11. On coming to the shore the disciples found a fire of coals already kindled, and some fish laid thereon, and some loaves of bread—in short, preparation for a simple meal. There has been some unprofitable discussion among the commentators respecting the manner in which this provision had been made. It is attributed by different commentators to the ministry of angels, to the activity of Peter, to the forethought of Jesus. Alford, following Stier and the older commentators, insists that it was miraculously provided. Trench rightly and briefly disposes of this question: “By what ministry, natural or miraculous, has been often inquired, but we must leave this undetermined, as we find it.” The provision apparently was not sufficient for the company, for Christ bade Peter add to the stock from the fish just caught. Peter went, therefore, to aid the others in bringing the net to shore. The fish were counted, and the exact number is recorded by the Evangelist. The attempt to draw some spiritual lessons from this number affords a curious illustration of the absurdities into which the allegorizing method is liable to carry the student. The exact enumeration is important only because it is an indication of accuracy in the historian; in such an enumeration there is no opportunity for the exaggeration of imagination. To me Augustine’s allegorical interpretation of the contrast between this and the analogous yet widely different miracle recorded in Luke 5:1-11 is scarcely more profitable than the spiritualizing interpretation of the meaning of the one hundred and fifty-three; the curious in such matters will find it fully reported in Trench on the Parables. It might be possible to account for each single feature in this narrative without assuming a miracle; but in a candid consideration of all the features combined—the fruitless fishing all night, the sudden and extraordinary success in the morning, the number of fish, their size, the unbroken net, though dragged full of fish to the shore—it is impossible to doubt that we have here, what evangelical critics have always seen in the narrative, the account of a miraculous manifestation of the Lord’s power.

12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

13 Jesus[765] then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.

[765] Acts 10:41.

14 This[766] is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.

[766] ch. 20:19, 26.

12-14. There is a verbal, but no real inconsistency in the statement that none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. “But seeing that His form was altered, and full of much awfulness, they were greatly amazed, and desired to ask somewhat concerning It; but fear, and their knowledge that He was not some other, but the same, checked their inquiry.”—(Chrysostom.) The careful student will observe that the Evangelist does not characterize this as the third appearance of Jesus, but as the third appearance to his disciples, i. e., the apostles. This excludes the appearance to Mary (ch. 20:16), and to the two disciples on the walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35); the two preceding appearances referred to were that to the ten on the evening of the day of the resurrection (ch. 20:19) and that to the eleven in the week following (ch. 20:26). Without following the allegorizing commentators into any of their extravagances, we may reasonably see, with Alford, Trench, and others, a spiritual significance in the fact that Christ provided a meal for the apostles at the same time when, by this new miraculous draught, he reminded them of their first call to become fishers of men, thus suggesting to them the spiritual truth involved in the Lord’s Supper, and symbolically represented in the feeding of the five thousand, that they who minister in the things of Christ are themselves dependent on Christ for their spiritual support; perhaps also suggesting that when the labor of life is over there will be for them that have wrought for Christ a feast with him in the kingdom of heaven. But certainly Trench goes too far in saying that “the character of the meal was sacramental, and it had nothing to do with the stilling of their present hunger.” It is much more reasonable to see in this provision for the disciples’ commonest needs—food and a fire at the end of a night of sleepless toil—a new illustration of the tenderness of Christ’s consideration for his own.

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more[767] than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed[768] my lambs.

[767] Matt. 26:33, 35.

[768] Isa. 40:11; Jer. 3:15; Ezek. 34:2-10; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2, 4.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.[769]

[769] Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved[770] because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou[771] knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

[770] Lam. 3:33.

[771] ch. 16:30.

