diff options
Diffstat (limited to '75543-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 75543-0.txt | 24483 |
1 files changed, 24483 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/75543-0.txt b/75543-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..679c655 --- /dev/null +++ b/75543-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,24483 @@ + +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75543 *** + + + + + + 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. + + + 1 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. + + + + +[Illustration: 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. + + +[Illustration: CANA OF GALILEE.] + + + 1 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. + + +[Illustration: 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 _As a cause of violence and woe_: + with oil and wheat_: Prov. 4:17; 23:29-32. + Numb. 18:12. + Neh. 10:37-39. _Of self-security and irreligion:_ + Isa. 28:7; 56:12. + _As a blessing to man_: Hab. 2:5. + Gen. 27:28-37. + 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. + Ps. 104:15. _As an accompaniment of + Zech. 9:17. wickedness_: + Isa. 5:22. + _As an emblem of spiritual + blessing_: _As an emblem of divine + Isa. 55:1. wrath_: + Sol. Song 7:9. Ps. 60:3; 75:8. + Isa. 51:17. + _As a perpetual memorial Jer. 25:15. + of Christ’s atoning Rev. 14:10; 16:19. + sacrifice_: + Matt. 26:26-29. _By the example of priests + Mark 14:22-25. on entering the tabernacle_: + 1 Cor. 10:16. Lev. 10:8-11. + + _As a medicine_: _Of Rechabites_: + Prov. 31:6, 7. Jer. 35:6. + 1 Tim. 5:23. + _Of Nazarites_: + _By the example of Jesus Numb. 6:2, 3. + Christ_: + John 2:1-11. _Of Daniel_: + Luke 7:34. Dan. 1:8, 12. + + * * * * * + +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). + + +[Illustration: SUBSTRUCTURES OF THE TEMPLE.] + + +[Illustration: BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF JERUSALEM.] + + +[Illustration: _From “Life of Jesus; the Christ,” by Rev. Henry Ward +Beecher._ + +PLAN AND SECTION OF THE TEMPLE.] + + + 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. + + +[Illustration: 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. + + +[Illustration: 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. + + + 1 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. + + +[Illustration: 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). + + +[Illustration: 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. + + + + +[Illustration: 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. + + + 1 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. + + +[Illustration: 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. + + +[Illustration: 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). + + +[Illustration: 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. + + +[Illustration: CHURCH OVER THE POOL OF BETHESDA.] + + + 1 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. + + +[Illustration: BETHSAIDA.] + + + 1 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. + + +[Illustration: 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. + + + 1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would + not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. + + +[Illustration: 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.” + + +[Illustration: 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. + + + 1 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_). + + +[Illustration: 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. + + +[Illustration: 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). + + + 1 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. + + + 1 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. + + +[Illustration: 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 theJews.=--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. + + + 1 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. + + +[Illustration: 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. + + +[Illustration: 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. + + +[Illustration: BETHANY.] + + + 1 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. + + +[Illustration: 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_). + + +[Illustration: 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. + + + 1 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._) + + + [Illustration: 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.= +_The_ Lord, not merely _your_ Lord. 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 _immediately_ after 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 _self_ examination. + + + 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. + + + [Illustration: 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 _it_ to Judas Iscariot, _the son_ of 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 _men_ know 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). + + + 1 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, + _there_ ye 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 _many_ mansions; and there is prepared a +place not merely for all but for _you_, a personal preparation in +glory _for_ each child as by grace _in_ each child; a room, a house +for each nature adapted to its needs. But how does Christ _prepare_ a +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. + + + 1 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. + + + 1 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. + + + 1 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. + + + 1 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. + + + [Illustration: + + 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. + + + [Illustration: 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, 5_a_) 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. + + + [Illustration: 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. + + * * * * * + + [Illustration: 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. + + + 1 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. + + + [Illustration: 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. + + + 1 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. + + + 1 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. + + + [Illustration: 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. + + + [Illustration: 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. + +Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like +this_. Those in bold are surrounded by equal signs, =like this=. +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 75543 *** |