15-17. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee. He saith unto him, Shepherd my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, hast thou affection for me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Hast thou affection for me? and he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I have affection for thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my little sheep. This translation will suggest to the English reader, though inadequately, points of difference in the original which our English translation wholly fails to preserve, possibly through the inattention of the translators, but more probably through the inadequacy of the English language to represent delicate shades of meaning which are represented by the Greek. (1) Two different Greek words are rendered indiscriminately love (φιλέω and ἀγαπάω). I have attempted to indicate the difference by rendering the one to love and the other to have affection, though this rather suggests that there is a difference than indicates in what it consists. The word which Christ uses in his question, Lovest thou me? (ἀγαπάω), signifies, if not the higher, at least the more thoughtful and reverential affection, founded on an intelligent estimate of character, and accompanied by a deliberate and well-considered choice. Peter’s I love thee represents rather the personal instinctive love, the activity of feeling rather than of will, the affection which, being spontaneous and instinctive, gives no account of itself, and no reason for its existence. We are bid in the N. T. to exercise the first form of love (ἀγαπάω) towards God, but never the second; while the Father is said to exercise both forms towards his own Son. Two different Greek words are also rendered indiscriminately feed. To indicate the difference I have rendered one by the rare but indispensable verb shepherd. Finally, three words are used to represent the flock which Christ commends to Peter’s care—lambs (ἀρνία), sheep (πρόβατά), and little sheep (προβάτιά). There is some uncertainty as to the reading, but the one I have followed is accepted by the best critics—Alford, Meyer, etc. To feed the sheep is simply to nourish them; to shepherd them is not in contrast the ruling activity (so Meyer), but the whole shepherd care of the flock—watching, tending, leading—as illustrated in Psalm 23 and in John 10:1-18. The term lamb is never used in the N. T. except of Christ himself (John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12, etc.), or of the followers of Christ (Luke 10:3). By the lambs here, then, I understand Christ to mean his professed followers; Peter was to show his love for the Master by teaching them. The term sheep is more general, and includes in the figurative language of the Bible those who have wandered away from the fold of God (Matt. 9:36; 12:11, 12; 15:24; Luke 15:4-6). Peter is to show his love for the Master, not only by teaching the Lord’s disciples, but by shepherding the sheep, whether in the fold or wandering from it, as a good shepherd going before them, going after them, giving his life, if need be, for them (John 10:1-13). The little sheep are the young, who have not yet wandered away, and whom he is to keep in the Master’s fold by feeding them there with the herbage of life. Christ calls them my lambs, my sheep, because the Father has given all to him, and he is, as Redeemer and Saviour, Lord of all. The most superficial student will not fail to see in this thrice-repeated question an indirect and implied reference to and recall of the thrice-repeated denial of his Lord by Peter. In his request for permission to walk on the water, in his protest against the feet-washing, in his assertion “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended” (Matt. 14:28; 26:33; John 13:8), there are indications of an overweening self-confidence in his love for the Lord as greater than that of the other disciples. It was this self-confidence in the strength of his love which had proved his danger. Christ addresses him, not by his new name of Peter, but by the old name which he bore before he knew the Lord, and asks him, Hast thou for me a greater love than these? Peter, saying nothing of the love of the others, not even venturing to claim for himself the intelligent and deliberate love which rules the life and molds the character, answers in humility: Thou knowest my affection for thee. Show it then, says Jesus, not by assuming pre-eminence over my flock, but by becoming their shepherd (= servant, ch. 13:12-17). He then repeats the question, Lovest thou me? Peter answers as before: Thou knowest my affection for thee. Show it then, says Christ, by shepherding my sheep; by seeking the lost, restoring the wanderer. A third time he asks the question, now changing it and adopting Peter’s own language: Art thou sure of thine affection for me? Peter is grieved, at the change in the question as well as at its repetition, “because he said unto him the third time, Hast thou affection for me?” and appeals to him as the Searcher of hearts to witness for himself the depth and reality of his affection. And Christ finally bids him show his love by feeding the little sheep—the young, the feeble, those most needing care. Meyer well notes the fact that Christ does not question Peter’s faith, but the love which proceeds from faith and shows itself by its work; and Godet notes the curious resemblance between the present situation and that of two scenes in the previous life of Peter with which it is related. He had been called to the ministry by Jesus after a miraculous draught of fishes; it is after a similar draught that the ministry is restored to him. He had lost his office by his denial beside a fire of coals; it is beside a fire of coals that he recovers it.—(Godet.) The ecclesiastical commentators see in this scene a reinstatement of Peter in his apostolic office, to which Alford well replies that “there is no record of his ever having lost it.” The R. C. divines find in it a proof-text for their belief in the primacy of Peter; to which Peter himself furnishes a quite adequate reply in 1 Pet. 5:1-3. The shepherd is not a lord over God’s heritage, but one who follows the Chief Shepherd, goes before the flock, is their example and their leader, by his own life showing them the way to live, and, if need be, by his own death for their sakes showing them how to die. It must strike one, too, as curious that Peter should be grieved at words which constitute him the head of the church and the vicar of God upon earth. The true lesson of this scene is for all the disciples of Christ. We are all, through Peter’s experience, admonished to show our love for our Master, not by asking permission to do great things (as to walk on the waves), not by refusing to accept his humiliation for us (as by refusing to allow the feet-washing), nor yet by professing what we will do in the hour of difficulty and danger (as by the assurance, “I will not deny thee”), nor even by entering into fierce battle against his foes (as by drawing the sword on Malchus), but by laying down the life in quiet, humble, self-denying service for the Master’s sheep—the followers of Christ, the wanderers from the fold, and the weakest and feeblest in the fold.

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee,[772] When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird[773] thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

[772] ch. 13:36; Acts 12:3, 4.

[773] Acts 21:11.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death[774] he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow[775] me.

[774] 2 Pet. 1:14.

[775] ch. 12:26; Numb. 14:24; 1 Sam. 12:20; Matt. 19:28.

18, 19. In this language, when thou wast young thou girdedst thyself, there is perhaps a reference to Peter’s act in girding himself and casting himself into the sea (ver. 7). The prophecy foretells the manner of his death, which, according to an early and apparently trustworthy tradition, was by crucifixion at about the same time with Paul, in the persecutions under Nero. According to Origen, Peter was crucified with his head downwards, either by his own request, because in his humility he was unwilling to suffer the same death as his Lord, or by order of Nero, as matter of wanton and ingenious cruelty. The contrast between Peter’s experience in his youth and in his old age is one common in Christian experience, a contrast between doing and suffering, between active, energetic service of the Lord and the patient endurance of his cross. Both are involved in following Christ. To interpret this command, Follow me, literally, as Godet: “Jesus began to move off, and commanded Peter to follow him in the literal sense, and John followed them without any express invitation,” seems to me a shallow interpretation, which is not helped by supposing it to be a symbolical act, a sort of childish object-teaching. Peter had gone back to his fishing; in saying Follow me, Christ calls him again to become a fisher of men, by the same phrase which he had employed three years before on the shore of the same sea and after a similar miracle.

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter, seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

20, 21. It is not necessary, and it is hardly reasonable, to impute Peter’s question to a feeling of jealousy; it is rather to be attributed to the natural and almost universal tendency to inquire into the duty and destiny of others. The Lord’s reply indicates what is the answer which he would make to us whenever we, following Peter’s doubtful example, pry curiously into his purposes respecting others.

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come,[776] what is that to thee? Follow[777] thou me.

[776] Matt. 25:31; Rev. 1:7; 22:20.

[777] verse 19.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

22, 23. It is curious to see how Christ’s language here, notwithstanding John’s interpretation, has been misconstrued, even down to the latest time, as a promise, or a quasi-promise, that John should tarry until the second coming of Christ. Ancient legends report that after his interment there were strange movements in the earth that covered him, that when the tomb was subsequently opened it was found empty, that he was reserved to reappear again in conflict with Anti-Christ; so late as the sixteenth century an enthusiast was burned at Toulouse who gave himself out as St. John; and even so sober a commentator as Godet submits, though hesitatingly, the hypothesis that, as the primitive epoch of humanity had its Enoch, and the theocratic epoch its Elijah, neither of whom knew death, so also the Christian epoch may have had its deathless representative. Two other interpretations are: (1) That Christ refers here to his coming to his own in their death, and that by the phrase If I will that he tarry till I come he means, If I will that he meet a natural death instead of martyrdom. This interpretation Alford justly characterizes as frigid and inapplicable here, since martyrdom is as truly a coming of the Lord as natural death. (2) That by his Second Coming, Christ refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, an interpretation strangely adopted by Alford. That destruction was an historical prophecy, but in no wise an historical fulfillment of the promise of the Lord’s Second Coming. There is no reason for regarding this language of Christ as anything else than purely hypothetical, equivalent to, Suppose that I were to will that he should remain upon the earth unto the end; what would that be to thee?

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and[778] we know that his testimony is true.

[778] ch. 19:35; 3 John 12.

25 And[779] there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the[780] books that should be written. Amen.

[779] ch. 20:30.

[780] Amos 7:10.

24, 25. There is uncertainty respecting the authorship and authenticity of these verses. For discussion of this question, see Smith’s Bib. Dict., p. 1430, note b; Godet’s Commentary, Vol. III, pp. 362, 363. The verses are found in all the manuscripts, except that Tischendorf believes that ver. 25 was originally wanting in the Sinaitic MS.; he thinks that the color of the ink and a slight difference in the handwriting show that it did not proceed from the original scribe, but was added by a contemporary reviser. But though there is no external evidence for setting either verse aside, the internal evidence seems to me decisive against verse 25. “This inharmonious and unspiritual exaggeration” (Meyer) is entirely inconsistent with John’s scrupulously simple and truthful narrative. The authorship of ver. 24 is more uncertain. Whether written by John, or added almost immediately after by some companion, it affords a very strong attestation of the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel. On a careful examination of the different authorities, it seems to me that Godet’s conclusion, though hypothetical, is in accordance with probabilities, and his deduction respecting the authenticity of the Gospel as a whole is irresistible: “1st. That the narrative (verses 1-23) is from the hand of the Evangelist. 2d. That ver. 24 is a declaration emanating from the friends of John, who had called forth the composition of his Gospel, and to whom he had committed it after its completion. 3d. That ver. 25 is written by one of them, with whom the work was deposited, and who thought himself bound to close it thus, to the glory, not of the author, but of the subject of history. By these last words the entire work becomes a whole. Accordingly we are shut up to hold either that John is the author of our Gospel, or that the author is a forger, who, 1st, palmed himself off on the world with all the characteristics of the apostle; who, 2d, carried his shamefulness so far that he got made out for him, by an accomplice of his fraud, a certificate of identity with the person of John; or who, more simply still, to save himself the trouble of finding a companion in falsehood, made out this certificate for himself in the name of another, or of several others. And he who had recourse to such ways was the author of a writing in which lying is blasted as the work of the devil (ch. 8:44), and truth glorified as one of the two essential features of the divine character! If any one will believe such a story, * * * let him believe it” (1 Cor. 14:38).

Two years have elapsed since the publication of the preceding volume in this series of Commentaries on the books of the New Testament. A considerable part of the Commentary on John was then already written; all that part of it which was common to the Four Gospels was substantially ready for the printer; little else remained to be written except that portion which dealt with the larger discourses of our Lord, and not all of that; and a life-long study of the Four Gospels, part of the results of which had been given to the public in a Life of Christ, and others of which were in manuscript notes, had made me measurably familiar with the ground that lay before me. But the discourses of Jesus, as recorded by John, can be studied only meditatively. A certain quiet restfulness of mind is essential to any spiritual apprehension of their meaning. And I have believed that those to whom this volume had been earlier promised, and whose impatience at the delay has reached me in letters that have always been kindly and courteous and full of encouragement, would easier pardon delay than despoiling haste in preparation. I can ask no leniency of any critic on the ground that time was wanting to do adequately the needful work.

I have stated in the introduction the reasons which have led me, after a careful, and I believe a measurably impartial, study of the question, to believe that the Fourth Gospel is the work of the apostle John, and that he is the one designated in that Gospel as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” I wish to add here, emphatically, that the meditative study of the discourses which John has reported has strengthened that conviction. Either we have here the truths which Christ taught, reported by one who lived after the spiritual and catholic character of Christianity had begun to show itself by its actual development, and who therefore comprehended his profounder instructions as they were not comprehended during his lifetime; or else we must believe that the centuries immediately succeeding the first of the Christian era produced a spiritual genius whose insight into the profoundest truths of human experience, when inflamed into more than merely human life by the inbreathing of God, makes him the equal if not the superior of the Jesus portrayed in the three synoptic Gospels, and yet one who has been utterly unknown to fame, and who has left no other monument to his memory than a document that is a fraud if not a forgery. The skepticism that asserts this lays too heavy a tax on human credulity. It asks us to believe not only in a Socrates who had no Plato to reveal his teachings and his influence, but in one who did not hesitate to employ a petty and useless fraud as a setting for the most transcendent spiritual truth.

This truth may be expressed in two words as that of the Divine Immanence. Around this the whole Gospel of John centres; to illustrate this the whole Gospel was written. That there is in man the possibility of a more than merely earthly life; that in him has been planted the germ of a divine life; that this life, when divinely developed, brings with it a new light and power; that God is in the soul and the soul may live in perpetual consciousness of its God; that Christ is not merely a Memory and a Hope, but a Presence; that the Supernatural is not a past phenomenon, but a present and a perpetual experience; that miracles—that is, signs of the divine, All-mighty love—are forever going on in human experience, on a transcendently grander scale in the nineteenth century than they did in the first; that the evidence of Christianity is not to be sought in dingy and doubtful records of past events, but in the personal observation and witness of present occurrences; that revelation was not completed with the Apocalypse, but every devout soul has the promise of an inner light, and the invisible and Catholic brotherhood and household of faith, which is the true church of Christ, has in it an everlasting Shechinah, which reveals with perpetually increasing clearness the truth of God both to it and through it; and that fidelity to the sacred and sweet duties of love is at once the condition and the result of this living experience of an ever-living God, in the spiritual realm as in nature, every fruit being the seed vessel of new growths for the future:—this I believe to be the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ according to John. And I believe there is no better protection against that skepticism of the present age, whose vice is not that it demands a reason for every faith, but that it denies the witness of the spiritual sight to spiritual things, than the patient, meditative study of this Gospel, except the patient, persistent pursuit of the life to which it invites. To those that have no faith in such a life and such a light, to whom Christ is only a mist-covered mountain seen across the intervening eighteen centuries, and God only an hypothesis made probable by the Paleyrian argument from design, this Commentary will probably give no aid, and this Gospel will even appear to be uninterpretable in its mysticism. To those that have this faith in a perpetually present Immanuel, a Christ who is ever a God with us, however dim the faith may be, these pages are commended in the prayer and hope that they may help to make the Gospel clearer, the faith stronger, and the Christ nearer and dearer.

INDEX.

Note.—The abbreviations M., Mk., L., and J. refer respectively to the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the figures refer to the pages.

A.

Adultery, Laws against, M., 55.

Anise, M., 250.

Almsgiving, M., 98.

Andrew, M., 148.

Angels:

Bible doctrine of, M., 215, 323; L., 7.

Message to the Shepherds of, L., 19, 20, 21.

Anointing at Bethany, Mk., 58.

Annunciation, The, L., 11, 12.

Antonia, tower of, J., 216.

Apostles:

Call of the, Mk., 14.

Commission of the, Mk., 27.

Office of the, Mk., 14.

B.

Baptism:

Ceremony of, M., 72.

Doctrine of, M., 327, 328; J., 47.

Barabbas, M., 310.

Bartholomew, M., 149.

Baskets, M., 198; J., 80.

Beatitudes, The, M., 85-87; L., 41, 42.

Bed, Old Jewish, Mk., 10.

Beelzebub, M., 166.

Bethabara, J., 23.

Bethany, M., 51, 280; L., 122; J., 136, 151.

Bethesda, Pool of, J., 64.

Bethlehem, M., 52, 58.

Bethphage, M., 53; L., 122.

Bethsaida, M., 51, 157; Mk., 30.

Betrayal, Prophecy of the, J., 167.

Blindness, M., 131.

Book, Old Jewish, L., 32.

Book-making, Ancient, M., 25.

Bread, Eastern, Mk., 36; J., 236.

Broker, Eastern, L., 121.

Burial customs, J., 227.

C.

Cæsar, Concerning tribute of, M., 241, 242.

Cæsarea Philippi, M., 51, 199.

Caiaphas, M., 280.

Camel’s-hair, M., 66.

Cana, M., 51; J., 29.

Candle-stick, An Eastern, Mk., 16.

Canon, M., 17-25.

Capernaum, M., 51, 80; L., 62; J., 34.

Care, Christ’s teaching concerning, M., 108.

Centurion, M., 117.

Children, Christ’s blessing of, M., 46, 225; L., 115.

Chorazin, M., 51, 157.

Christ:

Activity of, Mk., 6.

Agony in Gethsemane, M., 290-295; L., 135.

Anointed by Mary, M., 280; J., 150.

Anointed by the penitent woman, L., 48, 49.

Atonement by, J., 24.

Authority questioned, M., 53.

Baptism of, M., 71-74; L., 31.

Betrayal of, M., 59, 295-297; L., 136; J., 211-213.

Birth of, M., 55, 56, 64; L., 7; J., 114.

Bloody sweat of, L., 135.

Burial of, M., 171, 321; Mk., 61; J., 221-226.

Childhood of, L., 21-25.

Church of, J., 185-190.

Consecration of, L., 22, 23.

Conversation of, J., 58.

Crucifixion of, M., 279-281, 312-320; Mk., 60; L., 139-144.

Death, Cause of, J., 225-6.

Denial by Peter, M., 301-304; Mk., 59; L., 136.

Discourses of, J., 11.

Discourse on the end of the world, L., 126-130.

Divine nature of, M., 13, 226, 327; J., 19, 39, 44, 68, 90, 111, 117, 134, 183, 184.

Education of, M., 65.

Enemies of, L., 131.

Fame of, L., 117.

First attack on, M., 234.

Galilean ministry of, Mk., 5; M., 79-83.

Genealogy of, M., 53; L., 31.

Glory of, J., 203-4, 209-10.

Growth of, L., 25.

Herod’s interview with, L., 138.

Home of, L., 59, 130.

Human nature of, M., 118, 317; L., 18, 71.

Incarnation of, J., 22.

Intercessory prayer of, J., 201-2, 210.

Interpreter of God’s law, J., 189-90.

King, J., 218-220.

Life of, M., 40-43.

Light of the world, The, J., 17, 109.

Limitations of his nature, Mk., 56, 57.

Living One, The, L., 145.

Lord of Nature, The, Mk., 20.

Manifestation of the Father, J., 174-5, 205.

Mission of, M., 128, 146, 160, 194, 216; Mk., 35, 49; L., 92; J., 66, 124.

Mission in Perea, M., 222; Mk., 46.

Names of, The, M., 57.

Personality of, J., 104.

Popularity of, M., 14; L., 74, 91, 131.

Power of, J., 203, 211-13.

Prayer of, defined, J., 178.

Prayer in Gethsemane, M., 292.

Passion of, Mk., 47; L., 56, 115.

Resurrection of, M., 323-336, 330-333; Mk., 43, 47, 62; L., 115, 144-147; J., 227-230.

Rejection at Nazareth of, M., 187; Mk., 26.

Royal nature of, L., 122.

Sacrifice of, The, J., 129.

Satire used by, L., 84.

Second coming of, M., 265, 266; J., 28, 97, 173-4.

Sepulchre of, M., 321, 322.

Servant, A, L., 133.

Simplicity of His life, J., 79, 106.

Son of David, The, L., 117.

Son of God, The, M., 159, 300, 320.

Son of man, The, M., 142, 143, 162, 200.

Spiritual presence of (See Holy Ghost), J., 179-181.

Subject to the Father, J., 183-8.

Supremacy of, J., 128.

Sympathy of, M., 133, 155; J., 124, 143.

Synagogue, Preaches in the, L., 31.

Temple, Found in the, L., 24.

Temptation of, M., 74-79; L., 31.

Trial of, M., 297-301.

Trial by Caiaphas, L., 136; J., 213-216.

Trial before Pilate, M., 309-312; L., 136; J., 216-221.

Tribute demanded of, M., 211, 212.

Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, M., 232, 233; Mk., 50; L., 122; J., 154.

Christian charity, L., 67.

Christian hate, L., 89.

Christian life:

Conditions for, J., 41, 42.

Nature of, J., 153.

Christ’s sermon on, J., 84-93.

Source of, J., 59.

Suffering of, J., 119.

Christian, Mission of, J., 189, 205, 208.

Christian ministry, M., 138, 329.

Christian religion:

Evidences of, J., 74, 176-7.

Nature of, J., 45.

Not asceticism, J., 208.

Power of, J., 177.

Christian spirit, M., 140.

Christian work, M., 136.

Christology, J., 174.

Church:

Authority of the, M., 246.

Christ’s commission to, M., 326-329.

Dangers of the, M., 259.

Foundation of the, M., 201-203.

Unity of, J., 209.

Circumcision, L., 15.

Cleophas, L., 145.

Clothes, Jewish, M., 261.

Coats, Jewish, L., 28.

Comforter, Nature of the (See Holy Ghost), J., 178.

Commandment, The great, Mk., 53, 54.

Commerce, in the temple,

Commission of the Seventy, L., 60-63.

Commission of the Twelve, M., 133; L., 55.

Corban, Rabbinical law of, Mk., 33.

Courage, Christian, source of, J., 201.

Courtyard, Oriental, M., 303.

Creeds, Necessity of, J., 112.

Crosses, Description of, M., 315.

Cyrenius, governor of Syria, L., 18.

D.

Dalmanutha, M., 51; Mk., 37.

Dead Sea, M., 51.

Death, Jewish conception of, J., 173.

Decapolis, M., 51.

Dedication, Feast of the, J., 131.

Demoniacal possession, M., 123-125; Mk., 6.

Denarius, Value of, M., 221, 242; J., 79.

Devil, The, M., 76.

Dining customs in the East, L., 86.

Disciples, Call of the four, L., 35, 36.

Divine presence:

Condition of enjoying, J., 180, 81, 86, 87, 89.

Power of, J., 187-88.

Divorce, Christ’s law of, M., 222, 225; Mk., 46.

E.

Elders, M., 205.

Election, Doctrine of, J., 89, 190, 203-4.

Emmaus, M., 51; L., 145.

End of the world, M., 258; L., 127-130.

Enemies, Christian treatment of, M., 96-98.

Enon, M., 51; J., 47.

Ephraim. M., 51; J., 149.

Epistles, Nature of, M., 11.

Espousals, Jewish, M., 55.

Essenes, M., 69.

Eternal life, J., 44, 75, 83, 86, 203-4.

Ewers, J., 31.

Excommunication, Jewish, J., 122.

F.

Faith:

Christ’s exhortation to, Mk., 52.

Nature of, J., 84, 145, 161.

Contrasted with right, J., 234.

Falling from grace, J., 188.

Fasting, Laws for, M., 109, 129.

Fasts, L., 114.

Feeding of the five thousand (See under Miracles).

Feet-washing, Ceremony of, J., 165.

Feet-washing, Oriental, J., 163.

Fire:

Biblical mention of, M., 183.

Utensils, J., 219.

Fishing, Oriental, L., 37.

Forgiveness, Nature of, L., 141.

Frankincense, M., 62.

Free-will, Doctrine of, L., 95; J., 94.

Funerals of the East, L., 45.

Future punishment, M., 145, 277; J., 188.

G.

Gabriel, L., 10.

Gadara, M., 51.

Galilee:

Christ’s circuit of, L., 35, 52.

Sea of, M., 57; Mk., 8.

Gambling at the cross, J., 223.

Generation, Book of the, M., 53.

Gennesaret:

Lake of, Mk., 8.

Land of, M., 192.

Gerizim, Mount of, J., 55.

Gethsemane:

Christ’s agony in, Mk., 58.

Garden of, M., 291.

Gnosticism, J., 13, 14.

God:

Kingdom of, M., 103, 225; L., 57, 110-112.

Knowledge of, J., 175, 176.

Nature of, J., 14, 15, 37, 74, 130.

Trinity of (See Christ, Holy Ghost), J., 14-16.

Golgotha, M., 314.

Gospels:

The four, M., 11.

Harmony of the, M., 38-40, 44-66.

Origin of the, M., 36-38.

Relations of the, M., 34-36.

Gospel of the Infancy, L., 6.

Gospel of John:

Authenticity of, J., 3, 6-8, 240.

Object of, J., 12, 234.

Supplemental chapter to, J., 235.

Gospel of Luke, Authorship of, L., 3.

Gospel of Mark:

Authorship of, Mk., 3.

Characteristics of, Mk., 4.

Gospel of Matthew:

Author of, M., 49.

Characteristics of, M., 49.

Language of, M., 49.

Object of, M., 49.

Origin of, M., 36-38.

Grace, Meaning of, J., 21.

Grain, Oriental sale of, L., 43.

Grave, Jewish, J., 143.

H.

Hades, L., 105.

Heathen and the Gospel, L., 33.

Heaven:

Christ’s teaching concerning, J., 173.

Discourse on, Mk., 43, 44.

Kingdom of, M., 66, 85, 90, 137, 154, 110-114.

Place of, M., 102.

Hell, M., 91, 119.

Herod the Great, L., 7.

Herods, The, M., 58, 59.

Herod, Death of, M., 63.

Herod Archelaus, M., 64.

High-priest, M., 280; L., 27.

Holy Ghost:

Bestowal of on disciples, J., 230.

Blasphemy against, M., 169.

Character and office of, J., 179-80, 195-197.

Manifestation of, J., 182.

Relation of to the Father, J., 192.

Holy of Holies (See Temple).

Housetop, Eastern, L., 74.

Humility, Commendation of, M., 214, 241.

Husks, L., 96.

Hypocrisy, Rebuke of, M., 109; L., 73.

I.

Idumea, Mk., 14.

Incarnation (See Christ).

Incense, Service of, L., 5.

Infancy, Gospel of the, L., 6.

Inn, Jewish, L., 19.

Issue of blood, L., 54

J.

Jacob, Well of, J., 52.

Jairus’ daughter, L., 54.

James, M., 148.

James the son of Alphæus, M., 149.

Joanna, wife of Chuza, L., 53.

Jericho, M., 51; L., 116.

Jerusalem:

Conquest of, L., 141.

Desolation of, L., 123.

Road from Jericho to, L., 65.

Siege of, M., 261.

Site of, M., 278.

Jesus (See Christ).

John:

The Apostle, M., 148; J., 4.

Character of, J., 5.

Gospel of (See Gospel of John).

John the Baptist:

Character of, M., 65.

Death of, M., 189; Mk., 29; L., 55.

Embassy to Jesus, M., 152.

Father of, L., 7.

Imprisonment of, M., 150.

Message of, L., 47.

Ministry of, M., 69; L., 30; J., 50.

Jordan, M., 52, 67.

Joseph of Arimathea, J., 226.

Joy, Christian, J., 189.

Judas Iscariot:

Character of, M., 150, 307.

Destruction of, J., 207.

Death of, M., 307.

Repentance of, M., 306.

Treachery of, M., 58.

Judea, M., 52, 65.

Judgment:

Christ’s description of the, M., 275-277.

Nature of the, J., 161.

Judgment seat, Roman, J., 221.

K.

Key, Description of ancient, M., 203.

L.

Lamps, ancient. M., 270.

Lanterns, J., 212.

Law and the Gospel, M., 80.

Lazarus, J., 136.

Lazarus, Resurrection of (See Miracles).

Lebbæus, M., 149.

Lepers, L., 109.

Leprosy, M., 118.

Levi (See Matthew).

Levite, L., 66.

Lilies, M., 107; L., 77.

Locusts, M., 67.

Lord’s Prayer, M., 101-105.

Lord’s Supper, The:

Ceremony of, The, L., 131; J., 92.

Institution of the, M., 283-288; Mk., 58; J., 162.

Time of the, M., 286; J., 169, 217, 221.

Love:

Commanded, M., 244.

Test of, M., 146.

Luke, Gospel of (See Gospel of Luke).

M.

Magdala, M., 52.

Magi, The, M., 59, 60.

Mammon, M., 106.

Manger, Eastern, L., 19.

Manuscripts, M., 27, 28.

Mariolatry, L., 70.

Mark, Gospel of (See Gospel of Mark).

Marriage:

Ancient form of, J., 118.

Christ’s law of, M., 222-225; Mk., 46.

Eastern ceremony of, M., 269, 272; L., 77.

Jewish ceremony of, M., 129.

Martha and Mary, L., 67, 68.

Mary Magdalene, M., 320; L., 53; J., 228.

Mary’s hymn of praise, L., 14.

Matthew:

Character of, M., 149.

Call of, M., 125; L., 38; Mk., 125.

Gospel of (See Gospel of Matthew).

Meals, Jewish, J., 168.

Medicine, Mk., 22.

Meekness, Nature of, M., 85.

Mercy, Nature of, M., 86, 251.

Messiah, The Jewish, J., 100.

Mill, Eastern, M., 266.

Minister, Meaning of the term, L., 5.

Mint, M., 280.

Miracles:

Barren fig-tree cursed, Mk., 50, 51.

Christ stills the tempest, M., 121; L., 53.

Cure of the infirm woman, L., 81, 82.

Cure of the issue of blood, Mk., 21-23.

Feeding of the five thousand, M., 191; Mk., 30; L., 55; J., 76-81.

Feeding of the four thousand, M., 195; Mk., 35.

Blind Bartimeus healed, Mk., 119.

Draft of fishes—first, L., 35, 36.

Draft of fishes—second, J., 237.

Healing of the blind man, Mk., 38; L., 115.

Healing of the centurion’s servant, M., 117; L., 44.

Healing of the centurion’s son, J., 61, 62.

Healing of deaf and dumb, Mk., 34.

Healing of the demoniac, M., 121, 211; Mk., 20; L., 35, 53.

Healing of the leper, L., 37.

Healing of the lunatic boy, M., 40; L., 56.

Healing of the man born blind, J., 118, 124.

Healing of the paralytic, M., 125; Mk., 9-12; L., 37.

Healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, M., 119; L., 35.

Healing of the ten lepers, L., 108.

Healing of the withered hand, M., 163.

Raising of Jairus’ daughter, Mk., 22, 24, 25.

Raising of the widow’s son, L., 45.

Resurrection of Lazarus, J., 135, 145-147.

Water turned into wine, J., 30-33.

Walking on the sea, M., 191; Mk., 30; J., 82.

Miracles:

Christ’s use of, J., 62.

Truth of the, M., 166.

Money-changers, M., 274; J., 37.

Mount of Olives, L., 123.

Mourning:

Christian rites of, M., 85.

Eastern ceremony of, Mk., 24.

Rabbinical rites of, J., 139.

Murder, Laws against, M., 91-93.

Myrrh, M., 62.

N.

Nain, M., 52; L., 45.

Nathanael, J., 27.

Nazareth, M., 52, 64; L., 11, 34; J., 27.

New Testament:

Authority of, M., 13.

Canon of, M., 17-25.

Composition of, M., 11.

English version of, M., 28-31.

Inspiration of, M., 14-17.

Interpretation of, M., 31-34.

Nature of, M., 11, 12.

Origin of, M., 13.

Text of, M., 25-28.

Nicodemus, J., 40.

O.

Obedience, M., 112.

Oven, An Eastern, L., 77.

P.

Palestine, Government of, L., 27.

Palsy, Mk., 10.

Parables, The:

Barren fig-tree, The, L., 80, 81.

Candle, The, L., 53.

Drag-net, The, M., 185.

Good Samaritan, The, L., 64-66.

Great supper, The, L., 87.

Hid treasures, The, M., 184, 185.

Householder, The, L., 44.

Laborers, The, M., 230, 231.

Leaven, The, M., 181; L., 82.

Lost coin, The, L., 94.

Lost sheep, The, L., 92, 93.

Mustard seed, The, M., 180; Mk., 18; L., 82.

Pearl, The, M., 184, 185.

Prodigal son, The, L., 95-99.

Rich fool, The, L., 75, 76.

Rich man and Lazarus, L., 103-106.

Seed growing secretly, The, Mk., 17.

Sheepfold and shepherd, J., 125-131.

Sower, The, M., 175-179; Mk., 16; L., 53.

Tares, The, M., 179.

Ten pounds, The, L., 120.

Ten talents, The, M., 272-275.

Ten virgins, The, M., 268-272.

Two debtors, The, L., 50, 51.

Two sons, The, M., 235.

Unclean spirit, The, M., 172.

Unjust steward, The, L., 99-102.

Unmerciful servant, The, M., 219.

Vine and branches, The, J., 185-6.

Wedding feast, The, M., 238-241.

Wicked Husbandman, The, M., 236-238; M., 53; L., 125.

Paradise, L., 142, 143.

Passover:

Day of, L., 131.

Feast of, J., 63, 78.

Patience, Christian, L., 58, 128.

Peace, Christian, J., 182.

Penitent thief, L., 142, 143.

Penny, Value of Jewish, J., 79.

Pentateuch, Authorship of, J., 76.

Pentecost, Feast of, J., 63.

Perea, M., 52; L., 60.

Persecution:

Foretold, J., 193.

How to be borne, J., 191-194.

Peter:

Character of, M., 135, 148; Mk., 7; L., 133.

Commission of, J., 238-9.

Confession of Christ by, Mk., 39; L., 55.

Denial of Christ by, M., 301-304; L., 133.

Founder of the Church, M., 201-203.

Name changed, J., 26.

Walking on the sea, M., 30; J., 121.

Pharisees, The:

Sect of, M., 68.

Baffled by Christ, M., 245.

Discourse against, L., 71.

Philip, M., 149.

Phylacteries, M., 247.

Pontius Pilate, M., 305; J., 221-2.

Poor of the East, L., 88, 89.

Porter of the East, L., 72.

Pound, L., 121.

Prayer:

Bible doctrine of, L., 112-114; J., 177.

In the name of Christ, J., 177.

Necessity of, M., 111, 99-105; L., 130.

Promises to, J., 177-8, 199-200.

True spirit of (See Christ), L., 68.

Preachers (See Christian Ministry).

Priesthood, The, M., 61; L., 7.

Prophecy:

Office of, J., 184.

Fulfillment of, in N. T., J., 225.

Proselytes, M., 249.

Publicans, M., 97, 126; L., 28, 91.

Purification of the Jewish mother, L., 22.

Purple and fine linen, L., 104.

R.

Rabbi, M., 247.

Rama, M., 63.

Religion:

Fruits of, M., 113.

Joyousness of, M., 239.

Test of, M., 113.

Repentance:

Law of, L., 96.

Nature of, M., 65.

Necessity of, L., 80.

Revelation, Book of, M., 11.

Resurrection:

Nature of, Mk., 47, 64; L., 144; J., 69.

Prophecy of, Mk., 43, 47.

Revenge, Laws against, M., 94-96.

Riches, Christ’s teachings concerning, M., 228; Mk., 47.

Ritualism, Christ’s teachings concerning, Mk., 31, 32.

Roofs, Jewish, Mk., 10.

Ruler, The rich young, M., 226; Mk., 46; L., 115.

S.

Sabbath:

Christian use of the, L., 84.

Laws of the Christian, M., 161-164; Mk., 13; L., 38.

Pharisaic, The, M., 120; J., 66.

Sacrifices, J., 37.

Sadducees, M., 68, 69.

Sadducees silenced, M., 243; Mk., 53.

Salim, M., 52; J., 47.

Salutations of the Jews, L., 61.

Salvation, Conditions of, M., 276; L., 83.

Samaria:

History of, M., 52; J., 51.

Woman of, The, J., 50.

Samaritans:

Character of, L., 66.

Christ’s visit to, L., 57.

Sanctification, means of, J., 187.

Satan:

Fall of, L., 63.

Nature of, J., 158.

Personality of, J., 115.

Scorpions, L., 69.

Scourging, M., 331.

Scribes, M., 61, 90.

Denunciation of the, Mk., 54; L., 126.

Self-righteousness, Christ’s dealings with, L., 64.

Self-sacrifice commanded, M., 206.

Sepulchre, Jewish, J., 143.

Sermon on the Mount, L., 40.

Servants of the East, L., 107.

Sheba, Queen of, M., 171.

Sheep-fold, Eastern, J., 125.

Shekel, Value of, M., 281.

Shepherds of the East, L., 19, 93; J., 126.

Shoes, Jewish, M., 70.

Sidon, M., 52.

Sieve, Ancient, L., 133.

Siloam, Pool of, J., 120.

Simon the Canaanite, M., 150.

Simon Cyrene, M., 314.

Simon the leper, M., 280.

Sin:

Christ’s laws for the prevention of, Mk., 45.

Of rejecting Christ, J., 191-92.

Power to remit and retain, J., 231-32.

Skepticism, L., 106.

Skiff, Ancient, M., 19.

Son of Man (See Christ).

Sorrow, ministry of, J., 199.

Soul:

Distinction of the, J., 188.

Nature of the, J., 157.

Sparrows in Market, L., 75.

Spikenard, J., 152.

Star of the East, M., 61.

Steward, L., 100.

Swaddling-clothes, L., 18.

Swearing, Laws against, M., 93.

Swine, Flesh of, M., 122.

Sycamore tree, L., 107, 118.

Sychar, M., 52; J., 51.

Synagogues, M., 81.

Synagogue, Uppermost seat of the, L., 72.

Syro-Phœnician woman, M., 34.

T.

Tabernacles, Feast of the, J., 63, 95, 102.

Talent, Value of the, M., 220, 273.

Tares, M., 179.

Taxation, Roman, M., 126; L., 17.

Temple:

Description of, J., 34-37.

Site of, L., 127.

Pinnacle of the, M., 77.

Veil of the, M., 319.

Temple of Herod, M., 256.

Thomas, M., 149; J., 133, 174, 233.

Threshing in the East, M., 71.

Tiberias:

City of, J., 84.

Sea of, J., 78.

Tithes, L., 114.

Title on the cross, J., 223.

Tombs, Jewish, M., 122; Mk., 21. 62, 63.

Traders cast from the temple, Mk., 51.

Transfiguration, The, M., 207-210; Mk., 40; L., 55.

Treasury, Jewish, J., 110.

Tribute, M., 211.

Triclinium, L., 85.

Trinity, Doctrine of the, J., 14-16, 133, 183.

Twelve Apostles:

Commission of the, M., 134, 147-50.

Inspiration of, M., 141.

Tyre, M., 52, 157.

U.

Unleavened bread, Day of, M., 282.

Upper chamber, L., 132.

Usury, M., 274.

V.

Vineyards of the East, M., 236.

W.

Wailing place, Jewish, L., 140.

Water-pot, J., 51.

Well, Ancient, J., 52.

Well, Jacob’s, J., 52.

Wine:

Bible commands concerning, J., 32, 33.

Christ’s teachings concerning, J., 32, 33.

Winnowing, Oriental, L., 23.

Woman, a Jewish, L., 52.

Word of God, J., 13, 14.

World, End of the (See End of the World).

Worship, True nature of, M., 116; J., 56.

Writing materials, L., 15, 101.

Z.

Zaccheus, L., 118.

Zacharias, M., 253; L., 7, 16.

Zebedee, M., 81.

Zebedee, Sons of, Mk., 47.

Transcriber’s Note:

Words may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged, as were obsolete and alternative spellings. Misspelled words were corrected.

Footnotes were renumbered sequentially; those in the Preface were moved to the end of the chapter; footnotes in lines of scripture follow immediately thereafter. Obvious printing errors, such as backwards, upside down, or partially printed letters and punctuation, were corrected. Final stops missing at the end of sentences and abbreviations were added.

The text was rearranged so that each line of scripture, its footnotes, and its commentary are together as a unit. The index includes references to the author’s books on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as those included in this book. In the index, “Commerce, in the temple” has no page reference.

The following items were changed:

- [103] “John 3:11” to “John 3:21”

- “ought” to “aught” to eat ...

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN ILLUSTRATED COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

- THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.

- PREFACE

- TABLE OF CONTENTS.

- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.

- LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

- THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

- INTRODUCTION.

- CHAPTER I.

- CHAPTER II.

- CHAPTER III.

- CHAPTER IV.

- CHAPTER V.

- CHAPTER VI.

- CHAPTER VII.

- CHAPTER VIII.

- CHAPTER IX.

- CHAPTER X.

- CHAPTER XI.

- CHAPTER XII.

- CHAPTER XIII.

- CHAPTER XIV.

- CHAPTER XV.

- CHAPTER XVI.

- CHAPTER XVII.

- CHAPTER XVIII.

- CHAPTER XIX.

- CHAPTER XX.

- CHAPTER XXI.

- INDEX.

- Transcriber’s Note:

- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE