{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75543/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75543","id":"gutenberg_75543","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75543","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. John -- Commentaries","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Teaching & Education"],"text":"AN\n\n ILLUSTRATED COMMENTARY\n\n ON\n\n THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO\n\n ST. JOHN.\n\n FOR FAMILY USE AND REFERENCE, AND FOR THE GREAT BODY\n OF CHRISTIAN WORKERS OF ALL DENOMINATIONS.\n\n BY LYMAN ABBOTT, D.D.,\n\n AUTHOR OF A SERIES OF COMMENTARIES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n A. S. BARNES & COMPANY,\n\n NEW YORK, CHICAGO, AND NEW ORLEANS.\n\n 1879.\n\n\n\n\n _BY THE EDITOR OF THIS WORK._\n\n A POPULAR COMMENTARY\n\n ON THE\n\n NEW TESTAMENT;\n\n WITH MAPS, ILLUSTRATIONS, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE NEW\n TESTAMENT, A CONDENSED LIFE OF CHRIST AND A TABULAR HARMONY OF\n THE GOSPELS, CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE AND GAZETTEER.\n\n _IN TWO SIZES._\n\n\n _FIRST SERIES. FOUR VOLUMES. LARGE 8vo._\n\n Very sumptuously printed and bound, on toned paper with wide margin.\n\n Volume I. MATTHEW AND MARK.\n\n \u201c II. LUKE AND JOHN.\n\n (THE REMAINING VOLUMES OF THIS SERIES IN PREPARATION.)\n\n\n _SECOND SERIES. EIGHT VOLUMES. 8vo._\n\n A handy edition for Christian workers.\n\n Volume I. MATTHEW.\n \u201c II. MARK AND LUKE.\n \u201c III. JOHN.\n \u201c IV. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.\n\n (THE REMAINING VOLUMES OF THIS SERIES IN PREPARATION.)\n\n\n _For Sale by Subscription. Persons owning any volume of either Series\n may obtain the other volumes by addressing the Publishers._\n\n\n _Copyright, 1879, by A. S. Barnes & Co._\n\n\n\n\n TO\n\n JACOB ABBOTT,\n\n WHOSE WRITINGS HAVE INTERPRETED THE GOSPEL TO\n INNUMERABLE READERS;\n WHOSE LIFE HAS EVEN MORE ILLUSTRIOUSLY MANIFESTED ITS SPIRIT\n TO ALL WHO HAVE KNOWN HIM;\n AND WHO, BOTH BY EXAMPLE AND PRECEPT, HAS TAUGHT\n HIS CHILDREN TO VALUE THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST ABOVE ALL FORMS,\n AND CHRIST HIMSELF ABOVE ALL CREEDS,\n THIS EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL\n IS AFFECTIONATELY AND REVERENTLY DEDICATED BY\n HIS SON.\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n TO ALL THE VOLUMES OF THIS SERIES OF COMMENTARIES.\n\n\nThe object of this Commentary is to aid in their Christian work those\nwho are endeavoring to promote the knowledge of the principles which\nJesus Christ came to propound and establish--clergymen, Christian\nparents, Sunday-School teachers, Bible-women, lay-preachers. Intended\nfor Christian workers, it aims to give the results rather than the\nprocesses of scholarship, the conclusions rather than the controversies\nof scholars; intended for laymen as well as for clergymen, it\naccompanies the English version of the New Testament, in all references\nto the original Greek gives the English equivalent, and translates all\nquotations from the French, German, Latin and Greek authors.\n\nThe introduction to Volume I contains a statement of those principles\nof interpretation which appear to me to be essential to the correct\nunderstanding of the Word of God. This Commentary is the result of a\nconscientious endeavor to apply those principles to the elucidation of\nthe New Testament.\n\nIt is founded on a careful examination of the latest and best\ntext; such variations as are of practical or doctrinal importance\nare indicated in the notes. It is founded on the original Greek;\nwherever that is inadequately rendered in our English version, a new\ntranslation is afforded by the notes. The general purpose of the\nwriter or speaker, and the general scope of the incident or teaching,\nis indicated in a Preliminary Note to the passage, or in an analysis,\na paraphrase, or a general summary at the close. Special topics are\ntreated in preliminary or supplementary notes. The results of recent\nresearches in Biblical arch\u00e6ology have been embodied, so as to make\nthe Commentary serve in part the purpose of a Bible Dictionary. A free\nuse is made of illustrations, from antiques, photographs, original\ndrawings, and other trustworthy sources. They are never employed for\nmere ornament, but always to aid in depicting the life of Palestine,\nwhich remains in many respects substantially unchanged by the lapse of\ntime. Since the Commentary is prepared, not for devotional reading,\nbut for practical workers, little space has been devoted to hortatory\nremarks or practical or spiritual reflections. But I have uniformly\nsought to interpret the letter by the spirit, and to suggest rather\nthan to supply moral and spiritual reflections, a paragraph of\nhints is affixed to each section or topic, embodying what appears\nto me to be the essential religious lessons of the incident or the\nteaching; sometimes a note is appended elucidating them more fully. The\nbest thoughts of the best thinkers, both exegetical and homiletical,\nare freely quoted, especially such as are not likely to be accessible\nto most American readers; in all such cases the thought is credited to\nthe author. Parallel and contrasted passages of Scripture are brought\ntogether in the notes; in addition, full Scripture references are\nappended to the text. These are taken substantially from Bagster\u2019s\nlarge edition of the English version of the Polyglot Bible, but they\nhave been carefully examined and verified in preparing for the press,\nand some modifications have been made. For the convenience of that\nlarge class of Christian workers who are limited in their means, I have\nendeavored to make this Commentary, as far as practicable, a complete\napparatus for the study of the New Testament. When finished it will be\nfully furnished with maps;--there are four in this volume; a Gazetteer\ngives a condensed account of all the principal places in Palestine,\nmentioned in our Lord\u2019s life; and an introduction traces the history\nof the New Testament from the days of Christ to the present, giving\nsome account of the evidence and nature of inspiration, the growth of\nthe canon, the character and history of the manuscripts, the English\nversion, the nature of the Gospels and their relation to each other,\na brief life of Christ, and a complete tabular harmony of the four\nGospels.\n\nThe want of all who use the Bible in Christian work is the same. The\n_wish_ is often for a demonstration that the Scripture sustains the\nreader\u2019s peculiar theological tenets, but the _want_ is always for\na clearer and better knowledge of Scripture teaching, whether it\nsanctions or overturns previous opinions. I am not conscious that this\nwork is written in the interest of any theological or ecclesiastical\nsystem. In those cases in which the best scholars are disagreed in\ntheir interpretation, the different views and the reasons which lead\nme to my own conclusions have been given, I trust, in no controversial\nspirit. For the sole object of this work is to ascertain and make\nclear the meaning of the Word of God, irrespective of systems, whether\necclesiastical or doctrinal.\n\nNo work is more delightful than that which throws us into fellowship\nwith great minds; of all work the most delightful is that which brings\nus into association with the mind of God. This is the fellowship to\nwhich the student of the Bible aspires. I can have for those who use\nthis work no higher hope than that they may find in its employment some\nof the happiness which I have found in its preparation, and that it\nmay serve them as it has served me, as a guide to the Word of God, and\nthrough that Word to a better acquaintance with God himself.\n\n CORNWALL-ON-HUDSON, _May_, 1875. LYMAN ABBOTT.\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.\n\n PAGE\n\n INTRODUCTION 3\n\n SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES--\n\n ON THE INTRODUCTION TO JOHN\u2019S GOSPEL 13\n\n THE INCARNATION 21\n\n THE LAMB OF GOD 24\n\n CHRIST\u2019S EXAMPLE IN THE USE OF WINE 32\n\n CHRIST AS A CONVERSATIONALIST 58\n\n CHRIST\u2019S DISCOURSE ON THE BREAD OF LIFE 83\n\n THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY 105\n\n THE PARABLE OF THE SHEEPFOLD 125\n\n THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS 135, 145\n\n THE ANOINTING OF JESUS 150\n\n THE LORD\u2019S SUPPER 162\n\n CHRIST\u2019S LAST DISCOURSE WITH HIS DISCIPLES 171\n\n THE PARABLE OF THE VINE 185\n\n CHRIST\u2019S INTERCESSORY PRAYER 201\n\n THE CHARACTER OF PONTIUS PILATE 221\n\n THE CHARACTER OF JOHN\u2019S GOSPEL 240\n\n\n\n\n LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\nMost of the engravings in this volume have been drawn and engraved\nexpressly for this work; some from original sketches by Mr. A. L.\nRawson, others from careful study from the best accessible authorities,\nby Mr. R. F. Zogbaum.\n\n PAGE\n\n CANA OF GALILEE 29\n\n AN ORIENTAL WEDDING 29\n\n WATER-POTS AND EWERS 31\n\n SUBSTRUCTURES OF THE TEMPLE 34\n\n PLAN AND SECTION OF THE TEMPLE 36\n\n THE EXPULSION OF THE TRADERS 36\n\n EASTERN MONEY-CHANGER 37\n\n A MODERN JEWISH RABBI 41\n\n TRADITIONAL SITE OF ENON 48\n\n JACOB\u2019S WELL 52\n\n JESUS AT THE WELL 54\n\n SAMARITAN REMAINS IN GERIZIM 60\n\n CHURCH OVER THE POOL OF BETHESDA 63\n\n BETHSAIDA 77\n\n TIBERIAS 85\n\n BOOTH ON THE HOUSETOP 96\n\n OFFICERS OF THE CHIEF PRIEST 104\n\n THE MOUNT OF OLIVES 107\n\n THE WOMAN AND HER ACCUSERS 108\n\n AN EASTERN SHEEPFOLD 126\n\n FELL AT HIS FEET 142\n\n RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS 146\n\n BETHANY 151\n\n ANOINTING OF THE FEET 152\n\n ANCIENT MONEY-BAG 153\n\n WASHING OF FEET 163\n\n DIPPING THE SOP 168\n\n TORCHES 212\n\n ANCIENT FIRE UTENSILS 214\n\n DENIALS OF PETER 215\n\n JESUS BEFORE PILATE 217\n\n ROMAN JUDGMENT-SEAT 221\n\n HE GIRT HIS FISHER\u2019S COAT UNTO HIM 235\n\n ANCIENT BREAD 236\n\n\n\n\n THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nFrom the beginning of the third century to near the close of the\nseventeenth, the Fourth Gospel was by a common and substantially a\nunanimous consent attributed to the Apostle John. This authorship was\nthen questioned, at first by an English critic by the name of Evanson.\nThe discussion was soon transferred to Germany, where it waxed warm,\nand whence it was again transferred to England and this country.[1] It\nmay now be regarded as the most hotly contested question in biblical\ncriticism. The controversy has been intensified by prejudices and\nfeeling on both sides. It is indeed impossible to discuss it with cool\nindifference, as a mere matter of curious literary interest. If this\nGospel was written by the Apostle John, we have the testimony of an\nundoubted eye-witness--not his conclusions but his account of facts\nin respect to which he could not well be deceived--certainly not,\nunless we are prepared to believe that Jesus was himself a deliberate\ndeceiver; testimony of an eye-witness whose honesty not even the\nmost resolute skepticism would or could well call in question. This\ntestimony would establish beyond question such facts as the miraculous\nfeeding of the five thousand, the healing of the man born blind, the\nresurrection of Lazarus, and the death and resurrection of Jesus\nhimself. In other words, it would establish beyond the possibility of\nreasonable question, the truth of historical Christianity. Accordingly,\nRenan, who to a certain extent accepts the authenticity of the Fourth\nGospel, is compelled to maintain that the pretended resurrection of\nLazarus was a pious fraud to which Jesus lent himself because it was\nnecessary to the success of his mission, and because his growing\nreligious enthusiasm justified to his conscience this means, for the\nsake of the end to be accomplished by it. Moreover, we have in this\nGospel a report of words of Jesus, which leave to us no alternative\nbut to accept him as in a peculiar sense the Son of God, or to regard\nhim either as a religious impostor or a religious enthusiast. The\nsynoptics leave some opportunity for discussion as to the place which\nJesus assumed to fill. The Fourth Gospel does not. Thus the question\nof the authorship of this Gospel is not merely a question in literary\ncriticism, but even more one respecting the nature of Christianity.\nAccordingly we find, on the one hand, the advocates of its apostolic\nauthorship more or less resting their belief upon the inherent beauty\nof the book, and the opponents more or less declaring the true ground\nof their opposition to it, viz., that it presents what they call a\nmythological view of Jesus, and a dogmatic view of his teachings; in\nother words, that it presents Jesus distinctively as the incarnate\nSon of God, and represents the central truth in his teaching to have\nbeen the necessity of faith in him. Both these aspects of truth\nare indeed presented in the other Gospels, but not with the same\nclearness, nor with the same prominence, as in the Fourth Gospel.\nHence the latter is assailed with peculiar vigor by the opponents of\nevangelical Christianity, and is, for the same reason, maintained with\nequal vigor by evangelical believers. It does not come within the\nprovince of this work to enter into the details of this controversy.\nTo give the arguments, pro and con, would require a treatise, and for\na consideration of them the reader is of necessity referred to the\nvarious works which have been written on this subject. The student\nwill find the most vigorous assault on the authenticity of the Fourth\nGospel in the second volume of \u201cSupernatural Religion,\u201d which, however,\nmust be read with considerable allowance for a scholarship evidently\nwarped by determined prejudices, and which is certainly one-sided, if\nnot absolutely false in many particulars. Among the many defences of\nthe authenticity of the Gospel, I have found nothing more comprehensive\nor satisfactory than that contained in the first volume of Godet\u2019s\nCommentary on John. With this, however, may be advantageously compared\nLuthardt\u2019s \u201cSt. John, the Author of the Fourth Gospel,\u201d Prof. Fisher\u2019s\n\u201cSupernatural Origin of Christianity,\u201d and the introductions to the\ncommentaries, especially those of Luthardt, Lange, Alford, Meyer and\nTholuck. Here I propose merely to set before the reader briefly a\ncompact statement of the more important facts in the case, confining\nmyself mainly to those that are undisputed--facts which led the world\nfor fifteen centuries to attribute the Fourth Gospel to John without\na doubt, and which on a more careful examination have led the great\nmajority of scholars to adhere to that conclusion.\n\n=The Apostle John.= The Apostle John was probably a native, certainly a\nresident, of Galilee. His mother, Salome,[2] early became a follower of\nJesus. She was probably one of the women of Galilee who accompanied him\non his missionary tours, and ministered to him of their substance.[3]\nShe was with him on his last journey to Jerusalem, and during the\npassion week, and was one of those women who were last at the cross\nand first at the sepulchre.[4] Like the other followers of Jesus, she\nanticipated the establishment of a temporal kingdom, was ambitious for\nher sons James and John, and made an application for special favors\nfor them when the kingdom should be established. From a comparison of\nMatt. 27:56 with John 19:25, it would appear that she was own sister\nto the Virgin Mary, in which case John was own cousin to Jesus. This\nopinion is not accepted by all critics, but I believe it to be the\ncorrect one. See note on John 19:25. John\u2019s father, Zebedee, was a\nwell-to-do fisherman on the shores of the sea of Galilee. Of him we\nknow very little. He was sufficiently prosperous to own several boats\nand to hire men to work for him. Tradition makes him of noble birth;\nand this tradition is perhaps confirmed by the fact that John had some\nacquaintance with the high-priest.\n\nJohn has been characterized by those critics who wish to make out that\nhis character is inconsistent with the idea of his authorship of the\nFourth Gospel, as ignorant and unlettered, on the authority of Acts\n4:13, and as a vehement and bigoted Jew on the authority of Galatians,\nchap. II, and of the peculiar Hebraic tone of the Book of Revelation.\nBoth characterizations are quite gratuitous assumptions. In connection\nwith every Jewish synagogue was a parochial school, in which the\npupils were taught reading, writing, and the rudiments of such natural\nsciences as were then in existence. The Jewish children of the common\npeople were far better educated than those of Greece or Rome. There is\nevery reason to believe that John received this common education of the\nage and community in which he lived, and there is absolutely no reason\nwhatever to suppose the contrary. It was only by the Pharisees that\nJohn was considered as ignorant and unlettered, and they affixed the\nsame stigma upon Jesus himself.[5] To the Pharisees the only learning\nworth the name was learning in the traditional lore of the church. Of\nthis the Galilean fisherman was ignorant. In the eyes of a Pharisee\nof Jerusalem, Plato himself would have been ignorant and unlearned.\nAs little reason is there to believe that John was a vehement and\nbigoted Jew. There is not the slightest evidence that John was among\nthe Judaizing Christians to whom Paul so frequently refers, and whom\nthroughout his life he combated. With one exception, Judas Iscariot,\nall the twelve were taken from Galilee. This province of Palestine\nwas innocent of that formalism and narrowness which characterized the\nsouthern province of Judea. The people had lived in amicable relations\nwith their heathen neighbors, and had intermarried with them ever\nsince the days of the treaty of amity between Solomon and the King of\nTyre.[6] The line of commerce between Damascus and the Mediterranean\nlay directly across this province. Mineral springs of real or fancied\nvalue near the southern coast of the Sea of Gennesaret made it the\nsummer resort of the wealthy Romans of the entire land. Thus history\nand location, commerce and social relations, combined to make the\ninhabitants of Galilee indifferent to the rigid formalism of the\nJudeans, and comparatively free from their narrow race and religious\nprejudices. Indeed, the two assertions that John was ignorant and\nunlearned, and at the same time a narrow and bigoted Jew, contradict\neach other. Jewish bigotry and reverence for the traditional lore of\nthe Jewish church always went together.\n\nThe important facts in the history of John, so far as known, are few\nand soon told. John the Baptist was second cousin of Jesus, and John\nthe Apostle was probably, as we have seen, his own cousin. The two\nJohns were, therefore, probably acquainted. At all events, when the\nBaptist began preaching the gospel of repentance for the remission of\nsins, the Apostle was among his disciples; and when the Baptist pointed\nout Jesus as the one whom God had indicated to him as the promised\nMessiah, John was among the first to leave the old teacher to follow\nthe new one. This was, however, a temporary following only. We next\nmeet him fishing with his father at the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus\nfinds him and his brother, and calls them to become permanent followers\nof him. This summons, without hesitation or delay, they obey. From this\ntime onward John is the constant companion of Jesus. With Peter and\nJames he belongs to an inner circle of friends: the three are selected\nto be the sole witnesses of the resurrection of Jairus\u2019s daughter;\nthey alone go up into the Mount of Transfiguration, and witness his\nglory there; they alone accompany him to the Garden of Gethsemane, and\nare invited to be the sharers of his sorrow there; when the arrest\ntakes place, and all the disciples forsake their Master and flee, John\nand Peter turn back and follow him to the scene of his trial, and the\nformer, with a courage for which few critics give him credit, goes\nwithout concealment, as a disciple, openly, into the house of Caiaphas,\nfollows the Master to the trial before Pilate, and when the sentence\nof crucifixion is pronounced, accompanies the procession to the place\nof execution, to remain by the cross till all is over. When the news\nof the resurrection is brought to the disciples, he and Peter are the\nfirst to reach the sepulchre. In the subsequent history of the Church,\nas recorded in the book of Acts, he does not take a prominent part. To\nhim was committed the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and probably\nthis sacred charge prevented him from quitting Palestine while she\nlived.[7]\n\nFor the subsequent history of John we are dependent on tradition. This\nis, however, in his case, less uncertain than in many other cases. As\nChristianity spread over the heathen world, Jerusalem ceased to be the\ncentre of Christian operations; but, while the Roman Empire continued\npagan and persecuting, Rome could not take the place of Jerusalem,\nas subsequently it did. Hence, for the first century, Asia Minor was\nthe great field of missionary work, and Ephesus, which was the scene\nof Paul\u2019s greatest triumphs and most successful labors,[8] became\nthe centre of the Christian church. Here John became settled in his\nlater life. From this point he seems to have exercised an apostolic\nsupervision over the churches of all Asia Minor. The few traditional\nstories of his old age accord with what the Gospels indicate of his\ncharacter. When he could no longer preach, it is said that he was\naccustomed to be carried into the church, and to repeat from the pulpit\nas the sum and substance of Christian doctrine, \u201cLittle children, love\none another!\u201d He was banished to the island of Patmos, where, according\nto the book of Revelation, he witnessed the vision therein recorded. He\nsubsequently returned to Ephesus, where it is probable he died at an\nextremely advanced age--not much, if any, less than a hundred years old.\n\n=The character of John= has been strangely misconceived. He is with\nreason identified with the unnamed \u201cdisciple whom Jesus loved,\u201d and\nwho at the Last Supper rested his head on Jesus\u2019 bosom; the Epistles\nattributed to him breathe a spirit of love; the Gospel attributed to\nhim is of all the Gospels the most spiritual in its tone. From these\npremises, the character of John has been constructed; it has been\nsupposed that he was by nature peculiarly tender, gentle, loving,\nand spiritually-minded; that his was a woman\u2019s character. He is so\nportrayed in art, and to some extent in literature; and the special\nfriendship which Christ has been supposed to have entertained for him\nis attributed to a character by nature peculiarly loveable.\n\nThere are, however, other considerations which any such view totally\nignores. James and John were by Jesus called Boanerges, \u201cthe sons of\nthunder;\u201d it was John who prohibited a strange disciple from casting\nout devils in Jesus\u2019 name, because he followed not the Twelve; it was\nJohn who desired to call down fire from Heaven upon the Samaritan\nvillage which refused to entertain his Master; it was James and John\nwho, with their mother, applied secretly to Jesus for the highest\noffices for themselves in his anticipated kingdom; it was John who\nfollowed Jesus into the courtyard of the high-priest, when all the\nother disciples forsook him and fled; John who stood with the Galilean\nwomen near the cross at the time of the crucifixion; John who with\nPeter defied the edict of the Sanhedrim after the death of Jesus,\nprohibiting them from teaching or speaking in his name.[9] These\nare not the acts of one whose nature was characteristically timid,\ngentle, or spiritually-minded. By nature John was ardent, courageous,\nimpetuous, and not more broad-minded or spiritually-minded than his\nco-disciples. Indications of these traits are not wanting, as we shall\npresently see, in the Gospel and the Epistles which bear his name.\n\nBut he was of all the Twelve the most receptive. When Christ foretold\nhis passion, Peter remonstrated with him. When Jesus spoke of the\nheavenly mansions and of his departure to prepare a place therein for\nhis disciples, Thomas expressed his doubt and his perplexity by the\nquestion, \u201cWe know not whither thou goest, and how can we know the\nway?\u201d When Jesus pointed to himself as the manifestation of the Father,\nPhilip, dissatisfied, asked for a direct revelation of the Father. When\nJesus promised to his disciples a spiritual manifestation of himself,\nJudas (not Iscariot), after the manner of modern theology, desired to\nhave that manifestation explained to him before he could accept the\ntruth. When Jesus rebuked Judas Iscariot for complaining of Mary\u2019s\nact in anointing her Lord, Judas was angered.[10] But we look in vain\nin the Gospels for any instance in which John expressed any rebuke of\nChrist, or any opposition to him, or any doubt of his teaching, or\ndemanded any other evidence of its truth than the simple word of his\nLord. Of all the disciples the most receptive, he was the one whose\ncharacter underwent the greatest and most radical change. The John that\nwe know is the John transformed by the renewing influence of the spirit\nof Christ; he is the John that is a new creature in Christ Jesus.\nHe was, I believe, the beloved disciple, because he was the one in\nwhom the love of Christ had the freest course and wrought the fullest\nand the largest results. This simple fact must be borne in mind in\nconsidering the question of the internal evidences for and against the\nJohannine authorship of the Gospel.\n\n=The external evidence.= Those who expect to find a demonstration\nof the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel in the external\nevidences, will be disappointed. The literature of the first three\ncenturies does not afford a demonstration of authorship of any ancient\nbook. But the authorship of John\u2019s Gospel I believe to be as well\nestablished, on a fair consideration of all the evidence, external and\ninternal, as that of any work of the same era.\n\nIt is not questioned by any one that at the beginning of the third\ncentury the Fourth Gospel was in general use in the churches, and\nuniversally recognized as written by the Apostle John. Eusebius,\nOrigen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, are among those who bear\ntestimony to this fact. The Fourth Gospel is recognized as John\u2019s\ncomposition in the canon of Muratori, A. D. 175; and by Iren\u00e6us, who\ndied about 202, and who was a pupil of Polycarp, himself a pupil of\nJohn. References to sayings of Jesus reported only by John are also\nfound in the writings of Tatian, A. D. 170, Justin Martyr, A. D.\n120-160, and the various Gnostic writers of the second century. These\nreferences do not conclusively prove the Johannine authorship of the\nFourth Gospel, for these earliest writers are not accustomed to give\nthe names of authors from whom they quote; but they do conclusively\nprove that as early as the first part of the second century, sayings of\nChrist, found only in the Fourth Gospel, were attributed by the Church\nto Jesus. The best report of these quotations which I have seen is to\nbe found in the second volume of \u201cSupernatural Religion,\u201d and they\nare there the more effective because the author in vain endeavors to\nbreak their force, by what most readers will consider an ingenious but\nineffective special pleading. Let the reader compare these quotations\nwith the parallel passages in the Fourth Gospel; he will not doubt that\nthe later writers borrowed from the earlier one. The only alternative\nis the irrational hypothesis that both borrowed from the same source\nand one generally recognized in the primitive Church; in other words,\nthat there was a Gospel containing the same matter that is now found\nin the Fourth Gospel, but that it has so entirely disappeared that no\ntradition even of its existence has survived, and that in its place a\nforgery has been palmed off upon the Church so successfully, that in\nthe beginning of the third century it was universally accepted as the\noriginal work of the Apostle whose name it has ever since borne.\n\nSpace does not allow me to give in detail these quotations, which are\nnumerous; it would be still more out of the province of this\nintroduction to enter into the arguments by which the rationalistic\nwriters endeavor to reconcile these quotations with their hypotheses.\nI can but briefly indicate a few of them, referring the student to the\nlarger works for the examination in detail of the parallelism between\nthese early ecclesiastical writers and the Fourth Gospel. Justin\nMartyr thus refers to the testimony of John the Baptist: \u201cI am not the\nChrist ... for he cometh who is stronger than I, whose shoes I am not\nmeet to bear\u201d (comp. John 1:19-27). He cites Christ as saying, \u201cUnless\nye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,\u201d and\nadds the comment, \u201cNow that it is impossible for those who have been\nborn to go into the matrices of the mother is evident to all\u201d (comp.\nJohn 3:3-5). Tatian refers to the sayings, \u201cThe darkness comprehends\nnot the light\u201d (comp. John 1:5), and \u201cAll things were by him, and\nwithout him was not anything made\u201d (comp. John 1:5, 3). Hegessippus\n(A. D. 125) refers to \u201cthat which is spoken in the Gospels, \u2018That was\nthe true light which lighteth every man who cometh into the world\u2019\u201d\n(comp. John 1:9). In the writings of the Naaseni and Perat\u00e6, Gnostic\nsects of the beginning of the second century, we have several\nunmistakable references to sayings that are peculiar to the Fourth\nGospel. \u201cI am the door,\u201d (comp. John 10:7); \u201cAs Moses lifted up the\nserpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son be lifted up,\u201d (comp.\nJohn 3:14); \u201cIf thou hadst known who it is that asketh thee, thou\nwouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water,\nspringing up,\u201d (comp. John 4:10); \u201cThe Saviour hath said, \u2018That which\nis born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is\nspirit,\u2019\u201d (comp. John 3:6); \u201cExcept ye eat my flesh and drink my\nblood, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,\u201d (comp. John 6:53).\nThese are by no means all the citations from the writers of the first\ntwo centuries which appear to have been taken from the Fourth Gospel,\nbut they will suffice to give the reader an idea of the nature of the\nevidence which is regarded by most Christian writers, and by some\nrationalistic critics--Matthew Arnold, for example--as establishing\nthe fact that the Fourth Gospel was in existence and recognized as an\nauthority in the Church in the beginning of the second century. If\nthis is the fact, it is reasonably certain that it was the work of the\nApostle John, since if it had been written by any one else as early as\nthat date, that is, during the lifetime of some of the contemporaries\nof John, the forgery would certainly have been detected.\n\n=The internal evidence.= The facts indicated above are not questioned\nby any critic. But though from the beginning of the third century\nto the close of the eighteenth, the Fourth Gospel was unanimously\nattributed to the Apostle John, it is maintained by those critics who\ndeny the Johannine authorship that a fair consideration of the external\nevidence now extant, leaves it uncertain whether the unanimous opinion\nof the Church in the first century was correct, and that the internal\nevidence, _i. e._, the character of the Gospel itself, when contrasted\n(1) with the other Gospels, (2) with the known character of John, (3)\nwith the other writings attributed to him, makes it certain that he was\nnot the author.\n\nUnquestionably the Fourth Gospel presents very different matter and a\nvery different aspect of Christ\u2019s life and character from that\npresented by the other three Gospels. The three Gospels give an\nimpression almost exclusively Galilean; the Fourth Gospel narrates\nalmost exclusively a ministry in Judea; the three Gospels indicate one\nwhich might have been completed in a single year; the fourth indicates\nthree years as the duration of Christ\u2019s ministry; the three Gospels\nreport chiefly Christ\u2019s ethical discourses; the fourth reports chiefly\nhis doctrinal discourses; love to men\u2019s neighbor is the predominate\ntheme in the three Gospels; faith in a divine Saviour is the\npredominate theme in the fourth; the three Gospels portray the work of\nJesus Christ; the fourth portrays his person and character; the three\nGospels repeat the same incidents and instructions in slightly\ndifferent language; the fourth repeats scarcely anything found in the\nother three; and when, as in its account of the feeding of the five\nthousand, it does repeat, the manifest object of the repetition is to\nintroduce a report of a discourse of Jesus omitted in the other\nnarratives.\n\nIt is also true that there is a marked difference between the style of\nJohn\u2019s Gospel and the Book of Revelations. This difference is so\nconsiderable that it is vigorously maintained that the same author\ncould not have written both books. \u201cThe difference,\u201d says Lucke,\n\u201cbetween the language, way of expression and mode of thought and\ndoctrine of the Apocalypse and the rest of the Johannine writings is\nso comprehensive and intense, so individual and even so radical; the\naffinity and agreement on the contrary either so general, or in detail\nso fragmentary and uncertain, that the Apostle John, if he really is\nthe author of the Gospel and of the Epistles--which we here\nadvance--cannot have composed the Apocalypse either before or after\nthe Gospel and the Epistles.\u201d This difference is of two kinds, a\ndifference both of style and of spirit. The language of the Apocalypse\nis comparatively harsh and Hebraic, that of the Gospel a comparatively\nfine and flowing Greek. The author of the Apocalypse, it is claimed,\nis an intense Jew, whose imagery is borrowed from the Hebrew\nScriptures, and whose object is the exaltation of the Jewish people;\nwho narrates the outpoured punishment of God on the enemies of God\u2019s\nchosen people, and whose celestial capital of the kingdom without end\nis the new Jerusalem. The author of the Fourth Gospel, it is claimed,\ncould not have been a Jew or of Jewish extraction; he makes no attempt\nto conceal his enmity of the Jews; he stigmatizes them as the enemies\nof Christ, and as the children of the devil;[11] and he writes of them\nand of their customs as no Jew would or could have written of the\ncustoms of his own people.[12]\n\nIt is not my purpose here to enter upon a discussion of these\nobjections. It must suffice to say that they are founded on a false\nconception of the character of John and a false assumption that what\nJohn was when he first met Jesus by the banks of the Jordan, that he\nwas after a life-time spent as a disciple, learning of him and\nundergoing that transformation of character which has been the\npeculiar and glorious fruitage of Christ\u2019s husbandry. Instead of\nentering into such a discussion, I shall ask the reader to consider\nbriefly what are some of the more notable characteristics of the\nFourth Gospel, and what would be the conclusion as to its authorship\nfrom an independent and original examination of its pages.\n\nImagine then that we have just discovered this ancient manuscript,\na manuscript which unquestionably dates from the beginning of the\nthird century, probably from a still earlier period, and which we\nhave abundant evidence was then unanimously attributed to the Apostle\nJohn. We enter upon its examination that we may form for ourselves a\njudgment who its real author probably was. In this examination there\nare three characteristics which force themselves upon our attention\nas predominant: (1) the claims which it presents; (2) its literary\ncharacter; (3) the indications which it affords as to the personality\nof its author.\n\n=1. Its claims.= It assumes to be written by an eye-witness. In his\nintroduction the writer says distinctly of the subject of his\nbiography: \u201cWe beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of\nthe Father.\u201d In the Epistle attributed to him, he reiterates this\nstatement even more explicitly. \u201cThat which was from the beginning,\nwhich we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have\nlooked upon and our hands have handled of the word of life ... that\nwhich we have seen and heard declare we unto you.\u201d In his account of\nthe crucifixion he emphasizes the fact that he is an eye-witness of\nthe events described. \u201cHe that saw it bare record and the record is\ntrue; and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe.\u201d And\nyet again in the closing chapter, generally regarded as written\nsubsequent to the rest of the volume, and as supplementary to it, the\nwriter is identified with the unnamed beloved disciple. \u201cThis is the\ndisciple who testified of these things and wrote these things, and we\nknow that his testimony is true.\u201d[13]\n\nIn reading the book we constantly come upon indications that the work\nis by an eye-witness or by one who writes in order to give that\nimpression. No one of the Evangelist\u2019s narratives more abounds with\ngraphic touches, slight but significant, such as indicate the vivid\nremembrance of one who was not only an eye and ear witness, but also\none who treasures up in a remarkably retentive memory incidents which\nmere tradition would not have preserved. John the Baptist \u201clooks upon\nJesus,\u201d and points him out to his disciples, by his peculiar gaze;\nJesus \u201cturns\u201d and sees them follow; wearied with the journey he sits\n\u201cthus on the well;\u201d there is \u201cmuch grass\u201d where he feeds the five\nthousand; when Mary anointed Jesus the \u201chouse was filled with the odor\nof the ointment;\u201d when Judas went out to complete the betrayal \u201cit was\nnight;\u201d the night \u201cwas cold,\u201d and Peter stands with the servant of the\nhigh-priest warming himself at a fire of coals in the court-yard.[14]\nThese may serve as illustrations. Examples the reader will find in\ngreat abundance, and references to them in the notes. Of all the\nGospels, the Fourth Gospel is the one which reports most fully the\nprivate conferences between Jesus and the Twelve, and the only one\nwhich reports his \u201casides\u201d and his personal feelings in explanation of\nhis public acts.[15] These features in the narrative do not prove that\nit was written by an eye-witness, but they indicate that it was\nwritten either by an eye-witness, or by one who desired to produce\nthat impression; either by one of the Twelve or by a deliberate and\nskilful forger.\n\n=2. Its literary character.= The differences between this Gospel and\nthe other three which I have already very briefly described, are\nvery considerable. They have led different minds to very different\nconclusions respecting the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. It is,\nhowever, safe to say that they are just such as might be expected if\nthe Fourth Gospel was written after the other three, and by some one\nfamiliar with them, or at least with the traditions embodied in them.\nThis Gospel presents precisely the aspect which would be presented by\na book written for the purpose of supplementing the accounts already\npossessed by the primitive churches, and of portraying an aspect of\ncharacter not adequately portrayed by the earlier writers. It presents,\ntoo, exactly that aspect which would be presented by a narrative\nwritten after the rapid growth of the Church, and its prophetic\nincursions into heathenism had given the writer a better conception\nthan his co-disciples possessed of the spiritual character of the new\nreligion. Matthew, Mark, and Luke might perhaps have believed that\nthe privileges of Christianity were to be confined to Jews and Jewish\nproselytes. Though many of Christ\u2019s words which they report indicate\na broader scope, it is by no means clear that they comprehended them.\nBut no one can doubt that the author of John\u2019s Gospel, when he wrote,\nbelieved that the atonement of Jesus Christ was for all humanity, his\nreligion for all classes, races, and conditions of mankind. It is the\nFourth Gospel which tells us that He was the true Light which lighteth\n_every man_ which cometh into the world, that God so loved the _world_\nthat he gave his only beloved Son that whosoever believeth in him\nshould have everlasting life, and that _whosoever_ comes to him he will\nin no wise cast out; it is the Fourth Gospel which reports Christ\u2019s\ninterview with the woman of Samaria and his subsequent preaching to the\nSamaritans, which brings out more clearly than either of the others\nthe grounds of Christ\u2019s practical abrogation of the Pharisaic law of\nthe Sabbath, which dwells more than any other Gospel on the spiritual\naspects of his kingdom and the divine nature of the king.[16] All this\nwe might expect from one writing after more than half a century of\nCatholic Christianity had interpreted the nature, mission, and words of\nChrist to his church.\n\nLet us add that a forger would not have suffered his narrative to stand\nin such a marked contrast with the previous and recognized narratives\nalready in the possession of the churches. He would have commingled the\nethical with the doctrinal, the human with the divine. He would have\nrepeated in a modified form some of the incidents and teachings already\nreported by the other Evangelists, that he might thus give a color of\nauthenticity to his narrative. The very contrast between the Fourth\nGospel and the other three, on which skeptic writers rely to prove\nits untrustworthiness, is an indication that it cannot be the work of\nfraud. If that aspect of Christ\u2019s character and teachings reported by\nJohn\u2019s Gospel was not recognized by the primitive church as true, or if\nthe author was not himself known in the age in which the narrative was\nproduced, and so known that his simple name was a sufficient guarantee\nof the accuracy of his narrative, an account so dissimilar from those\nalready in the possession of the churches would have received little\ncredit and no general, certainly no universal, acceptance.\n\n=3. Indications of authorship.= A further examination of this Gospel\ngives a definite impression respecting the character of the author.\nHe is evidently thoroughly familiar with Jewish manners and customs.\nHe knows whereof he writes. He has lived in the country and mingled\nwith the people. His knowledge is not that of a student of books, nor\nthat of a mere casual traveler. But he writes for those who are not\nfamiliar with Palestine or its social life. He inserts parenthetical\nexplications of Jewish customs. He explains to his Gentile readers the\nuse of the firkins of water at the wedding-feast \u201cfor purifying after\nthe manner of the Jews;\u201d the wrapping of the body of Jesus, as the\nmanner of the \u201cJews is to bury;\u201d the refusal of the Pharisees to enter\nPilate\u2019s hall \u201clest they should be defiled.\u201d The feast of Tabernacles\nis the Jews\u2019 feast of Tabernacles, the Passover is the Jews\u2019 Passover,\nand the Preparation for it is the Preparation of the Jews.[17] These\nreferences are so incidental as to indicate a writer thoroughly\nfamiliar with Jewish life; yet they are so marked as to indicate\nequally clearly a writer whose readers were not Jews but Gentiles.\n\nThe indications are not less clear that the writer, whoever he may\nhave been, was not himself a sharer in Jewish prejudices. Jew he may\nhave been; an intolerant Jew he certainly was not. He is familiar with\nthe Pharisees and with the Pharisaic law, but he has no sympathy with\nthe one and no admiration for the other. We can hardly be mistaken in\nthinking that his native prejudices are adverse rather than favorable\nto the inhabitants of Judea. More than any of the other Evangelists\nhis language respecting them indicates his aversion to them. He is the\nEvangelist who reports the mobs in Jerusalem against Jesus, and the\nsecret counsels for his assassination, and the deliberate judgment of\nCaiaphas that it is better for the rulers to kill the Galilean Rabbi\nthan to hazard their own offices, and the persistent persecution of\nJesus; he it is who with delicate sarcasm stigmatizes Caiaphas as\nhigh-priest for \u201cthat same year;\u201d the very language which he employs in\ndescribing the religious festivals of Judea as \u201cfeasts of the Jews,\u201d\nindicates an author not in sympathy with the religious formalism\nof Judea; the very phraseology with which he characterizes the\nreluctance of the Jews to enter into Pilate\u2019s judgment-hall, indicates\na writer having little sympathy for the formalism which was never a\ncharacteristic of the Galilean Jews, and always was a characteristic of\nthe more intense and bigoted Jews of the Syrian province of Judea.[18]\n\nNor can we be mistaken in surmising that the author was, by nature and\ntemperament, ardent, impulsive, vehement. The intensity of his nature\nhas been tamed by age, experience or grace, or the three combined;\nbut the indications of his native character crop out in occasional\nutterances. The records of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are absolutely\ncolorless. They are without epithets. Their simple and artless\nnarrative is left to produce its own impression. This is less true of\nthe Fourth Gospel than of the other three. The intense indignation\nwhich the writer feels against Judas Iscariot, he is at no pains to\nconceal. He it is who reports Jesus as declaring early in his ministry,\nOne of you is a devil; he it is who characterizes Judas Iscariot\nas a thief; he who twice declares that Satan entered into Judas\nIscariot.[19] These are the most notable exhibitions of his feelings;\nbut one can hardly read through the entire narrative without realizing\nin its tone and spirit the evidence that the author was a man of\nintense and passionate earnestness, kept under marvelous self-restraint.\n\nFinally, it is clear that the author is a man of some native capacity\nfor culture and of large education. He is familiar with the Greek\nlanguage and with the Greco-Oriental philosophy. He writes with a pure\nand flowing style. His introduction could have been penned only by\none who had become habituated to those forms of philosophic thought\nwhich some cities of Greece, and notably Ephesus, had imported from\nAlexandria and the further East. It could only have been written for\nreaders who were familiar with that philosophy and could best be\napproached by employing its phraseology.\n\nWe find then in the direct claims and the incidental allusions of the\nFourth Gospel indications that it was written by an eye and ear\nwitness, who was with Jesus from the commencement to the close of his\nministry; in the broad differences between the Fourth Gospel and the\nother three gospels, indications that it was written after the others\nand by one who was familiar with them or with the traditions embodied\nin them, and who wrote to supplement their accounts; in the general\ncatholic and spiritual atmosphere of the book, indications that it was\nwritten after history had begun to interpret the words and work of\nChrist, and to make clearer his transcendent and incomparable\ncharacter; and in the style and phraseology of the book, indications\nthat it was written by one who was familiar with Jewish customs but\nnot sharing Jewish prejudices, who possessed an ardent nature which\nhad been brought under the power of a strong self-control, and who to\na native capacity for culture added that familiarity with Greek\nliterature and philosophy which only long residence in a thoroughly\nGreek society could impart.\n\nNow, so far as our limited knowledge enables us to judge, John\u2019s life\nand character remarkably correspond with these indications of the\nGospel which was so long unanimously attributed to his pen. His\nparents were well-to-do Galileans, and he probably received a fair\neducation in his childhood; his early education as a Galilean would\nhave given him familiarity with Jewish customs, and yet would\nprejudice him against rather than in favor of the inhabitants of\nJudea; his later and prolonged residence in Ephesus, of all Greek\ncities the most Oriental, would have made him familiar with the best\nGreek culture, and with the mystic philosophy of the Greco-Oriental\nschool; that he possessed a vehement nature is evident from his\noriginal title of Son of Thunder; his receptive disposition and his\nintense love for Jesus might have been expected to tame that nature,\nwithout eradicating from his writings all indications of its\nexistence; of all the disciples the most courageous and the most\nsympathetically intimate with the subject of his biography, he was of\nthem all the one to adhere to Jesus in his dangerous ministry in\nJerusalem, and the one therefore to record what all the others have\nomitted; he was also the one to interpret Christ\u2019s actions by his own\nsuggestion of Christ\u2019s unuttered thoughts; writing after the other\nGospels had been written and were already being widely circulated, his\nomission of events and teachings which they had recorded is not only\nexplicable, but natural and to be anticipated; finally, writing after\nthe destruction of Jerusalem, after the dispersion of the Jews had\nbegun, after the descent of the Holy Spirit had interpreted the\nmystical promises of another Comforter, after churches had been\norganized as far west as Rome in which Gentile and Jew met on equal\nterms, after, in a word, the history of the church had interpreted the\nprophecies and instructions of its Lord, it would have been strange\nindeed if he had not given a deeper, truer, and more catholic\nexposition of Christ\u2019s Gospel than could have been written during the\nfirst half-century in Palestine, by those whose comprehension of\nChrist\u2019s, teaching had not been broadened by residence in a foreign\nland and an observation of Christ\u2019s redeeming work in a pagan\ncommunity.\n\n=Other hypotheses.= The conclusion to which a consideration of the\nexternal and internal evidence brings the candid student is confirmed\nby a consideration of the alternative hypotheses presented to him.\nThese are many in form; for it is a significant fact that while those\nwho believe in the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel are entirely\nagreed in respect to its authorship, and the time and place of its\ncomposition, those who disbelieve in its authenticity are not agreed\namong themselves respecting either. But in general their various\nopinions may be reduced to two classes.\n\nThe first is that the Fourth Gospel is the work of a Gentile Christian\nwriting in the third century. Confessedly this Gospel purports to be\nwritten by an eye and ear witness. Confessedly it was unanimously\nattributed to the Apostle John in the third century. Confessedly it is\nwithout a peer in literature, ancient or modern, sacred or secular,\nChristian or pagan, in the purity of its doctrine, the moral elevation\nof its style, and the spirituality of its atmosphere. This hypothesis\nasks us to believe that it is the work of a deliberate ecclesiastical\nforger, with so little conscience that he neither hesitated to assume\nthe pen of an Apostle nor to attribute to Jesus fictitious discourses\nand imaginary miracles, yet with so much conscience that he would not\nput an Apostle\u2019s name to his composition, but left its authorship to\nbe inferred by a self-deluded public; written too by a forger who was\nso skillful that he deceived the whole contemporaneous church, all\nsects and sections, Jewish and Gentile, Greek, Roman, and African,\northodox and heretic, and yet who was such a bungler that the gross\ndiscrepancies of his account, contrasted with that of the other three\nevangelists, make his fraud palpable to the ecclesiastical and literary\ncritics of the nineteenth century. This hypothesis demands so great\nan exercise of credulity that sober critics of even the rationalistic\nschool are generally abandoning it, or have already done so. This\nopinion may be already characterized as a thing of the past.\n\nThe other hypothesis is more plausible and captivating. This is that\nthe Fourth Gospel was written by an amanuensis or a disciple of the\nApostle John, that its essential facts were derived from him, that it\nwas written in his old age, that his recollection was already growing\ndim and his reports of the words of Jesus are unconsciously modified\nby his philosophy and experience, and that these reports are still\nfurther modified by the free pen of the amanuensis or the disciple who\nperfected the written record; and it is urged that this hypothesis\nexplains both verbal peculiarities and the title given to it from\nearly ages, viz., not the Gospel of John, but the Gospel according to\nJohn.[20]\n\nIn support of this opinion there is quoted an ancient legend found in\nthe canon of Muratori (A. D. 175), which runs as follows: \u201cThe fourth\nof the Gospels is by the disciple John. He was being pressed by his\ndisciples and (fellow) bishops, and he said, \u2018Fast with me this day,\nand for three days; and whatsoever shall have been revealed to each one\nof us, let us relate it to the rest.\u2019 In the same night it was revealed\nto the Apostle Andrew that John should write the whole in his name,\nand that all the rest should revise it.\u201d It must suffice to say of\nthis opinion that in its most pronounced form it is wholly unsustained\nby evidence. It is ingenious, but not substantial. Doubtless the\nreports of Christ\u2019s disciples are not verbatim. Doubtless we have\nin many instances the sentiments of Christ embodied in the words of\nJohn. Possibly some glosses and explanations added originally by an\namanuensis or scribe may have become incorporated in the narrative.[21]\nBut that the book is in no sense a composite production, that it is the\nwork of one not of many minds, that we have essentially the portrayal\nof the life and character of Jesus by a single author, is evident on\neven a casual perusal, and still more on a careful analysis of the work.\n\n=Discourses of Jesus.= The Gospel of John abounds with reports of the\ndiscourses of Jesus; it is more a report of his discourses (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1) than\nof his works (\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1); the miracles reported are generally only a text\nfor a discourse which follows. The student, passing from the Sermon on\nthe Mount in Matthew, or the parables in Perea, in Luke, to the sermon\non the Bread of life at Capernaum (John, ch. 6), or on the Good\nShepherd, at Jerusalem (John, ch. 10), feels the difference between\nthem, a difference chiefly in the phraseology employed, sometimes in\nthe phases of truth taught, but never amounting to a contradiction in\nthe essential teaching. The same doctrine respecting the authority of\nChrist is conveyed by Matt. 11:27, and John 5:19-30; the same truth as\nto the nature and necessity of a new and divine life in the soul is\nexpressed in Mark 4:26-29, and in John 6:50-58; similar parallels in\nessential truth may be found in the synoptics to all that is taught in\nthe Fourth Gospel; but the form of expression is strikingly different.\nThus, in the study of the Fourth Gospel, the question is constantly\npressed upon the student, how far the reports of Christ\u2019s addresses by\nJohn are to be regarded as reported in the words of Christ.\n\nIn answer to this we have, on the one hand, Christ\u2019s promise reported\nby John: \u201cThe Comforter ... shall bring all things to your remembrance\nwhatsoever I have said unto you\u201d (ch. 14:26); on the other, we have\nreason to believe that the reports are not verbatim. (_a_) This would\nrequire a supernatural exercise of memory nowhere claimed by the\nEvangelists, and therefore not to be claimed by the church for them.\n(_b_) In some instances, _e. g._, the case of the conversation with\nNicodemus and the woman at the well, it is certain that John could not\nhave been present, and must have derived his information either from\nJesus or from the other party to the conference. (_c_) The language in\nwhich the discourse is reported is analogous not only in words, but\nalso in the forms of expression to that of the narrator; the likeness\nis so marked that in several instances the critics are not fully\nagreed how much is to be regarded as the discourse of Jesus, and how\nmuch as the accompanying comment of John. (_d_) The thought is\nsometimes, and the language is often, obscure. And though this\nobscurity is increased by mistranslations, and by the division into\nverses, which hides from the reader the true unity of the discourse,\nnevertheless it exists in the Greek original. Such obscurity does not\nexist in the reports of Christ\u2019s discourses in the other Gospels.\n(_e_) The largest public discourse as reported would not have required\nover eight minutes in delivery. I believe then that in the Fourth\nGospel we have the substantial thoughts of Christ, reproduced\ngenerally in the words and with the phraseology of John, whose mind,\nunder the divine inspiration, preserves the essential truth\nunimpaired, but represents it, not as a mechanical repeater of words,\nbut as a disciple who freely reproduces the ideas of his Master, but\nlargely in language of his own.\n\n=Object and character.= We are not left to surmise the object of the\nauthor of the Fourth Gospel. He himself tells us what it was: \u201cThese\nare written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of\nGod, and that, believing, ye might have life through his name.\u201d[22]\n\nAccording to John\u2019s Gospel, true religion consists not in obedience\nto an external law, but in a new life in the soul, by which it is\ntransformed, and the soul, its habits and character, are brought\ninto conformity with the law of God, that is, the law of love. This\nnew and divine life is implanted supernaturally from above; it is fed\nperpetually by the influence of the divine Spirit; it emancipates the\nsoul from all bondage to sin and the law; for it preparation is made by\nthe life and death of the Lord; in it God is manifested in a peculiar\nmanner to the soul and abides with it, an indwelling Comforter. This\nlife comes through a vital faith in Jesus as in a peculiar sense the\nSon of God, in whose life the believer finds his ideal of true life,\nby whose death he is redeemed from death, by whose spiritual power he\nis raised a new creature in Christ Jesus, by whose abiding presence he\nis guided, guarded, strengthened, fed. Those incidents and discourses\nin the life of Christ which illustrate and enforce this aspect of\nChristian truth and experience are those which John gives us in his\nGospel. The other Gospels represent the duties of the disciples, John\ntheir privileges; the other Gospels bid them what they ought to do,\nJohn points them to what they can become; the other Gospels represent\nChrist chiefly as a Saviour coming to seek and to save that which is\nlost, John as a Friend abiding with his own; in the other Gospels he is\na Shepherd in the wilderness, in John the Shepherd in the fold; in the\nother Gospels the Son is either still in the far country or but just\nreturning to his Father\u2019s home, in John he has returned and is abiding\nin his Father\u2019s love. In the other Gospels, therefore, Jesus is chiefly\nrepresented as a divine teacher, in John as a recognized Saviour; in\nthe other Gospels as the Son of man, in John as the Son of God; in the\nother Gospels we have seen him as he appears to the wanderer, in John\nas he is interpreted by the heart of the saved; in the other Gospels\nthe bridegroom is coming for his bride and is still the Unknown;\nin John he has taken her to himself, and her love at least dimly\nrecognizes in him the One among ten thousand and altogether lovely.\n\nThese aspects of truth may be easily discerned in even a brief survey\nof the Fourth Gospel.\n\nJohn opens his narrative by an introduction, in which he borrows the\nmystical language of Oriental philosophy to characterize Jesus, whom\nhe describes as the Life, the Light, the Word; he reports John the\nBaptist, not as the preacher of the baptism of repentance, but as a\nprophet of the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world\n(ch. 1); in his account of the conversation with Nicodemus (ch. 3),\nhe points out the origin of the spiritual life which Christ imparts to\nthe believer, \u201cYe must be born from above;\u201d in his report of the\nconversation with the Samaritan woman, and of the discourse at\nCapernaum (chaps. 4, 6), he indicates the means by which that life is\nsustained, by appropriating faith in Christ; and in his record of the\nintermediate discourse at Jerusalem (ch. 5), the basis for that faith\nin Christ\u2019s own portrayal of himself as the Son and manifestation of\nGod the Father; in his report of the discourses in the Temple, he sets\nforth in a different form the same truths. (ch. 7), declares the\nemancipation from bondage which faith in the Son achieves for the\nsoul, contrasts it with the life of bondage unto sin (ch. 8), and\ndescribes the safety and security of the disciples, a security\npurchased by the death of their Lord (ch. 10); he narrates the\nresurrection of Lazarus, therein portraying Jesus as the resurrection\nand the life (ch. 11); he reports those words of Jesus at the Last\nSupper, the full meaning of which no Christian experience has ever yet\nfully sounded, in which is promised to the believing disciple a\nspiritual manifestation of God to the soul, an abiding life of God in\nthe soul, and a joyful realization of all spiritual fullness in God by\nthe soul (chaps. 14, 15, 16); he records the only reported\nintercessory prayer of the Lord for his disciples (ch. 17), the burden\nof which is, \u201cAs thou Father art in me and I in you, that they also\nmay be one in us;\u201d in the account of the Passion he alone gives the\nshort dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, in which the Lord declares\nhimself a king and his kingdom one of everlasting truth; and in his\naccount of the resurrection (ch. 20), he tells the story of Thomas\u2019s\nunbelief and of Christ\u2019s warm commendation of \u201cthose who have not seen\nand yet have believed.\u201d Life through faith--this is the burden of\nJohn\u2019s Evangel; Jesus Christ the Life-giver, the disciple of Jesus\nChrist the recipient of a new life--this is the good news which\nconstitutes the Fourth Gospel.\n\n=When and where and for whom written.= A very ancient testimony, that\nof Iren\u00e6us, repeated by Jerome and later writers, fixes the place of\npublication at Ephesus. This accords with the character of the Gospel\nitself. The Oriental phraseology employed in the first chapter\nespecially, but also in less degree in other portions of the Gospel,\nindicates that it was written in a city where Oriental philosophy had\na strong hold; and of all Greek cities Ephesus was the most Oriental.\nMoreover, an ancient and apparently trustworthy tradition makes this\ncity the home of John in his later years. The time of its composition\nis uncertain. Iren\u00e6us states that it was the latest written of the\nfour Gospels. The character of the Gospel, as we have seen, confirms\nthis tradition. The book bears marks of being written in old age; it\nis apparently the production of a ripened Christian experience. Alford\nfixes the date as between A. D. 70 and A. D. 85; Macdonald, A. D. 85\nor 86; Godet, between A. D. 80 and 90; Tholuck, not far from A. D.\n100.\n\n\n [1] For same account in detail of these discussions, see\n Godet\u2019s Commentary on St. John\u2019s Gospel, Intro., Chap.\n II.\n\n [2] Comp. Matt. 27:56 with Mark 15:40.\n\n [3] Luke 8:3.\n\n [4] Matt. 20:20, 21; Mark 15:40; 16:1.\n\n [5] John 7:15, 48.\n\n [6] 1 Kings 9:10, 11. See Abbott\u2019s Dict. of Rel. Knowledge,\n art. _Galilee._\n\n [7] See John 1:35-37, notes; Matt. 4:21; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20;\n 26:37; Mark 5:37; John 13:23; 14:26, 27; 20:1-8; Acts\n 3:1, etc.; 8:14-25; Gal. 2:9.\n\n [8] Acts, ch. 19; ch. 20:17-38.\n\n [9] Mark 3:17; Luke 9:49-56; Matt. 20:20; John 18:15; 19:26;\n Acts 4:19, 20.\n\n [10] Matt. 16:22; John 14:5, 8, 22; John 12:4, with Matt. 26:14.\n\n [11] John 5:16, 18; 7:13, 19; 8:40, 44, 59; 9:22, 28; 18:31, etc.\n\n [12] See John 2:6, 13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 8:17; 10:34; 15:25;\n 19:40, 42.\n\n [13] John 1:14; 19:35; 21:24; 1 John 1:1-3.\n\n [14] John 1:36, 38; 4:6; 6:10; 12:3; 13:30; 18:18.\n\n [15] John 12:27, 28; 13:3; chaps. 14-16.\n\n [16] John 1:19; 3:16; 6:37; chaps. 4, 5, 10, 14, 15.\n\n [17] John 2:6; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 18:28; 19:40.\n\n [18] See John 7:1, 19, 25, 32; 8:6, 59; 9:22; 10:31; 11:49.\n\n [19] John 6:70, 71; 11:6; 13:2, 27.\n\n [20] The student will find this hypothesis urged with great\n literary ingenuity by Matthew Arnold, in \u201cGod and the\n Bible.\u201d\n\n [21] See John 5:4, and note there.\n\n [22] John 20:31. This declaration makes it unnecessary to\n discuss the various theories which have been proposed,\n such as that it was written to supplement the other\n Gospels and supply their defects, or to refute certain\n Gnostic heresies, or to commend Christianity to the\n disciples of Oriental philosophy and the like. These may,\n or may not, have been subordinate aims of the writer:\n the main design he clearly indicates, and it is the\n design here indicated which affords the key to the true\n interpretation of the Gospel as a whole.\n\n\n\n\n THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.\n\n\n1:1-18. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JOHN.--THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST.--THE\nCREATIVE POWER OF CHRIST.--THE REGENERATING WORK OF CHRIST.--THE\nILLUMINATION GIVEN BY CHRIST.--THE DIVINE MANIFESTATION IN CHRIST.--THE\nWORD; THE LIGHT; THE LIFE; THE TABERNACLE; THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN\nSON.--CONTRASTED WITH JOHN THE BAPTIST; WITH MOSES.--THE GIFTS HE\nCONFERS; THE WELCOME HE RECEIVES.\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--The ordinary English reader will find no difficulty\nin comprehending the truths which John expresses in this introduction\nto his Gospel, viz., the pre-existence, divine attributes, and divine\nnature of that Jesus, the Messiah, of whom his book is written. John\nidentifies him with the Word, which was with God from eternity, and\nwith the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.\nBut it is not so clear why he should use the peculiar and somewhat\nmysterious language here employed; for the full understanding of this,\nsome historical explanation is necessary. My object in this note is to\nafford very briefly this historical explanation, as a basis for more\ndetailed consideration of particular words and phrases in the notes.\n\nFrom the earliest ages the ablest minds have been perplexed by the\nproblem how to reconcile faith in an all-wise, all-powerful, and\nall-benevolent Creator, with the fact of a creation full of sin and\nsuffering. One of the ablest thinkers of modern times (John Stuart\nMill) has declared the problem insoluble, and from the facts of\ncreation has deduced the conclusion that the Creator is neither\nall-wise, all-powerful, nor all-good; to use his own words respecting\nthe Creator, \u201chis wisdom is possibly, his power certainly limited,\nand his goodness, though real, is not likely to have been the only\nmotive which actuated him in the work of creation.\u201d--(_Three Essays in\nReligion._) Oriental philosophy, pondering this problem, proposed for\nits solution an hypothesis which to a Western mind seems singularly\npuerile and fantastic, and yet which, in slightly different forms,\ngained, at one period in the world\u2019s history, an acceptance quite as\nwidespread as any form of philosophy or theology of to-day. This\nhypothesis, however modified in form, was in essence this, that the\nevil in the world came not from the Creator, but from some other and\ninferior Being. In the Persian religion there were two deities, a good\nand an evil god, Ormuzd and Ahriman, struggling with each other for\nthe supremacy. In the Chaldean philosophy Light was the soul of the\nuniverse and the Original First Cause; in the lower realms, far below\nthe space filled with pure and unapproachable light, were darkness,\nnight, and all forth-springing evils, which either the Supreme Light\nregarded it beneath his dignity to contend with, or which were\nindestructible and could only be confined within narrow limits, not\ndestroyed. In the Hindoo philosophy, the Great First Cause, the\nbeatific Brahm, lived in perpetual repose, in a supreme and serene\nindifference to all things. From him, by emanations, proceeded lesser\ndeities, and from these, by a process more or less remote, a corrupt\ncreation. At the beginning of the Christian era, Alexandria, founded\nby and named in honor of Alexander the Great, was one of the\nintellectual centres of the world. Here was gathered a library of over\n700,000 volumes; here congregated Oriental dreamers, Greek philosophers,\nand Jewish religionists. Here, in the third century before Christ, was\ntranslated into the Greek language the Old Testament Scriptures. Here\nabout 20 B. C., was born Philo, a Jew, of a priestly family, a\nphilosopher and _litterateur_, and a voluminous writer. He was not an\noriginal thinker; his works are therefore all the more valuable as a\nreflection of the current mystical philosophy of his age and school.\nThis dreamy philosophy it is difficult to translate into modern forms\nof thought. So far as this can be done, it may be said to have\ninvolved the following statements: God is simply the absolute,\nunchangeable Existence, incomprehensible, inconceivable, yet ever to\nbe the object of our thoughts and meditations. He could not come\ndirectly into contact with matter without losing something of his\nineffable excellence. Hence he gave forth certain divine powers or\ninfluences, \u201cincorporeal potencies,\u201d which surround God as the members\nof a court surround an earthly monarch. The highest of these is the\ndivine Logos or Word of God. Through this Word the world was created,\nand to the influence of the inferior potencies the evils of the world\nmust be attributed. Again, borrowing the imagery of the Chaldeans,\nPhilo conceives of God as the pure and absolute Light, the original\nsource of effulgence, the Logos or Word as the nearest circle of light\nproceeding from it, and each separate power as a separate ray, fading\nmore and more away into darkness, as it becomes removed from the\noriginal source and centre. From this philosophy was later developed\nthat peculiar and incomprehensible form of thought known as\nGnosticism. This Gnostic philosophy, which reached its climax in the\nsecond century after Christ, undertook to describe in detail all the\nemanations from the original inconceivable deity; Reason, the Word,\npractical Wisdom, theoretical Wisdom, Power, Light, Life, were all\nlesser deities. The God of the Jews was one of these lower deities;\nJesus Christ was a higher deity--the Reason according to some, the\nWord according to others, who came to deliver the world from its\nsubjection to the inferior deity, and who entered the body of Jesus at\nhis baptism, and departed from it just before his crucifixion. Whether\nJohn was acquainted with the writings of Philo we do not know; but he\nwas certainly familiar with this Gnostic philosophy. It had already\nbegun to enter into and corrupt the Christian church during the\nlifetime of Paul, whose writings contain frequent references to\ndifferent phases of it (e. g., Col. 2:18; 1 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Tim.\n2:16-18); Ephesus, a city of luxury, effeminacy and superstition\n(Acts, ch. 19, notes), was a centre of this philosophy; in Paul\u2019s\naddress to the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:29, 30), and\nin his letter to Timothy, first bishop of that church (subs. to 2\nTim.), he especially warns against it (2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3:8, 9); and\nEphesus was John\u2019s residence, and probably the city in which he wrote\nhis Gospel. (See Introduction.)\n\nJohn, then, employs the language of this mystical philosophy, in order\nmore effectually to refute its errors. He finds a certain substratum\nof truth, viz., that there is one God and one Mediator between God and\nman, underlying this superstructure of error; he begins his Gospel\nby occupying this ground, and by his phraseology brings himself into\nsympathy with his Gnostic readers; then, from this common ground he\nleads them on to the truth respecting the incarnation. It is true,\nhe says to them, that there is a Word of God, but this Word was from\nthe beginning with God, and is indeed God himself, who is not\nincommunicable, but a self-manifesting God. It is true that there is a\nLife and a Light; but the Life is God himself, not an inferior and\nsubordinate deity; and the Light is not remote and unapproachable, but\nlighteth every man that cometh into the world. For this Mediator is\nnot an emanation from God, but God himself, the true Light shining in\nthe darkness (verse 5), the true Life by whom we can not only commune\nwith Christ, but become the very children of God (verses 12, 13). And\nhe has come and tabernacled among men in the flesh, in the earthly\nlife of Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nIt only remains to add that there is to be found in the Old Testament\n(see notes below) a Scriptural basis for John\u2019s use of the language\nhere, particularly his phrase \u201cthe Word of God,\u201d and that there is not\nthe least ground for the claims of some rationalistic scholars that\nJohn derived his doctrine here from Philo, or from the Alexandrian or\nGnostic schools. On the contrary, his doctrine and theirs are radically\ninconsistent. Philo holds that matter is inherently defiling, that God\ncannot come into contact with matter, even to fashion it in creation,\nwithout defilement; John, that God \u201cwas made flesh and dwelt among us,\u201d\nand yet so far from being defiled thereby, manifested his glory, \u201cthe\nglory of the only-begotten of the Father.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n\n 1 In[23] the beginning was the Word,[24] and the Word was\n with[25] God, and the Word was[26] God.\n\n [23] Prov. 8:22, 31; Col. 1:16, 17; 1 John 1:1.\n\n [24] Rev. 19:13.\n\n [25] ch. 17:5.\n\n [26] Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:8-13; 1 John 5:7.\n\n=1. In the beginning.= John begins the Gospel where Moses began the\nLaw. The employment of and the reference to the language of the\nfirst verse of the first chapter of Genesis is unmistakable. In that\nbeginning in which God created the heavens and the earth was the Word,\nand the Word was with God and was God and was the One through whom\nthe act of creation was consummated. So in Prov., chap. 8, Wisdom\npersonified is represented as with God in the creation and from the\nbeginning (see especially verses 23-29). For parallel passages\nteaching the pre-existence of Christ, see John 8:58; 17:5; Phil. 2:5,\n6; 1 John 1:1. In Rev. 3:14 he is described as \u201cthe beginning of the\ncreation of God,\u201d but this does not necessarily imply that he was a\ncreated Being. See notes there.--=Was the Word.= There are several\nGreek words meaning _word_; (1 and 2) \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 and \u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, word in the\ngrammatical sense, _i. e._, that which is spoken; (3) \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, word in\nthe rhetorical sense, that which is delivered by words, the subject\nexpressed; (4) \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1, word in a technical sense, strictly a _name_,\nand only because words are names or appellations; (5) \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, word in\nthe philosophical sense, the outward form by which the inward thought\nis expressed. The latter term is employed here. As the thoughts or\nexperiences of the soul are completely hidden from us till they are\nuttered, so God is the Unknown and the Unknowable, save as he utters\nhimself, discloses his nature to us, which he does chiefly if not\nsolely through him who is for that reason called the Word, _i. e._,\nthe utterance of God. The metaphor which underlies this phraseology\nis in part interpreted by the saying of Wordsworth that language is\nthe incarnation of ideas. (2) In the Old Testament we have a partial\nemployment of the same symbolism. In Moses\u2019 account of the creation,\nGod is represented as calling the various powers of nature into\nbeing by a _word_. \u201cGod said Light be! Light was!\u201d (Gen. 1:3, see\nalso 6, 9, 11, etc.) In the later Hebrew poetry this symbol is\nmade more prominent in the distinct declaration that \u201cby the word of\nthe Lord were the heavens made.\u201d (Ps. 33:6; comp. 107:20; Isaiah\n55:10, 11; see also Heb. 11:3.) The same symbol, in a slightly\ndifferent form, reappears in Prov., chap. 8, which is connected\nwith that employed here by the language of certain of the apocryphal\nbooks, _e. g._, \u201cI (Wisdom) came out of the mouth of the Most High\nand covered the earth as a cloud\u201d (Ecclesiasticus 24:3). \u201cShe\n(Wisdom) is the breath of the power of God\u201d (Wisdom of Solomon\n1:25). (3) The same symbolism was employed as we have seen (Prel. Note\nabove) in the mystical philosophy of Alexandria and of later\nGnosticism, with which John was familiar, and of which, Ephesus,\nhis city, was a centre, to represent an eon or emanation for the\ndeity. That the Word here does not mean the Bible or the Gospel is\nevident both from the connection, since it cannot be said that the\nBible became flesh (ver. 14), and also from John\u2019s usage, who never\nemploys the phrase Word of God to designate the Bible, but usually\nthe term Scriptures or writings (John 2:22; 5:39; 7:38, 42; 19:24,\n28, 36, 37, etc.). Moreover he does employ this phraseology elsewhere\nto designate Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). It cannot mean\n_the Speaking One_ nor _the Promised One_. Though both these meanings\nhave been attributed to it, it is not grammatically capable of either\ninterpretation. There is classical authority for rendering it _Reason_\nor _Order_, and this meaning it still retains in words ending with\n_ology_, such as _ge-ology_ (ge-logos), the order, _i. e._, science of\nthe earth; _path-ology_ (pathos-logos), the order, _i. e._, science of\ndisease. But it is never used with this signification by John, and is\nnever but once so used in the N. T. (1 Peter 3:15), if even there the\ntranslation is strictly accurate, which is doubtful. Seeking, then, to\nunderstand John as he would have been understood by his contemporaries,\nI think it clear that he declares, not that Reason or Wisdom was in\nthe beginning with God, nor Speech, nor the Promised Messiah, but _the\nWord_, _i. e._, _the One by and through whom he was chiefly to be\nmanifested to the world_, as one soul is to another by utterance.--=And\nthe Word was with God and the Word was God.= Grammatically the last\nclause of the sentence may be read, _and God was the Word_. But the\nobvious connection calls for the rendering of our English version, and\nit is the rendering adopted by the best scholars. There is a difference\nin the language of the first and last clause of this sentence in the\noriginal which is significant, but difficult, if not impossible, to\nrender in the English. In the first clause, \u201c_the Word was with God_,\u201d\nthe article accompanies the word God; in the second clause, \u201c_the\nWord was God_,\u201d it is wanting. We should measurably reflect the\nmeaning by reading the passage, \u201cthe Word was with God and the Word was\ndivine;\u201d or \u201cthe Word was with the Father and the Word was God.\u201d\n\n\n 2 The same was in the beginning with God.\n\n=2. The same was in the beginning with God.= John recurs to his first\nstatement and reiterates it, not merely for the sake of emphasis,\nbut also to mark a real distinction between the Word and the unknown\nFather. For he labors to express two conflicting and even apparently\ncontradictory ideas, the identity of the Word with God and the\nindividuality of the Word, as distinct from the infinite and invisible\ndeity. This contradiction subsequent theology has endeavored in vain\nto eliminate by drawing distinctions between essence and substance,\nperson and being, etc., in such phraseologies as three in substance and\none in essence, or three persons in one God. This _philosophy_ of the\nTrinity is extra-Scriptural, framed to harmonize teachings respecting\nthe divine nature, which are best harmonized by the frank confession\nthat the knowledge of the divine nature is too wonderful for us, we\ncannot attain unto it (Ps. 139:6; Job 11:7). So Chalmers, \u201cThe\nFather is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. God is one. If\nyou ask me to reconcile the four (propositions), I answer, I cannot.\nWe require no one to reconcile the personality of each with the unity\nof God.\u201d So Calvin, \u201cI could wish them (the extra-Scriptural phrases,\nperson, hypostasis, etc.) to be buried in oblivion, provided this truth\nwere universally received, that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit\nare the one God; and that nevertheless the Son is not the Father, nor\nthe Spirit the Son, but that they are distinguished from each other by\nsome peculiar properties.\u201d\n\n\n 3 All[27] things were made by him; and without him was not\n anything made that was made.\n\n [27] Ps. 33:6; Eph. 3:9.\n\n=3. All things were made by him.= To interpret this language \u201cAll\nthings\u201d as meaning simply the moral creation, is to distort plain\nlanguage in order to conform it to preconceived ideas, a fault in\nexegesis of which no school of theology is entirely innocent. The\nreference to Genesis, ch. 1, is unmistakable. The declaration is\nparallel to and interpreted by such passages as Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6;\nHeb. 1:2. The Greek student will observe, however, and the English\nstudent should know, that the language here implies that the Word\nwas the _instrument_ by which God created the \u201call things,\u201d not the\n_original source of creative power_. There are two Greek prepositions\ntranslated in English \u201c_by_,\u201d one (\u1f10\u03ba) signifying the source or origin\nfrom which anything proceeds, or the power by which it is produced;\nthe other (\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac) signifying the means or instrument through which it is\nproduced. One indicates the original, the other the proximate cause.\nThe preposition here used is the latter, and the exact meaning of the\nsentence will be imparted by the rendering All things were made _by\nmeans of him_ or _through him_. With this interpretation corresponds\nthe general teaching of the New Testament, which represents Christ,\nboth in his earthly life and in his heavenly administration, as always\nthe executor of his Father\u2019s will. This is in some sense especially\nprominent in John\u2019s Gospel (see for example John 5:22, 23, 27; 6:37,\n44, 57; 8:28, 42; 10:29; 14:10; 17:18, 24); but it is equally clearly\ntaught elsewhere (Luke 2:49; 1 Cor. 15:27, 28; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1:19;\ncomp. Mark 10:40, note and references there).--=And without him was\nnot anything made that was made.= Simply an emphatic and exhaustive\nreiteration, such as is not infrequent in fervid writing. For analogous\nrhetorical repetition in John see verse 20; 1 John 2:4, 27. Some\nmanuscripts and some few scholars put a period at the close of the\nfirst clause of the sentence, and connect the last clause with the\nfollowing verse, so that the passage reads: _And without him was not\nanything made. And what originated in him was life._ But while this\nreading is grammatically possible, it is generally repudiated by the\nbest scholars, who accept the punctuation and rendering of our English\nversion as correct.\n\n\n 4 In him[28] was life; and the life was the light[29] of\n men.\n\n [28] ch. 5:26; 1 John 5:11.\n\n [29] ch. 8:12.\n\n=4. In him was life.= There is probably a reference here again to the\nlanguage of Gnostic philosophy (See Prel. Note), which supposed\nother eons or emanations from God, besides the Word, prominent among\nwhich was Light and Life. Here, as throughout this introduction, John\nemploys the language of the Gnostics to correct their errors. The\ngeneral and practical teaching for us of the declaration is that Christ\nis the source of both physical or external life (Col. 1:17), and\nof intellectual and spiritual life (ch. 10:10). It is admirably\ninterpreted by Kaulbach\u2019s famous cartoon of the Reformation, in which\nLuther with the open Bible in his hand is represented as the centre\nof the intellectual and moral awakening which characterized that\ncentury. Observe, since Christ is Life and Light, that any religion\nwhich dwarfs man, represses their life, belittles them, and any which\nshuts them up in darkness and denies them intellectual freedom\nand progress in any direction, is so far anti-Christ. The cause of\nChrist has nothing to fear from any intellectual life or any light of\nscientific discovery.--=And the life was the light of men.= Not merely\n_shall be_, not merely _is_, but _was_. The intimation is that all the\nlight of Old Testament prophecy and instruction, if not all that dim\nreligious light which has illuminated even heathen nations, through\nspecial instructors such as Buddha, Confucius and Socrates, came\nthrough the Word, _i. e._, through the Mediator by whom the invisible\nGod reveals himself to man, of which revelation the incarnation\n(ver. 14) is only a part, though a most important part. Compare\nwith the language here 1 John 1:5.\n\n\n 5 And the light shineth in[30] darkness; and the darkness\n comprehended[31] it not.\n\n [30] ch. 3:19.\n\n [31] 1 Cor. 2:14.\n\n=5. And the light shineth in the darkness.= _Shines_, not merely\nappears; a real illumination is indicated; _shines_, not shone; a\npresent and continuous illumination is indicated; _the_ darkness, not\nmerely darkness; as, before God said \u201cLet there be light,\u201d the earth\nis reported as enveloped in darkness (Gen. 1:2), so, before and\napart from this spiritual illumination, through the Light of the world,\nthe nations of the earth were in gross darkness. Comp. Isaiah 42:6,\n7; Matt. 4:16, note; Ephes. 5:7, 8; John 12:46.--=And the darkness\ncomprehended it not.= This has been universally true in the world\u2019s\nhistory; the dim light of conscience has never been apprehended, taken\nhold of by heathen nations. The light afforded by special and signal\nmoral geniuses has never been comprehended aright by the people, as\nwitness the deterioration of Buddhism and Confucianism; the teachings\nof the Jewish prophets were not comprehended; they shone in darkness\nwhich was not dispelled by their instructors; and the clearer light\nof Christ has never, even in the best ages, been more than very\nimperfectly apprehended, even in the church. Here the primary reference\nis certainly to the constant closing of their eyes by the Jews to the\nlight of the Old Testament teachings, concerning the spirit of true\nreligion, the nature of the kingdom of God, and the character and\nappearance of the promised Messiah. For the reason why the darkness\ndoes not comprehend the light, see chap. 3:19; comp. Matt. 13:15, note.\n\n\n 6 There was a man[32] sent from God, whose name _was_ John.\n\n\n 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the\n Light, that all _men_ through him might believe.\n\n [32] Luke 3:2, 3.\n\n=6, 7. There was a man sent from God.= From a characterization of the\nlight, John passes to a description of the incarnation and its object,\nand to a discrimination between the incarnate Light and the prophet\nwho foretold its coming. From the Greek word here rendered _sent_\n(\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, _apostello_) comes our word _apostle_. The apostle is a\nman sent from God; Christ is the word or utterance, or manifestation\nof God. Comp. Heb. 1:1-3.--=John.= The Baptist.--=The same came for a\nwitness.= As one who enters the witness-stand to testify what he\nknows, so John the Baptist came to declare what had been revealed to\nhim concerning the coming Messiah. Comp. John 5:32-35.--=To bear\nwitness of the Light.= Simply a repetition and amplification of the\nprevious clause of the sentence. He was not a mere preacher of the\nlaw, nor of the duty of repentance, though this is the phase of his\nministry most prominent in the reports of Matt. (3:1-12), and Luke\n(3:1-18). He was a forerunner of the great King, sent to bear witness\nof his approach. And this phase of his ministry, though indicated in\nthe other Gospels (Matt. 3:11; 11:9, Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:16, 17), is\nmost clearly brought out in John (verses 23, 29-36).--=That all\nthrough him might believe.= That is, through John might believe in the\nLight. The other construction, through the Light might believe, _i.\ne._, in God, is forced and unnatural, even if grammatically\nadmissible. The true office of the Christian ministry is so to bear\nwitness to the Light which the preacher _knows_ by his own experience\n(Rom. 7:14; 8:28; 2 Tim. 1:12), that men may believe in and accept\nthat Light (2 Cor. 4:5; Col. 1:28.)\n\n\n 8 He[33] was not that Light, but _was sent_ to bear witness\n of that Light.\n\n 9 _That_ was the true Light,[34] which lighteth every man\n that cometh into the world.\n\n [33] Acts 19:4.\n\n [34] Isa. 49:6.\n\n=8, 9.= An early Gnostic sect (second century) believed that John was\nthe Messiah. The primary reference here appears to be to this error,\nwhich, in common with other Gnostic errors (see Prel. Note),\nJohn aims to correct in this introduction to his Gospel. Compare, with\nthe declaration here, Christ\u2019s characterization of John, \u201cHe was a\nburning and a shining light\u201d (ch. 5:35). The Greek scholar will\nobserve that the English word \u201c_light_\u201d represents different Greek\nwords in the two passages. Here the word is one signifying original\nlight (\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2), there rather a borrowed or reflected light (\u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3),\nthough the latter word is once applied to Christ (Rev. 21:23).\nWe are to be in a true sense the former kind of light (\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, Matt.\n5:14), because Christ _in us_ is our light, and by his indwelling\nwe are made partakers of his nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and men seeing\nthis light glorify, not us, but Him who shines in and through\nus.--=The true Light was that which lighteth every man that cometh into\nthe world.= There is some difficulty about the construction of this\nsentence; this appears to me to be the best. For other constructions,\nsee Alford and Meyer. On the meaning of the declaration observe,\n(1) That John\u2019s use of the word _true_ here is interpreted by his\nuse of the same word in other and analogous passages, _e. g._, \u201ctrue\nworshippers\u201d (John 4:23); \u201ctrue bread\u201d (ch. 6:32); \u201ctrue vine\u201d (ch.\n15:1). The light, the bread, the vine of earth are regarded only as\nsymbols of the spiritual truths which they parabolically represent.\nChrist is the original pattern, or source of light; all prophets and\nteachers are only reflections from him; all material light is a symbol\nor parable of his illuminating grace. (2) The phrase, \u201c_lighteth every\nman that cometh into the world_,\u201d is not to be taken as an hyperbole.\nThe latter clause is added, not merely, as Meyer, \u201cas a solemn\nredundance,\u201d \u201can epic fullness of words,\u201d but to emphasize and make\nclear the declaration, and to show that \u201cevery man\u201d means not merely\n(_a_) the Jews, nor (_b_) those who accept Christ as their light, nor\n(_c_) the Christian nations, but literally _all men_. The _every_\n(\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2) here is thus distinguished from the _all_ (\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2) of verse 7\nabove. Christ is the universal light; all intellectual and political\nas well as moral illumination has come through him; and this, not only\nin Christendom, but also in heathendom. Such light as struggles\nthrough the thick darkness, in a partial disclosure of divine truth\nafforded by a Buddha or a Confucius, or dimly recognized by a\nCornelius, comes from Him who, in larger or smaller measure, lighteth\n_every_ man that cometh into the world. By this declaration we are to\ninterpret such passages as Matt. 8:11; Acts 10:35; Rev. 5:9; whoever\naccepts even this imperfect and dim light, mistakenly called the light\nof Nature, in so far accepts Christ.\n\n\n 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him,\n and[35] the world knew him not.\n\n [35] verse 5.\n\n\n 11 He[36] came unto his own, and his own received him\n not.\n\n [36] Acts 3:26; 13:46.\n\n=10, 11.= Notice the rhetorical climax in these verses; he _was in_\nthe world; he _came_ unto his own; the world _knew_ him not; his\nown _received_ him not. The _world_ is here humanity in general,\nJew and Gentile, both of whom united in Christ\u2019s crucifixion; the\nJew, represented in the high-priest who deliberately rejected him\n(John 11:47-50), the Gentile, represented in Pilate and the\nsoldiers, who simply did not know him. _His own_ are the Jewish\npeople, Jehovah\u2019s peculiar possession (Exod. 19:5; Deut. 7:6;\nPsalm 135:4; Isaiah 31:9), to whom he first came and by whom he\nwas rejected before he was preached to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46;\nRom. 1:16). It was only the world of _men_ that knew him not;\nnature knew and obeyed him whenever he commanded her obedience, as\nin the turning of water into wine, the stilling of the tempest, etc.\nThe verbs in this sentence are in the imperfect tense, and the\nreference is to the incarnation of Christ and his earthly life. Observe\nthat the Jewish nation which rejected the Messiah is rejected by God\n(Matt. 8:12), and that the disciples of Christ are not to know\nthe world which knew not their Lord and Master (1 John 2:15-17).\n\n\n 12 But as many[37] as received him, to them gave he power\n to become the sons of God, _even_ to them[38] that believe\n on his name:\n\n [37] Isa. 56:4, 5; Rom. 8:14, 15; 1 John 3:1.\n\n [38] Gal. 3:26.\n\n=12. But as many as received him.= Not merely, as Alford, \u201crecognized\nhim as that which he was--the Word of God and Light of men,\u201d but\n_received him_ as the Word to be implicitly obeyed (ch. 14:21;\n15:10, 15), and the Light in which to walk (1 John 1:6).--=To\nthem gave he power= (\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd). Not _capability_, nor _privilege_,\nnor _claim_, but _power and right_; the original word combines the two\nideas. He confers the _power_ to become the sons of God, and confers\nthe _right_ to claim that privilege. Ryle is certainly correct in\nsaying that this verse \u201cdoes not mean that Christ confers on those who\nreceive him a spiritual and moral strength, by which they convert\nthemselves, change their own hearts, and make themselves God\u2019s\nchildren.\u201d He is as certainly wrong in saying, with Calvin and the\nmarginal reading, that the original Greek word means \u201cright or\nprivilege.\u201d The reader will best get its meaning by comparing John\u2019s\nuse of it in other passages, in no one of which could it be rendered\neither \u201cright\u201d or \u201cprivilege.\u201d See ch. 5:27; 10:18; 17:2; 19:10, 11.\nComp. Matt. 28:18, note. The plain implication here is that the\n_power_ to become a son of God is not natural and inherent, but\nacquired, and is the especial gift of God. See Phil. 2:12, 13; Titus\n3:4, 5.--=To become the sons of God.= Sons and therefore (1) partakers\nof the divine nature (Ephes. 4:13; Heb. 12:10; 2 Pet. 1:4); (2)\nentitled to and walking in freedom as children, not in bondage as\nservants (ch. 15:15; Gal. 4:1-7); (3) heirs of God and joint-heirs\nwith Christ, his only-begotten Son (Rom. 8:16, 17). But the full\nconception of the meaning of this sonship we cannot know, till in the\nother world we see the Father as he is (1 John 3:1, 2).--=Even to them\nthat have faith in his name.= His name is _Jesus_, _i. e._, Saviour,\ngiven to him because he saves his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21).\nTo have faith in that name is to have faith in him as a personal\nSaviour from sin. Observe, then, that this verse comprises the whole\nGospel in a sentence. It declares (1) the object of the Gospel: that\nwe who are by nature the children of disobedience and of wrath (Ephes.\n2:2, 3) may become the sons of God; (2) the source to which we are to\nlook for this prerogative of sonship: _power_ conferred by God; (3)\nthe means by which we are to attain it: personal faith in a personal\nSaviour from sin. Observe too that John follows his description of the\nrejection of Christ, not by threatening punishment to them, but by\ndepicting the infinite gain of those that accept Christ.\n\n\n 13 Which were born,[39] not of blood, nor of the will of\n the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.\n\n [39] James 1:18.\n\n=13. Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of\nman, but of God.= That is, not by inheritance (Luke 3:8); nor by\nresolution (Rom. 8:5-8); nor by human teaching (1 Cor. 3:6, 7); but by\nthe direct personal influence and contact of the Spirit of God on the\nheart (Titus 3:5, 6). Thus, John emphasizes the declaration of the\npreceding verse, that _God gives the power to become the sons of God_,\nby declaring that Christian character is not the product of either\ngood parentage, a strong will, or a good education, but directly of a\ndivine recreative act. (Gal. 6:15.) The Greek student will observe\nthat the preposition used is _of_ (\u1f10\u03ba), not _through_ (\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac); the\nwriter is speaking of the _origin_ or _source_ of Christian character,\nnot of the _instruments_ by which it is developed. Good parentage,\nwill power, and education, are all _means_ for the development of\ndivine sonship; the original cause, without which a true son of God is\nnever produced, is the creative act of God himself.\n\n\n 14 And the Word[40] was made flesh, and dwelt among us,\n (and[41] we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only\n begotten of the Father,) full[42] of grace and truth.\n\n [40] Luke 1:35; 1 Tim. 3:16.\n\n [41] 2 Pet. 1:17; 1 John 1:1, 2.\n\n [42] Ps. 45:2; Col. 2:3, 9.\n\n=14. And the Word.= The self-manifesting God, as described in the first\nverse.--=Became flesh.= Not _a man_ (\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) nor _a body_ (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1),\nbut _flesh_ (\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be). The word is one whose signification would probably\nbe best rendered to the English reader by the phrase _human nature_.\nThough occasionally used in the N. T. of the literal and material flesh\n(Acts 2:31), it almost always indicates man in his corporeal or\nearthly nature, sometimes signifying the predominance of that over the\nhigher or spiritual nature, sometimes simply signifying this aspect of\nhis nature, without any indication of its corrupt tendencies. Here,\nthen, the declaration is that the Word became human nature; _how_ is\nnot indicated. The language gives no sanction to either of the two\nprincipal theories of the incarnation; the first, that Christ _took\non_ human nature as something superadded to the divine, so carrying\nthrough life a double nature, both divine and human; the second, that\nhe simply entered a human body and became subject to the limitations\nwhich it imposed on him. _How the divine became human_ we must learn\nelsewhere in the N. T., if the N. T. reveals it at all; but the\ndeclaration here is explicit that the divine Word became human.--=And\ntabernacled among us.= _Pitched his tent with us._ As God in the\nwilderness dwelt for a time in the transitory tabernacle, so the Word\ndwelt in the flesh, which is elsewhere in the N. T. compared to a\ntabernacle (2 Cor. 5:1, 4; 2 Pet. 1:13, 14). As God dwelt subsequently\nin the permanent Temple at Jerusalem, so the Word makes its permanent\nabode in the soul of the believer, which is the _Temple_, not the\nTabernacle of God (ch. 15:6, 7; 2 Cor. 6:16; Rev. 21:3). That the\nreference here is to the incarnation, not to the spiritual presence of\nChrist with the believer, is evident from the fact that the verb\n(\u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd) is in the historical tense. John says he _tabernacled_,\nnot he _tabernacles_, among us.--=And we beheld his glory, the glory\nas of the only begotten from the Father.= We are made sons of God; but\nChrist alone is the _only begotten Son_. For the meaning of this\nphrase, see Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38. John uses it only of Jesus Christ.\nThe Greek student should observe the use of the preposition _from_\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac). It designates the source from which anything is derived, and\nhere indicates that in a peculiar sense Christ is from the Father,\ndirectly and immediately; we are from him only through Christ. Comp.\nch. 7:29. In a peculiar sense the Apostles beheld Christ\u2019s glory (ch.\n2:11; Matt. 17:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 John 1:1). But in Christ\u2019s life and\ncharacter, and in their influence on the world, we are all beholders\nof the true divine glory, manifested in him (Heb. 1:3); and his\nearthly life is the brightness and glory of heaven (Rev. 21:23; 5:9,\n10). The language, _as of the only begotten_, distinguishes the glory\nof Christ from that of all previous revealers of the divine will and\nnature. Since many of the prophets too were glorified, as Moses,\nElijah, and Elisha, the one encircled by the fiery chariot, the other\ntaken up by it; and after them Daniel and the three children, and the\nmany others who showed forth wonders; and angels who have appeared\namong men, and partly disclosed to beholders the flashing light of\ntheir proper nature; and since not angels only, but even the cherubim\nwere seen by the prophet in great glory and the seraphim also; the\nEvangelist, leading us away from all these, and removing our thoughts\nfrom created things, and from the brightness of our fellow-servants,\nsets us at the very summit of good. For, \u201cnot of prophets,\u201d says he,\n\u201cnor angel, nor archangel, nor of the higher powers, nor of any other\ncreated nature, if other there be, but of the Master himself, the King\nhimself, the true only begotten Son himself, of the very Lord of all,\ndid we _behold the glory_.\u201d--(_Chrysostom._)--=Full of grace and\ntruth.= There is some doubt whether this is said of the _glory_\nbeheld, or of the _only begotten Son_ whose glory was beheld. The\nquestion is not very important; the latter construction is\ngrammatically preferable. Thus rendered, the clause \u201cAnd we beheld,\netc.,\u201d is parenthetical, John\u2019s statement being: \u201cThe Word tabernacled\namong us, full of grace and truth.\u201d Observe (1) that the _grace_ here\nanswers to the _Life_ in verse 4, and the _truth_ to the _Light_ in\nverse 9. Because of his grace Christ is Life to all who accept him;\nbecause of his truth he is Light to all who follow him; (2) that the\ndeclaration here is explained by, and is possibly partially derived\nfrom Exodus 33:18, 19, where Moses asks to see God\u2019s glory, and is\npromised a disclosure of the divine _goodness_; in the goodness of God\nin Christ Jesus we behold the divine glory; (3) that the Christian is\nto be, like his Master, full of grace _and_ truth, and that to be at\nonce perfectly truthful and also gracious is one of the most difficult\npractical problems of the Christian life (Rom. 12:9). It seems to me\nclear that John has in mind throughout this verse the manifestation of\nthe glory of God, through the Shechinah, in the Tabernacle, and\nsubsequently in the Temple (Exod. 40:34, 35; 1 Kings 8:10; see Matt.\n17:5, note). As the Shechinah made luminous and glorious these earthly\ndwelling-places, so the Word, by his indwelling, made glorious the\nflesh.\n\n\n 15 John[43] bare witness of him, and cried, saying,\n This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is\n preferred before me: for he was before me.\n\n [43] Matt. 3:11, etc.\n\n=15. John is testifying concerning him.= John the Baptist was long\nsince dead when these words were written; but his testimony was\nnot dead; it was an ever-living testimony. The verb is therefore\nput in the present tense, not, as in our English version, in the\npast.--=And he cried, saying,= It is the echo of this cry which still\nresounds and witnesses to Jesus Christ. The language used implies a\npublic testimony, and one borne with confidence and joy. On seeing\nthe Christ of whom he had prophesied, John the Baptist _cries out_,\n\u201cThis is he of whom I spoke.\u201d For illustration of John\u2019s prophetic\nutterances concerning the Messiah, previous to the baptism of Jesus,\nsee Matt. 3:11, 12; Mark 1:7, 8.--=He that cometh after me.= Christ\ndid not begin his public ministry till the imprisonment of John the\nBaptist (Mark 1:14). Thus as a public teacher he came after John the\nBaptist.--=Came forth before me.= Not, _was before me_ (\u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 has\nnot the force of \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af), for then the sentence would be tautological--\nthat Jesus _was_ before John is in the next clause given as the\n_reason_ for the statement in this, that he came forth before him; nor\ncan the meaning be _was preferred before me_, in the sense of esteemed\nabove me, for the mere fact of Christ\u2019s pre-existence would be no\nreason for esteeming him more highly than John--the devil _existed_\nbefore John the Baptist; nor, _was preferred before me_, in the sense\nof, was exalted in rank above me, though some excellent scholars, _e.\ng._, Alford, Olshausen, De Wette, so interpret it; but, as I have\nrendered it above, _came forth_, or, _was set before me_. The\nreference is to the previous manifestations of the Word, in the\npartial revelations of God in the O. T. All the disclosures of the\ndivine nature in the O. T. were made through the Word or utterance of\nGod, through whom alone he speaks to the human race. See ver. 4, note,\nand ch. 8:56-58. John then says \u201cHe who is coming after me is the One\nwho has already come forth before me; for he existed before me.\u201d\nChrist\u2019s pre-existence would not explain the preference, either in the\ndivine love or in rank, but it does in part explain precedence in\nappearance or manifestation. So Hengstenberg, \u201cMy successor is my\npredecessor.\u201d\n\n\n 16 And of his fulness[44] have all we received, and grace\n for grace.\n\n [44] ch. 3:34.\n\n=16. And of his fullness have we all received.= The _fullness_ is\nthat of the divine nature, of which we are made partakers through\nfaith in Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9, 10; Ephes. 3:19). The _all_\nare those who receive him and thus become the sons of God (verse\n12). This and the two following verses are the addition of the\nEvangelist, not the continuance of John the Baptist\u2019s discourse;\nthis is evident both from their style, which better accords with\nthat of the Evangelist, and because the _fullness_ of Christ\u2019s\nnature was not received by John the Baptist and his disciples, for\nit was not disclosed till after the Baptist\u2019s death. Observe, (1)\nHow inexhaustible the fountain. From Christ\u2019s fullness all spiritual\nlife is supplied. Chrysostom compares Christ to a fire from which ten\nthousand lamps are kindled, but which burns as brightly thereafter\nas before. \u201cThe sea is diminished if you take a drop from it, though\nthe diminution be imperceptible; but how much soever a man draw from\nthe divine Fountain, it continues undiminished.\u201d (2) How free the\nsupply; we have _all_ received. \u201cNone went empty away.\u201d--(_Meyer._)\n(3) The nature of Christian experience. It is not a mere trust in\na crucified Saviour for pardon for the past; it is also a personal\nand continuous receiving of divine life from the fullness of a\nliving Saviour.--=And grace for grace.= Of this expression there are\ntwo interpretations. The ancient expositors understood it to\nmean, For the lesser grace of the O. T. we have received the greater\ngrace of the N. T. So Chrysostom: \u201cThere was a righteousness and\nthere is a righteousness (Rom. 1:17); there was a glory and there is a\nglory (2 Cor. 3:11); there was a law and there is a law (Rom. 8:2);\nthere was a service and there is a service (Rom. 9:4; 12:11); there\nwas a covenant and there is a covenant (Jer. 31:31, 32); there was a\nsanctification and there is a sanctification; there was a baptism and\nthere is a baptism; there was a sacrifice and there is a sacrifice;\nthere was a temple and there is a temple; there was a circumcision and\nthere is a circumcision; and so too there was a grace and there is a\ngrace.\u201d The modern commentators, Alford, Meyer, Lange, etc.,\nunderstand it to mean, \u201cFor each new accessory of grace we receive a\nstill larger gift. Each grace, though, when given large enough, is, as\nit were, overwhelmed by the accumulation and fullness of that which\nfollows.\u201d--(_Bengel._) \u201cGrace for grace, grace _in the place_ of\nthat which preceded--therefore grace uninterrupted, unceasingly\nrenewed.\u201d--(_Winer._) The spiritual signification of the passage is\nsubstantially the same on either interpretation. We have nothing to\ngive in exchange for the divine grace; our only virtue is to receive.\nIt is given to us in exchange for the grace already imparted. \u201cUnto\nevery one that hath shall be given;\u201d but what he already hath is God\u2019s\ngift, which bestows both the good and the purchase money, each new\ngift superseding the old, as the N. T. gift of grace and truth through\nJesus Christ superseded the lesser gift of law through Moses. With\nthis accords the teaching of both O. T. and N. T. See, for example,\nDeut. 7:7; Ps. 6:4; 23:3; 25:7; 31:16; 79:9; 115:1; Isaiah 55:1;\nEphes. 2:4; 1 John 4:8, 10.\n\n\n 17 For the law was given by Moses, _but_ grace[45] and\n truth came by Jesus Christ.\n\n [45] Ps. 85:10; Rom. 5:21.\n\n=17. For the law was given by Moses.= _Through_ (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70) Moses as the\ninstrument or mediator of the old covenant.--=Grace and truth came by\nJesus Christ.= _Through_ (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70) Jesus Christ as the mediator of the new\ncovenant. The _grace_ is the favor of God (see below), the _truth_ is\nthe clear revelation of the divine character and will, seen only dimly\nunder the old covenant. (2 Cor. 3:13, 14.) Observe the contrast\nbetween Christ and Moses (comp. Heb. 3:5, 6); and between the\ngifts brought by the two. The law _was given_, a completed thing, once\nfor all; _grace and truth_ came and continually come, grace for grace,\nout of the inexhaustible fullness of the giver.\n\nON THE MEANING OF THE WORD \u201cGRACE.\u201d The word here translated _grace_\n(\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2) is also variously translated in the N. T. _acceptable_,\n_benefit_, _favor_, _gift_, _joy_, _liberality_, _pleasure_, _thanks_,\nand _thankworthy_. This fact will of itself sufficiently indicate that\nthe word possesses various shades of meaning. They are all, however,\netymologically derived from the same root idea. The noun is derived\nfrom a verb meaning to rejoice, and primarily signifies that which\ngives joy to another. With the Greeks, beauty was one of the chief\njoys; hence the first meaning of the word--grace of external form,\nmanner, or language, a meaning which it but rarely bears in the N. T.\n(see Luke 4:22; Col. 4:6). Thence it derived a deeper meaning, viz.,\nbeauty in character, and this, according to the N. T. teaching, is\ngood-will, the disposition to do a kindness to another, to make\nanother rejoice; hence the word is used to signify that quality in God\nwhich leads him to confer freely happiness on men, either on special\nindividuals (Luke 2:40; 1 Cor. 3:10), or on the whole human race (Rom.\n3:24; Ephes. 1:6; Tit. 2:11). Thence it was employed to designate the\nkindness actually flowing from and conferred by this disposition,\nhence an alms, and in the N. T. the spiritual gifts conferred by the\ndivine love on the soul (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:4; 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor.\n6:1; 2 Pet. 3:18); in which sense it is employed in the apostolic\nbenediction (1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3, etc.). Finally it was\nused to designate the feeling awakened by favors shown, the reflection\nin the human heart of the divine grace imparted, and hence gratitude\nand even its expression in thanks (Luke 6:32-34; 17:9; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2\nTim. 1:3). Underlying its meaning in all these uses is the radical\nidea that the gift is conferred freely and finds its only motive in\nthe bounty and love of the giver, an idea which finds expression in\nthe Latin word _gratis_ (for nothing), now thoroughly Anglicized, a\nword which comes from the same root as grace (_gratia_). By the\ndoctrine of grace, then, as it is variously expounded in the N. T., is\nmeant that our own spiritual life is the free gift of God, bestowed on\nus without merit or desert on our part, purely from the love and\ngood-will of God. Our _graces_ are God\u2019s _free gifts_. John here marks\nthe contrast between the law which _requires_ obedience of man, and\ngrace and truth which _confers_ spiritual power on man. The one says,\nDo this and live; the other says, Live, so that you can do this (Rom.\n8:3). Nowhere in the N. T. is the doctrine of grace more clearly set\nforth than in these 16th and 17th verses, which may be paraphrased\nthus: From the divine fullness in Jesus Christ we have all received;\nthe only condition which God attaches to the free impartation of his\nspiritual gifts is that we should have received willingly those\nalready proffered to us; by Moses it was revealed to us what God would\nhave us do and be; by Christ it is clearly disclosed to us what God\nis, and there is freely imparted to us power to become, like him, sons\nof God.\n\n\n 18 No man hath seen God[46] at any time; the[47] only\n begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath\n declared _him_.\n\n [46] Ex. 33:20; 1 Tim. 6:16.\n\n [47] 1 John 4:9.\n\n=18. No one hath seen God at any time.= Not merely _no man_; no\n_one_--man, angel, archangel. The phrase here, _seen God_, is\nequivalent to the phrase _knowing God perfectly_, in Matt. 11:27\n(see note there). We know him but in part, shall see him only when we\nawake in his likeness (Ps. 17:15); Christ sees him because he is one\nwith him.--=The only begotten Son.= Some manuscripts have here, _The\nonly begotten God_, and this reading is adopted by Tregelles, but\nrejected by Alford, Meyer, and Tischendorf. For examination of the\nauthorities on both sides, see Alford (sixth edition) and Lange,\ncritical note by Dr. Schaff. The external authorities are not\nconclusive; internal authority strongly favors the ordinary reading.\nThe only begotten God is a phrase occurring nowhere else in the N. T.,\nand is unnatural if not unmeaning. The change of a single letter in\nthe early copies would account for the corruption of the text (\u03a8 to\n\u0398).--=Which is in the bosom of the Father.= A metaphorical expression,\nindicating the closeness of intimacy, and drawn more probably from the\nrelation of a child with its parents, than from the not infrequent\nreclining of one on the bosom of his friend, at meal-time (John\n13:25).--=He hath declared him.= Comp. ch. 6:46; 14:6, 9, 10; 1 Tim.\n3:16; Heb. 1:3. These and other kindred passages indicate clearly\n_how_ Christ declares the Father, viz., not merely by what he teaches\nconcerning the divine nature, but yet more by his personal\nmanifestation of the divine nature in his own life and character. This\nverse thus interprets the word _truth_ in the preceding verse, as the\nword grace has already been interpreted by verses 11 and 12. Christ is\nthe _truth_ of God, because he reveals the divine nature; he is the\n_grace_ of God because he imparts the divine nature to such as trust\nin him.\n\nNOTE ON THE INCARNATION. A correct apprehension of the character and\nplace in history of Jesus Christ is essential to a correct\napprehension of Christianity. Our conception of the system will depend\nupon our conception of the Founder. The other Evangelists give simply\nthe story of his life, leaving the readers to draw their own\ndeductions respecting him. John, writing at a later date, and in\na more philosophical atmosphere, begins his Gospel with a\ncharacterization of the One the story of whose earthly life he is\nabout to narrate. It is evident on even a cursory examination of this\npreface that John believed and intended to teach, (1) That Christ\nexisted prior to his earthly birth. He was the Light that lighteth\nevery man that cometh into the world; was before John the Baptist,\nwhom in his earthly history and mission he succeeded; and he was in\nthe beginning with God (vers. 1, 4, 15). (2) That he possessed a\nsuperhuman character. He is carefully distinguished from and placed\nabove John the Baptist, the last of the prophets and more than a\nprophet (Matt. 11:9), and from Moses the lawgiver and politically the\nfounder of the Jewish nation; and he is emphatically declared not only\nto have been with God in the beginning, but to have partaken of the\ndivine nature (vers. 1, 6-8, 17). (3) This superhuman character is\nfurther illustrated by what is declared of his office or work. He is\nthe Creator, the Light and Life of men, the regenerating power through\nwhom men are brought into divine sonship, the daily support of the\nspiritual life of the children of God, the disclosure of the divine\nnature to men (vers. 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, 18). (4) This truth is\nincidentally, but all the more effectively, enforced by John\u2019s\npeculiar language in describing Christ\u2019s earthly state: he\n\u201ctabernacled among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the\nonly begotten from the Father\u201d (ver. 14). (5) Finally, it is\nillustrated in the various titles conferred upon him throughout this\nchapter, which are ten in number: the Word; the Light; the Life; the\nonly begotten of the Father; Jesus Christ, _i. e._, the Saviour, the\nMessiah; the only begotten Son; the Lamb of God; the Son of God;\nMaster; the Son of Man. It is not the province of the commentator to\nconstruct a systematic theology. But it is certain that these elements\nmust enter into any conception of Jesus Christ which is founded on and\naccords with the N. T. There is probably no other single passage of\nequal length in the N. T. which contains so much respecting the\ncharacter and office of Jesus Christ as this preface to John\u2019s Gospel;\nwith it, however, should be examined Paul\u2019s Christology (e. g., Phil.\n2:5-11), and that of the unknown author of the Epistle to the Hebrews\n(Heb., chaps. 1, 2).\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 1:19-51. INTRODUCTION OF CHRIST TO THE WORLD. BY JOHN THE BAPTIST\n(vers. 19-37); BY HIMSELF (vers. 38-51). CHRIST THE SIN-BEARER OF THE\nWORLD.--THE POWER OF CHRIST; THE ABIDING OF GOD\u2019S SPIRIT ON HIM.--\nCHRIST OUR PATTERN IN FISHING FOR MEN.--THE VALUE OF PERSONAL AND\nPRIVATE WORK.--THE POWER OF PREJUDICE IN GOOD MEN.--THE BEST ANSWER TO\nSKEPTICISM, \u201cCOME AND SEE.\u201d--CHRIST REVEALS HIMSELF WHEN HE REVEALS US\nTO OURSELVES.--CHRIST\u2019S FIRST COMING A PROPHECY AND FORETASTE OF HIS\nSECOND COMING.\n\nThe historical portion of the Fourth Gospel begins here. The interview\nbetween the deputation from the Sanhedrim and John the Baptist here\ndescribed probably took place after the baptism of Jesus, and during\nthe temptation, of which latter event this Gospel makes no mention.\nWith the account of the Baptist\u2019s ministry given here the reader\nshould compare Matt., chap. 3, and Luke, chap. 3.\n\n\n 19 And this[48] is the record of John, when the Jews sent\n priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art\n thou?\n\n [48] Luke 3:15, etc.\n\n\n 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am\n not the Christ.\n\n=19, 20. And this is the witness of John.= The writer goes back and\ngives a detailed history of John\u2019s first explicit testimony to the\nMessiah, connecting it with his previous reference to that testimony in\nverse 15.--=When the Jews sent priests and Levites.= In John\u2019s Gospel,\nthe term Jews generally signifies, not the residents of Palestine,\nbut those of Judea, and sometimes the official heads of the people.\nThis appears to be the meaning here. It is clear from verse 22 that\nthis was an official deputation, probably sent by the Sanhedrim. The\nBaptist\u2019s preaching had produced a profound sensation throughout\nthat part of Palestine; great crowds flocked to his ministry; he\nwas universally regarded as a prophet, and by some as perhaps the\nMessiah; some of the Pharisees themselves came to his baptism, though\nhis severe denunciation of their formalism, and their own opposition\nto such a personal reform as his preaching demanded, made them, as\na class, bitterly opposed to him (Matt. 3:5, 7; 21:25, 26; Luke\n3:15). It was therefore natural and fit that the Sanhedrim should\nsend to inquire officially respecting his ministry. There is nothing\nto indicate whether this inquiry was conducted in a hostile spirit or\notherwise.--=Who art thou?= Observe, throughout this interview, the\ndifference in the spirit of the inquirers and of John. They persist in\ndemanding to know _who_ he is; he replies only by pointing out _what_\nhe does. \u201cThey ever ask about his _person_; he ever refers them to his\n_office_. He is no one--a _voice_ merely; it is the work of God, the\ntestimony to Christ, which is everything. So the formalist ever in the\nchurch asks, _Who_ is he? while the witness for Christ only exalts,\nonly cares for Christ\u2019s work.\u201d--(_Alford._)--=And he publicly\nacknowledged, and denied not.= We know from Luke 3:15 that some\nthought he _might_ be the Messiah; and later, a Gnostic sect\nmaintained that he was the Messiah. This testimony, amplifying the\nbrief reference to it in verses 7, 8, is probably inserted in part to\nrefute this error.\n\n\n 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he\n saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.\n\n=21. Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not.= Mal. 4:5 declares that\nElijah should precede the Messiah. John the Baptist\u2019s character, and\neven his appearance (comp. Matt. 3:4 with 2 Kings 1:8), resembled that\nof Elijah. Christ distinctly declares that John the Baptist is the\nElijah foretold by the prophet and expected by the people (Matt.\n17:12, 13; comp. Luke 1:17). Here John says he is not. The true\nexplanation is, not that the people were expecting a literal\nresurrection of Elijah from the dead, and John denied that he\nfulfilled that expectation, but that, like many another great but\nhumble messenger of God, he did not comprehend his own character and\nmission and relation to ancient prophecy. He was more than he\nknew.--=Art thou that prophet?= From Deut., 8:15 the Jews expected a\nprophet to precede the Messiah (John 6:14; 7:40). Not till later was\nthis prophecy correctly interpreted by the Apostles as referring to\nChrist himself (Acts 3:22; 7:37).\n\n\n 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give\n an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?\n\n\n 23 He[49] said, I _am_ the voice of one crying in the\n wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the\n prophet[50] Esaias.\n\n [49] ch. 3:28; Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4.\n\n [50] Isa. 40:3.\n\n=22, 23.= See Matt. 3:3 and Mark 1:3, and notes. It is evident that the\ncharacterization of John the Baptist there and the application to him\nof the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3 was derived from John himself.\n\n\n 24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.\n\n\n 25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizeth\n thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither\n that prophet?\n\n\n 26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but\n there standeth one[51] among you, whom ye know not;\n\n [51] Mal. 3:1.\n\n\n 27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me,\n whose shoe\u2019s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.\n\n=24-27. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.= The Pharisees\nwere scrupulous ceremonialists, and ablutions were an important part of\ntheir ceremonial. See Matt. 15:1-7; Mark 7:2-5, notes. To them John\u2019s\nemployment of baptism appeared irregular and unauthorized if he were\nnot invested with some special divine authority.--=John answered\nthem.= This answer is only indirectly responsive to their\ninterrogatory. He passes at once from his own authority, which he\ndisdains to defend, to testify to the Messiah, whose forerunner he is.\nThe synoptical Evangelists (Matt. 3:11, 12, note; Mark 1:7, 8; Luke\n3:16, 17) report more fully John\u2019s characterization of his own baptism\nand its contrast with that which the Messiah would inaugurate; one in\nwater, the other in fire and the Holy Ghost; one a symbol, the other\nthe thing symbolized; one a prophecy, the other its fulfillment.--=There\nstandeth one among you whom ye know not.= That is, do not recognize as\nwhat he really is, the Messiah. It is not necessarily implied that\nJesus Christ was present at this interview, and verse 29 implies that\nhe was not. The language simply points to one apparently of the common\npeople and unknown.--=Who cometh after me, whose shoe-latchet I am\nunworthy to unloose.= This is the true reading; the words _is\npreferred before me_ have been added by some copyist from verse 15. On\nthe significance of the expression, see notes on Matt. 3:11 and Luke\n3:16. The latchet of the shoe is the leather thong with which the\nsandal was bound on to the foot or the shoe was laced. For\nillustration, see Mark 6:7-13, Vol. 1, p. 362.\n\n\n 28 These things were done in Bethabara[52] beyond Jordan,\n where John was baptizing.\n\n [52] Judges 7:24.\n\n=28. Bethabara.= The best reading here is Bethany; the common reading,\nBethabara, is derived from Origen, who found such a place about\nopposite Jericho. The Bethany intended is certainly not the well-known\ntown of that name on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, for this\none was beyond Jordan. The site is unknown; it has been fixed by Origen\nas far south as Jericho; by Stanley, 30 miles north of Jericho, near\nSuccoth; by Lightfoot, north of the Sea of Galilee. We can only say\nthat it was probably at one of the fords of the Jordan, in the great\neastern line of travel, and certainly at some point between the sea\nof Galilee and the neighborhood of Jericho. There are two traditional\nsites, one Greek, the other Latin, and both historically worthless.\n\n\n 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and\n saith, Behold the Lamb[53] of God, which taketh[54] away\n the sin of the world.\n\n [53] Ex. 12:3; Isa. 53:7, 11; Rev. 5:6.\n\n [54] Acts 13:39; 1 Pet. 2:24; Rev. 1:5.\n\n=29. The next day.= Not merely, _some following day_, for the original\nGreek word (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) never has this meaning in the N. T. It has been\nso rendered by some commentators here, in order to introduce the\nTemptation between the testimony of the Baptist to the delegation from\nJerusalem and his testimony here uttered to his own disciples.--=He\nseeth Jesus.= The word _John_ has been inserted by some copyists to\nmake the meaning clearer.--=Coming toward him.= Not, as in our English\nversion, _unto him_. The preposition employed (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2) signifies simply\ndirection. Why he was coming toward him is not a matter for profitable\nconjecture. Not, as some suppose, for baptism, for the temptation\nfollowed the baptism, and the order of events in John\u2019s narrative\nfollow each other so closely up to and after the marriage at Cana\n(vers. 35, 43; ch. 2:1), that no time is afforded for the temptation,\nwhich was forty days in duration, and which must have occurred prior\nto the interview between the Baptist and the Jewish delegation.--=And\nsaid.= Publicly, probably to his own disciples, perhaps to the\nmultitude. This first preaching of Christ produced no observable\neffect. It was not till John repeated it on the following day (ver.\n37) that any of his auditors followed Jesus.--=Behold the Lamb of\nGod.= Not _a_ lamb of God. The meaning cannot therefore be, Behold a\npure and innocent man; an interpretation which would probably never\nhave been conceived, but for the purpose of escaping the doctrine of\natonement for sin, which can be escaped only by rejecting both the Old\nand the New Testaments in their entirety.--=Which taketh away.= This\nexactly represents the significance of the original verb (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03c9), which\nmeans, not bears, or suffers, or releases from the penalty of, but\n_takes away_. For its non-metaphorical use, see Matt. 13:12, _shall be\ntaken away_; 21:21, _be removed_; Luke 6:30, _that taketh away_ thy\ngoods; John 11:39, _take away_ the stone; 11:48, the Romans shall\n_take away_ both our place, etc. It thus corresponds almost exactly\nwith the word (\u1f01\u03c6\u03af\u03b7\u03b3\u03b9) ordinarily translated forgive. See Matt. 6:12,\nnote. Observe that the verb is in the present tense, _is taking away_.\nThe sacrifice has been offered once for all; but its effect is a\ncontinuous one. Christ is ever engaged in lifting up and taking away\nthe sin of the world.--=The sin of the world.= Not _sins from the\nworld_, which would be a very different matter. The sin is represented\nas _one burden_, which Christ _as a whole_ lifts up and carries away.\nHis redemption is not a limited redemption; it provides a finished\nsalvation for the entire human race. See ch. 16:22, note.\n\nVery unnecessary difficulty has been made respecting the interpretation\nof the Baptist\u2019s simple metaphor here. The lamb was throughout the O.\nT. times commonly used for sacrifice as a sin-offering (Lev. 4:32); in\ncleansing the leper (Lev. 14:10); at the morning and evening sacrifice\n(Exod. 29:38); at all the great feasts (Numb. 28:11; 29:2, 13, 37;\nLev. 23:19); and in large numbers on special occasions (1 Chron.\n29:21; 2 Chron. 29:32; 35:7). The sacrifice of the paschal lamb at the\nPassover connected the lamb as a sacrifice with the greatest feast day\nof the nation, and with the national redemption from bondage and\ndeliverance from death (Exod. 12:21-27). The ceremony with the\nscape-goat on the day of atonement, the only fast-day in the Jewish\ncalendar, interpreted clearly, and by an annual symbol, the meaning of\nthese sacrifices. On that day two kids of goats were chosen, closely\nresembling each other; one was slain as a sin-offering; over the other\nthe high-priest confessed the sins of the people, \u201cputting them on the\nhead of the goat,\u201d who was then led away into the wilderness, \u201cto bear\nupon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited\u201d (Lev.\n16:5-10, 20-22). Isaiah, with unmistakable reference to these typical\nsacrifices, declared that the Messiah should bear the sins and sorrows\nof the world as a lamb slaughtered (Isaiah 53:1-7); and the Baptist,\nspeaking to a people whose national education had led them to regard\nthe lamb as the type of sacrifice, through the shedding of whose blood\nthere was a redemption, a carrying away of sins, points to Jesus with\nthe declaration, Behold _the_ Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of\nthe world, that is, the true Sin-bearer, of whom all that went before\nwere but types and prophecies. _How_ he was to take away this load of\nsin the Baptist does not say, and probably did not know. That he did\nnot realize that Christ was to be a true sacrifice for sin is\nindicated by his subsequent perplexity and message to Jesus (Matt.\n11:2-6, note). Observe the analogy and the contrast between the O. T.\nand the N. T. Under the O. T. there were provided by the sinner lambs,\nwhose sacrifice took sin away from the individual or the nation, but\nfor the time only, and therefore the sacrifice needed to be\ncontinually repeated; under the N. T. _one_ Lamb is provided, the Lamb\nof God, _i. e._, proceeding from and _provided by God_, as intimated\nby Abraham to Isaac (Gen. 22:8), whose sacrifice _once for all_ (Heb.\n10:10-12) takes away the sin of the _whole world_ (1 John 2:2), and\ntherefore never needs to be repeated. It is worthy of note that the\nword _lamb_ is never used in the N. T. except in reference to Jesus\nChrist (John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12,\netc.). The word _lambs_ in the plural form occurs twice, but both\ntimes refer to the disciples of Christ (Luke 10:3; John 21:15).\n\n\n 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which\n is preferred before me: for he was before me.\n\n\n 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest\n to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.\n\n=30, 31. After me cometh=, etc. See on verse 15.--=But that he should\nbe made manifest to Israel therefore am I come=, etc. The object of\nthe Baptist\u2019s ministry was not then merely to preach repentance, but\nto preach repentance _as a preparation for the coming of the kingdom\nof God in the incarnation of the King_. And with this agrees his own\ndefinition of his mission (verse 23) and the other Evangelists\u2019\nepitome of his ministry (Matt. 3:2). The true office of the\nminister is always that Christ may be made manifest.\n\n\n 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit\n descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.\n\n\n 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with\n water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the\n Spirit descending, and remaining[55] on him, the same is he\n which baptizeth[56] with the Holy Ghost.\n\n [55] chap. 3:34.\n\n [56] Acts 1:5; 2:4.\n\n\n 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.\n\n=32-34. And John witnessed.= Evidently the Evangelist here speaks of\nhis witness at some period subsequent to the baptism, and therefore\nsubsequent to the temptation which immediately succeeded the\nbaptism.--=I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove.= That\nis, in the form of a dove. The vision was seen only by Jesus and John.\nOn it see Matt. 3:16, note.--=And it abode upon him.= The Spirit of\nGod, not the dove, abode. That John in some way recognized the abiding\nas a part of the sign of Christ\u2019s Messiahship, is evident from the\nnext verse; how he recognized it is not indicated.--=I also knew him\nnot.= He connects himself with the people who knew him not (verse 26).\n=I=, as well as you, knew him not, till this sign was vouchsafed me.\nWhy then did he at first object to baptizing Jesus, if he did not\nrecognize in him the Christ (Matt. 3:14). He was second cousin of\nJesus; knew him, probably, as a pure and holy man; perhaps knew the\nfacts respecting Jesus\u2019 birth, which were certainly known to John\u2019s\nmother; may even have _suspected_ that he was the promised Messiah;\nand at all events may have believed that he needed no baptism of\nrepentance. He did not, however, know him to be the Messiah, and did\nnot recognize him _as such_, till after the promised sign, and this\nfollowed the baptism of Jesus.--=Saw and bare witness.= That is, at\nthat time. He refers the people to his witness-bearing at the time of\nthe baptism, a testimony which was still fresh in their memory.\n\n\n 35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his\n disciples:\n\n\n 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walketh, he saith, Behold\n the Lamb of God!\n\n\n 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed\n Jesus.\n\n=35-37. Again the next day.= That is, the day following the apparent\npublic discourse, so briefly reported in the preceding verses\n(29-34).--=And two of his disciples.= See on their names verse 40 and\nnote. As they were disciples of the Baptist it is to be presumed that\nthey had been baptized, but by John\u2019s baptism which was unto\nrepentance and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. See\nActs 19:3-5.--=As he walked.= Or, as we should say, _As he was taking\na walk_. One of the numerous indications in the Gospels that Christ\nwas a lover of nature, and accustomed to meditate and study in\ncommunion with nature.--=Saith, Behold the Lamb of God.= See on verse\n29. Observe the practical value of line upon line. John\u2019s private\nmessage recalls and repeats his public testimony. See Phil. 3:1.--=And\nthe two disciples heard him speak.= He spoke possibly in soliloquy,\nmore probably to them. It is clear that it was not a public discourse\nwhich is here reported. There is no ground for the hypothesis that the\ntwo disciples had not heard the discourse of the previous day. Rather\nthe implication is that they had heard it, and these words uttered to\nthem in private by their teacher, enforced the public lesson, and led\nthem to seek further knowledge concerning the one who was pointed out\nto them as the Messiah. Observe how this passage teaches the value of\npersonal work and personal influence. The first disciples are led to\nseek Christ, not by the public discourse, but by the private words of\nthe Baptist; by private influence they bring Peter (41); by private\ninvitation Philip is added to the disciples (43); and by his personal\nsolicitation Nathanael is brought to Christ (45).--=And they followed\nJesus.= Not, in the religious sense of the words, became followers of\nJesus; not till later did they leave all to follow him (Luke, ch. 5).\nThe simplest is also the truest interpretation of these words. They\nliterally followed him; drawn partly by curiosity, partly, perhaps, by\na real spiritual desire for closer acquaintance with the one whom\ntheir teacher designated as the Lamb of God.\n\n\n 38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith\n unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which\n is to say being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?\n\n\n 39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw\n where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was\n about the tenth hour.\n\n=38, 39. Jesus * * * saith unto them, What seek ye?= Not because he\nwas ignorant of their purpose, for he knew what was in man (ch. 2:25;\ncomp. Mark 2:8, etc.); but because he would draw them out. In a\nsimilar manner he opens conversation with the woman at the well (ch.\n4:10, 16), with the disciples fishing at the sea of Galilee (ch.\n21:5), and with the disciples on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:17).\nChrist _as a conversationalist_ is a study for the Christian. Observe\nhow he opens the way and leads on to familiar acquaintance,\nfirst by his question, then by his invitation, finally by his\nhospitality.--=Rabbi * * * Master.= Rather, _teacher_, or _doctor_.\nRabbi is a Hebrew word; _teacher_ (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) is its Greek\nequivalent. John, writing for the Gentile world, habitually translates\nthe Hebrew phrases into their Greek equivalents.--=Where dwellest\nthou?= They are timid and dare not, or at least do not, express their\nwhole desire. Often in the spiritual reticence, so common to the first\nexperiences of the awakened soul, its real aspirations after truth are\nconcealed beneath an assumed curiosity respecting some indifferent\nmatter. Christ meets this non-pertinent if not impertinent curiosity\nwith an invitation which attaches the two inquirers to him for\nlife.--=Come and see.= Rather, _Come and ye shall see_. This is the\nbest reading, and is given by Alford, Meyer, Tischendorf, Tregelles,\netc. (\u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 not \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5).--=And abode with him that day.= For the rest\nof the day.--=For it was about the tenth hour.= Reckoning from 6 A.\nM., according to Jewish fashion, this would make it 4 P. M. Observe,\nas indicative of the Evangelist John\u2019s character, and of the force of\nthe impression made on him from the outset by Christ, that he\nremembered not only the day, _but the very hour_, of his first\ninterview with his subsequent Lord. This, too, is one of those minute\ntouches which would not be found in either a mythical tradition or an\necclesiastical forgery.\n\n\n 40 One of the two which heard John _speak_, and followed\n him, was Andrew, Simon Peter\u2019s brother.\n\n\n 41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith\n unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being\n interpreted, the Christ.\n\n\n 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him,\n he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou[57] shalt be\n called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.\n\n [57] Matt. 16:18.\n\n=40-42. One of the two * * * was Andrew.= It is the almost universal\nbelief of scholars that the other was John the Evangelist, an opinion\nwhich rests on the following considerations: (1) John never mentions\nhimself in his Gospel; if he refers to himself at all it is never by\nname (ch. 13:23; 18:15; 19:26; 20:3; 21:20). (2) The name of the other\ndisciple would have been mentioned if there had not been some special\nreason for not mentioning it, and John\u2019s habit of suppressing his own\nname constitutes a sufficient reason; no other plausible reason has\nbeen suggested. (3) The minute accuracy of detail in this narrative,\nextending to the specification of the day and of the hour, justifies\nthe belief that it is the narrative of an eye and ear witness. On the\nlife and character of Andrew see note at close of Matt. ch. 10, Vol.\n1.--=He first findeth his own brother.= Our English version is\nambiguous if not misleading. The meaning is not, Before going to\nJesus\u2019 residence he found his own brother, but of the two he was the\nfirst to find Simon. The implication is that both went in search of\nhim; all three, John, Andrew, and Simon were probably at the baptism\nof John the Baptist, and were his disciples. There is no evidence to\nsustain the hypothesis that John brought his brother James to Jesus at\nthis time, or even that James was with John at the Jordan.--=The\nMessiah * * * the Christ.= One is a Hebrew, the other a Greek word.\nThe meaning is the Anointed One. On the spiritual meaning of the names\nof Jesus, see note at close of Matt. ch. 1, Vol. I. Andrew\u2019s\nexclamation of delight on finding the Messiah, _eureka_ (\u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd,\n_we have found_), is the same attributed to Archimedes on his\ndiscovery of the adulteration of Hiero\u2019s crown. He detected the\nmixture of silver in a crown which Hiero had ordered to be made of\ngold, and determined the proportions of the two metals by a method\nsuggested to him by the overflow of the water when he stepped into a\nbath. When the thought struck him, he is said to have been so pleased\nthat, forgetting to put on his clothes, he ran home shouting _Eureka,\nEureka, I have found it, I have found it_. What is the grandest\ndiscovery compared with that which the soul makes when it finds its\nMessiah?--=Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation\nPeter.= Cephas is Hebrew; Peter is Greek; both words mean a stone. On\nthe significance of this change of name, see Matt. 16:18, note. At the\ninterview there reported Christ refers to the name here given, and\nconfirms and interprets it; at least this is the view of the best\nEvangelical scholars, Meyer, Alford, Lange, Schaff; and it is more\nreasonable, on the whole, than the supposition that the Evangelist\nJohn anticipates and reports the change of name out of its place. The\ncareful student will observe that here Christ\u2019s language is that of\nprophecy: Thou _shalt be_ called Peter; there it is the language of\nfulfillment. Thou _art_ Peter. The apostle did not become Peter till\nhe made the inspired confession of Christ as the divine Messiah, which\nis recorded in Matthew.\n\n\n 43 The day following. Jesus would go forth into Galilee,\n and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.\n\n\n 44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and\n Peter.\n\n\n 45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have\n found him, of whom Moses[58] in the law, and the prophets,\n did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.\n\n [58] Luke 24:27, 44.\n\n=43-45. The day following.= That is, the day following the bringing of\nPeter to Jesus, which Meyer thinks occurred on the same day in which\nAndrew and John accompanied Jesus to his home, but which it appears to\nme, from verse 39, must have occurred on the following day; and this\nis the view of the ancient and of many of the modern expositors. In\nthat case the order would be as follows: first day, John\u2019s conference\nwith the delegation from Jerusalem (19-28); second day, John\u2019s public\ntestimony to Jesus (29-34); third day, John\u2019s private testimony to\nJesus (35-39); fourth day, Peter brought to Jesus (40-42); fifth day,\nNathanael brought to Jesus (43-51); seventh day, one day intervening,\nthe marriage at Cana in Galilee (ch. 2:1, etc.).--=Findeth Philip and\nsaith unto him, Follow me.= This is Christ\u2019s first personal call of a\ndisciple to follow him. There is no evidence that Philip ever withdrew\nfrom this personal following of Christ as did John and Peter and\nAndrew; they did not permanently attach themselves to Jesus till his\nsubsequent call to them by the sea of Galilee (Luke 5:1-11). On\nPhilip\u2019s life, see note at close of Matt. 10, Vol. I. He is not to be\nconfounded with Philip the deacon, mentioned in Acts 6:5; 8:5-12,\netc.--=Bethsaida.= There is no good ground for the hypothesis that\nthere were two towns of this name on or near the sea of Galilee. The\ncity was on the northern shore, near the entrance of the Jordan into\nthe sea. See Mark 6:45, note; and for illustration of site, John ch.\n6.--=Philip findeth Nathanael.= Observe that the young disciple does\nnot wait, but as soon as he has found Christ begins to declare his\ndiscovery to others. So with Andrew above (41), with the woman of\nSamaria (ch. 4:28, 29), with Paul after his conversion (Acts 9:20).\nNathanael\u2019s name occurs in the N. T. only here and in John 21:2. It is\nnot among the list of apostles furnished by Matt. 10:2-5; Mark\n3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; and Acts 1:13. But they all mention, in close\nconnection with Philip, a Bartholomew, which is not properly a name\nbut only a patronymic, its meaning being Son of Tholmai. These facts\nhave led most scholars to adopt, as a reasonable hypothesis, the\nopinion that Nathanael and Bartholomew are different names for the\nsame person. The name Nathanael, like our Theodore, means _gift of\nGod_.--=We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets,\ndid write.= The reference is unmistakably to the Messiah. For\nreferences in the books of Moses to the promised Messiah, see Gen.\n3:15 and 17:7, with Gal. 3:16, and Deut. 18:15-19.--=Jesus of\nNazareth, the son of Joseph.= This is the language, not of the\nEvangelist, but of Philip. Unquestionably at that time Philip knew\nnothing of the supposed birth of Jesus; to him Jesus was, as to the\nNazarenes subsequently (Matt. 13:54-56), simply the son of Joseph. The\nsupposed inconsistency of this language and the account of Christ\u2019s\nsupernatural birth as given by Matthew, is therefore purely imaginary.\n\n\n 46 And Nathanael said unto him,[59] Can there any good\n thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and\n see.\n\n [59] chap. 7:41.\n\n=46. Out of Nazareth is it possible that anything good can come!=\nThere is a scornful emphasis on the word Nazareth not preserved in our\nEnglish version. That Nazareth was an unimportant and insignificant\ntown is indicated by the fact that it is neither mentioned in the O.\nT. nor in Josephus; that the moral condition of its inhabitants was\nbelow that of the rest of Galilee is indicated by the declaration of\nMark 6:5, 6, and by the mob which threatened the life of Christ at a\ntime when he was just growing into popularity elsewhere in Galilee\n(Luke 4:28-30). No other definite reason is known for the evident\nodium which attached to Nazareth even in the minds of Galileans. Comp.\nMatt. 2:23, note. The question of Nathanael furnishes a striking\nillustration of the spirit of prejudice in even good men. To Nathanael\nit seems impossible that the promised Prophet can appear elsewhere\nthan in or near the city of the Great King.--=Come and see.= This is\nthe best answer to make to unbelief. Christ is his own best witness\n(ch. 5:34). It is not merely true that \u201cpersonal experience is the\nbest test of the truth of Christianity, which, like the sun in heaven,\ncan only be seen in its own light\u201d (_Schaff_), but it is also true\nthat Christ is a greater miracle than any he ever wrought; and that\nthe supreme character of Christ carries in itself a moral conviction\nto hearts which resist all arguments drawn from nature. Of this truth\nJohn Stuart Mill, in his Three Essays on Religion, affords a striking\nillustration. After considering all the arguments for the existence\nand perfection of the Divine Being derived from nature, and declaring\nthat Natural Religion points to a Being \u201cof great but limited power,\u201d\n\u201cwho desires and pays some regard to the happiness of his creatures,\nbut who seems to have other motives of action which he cares more\nfor,\u201d he comes to the character of Christ, and not only pays a tribute\nto it, eloquent and reverent, but adds his conviction that it would\nnot \u201ceven now be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better\ntranslation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete,\nthan to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve our life.\u201d\nChrysostom notices the gentleness and candor of Philip\u2019s reply; he\nfurnishes a model to all disputants in dealing with religious\nprejudice. See 2 Tim. 2:24.\n\n\n 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him,\n Behold[60] an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!\n\n [60] Ps. 32:2; Rom. 2:28, 29.\n\n\n 48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus\n answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee,\n when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw[61] thee.\n\n [61] Ps. 139:1, 2.\n\n\n 49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou[62]\n art the Son of God; thou art the King[63] of Israel.\n\n [62] chap. 20:28, 29; Matt. 14:33.\n\n [63] Matt. 21:5; 27:11.\n\n=47-49. An Israelite indeed.= Because in faith and love a true child\nof God. Comp. Luke 19:9; Romans 2:28, 29; Gal. 3:29; 6:15, 16. For O.\nT. description of such an Israelite, see Psalm 15.--=In whom is no\nguile.= Therefore, characteristically unlike the Pharisees, whose\npride it was that they were children of Abraham (Luke 3:8; John 8:33),\nand who were full of hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 23:14-33).--=Whence\nknowest thou me?= As Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:5, 6, notes), so Nathanael\nis surprised by the Lord\u2019s reading of his character and inward\nexperience.--=When thou wast under the fig-tree.= The whole course of\nthe narrative indicates in this response a supernatural sight, as in\nthe previous characterization of Nathanael a supernatural insight. If\nChrist had merely chanced to see Nathanael without being seen by him,\nthis fact would afford, surely, no basis for Nathanael\u2019s faith, or\nChrist\u2019s commendation of it. It seems also clear that something more\nis implied than the mere fact that Christ saw Nathanael under a\nfig-tree, since that would neither explain Christ\u2019s commendation of\nhim as an Israelite without guile, nor Nathanael\u2019s astonishment. Hence\nthe surmise of the commentators that he had retired there for purposes\nof prayer, and that Christ had seen him there, like the Israel from\nwhom he descended (Gen. 32:24-23) wrestling with God, for the bestowal\nof the long-promised blessing to his realm, in the gift of the\nMessiah. It was probably this revelation of the secret of his soul\nwhich caused Christ to characterize him as a true Israelite, and\nNathanael to recognize in the One who read his inmost life so\nperfectly, the King of Israel.--=The Son of God * * * the King of\nIsrael.= The Messiah. See Ps. 2:7; Matt. 16:16; Luke 22:70;\nJohn 1:34; 11:27. Observe that Christ recognizes and accepts this\ncharacterization of himself at the outset of his ministry, a quite\nsufficient refutation of the theory of Renan, that it was the\noutgrowth of his followers\u2019 later admiration, and tacitly accepted by\nChrist at or near the close of his earthly life. That Nathanael fully\ncomprehended the meaning of his own confession is not, however,\nprobable.\n\n\n 50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto\n thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou\n shalt see greater things than these.\n\n\n 51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you.\n Hereafter ye shall see heaven[64] open, and the angels[65]\n of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.\n\n [64] Ezek. 1:1.\n\n [65] Gen. 28:12; Dan. 7:9, 10; Acts 1:10, 11.\n\n=50, 51.= There is some difficulty respecting the proper\ninterpretation of Christ\u2019s promise here. The word _hereafter_ is\nrather _henceforth_; but it is omitted by the best critics, _e. g._,\nAlford, Tischendorf, Lachmann. The figure is undoubtedly drawn from\nthe vision of Jacob (Israel) of the ladder between heaven and earth,\nand the angels ascending and descending on it (Gen. 28:12). Some\nsuppose the reference to the angelic appearances to Christ, and the\ndivine signs given in attestation of his mission (ver. 32; Matt. 4:11;\nLuke 2:13; 9:29-31; 22:43), but the earlier of these had already taken\nplace, and Nathanael was neither present at the temptation, at the\ntransfiguration, nor at the garden of Gethsemane. Chrysostom refers in\naddition to the angelic appearances at the resurrection, but they by\nno means furnish a literal fulfillment of the promise. Some interpret\nit spiritually, of the manifest opening of the heavens and the\nintercommunication between earth and heaven, through Jesus Christ. So\nMaurice: \u201cFaithful and true Israelite! the vision to thy progenitor\nwho first bore that name, shall be substantiated for thee, and for\nthose who trust in me in lonely hours, through clouds and darkness, as\nthou hast done. The ladder set upon earth and reaching to heaven--the\nladder upon which the angels of God ascended and descended--is a\nladder for thee and for all. For the Son of man, who joins earth to\nheaven, the seen to the unseen, God and man in one, He is with you;\nthrough Him your spirits may arise to God; through Him God\u2019s Spirit\nshall come down upon you.\u201d Similarly Luther, Calvin, Tholuck, Alford,\nand others. But this interpretation is not wholly satisfactory, since\nit converts Christ\u2019s words into an allegory, and deprives them of all\nliteral meaning. According to this view the angels are but spiritual\nblessings, the open heavens are not seen, and the angelic appearances\nare not upon the Messiah, but through him to mankind. A third\ninterpretation connects Christ\u2019s words here with his analogous\ndeclarations in Matt. 25:31; 26:64, etc., and refers it to his Second\nComing. So Ryle: \u201cWhen He comes the second time to take his great\npower and reign, the words of this text shall be literally fulfilled.\nHis believing people shall see heaven open, and a constant\ncommunication kept up between heaven and earth--the tabernacle of God\nwith men, and the angels visibly ministering to the King of Israel,\nand King of all the earth.\u201d I believe that these three views are\ncongruous and consistent, and are all embraced in the promise. Christ\nopened the communication between earth and heaven; manifested that\nfact by the angelic appearances which accompanied his coming, his\npresence, and his departure; still manifests it, by the spiritual\nblessings which he constantly confers in answer to the prayers of his\npeople; and will finally manifest it yet more gloriously when he comes\nto take possession of his established kingdom, with his holy angels\nwith him. The past and present fulfillments of this prophecy are but\nfragmentary and imperfect. The final and perfect fulfillment awaits us\nin the future.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: AN ORIENTAL WEDDING.\n\n\u201c_And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee_\u201d]\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n\nCh. 2:1-11. THE MARRIAGE AT CANA IN GALILEE. CHRISTIANITY NOT\nASCETICISM.\n\nThis miracle is recounted only by the Evangelist John. That fact does\nnot discredit the account: it incidentally confirms the view that he\nwrote to supply what was lacking in the other Gospels.\n\n\n[Illustration: CANA OF GALILEE.]\n\n\n 1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana[66] of\n Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there.\n\n [66] ch. 4:46; Joshua 19:28.\n\n\n 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the\n marriage.[67]\n\n [67] Heb. 13:4.\n\n=1, 2. The third day.= That is, probably, after the interview with\nNathanael described at the close of the preceding chapter. Lightfoot\nsays that, according to Jewish custom, the weddings of virgins took\nplace on the fourth day of the week, our Wednesday, and of widows on\nthe fifth day, our Thursday.--=There was a marriage.= For description\nof wedding ceremonies among the Jews, with illustration of wedding\nprocession, see Matt. 25:1-13, Prel. Note.--=In Cana of Galilee.= The\ntraditional site is Kefr Kenna, four and one-half miles northwest of\nNazareth. The more probable site is about nine miles north of Nazareth\nand six or eight hours from Capernaum. See Map, Vol. I, p. 50.\nRobinson describes it as a fine situation, and once a considerable\nvillage of well-built houses. They are now uninhabited and the whole\nregion is wild and desolate.--=And the mother of Jesus was there.= Her\nname is never mentioned by John. The fact that Joseph is not mentioned\nin either of the Gospels, after Christ\u2019s manhood, has led to the\nuniversal opinion that he was dead. The presence of Mary, and her\napparent authority (ver. 5), indicates that the bride or bridegroom\nwere connections or relatives. Different traditions represent\nrespectively Alph\u00e6us, one of his sons, John the Apostle, and Simon the\nCanaanite as the bridegroom, but they are all equally untrustworthy.\nThe Mormons maintain that this was the marriage of Jesus himself.The\nstudent will observe that it is said of Mary that she _was there_, of\nJesus that he _was called_, an indication that he came at a later\nperiod, and probably after the marriage feast, which usually lasted\nfor several days, had begun.--=And his disciples.= Probably those who\nhad already begun to follow him, though not yet ordained as apostles,\nnor summoned by him to leave their regular avocations to become his\nconstant companions. These were Andrew, John, Simon Peter, Philip, and\nNathanael, and they were probably invited because they were with\nChrist, and out of consideration for him.\n\n\n 3 And when[68] they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith\n unto him, They have no wine.\n\n [68] Eccles. 10:19; Isa. 24:11.\n\n=3. And the wine failing.= Not merely, as in our English version, when\nthey wanted wine. The implication is that wine had been provided,\nbut the supply proved insufficient. Possibly the unexpected addition\nof the five disciples of Christ exhausted it.--=The mother of Jesus\nsaith unto him, They have no wine.= _Why_ did she appeal to him?\nThere is certainly no ground for such an explanation as that of\nBengel, that she meant to give a hint to Jesus and his disciples\nto go away! Nor is there any evidence that she asked him to work a\nmiracle, or even definitely anticipated or desired it. If she were\nin any way responsible for the success of the feast, and the supply\nwas falling short, the appeal for help to her son was natural; and it\nwas specially so, if, as modern customs in the Orient indicate (see\nEllicott\u2019s _Life of Christ_, p. 118), the guests often contribute to\nthe supplies at such entertainments. Along with this desire to do\nthe bride and bridegroom a favor, there may have been, as Chrysostom\nsuggests, a desire through her son to render herself conspicuous,\nand a vague and inexpressible feeling that he could, if he would,\nsupply the want by a miracle, as Elijah supplied the widow\u2019s cruse\n(1 Kings 17:14-16). And his _quasi_ rebuke, if rebuke it be, may have\nbeen addressed to this mother\u2019s vanity.\n\n\n 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?\n mine hour is not yet come.\n\n=4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.=\nSome question has been made respecting the meaning of this language.\nIt is clear (1) that _woman_ is not a harsh term, and involves no tone\nof rebuke or reproof; for when Christ on the cross commends his mother\nto John\u2019s care, he uses the same term, \u201c_Woman_, behold thy son\u201d (ch.\n19:26); (2) the Greek phrase (\u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76) is properly rendered in\nour English version, _What have I to do with thee?_ Though literally\ncapable of the translation proposed by Dr. Adam Clarke, _What is this\nto thee and me?_ that is, _What is this to us?_ the uniform usage of\nthe N. T. forbids this translation. The Greek is the same in the\nfollowing passages, where the translation cannot be other than that\ngiven both there and here. Matt. 8:29, note; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke\n8:28. I can only understand it as a disclaimer on Christ\u2019s part of any\nresponsibility in the matter, and an intimation that in his future\nmission he was not, as he had heretofore been, subject unto his\nmother. There may also be in it implied a gentle rebuke of her\nendeavor to elicit from him some display of his miraculous power,\nbefore the time for the commencement of his public ministry.\nChrysostom interprets her spirit here by that of Christ\u2019s brethren\n(ch. 7:4), and his reply by his refusal, later, to turn aside from his\nwork at her solicitation (Matt. 12:47, 48). Evidently she did not\nregard his language as that of refusal, for she expects his aid, and\nbids the servants do his bidding. \u201cShe read a _yes_ latent in his\napparent _no_.\u201d--(_Trench._)--=Mine hour is not yet come.= Not mine\nhour to die, though that is usually the signification of this\noft-repeated phrase in John\u2019s Gospel (ch. 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27;\n13:1); but that would be here meaningless; nor, The hour to work this\nmiracle, because the wine is not yet wholly exhausted, or the guests\nare not conscious of the lack, and have not asked for supply; but, The\nhour for me to begin my public ministry, accompanied as it is to be\nwith the working of miracles, the hour for my manifestation. The\nProtestant commentaries see in the language here a rebuke of the\nspirit of Mariolatry, in this following the fathers; _e. g._,\nChrysostom: \u201cThe answer was not that of one rejecting his mother, but\nof One who would show her that having borne him would have availed\nnothing, had she not been very good and faithful;\u201d and Augustine: \u201cAs\nGod he has no mother. And now that he was about to perform a divine\nwork, he ignores, as it were, the human womb, and asks, \u2018Woman, what\nhave I to do with thee?\u2019 as much as to say, Thou art not the mother of\nthat in me which works miracles; thou art not the mother of my\nGodhead.\u201d\n\n\n 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever[69] he\n saith unto you, do _it_.\n\n [69] Luke 5:5, 6.\n\n=5. His mother saith onto the servants.= The fact that there were\nservants, and more than one, indicates that the family was in at least\ncomfortable if not opulent circumstances. Christ associated with the\nrich as readily as with the poor; but the rich did not, as readily as\nthe poor, associate with him. Her direction to the servants and their\nunquestioning obedience indicates that in this marriage festival she\nhad some degree of authority.\n\n\n 6 And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after\n the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or\n three firkins apiece.\n\n\n 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with water.\n And they filled them up to the brim.\n\n\n 8 And he saith unto them, Draw[70] out now, and bear unto\n the governor[71] of the feast. And they bare _it_.\n\n [70] Eccles. 9:7.\n\n [71] Rom. 13:7.\n\n=6-8.= The forms of the water-pot and of the ewer, with which the water\nwas drawn or dipped out, are shown in the accompanying illustration.\nThe water-pots may have set in the room; more probably in an ante-room\nor in the courtyard of the house. The fact that the water was provided\nfor purifying is stated to account for the presence of so much water;\nand the reference to the manner of the Jews is added for the Gentile\nreaders, for whom John especially wrote. On these ceremonial washings,\nsee Mark 7:2-5, notes. The _firkin_ (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) is equivalent to 8\u215e\ngallons; the whole amount of water, therefore, was between 100 and 150\ngallons. Since the jars were filled to the brim, the water was apparent\n_after_ they were filled; there was, therefore, no room for fraud or\nmistake. The statement of the exact number and proximate size indicates\nthat we have here the description of an eye-witness. It also indicates\nthat there were a large number of guests.\n\n\n[Illustration: WATER-POTS AND EWERS.]\n\n\nThe quantity of wine made by Christ on this occasion has been the\nsubject of some hostile criticism, as though it were an invitation to\nexcessive drinking. But (1) there is no evidence that any more wine\nwas created than was used. Whether it was changed in the stone jars,\nor as it was carried to the guests, does not appear; (2) in Palestine,\na wine-growing and wine-consuming country, where it is not merely _a_\nbeverage, but _the_ beverage of the common people, four or five\nbarrels of wine would not seem so extraordinary a supply as it would\nto us, nor would it produce any such effect in the consumption as an\nequal amount of the ordinary wines of to-day; (3) it is God\u2019s way to\npour out his bounty, not only in abundance, but in superabundance. As\nChrist created, not merely barely enough bread for the 5,000, but the\ndisciples, after all were fed, gathered up twelve baskets full, so we\nmay well believe that here he created not barely sufficient for the\nhour, but a superabundance which remained to bless the home after the\ndeparture of the guests. On the probable character of this wine, see\nbelow, Note on Christ\u2019s example in the use of wine.\n\n\n 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that\n was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the\n servants[72] which drew the water knew;) the governor\n of the feast called the bridegroom,\n\n [72] ch. 7:17; Ps. 119:100.\n\n\n 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth\n set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk,\n then that which is worse: _but_ thou hast kept the\n good wine[73] until now.\n\n [73] Ps. 104:15; Prov. 9:2, 5.\n\n=9, 10. The ruler of the feast.= The same word as _governor of the\nfeast_, in the preceding verse. Among the Greeks and Romans, a ruler\nof the feast (_symposiarch_) was commonly chosen, usually by lot, who\nregulated the whole order of the festivities, proposed the amusements,\netc. A reference in the Apocrypha (Eccles. 32:1, 2) indicates that the\nsame practice prevailed among the Jews. There is no ground for\nsupposing the ruler of the feast in this case to have been other than\na guest, who occupied this honorary office.--=But the servants knew,\nthey having drawn the water.= Not merely, _the servants which drew,\nknew_; the reason of their knowledge is indicated; they knew because\nthey had themselves filled the jars with the water, and drawn it\nout.--=Called the bridegroom.= Called out to him, probably across the\ntable. The language which follows is sportive, and characteristic of\nsuch an occasion of festivity.--=Every man at the beginning doth set\nforth good wine; and when men are drunken, then that which is worse.=\nThe verb rendered in our English version \u201chave well drunk\u201d is\nliterally _are drunken_. It is in the passive voice. This does not\nnecessarily imply that in the East men counted on the inebriacy of\ntheir guests, and for that reason provided the best wine first, still\nless that the guests here were intoxicated. \u201cThe man says only in\njoke, as if it were a general experience, what he certainly may have\noften observed.\u201d--(_Meyer._) The ancient commentators have observed\nthe difference between the feasts of the world and the feasts of\nChrist; the world gives its best wine at first, and when men have\nbecome intoxicated with it, then the poor, as the prodigal son\nexperienced (Luke 15:13-16); Christ ever reserves the good wine to the\nlast. See this thought beautifully drawn out by Jeremy Taylor in his\n_Life of Christ_. Comp. John 4:13, 14.\n\n\n 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee,\n and manifested[74] forth his glory: and his disciples\n believed[75] on him.\n\n [74] ch 1:14.\n\n [75] 1 John 5:13.\n\n=11. This beginning of miracles.= An incidental and indirect testimony\nthat the miracles of Christ\u2019s infancy, narrated in the apocryphal\nGospels, are spurious.--_And manifested forth his glory._ Observe _his_\nglory; the miracles of the disciples did not manifest forth _their_\nglory, but that of their Lord (Acts 3:8; 14:11-15).--=And his\ndisciples believed in him.= That is, the five that had already begun to\nfollow him. But _what_ or _how much_ they believed is not indicated.\nThey began to have that confidence in him which was not consummated\ntill after his resurrection.\n\nIn respect to this miracle, observe, (1) _The simplicity of the\nnarrative_. John does not directly assert that the water was made wine,\nnor that a miracle was performed, nor does he deduce any conclusion\nfrom the event; he simply narrates what he saw and heard--the jars\nfilled with water, the contents drawn out, the testimony of the\ngovernor of the feast to the excellence of the wine carried to\nhim; the reader is left to draw his own conclusion. (2) _The utter\nfailure of all naturalistic explanations_, such as that Christ simply\naccelerated the process of nature, or changed the attributes of the\nwater after the analogy of mineral waters, so as to give it the taste\nand appearance of wine, or that the taste and semblance of wine was\ndue to a state of spiritual exaltation on the part of the company, all\nof which views have had defenders even among orthodox critics. See\nLange\u2019s and Meyer\u2019s Commentaries for a statement of these and kindred\ninterpretations. Meyer well says, respecting them all, \u201cInstead of a\ntransmutation of water we have a frivolous transmutation of history.\u201d\n(3) _The impossibility of deception or fraud._ The jars are those\nbelonging to the household; they are filled to the brim with water;\nit is drawn out by the servants; the judgment respecting the wine is\npronounced by the governor of the feast, who does not know of the\nmiracle. (4) _The analogy of nature._ \u201cHe who made the wine at this\nwedding does the same thing every year in the vines. As the water\nwhich the servants put into the water-pots was turned into wine by\nthe Lord, so that which the clouds pour down is turned into wine by\nthe same Lord. It excites no wonder in us, because it occurs every\nyear.\u201d--(_Augustine._) (5) _The moral and spiritual significance of\nthe miracle._ Contrast Christ\u2019s ready consent to convert water into\nwine to add to the festivities of others, with his refusal to convert\nstones into bread to supply his own imperative needs (Matt. 4:3, 4);\nhis conversion of water into wine, the symbol of inspiration and life,\nwith the first miracle of Moses, who converted water into blood, an\ninstrument and a symbol of death (Exod. 7:20, 21)--Christ brings life\nand power, Moses brings law and condemnation (Rom. 7:8, 9); his\nentrance on his ministry by attendance on a marriage festivity, and\nhis miracle to prolong its festivities, with the asceticism of John\nthe Baptist (Luke 1:15; Matt. 3:4). Compare his inauguration of the\nnew covenant by a miracle at a marriage with God\u2019s inauguration of the\nold covenant by ordaining and creating the marriage relation (Gen.\n1:21-24). Notice in this miracle a type of Christ\u2019s redeeming love,\nwho converts the water of the law into the wine of the Gospel, and\nevery soul which hears and obeys his creative command into an\ninspiring life-giving spirit (John 5:21; 6:33; 1 Cor. 15:45). Observe\nthe fundamental lesson, that Christ\u2019s example bids us not to withdraw\nfrom the world, nor abstain from its use, but to use without abusing\nit (1 Cor. 7:31), and that the assertion that Christianity bids men\n\u201cmake this earth as unpleasant to themselves as possible so as to\nsecure hereafter the joys of heaven,\u201d is a monstrous perversion of the\nteaching and example of Jesus Christ. Comp. Matt. 9:9, 10; 11:19; Luke\n7:36; 11:37; 14:1; John 12:1, 2.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCHRIST\u2019S EXAMPLE IN THE USE OF WINE. 1. _The facts._ These are that\nChrist inaugurated his public ministry by attending a wedding feast,\nand there by a miracle creating a large quantity of wine--certainly\nall that the guests could use--for the simple purpose of prolonging\nthe festivities of the occasion; that he was accustomed throughout his\nlife to attend social gatherings where wine was freely used; that he\nused it freely himself, notwithstanding the fact that it subjected him\nto the reproaches and the misrepresentations of his enemies (Matt.\n11:19; Luke 7:34); that he never directly or indirectly condemns the\nuse of wine, though he does condemn drunkenness (Matt. 24:49; Luke\n12:45); and that he directs its use by his church as a perpetual\nmemorial of his atoning love, and employs it as a symbol of joy and\nfellowship in the world to come (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke\n22:18; 1 Cor. 10:16). The force of this example is strengthened by the\nreflection that drunkenness was common in the East before Christ\u2019s day\n(Esther 1:10; Isa. 5:22; 28:7; Dan. 5:2-4; Hosea 4:11), and in\nPalestine and the neighboring countries during Christ\u2019s lifetime, so\nthat even the church of Christ had need of constant admonition against\nit (Matt. 24:49; Luke 15:13; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 11:21; Gal. 5:21; 1\nPet. 4:3); that a Jewish Sect existed, the Essenes (Matt. 3:7, note),\nwho were total abstainers, with whom Christ never identified himself;\nand that he directly contrasts his life and example with that of John\nthe Baptist (Matt. 11:19), who, as a Nazarite, was pledged against the\nuse of wine and strong drink (Luke 1:15; Numb. 6:3). Attempts have\nbeen made to show that the wine which Christ made on this occasion and\nused on other occasions was not fermented. It is certain that there\nwere in use in the Greek and Roman world, and presumptively in\nPalestine, three kinds of wine--fermented wines, which, however, were\nunlike our own fiery wines and contained only a small percentage of\nalcohol, and which were usually mixed in the use with water, in the\nproportion of two or three parts of water to one of wine; new wine,\nmade of the juice of the grape, and, like our new cider, not fermented\nand not intoxicating; and wines in which, by boiling the unfermented\njuice of the grape, or by the addition of certain drugs, the process\nof fermentation had been stopped, and the formation of alcohol\nprevented. It is claimed that fermented wine was not used at the\nPassover, though I can find no other reason for this opinion than the\nfact that leavened, _i. e._, fermented bread was prohibited--a\nprohibition the sole object of which was to remind the Jews of the\nhaste of the original passover. Paul\u2019s language in 1 Cor. 11:21 (see\nnote there) makes it evident that fermented wine was used by the\nprimitive church in the administration of the Lord\u2019s Supper; and the\nRabbinical rule, requiring water to be mixed with the wine at the\npaschal feast (see Lightfoot on Matt. 26:27), lest drunkenness should\ndisgrace it, makes it equally evident that wine was used in the\noriginal O. T. festival. There is nothing in the language of the N. T.\nto indicate any discrimination between fermented and unfermented\nwines; Christ himself never directly or indirectly discriminates\nbetween them; neither do any of his apostles; and it is apparently\nindicated if not necessarily implied in the account here, and in other\npassages, that it was the ordinary fermented wine which Christ\nemployed; see especially Matt. 11:19, \u201cBehold a glutton and a\nwine-bibber,\u201d and Matt. 9:17, \u201cNo man having drunk old (_fermented_)\nwine, straightway desireth new (_that of the last vintage and\nunfermented_), for he saith the old is better.\u201d The language of Mark\n14:25, \u201cI will drink no more of the fruit of the vine,\u201d etc., plainly\nimplies that he had been accustomed to drink it freely and as a\nbeverage with his followers. I judge then that Christ here made, and\nthroughout his life ordinarily used, fermented wine; and this is the\nnearly unanimous judgment of the best unprejudiced Biblical scholars.\nThe opposite opinion is of later origin, an after-thought, the product\nnot of impartial Biblical research, but of the temperance reformation.\n(2) _Significance of these facts._ It appears to me clear, in the\nlight of these facts, that neither Christ\u2019s precept nor his example\ncan be cited in favor of the doctrine of total abstinence, as a\nuniversal and permanent obligation from all use of wine, even as a\nbeverage; that it rather indicates that he recognizes the right and\npropriety of so using it; and that the doctrine and practice of total\nabstinence must be maintained, if at all, not by any specific precept,\nnor by the general course of Christ\u2019s life, but from local and perhaps\ntemporary considerations, and solely on the ground that the Christian\nmust always be willing to surrender a lawful gratification for the\nsake of a higher good, either to himself or to others (Matt. 5:29, 30;\nRom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 6:12). It is equally clear that neither Christ\u2019s\nprecepts nor his example justifies the ordinary drinking usages of\nAmerican society of to-day, with its bars, its wine-shops, its\nbeer-gardens, its fiery wines and strong liquors, and all its\nattendant evils. The ordinary wine of to-day is a very different\narticle from that in Christ\u2019s day. The _word_ is the same, the _thing_\nis different. And the usages are equally different. It is not my\nprovince here to enter into a general discussion of the temperance\nquestion, or even of the Bible teaching on the subject; but for the\nconvenience of the student I add, from my _Dictionary of Religious\nKnowledge_, a tabular view of the principal Bible passages which bear\non the subject, either for or against the use of wines.\n\n\n THE BIBLE\n\n COMMENDS WINE: CONDEMNS WINE:\n\n _As an offering to God _As a cause of violence and woe_:\n with oil and wheat_: Prov. 4:17; 23:29-32.\n Numb. 18:12.\n Neh. 10:37-39. _Of self-security and irreligion:_\n Isa. 28:7; 56:12.\n _As a blessing to man_: Hab. 2:5.\n Gen. 27:28-37.\n Deut. 7:13. _As a poison_:\n Judges 9:13. Deut. 32:33.\n Prov. 3:10. Prov. 23:31.\n Isa. 65:8. Hosea 7:5.\n Joel 3:18.\n Ps. 104:15. _As an accompaniment of\n Zech. 9:17. wickedness_:\n Isa. 5:22.\n _As an emblem of spiritual\n blessing_: _As an emblem of divine\n Isa. 55:1. wrath_:\n Sol. Song 7:9. Ps. 60:3; 75:8.\n Isa. 51:17.\n _As a perpetual memorial Jer. 25:15.\n of Christ\u2019s atoning Rev. 14:10; 16:19.\n sacrifice_:\n Matt. 26:26-29. _By the example of priests\n Mark 14:22-25. on entering the tabernacle_:\n 1 Cor. 10:16. Lev. 10:8-11.\n\n _As a medicine_: _Of Rechabites_:\n Prov. 31:6, 7. Jer. 35:6.\n 1 Tim. 5:23.\n _Of Nazarites_:\n _By the example of Jesus Numb. 6:2, 3.\n Christ_:\n John 2:1-11. _Of Daniel_:\n Luke 7:34. Dan. 1:8, 12.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 2: 12-22. CHRIST CASTS THE TRADERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE. AN\nILLUSTRATION OF THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST.--A SYMBOL OF THE WORK OF\nCHRIST.--AN EXAMPLE TO THE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST.\n\nThis incident is narrated only by John. It is not to be confounded\nwith the second casting out narrated by the synoptists. See note on\nMatt. 21:12, 13. This occurred at the first Passover in Christ\u2019s\npublic ministry; that at the last. There is a significance in the\nrepetition. It indicates both the tendency of a corrupt church to\ncorruption in spite of cleanings, a truth unhappily abundantly\nillustrated in history; and the persistence of Christ\u2019s zeal, a\nquality imperfectly reflected in the zeal of his disciples. The\nprobable date of this event was March, A. D. 28.\n\n\n 12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his\n mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they\n continued there not many days.\n\n=12. Went down to Capernaum.= From Cana, which was the hill country,\nto Capernaum, which was on the shore of the sea of Galilee. For\ndescription of Capernaum, see Matt. 4:13. It would be on the natural\nthough not necessary route from Cana to Jerusalem. This visit is not\nto be confounded with Christ\u2019s permanent change of residence from\nNazareth to Capernaum, which resulted from the mob in the former city\n(Luke 4:28-31); this did not take place till after the imprisonment of\nJohn the Baptist (Matt. 4:12, 13). The statement that _they continued\nnot there many days_, distinguished this visit from that permanent\nchange of residence.--=His mother and his brethren and his disciples.=\nHis public ministry had not yet fully begun; he had not, therefore,\nyet left his mother and brethren to devote himself to his work. That\nthese were real brethren, not cousins or other relations, I think is\nclear, though by many doubted. See note on \u201cBrethren of our Lord,\u201d\nVol. I, p. 187.\n\n\n 13 And the Jews\u2019 passover[76] was at hand, and Jesus[77]\n went up to Jerusalem,\n\n [76] Ex. 12:14.\n\n [77] Verse 23; chap. 5:1; 6:4; 11:55.\n\n=13. And the Jews\u2019 Passover was at hand.= For origin of Passover see\nExodus, ch. 12; for some account of its ceremonies see Matt. 26:26-30,\nPrel. Note.--=And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.= Observe, that he was\naccustomed to attend the Jewish feasts as well as the synagogue\nservices. The corruption of the church did not cause his withdrawal\nfrom its public services (ch. 10:25).\n\n\n[Illustration: SUBSTRUCTURES OF THE TEMPLE.]\n\n\n[Illustration: BIRD\u2019S-EYE VIEW OF JERUSALEM.]\n\n\n[Illustration: _From \u201cLife of Jesus; the Christ,\u201d by Rev. Henry Ward\nBeecher._\n\nPLAN AND SECTION OF THE TEMPLE.]\n\n\n 14 And found[78] in the temple those that sold oxen and\n sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:\n\n [78] Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.\n\n=14. In the temple.= Historically there were three temples: Solomon\u2019s\n(1 Kings, ch. 6, 7; 2 Chron., ch. 3, 4), the temple of Zerubbabel,\nconstructed at the time of the restoration under Nehemiah (Ezra\n3:8-11; 6:3-5), and Herod\u2019s. The latter, named for its builder, Herod\nthe Great (Matt. 2:1, note), is the one mentioned here and elsewhere\nin the N. T. Its site, established with as much certainty as any in\nthe N. T., was a rock platform in the southeast corner of Jerusalem,\nnow occupied by the Mohammedan Mosque of Omar. In its erection ten\nthousand skilled workmen were employed; among them one thousand\npriests especially instructed in the arts of the stonecutter and the\ncarpenter. The result was a temple whose architectural magnificence is\nthought never to have been surpassed in ancient or modern times. It\nwas less a building than a collection of buildings, and covered an\narea of over nineteen acres. The stone was white marble, the roof\ncedar, the architecture probably a combination of the Greek and the\nRoman. On the east it overlooked the valley of the Cedron, forming an\neffective fortification. It also served as a defence on the north,\nwhere adjoined the tower of Antonia, the barracks of the Roman\nsoldiery. On the south a single gateway, on the west four gateways,\ngave exit and entrance. On the east it was connected by a bridge over\nthe Tyroph\u0153an valley with Mount Zion, the site of Solomon\u2019s and later\nof Herod\u2019s palace. The remains of this bridge have been lately\ndiscovered. The annexed ground plan, from Henry Ward Beecher\u2019s \u201cLife\nof Christ,\u201d will enable the reader to understand the internal\nstructure of the temple. The illustration in Vol. I, p. 257, will give\nan idea of its external appearance. The reader is there supposed to be\non the Mount of Olives looking down upon the temple from the east;\nMount Zion with its palaces and towers is in the background; the\nlong-roofed structure on the left, that is, the south, is the royal\ncloister or _Stoa basilica_. This is minutely described by Josephus\n(Ant. 15:11, 5). It consisted of a nave and two aisles, the side\ntoward the country being closed by a wall, that toward the temple\nproper being open. It was 105 feet in breadth, 600 feet in length; the\ncentre aisle was 100 feet high, the side aisles 50. The roof of cedar\nwas supported by 102 Corinthian columns of white marble, the floor was\na magnificent mosaic. Between this cloister and the temple structure\nwas the open court of the Gentiles. It was open to all, heathen and\nJew alike, and was used for the purpose of social and intellectual\nexchange, as well as for religious processional services. Here Christ\n(Matt. 21:23), and subsequently his disciples (Luke 24:53; Acts 5:21,\n42), taught the people. Inscriptions in Greek and Latin forbade the\nheathen from passing beyond this court, under penalty of death. For a\nsupposed infringement of this law Paul was mobbed (Acts 21:26-30).\nWithin were the successive courts of the women, of Israel, of the\npriests. In this latter was the sacred furniture and utensils, the\ntable of shewbread, the altar, the laver, etc. In the heart of this\nenclosure, investing all with a mysterious sacredness, was the Holy of\nHolies, veiled from even priestly gaze by the curtain, which was\nsubsequently rent in twain at the time of Christ\u2019s death (Matt.\n27:57). This Holy of Holies, 90 \u00d7 30 feet, is seen in the illustration\nof the temple as restored, in the centre of the building; it\nconstituted the most prominent feature. It was in the outer court of\nthe Gentiles that the sheep and cattle and money-changers had\ngathered. The scattered Israelites were unable to bring in person the\nsacrifices for the altar. The Mosaic law permitted them to sell their\nfirst-fruits, and with the money purchase their gifts at Jerusalem\n(Deut. 14:24-26). They were also required to pay for the support of\nthe temple service a half-shekel (Exod. 3:11-16; Matt. 17:24-27,\nnotes). This must be paid in Jewish money, for Gentile coin would\npollute the sacred coffers. Thus, gradually, the feast-days became\ngreat market-days, as they still are among the nomadic tribes of the\nMohammedan religion. The priesthood, sharing in the profits, suffered\nthe traffickers gradually to intrude into and occupy the outer court\nof the temple. Thus, not only were the religious services of the Jews\ndisturbed by the bleating of sheep, the lowing of cattle, the cooing\nof doves, the clangor of the money-changers, and the hum of a busy\nmarket, but the Gentiles were absolutely driven from all participation\nin the religious benefits of the temple. To their exclusion Christ\nreferred in the second expulsion (Mark 11:15-19, note). The priests\nwinked not only at the sacrilege, but also at the double defrauding of\nGod and man which accompanied it (Mal. 1:7, 8). The court of the\nGentiles was worse than a market-place; it was a den of thieves. Thus\nChrist\u2019s act was not only a vehement protest against the sacrilege\nwhich suffers business to encroach on the house and worship of God,\nbut also a rebuke of the bigotry which is indifferent to the\nreligious wants and worship of men not of our race, faith, or\ncompanionship.--=Those that sold cattle, sheep, and doves.= For\nsacrifices under the Levitical law; sheep, rams, lambs, goats, kids,\nbulls, cows, calves, doves, and sparrows were offered for this\npurpose. All sacrifices were required to be offered by the priesthood\nand in the temple. On the great feast-days, when the population of\nJerusalem was increased to a million or more, the traffic must have\nbeen both large and profitable.--=And the changers of money.=\nMoney-changers had in Greece and Rome their stalls or tables in the\nstreets and market-places for the purpose of exchanging the coin of\none nation for another. They are still to be found in Jerusalem,\nseated by their little glass cases, in which are saucers of brass\nfilled with coins of silver and gold, of every size and value.\n\n\n[Illustration: THE EXPULSION OF THE TRADERS.\n\n\u201c_He drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and\npoured out the changer\u2019s money, and overthrew the tables._\u201d]\n\n\n 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove\n them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the\n oxen; and poured out the changers\u2019 money, and\n overthrew the tables;\n\n\n 16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things\n hence; make not my Father\u2019s house an house of merchandise.\n\n\n=15, 16. And when he had made a scourge of rushes.= The original\nindicates that the scourge was made of the rushes which were used to\nbed the cattle. Christ picked these up from the floor and wove them\ntogether into a whip. Of course this fragile lash would not do much\nreal execution. It was used as one might use a switch to alarm and so\ndrive out the animals. The original shows very clearly that it was\nused for this purpose alone, and not to threaten the men with physical\nchastisement.--=He drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the\ncattle.= This is the correct rendering; our English version is\nambiguous and so misleading.--=And poured out the changers\u2019 money.=\nPoured it out upon the floor. This prevented their resisting, for it\noccupied their energies to pick up and save the coin.--=And said unto\nthem that sold doves.= It is noteworthy that he drove out the sheep\nand cattle, which the owners could reclaim in the streets, but did not\nset the doves free, which would thus have been lost to their owners. A\ntrue Christian indignation never blinds to the true rights even of the\nmost flagrant wrong-doers.--=Make not my Father\u2019s house a house of\nmerchandise.= Compare Christ\u2019s language at the second expulsion, Mark\n11:17, note.\n\n\n[Illustration: EASTERN MONEY-CHANGER.]\n\n\n 17 And his disciples remembered that it was written,[79]\n The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.\n\n [79] Psalm 69:9.\n\n=17. And his disciples remembered=, etc. At the time, not afterward;\nif this had been meant it would have been expressed, as in ver. 22. It\nis not here stated that the utterance in Ps. 69:9 was a prophecy which\nChrist fulfilled; simply that his course recalled the language there.\nThe fact indicates the vigor and intensity of Christ\u2019s zeal in the\nmanner and spirit of his action, as well as in the act itself.\n\nThis and the subsequent purification of the temple during the Passion\nweek, indicate in Christ a vigor and intensity of character, and a\npower of indignation, which modern thought rarely attributes to him.\nThey interpret the suggestive description of Christ\u2019s personal\nappearance given by John in Rev. 1:13-16, the only hint of his\npersonal appearance afforded by the New Testament. We can imagine that\nin this expulsion his eyes were as flames of fire, his feet firm in\ntheir tread like feet of brass, his voice as the sound of the ocean,\nhis words as a two-edged sword. This indignation was aroused by (_a_)\nthe sacrilegious covetousness which made God\u2019s house a house of\nmerchandise; (_b_) the fraud which converted it into a den of thieves;\n(_c_) the selfishness of the bigotry which excluded the heathen from\nthe only court reserved for them. It should inspire in his disciples a\nlike spirit of indignation (_a_) against the sacrilegious covetousness\nwhich converts the house of God into a mart of merchandise, whether by\nthe sale of indulgences, masses, and prayers to others, or by\nemploying it not for the praise of God but for the social and\npecuniary profit of the pretended worshipper; (_b_) against the\nbigotry which permits us to look with indifference upon the exclusion\nof the poor, the outcast, the despised from the privileges of God\u2019s\nhouse. It is a type of (_a_) the cleansing which Christ comes to do\nfor every soul, which is a temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16), and out of\nwhich all unclean things must be driven by the power of God, before it\nis fit for God\u2019s indwelling; (_b_) the final cleansing when he will\ncome to cast out all things that defile and work abomination (Rev.\n21:27). Observe that in Revelation the world is represented as\ndreading \u201cthe wrath of _the Lamb_.\u201d Christ\u2019s example here does not\njustify the use of physical force by the church to cleanse it from\ncorruption; for Christ did not employ physical force. His whip was not\na weapon; the power before which the traders fled was the moral power\nof Christ, strengthened by the concurring judgment of their own\nconsciences and the moral sense of the mass of the people (Mark 11:15,\nnote).\n\n\n 18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign[80]\n showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?\n\n [80] ch. 6:30; Matt. 12:38, etc.\n\n\n 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy[81] this\n temple, and in three days I will raise it up.\n\n [81] Matt. 26:61; 27:40.\n\n=18, 19. What sign showest thou unto us?= What evidence of authority\nto expel from the temple practices allowed by the priesthood. They\nquestioned not the right of an inspired prophet to act thus, but the\nauthority of Jesus as a prophet. The moral power before which all\nquailed was the greatest of signs; but to that they were indifferent.\n\u201cThey required signs to be proved by signs.\u201d--(_Bengel._) No other\nauthority for any reformation is ever required than the power\nand grace to achieve it. The same question was repeated at the\nsecond cleansing, but it elicited a very different answer (Matt.\n21:23).--=Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.=\nIn interpreting this passage observe that (1) John himself explicitly\ndeclares Christ\u2019s meaning, \u201cHe spake of the temple of his body\u201d (ver.\n21); (2) that not only the Jews, who might have willfully perverted\nChrist, misunderstood his meaning, but his own followers did not, till\nafter his death, understand him (ver. 22); hence (3) the hypothesis\nthat he pointed to himself when he said, \u201cDestroy this temple,\u201d is not\nonly unnecessary but improbable. The words are a prophecy, but are\npurposely left enigmatical, to be interpreted by the event. The temple\nis itself a type of man, who is intended to be the temple of God, in\nwhich he will dwell; and therefore a type perfectly fulfilled only in\nChrist, in whom alone the Spirit of God dwelt without measure, and\nwith no periods of partial or complete exclusion. The Jews in\ncrucifying Christ destroyed the divine reality of which the building\nwas only a symbol or prophecy; moreover they inaugurated that terrible\ndrama of passion which ended in the literal destruction of the temple\nitself. For description of this destruction see Matt. ch. 24, Prel.\nNote. Some objections to this passage have been suggested. (1) _The\ncrucifixion of Christ and his resurrection taking place three years\nlater cannot be a sign of his authority here._ Ans. In fact Christ\ndoes not comply with the Pharisees\u2019 demand for a sign but refuses it,\nas in the analogous passage in Matt. 12:34-40, where he also by a\nmetaphor refers to his resurrection. (2) _The prophecy would not be\nand in fact was not understood._ Ans. It was not intended to be\nunderstood then, but to afford a basis for the faith of the disciples\nwhen subsequent history had interpreted it. It was an enigma more\nlikely to be remembered because enigmatical. \u201cMany such sayings he\nuttered which were not intelligible to his immediate hearers, but\nwhich were to be so to those who should come after. And wherefore doth\nhe do this? In order that when the accomplishment of his predictions\nshould have come to pass, he might be seen to have foreknown from the\nbeginning what was to follow.\u201d--(_Chrysostom._) (3) _The language is\nimperative and thus involves a command by Christ to crucify him._ Ans.\nThe imperative, _Destroy this temple_, is not equivalent to the\nfuture, You will destroy this temple; nor is it permissive merely, You\nmay destroy this temple; nor yet is it a command, You must destroy\nthis temple. It is a challenge. Destroy this temple, and I will raise\nit up. \u201cIt springs from painfully excited feelings, as he looks with\nheart-searching gaze upon that implacable opposition which was already\nbeginning to show itself, and which would not be satisfied till it had\nput him to death.\u201d--(_Meyer._) (4) _The language, I will raise it up,\nimputes to Christ the power of the resurrection which is uniformly\nattributed to the Father._ Ans. This objection is founded on a\nmisapprehension. The N. T. recognizes no such distinction between the\nFather and the Son as this objection implies, and Christ uses language\nelsewhere, as distinctly implying his own act in the resurrection as\nthat used here (ch. 10:18; 11:25; comp. 5:39, 40, 44). The\ninterpretation proposed by some writers, that Christ here speaks of\nthe decay of the Jewish religion in its temple, and the building up of\na new spiritual theocracy, will not be accepted by those who believe\nthat John\u2019s explicit declaration of Christ\u2019s meaning is inspired and\nauthoritative. Observe how the Jews intentionally misrepresented\nChrist\u2019s saying; they accused him of threatening to destroy the temple\n(Matt. 26:61, note), when he had really prophesied that they would\ndestroy it.\n\n\n 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple\n in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?\n\n\n 21 But he spake of the temple[82] of his body.\n\n [82] Ephes. 2:21, 22; Col. 2:9; Heb. 8:2.\n\n=20. Forty and six years was this temple in building.= The argument is\na natural one, and seemed conclusive. The temple was commenced by Herod\ntwenty years previous to the birth of Christ, and had been forty-six\nyears in construction up to this time. It was not finally completed,\nhowever, till A. D. 64, under Herod Agrippa II; so that it was really\nover eighty years in building. The workmen were at this time still\nengaged upon it, and the language of the people refers to the work up\nto this time.\n\n\n 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples\n remembered that he[83] had said this unto them: and they\n believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.\n\n [83] Luke 24:8.\n\n=22. When therefore he was risen from the dead.= Not merely after but\nat the time of his resurrection and in the light of that fact, the\ndisciples interpreted both what he had said and what the O. T.\ncontained on this subject.--=They believed the Scripture.= Not the N.\nT., no part of which was written at the time of the resurrection; and\nthe \u201cScripture\u201d is here distinguished from the words which Jesus had\nspoken. The O. T. contained prophecies of the resurrection which are\nenigmatical, and probably were but imperfectly comprehended by even\nthe most devout Jews, but which were interpreted by the event (Ps.\n16:4 with Acts 3:15; Ps. 17:15; 73:23, 24; Isaiah 26:19; Hosea 6:2).\nFor evidence that Christ, and subsequently the apostles, recognized in\nthe O. T. prophecies of the resurrection, see Luke 24:26, 27; John\n20:9; 1 Cor. 15:4.\n\n\n 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the\n feast _day_, many believed in his name when they saw the\n miracles which he did.\n\n\n 24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because\n he[84] knew all _men_,\n\n [84] ch. 16:30; 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9; 29:17;\n Jer. 17:9, 10; Matt. 9:4; Acts 1:24; Rev. 2:23.\n\n\n 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for\n he knew what was in man.\n\n=23-25. Many trusted in his name, seeing the signs which he wrought,\nbut Christ did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all men\nand needed not=, etc. Compare with the English version the translation\nhere given which approximates more nearly to the original; and observe\nrespecting this that (1) the term miracle has acquired in modern\ntheology a technical meaning it does not possess in the N. T. Christ\nmay have wrought miracles at this time not recorded by the Evangelist\n(ch. 21, 25), but the belief of the Jewish disciples may have rested\non such signs of his moral power as the expulsion of the traders from\nthe temple; (2) their trust in his name was not necessarily a true\nspiritual acceptance of him as a personal Saviour from sin; the\nreverse is implied by the statement that they trusted him _because\nthey saw his miracles_; and still more by the declaration respecting\nhimself that he did not entrust himself to them; (3) this declaration\nwould scarcely need interpretation were it not for a common\nmisinterpretation. It does not imply that he held back from them his\ndoctrine, or refused to work miracles for their benefit, but simply\nthat he did not and could not enter into that close and unreserved\npersonal intercourse with them which characterized his Galilean life\nand companionships. He knew them too well to do this; knew that when\nthe spiritual and universal nature of his kingdom of love was revealed\nunto them, they would reject and crucify him. The statement that he\nknew what was _in man_, indicates a divine and supernatural reading of\nthe secrets of the human heart, of which the N. T. affords many and\nstriking illustrations (Matt. 9:4; Mark 2:8; Luke 7:39, 40). The\ndeclaration that he knew _all men_, indicates that this interior\nknowledge of the heart was not occasional and exceptional, but\nuniversal. Melancthon sees in the example of our Lord here an\nadmonition of caution in opening our hearts unreservedly to strangers,\neven though they may seem to receive our word with kindness. Be\nfriendly to all, be intimate with few.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\nCh. 3:1-21. CHRIST\u2019S CONVERSATION WITH NICODEMUS.--THE ARGUMENT FROM\nMIRACLES: ITS STRENGTH AND ITS WEAKNESS ILLUSTRATED (verse 2).--CHRIST\nMORE THAN A TEACHER, A LIFE-GIVER; CHRISTIANITY MORE THAN A SYSTEM\nOF TRUTH, A NEW LIFE.--THE CONDITION OF SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE, A NEW\nSPIRITUAL LIFE.--THE SPIRIT OF SKEPTICISM ILLUSTRATED (verse 4).--THE\nTRUE METHOD OF ANSWERING SKEPTICISM, NOT BY ARGUMENT, BUT BY PERSONAL\nASSURED CONVICTION (verse 5).--THE TWO CONDITIONS OF ENTERING CHRIST\u2019S\nKINGDOM: A NEW SPIRITUAL LIFE, AND A PUBLIC CONFESSION OF CHRIST (verse\n5).--LIKE BEGETS LIKE.--THE KNOWN AND THE UNKNOWN IN THEOLOGY (verses\n8, 11): THE KNOWN, WHAT TAKES PLACE ON EARTH; THE UNKNOWN, WHAT TAKES\nPLACE IN HEAVEN.--THE IGNORANCE OF THE WISE; HE IS NO MASTER WHO HAS\nNO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEW BIRTH.--THE POWER OF SALVATION:\nA CRUCIFIED CHRIST; THE CONDITION OF SALVATION: FAITH IN HIM; THE\nCONDEMNATION OF SINNERS: THEIR LOVE OF DARKNESS AND REJECTION OF THE\nLIGHT.\n\nChrist\u2019s interview with Nicodemus is described only by John. It\noccurred immediately after the events described in the preceding\nchapter, and before Christ had inaugurated his missionary labors,\nwhich he did not begin till the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Mark\n1:14). In studying this passage, the following considerations will\nprevent the student from falling into the perplexities and errors into\nwhich some learned and orthodox commentators have fallen. (1) The\nconversation was had at the commencement of Christ\u2019s ministry, before\nhe had explained, even to his own disciples, the principles of his\nkingdom; we cannot therefore safely assume that Nicodemus was familiar\nwith those principles, nor can we interpret Christ\u2019s teachings here by\nthe later apostolic teaching, except in so far as that was developed\nfrom this as from a germ. (2) Nicodemus was a Pharisee, therefore a\nformalist, and pre-eminently a Jew. We may safely assume that Christ\u2019s\nobject was in part to correct Jewish and Pharisaic errors, and\nour first object must be to understand, if we can, Nicodemus\u2019\nunderstanding of our Lord. (3) There is no evidence that John was\npresent at this interview; and it is not probable that we have a full\nverbatim report of it. The structure of the narrative indicates that\nonly so much of the conversation is reported as was necessary to make\nclear Christ\u2019s discourse founded thereon.\n\n\n 1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus,[85] a\n ruler of the Jews:\n\n [85] ch. 7:50, 51; 19:39.\n\n=1. There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus.= Of Nicodemus\nnothing is known except what John tells us. He is not mentioned by the\nother Evangelists; and subsequent traditions are untrustworthy. There\nis a Nicodemus referred to in the Talmud; but there is nothing to\nidentify him with this one, for the name was common among the Jews.\nThe only incidents related of him are this conference, his protest\nagainst condemning Jesus unheard (ch. 7:50-52), and his participation\nwith Joseph of Arimathea in the burial of Jesus (ch. 19:39). There is\na spurious Gospel of Nicodemus, the author of which is, however,\nunknown. The designation of him here as a _ruler of the Jews_\nindicates that he was one of the Sanhedrim, and this indication is\nconfirmed by ch. 7:50. On the character of the Pharisees, see Matt.\n3:7, note. Among them there were some pure and honest souls, sincere\nbut not courageous seekers after the truth (Mark 12:28-34; 15:43; Acts\n5:34-39; 15:5; Phil. 3:5); to this class of the Pharisees Nicodemus\nseems to have belonged.\n\n\n[Illustration: A MODERN JEWISH RABBI.]\n\n\n 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him,\n Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God,\n for[86] no man can do these miracles that thou doest,\n except God[87] be with him.\n\n [86] ch. 9:16, 33; Acts 2:22.\n\n [87] Acts 10:38.\n\n=2. The same came to Jesus by night.= Why _by night_? The reason\ngenerally assumed is fear of the Jews; but this is not asserted by the\nEvangelist, and at this time there had not been developed any\npronounced hostility on the part of the Judeans to Jesus. Nicodemus\nmay have had a natural reluctance to commit himself to an unknown\nRabbi, till he had learned more of his doctrine; he may have simply\nsought a quiet and personal conversation, such as he could not obtain\nin the busy day-time.--=Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher.= The\nplural is not used here for the singular number; Nicodemus expresses\nnot merely his own personal conviction, but that of the Pharisees as a\nclass. That they did, even much later, recognize Christ\u2019s superhuman\ncharacter and mission is clear from such passages as Matt. 12:23, 24;\nJohn 9:29-34; 11:47, and this even when they resisted him most\nbitterly.--=For no man can do these miracles=, etc. This is the\nargument from miracles put in the tersest possible form. Comp. Acts\n4:16, 17. And this is all that miracles prove, namely, the commission\nand authority of Christ; they do not of themselves show his\n_character_. Nicodemus then regards Christ as a _prophet sent from\nGod_; and John, who in ch. 1:6, etc., has drawn clearly the\ndistinction between the prophet and the Light and Life, reports in\nthis conversation with Nicodemus a discourse of Christ in which he\nemphasizes the same distinction. Nicodemus impliedly asks to know what\n_new doctrine_ Christ has to teach; Christ replies in substance that\nthe world needs not new doctrine, but _new life_. The key to the\nunderstanding of this conversation is the contrast between the two\nconceptions of religion, as a system of doctrine, and as a new and\nspiritual life.\n\n\n 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say\n unto thee, Except[88] a man be born again, he cannot see\n the kingdom of God.\n\n [88] ch. 1:13; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:1; Tit. 3:5; James\n 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:29; 3:9.\n\n=3. Verily, verily.= With Christ these words are a common precursor of\nany especially weighty and solemn declaration (Matt. 5:18,\nnote).--=Except a man be begotten anew, he cannot see the kingdom of\nGod.= On the meaning of this sentence, it is to be observed that, (1)\nThe word (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9) here rendered in our English version _born_, more\nproperly signifies the act of begetting. Here therefore Christ\u2019s\nlanguage carries Nicodemus back to the very beginning of life. (2) The\nword (\u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd) rendered here in our English version _again_, is\ncertainly mistranslated. It means either _anew, i. e., from the\nbeginning_ or _from above_. Both meanings are attached to it here by\nthe best scholars. According to the first definition, Christ simply\nimplies that the life must begin anew, that the character must be\nrebuilt from the foundation, without however implying how; according\nto the other idea, he indicates in the use of this word not only a new\nbut a spiritual and divine birth. The word is used in the first sense\nin Luke 1:3, where it is rendered _from the very first_; in the second\nsense in James 1:17; 3:15, 17, where it is rendered _from above_. It\nis clear that Nicodemus understood it in the former sense merely, and\ntherefore I have so rendered it here. (3) The word rendered _see_\n(\u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) is not equivalent to _enter into_ (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd), as Meyer\ninterprets it. The declaration is explicit that a new spiritual life\nis necessary, not only to enter into but even to form any correct\nconception of the kingdom of God. And with this agrees the teaching of\nChrist elsewhere (Matt. 13:14, 15), and of Paul (1 Cor. 2:9, 14, 15).\nChrist thus declares to Nicodemus that he cannot even understand the\nspiritual teachings of the new religion without first beginning a new\nlife. In other words, _a new spiritual life is the condition precedent\nto a correct spiritual apprehension of Christ\u2019s teaching_. It is\nfurther to be observed that light is thrown on the meaning of this\ndeclaration by a consideration of previous Rabbinical and of later\nApostolic teaching. The new birth was a familiar metaphor with the\nRabbis. They held that a Gentile in becoming a Jewish proselyte, and\nsubmitting to circumcision and baptism, was born again. Old things\npassed away; all things became new; it was even maintained that the\nproselyte might marry his nearest kin without offence, because the old\nrelationships were annulled by his new birth. Christ employs this\nmetaphor, familiar to the Jewish Rabbi, without interpreting it, and\ndeclares that no man, _Jew or Gentile_, could see the kingdom of God\nwithout undergoing a change as radical. This truth, that a man may\nbury his old life and begin a new one, with something of the freshness\nand hope of youth, is also foreshadowed in the O. T. (Isa. 1:18, 19;\nJer. 31:33; Ezek. 11:19, 20; 36:26), and underlies the teaching of the\nN. T. (Rom. 6:8; 8:3; 12:2; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Ephes. 2:1-8; Col.\n3:9, 10; Titus 3:5); and the metaphor itself frequently occurs in the\nteaching of the apostles (Rom. 8:15; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3; 1 John\n3:9).\n\n\n 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he\n is old? can he enter the second time into his mother\u2019s\n womb, and be born?\n\n=4. How can a man be born when he is old?= It seems to me clear that\nthis question is asked in a spirit of irony. So Godet, Alford, Luther,\nand others. Considering that the metaphor was a common one, as\nLightfoot has shown, and that the doctrine of a new life inspired from\nGod could not have been unknown to any devout student of the\nO. T. (see references above), it is hardly possible to suppose\nthat Nicodemus took Christ literally. This is however Meyer\u2019s\ninterpretation of the question; but it represents Nicodemus as not\nonly \u201ca somewhat narrow-minded man,\u201d but also as a grossly ignorant\nand stupid one; and so, in truth, Meyer represents him throughout.\n\nIn the following verses (5-8), Christ answers Nicodemus\u2019 threefold\nquestion: _first_, by simply reasserting his declaration that no man\ncan see the kingdom of God unless he is born anew; _second_, by\ndeclaring the nature of this new birth, as the commencement of a new\nspiritual life, not of a new physical or fleshly life; and _third_, by\nborrowing an illustration from nature to indicate the degree of\nknowledge attainable by man on this subject; he can perceive the\nresults of the operations of the spirit of God, but he cannot trace\nthem to their source nor comprehend their laws.\n\n\n 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a\n man be born of water[89] and _of_ the Spirit,[90] he cannot\n enter into the kingdom of God.\n\n [89] Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38.\n\n [90] Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 2:12.\n\n=5. Born of water and of Spirit.= Governing ourselves by the cardinal\ncanon, that we are to understand Christ as Christ expected his auditor\nto understand him, it cannot be difficult to understand this\ndeclaration. The Jewish proselyte, as a sign that he put off his old\nfaiths, was baptized on entering the Jewish church. John the Baptist,\nemploying the same symbolic rite, baptized Jew as well as Gentile, as\na sign of purification by repentance from past sins. The Sanhedrim\nwere familiar with his baptism, and had sent a delegation to inquire\ninto it (ch. 1:19, 25), and he had told them prophetically of the\nbaptism of the Spirit which Christ would inaugurate. Nicodemus then\nwould certainly have understood by Christ\u2019s expression, \u201cborn of\nwater,\u201d a reference to this rite of baptism, and by the expression,\n\u201cborn of the Spirit,\u201d a reference to a new spiritual life, which\nhowever he could have only imperfectly apprehended. The declaration\nthen is that no man can enter the kingdom of God except by (1) a\n_public_ acknowledgment and confession of sin, a _public_ putting off\nof the old man and entering into the new; and (2) a real and vital\nchange of life and character wrought by the Spirit of God in the heart\nof the believer. By the one act he enters into the visible and\nexternal kingdom; by the other, into the spiritual and invisible\nkingdom. That a _public_ confession and consecration is essential is\nclearly indicated elsewhere in Christ\u2019s teaching (Matt. 10:32, 33).\nObserve the difference in phraseology here and in verse 3. He cannot\n_see_ the kingdom of God, except his eyes are opened by the Spirit of\nGod; he cannot _enter_ it, except by a public and complete abandonment\nof the old and a spiritual consecration to the new life (2 Cor.\n5:14-16).\n\n\n 6 That[91] which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that\n which is born of the Spirit is spirit.\n\n [91] 1 Cor. 15:47, 49; 2 Cor. 5:17.\n\n=6. That which is born of flesh is flesh.= The connection is this:\neven if a man when he is old could enter again his mother\u2019s womb and\nbe born, it would avail nothing; that which is born of flesh is always\nflesh; only that which is born of the Spirit partakes of the Spirit of\nGod. (Comp. Rom. 8:5-9.) The declaration here, coupled with John\u2019s\nexplicit declaration in ch. 1:14, that the Word was made flesh,\nimplies that the birth of Jesus was supernatural, though he narrates\nnone of the circumstances of that birth.\n\n\n 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.\n\n=7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.= The\noriginal, by its construction, puts an emphasis on the word _ye_. And\nit was this which surprised Nicodemus; not that men must be born\nagain, but that this necessity was laid on him, a child of Abraham,\nand an honored ruler and teacher among the Jews. Observe too that he\nsays _ye_, not _we_. \u201cThe Lord did not, could not say this of Himself.\nWhy? Because, in the full sense in which the flesh is incapacitated\nfrom entering the kingdom of God, He was not born of the flesh. He\ninherited the weakness of the flesh, but his spirit was not like that\nof sinful man, alien from holiness and God, and therefore on Him no\nsentence hath passed; when the Holy Spirit descended on Him at His\nbaptism, the words spoken by the Father were indicative of past\napproval, not of renewal. His obedience was accepted as perfect, and\nthe good pleasure of the Father rested on Him. Therefore He includes\nnot himself in this necessity for the new birth.\u201d--(_Alford._)\n\n\n 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the\n sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and\n whither it goeth: so[92] is every one that is born of the\n Spirit.\n\n [92] 1 Cor. 2:11.\n\n=8.= It is very difficult to convey the exact meaning of the original\nof this verse; for in the original the same word signifies _wind_ and\n_spirit_; there is thus a verbal felicity in the metaphor, a certain\nplay upon the word itself, which cannot be transferred from the Greek\ninto another language. As in nature we see the operation of the summer\nbreeze, that comes we know not whence, and goes we know not whither,\nso in the kingdom of grace we see the effects of the Spirit of God, in\nchanges wrought in the individual character and in the community (Gal.\n5:22), but are unable to comprehend the nature of the influence or the\nlaws according to which it operates. Christ by this metaphor certainly\nindicates something more than the mere incomprehensibleness of the\nSpirit\u2019s work (comp. Eccles. 11:5); he indicates also the realm in\nwhich we are to conduct our investigations, and that from which, by\nthe nature of the case, we are excluded. We can study to advantage the\n_results_ of the Spirit\u2019s operations; but all endeavors to know _how\nHe_ operates, what are the occult laws of _His_ being and work, are in\nvain. A humble acceptance of this teaching would eliminate many\nuseless discussions from theology. Alford notices that the Greek word\nused for wind (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1) indicates the gentle breath of summer, not the\nviolent gale. \u201cIt is one of those sudden breezes springing up on a\ncalm day, which has no apparent direction, but we hear it rustling in\nthe leaves around.\u201d Observe also in the language, _where it listeth_,\nan indication of the fact that the divine operations are free,\nunconstrained, and not answerable to man, nor subject to his control.\nComp. Rom. 9:15, 16.\n\n\n 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these\n things be?\n\n\n 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of\n Israel, and knowest not these things?\n\n=9, 10. Nicodemus answered, ... how can these things be?= He is\nsobered by the moral power and earnestness of the Lord, lays aside\ncavilling, and asks seriously for clearer light. For similar effect of\nChrist\u2019s personal power on a skeptical nature, compare his conference\nwith the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:11 with 25), and with Pilate (ch.\n18:33-38 with 19:9-12); compare also account of Paul before Festus and\nAgrippa (Acts 26:31, 32). Observe that Christ does not overcome\nNicodemus\u2019 skepticism by arguing against his objections, but by the\nmere power of his own personal assurance of the truth.--=Thou art the\nteacher of Israel; and dost thou not know these things?= There is\ncertainly in this declaration and question a touch of irony and of\nrebuke. The necessity of a radical change of heart and life, for\nIsraelite as well as Gentile, is abundantly taught by the O. T. (see\nver. 3, note, for references); Nicodemus, as a professional teacher of\nthe religion of the O. T., ought not to have been surprised at\nChrist\u2019s reiteration of the truth; and the less because the doctrine\nof a new birth and a public baptism as a symbol of it were taught by\nthe Rabbis to the Gentiles. The language here, _The_ teacher of Israel\n(\u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) indicates that Nicodemus was a well-known teacher;\nperhaps that he prided himself on his pre-eminence.\n\n\n 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We[93] speak that we do\n know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our\n witness.\n\n [93] 1 John 1:1-3.\n\n\n 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not,\n how shall ye believe if I tell you _of_ heavenly things?\n\n=11, 12. We speak that we do know=, etc. Christ has spoken hitherto\nonly of that which is matter of common observation, viz., man\u2019s need\nof a new and divine life, and the apparent results of it in character\nand conduct. He now speaks of that which is matter of personal\nexperience with Him, the new life in the soul. He now becomes not\nmerely an interpreter to facts that are patent, but also a _witness_\nto facts that are not. Christian teaching, to be effectual, must\nalways be founded on personal experience of the truth taught (1 Cor.\n2:12, 13).--=Earthly things ... heavenly things.= The connection of\nthese verses with the preceding interprets the contrast which Christ\nhere indicates. Nicodemus has impliedly asked for an exposition of\nChrist\u2019s system of truth. Christ has replied by saying that no man can\nunderstand the truths that pertain to the kingdom of God unless he is\nborn again. This necessity of a radical change in heart and life in\norder to appreciate divine things is an earthly fact, easily tested by\nan observation of men; a striking evidence of it is afforded by the\nquestion of Nicodemus in verse 4. He then immediately goes on to ask\nhow such a change can be effected. But this, the method of God\u2019s work\nin anew creating the heart, is a heavenly thing, not a matter of\nobservation; and Christ says, If you do not believe me when I tell you\na truth which you can easily verify by studying the earthly life of\nmen, what use is there in my telling you the secrets of God\u2019s working,\nthe truth of which disclosure you have no means of verifying. Observe\nthe implication that the things which are earthly, literally, _upon\nthe earth_ (\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1), belong to us to study and know, and the things\nwhich are heavenly, literally, which take place _in the_ heavens\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1), belong to the secret counsels and work of God, and do not\nbelong to us to investigate (Deut. 29:29). And yet by far the largest\nproportion of theological conflicts have taken place respecting these\nhidden things, concerning God\u2019s eternal counsels not man\u2019s present\nduty.\n\n\n 13 And[94] no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that\n came down from heaven, _even_ the Son of man which is in\n heaven.\n\n [94] Eph. 4:9, 10.\n\n=13.= The key to the interpretation of this verse is to be found in\nits context and connection. Christ says: How shall ye believe if I\ntell you of things which take place in heaven; yet no one else can\ntell you, for no one has ascended into heaven, and no one therefore\ncan report its secrets, except he who has descended from heaven and is\nin continual communion with heaven. So interpreting it, observe, (1)\nThe declaration, _No one_ (not merely no man) _hath ascended up to\nheaven_, means no living person; it does not militate against the\ndoctrine of the resurrection of the dead, nor imply an unconscious or\neven an intermediate state. It is by the connection limited to those\nliving on the earth, for they alone could reveal the secrets of heaven\nif acquainted with them. (2) _He that came down from heaven_ plainly\nimplies the pre-existence and supernatural character and origin of\nJesus Christ (comp. ch. 8:58). He contrasts himself with other men,\npatriarchs, prophets, apostles, as the _only one_ who has descended to\nearth from heaven. (3) _Which is in heaven_ indicates not merely, as\nMeyer apparently interprets it, that Christ\u2019s proper abode and home\nwere in heaven, but also that he maintained a vital and continuous\ncommunion therewith, dwelling in the Spirit in heaven, even while in\nthe flesh upon earth. The Christian\u2019s experience interprets, though it\ndoes not fully measure, this mystery of the heavenly life in the flesh\n(Phil. 3:20; Ephes. 2:6; Heb. 12:22).\n\n\n 14 And as[95] Moses lifted up the serpent in the\n wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:\n\n [95] Numb. 21:9.\n\n\n 15 That whosoever[96] believeth in him should not perish,\n but have eternal life.\n\n [96] ver. 36; Heb. 7:25.\n\n=14, 15. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.= The\nreference here is to the event recorded in Num. 21:4-9. The account\nthere should be carefully studied and compared with the spiritual\ninterpretation which Christ affords here. What species are there\nindicated by the description \u201cfiery serpent\u201d is not very clear;\nprobably the title was given from the burning sensations produced by\ntheir bite. Travelers describe a large serpent, said to abound in the\nArabian peninsula, full of fiery red spots and undulating stripes,\nand regarded as one of the most poisonous of the serpent kind.\nExcruciating heat and a burning thirst are among the symptoms produced\nby the bite of this serpent. The brazen serpent described in Numbers\nis thought to have been put upon a pole and carried throughout the\ncamp, so as to bring it within the sight of all the people. It was\ncarefully preserved and carried into the Holy Land, where it became an\nobject of idolatry and was destroyed in the reformation instituted\nunder Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4). A Roman Catholic church at Milan,\nItaly, however, still claims to possess the original brazen\nserpent.--=Must the Son of Man be lifted up.= Why _must_? What is the\nnecessity? That question Christ does not answer here, nor, so far as I\ncan see, does the N. T. anywhere. It simply represents the atoning\nsacrifice of Christ as a necessity, without explaining the grounds of\nthat necessity (comp. Luke 24:26). That it is in the divine economy of\ngrace an inexorable necessity is indicated even by the types of the O.\nT. (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22). The phrase \u201cSon of Man\u201d was a common\nJewish designation for the Messiah. It would have been so understood\nby Nicodemus (Matt. 10:23, note).--=Be lifted up.= Not only _on the\ncross_, but _by the cross unto glory_. It is the cross which lifts up\nChrist to be the object of adoration for the whole creation (Phil.\n2:9; Rev. 5:9).--=Should not perish.= These words are wanting in the\nbest manuscripts. But the doctrine implied, that those who do not\nbelieve will perish, is clearly taught in verse 16, from which it was\nprobably borrowed and inserted here by some early copyist.--=Eternal\nlife.= The same Greek words are rendered everlasting life in the next\nverse (\u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). Comp. ch. 10:10. Eternal life is the life of the\nsoul which disaster cannot impair nor death destroy--a present\npossession, not a future inheritance, except that it is a possession\nwhich grows in value and importance in the future.\n\nIn studying Christ\u2019s language in these two verses observe (1) That we\nhave Christ\u2019s authority for the doctrine that the O. T. history is\nintended to indicate, by types or object-teaching, the great truths of\nthe Gospel. This he assumes elsewhere in his ministry (Luke 22:15, 19,\n20; John 6:49-51), and it is directly asserted by Paul (1 Cor. 10:11),\nand underlies the Epistle to the Hebrews. The history of the brazen\nserpent is then a parable of the Gospel; parabolically it points out\nthe way of salvation. (2) The serpent is throughout the Bible an\nemblem of Satan, and its poison an emblem of the deadly and pervasive\neffects of sin (Gen. 3:1, 14, 15; Deut. 32:33; Psalm 58:4, 5; 140:3;\nRom. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9). It is a fitting emblem--slight in\nits first wound, affecting the blood, the current and fountain of\nlife, pervading the whole frame with its subtle poison, a poison for\nwhich there is no human remedy, and resulting in certain death. (3)\nFor the human soul, poisoned by sin, the end whereof is death (James\n1:15), there is lifted up One who, though he knew no sin, was made in\nthe likeness of sinful flesh (2 Cor. 6:21), so that in him the enemy\nhimself was, as it were, nailed to the cross (Col. 2:15). Thus, as the\nbrazen serpent represented the fiery serpent, yet had in him not\npoison but healing, so Christ represented sinful flesh, but had in him\nno sin but redemption from the poison of sin in others. (4) The one\nonly condition of healing to the poisoned Israelite was that he _look\non_ the brazen serpent; and this simply as an act of obedient faith.\nTo this fact Isaiah had reference in his interpretation of the divine\ncondition of salvation, \u201cLook unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends\nof the earth; for I am God, and there is none else\u201d (Isaiah 45:22). So\nhere to \u201cbelieve in him\u201d is not to believe some doctrine about the\nMessiah, but simply to trust in him, to look unto him (Acts 16:31;\nHeb. 12:2). (5) The work of heralding the Gospel is the work of Moses\nin the wilderness. It is a simple pointing to the Saviour, lifted up\nthat the sinner, by looking unto him, may be saved. The work of\ninstruction in the precepts of Christ and the principles of his\nkingdom comes after, not before, salvation (Matt. 28:19, 20, note).\n\n\n 16 For God[97] so loved the world, that he gave his only\n begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not\n perish, but have everlasting life.\n\n [97] 1 John 4:9.\n\n=16.= Some scholars, including Olshausen and Tholuck, suppose that\nChrist\u2019s discourse ends with the preceding verse, and that the\nremainder, to verse 21, are added by John; but the grounds for such an\nhypothesis seem to me quite insufficient, and the objections to it\nquite conclusive. The grounds are (_a_) _That all allusion to\nNicodemus is henceforth dropped_. But Nicodemus is only introduced as\nan interrogator, because his questions elicit the instruction of\nJesus; and only so much of his share in the conversation is recorded\nas is necessary to make Christ\u2019s language intelligible. (_b_)\n_Thenceforth past tenses are used._ This might, however, well be the\ncase, even if the events were future, the discourse being prophetic.\nBut the events were not future, but past. The love of God, the sending\nhis Son into the world, the opening of the door of salvation through\nHim--all this was already accomplished; and the passion is not\ndescribed in detail as an event past. (_c_) _The phrase \u201conly\nbegotten\u201d is said to be peculiar to John._ But Stier well replies that\nJohn probably obtained the phrase from Christ. The objections to the\nview which supposes that Christ ends the discourse at verse 15, and\nthat the rest is John\u2019s are, (_a_) That the discourse breaks off\nabruptly, if ended at verse 15, leaving Nicodemus in entire ignorance\nof the way of salvation. The same necessity which, on this hypothesis,\nled John to complete it, would much more have led Christ to complete\nit. (_b_) There is nothing to indicate a break at verse 15; and to\nsuppose John guilty of adding to the discourse of our Lord his own\nwords, without indicating that it is an addition, is to accuse him of\nimposture, if not forgery, and casts discredit over his whole\nnarrative. Lange, Stier, Meyer, Alford, all hold the discourse to be\nour Lord\u2019s to the end, at verse 21. The verse itself has been well\ncalled by Luther \u201cThe little gospel,\u201d for it embodies the whole gospel\nin a single sentence. It declares the divine nature--love (1 John 3:9,\n16); the nature of that love, a love unto self-sacrifice, the\nsacrifice of his Only Son; the object of that love--the whole world;\nthe result of that love--the gift of the Messiah; the divine nature\nof the Messiah--God\u2019s only begotten Son; the object of that\ngift--salvation; the sole condition of securing the benefits of that\ngift--trust in the Saviour; the proffer of that salvation--to all that\nbelieve in him; the effect of rejecting it--perishing; the effect of\naccepting it--everlasting life. Observe, (1) that all attempts to\nlimit the meaning of the word _world_ (\u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) to the elect, or the\nchurch, are inconsistent with the original and with other parallel\npassages of Scripture. See particularly 1 John 2:2, and Matt. 13:38,\nnote; (2) the cause of the atonement is traced here not to the wrath\nbut to the _love_ of God, a fundamental fact often lost sight of in\npresenting that doctrine; (3) in the original an emphasis is put upon\nthe word _so_, which is not preserved in the English version. The\nwonder of the Gospel is not that God loved the world, but that he\nloved it with such a love, a love which only the sacrifice of an only\nbegotten Son can interpret.\n\n\n 17 For God[98] sent not his Son into the world to condemn\n the world; but that the world through him might be saved.\n\n [98] Luke 9:56.\n\n=17. Not ... to condemn the world.= The Jews believed (see _Lightfoot_)\nthat the Messiah would save Israel and judge the Gentile nations. It\nwas a Rabbinical interpretation of Isaiah 21:12, \u201cThe morning cometh\nand also the night.\u201d \u201cIt will be the morning to Israel (when the\nMessiah shall come), but night to the (Gentile) nations of the world.\u201d\nThis error Christ refutes, in this his first private preaching of\nthe Gospel, as subsequently in his first public preaching (Luke\n4:25-27); he declares that he brings salvation to the whole world.\nAlford notices the peculiar construction of the close of the verse,\nnot, That he might save the world, but, That the world through him\nmight be saved. \u201cThe free will of the world is by this strikingly\nset forth in connection with verses 19, 20. Not that the Lord is not\nthe Saviour of the world, but that the peculiar cast of this passage\nrequires the other side of the truth to be brought out.\u201d\n\n\n 18 He[99] that believeth on him is not condemned: but he\n that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath\n not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.\n\n [99] ch. 6:40, 47.\n\n=18.= The connection is this: Though God did not send his Son into the\nworld to condemn the world, yet he is even now judging it and\ncondemning its unbelief, though not in the way Nicodemus had\nanticipated; his mere presence is a judgment. His fan _is_ in his hand\n(Matt. 3:12); for he that trusts in Christ is thereby taken out from\njudgment, while he that rejects Christ condemns himself. The next\nverse states the ground and the nature of this condemnation. The Light\nhas come into the world, and men by refusing the Light attest their\nlove of darkness; and it is for this, not for the darkness but for\ntheir _love_ of it, that they are condemned.--=Is not condemned.= But\n\u201cis passed from death unto life\u201d (ch. 5:24).--=Is condemned already.=\nThe sinner is condemned, not by Christ but by his own act; he is\n_self-condemned_ (Tit. 3:11). Observe, that throughout the N. T. both\ncondemnation and salvation are represented as _present_ realities, not\nas future possibilities. The last judgment _decides_ nothing; it\nsimply announces publicly the results of the judgment now forming.\n_Life is the true judgment-day._--=Because he hath not believed.= Men\nare not condemned for their deeds but for their desires. The way of\nescape from the evil is provided and declined; and for this the soul\nis condemned. Thus it is true that the Lamb of God taketh away the sin\nof the world (ch. 1:29) and yet condemns the sinner (ch. 15:22),\nbecause the condemnation is not for the past sin, but for the present\nrejection of the Saviour from sin.--=In the name of the only begotten\nSon of God.= The name is Jesus, _i. e._, Saviour, and was given to him\nbecause \u201che shall save his people from their sins\u201d (Matt. 1:21). To\ndisbelieve in that name is to reject that salvation. \u201cThe \u2018only\nbegotten\u2019 also here sets before us the hopelessness of such a man\u2019s\nstate; he has no other Saviour.\u201d--(_Alford._)\n\n\n 19 And this is the condemnation, that light[100] is come\n into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,\n because their deeds were evil.\n\n [100] ch. 1:4; 9:11.\n\n=19. And this is the condemnation.= Not merely, This is the cause of\nthe condemnation; Christ has already stated that in the preceding\nverse; he here states the nature of the condemnation. He that loves\ndarkness rather than light is given over to his own choice; this is\nthe sentence pronounced against him (Hosea 4:1-17; Rom. 1:28; Rev.\n22:11).--=Men loved darkness rather than light.= Not merely _more_\nthan light; they chose darkness. For illustration of this deliberate\nchoice of darkness see Matt. 13:14, 15; 28:12-14; John 6:66; 12:10,\n11; Acts 4:16, 17; 2 Tim. 4:10. This is not always, however, a\nconscious and deliberate choice. See John 12:43; 2 Tim. 3:4.--=Because\ntheir deeds are evil.= _Corrupting to others._ This is the force of\nthe Greek word (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1f70), which is different from that rendered _evil_\nin the next verse. The corrupting power of sin lies in its secreting\nits evil character and purpose; hence it avoids the light; hence too\nit is called in Scripture the power of darkness (Luke 22:53; Col.\n1:13; Rev. 16:10). Observe the secret cause of unbelief here\nindicated; men are willfully ignorant of the truth. It is not the\nintellect, but the will which is perverse. \u201cThe source of unbelief is\nimmorality.\u201d--(_Meyer._)\n\n\n 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light,\n neither[101] cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be\n reproved.\n\n [101] Job 24:13, 17; Pr. 4:18, 19.\n\n=20. Every one that practiseth evil.= _Worthless things_ (\u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03b1) not\nas in the preceding verse, _things corrupting_. But corrupting include\nworthless things, for they are not only worthless but worse than\nworthless. The evil here characterized is parallel to the idle words of\nMatt. 12:36, and it is opposed to the truth which is always fruitful in\ngoodness and love.--=Hateth the light.= It has been supposed by some\nthat there is in these words a covert rebuke of Nicodemus for coming to\nChrist secretly by night. This seems to me improbable. Christ was not\naccustomed to conceal his rebukes so deftly.--=Lest his deeds should be\nreproved.= Not necessarily by words of condemnation, but by the mere\nexposure of their worthlessness when brought to the light. See Luke\n3:19, 20; John 8:8, 9; Compare Ephes. 5:11-13.\n\n\n 21 But he that doeth[102] truth cometh to the light, that\n his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought[103]\n in God.\n\n [102] 1 John 1:6.\n\n [103] John 3:21.\n\n=21. But he that doeth the truth.= Man _practises_ the evil (\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9),\nhe _does_ the truth (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9). Compare ch. 5:29, where the same\ndistinction is observed: \u201cthey that have _done_ good (shall come\nforth) unto the resurrection of life, they that have _practised_ evil,\nunto the resurrection of damnation.\u201d \u201cHe that _practises_ (\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9) has\nnothing but his _practice_, which is an event, a thing of the past, a\nsource to him only of condemnation, for he has nothing to show for it,\nfor it is also worthless (\u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd); whereas he that _does_ (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9)\nhas his _deed_--he has abiding fruit; his works do follow\nhim.\u201d--(_Alford._)--=Cometh to the light.= Not merely is willing and\ndesirous to come to the light, but is also enabled to come to it, and\nto appreciate and receive it (Prov. 4:18; John 7:17). Observe that\nthroughout the N. T. truth is represented not merely as an abstract\nphilosophy to be intellectually received, but as a _life_ in harmony\nwith the eternal verities of God\u2019s law and character. Thus the\nincarnation is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity; as Christ is\nhimself emphatically the Truth, so every Christian must be in a\nsmaller measure an embodiment and incarnation of divine truth,\nmanifesting it less by his words than by his life. So, on the other\nhand, Paul catalogues the vices of life, as the things which are\ncontrary to \u201csound doctrine\u201d (1 Tim. 1:10). For an exemplification of\nwhat it is to do the truth, see Psalm 15.--=That they are wrought in\nGod.= The Christian comes to the light, not for self-glorification,\nbut to glorify God; his desire is not to manifest the goodness in\nhimself, but the goodness in God which has triumphed over the evil in\nhimself (Matt. 5:16; 1 Cor. 15:10).\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 3:22-36. FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM JOHN THE BAPTIST TO JESUS.--THE\nOFFICE AND THE JOY OF THE MINISTRY--CHRIST CONTRASTED WITH HIS\nHERALD--THE HUMAN CONFIRMATION OF DIVINE TRUTH--THE CONDITIONS OF\nSALVATION--THE GROUND OF CONDEMNATION--THE DANGER OF AND THE DEFENCE\nFROM ENVY.\n\n\n 22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into\n the land of Jud\u00e6a; and there he tarried with them, and\n baptized.[104]\n\n [104] ch. 4:2.\n\n=22. After these things.= Not necessarily immediately after. There is\nnothing to indicate how much time elapsed between the conversation\nwith Nicodemus and the events recorded in the latter part of this\nchapter, except the note of time in verse 24.--=And baptized.= Christ\ndid not baptize (ch. 4:2), and the baptism could not have been in the\nname of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the Holy Ghost\nwas not yet given (John 7:39), that is, in such measure as to be the\ncommon heritage of all disciples. The probable explanation of the\nstatement here and in ch. 4:1, 2, is that of Chrysostom: \u201cBoth parties\n(John and the disciples of Jesus) alike had one reason for baptizing,\nand that was to lead the baptized to Christ.\u201d\n\n\n 23 And John also was baptizing in \u00c6non, near to Salim,[105]\n because there was much water there: and they[106] came, and\n were baptized.\n\n [105] 1 Sam. 9:4.\n\n [106] Matt. 3:5, 6.\n\n\n 24 For John[107] was not yet cast into prison.\n\n [107] Matt. 14:3.\n\n=23, 24. In Enon near to Salim.= The site of both places is uncertain.\nFor different hypotheses see _Smith\u2019s Bible Dictionary_, article\n_\u00c6non_. Jerome and Eusebius both affirm that Salim existed in their\nday eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis near the Jordan. Van der\nVelde found a Mussulman oratory called Sheyk Salim about six miles\nsouth of Scythopolis, and two miles west of the Jordan. Dr. Hackett\nseems to think this the more probable site. This places it near the\nnorthern border of Samaria.--=Because there was much water there.=\nRather _many_ waters, _i. e._, many springs. Whether this spot was\nchosen because the water afforded conveniences for baptizing, or\nbecause the springs afforded conveniences for the pilgrims that\nflocked in such numbers (Matt. 3:5) to the baptism of John, is\nuncertain. Nothing respecting the form of baptism can be deduced from\nthis expression.--=For John was not yet cast into prison.= For\nchronology of this period, see Matt. 4:12, note. The events recorded\nin John, chaps. 2, 3, and 4, seem to have occurred between the\ntemptation and the first preaching of Jesus recorded in Matt. 14:3-12;\nMark 6:14-29. See notes there.\n\n\n 25 Then there arose a question between _some_ of John\u2019s\n disciples and the Jews about purifying.\n\n\n 26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi,\n he that was was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou\n barest[108] witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all\n _men_[109] come to him.\n\n [108] ch. 1:7, 15, etc.\n\n [109] Ps. 65:2; Isa. 45:23.\n\n=25, 26. Then there arose a question between some of John\u2019s disciples\nand a Jew about purifying.= Not _the Jews_, but _a Jew_, an indication\nthat the difficulty, whatever it was, started with him. Various\nconjectures have been proposed respecting the nature of this question.\nThe discussion of them is unprofitable. The fact of the question is\nmerely stated to explain how the instructions of John the Baptist came\nto be given.--=And they came.= Some of the disciples of John\ncame.--=Said unto him.= What they said was evidently in the nature of\na complaint. \u201cHe who also was with thee,\u201d said they, \u201cas one of thy\ndisciples, has started off on a mission of his own, and is eclipsing\nthee.\u201d There was possibly a little personal jealousy in this\ncomplaint. To their minds Jesus was but a disciple of the Baptist like\nthemselves.\n\n\n 27 John answered and said, A man[110] can receive nothing,\n except it be given him from heaven.\n\n [110] 1 Cor. 2:12, 14; 4:7.\n\n\n 28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said,[111] I am\n not the Christ, but that I[112] am sent before him.\n\n [111] ch. 1:20, 27.\n\n [112] Luke 1:17.\n\n=27, 28. A man can receive nothing except it be given him from\nheaven.= Some, as Alford and Maurice, suppose that John refers to\nhimself, saying in effect: I cannot take more than God has given me,\nviz., the mission of a herald; others, as Chrysostom, that he refers\nto Jesus. This latter seems to me clearly the true view, which has\nbeen abandoned, perhaps, from a reluctance to apply the principle\ninvolved in it to Christ, that whatever power he possessed was not\nindependent but derived from the Father. The connection seems to me to\nbe this: \u201cIf he whom I baptized is drawing all men unto him and is\nconferring on them spiritual gifts greater than I conferred, it is\nbecause his spiritual power, heaven bestowed, is greater. For, in the\nspiritual realm no man can usurp; no man can receive what heaven\ndoes not give.\u201d In other words, spiritual results are always an\nall-sufficient justification for any spiritual work. No question of\nits regularity, or of the authority or the right of the worker is to\nbe entertained.--=Ye yourselves bear me out.= He turns their words,\n\u201cto whom thou barest witness,\u201d against themselves. See for his witness\nMatt. 3:11, 12; John 1:20, 25-27.--=I am sent before him.= As a herald\nbefore a king (Luke 3:3-6).\n\n\n[Illustration: TRADITIONAL SITE OF ENON.]\n\n\n 29 He that hath the bride[113] is the bridegroom: but the\n friend[114] of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth\n him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom\u2019s voice:\n this my joy therefore is fulfilled.\n\n [113] Cant. 4:8-12; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16:8; Hos. 2:19, 20;\n Matt. 22:2; 2 Cor. 11:2; Ephes. 5:25, 27; Rev. 21:9.\n\n [114] Cant. 5:1.\n\n\n 30 He must increase, but I _must_ decrease.\n\n=29, 30. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom=, etc. In the East,\netiquette forbids any meetings between the bride and groom prior to\nmarriage. Often they do not even see each other. All communications\nbetween them are carried on by one answering to our groomsman, and who\nis designated as the friend of the bridegroom. See Matt. 25:1-13,\nPrel. Note. To this custom John refers. The Church is the bride (Matt.\n9:15; 25:1-13; Rev. 21:9); in a sense every individual Christian is\nthe bride (Jer. 3:14; Isa. 54:5); Christ is the bridegroom; every one\nwho brings Christ to his Church, or to the individual soul, is a\n\u201cfriend of the bridegroom.\u201d The practical lesson for us is that we are\nto rejoice to be lost in the Master; to rejoice when our mission is\nended for the Church or the individual, and those whom we have been\nteaching are able to say to us, as the Samaritans to the woman (John\n4:42), \u201cNow we believe, not because of thy saying; for we have heard\nhim ourselves, and know that it is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of\nthe world.\u201d \u201cI know scarcely any words in all the Scriptures which\nhave a deeper and diviner music in them than these, or which more\nexpress all that a Christian minister and a Christian man should wish\nto understand and feel; and should hope that some day he may\nunderstand and feel as he who first spoke them did.\u201d--(_Maurice._)--=Who\nstandeth and heareth him.= Stands ready to do the bridegroom\u2019s\nbidding.--=He must increase, but I must decrease.= This is with John\nthe Baptist a subject not for resignation, but for rejoicing. His\ndecrease in the increasing of Christ is the evidence that his work and\nhis faith have not been in vain. For him to live is Christ; hence the\nmore Christ and the less John, the greater his joy.\n\n\n 31 He that cometh from above[115] is above all: he[116] that\n is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he\n that cometh from heaven is above all.\n\n [115] ch. 6:33; 8:23.\n\n [116] 1 Cor. 15:47.\n\n\n 32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and\n no man[117] receiveth his testimony.\n\n [117] ch. 1:11.\n\n\n=31-32.= It has been supposed by some critics that the discourse of\nJohn the Baptist ends with the preceding verse, and that what follows\nis a comment by the Evangelist, (so Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck); and\nby others that although it is in form the Evangelist\u2019s report of the\nBaptist\u2019s words, it has been so transformed in the reporting that it\nis in effect the Evangelist\u2019s, (so Lucke and De Wette.) It must be\nconfessed that the style is far more like that of John the Evangelist\nthan like that of John the Baptist, so far as we have reports from\nother quarters, of the latter\u2019s discourses; but there is no indication\nof any transition here from a report to a comment on it; and the\ncloseness of the connection in thought forbids the idea that any such\ntransition exists. I therefore (with Alford and Meyer) regard the\nwhole discourse as in substance that of John the Baptist, though\nprobably in phraseology largely that of the Evangelist.--=He that\ncometh from above is above all.= The Baptist emphasizes the contrast\nbetween Christ and himself. Christ, from above and above all, speaks\nwhat he knows and has seen (comp. John 3:11); John the Baptist from\nthe earth, and possessing the earthly nature, can, like all other\nhuman teachers, only declare the truth as it has come to him in his\nearthly condition and as seen through the earthly atmosphere. The\nteachings of Christ are the highest even in the Bible, for they are\nfree from that admixture of earthiness which belongs essentially to\nall mere earth-born teachers.--=No man receiveth his testimony.= A\nsorrowful comment (comp. ch. 1:11); but not literally true, nor is it\nintended to be literally taken. This is evident from the next verse.\n\n\n 33 He that hath received his testimony hath set[118] to his\n seal that God is true.\n\n [118] 1 John 5:10.\n\n\n 34 For he[119] whom God hath sent speaketh the words of\n God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure[120] _unto\n him_.\n\n [119] ch. 7:16.\n\n [120] ch. 1:16; Ps. 45:7; Isa. 11:2; 59:21; Col. 1:19.\n\n\n 35 The Father loveth the Son,[121] and hath given all\n things into his hand.\n\n [121] Matt. 28:18.\n\n=33-35. He that hath received his testimony hath sealed that God is\ntrue.=--The seal was in ancient times, as in modern, attached to any\ndocument in confirmation and attestation of it. John the Baptist\ndeclares that whoever accepts heartily the testimony of Jesus Christ\nbecomes himself a confirmation of its truth to others, by his own\nlife. The meaning is interpreted by Matt. 5:14; and 2 Cor. 3:2. A\npregnant and suggestive metaphor; that we put the seal to God\u2019s\ntestimony.--=He whom God hath sent.= The question of Christ\u2019s relation\nto the Father is not in issue here. John\u2019s disciples complain that\nJesus teaches at all; John replies that the divine effects of his\nteaching are the attestation of his divine ministry; and that having\nbeen divinely sent, he can speak no other than divine words. Compare\nch. 7:16.--=For the Father giveth not the Spirit by measure.= Alford\nsustains the addition of the English translators, _unto him_; to me it\nseems, as to Meyer, quite arbitrary. The meaning is not, God has\ndistinguished Christ from all other teachers by his unmeasured gifts\nof grace to him; but, when God gives he does not stint, nor measure,\nnor parley, but gives abundantly more than we can ask or think (Ephes.\n3:20); therefore, when he sends one into the world to reveal divine\ntruth, we are not to be afraid of his teaching, and to put limitations\nupon and hindrances about him, lest he go astray. The truth that God\nhas given immeasurably more into the hands of his only begotten Son\nthan to any created being appears in the next verse, not in this. Our\nEnglish version destroys the climax, and makes ver. 35 little more\nthan a repetition of ver. 34.--=And hath given all things into his\nhands.= Observe that throughout the N. T. the power and authority of\nChrist is represented as derived from the Father, not as original or\nindependent of him. See for example, John 5:26; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9.\n\n\n 36 He[122] that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:\n and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but\n the wrath[123] of God abideth on him.\n\n [122] ver. 15, 16; Hab. 2:4.\n\n [123] Rom. 1:18.\n\n=36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.= An\nassertion, not a promise. The declaration is not that everlasting life\nshall be given to him in the future as a reward for his act of faith,\nbut that faith at once inducts him into spiritual life, which is alone\neverlasting. Compare ver. 18 above; Rom. 6:23; 1 John 3:2. Observe\nwhat faith confers is _life_, _i. e._, the highest development and\nactivity of the whole being (John 10:10), the reverse being\ndeath.--=He that believeth not the Son.= Two different Greek words are\ntranslated in the two clauses of this verse by the English word\n_believe_. The force of the original is impaired, if not destroyed, by\nthis mistranslation; but it is not easy to find in English the exact\nequivalent for the distinction which is noted in the original. The\npassage may perhaps be rendered, _He that hath faith in_ (\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2) _the Son hath everlasting life; but he that will not be persuaded\nby_ (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd) _the Son shall not see life_. Beware of considering\n_Believe on the Son_ as equivalent to either _Believe correctly about\nthe Son_, or even _Believe the Son_. See Matt. 18:6, note.--=Shall not\nsee life.= Not only shall not have it, but cannot even comprehend it.\nSpiritual life is only spiritually discerned, and faith is the first\ncondition of spiritual discernment. See ver. 3 and note.--=The wrath\nof God abideth on him.= Remains, as something previously resting upon\nhim and not removed. See Ephes. 2:3.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: SYCHAR.]\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n\nCh. 4:1-26. CHRIST AND THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA.--CHRIST A PREACHER\nIN SEASON AND OUT OF SEASON.--HIS EXAMPLE AS A CHRISTIAN\nCONVERSATIONALIST.--THE DIVINE SPRING; THE HUMAN CISTERN.--THE\nESSENTIAL AND THE INSIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS IN WORSHIP CONTRASTED.\n\nThis interview between Christ and the Samaritan woman is reported\nalone by John. The time is uncertain; the only definite indication is\nthat of verse 35, and the interpretation of that is uncertain. With\nEllicott and Andrews, I think December of A. D. 27 the most probable\ndate. Matthew (4:12) explains Christ\u2019s departure into Galilee by\nsaying that it took place when he heard that John the Baptist was cast\ninto prison; John here attributes it to another cause, a fear of\nrivalry and contention between his own and John\u2019s disciples. The\nprobable explanation is that Christ left Judea for the latter reason,\nbut did not commence his public ministry till the imprisonment of the\nBaptist. See ch. 5, Prel. note.\n\n\n 1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard\n that Jesus made and baptized[124] more disciples than John,\n\n [124] ch. 3:22, 26.\n\n\n 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)\n\n\n 3 He left Jud\u00e6a, and departed again into Galilee.\n\n\n 4 And he must needs[125] go through Samaria.\n\n [125] Luke 2:49.\n\n=1-4. Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.= The\nconversation between Christ and Nicodemus took place at the Passover,\nand therefore in the spring; if that between Christ and the woman at\nthe well occurred in December, Jesus and John the Baptist baptized\ntogether during the summer. The doctrine which Christ preached at this\ntime was substantially the same as that of the Baptist. \u201cRepent, for\nthe kingdom of heaven is at hand\u201d (Matt. 3:2; 4:17); for he had not\nyet begun to explain publicly the spiritual and universal nature of\nhis kingdom. But differences between the ministries of the two were\nfrom the first apparent; differences chiefly respecting the\nceremonials of religion--purifying, baptizing, fasting (ch. 3:25, 26;\nMatt. 9:14). The increasing popularity of Christ threatened to awake\nthe envy of the Baptist\u2019s disciples, his disregard of ceremonial to\nawaken their suspicion; the Pharisees were alert to stimulate both. So\nChrist withdrew, forestalling the first danger of rupture and\nconflict, a lesson to all Christian workers against all unchristian\nrivalries and contentions about details in doctrine or ceremony. Envy\nis the most common instigator of denominational controversy.--=Jesus\nhimself baptized not.= No instance is recorded of any baptism\nadministered by Christ, or of any baptism commanded or authorized by\nChrist, till after his resurrection and about the time of his\nascension. Baptism appears to have been adopted by his disciples from\nJohn the Baptist, and employed by them without express direction from\nChrist, as a symbol of repentance and a profession of a new life, and\nto have been subsequently adopted in a modified form by their Lord.\nThat it was always regarded by the apostles as subordinate to the\npreaching of the Word is indicated by Acts 10:4, 8, with 1 Cor. 1:16,\n17, from which it appears to have been a ministerial act not\nordinarily performed by the apostles. On the history of baptism, see\nnote on the baptism of Jesus by John, Vol. I, p. 72, and on Christian\nbaptism, note on Matt. 28:19.--=And he must needs go through Samaria.=\nSimply because that province lay directly between Judea and Galilee,\nand therefore on the direct route. See map. Josephus tells us that it\nwas the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city to\nthe festivals, to take their journey through the country of the\nSamaritans. The more bigoted Judeans may have sometimes avoided it by\ngoing through Perea. The history of Samaria explains, and in some\nmeasure justifies, the odium attaching to it and its inhabitants among\nthe Jews. At the time of the secession of the ten tribes under\nRehoboam (1 Kings, ch. 12), Shechem was adopted by him as the capital\nof the new monarchy, and made the seat of an idolatrous worship.\nSubsequently the city of Samaria was built by Omri, king of Israel, as\ncapital (1 Kings 16:24), and so remained till the time of the\ncaptivity of the ten tribes under Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17:6). A\nheathen colony was then sent in to take the places of the exiled\nIsraelites; these colonists suffered from the devastations of wild\nbeasts, and acting on the common assumption of that time that their\nown gods were not competent to take care of them in a strange land,\nsent for and received priests of Israel to teach them the manner of\nthe God of Palestine. The result of this instruction was a mixed\nreligion, partly Jewish, partly heathen (2 Kings 17:24-41). In the O.\nT., the phrase \u201cthe cities of Samaria,\u201d is equivalent to the \u201ckingdom\nof Israel;\u201d it thus included all of Palestine north of Judea. That\nportion of Israel east of the Jordan which originally belonged to it\nwas subsequently taken away the kings of Assyria (1 Chron. 5:26),\nGalilee shared the same fate (2 Kings 15:29), and Samaria was reduced\nto the dimensions which it possessed in the time of Christ. The\ncharacter and conduct of the Samaritans increased the antagonism\nbetween them and the Jews. They were refused permission to participate\nin the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, at the time of the\nreturn of Judah from captivity, and became open, and, for a time,\nsuccessful opponents of the rebuilding (Ezra, chaps. 4 and 5; Neh.,\nchaps. 4 and 6). Finally, an exiled priest from Jerusalem obtained\npermission from the Persian king of his day to build a rival temple at\nGerizim, and Samaria became the rival of Jerusalem, and the\nrallying-point of its foes and its outlaws (Josephus\u2019 Antiq. 11:8, 6).\nTo a rival temple and religion, they added a Samaritan Pentateuch, for\nwhich they claimed a greater antiquity and authority than for any copy\nof the O. T. possessed by the Jews. The bitter national and religious\nantipathy between Jew and Samaritan, consequent upon this history, is\nillustrated in several passages in the N. T. (ver. 9, note; 8:48; Luke\n9:52-56; 10:30-37; 17:16). If anything could justify such an antipathy\nthis would be justified, since the Samaritans were renegades both to\ntheir religion and to their nation; and Christ\u2019s course here and\nelsewhere implies a condemnation of all rancor and bitterness, founded\non race, national, or religious differences. Of the Samaritans, one\nhundred and fifty still worshipping in a little synagogue at the foot\nof Gerizim are all that are left, \u201cthe oldest and the smallest sect in\nthe world.\u201d\n\n\n 5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called\n Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave[126]\n to his son Joseph.\n\n [126] Gen. 33:19; 48:22; Josh. 24:32.\n\n=5. A city of Samaria called Sychar.= The prevalent opinion is that\nSychar is a corruption of the name Shechem, that it means _drunken_,\nand that this slight change was given by the Jews to the rival capital\nin derision, and in possible allusion to Isaiah 28:1. If this be so,\nit must have become current at this time; for we can hardly believe\nthat John would otherwise embody a mere term of derision in the\nEvangelical narrative. Dr. Thomson (_Land and Book_, ii:206, following\nHug, Luthardt, and Ewald) identifies the ancient Sychar with a village\nabout half a mile north of the supposed site of Jacob\u2019s well, called\nAschar; and as the corruption of Shechem into Sychar is a mere\nhypothesis, framed to account for the use of the word here, Dr.\nThomson\u2019s opinion appears to me the more probable. Shechem was two\nmiles distant from Jacob\u2019s well, and apparently was abundantly\nsupplied with water.\n\n\n[Illustration: JACOB\u2019S WELL.]\n\n\n 6 Now Jacob\u2019s well was there. Jesus therefore, being\n wearied with _his_ journey, sat thus on the well: _and_ it\n was about the sixth hour.\n\n=6. Now Jacob\u2019s spring was there.= There are two Greek words\ntranslated _well_ in this narrative: the first means a spring or\nfountain, _i. e._, water-source; the second a well or cistern, _i.\ne._, a water-chamber. The first (\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae) is used here, indicating that\nthe well was fed internally by springs, not externally by rain. A\nwell, now dry and deserted, answering to all the conditions of the\nnarrative here, is designated by an ancient tradition as the one here\ndescribed; and the case is one of the very few in Palestine in which\ntradition appears to be trustworthy. It is accepted even by Dr.\nRobinson. The purchase of the ground by Jacob is described in Gen.\n33:18-20, but for the digging of the well there is no other authority\nthan tradition, unless Gen. 49:22 is an allusion to it. Whether Jacob\nhimself dug it, or whether his name was subsequently given to it by\ntradition is not known, nor does the reference here determine that\nquestion; it only designates the well by its customary name. Why he\nshould have dug a well at all has been made matter of question, since\nthe whole valley abounds with water. To this question Dr. Thomson\nreplies: \u201cThe well is a very _positive_ fact, and it must have been\ndug by somebody, notwithstanding this abundance of fountains, and why\nnot by Jacob?\u201d And he suggests that these fountains may have been\nalready appropriated by the native population. The site of the well is\nin the valley between Mts. Gerizim and Ebal. For a striking\ndescription of this valley, see Van der Velde. The historical\nassociations connected with the site were many and sacred. There the\nLord first appeared to Abraham (Gen. 12:6, 7); Jacob built his first\naltar (Gen. 33:18-20); Joseph sought his brethren in vain (Gen.\n37:12); Joshua rehearsed the law, with its blessings and cursings, and\namidst the loud amens of the assembled people (Josh. 8:30-35;\n24:1-25); and there Joseph was buried in the land that belonged to his\nfather Jacob (Josh. 24:32). \u201cAt no other spot in Palestine, probably,\ncould Jesus have more fitly uttered his remarkable doctrine, of the\nabsolute liberty of conscience from all thrall of place or tradition,\nthan here in Shechem, where the whole Jewish nation, in a\npeculiar sense, had its beginning.\u201d--(_H. W. Beecher\u2019s Life of\nChrist._)--=Being wearied with his journey.= The commentators call\nattention to this weariness as an evidence of the reality of his\nhumanity. It seems to me, when coupled with the prophecy of Isaiah\n53:2, his apparent sinking under the weight of the cross, and his\nearly death, while the two thieves survived (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:44;\nJohn 19:32, 33), to be an indication that his physical frame was not\nrobust, was not equal to the demands of the soul which it contained,\nand that, as a part of his human experience, he knew the peculiar\nsorrows which an intense and active mind feels when hindered by a weak\nbodily organization.--=Sat thus at the spring.= \u201cWhat meaneth \u2018thus\u2019?\nNot upon a throne; not upon a cushion; but simply and as he was upon\nthe ground.\u201d--(_Chrysostom._)--=And it was about the sixth hour.= That\nis, about twelve o\u2019clock. There appears to be no adequate reason for\nthe opinion that has been advanced, that John employs a different kind\nof reckoning from that common among the Jews, and means here 6 P. M.\nIt is true that the evening was the common hour of resort to the wells\nby the women, but evidently this conference was with Christ _alone_,\nan indication that the hour was not the evening hour, for then others\nwould probably have been present also. Ryle suggests that there is a\nsignificance in the fact that while Christ talked with Nicodemus\nalone, and at night, his ministry to this sinful woman was at a public\nresort, and at noon. \u201cIf a man will try to do good to a person like\nthe Samaritan woman, alone and without witnesses, let him take heed\nthat he walk in his Master\u2019s footsteps, as to the time of his\nproceedings, as well as to the message he delivers.\u201d Compare the\ncircumstances of Christ\u2019s Gospel message to the woman that was a\nsinner (Luke 7:37, etc.).\n\n\n 7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus\n saith unto her, Give me to drink.\n\n\n 8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy\n meat.)\n\n=7, 8. A woman of Samaria.= That is, a Samaritan woman.--=To draw\nwater.= In the East the towns are not supplied, as with us, by means\nof aqueducts and water-pipes, nor are individual houses furnished each\nwith its well. The well itself is usually excavated from the solid\nlimestone rock, and provided with a low curb to guard against accident\n(Exod. 21:33). On such a curb Christ probably sat to rest. The well is\nordinarily not furnished with any apparatus for drawing water. Each\nwoman brings her own bucket, most commonly made of the skin of some\nanimal; sometimes the well is shallow, and she descends by steps made\nfor the purpose (Gen. 24:16), and dips the water up from the surface;\nif it is deep, she lets down her bucket with a rope. To assist in the\nwork, a wheel or pulley is sometimes fixed over the well. A trough of\nwood or stone usually provides a means for watering cattle and sheep\n(Gen. 24:20; Exod. 2:16). In this case, Christ had no bucket with him,\nand the well being deep, so that he could not descend into it, he had\nno means of obtaining water (ver. 11).--=Jesus saith unto her, Give me\nto drink.= Observe how insignificant a request he makes the occasion\nfor a deeply spiritual religious conversation; and how natural the\ntransition from the material to the spiritual. Observe, too, that by\nasking a favor he opens the way to the granting of one. He thus\nverifies the truth that the way to gain another\u2019s good will is not at\nfirst by _doing_, but by _receiving_ a kindness.--=His disciples were\ngone ... to buy meat.= They apparently carried little or nothing to\neat on their journeys (Matt. 16:6, 7; 12:1), but money to make the\nnecessary purchases (John 12:6). The direction to depend on\nhospitality (Matt. 10:9, 10) was not for their general guidance and\ngovernment.\n\n\n 9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that\n thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman\n of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings[127] with the\n Samaritans.\n\n [127] Acts 10:28.\n\n=9. For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.= This is\ntaken by some to be said by the woman; more probably it was added\nparenthetically by the Evangelist, to explain to his Gentile readers\nthe woman\u2019s surprise. For the reason of the fact, see on verse 4. It\nseems clear that the statement is not to be taken literally, for the\ndisciples, who were Jews, had just gone into the Samaritan city to\npurchase food; but that there was abundant ground for it is evident\nfrom Rabbinical writings; _e. g._, \u201cLet no Israelite eat one mouthful\nof anything that is a Samaritan\u2019s; for if he eat but a little mouthful,\nhe is as if he ate swine\u2019s flesh.\u201d\n\n\n 10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the\n gift[128] of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give\n me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would\n have given thee living[129] water.\n\n [128] Eph. 2:8.\n\n [129] Isa. 12:3; 41:17, 18; Jer. 2:13; Zech. 13:1;\n 14:8; Rev. 22:17.\n\n=10. If thou knewest the gift of God.= Not, If thou knew that water is\nthe gift of God; this knowledge might indeed have prevented her\nseemingly surly refusal, but it would not have led her to ask living\nwater of him. Nor, If thou knewest the peace and joy which are the\nspiritual gifts of God; these constitute the living water, and if she\nalready knew them, in her experience, she would not need to ask to\n_receive_ them. Christ is the unspeakable gift of God; if she knew the\nfull importance of this gift, the office and work of the Messiah, and\nthat he who was asking her for a drink of water was he, she would have\nasked and received from him living water. The objection that the woman\nwould not have so comprehended the reference, and therefore that it\ncannot be the primary meaning (_Alford_, _Meyer_), is not tenable,\nbecause by the very language itself it is implied that the woman will\nnot comprehend it. Christ speaks of a mystery to provoke her to\nfurther inquiry.--=Living water.= This phrase signifies primarily\nspring water, as opposed to water in a cistern. In Gen. 26:19; Lev.\n14:5; Jer. 2:13, the word rendered \u201cspringing,\u201d \u201crunning,\u201d and\n\u201cliving,\u201d is in the Septuagint the one here rendered \u201cliving.\u201d It is\ntaken by Christ as a symbol of the spiritual life which he imparts,\nand so as a symbol of himself, for he gives himself to the soul, and\nis, by his indwelling, the bread and water of life. The spiritual\nmeaning then is not _life-giving_; for that a different Greek word\nwould be employed (\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd not \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd). It is true that living water is\nlife-giving, but that is not the meaning conveyed by the phrase. The\nmeaning is water that has life in itself, as in John 6:51; \u201cliving\nbread\u201d means the living Christ, in contrast with the inert manna. The\nsignificance of the metaphor here is explained by its connection.\nChrist compares himself with water, not because of its cleansing\npower, nor because of its revivifying power on the soil, but because\nhe satisfies the soul\u2019s thirst. A similar metaphorical use of water is\nto be found in the O. T. See Psalm 23:2; Isaiah 55:1; Jer. 2:13; but\nespecially Numb. 20:8-11, an incident which it appears to me probable\nChrist had in mind, and one with which the woman was probably\nfamiliar, as the Samaritans accepted and employed the Pentateuch.\nObserve that salvation is the gift of God (Rom. 6:23), and that the\nonly condition of receiving it is asking (Matt. 5:6; 7:7; Rev. 22:17).\nThe water\u2019 is always ready; it is the thirst only that is wanting\n(Luke 14:17-19).\n\n\n 11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw\n with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that\n living water?\n\n\n 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us\n the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and\n his cattle?\n\n=11, 12. Sire, Thou hast no bucket, and the well is deep.= Not spring;\nthe water chamber, not the water source (\u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1 not \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae) See on ver.\n6. The language is that of badinage. It is analogous to that of\nNicodemus in ch. 3:4; though here, commingled with irony, there may\nwell have been a real perplexity. The original indicates a change in\nthe woman\u2019s tone; she at first says, How is it that thou being a\n_Jew_? she now addresses him as \u201c_Sire_\u201d (k\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5).--=Our father Jacob=,\netc. The Samaritans traced their origin back to the patriarchs, and\nher language here implies a claim to an ancestry superior to that of\nthe Jews, among whom she classed Jesus. Observe an illustration of the\nspirit which says, What sufficed for our fathers is good enough for\nus, no one can be greater than they; a spirit which is fatal to all\nprogress, in either material or spiritual things.\n\n\n[Illustration: AT THE WELL.\n\n\u201c_Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never\nthirst._\u201d]\n\n\n 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of\n this water shall thirst again:\n\n\n 14 But whosoever[130] drinketh of the water that I shall\n give[131] him shall never thirst; but the water that\n I shall give him shall be in him[132] a well of water\n springing up into everlasting life.\n\n [130] ch. 6:35, 58.\n\n [131] ch. 17:2, 3; Rom. 6:23.\n\n [132] ch. 7:38.\n\n=13, 14. Every one drinking of this water=; accustomed to drink\nof it, and relying upon it. \u201cThe \u2018drinking\u2019 sets forth the\nrecurrence, the interrupted seasons of the drinking of earthly\nwater.\u201d--(_Alford._)--=Shall thirst again.= He appeals in this to the\nwoman\u2019s experience, who comes daily to re-supply the ever-recurring\nwant.--=But whosoever has drunk=; once for all; the tense (aorist,\n\u03c0\u03af\u1fc3) indicates an historical act once performed.--=That I shall give\nto him.= Observe the representation throughout that the water is a\ngift, and a gift not _received_ by Christ in common with humanity, but\n_given_ by Christ to humanity. The Bible may be searched in vain for\nsimilar language from any prophet or apostle.--=Shall not thirst unto\neternity.= That is, shall never, even unto eternity, thirst. \u201cThe\nwhole verse is a strong argument in favor of the doctrine of the\nperpetuity of grace, and the consequent perseverance and the faith of\nbelievers.\u201d--(_Ryle._) Comp. ch. 10:28; Rom. 8:35-39; 2 Tim.\n1:12.--=But the water which I shall give him.= This Christ does by\ngiving his own life for the life of the world in his sacrifice for sin\n(ch. 6:51) and in his spiritual indwelling in the soul of the believer\n(ch. 14:19, 23).--=Shall become in him a fountain of water.= Not a\n_well_ (not \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1 but \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae). The reason he shall never thirst is that\nthe water which Christ gives becomes itself a water source, a spring,\na perpetual fountain of supply.--=Springing up unto eternal life.= Not\n_into_; the preposition indicates not something into which the\nfountain will be transformed, but the duration of its existence; it\nwill forever spring up in the soul. The contrast throughout these\nverses is between earthly and spiritual supplies. The _well_ (\u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1)\nis a symbol of earthly supply. This appeases but never satisfies; for\nit furnishes that which is external, and which is consumed in the\nusing, so that the soul which relies on earthly cisterns for its\nsatisfaction thirsts again. The living water, the spring (\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae) which\nChrist gives, becomes a fountain in the soul, it enters into and\nbecomes part of the character; using does not consume but increases\nthe supply. In Christ\u2019s promise here thirst is not equivalent to\n\u201cdesire,\u201d nor is the declaration \u201cshall never thirst,\u201d equivalent to\n\u201cshall never feel any spiritual want.\u201d Thirst is of all bodily\ncravings the most painful and intolerable. Hence it is used in the\nBible as a metaphor, not merely of spiritual _desires_, but of an\nurgent and intense desire, that cannot be denied (Psalm 42:2; 63:1;\n143:6; Isaiah 55:1; Matt. 5:6, note). Here then the declaration is\nthat Christ satisfies this painful longing, so that the soul shall\nexperience it no more. Of soul-thirst we have striking illustrations\nin Psalms 41 and 42, and in Rom. 7:17-24; of soul-satisfaction in\nChrist, illustrations in Psalm 46 and in Rom. 8:31-39. Compare\nChrist\u2019s promises in John 11:36; 16:32, 33. The continuance of earnest\nspiritual desires is not inconsistent with a rich spiritual\nexperience. See Phil. 3:12-14.\n\n\n 15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that\n I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.\n\n=15.= There is certainly a difference in tone between this request\nand the answer of verses 11, 13. The woman now dimly recognizes and\nvaguely appreciates Christ\u2019s interpretation of her own soul-want, and\nreplies half in jest, half in earnest. But her language \u201cneither come\nhither to draw,\u201d shows that she still gives to Christ\u2019s words, as I\nthink purposely misinterpreting them, a prosaic and literal meaning.\nObserve the implied misapprehension of the office of Christ, as one\nwho relieves the soul of all further care and labor in the matter of\nreligion. \u201cThere are many like her who would be glad of such a divine\ngift of religion as should take away all the labor and trouble of\nChristian life. \u2018That I come not hither to draw\u2019 is the desire of\nthousands who want the results of right living without the trouble of\nliving aright.\u201d--(_H. W. Beecher._)\n\n\n 16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come\n hither.\n\n=16. Go, call thy husband=, etc. This is in appearance a break in the\nconversation; it is in reality the first step toward granting the\nwoman\u2019s request: \u201cGive me this water;\u201d for the first step is to\nconvince of sin. It is only if we confess our sins that \u201cHe is\nfaithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all\nunrighteousness\u201d (1 John 1:9). Hence when Christ came to bring this\nwater of life to the world he began by preaching the duty of\nrepentance (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15). Other explanations, as that a\nlonger conversation with the woman alone would be indecorous\n(_Grotius_), or that she was unable to understand Christ\u2019s meaning and\nso he summoned her husband (_Cyril_, quoted in _Alford_), or that he\nwished her husband to share with her in the benefits of the\nconversation (_Chrysostom_), singularly ignore the moral meaning and\ncontinuity of the discourse. Observe Christ\u2019s uniform way of dealing\nwith skepticism. Its root is in sin; and he addresses not the reason,\nbut proceeds directly to convict the conscience. It is only the\nsinner, conscious of sin, who ever truly finds a divine Saviour.\n\n\n 17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband.Jesus\n said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:\n\n\n 18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now\n hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.\n\n=17, 18.= The word (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1) in Christ\u2019s reply, rendered _husband_, is one\nof more general import and is often translated _man_. But it is the\nordinary word used in the N. T. for husband, and I see no reason to\ndoubt that she had lived with five successive husbands.--From these\nshe had been separated, from some perhaps by death, from others by\ndivorce; at all events the last of these separations was unconcealedly\nillegal, and her present life was one which her own conscience\ncondemned as licentious. Observe the severity in fact and the\ngentleness in form of Christ\u2019s rebuke. It shows a full knowledge of\nher sin; yet it is couched in the language not of condemnation but of\ncommendation.\n\n\n 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive[133] that thou\n art a prophet.\n\n [133] ch. 1:48, 49.\n\n\n 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain;[134] and ye\n say, that in Jerusalem[135] is the place where men ought to\n worship.\n\n [134] Judges 9:7.\n\n [135] Deut. 12:5-11; 1 Kings 9:3.\n\n=19, 20. The woman saith unto him.= Her sentence is incomplete, either\nin the utterance or in the report. It is the basis of a question,\nimplied, or perhaps expressed, but not given by John, in which place\nshould worship be offered; which were right, Jew or Samaritan. The\nquestion was one fiercely debated between them (See on verse 5).--=I\nperceive that thou art a prophet.= It was a hasty conclusion; Christ\nmight have known her character and life by other than supernatural\nmeans. Bigotry and vice are apt to be credulous and superstitious.\nObserve, however, the difference in tone between this declaration and\nthe language of verse 9: \u201cHow is it that thou being a Jew.\u201d--=Our\nfathers worshipped.= \u201cThe argument of \u2018our fathers\u2019 has always proved\nstrong. Opinions, like electricity, are supposed to descend more\nsafely along an unbroken chain. That which \u2018our fathers\u2019 or our\nancestors believed, is apt to seem necessarily true; and the larger\nthe roots of any belief, the more flourishing, it is supposed, will be\nits top.\u201d--(_Beecher._) Calvin\u2019s comments are admirable though too\nlong to quote. He suggests four errors into which men are apt to fall,\nfrom blindly following the \u201c_fathers_,\u201d all illustrated by the\nSamaritans: (1) When pride has created a false custom or religion, the\nhistory of the fathers is ransacked to find justification for it; (2)\nwhen men imitate the example of the evil-doers, because they are\nancient, forgetful that they only are worthy to be reckoned as fathers\nwho are true sons of God; (3) when we imitate the conduct but not the\nspirit of the fathers, as if one should defend human sacrifice\nfrom the example of Abraham in Gen. 22:1-10; (4) when we imitate\nthe conduct of the fathers without considering the change of\ncircumstances, as when the Christian church attempts to copy the\nceremonials of the Jewish. \u201cNone of these are true imitators of the\nfathers; most of them are apes.\u201d--=In this mount=, Gerizim. According\nto the Samaritan tradition it was here that Abraham went to sacrifice\nIsaac; and here, not on Ebal, as according to our Scripture (Josh.\n8:30; Deut. 27:4), that the altar was erected by Joshua on which the\nwords of the law were inscribed. The first view is sanctioned by some\nChristian scholars, prominent among whom is Dean Stanley. A temple was\nbuilt on Gerizim by the Samaritans, according to Josephus, during the\nreign of Alexander, though the date is doubtful. The two temples\nintensified the bitterness of the feud between the Jews and the\nSamaritans, and the Samaritan temple was deserted and destroyed, B. C.\n129, by John Hyrcanus (Josephus\u2019 Antiquities 13:9, 11); but the\nSamaritans at Sechem (Nablus) still call Gerizim the holy mountain,\nand turn their faces toward it in prayer.--=Ye say.= She still treats\nChrist as a Jew.\n\nSome have regarded the question presented by the woman here as a\nserious one; recognizing Christ as a prophet, she asks his solution of\nwhat was to her mind the great religious problem of the day; others\nsee in it an endeavor on her part to evade the personal reference to\nher own sins. Both seem to me true. She endeavors to turn the\nconversation; recognizing the truth of Christ\u2019s allegation, \u201cHe whom\nthou now hast is not thy husband,\u201d not by confessing her sin but by\nacknowledging him as a prophet; but eludes the topic by opening a\nproblem in controversial theology. In all this she is honest and in\nearnest. She is not the first inquirer who has deemed theoretical\ntheology more important than practical duty. The moment her thoughts\nare turned to religious truth, they tend to its external aspects, and\nshe naturally and honestly seeks a refuge from her conscience in the\nquestion, Where ought men to worship? The question, What ought _I_ to\ndo? is postponed. Observe that Christ suffers her to change the\nsubject; leaves her conscience to press the sin to which he has\nawakened it, and teaches his followers how to deal with those who\nevade practical duty by doctrinal or ceremonial questions by his own\nresponse, No matter _where_ or _how_ the soul seeks God, if it only\nseeks him in spirit and in truth.\n\n\n 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour\n cometh, when ye[136] shall neither in this mountain, nor\n yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.\n\n [136] Mal. 1:11; Matt. 18:20.\n\n\n 22 Ye worship[137] ye know not what: we know what we\n worship: for salvation[138] is of the Jews.\n\n [137] 2 Kings 17:29.\n\n [138] Isa. 2:3; Rom. 9:5.\n\n\n 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true\n worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit[139] and in\n truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.\n\n [139] Phil. 3:3.\n\n\n 24 God[140] _is_ a Spirit: and they that worship him must\n worship _him_ in spirit and in truth.\n\n [140] 2 Cor. 3:17.\n\n=21-24. Believe me.= This expression is nowhere else used by our Lord.\nIt answers to his \u201cVerily, verily, I say unto you\u201d (Matt. 5:18, note),\nand to Paul\u2019s \u201cThis is a faithful (_i. e._, trustworthy) saying\u201d (1\nTim. 1:15, 4:9; Tit. 3:8). He employs it here because his declaration\nis partly in the nature of a prophecy, which must be accepted, if at\nall, upon simple trust in him.--=The hour cometh.= The word _hour_ is\nhere equivalent to time or season; this use of \u201chour\u201d is not\ninfrequent in John\u2019s Gospel (ch. 2:4; 5:25, 28, 35, \u201cseason;\u201d 8:20,\netc.).--=When ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem\nworship the Father.= A prophecy which was speedily, perhaps in the\nlifetime of this woman, fulfilled. The ravaging of Palestine by the\nRoman armies, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of\nthe Jews, has scattered the worshippers throughout the world. The\nSamaritan sect is indeed extinct, except the few survivors at Nablus,\nbut the Jews continue their worship in exile in every land (Mal.\n1:11).--=Ye worship ye know not what.= Their ignorance concerning the\nnature of the true God is indicated in their early history (2 Kings\n17:24-34). The woman was solicitous concerning the _place_ of worship;\nChrist directs her thought toward the _person_ to be worshipped.--=We\nknow what we worship.= This is the only instance in which Christ\nclasses himself with the Jews by the pronoun _we_. He accepts, for the\ntime, her estimate of him as a Jewish prophet, and declares that it is\nin the Jewish Scripture she is to look for a knowledge of the true\nGod. In fact, all correct knowledge of the character, attributes, and\ndealings of God, possessed by the world to-day, has come through the\nJewish people, by means of the Old and New Testaments (see Romans 3:1,\n2; 9:4, 5). At the time of this conversation idolatry had entirely\ndisappeared from the Jewish nation; and however inadequate, imperfect,\nand corrupt their worship, they at least recognized the one only true\nGod. Notwithstanding some efforts to prove the contrary, I think it\nis historically demonstrable that Judaism is the source of all\nmonotheistic religion. It is reasonably certain that the monotheism of\nMohammedanism is due to Mohammed\u2019s early instruction in the principles\nof Judaism.--=For the salvation is of the Jews.= The definite article\nin the original, unfortunately omitted in our English version, gives\nnot only emphasis but significance to the language. The Jews know what\nthey worship, because it is from them, as a nation, that there comes\nforth the divine salvation, typified by the sacrifices at Jerusalem,\nprophesied by Jewish Scripture, and fulfilled by the Messiah born at\nBethlehem in Judea. It is therefore here equivalent not merely to the\nSaviour, but also includes all the preparations which preceded his\npersonal advent.--=But the hour cometh and now is.= The last clause is\nadded parenthetically as a suggestion that the woman is not to look to\nthe remote future for the fulfillment of this word. Already the day\nhas dawned, though it has not fully arrived. Her language in verse 25\nindicates that a suspicion of Christ\u2019s true nature was, perhaps by\nthis declaration, awakened in her.--=When the true worshippers.= Not\nmerely the sincere in opposition to consciously hypocritical\nworshippers (Isaiah 29:13), but also the true, inward worshippers, in\nopposition to those whose worship was one of external form and\ntherefore not genuine. The word _true_ is elsewhere used thus by John\nto indicate the inward and spiritual as contrasted with the external\nand earthly, _e. g._, the true light (1:9), the true bread (6:32), the\ntrue vine (15:1). Compare Luke 16:11.--=Shall worship the Father=, and\ntherefore know what they worship; =in spirit and in truth=. Not in the\nHoly Spirit, though it is true that all spiritual worship is inspired\nand directed by his influence (Rom. 8:26; Zach. 12:10); nor with the\nbreathing and aspirations of the heart, in contrast to worship with\noutward forms and symbols, for symbol is necessary in all public\nworship, language is but an external symbol of inward feeling; nor in\nholiness and righteousness of life, for that is not the meaning of\n_spirit_; nor in soundness of faith, in contrast to heretical worship,\nfor the worship of the Jews was not heretical, Christ has just said,\n\u201cWe know what we worship.\u201d _In_ (\u1f10\u03bd) expresses not the instrument with\nwhich the worship shall be conducted, but the atmosphere in which it\nwill live, an atmosphere of spiritual life and truth; worship _in\nspirit_, is in contrast with a worship in the flesh, the essence of\nwhich consists in the rite, the form, the language, the posture (Comp.\nRom. 12:1; Phil. 3:3, 4; Heb. 9:9, 24); worship _in truth_ is one\nwhich in its character harmonizes with the nature of him who is\nworshipped. The Lycaonians would have worshipped Paul and Barnabas\n(Acts 14:11-13) in sincerity, but not in truth. Christ\u2019s language\ncondemns the spirit of ritualism, but not the employment of\nrites.--=For the Father is seeking such to worship him.= God is\nrepresented as in quest of such worshippers, among the many who are\nworshippers merely in form. Observe _work is not_ worship; God is\nseeking not merely workers (Matt. 20:1) but also worshippers (Comp.\nLuke 10:38-42, notes).--=God is a Spirit.= This declaration is\nfundamental, and radically inconsistent with (1) all scientific\ntheories which represent him as an abstract impersonal force; (2) with\nall metaphysical refinements which, ignoring his personality, treat\nhim as a \u201cpower that makes for righteousness,\u201d or as \u201cthe highest\ndream of which the human soul is capable;\u201d (3) with much of the\nreceived theology, which often assumes that God is like nature, and\ndeduces his attributes from such an imaginary likeness; (4) with all\nidolatry, whether the idol be in the imagination or in wood, stone, or\ncanvas. But it justifies us in looking to man\u2019s spiritual nature to\ninterpret the divine nature to us. The spirituality of God is\nabundantly taught in the O. T., but by implication only. The abstract\nstatement occurs only here and in 2 Cor. 3:17.--=Must worship him in\nspirit and in truth.= Nothing else is worship.\n\nObserve (1) Christ answers the woman\u2019s question not by pointing out\nthe right place of worship, but by inculcating such a conception of\nthe true nature of worship, that the controversy respecting Gerizim\nand Jerusalem shrinks into insignificance. The solution of many\ntheological problems is to be found, not in any answer, but in a new,\na higher, a more spiritual conception of religion as a spiritual life.\n(2) The place, and impliedly the forms and methods of worship, are\nmatters of no importance. (3) It is important that we know what we\nworship, _i. e._, that our worship be intelligent, else it is\nsuperstitious. \u201cUnless there be knowledge, it is not God that we\nworship, but a phantom or idol.\u201d--(_Calvin._) (4) That knowledge\nincludes three elements, viz., that God is a _spiritual being_, with\nthe sympathies, the flexibility, the _life_ which belongs to spirit;\nthat he is a Father, and is therefore to be approached with a filial,\nreverential, trusting affection (Matt. 5:9, note); that he is revealed\nto us through the Jewish Scripture and the Jewish Messiah. (5) He must\nbe worshipped in spirit, _i. e._, with the heart, and in truth, _i.\ne._, in accordance with the realities of his nature as thus revealed\nto us; nothing else is worship. (6) Worship is essential to a\nreligious life. God looks for it, as well as for work, as an evidence\nof love. The whole lesson is eloquently embodied by Henry Ward Beecher\nin his _Life of Christ_: \u201cIt expresses the renunciation of the senses\nin worship. It throws back upon the heart and soul of every one,\nwhoever he may be, wherever he may be, the whole office of worship. It\nis the first gleam of the new morning. No longer in this nest alone,\nor in that, shall religion be looked for, but escaping from its shell,\nheard in all the earth, in notes the same in every language, flying\nunrestrained and free, the whole heavens shall be its sphere and the\nwhole earth its home.\u201d\n\n\n 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh,\n which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us\n all things.\n\n\n 26 Jesus saith unto her, I[141] that speak unto thee am\n _he_.\n\n [141] ch. 9:37.\n\n=25, 26. The woman saith unto him.= Chrysostom well expresses her\nspirit: \u201cThe woman was made dizzy by his discourse, and fainted at the\nsublimity of what he said.\u201d So she turns away from the present\nrevelation, procrastinating its application with the expectation of a\nbetter opportunity when the Messiah comes.--=He will tell us all\nthings= is not to be interpreted literally; it is the expression of a\nvague hope of a clearer light by and by.--=I that speak unto thee am\nhe.= Christ did not until a much later period declare his Messiahship\nto his own disciples; he never declared it more clearly than to this\nsinful Samaritan woman. There is a reason for it, in that this\ndeclaration took from her all excuse of procrastination, and in fact\nmade her a missionary of the Messiah. Perhaps, too, the very fact that\nshe was an uninfluential woman and a Samaritan may have made him more\nready to reveal himself; for it was certainly his general purpose not\nto disclose his character and mission to the public until his death\n(Matt. 17:9). We certainly have no right to say, with some\nrationalizing critics, that because we cannot fully understand his\nreasons it is incredible. Such a method of criticism would make havoc\nof all history. Most scholars suppose that the words \u201cwhich is called\nChrist\u201d were spoken by the woman. It seems to me more probable that\nthey were added by John, as an explanation to his Greek readers of the\nHebrew term Messiah. The word Christ is its Greek equivalent.\n\n * * * * *\n\nNOTE ON CHRIST AS A CONVERSATIONALIST.--Christ as a preacher has\nbeen studied; Christ as a conversationalist is quite as worthy the\nChristian\u2019s study. Many of his so-called discourses were simply\nconversations; this is notably the case with the discourse to Nicodemus\n(ch. 3:1-21) and the discourse here to the woman of Samaria.\nObserve, I. _The contrast._ In the first the conversation is with a\nreligious teacher, of honorable position, of unexceptionable life;\nin the second, with an abandoned woman, of licentious life; in the\nfirst, conversation with Christ is sought, in the second, repelled; in\nthe first, Christ impresses the truth that the moralist must be born\nagain, and without personal trust in a personal Saviour is condemned;\nin the second, he impresses upon the outcast the truth that for the\nlost there is new life in him; the first he discourages, the second\nencourages; to the first he proclaims duty, to the second he preaches\ndeliverance. II. _The harmony._ Both are skeptical; both receive\nhis declaration with scoffs; both invite argument; with both Christ\nrefuses to argue; to both he simply proclaims the truth, but without\nstrife or debate; with both he conquers cavilling by patience, not\nby argument. III. _Christ\u2019s method._ (_a._) Though wearied, he does\nnot neglect the occasion and opportunity afforded to him. (_b._) He\ncommences the conversation by a natural request. (_c._) He opens the\nwoman\u2019s heart by requesting from her a favor. (_d._) He passes, by a\nnatural transition, from the physical to the spiritual world, from\nnature to the truth which nature typifies. (_e._) He presents to her\nnot ethical, but spiritual truth; not the simple moralities, but the\ndeep things of the Gospel. (_f._) Her badinage does not affront him,\nnor does he reprove her for it, or indicate surprise, astonishment,\nor even objection. (_g._) He answers it by a direct and unanswerable\nappeal to her conscience, by convicting her of sin. (_h._) In this,\nwhile his rebuke is sharp, his language is courteous, the language\nof commendation clothing condemnation. (_i._) Having once awakened\nher conscience, he does not pursue the rebuke; leaving conscience to\ndo its work, he suffers her to change the subject. (_j._) He answers\nher theological question not by direct response, but by asserting a\nprinciple of worship which lifts the soul above all controversies\nrespecting forms and methods of worship. (_k._) Finally, he makes his\nfirst and fullest disclosure of his Messiahship to this Samaritan\nwoman, showing himself most a Saviour to her who most needs his\nsalvation. IV. _His example._ It illustrates the enthusiasm (Rom.\n10:1; Col. 4:13; 2 Tim. 4:2), the skill (Prov. 11:30), the patience (2\nTim. 2:24; 1 Thess. 2:7), and the spirituality (1 Cor. 2:13, 14)\nneeded for the most efficient, direct, personal work of soul-saving.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 4:27-42. CHRIST IN SAMARIA.--THE SUSTENANCE OF CHRISTIAN\nLABORERS.--THE CALL FOR CHRISTIAN LABORERS.--THEIR REWARD.--THEIR\nSUCCESS.\n\n\n 27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that\n he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest\n thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?\n\n\n 28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into\n the city, and saith to the men,\n\n\n 29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I\n did: is not this the Christ?\n\n\n 30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.\n\n=27-30. And marvelled that he talked with a woman.= There is no\ndefinite article in the original. The disciples knew nothing of the\nwoman\u2019s character except that she was a Samaritan. What amazed them\nwas that Christ should descend to instruct a woman at all, and\nespecially a woman of Samaria. See above on ver. 4.--=No man said,\nWhat seekest thou?= One of the many indications in the Gospel of the\nawe in which these life-companions of Christ stood toward him (Mark\n9:32; 10:32; 16:8; Luke 8:25; John 21:12).--=Left her waterpot.=\nLightfoot supposes in kindness, for the Lord to use; Calvin, with\ngreater probability, in her haste forgetting it. In her eagerness to\ncarry to others the news of the Messiah, she forgets her original\nerrand, which was to draw water for her home.--=Come see a man.=\nCompare ch. 1:39, 46.--=Which told me all things that ever I did.= The\nnatural exaggeration of enthusiasm. Observe the method of the spread\nof Christianity in its earliest years. The new convert became a\nmissionary, propagating its faith. Compare Acts 8:4; 9:20. If ever a\nnew convert might be excused from evangelical labors, this one\nmight--a woman, living in an age when female preaching was more\nobnoxious even than now, and a woman of such ill-repute that she might\nwell expect to be received with scorn, not with respect. But her\nstrong convictions overbear all obstacles, secure for her a hearing,\nand obtain for her mission success (ver. 39). Chrysostom dwells upon\nher wisdom as well as her eagerness: \u201cShe said not, Come, see the\nChrist, but, with the same condescension with which Christ had netted\nher, she draws the men to Him; Come, she saith, see a man who told me\nall that ever I did. Is not this the Christ? Observe again here the\ngreat wisdom of the woman; she neither declared the fact plainly, nor\nwas she silent; for she desired not to bring them in by her own\nassertion, but to make them to share in this opinion by hearing him. *\n* * Nor did she say, Come, believe, but Come, _see_, a gentler\nexpression than the other, and one which more attracted them.\u201d--=Then\nthey came out of the city.= Wisdom and tact inspired by enthusiasm\nproduced by a personal and profound conviction of Christ\u2019s person and\npower, rarely fail in evangelical labor.\n\n\n 31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying,\n Master, eat.\n\n\n 32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know\n not of.\n\n\n 33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any\n man brought him _aught_ to eat?\n\n=31-33. Master, eat.= The disciples had brought food from the city, to\nobtain which they had originally left him (ver. 8).--=I have meat to\neat that ye know not of.= The commentators generally assume that the\ndoing of his Father\u2019s will was this meat. This seems to me a false\ninterpretation not required by and not really accordant with a correct\nreading of ver. 34 below (see note there); inconsistent with other\nteachings of Scripture, and practically misleading to the disciple.\nIt is inconsistent with the metaphor; for in nature work is never\na substitute for food, but physiologically exhausts it. It is\ninconsistent with other teachings of Scripture, which never represent\n_work_, but always divine sustaining grace, as the Christian food. It\nis practically misleading, for it leads the disciple to suppose that\nhe can grow by simply doing the will of his Father, whereas he is to\nacquire the power to do that will by constantly receiving grace from\nthe Father. Christ\u2019s language here is interpreted by such passages as\nMatt. 4:4, \u201cMan shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that\nproceedeth out of the mouth of God;\u201d Matt. 25:4, \u201cThe wise took oil in\ntheir vessels with their lamps.\u201d Compare John, ch. 6. That Jesus lived\nby this divine food is evident from his habit of prayer, and from such\ndeclarations as John 5:19, 26, 30; 14:10, 11. This meat then is the\nindwelling Spirit of God, conditioned upon entire consecration to God.\nIt was this meat which fed Peter in prison (Acts 12:6), Paul and Silas\nat Philippi (Acts 16:25), and Paul in the shipwreck (Acts 27:23,\netc.); this too which sustained Christ in the hour of Gethsemane and\nthroughout his Passion. A faint type of it is afforded in earthly\nexperiences by the strength which seems often to be imparted to even a\nfeeble mother in the hour of her child\u2019s sickness, and which carries\nher through vigils which, but for her love, it would be impossible for\nher to sustain. Her work is not her food: her love and faith are her\nfood, and sustain her for her work. No Christian can live by or on his\nwork; nor did Christ.--=Hath any one brought him aught to eat.=\nThey thought, perhaps, that the woman had done so. \u201cIt is very\ncharacteristic of the first part of this Gospel to bring forward\ninstances of unreceptivity to spiritual meaning. Compare ver. 11; ch.\n2:20; 3:4; 6:42, 52.\u201d--(_Alford._)\n\n\n 34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat[142] is to do the will of\n him that sent me, and to finish[143] his work.\n\n [142] ch. 6:38; Job 23:12.\n\n [143] ch. 17:4.\n\n=34. For me meat is in order that I may do the will of him that sent\nme.= The meaning is not, as our English version seems to imply, that\nmeat and doing God\u2019s work are synonymous. The above is a literal\ntranslation of the original; and the meaning is, The object of meat is\nthat I may do the will of him that sent me and may finish his work.\nThe expression is parallel to and interpreted by Paul\u2019s in Acts 20:24,\n\u201cNeither count I my life dear unto myself so that I might finish my\ncourse;\u201d or in Phil. 1:21, \u201cFor to me to live is Christ.\u201d The object\nof Christ was the accomplishment of his mission; for this purpose\nalone had meat any value to him; for this purpose he both needed and\npossessed meat that his disciples, in their then state of spiritual\nculture, did not and could not understand; and in the work which he\nhad accomplished, by his conversation with the woman, he had received\ngreater satisfaction than in any food which they could have brought to\nhim from the city.\n\n\n 35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and _then_\n cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes,\n and look on the fields; for they are white already to\n harvest.[144]\n\n [144] Matt. 9:37.\n\n=35.= There is some uncertainty regarding the proper interpretation\nof this verse. Alford, Tholuck, De Wette, and some others, suppose\nthat Christ is quoting a proverbial expression; perhaps referring\nto the time which elapsed between seed-time and harvest, perhaps\nto some time intervening between a local feast or a religious\nanniversary and the harvest. Meyer, Andrews, Ellicott, and others\ntake it as a chronological indication that it was then four months\nto harvest, _i. e._, the month of December, a fact to which perhaps\nsome reference had been made by the disciples in the course of\ntheir walk. Chrysostom, Meyer, and others, suppose moreover that\nthe approaching Samaritans were seen through the corn-fields, and\nto them Christ pointed when he said, \u201cLift up your eyes and look on\nthe fields.\u201d \u201cThe approaching townspeople now showed how greatly\nthe doing of the Father\u2019s will was in process of accomplishment.\nThey were coming through the corn-field, now tinged with green;\nthus they make the fields, which for four months would not yield\nthe harvest, in a higher sense already white harvest fields. Jesus\ndirects the attention of his disciples to this; and with the beautiful\npicture thus presented in nature he connects further appropriate\ninstructions.\u201d--(_Meyer._) The phrase \u201cSay not ye\u201d seems to me clearly\nto indicate that Christ refers to some proverbial saying (comp. Matt.\n16:2); the direction, \u201cLift up your eyes and look on the fields,\u201d\nindicates some present appearance which gave point to his declaration\nthat they were white already, a declaration which would have no\nsignificance if the fields were literally ready for the harvest. I\ntherefore, with Tholuck, combine the two views and suppose that Christ\ndid refer to a proverbial expression, probably indicating the time\nbetween seed-time and harvest, and appropriate then because it\nwas then the seed-time. The spiritual meaning is very clear.\nProcrastination is a fault of the church as well as of the world, of\nthe disciple as well as of the impenitent sinner. The Christian is\nconstantly waiting for an opportunity; he should wait _on_, he never\nneed wait _for_ the Lord. Since Christ has ascended, and the Holy\nGhost has been given, the field is always white for the harvest; we\nnever need wait for God to ripen the grain. The message, \u201cAll things\nare now ready,\u201d was given by the Lord to his servants; it is only as\nthe servant understands and believes this that he can make the guests\nbelieve it (Luke 14:17).\n\n\n[Illustration: SAMARITAN REMAINS IN GERIZIM.]\n\n\n 36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth\n fruit[145] unto life eternal: that both[146] he that soweth\n and he that reapeth may rejoice together.\n\n [145] Rom. 6:22.\n\n [146] 1 Cor. 3:5-9.\n\n\n 37 And herein is that saying true, One[147] soweth, and\n another reapeth.\n\n [147] Micah 6:15.\n\n\n 38 I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour:\n other[148] men laboured, and ye are entered into their\n labours.\n\n [148] 1 Pet. 1:12.\n\n=36-38. And he that reapeth receiveth wages and gathereth fruit unto\nlife eternal.= The Lord\u2019s husbandman has both wages and heaven. The\nearthly wages of the successful evangelist is not in his salary, nor\nin his fame or position, but in the affections which reward him, and\nthe personal present consciousness of work achieved, the highest and\ngrandest which it is ever permitted man to do. To this is added the\njoy inherent in bringing souls to Christ, and through Christ into\neternal life, a joy which will not be consummated until the reaper\nenters into glory, with an \u201cabundant entrance,\u201d and brings his sheaves\nto his Lord.--=That both * * * may rejoice together.= The sowing is in\ntears; the reaping is with rejoicing (Ps. 126:5); but in the future\nlife both will rejoice in the ingathering; hearts that knew not whence\nthey received the seed will learn to thank the unknown or the\nunrecognized benefactor; and the Lord of the harvest will say to both,\n\u201cWell done, good and faithful servants.\u201d--=Herein is that saying\ntrue.= Undoubtedly a reference to a proverbial saying, to which Christ\ngives a new and spiritual significance. Primarily, Christ is the\nsower, who sowed in tears and reaped but little; the apostles are the\nreapers, who gathered in a single day more souls into the church of\nChrist than Jesus himself in his whole lifetime.--But secondarily the\nprophets were sowers and the apostles reapers, a fact illustrated by\ntheir constantly quoting of the prophets in attestation of the divine\ncharacter and mission of Christ. And finally, the twofold work of\nsowing and reaping goes on throughout all time, the same man sometimes\nbeing both sower and reaper, sometimes sowing all his life in tears\nthat another may reap in joy. The truth of Christ\u2019s saying in verses\n37, 38, is illustrated, but as a prophecy it is not fulfilled, by the\nsuccessful mission of the apostles to Samaria, where Christ sowed at\nthis time and they reaped subsequently (Acts 8:5-8, 14-17).\n\n\n 39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on\n him for the saying[149] of the woman, which testified,\n He told me all that ever I did.\n\n [149] ver. 29.\n\n\n 40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they\n besought him that he would tarry with them: and he\n abode there two days.\n\n\n 41 And many more believed because of his own word;\n\n\n 42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not\n because of thy saying: for[150] we have heard _him_\n ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ,\n the Saviour of the world.\n\n [150] ch. 17:8; 1 John 4:14.\n\n=39-42.= This mission of Christ to the Samaritans is not inconsistent\nwith his directions to his apostles, when they were commissioned, not\nto go into any Samaritan city, for the reason of that prohibition was\nnot his unwillingness to open the Gospel to the heathen, but the fact\nthat his apostles did not yet comprehend its catholicity, and could\nnot therefore successfully preach it to the heathen. That the opening\nof the doors to others than Jews was neither an afterthought with\nChrist, nor a supplemental act originating with Paul, is evident from\nthe incident recorded here. Notice that the faith of the Samaritans\nrested on Christ\u2019s words--he apparently wrought no miracles; and\nthat they recognized in him the Saviour not of the nation but of the\n_world_. \u201cUniversalism was more akin to the Messianic faith of the\nSamaritans than to that of the Jews, with their definite and energetic\nfeeling of nationality.\u201d--(_Meyer._) Notice too, the forms of Christian\nexperience illustrated in this passage; one (ver. 39) rests on the\ntestimony of others, the other (ver. 42) rests on a personal communion\nwith and experience of Christ as a Messiah and Saviour.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 4:43-54. THE CURE OF THE CENTURION\u2019S SON.--TWO KINDS OF FAITH; A\nPOOR FAITH REQUIRES MIRACLES; A TRUE FAITH ACCEPTS CHRIST\u2019S WORD SIMPLY.\n\n\n 43 Now after two days he departed thence, and went\n into Galilee.\n\n\n 44 For Jesus himself testified, that[151] a prophet\n hath no honour in his own country.\n\n [151] Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24.\n\n\n 45 Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galil\u00e6ans\n received him, having seen[152] all the things that he\n did at Jerusalem at the feast: for[153] they also went\n unto the feast.\n\n [152] ch. 2:23.\n\n [153] Deut. 16:16.\n\n=43-45. After two days.= Spent in preaching the gospel to the\nSamaritans. The nature of this ministry is left to conjecture. We must\npresume, however, that it was of the same type as Christ\u2019s preaching\nin Galilee at this time, where his theme was, \u201cRepent, for the kingdom\nof heaven is at hand\u201d (Matt. 4:17); the nature of that kingdom, and\nthe character of the Messianic king, he probably made no attempt to\nexplain. It was preparative; he sowed only, leaving the reaping to be\ndone by others at a later day.--=For Jesus himself testified that a\nprophet hath no honor in his own country.= The rationalistic critics\ncite this as one of the evidences that the Fourth Gospel is not the\nproduct of one of the Twelve. Thus, \u201cIn the Synoptics Jesus is\nreported as quoting against the people of his own city, Nazareth, who\nrejected him, the proverb, \u2018A prophet has no honor in his own country\u2019\n(Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24). The appropriateness of the remark\nhere is obvious. The author of the Fourth Gospel, however, shows\nclearly that he was neither an eye-witness nor acquainted with the\nsubject or country when he introduces this proverb in a different\nplace. * * * * * He (Christ) is made to go into Galilee, which is his\nown country, because a prophet has no honor in his country, and the\nGalileans are represented as receiving him, which is a contradiction\nof the proverb.\u201d--(_Supernatural Religion_, Vol. II, 447.) I have\ncited this objection at length because it is a not unfair illustration\nof the straits to which rationalism is reduced in its efforts\nto discredit this Gospel. Constructive dogmatism is bad enough;\ndestructive dogmatism is much worse. The difficulties created by\nevangelical critics in the interpretation of the passage are equally\ncurious as an illustration of forced and fanciful exaggerations. The\ncurious will find them stated in Alford and Meyer. The English reader,\nwho simply takes the context, will assuredly find no difficulty in the\npassage. Christ was received in Samaria, notwithstanding he was a Jew,\nwith whom usually the Samaritans had no dealings (ver. 9), and this\nthough he wrought no miracles, and merely because of his words, _i.\ne._, the purity and beauty and self-evident truth of his teaching\n(ver. 41).--In Galilee he was received only because he was a Jew, and\nhad wrought miracles at Jerusalem (chap. 3:2), and brought with him a\nmetropolitan reputation. He had no honor in his own country as a\nprophet, until he brought it back with him from the holy city; it was\nhonor, not indigenous but imported.\n\n\n 46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he\n made[154] the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman,\n whose son was sick at Capernaum.\n\n [154] ch. 2:1, 11.\n\n\n 47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Jud\u00e6a into\n Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would\n come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of\n death.\n\n=46, 47. Into Cana.= For site see chap. 2:1, note. The fact that he\nwent at once to Cana, gives color to the supposition that the marriage\nthere may have been that of John, according to an ancient tradition;\nat all events it probably was one of some intimate friend of\nChrist.--=A certain nobleman.= Probably an officer of Herod Antipas\nwho had a palace at Tiberias. It has been conjectured that he may have\nbeen the Chuza, whose wife became attached to Jesus with other women\nof Galilee (Luke 8:3). That he was a Jew is probable, since the\nmanifestation of faith in a heathen is generally especially noted by\nthe historian or by Christ.--=Was sick at Capernaum.= About twenty\nmiles distant.--=Was at the point of death.= Literally _Was about to\ndie_.\n\n\n 48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs[155] and\n wonders, ye will not believe.\n\n [155] 1 Cor. 1:22.\n\n\n 49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child\n die.\n\n=48, 49. Except ye see signs and wonders.= Rather a soliloquy applied\nto the entire people, than a personal rebuke of the nobleman. For\nthere is certainly no evidence that his faith was notably small;\nrather the reverse. He had traveled twenty miles to apply to Christ\nfor assistance; his request that Christ should come personally was\ncertainly not unnatural, for he could not be expected to assume that\nChrist would or could heal by a word; when the word was spoken he went\naway undoubtingly; and he evidently made no great haste (see note\non verse 51), an indication of his restful assurance on Christ\u2019s\nmere word. Analogous to Christ\u2019s utterance here is that of Mark 9:19;\nsee note there. It is certainly a rebuke to the skepticism which to-day\ndemands signs and wonders as a basis for faith, and to the church\nwhich continually endeavors to satisfy this desire by demonstrating\nthe miracles as though they were the evidences of Christianity. Christ\nhimself never, in public discourse with skeptics, based his claims on\nhis miracles; never performed a miracle for the purpose of proving his\nclaims to an unbeliever (Matt. 11:4, 5 is not an exception; see note\nthere); and rebuked the demand made on him for miracles as a basis of\nfaith in his mission.--=Come down.= One of those geographical and\nincidental evidences of accuracy in the historian which demonstrate\nhis familiarity with the country. Capernaum was on the shore of the\nsea of Galilee; Cana was in the hill country.\n\n\n 50 Jesus saith unto him, Go[156] thy way; thy son liveth.\n And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto\n him, and he went his way.\n\n [156] Matt. 8:13; Mark 7:29, 30; Luke 17:14.\n\n\n 51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and\n told _him_, saying, Thy son liveth.\n\n\n 52 Then inquired he of them the hour when he began to\n amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh\n hour the fever left him.\n\n\n 53 So the father knew that _it was_ at the same[157] hour,\n in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and\n himself believed,[158] and his whole house.\n\n [157] Ps. 107:20.\n\n [158] Acts 16:34; 18:8.\n\n\n 54 This _is_ again the second miracle _that_ Jesus did,\n when he was come out of Jud\u00e6a into Galilee.\n\n=50-54. He went his way.= The course of the nobleman was not that of\none deficient in faith. On the contrary, he did not wait to see signs\nor wonders; he believed the simple word. That he did not hasten is\nevident from the next verse. Christ spoke the word of healing at the\nseventh hour, _i. e._, one in the afternoon. The father could have\nreached home that same night; but it was not until the next day that\nhis servants, coming to relieve his fears, met him on the road. Faith\nneither worries nor hurries.--=Thy son is living.= He was so sick\nbefore the father left home, that the mere announcement that he was\nliving demonstrated that he was recovering. The case was one in which\nlife could not last long if a change for the better did not take\nplace.--=Himself believed.= Believed what? He had believed before,\nwhen he came to Jesus, or he would not have come; and again when he\nwent away, or he would not have been satisfied at the mere word of\nJesus. But he before simply believed _about_ Jesus, _e. g._, that he\nwas a prophet, possessing certain healing powers, the extent of which\nhe had not measured. Now he believed _on_ Jesus; without as yet\ncomprehending the Saviour\u2019s mission or character, he yet had faith in\nhim; that kind of faith which was ready to accept him as all that he\nclaimed, whatever that might be. To _believe_, used absolutely, as\nhere, always indicates not believing a doctrine about Christ, but\npersonal belief in and allegiance to him.\n\nThis miracle is certainly not the same with the healing of the\ncenturion\u2019s servant, recorded in Matt. 8:5-13, with which it has been\nsometimes confounded, but with which it really has little in common.\nOne is wrought at Capernaum, the other at Cana; one at the petition of\na nobleman, an officer of the court, the other at the request of a\ncenturion; one probably for a Jew, the other certainly for a Roman;\none in behalf of a son, the other in behalf of a servant; one for a\npetitioner who entreats Christ to come to his house, the other for one\nwho deprecates his doing so; one affording an illustration of the\nlargest faith in a heathen, the other of the development of faith from\na small beginning in an Israelite. The resemblances are superficial;\nthe differences are radical. Accepting the narrative as true, it is\none of the many which utterly refute the rationalistic explanation of\nmiracles offered by such writers as Schenkel. This cure could not have\nbeen due to any natural means, as the inspiration of hope, or the\ninfusion of nervous power by personal contact, or the like, for the\nsick man did not see Jesus nor even know when the father saw him.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n\nCh. 5:1-47. HEALING OF IMPOTENT MAN AND DISCOURSE THEREON.--A PARABLE\nOF REDEMPTION; THE NATURE AND THE CONDITION OF SPIRITUAL CURE\nILLUSTRATED.--THE CHRISTIAN LAW OF THE SABBATH ILLUSTRATED.--THE\nAUTHORITY OF THE SON OF GOD: HE IS WITH THE FATHER; COMES FROM THE\nFATHER; IS TO BE HONORED AND TRUSTED AS THE FATHER; HE RAISES THE DEAD\nAND JUDGES THE LIVING.--THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY; THE TESTIMONY\nOF JOHN; OF CHRIST\u2019S LIFE AND WORKS; OF THE SCRIPTURE.--THE CAUSE OF\nUNBELIEF.\n\n\n[Illustration: CHURCH OVER THE POOL OF BETHESDA.]\n\n\n 1 After this there was a feast[159] of the Jews; and Jesus\n went up to Jerusalem.\n\n [159] ch. 2:13; Lev. 23:2, etc.; Deut. 16:16.\n\n\n 2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep _market_, a pool,\n which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five\n porches.\n\n\n 3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of\n blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.\n\n\n 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool,\n and troubled the water: whosoever then first[160] after the\n troubling of the water stepped in, was made whole[161] of\n whatsoever disease he had.\n\n [160] Prov. 8:17; Eccles. 9:10; Matt. 11:12.\n\n [161] Ezek. 47:8, 9; Zech. 13:1.\n\n=1-4. After this was a feast of the Jews.= There were three great\nfeasts of the Jewish nation, the Passover in the spring, usually\nMarch; the Pentecost, fifty days after, coming therefore usually early\nin June; and the Tabernacles, a feast in the Fall, usually October,\nanalogous to our Thanksgiving. To these must be added the feast of\nPurim, which was kept in celebration of the deliverance of Israel, in\nthe time of Esther, from massacre (Esther 9:17-19), and the feast of\nDedication, instituted subsequent to the close of the O. T. canon, to\ncommemorate the purging of the temple and the rebuilding of the altar,\nafter Judas Maccabeus had driven out the Syrians, B. C. 164. There is\nnothing in the language of John to indicate which of these various\nfeasts is the one here intended. Some manuscripts have indeed the\nwords, _the_ feast of the Jews, and if this reading were correct it\nwould unquestionably designate the Passover; but the weight of\nauthority is against it. The question is one which has provoked a vast\ndeal of discussion, but no general agreement. It is important only in\ndetermining the chronology of the life of Christ, and is itself so far\nundetermined that it cannot be of great value even for that purpose. I\nthink it clear (_a_) that it could not be the feast of Dedication,\nwhich took place in the winter, when it is not probable that the sick\nwould be lying in the porches of Bethesda; (_b_) nor the feast of\nPurim, though this has been maintained by some eminent modern\nscholars, as Wieseler, Godet, Olshausen, Ellicott, and Meyer; for\nthere is no evidence that the Jews generally went up to Jerusalem to\ncelebrate the feast of Purim, and no reason to believe that our Lord\nwould have gone there in honor of a festival which was purely\nnational, not directed by the O. T., observed not in connection with\nthe temple service, but privately at home, and often, if not\ngenerally, with rioting and excess, rather than with religious\nservices. I agree therefore with Alford and Tholuck that we cannot\ngather with any probability what feast it was.--=And Jesus went up to\nJerusalem.= Presumptively to attend the feast.--=By the sheep-market.=\nRather _sheep-gate_. See Neh. 3:1, 32; 12:39. The site is unknown. The\ntraditional site, identical with the gate now known as St. Stephen\u2019s,\nis pretty effectually disproved by Robinson, who shows that no wall\nwas existing there at the time of Christ.--=A pool.= Properly _a\nswimming-place_. Pools for purposes of bathing were in use in the\ngreat cities of the old world; and recent excavations have brought to\nlight the fact that ancient Jerusalem was in a remarkable degree\nsupplied with water. See below.--=Called Bethesda.= The word means\n_House of mercy_. The location is entirely uncertain. Tradition places\nit near the modern St. Stephen\u2019s gate; but this tradition dates back\nonly to the 12th century.--=Having five porches.= Opening upon the\nbath or tank. In these the sick could lie and be partially protected\nfrom the weather.--=In these lay a great multitude of impotent, blind,\nhalt, withered.= Four classes intended to embrace all forms of purely\nbodily disorder of a chronic character, but not including those\npossessed of evil spirits. The _impotent_ are those simply suffering\nfrom special weakness and infirmity or from general debility; the\n_halt_ are those deprived from any reason of the full and free use of\ntheir limbs; the _withered_ are those affected by paralysis or kindred\ndisorders.--=Waiting for the moving of the water * * * * was made\nwhole of whatever disease he had.= Whether this explanation, _i. e._,\nthe last clause of ver. 3 and the whole of ver. 4, is genuine or a\nlater interpolation, is a question of dispute among the critics; the\nweight of authority is, on the whole, in favor of its omission; the\nweight of reason is wholly so. (_a_) The external evidence is, on the\nwhole, against its retention. It is wanting in the Vatican, Cambridge,\nand Sinaitic manuscripts; in those manuscripts in which it occurs, the\nverbal variations are considerable. Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, and\nTregelles all declare against it. (_b_) The internal evidence is\nconclusive. If it had been in the original, the early copyists would\nnot have omitted it; for in the first centuries there was no such\nreluctance to accept the supernatural, and no such discrimination\nbetween wonders that are and wonders that are not miracles, as would\nhave induced its omission. On the other hand, if no explanation of the\nreason why the sick were gathered in the porches of Bethesda were\ngiven in the original account, it would have been very natural for\ncopyists to have supplied the omission by inserting one. (_c_) The\nexplanation offered by the doubtful passage is itself incredible. It\nis a marvel, but it is in no sense a miracle. The irregular and fitful\nappearance of help by such an angelic visitor, would have witnessed to\nno truth, would have had no tendency to confer faith in God or his\ngrace. \u201cThat God would thus miraculously interpose to throw down from\ntime to time a boon among a company of cripples, to be seized by\nthe most forward, selfish, and eager, leaving the most helpless\nand miserable to be overwhelmed again and again with bitter\ndisappointment, is a supposition not admissible.\u201d--(_Jacob Abbott\u2019s\nNotes on the N. T._) (_d_) These considerations have led the latest\nand best scholars, with substantial unanimity, to omit the explanatory\nwords of ver. 4, and latter clause of ver. 3. So Alford, Tholuck,\nEbrard, Trench, Olshausen, Meyer, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. But\nthough it is no part of the sacred record, it probably correctly\nstates what was the popular belief among the Jews, or at least among\nsuch as resorted to this spring for cure. The real basis of this\nbelief is indicated by recent researches. These have made it evident\nthat the pools in and about Jerusalem were connected with each other\nby underground aqueducts. Dr. Robinson gives an account of his\nexploration of such an aqueduct connecting two pools, the Fountain of\nthe Virgin and the Pool of Siloam. He satisfied himself that water\nflowed from the one to the other reservoir, and he witnessed the\n\u201ctroubling of the water\u201d in the Fountain of the Virgin. \u201cWe perceived\nthe water rapidly bubbling up from under the lower step. In less than\nfive minutes it had risen in the basin nearly or quite a foot; and we\ncould hear it gurgling off through the interior passage. In ten\nminutes more it had ceased to flow; and the water in the basin was\nagain reduced to its former level.\u201d His observation has been since\nconfirmed by others. It is now difficult to see how the Fountain of\nthe Virgin could ever have been surrounded by porches or made a\nresting-place for the sick; and it is quite certain that the Fountain\nof the Virgin cannot be asserted with any positiveness to have been\nthe Pool of Bethesda. But these discoveries indicate the probably true\nexplanation of the troubling of the water mentioned, not by John it\nwill be remembered, but by some subsequent copyist, in the text. The\nPool of Bethesda, probably, was connected by an underground passage\nwith some intermittent spring, possibly possessing healing virtues,\nand the bubbling of the water from time to time gave rise to the\nlegend of an angelic visitant, which certain of the Jews accepted, but\nwhich the Evangelist does not confirm, and to which there is no\nreference in other literature.\n\n\n 5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity[162]\n thirty and eight years.\n\n\n 6 When Jesus saw him lie, and[163] knew that he had been\n now a long time _in that case_, he saith unto him, Wilt\n thou be made whole?\n\n\n 7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have[164] no man,\n when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but\n while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.\n\n\n 8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise,[165] take up thy bed, and\n walk.\n\n\n 9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his\n bed, and walked: and on[166] the same day was the sabbath.\n\n [162] Luke 8:43; 13:16.\n\n [163] Ps. 142:3.\n\n [164] Deut. 32:36; Ps. 72:12; 142:4; Rom. 5:6; 2 Cor.\n 1:9, 10.\n\n [165] Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:11; Luke 5:24.\n\n [166] ch. 9:14.\n\n=5-9. Which had an infirmity.= The original implies rather a loss of\npower than a positive disease; probably it was a nervous disease of\nthe paralytic type.--=Thirty and eight years.= The words \u201cin that\ncase,\u201d are added by the translator, but they correctly convey the\nmeaning, which is not that he had been at the Pool of Bethesda, but\nthat he had been diseased that length of time.--=Wilt thou be made\nwhole?= Why this question? Not necessarily because there was any\nreasonable doubt whether the man desired healing; nor because Christ\nrequired, as a conditional preliminary, the man\u2019s assent to healing on\nthe Sabbath; nor because he would imply blame, as though the man\u2019s\nlong infirmity were the result of his own weakness of will; nor,\nsurely, because he would indicate that he was an impostor and desired\nto use his apparent but exaggerated infirmity to appeal to the\ncompassion of others. All these hypotheses have been suggested. But\nChrist almost, if not quite, always requires on the part of the healed\nsome act of the will precedent to and concurrent with his act of\ngrace; the cured are never merely receptive and quiescent. I believe\nthere is a deep religious meaning in this, for every miracle is a\nparable of redemption, and that our Lord would teach us that it is\nonly as we will to be made whole that any wholeness is possible for\nus, even through omnipotent divine grace. In this particular case it\nis certainly true that the man might have traded on his infirmity and\nnot really desired to be cured; and though Christ\u2019s knowledge of\ncharacter would have rendered the question unnecessary for his own\ninformation, it was not unnecessary to make it clear to others that he\nwas acting in sympathy with the man, nor was it unimportant as a\ndisclosure to the man himself that he must rouse himself from the\nlethargy of despair, and lay hold, by hope, on the salvation brought\nto him.--=I have no man.= It is the friendless who appeals peculiarly\nto the Friend of the sinful and the suffering.--=Rise, take up thy bed\nand walk.= The original (\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd) implies a small, low bedstead. See\nfor illustration Mark 2:4, note. Here, however, the term may be used\nin a more general way, and may imply simply a mattress which served as\na couch by day and a bed by night. Observe the command to _take up the\nbed_. This apparently was not necessary; I can conceive but two\nreasons for it; one to emphasize the perfection of the cure, the other\nto provoke the controversy with the Pharisees respecting the\nSabbath, and thus make it the occasion for the discourse which\nfollows.--=Immediately.= The instantaneousness of the cure indicates\nits miraculous character; so does its permanence. He was cured\ninstantly; he was cured so thoroughly that he could not only walk, but\ncould carry his bed; and he remained cured.\n\nI have already said that the miracles are parables of redemption. Of\nno one of the miracles is this more strikingly true than of the\npresent one. The diseased man has been a long time sick. He is\nhelpless, friendless, in despair. He waits for an imagined moving of\nthe water, an expected divine cure that is to come without act or\ninterposition on his part; and it never comes. Christ calls first his\nwill into exercise: Wilt thou be made whole? then bids him do: \u201cRise,\ntake up thy bed;\u201d and in the choice and the _obedience_, by faith\nindeed, but by the faith which chooses and obeys, he is made instantly\nand permanently well.\n\n\n 10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It\n is the sabbath day:[167] it is not lawful for thee to carry\n _thy_ bed.\n\n [167] Jer. 17:21, etc.; Matt. 12:2, etc.\n\n\n 11 He answered them. He that made me whole, the same said\n unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.\n\n\n 12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto\n thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?\n\n\n 13 And he that was healed wist[168] not who it was: for\n Jesus had conveyed[169] himself away, a multitude being in\n _that_ place.\n\n [168] ch. 14:9.\n\n [169] Luke 4:30.\n\n=10-13. It is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.= The general\nSabbath command was, Thou shalt do no work. Nehemiah, enforcing this\ncommand, forbade the carriage of commercial burdens (Neh. 13:19). From\nthis the Pharisees, with their accustomed literalism, had deduced the\ndoctrine that nothing must be carried on the Sabbath. To forbid this\nman from carrying his bed was like forbidding a modern, man to move a\nchair or a campstool. Either he must have left his bed at the pool, to\nbe stolen, or he must have stayed there to watch it, or he must have\nbeen allowed to take it home with him. For the Pharisaic regulations\nrespecting the Sabbath, see Matt. 12:2, note.--=He that made me whole\nsaid unto me.= The man knew nothing about Christ or his authority. His\nidea appears to have been that Christ proved his right to give the\ncommand, Take up thy bed and walk, by his miracle of healing.--=What\nman is it that said unto thee, Take up thy bed.= Observe the spirit of\nthe Pharisees. Their question is not, Who healed thee? but, Who said\nunto thee, Take up thy bed and walk? They are blind to the miracle;\nthey can see only the Sabbath violation, as they regard it.--=A\nmultitude being in that place.= Christ had stopped a moment, spoken\nthe word of healing, and passed on into the crowd. All was over\nin an instant, and because of the crowd Christ escaped the man\u2019s\nidentification. This was early in his ministry; he was not yet widely\nknown and thronged, as later in life. Observe the indications of the\nnature of belief, an obedient trust, not a correct intellectual\napprehension. This man had faith enough to be healed because faith to\nobey Christ\u2019s directions despite Pharisaic criticism; yet he knew\nnothing of Christ\u2019s person, character, or work; did not even know who\nhe was. It is possible to have faith in even an unknown Christ.\n\n\n 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto\n him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin[170] no more, lest a\n worse thing come unto thee.\n\n [170] ch. 8:11.\n\n\n 15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus,\n which had made him whole.\n\n\n 16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought\n to slay him, because he had done these things on the\n sabbath day.\n\n=14-16. In the temple.= Possibly an indication that the divine grace\nof healing had already acted as a means of spiritual quickening.--=Sin\nno more, lest=, etc. A plain indication that the man\u2019s disease,\nprobably some form of paralysis, was an effect of sin. See note on ch.\n9:1. Here, as almost everywhere, Christ makes the physical healing\nminister to a spiritual cure.--=And reported to the Judeans that it\nwas Jesus which had made him whole.= They asked who bade him carry his\nbed; he replied that it was Jesus who healed him. They asked to\ncondemn, he answered so as to honor Christ.--=And therefore did the\nJudeans come in pursuit of Jesus.= Here, as very generally throughout\nhis gospel, John uses the word Jews (\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2) to signify not\ngenerally the members of the Hebrew race, but distinctly the\ninhabitants of the province of Judea. I therefore render it here and\nelsewhere by the more distinctive word Judeans. His language indicates\nnot a legal persecution, but a malicious pursuit. Norton translates as\nI have, Came in pursuit of Jesus. This is the literal rendering of the\noriginal verb (\u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03c9), which however generally, though not always,\nindicates a pursuit with an evil intent. Here the meaning is not that\nthe general cause of the persecution which Christ suffered in Judea\nwas his supposed Sabbath violation, but that in this particular\ninstance they pursued him to call him to account for this particular\nact of Sabbath breaking. It is always the nature of the ceremonialist\nto care more for the ceremony than for man.--=And sought to slay him.=\nThese words do not belong here. They have been added to explain and\ncorrespond with the expression in verse 18, Sought the more to kill\nhim. They are omitted by Alford, Meyer, Norton, and all the best\ncritical authorities.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17-47.= In the study of the discourse which follows, beware of\nconsidering it simply verse by verse. It is not a collection of\nincidental aphorisms, but a connected address, the theme being the\ncharacter, mission, authority, and credentials of the Son of God. The\nPharisees call Christ to account for healing on the Sabbath; he cites\nin his defence the example of his heavenly Father. They seize upon his\nlanguage, deduce from it the conclusion that he makes himself equal\nwith God, and charge him with blasphemy. This serves as the text of\nthe discourse which follows. He declares that he comes not to draw\nallegiance from, but to, the Father; that he acts under the Father\u2019s\nwill; that to him the Father has committed the whole work of grace on\nthe earth; that he is even now raising the spiritually dead to life;\nthat he is to raise the physically dead to a new life; and that he\nwill finally complete this work entrusted to him, by declaring and\nexecuting the divine judgment. The evidence of his mission and\nauthority is not in his own words; he is testified to by John the\nBaptist; by his own life and work; and by the Scriptures of the O. T.\nHe closes by pointing out the secret cause of the Jews\u2019 rejection of\nhim, viz., their personal ambition. Beware, too, of imputing to the\nwords a dogmatic meaning borrowed from later ecclesiastical\ncontroversies, which they did not bear in the minds of his hearers at\nthe time. There is little or nothing here respecting the relations of\nthe Son to the Father, except as the language throughout implies that\nthe Son is subordinate to and dependent upon the Father; but the\nrelation of the Son to the human race is clearly revealed, the\nrelation of life-giver and judge, and is certainly not that of any\nman, however endowed, to his fellow-men. Nevertheless this address\ncontains the christology of Jesus Christ, his own teaching concerning\nhis own character and work; and it clearly implies, on the one hand,\nthat he not only represents the Father, as an ambassador might\nrepresent a king, that he is not only clothed with divine authority,\nas Moses was clothed, in the administration of the theocracy, with the\nauthority of God, but that he is a partaker of the divine nature; nor\nless clearly, on the other hand, does it imply that his authority is\nderived from the Father, that his power is conferred on him by the\nFather, that he executes in all things the will of the Father, that he\nis to be conceived of not as distinct from, but as one with the\nFather, and that his object is in all things to be a way unto the\nFather. Against every form of tri-theism, against all substitution of\nthe Son in the place of the Father, this discourse is a solemn and\nearnest admonition, no less than against all belittling of either his\ncharacter to that of man or angel, or his mission to that of mere\nmessenger or teacher.\n\n\n 17 But Jesus answered them, My[171] Father worketh\n hitherto, and I work.\n\n [171] chaps. 9:4, 14:10.\n\n=17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.= The argument is very\nbrief; it is based on the premises that we are to be followers of God\nas dear children (Ephes. 5:1), that the Father\u2019s work is a pattern for\nour own working. It gives color to the opinion that the days of\ncreation are long eons or periods; that the seventh day, which God\nblessed and on which he rested, is the present period in which the\nmere physical work of creation has given place to the higher work of\nredemption; thus the Sabbath of God becomes both interpreted and an\ninterpreter to us of what our Sabbath should be. The divine work does\nnot cease; the grass grows, the buds swell, the flowers bloom, the\nfruits ripen, the rains fall, the winds blow,--but all this is the\nwork of love; over all this work God\u2019s tender mercies brood (Psalm\n145:9). The lesson of nature interpreted here by Christ is that the\nwork of love is never a violation of the true Sabbath law. This verse,\nwith Matt. 12:8 and Mark 2:27, give the three canons for the Christian\nobservance of the Sabbath. (1) The Son of man is Lord also of the\nSabbath. It is then a Christian day, belongs to the Christian\ndispensation, is under the Lordship of Christ and in his kingdom, and\nis to be kept in that spirit of joyous freedom with which Christ makes\nfree. (2) The Sabbath is made for man. It is therefore man\u2019s day;\nbelongs to all men, Gentile and Jew, poor and rich; a day to be used\n_for_ man; so that whatever work is necessary to the real abiding\nwelfare of the human race, is not foreign to this day. (3) My Father\nworketh hitherto. The Father\u2019s work is the example and the law for his\nchildren; the work of love, the work for others, the work that has\ntender mercy for its inspiration and its overseer, is Sabbath work. It\nis to be our rest-day as it is our heavenly Father\u2019s rest-day, and\nonly so; a prophecy of that eternal rest which will be one of glorious\nactivity: a rest from care, from worldliness, from the common\ntemptations of life, but not a day of mere dull cessation of labor.\n\n\n 18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill[172] him,\n because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also\n that God was his Father, making[173] himself equal with God.\n\n [172] ch. 7:19.\n\n [173] ch. 10:30, 33; Zech. 13:7; Phil. 2:6.\n\n=18. Because he had not only broken the Sabbath.= Literally _relaxed_\n(\u03bb\u03cd\u03c9) the Sabbath. See note on Matt. 5:19 for meaning of the word. The\nPharisees then, as the literalists now, believe that the sanctity of\nthe Sabbath could only be preserved by putting the soul under bonds to\na literal compliance with specific regulations. Christ broke these\nbonds asunder, gave the soul liberty, and preserved the Sabbath by\ninspiring the souls of his disciples with allegiance to himself, love\nfor humanity, and sympathy with the redeeming work of the Father. He\ndid relax what they supposed to be essential to the preservation of\nthe day, but what was really destroying it. To keep this poor man on\nhis bed, or watching it to prevent it from being stolen, would have\ndestroyed for him the rest of the day, in order that he might comply\nwith the letter of the Pharisaic regulations. So he who rides in a\nhorse-car rather than remain away from church, or travels late\nSaturday night or early Sunday morning rather than destroy his Sabbath\nby spending it with strangers, seems to the Sabbatarian of to-day to\nbe relaxing the Sabbath, while he may be in truth preserving it.--=But\nsaid also that God was his own Father.= (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.) Norton renders\nthe sense accurately though freely, _Had spoken of God as particularly\nhis Father_. The meaning of the original will be indicated to the\nEnglish reader by Rom. 8:32, \u201cSpared not _his own_ Son;\u201d 1 Cor. 6:18,\n\u201cSinneth against _his own_ body;\u201d 1 Cor. 7:2, \u201cHave _her own_\nhusband.\u201d It is clear that the Jews either did understand Christ by\nhis language to claim peculiar relations with God, or pretended so to\ndo. In his mere reference to God as Father there was no such claim,\nfor he bids us all call him our Father (Matt. 6:6, 7). True, in the\nlanguage \u201c_my_ Father,\u201d most commentators see a ground for the\ninterpretation put upon his language by the Judeans:--thus Meyer:\n\u201cThey rightly interpreted \u2018my Father\u2019 as signifying peculiar and\npersonal fatherhood;\u201d Bengel: \u201cThe Only-begotten alone can say, \u2018my\nFather\u2019;\u201d similarly Alford, Tholuck, and others. There is perhaps some\nground for this view. Yet I can hardly think that Christ\u2019s mere\ndesignation of God as \u201c_my_ Father\u201d implies more than Paul\u2019s \u201cAbba\nFather\u201d (Rom. 8:15), which Luther renders \u201cdear Father,\u201d or the\nfrequent designation of God as _my_ God by the patriarchs, and\nespecially by David. See for example, Exod. 15:2; 1 Chron. 28:20; 2\nChron. 18:13; Ps. 22:1, 10; 38:21; 71:12; 2 Cor. 12:21; Phil. 4:19.\nAnd in Psalm 89:26; Jer. 3:4, man is directed by God to apply this\nvery phrase \u201cmy Father\u201d in his address to God. I believe then that the\nstatement that Jesus said that God was _in a peculiar sense_ his\nFather, and the deduction that he thus made himself equal to God, are\nthe malicious wresting of his words by the Judeans, for the very\npurpose of finding an occasion of offence. They manifested the same\nspirit in John 10:31, etc., though there they have better ground for\nthe interpretation which they put upon his words. In the discourse\nwhich follows, Christ does not hold them to their original charge\nrespecting the Sabbath. He follows them into the new ground which they\nhave entered on, and expounds his true nature and mission.--=Making\nhimself equal with God.= \u201cOn the same level with God\u201d (_Meyer_); \u201cOn\nan equality with God\u201d (_Norton_); \u201cOf the same nature and condition\u201d\n(_Robinson_). The language of Jesus, his claim of the right to work\nbecause the Father works, and his language _My Father_, the Judeans\nregard as embodying an assumption that he is of the divine nature and\npossesses the divine prerogatives. That they so interpreted his\nlanguage does not prove that it is to be so interpreted. The Pharisees\nare not authorized interpreters of the words of Christ. His claim we\nmust interpret for ourselves from the discourse which follows. How far\ndoes he correct and how far confirm their interpretation? It seems to\nme clear that at the very outset he materially modifies it, in his\ndeclaration of his obedience to and dependence upon and work under the\nFather (ver. 19), while he confirms the substantial idea that he\npossesses the same nature as the Father, is, so to speak, of kin to\nHim, by his declaration that he does what the Father does (ver. 19),\nshares in all the counsels of the Father (ver. 20), gives life to the\ndead as the Father (ver. 21), judges all men for the Father (ver. 22),\nis to be honored as the representative of the Father (ver. 23), is the\ndoor through which all must enter into eternal life in the Father\n(ver. 24), and is the final Resurrection and Judge for the Father\n(ver. 25-29); yet at the close he again emphasizes the truth that in\nall this he is not a second or even subordinate God, but the One\nthrough whom the Father does all (ver. 30), the one mediator between\nGod and man (1 Tim. 2:5).\n\n\n 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily,\n I say unto you,[174] The Son can do nothing of himself,\n but what he seeth the Father do: for what things\n soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.\n\n [174] verse 30.\n\n\n 20 For[175] the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all\n things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater\n works than these, that ye may marvel.\n\n [175] chaps. 3:35; 17:26; Matt. 3:17.\n\n=19, 20. Verily, verily.= A formula used by Christ in cases of\nimportant and emphatic affirmation.--=The Son can do nothing of\nhimself=, _i. e._, of his own will or authority. \u201cOf myself (\u1f00\u03c6\u2019\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6), _i. e._, of one\u2019s own will or accord, without authority or\ncommand from another.\u201d--(_Rob._ 24, art. \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc.) This declaration cannot\nbe limited, as by Calvin, to the power of Christ in his human nature,\nwithout, adding to the verse what is not in it, nor in its necessary\nconnection; nor can we read it, as Chrysostom does, that Christ can do\nnothing contrary to his Father\u2019s will, because of the perfect union\nbetween them, for this is clearly not the meaning of the original.\nChrist says not, I can do nothing contrary to my Father, but, I can do\nnothing _of myself_ by my own independent and original power. The\nmeaning of the original is transparent, though the truth is\ntranscendent. This is that _the power of Christ is not an original but\na derived power_; that it comes from the Father and is a power only to\ndo those things which carry out the Father\u2019s will. As the Christian\ncan do nothing without Christ (ch. 15:5), yet can do all things\nthrough Christ strengthening him (Phil. 4:13), so Christ can do\nnothing without the Father, but does all things by virtue of a divine\npower imparted to him by the Father, and as a manifestation of the\nFather. This is a partial answer to the charge that Christ makes\nhimself equal to the Father. He show\u2019s that so far from doing anything\ncalculated to draw away allegiance from the Father, he draws\nallegiance to the Father, since in all that he does he acts out only\nthe Father\u2019s will. He is divine because of the divinity with which he\nhas, so to speak, been clothed by the Father\u2019s love.--=But what he\nseeth the Father do.= \u201cA familiar description, borrowed from the\nattention which children give to their father--of the inner and\nimmediate intention which the Son perpetually has of the Father\u2019s\nwill, in the perfect consciousness of fellowship of life with\nHim.\u201d--(_Meyer._)--=Whatsoever things he doeth, these also doeth the\nSon likewise.= _In like manner_ (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2), that is, with like power and\nauthority. This surely could be said of no man, no angel. It indicates\nnot only a superhuman but also a super-angelic character. Thus this\nverse puts in a very compact form the paradox of Christ\u2019s character--a\nparadox not to be explained away by either modifications of the first\nclause or denials of the second. The first clause asserts that\nChrist\u2019s power comes from the Father, and thus, in a sense, is not\nequal to that of the Father, which is uncreated and underived. And\nwith this declaration agree many other passages of Scripture. See for\nexample, ch. 7:17, 18; 8:42; 14:10; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9; 3:2. The\nsecond clause asserts that this power, conferred upon the Son, is that\nof the Father, who has put all things into the hands of the Son that\nhe may be Lord of all. Acts 10:36; James 5:9; Col. 1:16, 17; 3:11. It\nis noticeable that John, who of all Evangelists makes most clear the\ndivine nature of Christ, as well as his divine mission, is the one who\nmore clearly than any other of the evangelists asserts his dependence\non the Father.--=For the Father loveth the Son=, etc. This is stated\nas the reason why the Son is able to do all things that the Father\ndoeth. His power is derived from the Father through the Father\u2019s love\nfor him. Comp. Heb. 1:9.--=And showeth him all things.= \u201cHe who loves\nhides nothing.\u201d--(_Bengel._)--=He will show him greater works than\nthese.= Greater miracles than the healing of the impotent man. Far\ngreater works were done later in Christ\u2019s ministry in Jerusalem and\nvicinity, the consummation being the raising of Lazarus from the\ndead.--=That ye may marvel.= Here the verb _marvel_ (\u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9) is used\nwith the idea of praise as well as wonder. The object of the wonderful\nworks of God is not merely to awaken the wonder of mankind, but,\nthrough the wonder, the reverence and so the allegiance of mankind to\nthe Father through Christ his Son.\n\n\n 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth\n _them_; even[176] so the Son quickeneth whom he will.\n\n [176] ch. 11:25; 17:2; Luke 8:54.\n\n\n 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed[177]\n all judgment unto the Son;\n\n [177] Matt. 11:27; Acts 17:31; 2 Cor. 5:10.\n\n\n 23 That all _men_ should honour the Son, even as they\n honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth\n not the Father which hath sent him.\n\n=21-23. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and maketh them to live,\neven so the Son, whom he will, makes to live.= Observe, (1) that the\nverbs in this sentence are in the present tense; Christ is therefore\nspeaking of a _present_ resurrection, one now taking place. (2) That\nthis resurrection is one recognized among men, not one taking place in\nthe invisible world (ver. 23). (3) That as the result of this\nresurrection, the raised pass from death unto life (ver. 24). (4) That\na universal resurrection is not indicated, but only of those whom _he\nwills_ to raise (ver. 21). It is then not of a future resurrection of\nall men at the last day, nor of a present resurrection of the\nliterally dead taking place as they die, that Christ here speaks, but\nof a spiritual resurrection, taking place on the earth, confined to\nthose whom the Saviour calls and who hear and answer his call, and so\nmanifest to men that it is recognized as a sign of the Saviour\u2019s\npower. As Christ has power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), so\nalso he has power to raise the dead in trespasses and sins. Thus he is\nnow, as he will be in another sense in the last day, the resurrection\nand the life (John 11:25). This theme of a spiritual resurrection and\nlife-giving occupies verses 21-27; then by a natural transition Christ\npasses to the future resurrection of the physical dead. Be not\nsurprised, he says in substance, at my declarations respecting the\nspiritual resurrection; for the final resurrection shall also be at my\nvoice. Be not surprised at my claim to be now a judge, for the great\nday of judgment the Father has also committed into my hands.--=Whom he\nwill.= This phrase does not indicate \u201cthat he specially confers this\ngrace on none but certain men, that is, on the elect\u201d (_Calvin_); nor\ncan we say that \u201cHe will not quicken others because they believe not\u201d\n(_Meyer_), for though this is true, it is neither asserted, nor even\nhinted at here; nor is the meaning merely that \u201cin every instance\nwhere his will is to vivify, the result invariably follows\u201d\n(_Alford_). Clearly the indication of the passage is that spiritual\nlife has its source, not in the will of the sinner but in that of the\nSaviour (comp. ch. 1:13; Rom. 9:16); but the reason why the divine\nwill apparently chooses some and not others, whether for reasons in\nhuman character and choice, or for inscrutable reasons, not explained\nnor indeed explicable, is not here hinted at.--=For the Father judgeth\nno man.= The whole work of judgment, the whole moral government of the\nworld, the whole course of divine Providence, as regards the nation,\nthe church, and the individual, is entrusted to the Son. See Psalm 2;\nRev. 1:5.--=That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the\nFather.= There is some reasonable ground for a difference of opinion\nas to the proper interpretation of the preceding verses, which treat\nof the relations of the Father to the Son; and Christian critics are\nnot wholly agreed respecting their meaning. But there can be no room\nfor difference of opinion as to the meaning of this verse, which gives\nthe practical outcome of those which precede. Whatever opinion the\ntheologian may entertain concerning the mystery of Christ\u2019s nature,\nthe Christian can hardly doubt the plain teaching of Scripture that\nthe highest allegiance that the soul can pay to its God, the highest\nlove it can offer, the highest reverence it can experience, are all\ndue to the Son. _Even as_ signifies the manner and the degree. So in\nheaven the highest praises are paid to the Lamb slain from the\nfoundation of the world (Rev. 5:12; 7:10).--=He that honoreth not the\nSon, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.= Not because the\nfailure to honor an ambassador is a failure to honor the king whom he\nrepresents, but because the honor paid to God belongs to his\ncharacter, and of that character the Son is the manifestation; so that\nthe soul that does not honor the Son, who is the brightness of the\nFather\u2019s image, and who doeth all things which the Father does, and as\nthe Father does them, does not really honor the Father. In truth, he\nwho does not recognize in Christ the Son of the Father, the true image\nof the divine glory, has either no true conception of the Son or none\nof the Father; for the only way to the Father is the Son. And in fact,\nthose forms of theological doctrine which have tended to belittle\nChrist have also tended, in the history of the church, to dwarf\nworship.\n\n\n 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He[178] that heareth my\n word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting\n life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is\n passed[179] from death unto life.\n\n [178] ch. 6:40, 47.\n\n [179] 1 John 3:14.\n\n=24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth me and hath faith\non him that sent me, hath eternal life, and comes not into judgment,\nbut has passed out of the death into the life.= The meaning of this\ndeclaration is not obscure, though it has been sometimes obscured by\nunbelief. To _hear the word of Christ_ is to hear it with the\nspiritual ear, not merely with the physical ear. Thus those may be\nincluded who have never heard of the historic Christ; for as he is the\nLight of the world, who lighteth _every man_ who cometh into the world\n(ch. 1:9, note), so those who, without the literal hearing of his\nwords, do hear and attend to the message which he speaks to the soul,\nin the inner experience, are to be included among those who hear his\nwords. To _have faith on him that sent me_, is not merely to believe\nhis written word, nor to believe that he has sent Christ into the\nworld, nor to believe any specific dogma respecting Christ, however\nimportant, but to have faith in an unseen divinity, in contrast to\nfaith in either one\u2019s self or in any human helper. It is to direct\nfaith toward this unseen God that Christ came into the world; and to\nhave faith in Christ is to have faith in the Father who sent him, in\norder that he might bring all unto the Father, and present all to him\n(ch. 17:8, 21, 24). _Cometh not into judgment_ is mistranslated in our\nEnglish version, _Shall not come into condemnation_. The verb is not\nfuture, and the noun is judgment, not condemnation. \u201cThere can be no\ngood reason why the word (\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, _krisis_) should be rendered\n_judgment_ in the 22d verse, and _condemnation_ in the 24th. But from\na fear, I suppose, lest the one should seem to contradict the\nother--lest the Son should be thought not to execute the judgment that\nhad been committed to him--they (the translators) were unfaithful to\nthe letter, perhaps even more unfaithful to the spirit, of the\npassage.\u201d--(_Maurice._) The promise is one fulfilled in this life, a\npromise of present not merely future deliverance, and of a deliverance\nnot merely from condemnation, but from judgment. If the Christian\ncomes into judgment, he would also inevitably come into condemnation\n(1 John 1:8, 10). The meaning of this verse then is, that when the\nsoul has accepted Christ as its Master, hearing his words, and\nfollowing him, for spiritual hearing involves following (ch. 10:3, 4)\nso as to live by faith in God (Gal. 2:20), he is no longer subject to\ndivine judgment; there is no more condemnation to them who are thus in\nChrist Jesus (Rom. 8:1). With this is involved the further truth that\nthere will be no true judgment for them in the last day. \u201cThe\nreckoning which ends with \u2018Well done, good and faithful servant,\u2019 is\nnot judgment; the reward is of free grace. In this sense the believers\nin Christ will not be judged according to their works; they are\njustified before God by faith, and by God.\u201d--(_Alford._) Finally, the\nlast clause of the verse, _but hath passed out of death into life_,\nindicates the true condition of both the impenitent and the believer;\nthe one is already in death, from which he can only be delivered by\nthe Life-giver; the other has already entered into eternal life. This\nis not a future reward reserved for him; it begins here and now,\nthough it is to be consummated hereafter. _The_ life is spiritual\nlife, _the_ death spiritual death. Of these great realities physical\nlife and death are but tropes and symbols.\n\n\n 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you. The hour is coming, and\n now is, when the dead[180] shall hear the voice of the Son\n of God; and they that hear shall live.\n\n [180] verse 28; Ephes. 2:1.\n\n\n 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given\n to the Son to have life[181] in himself;\n\n [181] 1 Cor. 15:45.\n\n\n 27 And hath given him authority[182] to execute judgment\n also, because he is the Son of man.\n\n [182] verse 22.\n\n=25-27. The hour is coming, and now is, when=, etc. The resurrection\nhere spoken of is then one already taking place. In order to meet this\nevident requirement of the verse, those commentators who regard Christ\nas throughout this passage speaking of the final resurrection suppose\nhere a reference to the cases of resurrection which took place in\nconnection with his ministry. But none such had as yet taken place;\nmoreover, this construction requires us to suppose that Christ used\nthe word _life_ in one sense in the preceding verse and in another\nsense here, without giving any indication of the change of meaning.\nHis reference then I believe to be here, as throughout this passage up\nto verse 28, to spiritual death and spiritual resurrection.--=For as\nthe Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son to have\nlife in himself.= Norton renders this somewhat enigmatical verse\nliberally, thus: \u201cFor as the Father is the fountain of life, so hath\nhe given to the Son to be the fountain of life.\u201d This must be regarded\nrather as a paraphrase than as a translation; but it embodies well the\nmeaning of the verse, as indicated by the context. No man is a\nfountain of life to any other man. He may be a conduit, but not a\nsource. It is given to Christ to be a source of life himself to\nothers. We live only as we draw continuously our life from God; to the\nSon the Father has given life in such a sense that he becomes himself\nthe life of the world, and thus the life-giver to the dead.--=Because\nhe is a Son of man.= Not, as in the English version, _the_ Son of man.\nThe omission of the article is significant, for without the article\nthe phrase son of man means simply one of the human race; with the\narticle it always means the Messiah. Here then the meaning is that\nChrist is to be the judge of all the earth, because he has taken on\nhimself human nature. Why is this any reason that he should be the\njudge of the world? The answer is, I think, indicated by Heb. 5:15:\n\u201cWe have not an high-priest which cannot be touched with the feeling\nof our infirmities, but was tempted in all points like as we are, yet\nwithout sin.\u201d Our judge is chosen, because he knows our frame, he\nunderstands sympathetically our temptations, is able to make\nallowances for all infirmities and weaknesses of humanity, and for all\ntrials of life, and able, also, to measure at their true worth the\nfalse excuses with which we endeavor to excuse ourselves to ourselves\nand to our fellows. Other explanations, for which in detail see Meyer,\nas that judgment is a necessary part of redemption, or that it belongs\nto Christ as the Messiah, or that it is given to him as a reward for\naccepting the humility of human nature, seem to me to be inadmissible.\nJudgment is not a part of redemption; it is in no true sense\nredemptive; the phrase _a_ son of man never means the Messiah; and it\nwould be no reward to a tender and loving nature to exercise judgment,\nexcept as it afforded an opportunity for the exercise of mercy in\njudgment.\n\n\n 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the\n which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,\n\n\n 29 And shall come forth; they[183] that have done\n good, unto the resurrection of life; and they\n that have done evil, unto the resurrection of\n damnation.[184]\n\n [183] Dan. 12:2.\n\n [184] Matt. 25:46.\n\n=28, 29. Marvel not at this.= Not only because the greater wonder\nabsorbs the less (_Meyer_), but also because there is nothing strange\nin the declaration that he who is to be the final judge of all flesh\nshould exercise judgment now on men, and he who is to be the final\nresurrection and the life should be the resurrection and the life in\nthe spiritual realm now.--=For the hour is coming.= He does not add\n_and now is_, for now he is speaking not of a present resurrection, but\nof one to take place only in the future.--=All that are in their\ngraves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.= A voice like the\nsound of a trumpet (Rev. 1:10), and like the sound of many waters\n(Rev. 1:15), that is, like the roar of the ocean for fullness and\npower. Comp. 1 Thess. 4:16. The entire language is highly figurative.\nIf literally interpreted it would seem to imply a bodily resurrection,\nand it is apparently so understood by some of the commentators, _e.\ng._, Alford and Olshausen; but it is evident that it cannot be\nliterally interpreted. Thus the dead do not in a literal sense hear\nhis voice; their arousing is not that of literal sleepers who have\nbeen awakened by a voice. The doctrine that death is a sleep, that the\nsoul remains in an unconscious state till the resurrection, and that\nthe life is then anew given to the soul simultaneously with the\nre-creation of the body from the dust, is so inconsistent with the\nplain teaching of Scripture in many passages (see 1 Cor. 15:36-38, 50,\n51), that it cannot be sustained by doubtful interpretations of\npictorial passages like the present one. How little ground there is\nfor the opinion that the Bible supports a doctrine of a literal and\nuniversal bodily resurrection, will be evident to the student who\nconsiders the force of the following passages, which are said by\nOlshausen, and quoted with apparent approval by Alford, both of whom\nseem to believe in a literal resurrection of the body, to be the only\npassages in Scripture which imply a resurrection of the bodies of the\nimpenitent: Acts 24:15; Matt. 10:28; Matt. 25:34, etc.; Rev. 20:5, 12;\nDan. 12:2. No one of these directly asserts the resurrection of the\nbody, and some of them can hardly be said even remotely to imply it.\nThe doctrine is directly inconsistent with the teaching of Paul in 1\nCor., ch. 15. See notes there.--=They that have done good unto the\nresurrection of life.= That is, unto a resurrection the necessary\nresult of which is life, life in the Messiah\u2019s kingdom.--(_Meyer._)\n--=And they that have practised evil.= The righteous have _done_\ngood--their fruit remains; the wicked have only _practised_\nevil--their works do not follow them. The wheat is garnered into the\nstorehouses; the chaff is destroyed. See ch. 3:20, 21.--=Unto the\nresurrection of judgment.= Observe again that only they that have done\nevil come into judgment (verse 24, note). Observe too that it is they\nthat have done good to whom is given the gift of eternal life, and\nthey that have practised evil that enter into judgment. The test, and\nthe only test of character which the New Testament recognizes, is that\nof fruit in the actual life (Matt.7:20; 12:33; 25:31-46; Ephes. 5:6; 1\nJohn 3:7, 8). The works of righteousness are the fruits of the Spirit;\nhis gracious influences are received into the soul by faith, but the\nevidence of the abiding of that Spirit consists in the manifestation\nof these fruits in a righteous life (John 15:1, 2, 6; Gal. 5:22-24;\nJames 2:14-26). Living a Christ-like life is the only evidence of\npossessing a Christ-like spirit.\n\n\n 30 I[185] can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I\n judge: and my judgment is just: because I seek not mine own\n will, but the will[186] of the Father which hath sent me.\n\n [185] verse 19.\n\n [186] ch. 4:34; 6:38; Ps. 40:7, 8; Matt. 26:39.\n\n=30.= In this verse Christ returns to the statement made in the\nbeginning of the discourse, ver. 19 (see note there); he does all\nthings as the representative of the Father and the expression of the\nFather\u2019s will.--=As I hear I judge.= As Christ is the image of the\nFather, so his voice is the echo of the Father\u2019s voice.--=My judgment\nis just, because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father.=\nTo the Father there is no law superior to his own will; to the Son the\nwill of the Father is the law. In this declaration our Lord gives us\nan example of the way in which we may secure just judgments in\nourselves. It is self-seeking which obscures the judgment. Unselfish\nseeking of the Father\u2019s will is the great clarifier of the moral\njudgments of the disciple.\n\n\n 31 If I bear witness[187] of myself, my witness is not true.\n\n [187] ch. 8:14; Prov. 27:2; Rev. 3:14.\n\n=31.= This verse makes a transition from the subject-matter of the\ndiscourse thus far to a new subject. Christ has been speaking of his\nown character and authority; he now passes to speak of the evidences\nwhich attest it. The verse is to be read not affirmatively, but\ninterrogatively. Do you say, if I bear witness of myself, my witness\nis not true? I will then point you to other testimony. That this is\nthe true reading of the verse is evident from ch. 8:14, where Christ\ndeclares that though he bears witness of himself, his witness is true.\nHe here anticipates the objection there made by the Pharisees (ch.\n8:13), and replies to it. In his reply, which extends to verse 39, he\ncites in attestation of his mission three witnesses: (1) the testimony\nof John the Baptist (vers. 32-35); (2) his own works, including, but\nonly incidentally, his miracles (ver. 36); (3) the personal testimony\nof the Father, speaking chiefly through the O. T. Scripture (vers.\n37-39).\n\n\n 32 There is another[188] that beareth witness of me; and I\n know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.\n\n [188] ch. 8:18; Acts 10:43; 1 John 5:7-9.\n\n\n 33 Ye sent unto John, and[189] he bare witness unto the\n truth.\n\n [189] ch. 1:7, 32.\n\n=32, 33. There is another that beareth witness of me.= Most of the\nmodern commentators consider this _another_ to be the Father. So\nAlford, Meyer, Bengel, Tholuck, and others. They understand the\nconnection to be this: The Father testifies to me; John\u2019s testimony I\ndo not receive, because it is human and fallible, but in passing I\nrefer to it, for your salvation. Thus verses 33-35 are parenthetical.\nThe other interpretation seems to me the more natural and preferable.\nChrist gives, in an ascending climax, a threefold testimony to\nhimself: first the testimony of John, a prophet, rather the prophet\nand forerunner of the Messiah; then his own works; finally the\ntestimony of the Father, in the heart and through the written\nword.--=And I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is\ntrue.= Such language confirming the testimony of John the Baptist is\nnatural; such language in confirmation of the testimony of the Father\nseems to me strained and unnatural. What significance can be given to\nthe statement, The Everlasting Father testifies of me, and I know that\nhis testimony of me is true? It is apt if applied to John the Baptist,\na human and fallible witness, whose language might be attributed by\nthe Jews to extraordinary and mistaken admiration.--=Ye sent unto\nJohn.= The reference is probably to the delegation which came out from\nJerusalem to inquire into John\u2019s character and work (ch. 1:19).--=He\nbare witness unto the truth.= That is, To the truth concerning Jesus\nChrist. By this declaration Christ makes the christology of John the\nBaptist his own, and declares of himself that he is the Son of God and\nthe Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. See ch. 1:29,\n34.\n\n\n 34 But I receive not testimony from man: but[190] these\n things I say, that ye might be saved.\n\n [190] ch. 20:31; Rom. 3:3.\n\n\n 35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were\n willing[191] for a season to rejoice in his light.\n\n [191] Matt. 21:26; Mark 6:20.\n\n=34, 35. But I receive not testimony from man.= This is not equivalent\nto, I will not avail myself of human witness in this matter (_Meyer_);\nhe does in fact avail himself of human witness, cites it, and declares\nthe reason why he does so, that his auditors may by it be saved from\nfatal error; nor does it merely mean, as Calvin, that he cites this\ntestimony out of regard to them rather than to himself, though this is\ntrue, and equally true of all his ministry, and of all the testimony\nwhich he cites in support of his divine claims. Here, as in so many\nother places in the N. T., especially in the reports of Christ\u2019s\nwords, the careful study of the original clears up obscurity which is\nfelt in the translation, and sometimes which any mere translation\nfails to clear away. _From_ (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac), when joined to verbs of inquiring,\nasking, and learning, indicates that the matter to be learned is\nviewed as in the mental possession of the person cited (see _Winer_, \u00a7\n47, p. 365), that is, as derived from him and dependent on his\ntestimony. So in common language with us, \u201cI know such a fact to be\ntrue, for I learned it _from_ Mr. A.,\u201d indicates Mr. A. as the\n_authority_ for the statement. Christ\u2019s declaration here then is, not\nthat he will not use human testimony, but that his claims do not\ndepend upon it. Compare Matt. 11:27, \u201cNo man knoweth the Son but the\nFather,\u201d and Matt. 16:17, \u201cFlesh and blood hath not revealed it (the\ntruth respecting Jesus) unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.\u201d\nThe testimony of John the Baptist, like that of all the prophets, is\nnot in truth testimony of or from man, but testimony _from_ God,\n_through_ man, the man speaking as he is moved by the Holy Ghost. And\nthe moral for us is that all mere human argument for and witness to\nthe character of Christ breaks down; it is only as the divine\ncharacter has been divinely revealed to us, by the Spirit of God, that\nwe can hope to persuade others of the truth, a lesson abundantly\nconfirmed in the history of the church by its dealings with\ninfidelity. Unbelief is to be vanquished by spiritual, not by mere\nintellectual power. Alford represents the idea well by a free\ntranslation, \u201cI take not my testimony from man.\u201d--=These things I say\nthat ye might be saved.= Blind to the testimony of the O. T. (2 Cor.\n3:14), unspiritual, and therefore deaf to the inner voice of God (1\nCor. 2:14), there is hope that they may heed the recent testimony of\nJohn, whom all men counted for a prophet (Matt. 21:26), and whose\nbaptism even the Pharisees and the Sadducees had attended (Matt. 3:7).\nTherefore he cites it to them, that he may by any means save some. He\nseeks to outflank their prejudice.--=He was the lamp, kindled and\nshining.= Observe the difference between this translation and that of\nour English version. He was not _a light_, but _the lamp_; not\n_burning_, but _kindled_. A common title given to famous Rabbis was\nThe candle of the law; Christ borrows it, applies it to John, and\ndeclares him to have been _the_ lamp, lighting not the law, but the\nway to Christ. _The_ lamp, because the one foretold in the prophets to\nlight the way of the Lord and prepare for his coming. The _lamp_, not\n_light_. Two different Greek words (\u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2) are erroneously\nrendered by the same English word, _light_. Man is but a _lamp_;\nChrist is _the light_ which lighteth every man that cometh into the\nworld (ch. 1:9); and man (the lamp) can give light to others only as\nhe is himself filled with Christ (the true and only light). This lamp\nis _kindled_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, passive), _i. e._, by the touch of God, as a\nlamp unable to give light until it is filled and lighted by the\nowner\u2019s hand; and _shining_, as one of the lights of the world (Matt.\n5:14), shining with divine light because kindled by a divine hand and\npartaking of the divine nature (_lumen illuminatum_, not _lumen\nilluminans_).--=And ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his\nlight.= The two marks of a spurious religious enthusiasm. They were\nwilling to _rejoice_, but not to _repent_; they were ready to \u201cenjoy\nreligion,\u201d but not to \u201cbring forth fruit meet for repentance;\u201d they\nflocked in great crowds to John\u2019s Baptism (Matt. 3:5), much as men now\nflock to camp and tabernacle meetings; but they were not ready to \u201cdo\njustly, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.\u201d And their enthusiasm\nwas but \u201cfor a season,\u201d as all merely emotional enthusiasm is. It made\nno practical and lifelong change in their character or conduct.\n\n\n 36 But I have greater witness than _that_ of John; for the\n works[192] which the Father hath given me to finish,[193]\n the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the\n Father hath sent me.\n\n [192] ch. 10:25; 15:24; Acts 2:22.\n\n [193] ch. 17:4.\n\n=36. But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which\nthe Father hath given me to finish.= From the testimony of John the\nBaptist, Jesus passes to the second authentication of his mission, the\nworks which he is doing. These _works_ are not merely nor primarily\nhis miracles. Against this narrow and unspiritual interpretation the\nchurch should have been saved by even a careful study of the words.\nFor (_a_) the word here rendered _works_ (\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd) is never used by John\nas equivalent to a miracle, but always, when in connection with\nChrist, as significant of his whole course of beneficent and redeeming\nactivity; (_b_) in this very discourse Christ uses it in connection\nwith and in reference to his work of spiritual life-giving to the dead\nin trespasses and sins (vers. 20, 21); (_c_) the phrase \u201chath given me\nto finish\u201d points forward to the time when he should be able to say in\nprayer to his Father, \u201cI have finished the work which thou gavest me\nto do\u201d (ch. 17:5; comp. 4:34), and in his last triumphant cry upon the\ncross, \u201cIt is finished\u201d (ch. 19:30). The matter is important because\nthe church needs to recognize that the evidences of Christianity on\nwhich Christ relied are not the miracles, which are purely historical\nacts, the historic veracity of which must be proved like that of any\nother past events, but the whole work of redeeming love, the visible\nand indubitable fruits of which are to be unceasingly seen in\nthe victories of Christianity over the individual and over\ncommunities.--=The same works that I am doing.= Not _have done_, which\nmight have been said of miracles already wrought, but _am now engaged\nin doing_, which alone could be said of the unceasing work of him who\never went about doing good. Observe that the works which he is doing\nare those which the Father _hath given him to do_ (vers. 19, 20,\nnotes), and that whatever the Father hath given him, that he does (ch.\n18:11).--=Bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.= Because\nthey are manifestations of the Father\u2019s love. The message which the\nSon has come to bring is the message of the Father\u2019s grace (ch. 1:14).\n\n\n 37 And the Father[194] himself, which hath sent me, hath\n borne witness of me. Ye[195] have neither heard his voice\n at any time, nor seen his shape.\n\n [194] Matt. 3:17; 17:5.\n\n [195] Deut. 4:12; 1 Tim. 6:16.\n\n\n 38 And ye have not his word[196] abiding in you: for whom\n he hath sent, him ye believe not.\n\n [196] 1 John 2:14.\n\n=37, 38. And he which hath sent me, the Father himself, hath borne\nwitness of me.= The past tense of the verb indicates a completed\ntestimony, borne in past time, but accessible to present hearers. The\nmeaning therefore cannot be the witness of the Spirit to Christ\u2019s\ncharacter and mission, a continuously fresh testimony, which is\nhowever borne only to those that are already the sons of God, through\na measurable faith in Jesus as Saviour and Messiah. The reference is\npossibly in part to the testimony which the Father had borne at the\nbaptism to Christ as his well-beloved Son (Matt. 3:17), a testimony\nrepeated on other occasions (Matt. 17:5; John 12:28); but the primary\nreference is to the testimony borne to God in the O. T. Scriptures,\nwhich were to the Jewish nation witnesses to the Messiah, whose coming\nthey heralded, and whose work they described (Luke 24:27-44; Acts\n13:27).--=No voice of his have ye ever heard, no appearance of his\nhave ye ever seen, and his word ye have not abiding in you.= This\ngives as nearly literally as is possible the meaning of the original.\nTwo interpretations are possible. One is that indicated by our English\nversion. According to this interpretation Christ declares the general\nphilosophic truth, that the Father is a Spirit, and therefore\ninvisible and inaudible, to be spiritually discerned; and since the\nJews have not spiritual discernment, since they have not God\u2019s word\nabiding in them, they are without any knowledge of God or\nunderstanding of his witness. The other interpretation is that\nindicated by the more literal translation given above. According to\nthis translation it is the language of \u201creproach for want of\nsusceptibility to this (divine) testimony\u201d (_Meyer_). This was the\nview of Calvin, who here, as in the interpretation of so many other\npassages, anticipated the results of later criticism. \u201cWhen he says\nthat they had never heard the voice of God or seen his shape, these\nare metaphorical expressions, by which he intends to state generally\nthat they are utterly estranged from the knowledge of God.\u201d This last\nI believe to be the correct interpretation, both because it more\nnearly accords with the literal rendering of the original, and\nbecause, according to the other interpretation, Christ inserts in the\nmidst of his discourse an abstract statement of philosophic truth, in\na manner which, if not absolutely artificial, is at least quite unlike\nhis usual method. _His word abiding in you_ is the word of the O. T.\nThis they had; but it was external to them. They did not believe it\n\u201cwith the heart unto righteousness\u201d (Rom. 10:10). It was not an\nabiding force in the shaping of their conduct or the formation of\ntheir character. He only can truly comprehend what the Scriptures\nteach concerning God, who yields obedience to whatever they teach\nconcerning duty; for it is only as the divine attributes are\nreproduced in us that we can approximate an understanding of them in\nGod.--=For whom he hath sent, in him ye have not faith.= This may be\nregarded either as the reason why they have not seen God nor heard his\nvoice, because they have not faith in his Son; or as the evidence that\nthey have not seen God, etc., since if they had they would have faith\nin his Son. The latter is the preferable interpretation, He that is\ntruly and spiritually familiar with the Father will discern the\nFather\u2019s lineaments in the Son; he that does not recognize the\ndivinity in the Son bears thereby witness that he does not truly know\nin what divinity consists.\n\n\n 39 Search[197] the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have\n eternal life: and they are[198] they which testify of me.\n\n [197] Isa. 8:20; 34:16.\n\n [198] Luke 24:27; 1 Pet. 1:10, 11.\n\n\n 40 And ye will not come[199] to me, that ye might have life.\n\n [199] ch. 3:19.\n\n=39, 40. Ye search the Scriptures because in them ye think ye have\neternal life; and they are they which testify concerning me; and still\nye will not come unto me that ye might have life.= The verb _search_\n(\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b5) may be rendered either as imperative or as indicative.\nAlford and Tholuck make it, as does the English version, imperative,\nthus interpreting it as a direction to search the Scriptures; Meyer,\nBengel, Olshausen, and Godet make it indicative, thus interpreting it\nas a statement of a fact and a basis for the condemnation which\nfollows. Which interpretation is correct is to be determined wholly by\nthe context and the circumstances; either is grammatically correct. It\nappears to me clear, both from the context and the audience, that\nChrist does not give here a command or an exhortation, but simply\nstates a fact. For (1) he is addressing men who did not need a\ndirection to Scriptural study; the great, almost the exclusive, study\nof the Jewish Rabbis was either the Scriptures or the commentaries\nthereon. It is true that their search was not spiritual; they stopped\nwith the letter which killeth, and disregarded the spirit which giveth\nlife; but this was a reason, not for an exhortation to more searching,\nbut to a different spirit in the searching. (2) The theme of Christ\u2019s\ndiscourse here would not naturally lead to an exhortation to Bible\nstudy. He is pointing them to himself; and their failure to find him\nwas not because they were not familiar with the Scriptures, but\nbecause a veil was over their hearts when they read it (2 Cor. 3:15).\nI understand then that Christ in this verse notes a contrast between\nthe Scriptures and himself; the Jews search the Scriptures because _in\nthem_ they think to find eternal life. But eternal life is not in the\n_Book_; it is in the _person_ to whom the Book bears witness. And they\nsearch in vain who do not find in it the Christ to whom the Book bears\ntestimony. In contrast with their searching, note the spirit and\nmethod of the Bereans, who searched to see _if these things were so_\n(Acts 17:10, 11), that is, with a docile and inquiring, not a\npredetermined mind.--=Ye will not come unto me.= Though the Scriptures\nwhich they searched so diligently contained testimony to a suffering\nand saving Messiah, they would not come to him. They were as one who\nreads a guide-board, but goes not whither it points.--=That ye might\nhave life.= The object of Christ\u2019s coming was to give life; the object\nof coming to Christ is to receive life (ch. 10:10). The kind of life\nimparted by him and to be received by us is indicated in Ephes. 2:10;\nGal. 5:22, 23.\n\n\n 41 I receive not honour from[200] men.\n\n [200] verse 34; 1 Thess. 2:6.\n\n\n 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.\n\n=41, 42. I receive not honor from men.= It is true that at his name\nevery knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess him to be Lord,\nbut _to the glory of God the Father_ (Phil. 2:10, 11). As the\nChristian lets his light shine that men may glorify Christ, so Christ\u2019s\nlight glorifies the Father. Moreover, this honor is not derived from\nmen. What was said on the meaning of the original on ver. 34 (see\nnote there) is equally applicable here. From men (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac) indicates\nthe original source. Christ\u2019s glory comes _from_ the Father (Phil.\n2:9); human voices do but echo the divine voice.--=I know you.= As no\nman ever knows his fellow-men. For illustration of Christ\u2019s divine\ninsight into the hearts of men, see Matt. 9:4; John 2:24; Heb.\n4:13.--=That ye have not the love of God in you.= They who were\ncondemning Christ for a violation of the ceremonial law of the Sabbath\nwere themselves guilty of violating the first and great commandment Of\nthe law (Deut. 6:5).\n\n\n 43 I am come in my Father\u2019s name, and ye receive me not: if\n another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.\n\n\n 44 How can ye believe, which[201] receive honour one of\n another, and seek[202] not the honour that _cometh_ from\n God only?\n\n [201] ch. 12:43.\n\n [202] Rom. 2:10.\n\n=43, 44. In my Father\u2019s name.= \u201cThe name of God, of Christ, is a\nparaphrase for God himself, Christ himself, in all their being,\nattributes, relations, manifestations.\u201d--(_Rob. Lex._, art. \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1.) See\nMatt. 28:19, note. Here, therefore, Christ\u2019s declaration is primarily,\nI have come in the power of the Father, not in my own power, or with my\nown authority; and secondarily, I have come to manifest and glorify not\nmyself, but Him.--=If another shall come in his own name, him ye will\nreceive.= The reference is primarily to the false Christs, of whom many\nhave been at different times received by Jews. See Matt. 24:5, note.\nBut the declaration has a wider application to all times and nations.\nWherever the minister is received, not as a guide to God, but as an\nindependent object of hero-worship, he is received _in his own\nname_.--=How can ye have faith which receive honor derived from=\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac) =one another?= Earthly ambition is inconsistent with spiritual\ngrowth. He that seeks the perishable cannot at the same time seek the\nimperishable crown.--=And seek not the honor which cometh from the\nonly God.= Not, as in our English version, from God only. The\nstructure of the sentence forbids that interpretation. The reference\nis to such passages as Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 20:3; Deut. 4:35, 39; 2 Sam.\n7:22; Isa. 45:5, 6, etc. To those who seek from the one and only true\nGod glory and honor and immortality, by patient continuance in\nwell-doing, and to them alone, is the gift of eternal life promised\n(Rom. 2:6, 7).\n\n\n 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there\n is[203] _one_ that accuseth you, _even_ Moses, in whom ye\n trust.\n\n [203] Rom. 2:12.\n\n\n 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me:\n for he[204] wrote of me.\n\n [204] Gen. 3:15; 22:18; Deut. 18:15, 18; Acts 26:22.\n\n\n 47 But if ye[205] believe not his writings, how shall ye\n believe my words?\n\n [205] Luke 16:31.\n\n=45-47. Do not think that I will be your accuser before the Father.=\nThe imagery is borrowed from the course of judicial proceedings. In\nthe last judgment Christ will be judge (ver. 37), not public\nprosecutor.--=There is one that accuseth you.= Observe the present\ntense, _who is accusing you_. The law is a perpetual accusation against\nthe sinner (Rom. 2:15; 3:19, 20), from whose indictments there\nis no escape except in the pardon offered by the grace of God through\nJesus Christ. For prophetic and specific accusations of the Jewish\nnation in the Mosaic writings, see Deut. 31:21, 26.--=Even Moses.=\nThe law-giver is put for the law.--=In whom ye have put your hopes.=\n(\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f43\u03bd) For the meaning of _in whom_ (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bd), see 2 Cor. 1:10. _In_\n(\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2) signifies the end toward which any action tends; with verbs\nindicating a mental action, the object of that action. The hopes of\nthe Jews looked toward Moses, _i. e._, toward an exact obedience of\nthe letter of the law given by Moses, not toward a spiritual communion\nwith the Father whose children they were called to be. For a portrayal,\nautobiographically, of this legal and self-righteous hope, see Phil.\n3:4-6.--=Had ye believed Moses.= Not believed _in_ or _on_ him; the\nchild of God believes the prophets, he believes _in_ or _on_ Christ\nonly. If the Jews had really believed Moses, even as a teacher, they\nwould have believed _on_ Christ; for Moses testified of Christ.--=For\nhe wrote of me.= An incidental testimony to the Mosaic authorship of\nthe books usually attributed by the Jews to Moses, viz., the first\nfive books of the O. T.; also an indication of the prophetic and\ntypical character of the ceremonial law. Moses was a prophet because\nthe entire O. T. ceremonial and service--temple sacrifices, ablutions,\netc.--were prophecies, fulfilled in and by Christ. Thus Christ himself\nincidentally confirms that view of the O. T. ceremonial which\nunderlies and is most fully expounded by the Epistle to the\nHebrews.--=But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my\nwords?= \u201cThe meaning is, Men give greater weight to what is written\nand published, the letter of a book, than to mere word of mouth; and\nye in particular give greater honor to Moses than to Me: if then ye\nbelieve not what _he_ has written, which comes down to you hallowed by\nthe reverence of ages, how can you believe the words which are uttered\nby _Me_, to whom ye are hostile? This however is not all; Moses leads\nto Christ; is one of the witnesses by which the Father hath testified\nof Him; \u2018if then ye have rejected the _means_, how shall ye reach the\n_end_?\u2019 If your unbelief has stopped the path, how shall ye arrive at\nHim to whom it leads?\u201d--(_Alford._)\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n\nCh. 6:1-15. FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND.--THE GRACE, THE BOUNTY, THE\nPOWER, AND THE METHOD OF CHRIST ILLUSTRATED.\n\nOf this miracle accounts are given by the four Evangelists (Matt.\n14:13-33; Mark 6:32-52; Luke 9:10-17); and it is the only miracle\nrecorded by them all. There are some differences in their records; for\ndetails see notes below. In the main the three Synoptics agree, while\nthe differences between them and the Fourth Gospel are more\nconsiderable. According to the Synoptics Jesus and his disciples\ncrossed the Sea of Galilee to the east side; the people, going round\nby land, outran them, and apparently were waiting for them on the\nshore (Mark); Christ therefore abandoned his original design of rest,\nand devoted the day to instruction (Mark) and healing (Matthew and\nLuke). When evening was come the disciples asked him to send the\npeople away to the villages to get necessary food; Jesus replied, Give\nye them to eat; the disciples answered that they had nothing but five\nloaves and two small fishes to give; and from these Jesus fed them.\nAccording to John, Jesus crossed over the sea with his disciples, went\nup into the hills, and there sat with them; while sitting there he saw\nthe people coming round by land, proposed to feed them, asked Philip\nwhere they should get the bread, and apparently going down to the\nplain to feed the people, took the five loaves and two small fishes\nand distributed them among the people. All agree, however, as to the\nmain facts: the feeding of five thousand on five loaves and two small\nfishes, and the gathering of twelve baskets of fragments, are narrated\nby all four Evangelists; the subsequent departure of Christ into the\nmountain for solitude and prayer, the embarkation of the disciples by\nboat, and his walking to them upon the sea are recounted by all but\nLuke; Matthew alone gives the account of Peter\u2019s attempt to walk upon\nthe water to meet Jesus. Harmonists have endeavored to combine these\naccounts in one consistent narrative; this is the work, however,\nrather of imagination than of criticism; any such harmony is\nnecessarily hypothetical. The attempts have succeeded in so far as to\nshow that the accounts are capable of combination. It may be added\nthat the variations are just such as we might expect in narratives\ncoming from independent eye-witnesses, and not such as we might expect\nin different fictitious accounts, or in different versions of a myth,\nderived from the same tradition. The miracle took place immediately on\nthe return of the twelve after executing the commissions given to them\nin Matthew, ch. 10; the immediate object of Christ in retiring to the\neastern shore of the Sea of Galilee was to secure quiet for a personal\nconference with the twelve respecting their work (Mark 6:30). For\nfurther statement of the chronology of the event, and the most\nprobable harmony of the four accounts, see Matt. 14:13-27, note. A\ntopographical difficulty is presented by an apparent but not real\ninconsistency between Luke 9:10 and Mark 6:45. According to Luke,\nChrist took the twelve with him into a desert place belonging to\nBethsaida, whither the multitude followed him; according to Mark,\nafter feeding the multitude he told the twelve to sail across to the\nother side unto Bethsaida. Thus Luke seems to place Bethsaida on the\neastern, and Mark on the western shore of the lake, and this has led\nto the hypothesis that there were two Bethsaidas, an hypothesis\ngenerally adopted by the commentators, without, it seems to me,\nsufficient inquiry. It has no historical confirmation, was invented to\nharmonize Luke and Mark, and is needless. Let the reader compare the\nmap of the Sea of Galilee (Vol. I, p. 342) with the accompanying\nillustration, in which he looks down on the Sea of Galilee from the\nnorth. The ruins in the foreground are those of Bethsaida; the river\nis the Jordan. Probably in ancient times the town of Bethsaida reached\nto or near the shore of the lake. The mountains in the distance are\nthose on the eastern shore of Galilee, and the plain at their foot is\nthe plain of Butaiha, where the five thousand were fed. Christ was at\nor near Capernaum; sailed with his disciples across the Sea of Galilee\nto the plain of Butaiha, at the foot of the hills on the northeastern\nshore of the lake, not far from Bethsaida. After the attempt of the\nmultitude to make Jesus king, he bade them embark and row along the\nshore toward (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2) Bethsaida (Mark 6:45), where he proposed to meet\nthem. A sudden wind rising and blowing down the Jordan valley from the\nLebanon range (see on verses 16-18), drove the disciples\u2019 boat out\ninto the lake; and it was while they were rowing back, against the\nwind, toward Bethsaida, where their Lord had promised to meet them,\nthat he came out upon the waves for that purpose. Thus it is true that\nwhen they left Capernaum for the plain of Butaiha in the morning, they\nwere going over to a plain belonging to the city of Bethsaida, as Luke\nreports; and also true that when they started back in the evening in\nthe direction of Capernaum, as John reports (ver. 17, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 indicating\nthe ultimate point they had in view), they were also going toward\nBethsaida, which lay on the northern shore, and not far from midway\nbetween the eastern and the western shores. See further, Mark 6:45,\nnote.\n\n\n[Illustration: BETHSAIDA.]\n\n\n 1 After[206] these things Jesus went over the sea of\n Galilee, which is _the sea_ of Tiberias.\n\n [206] Matt. 14:15, etc.; Mark 6:34, etc.; Luke 9:12,\n etc.\n\n\n 2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his\n miracles which he did on them that were diseased.\n\n=1, 2. After these things.= Not a definite note of time. It was\nsubsequent to the healing of the impotent man at the foot of Bethesda.\nBut many and important events had intervened. See Tabular Harmony of\nGospels, Vol. I, p. 44.--=Which is the Sea of Tiberias.= John, writing\nfor Gentile readers, gives the name by which this body of water was\nbest known in the Gentile world. For map and description, see Vol.\nI, p. 342. The eastern shore was not populous; it is to this day\ncomparatively a solitude; Christ went thither with his disciples partly\nfor rest and a quiet conference (Mark 6:30, 31), and partly in\nconsequence of the death of John the Baptist, perhaps to avoid the\npossibility of danger to himself and to them from Herod. After the\nsermon which followed this miracle of feeding, reported in this chapter\nby John, he engaged no more in any public ministry in Galilee. See\nMatt. 15:29-39, note.--=Because they saw his miracles which he did.=\nJohn has not recorded any miracles done at this time in Galilee, and\nonly two performed at any time in Galilee. This is one of those\nincidental references which makes it clear to my mind that John wrote\nnot only with a personal knowledge of the writings of the other\nEvangelists or some of them, but with a recognition of the fact that\ntheir writings would be familiar to the readers of his own Gospel. The\nmiracles referred to here are those performed in Christ\u2019s Galilean\nministry subsequent to his return from the second Passover at\nJerusalem. They are recorded in Matthew, chaps. 8-13; Mark, chaps.\n2-5; and Luke, chaps. 5-8.\n\n\n 3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with\n his disciples.\n\n\n 4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.\n\n=3, 4. And Jesus went up into the hill country.= Up from the shore of\nthe sea to the quiet of the hills. These, on the eastern shore, rise\nto a height of nearly 2,000 feet above the level of the sea, which is\nhowever itself depressed some 600 feet below the level of the\nMediterranean.--=The Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.= This\naffords both a note of time and an explanation of the multitude\npresent. The month was Nizan (our March). The grass was green; the\ntrees were in full leaf; the palm trees were laden with blossoms; the\norange and lemon trees with fruit; the barley was ripening in the\nfields. At such a season and in such a climate, to spend a night\nwithout shelter is no hardship, and is not unusual. The leisure of the\nOriental is partly a characteristic of the people, partly an incident\nof a climate which compels less labor than ours. The fifteen days\npreceding the Passover were largely devoted to various preparations\nfor it; the roads, streets, and bridges were repaired, and the\ncaravans began to move toward Jerusalem. The gathering at such a time\nof a congregation of 5,000 men, besides women and children, attracted\nby the fame of such a prophet, is not at all incredible. The reader\nmust also remember that Galilee was then the home of a large\npopulation. According to Josephus, there were six cities of\nconsiderable size on the thirteen miles of coast-line along the\nnorthern and northeastern shores of the Lake of Tiberias.\n\n\n 5 When Jesus then lifted up _his_ eyes, and saw a great\n company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall\n we buy bread, that these may eat?\n\n\n 6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what\n he would do.\n\n=5, 6. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes.= According to Mark the\npeople going round by the shore outran Jesus, and he found them there\nupon his arrival (Mark 6:33). There is no irreconcilable inconsistency\nin the two statements. It may be that Jesus found a few of his\ndisciples, those that knew his probable destination, and took them up\nwith him and the twelve into the hills; for the term _disciples_ (ver.\n3) is not in the Gospels confined to the twelve apostles; that the\nlarger multitude followed, looking for the Lord; and that their\ngradual congregating moved his compassion (Mark 6:34) and led him to\ndescend from the retirement of the hills to teach and to heal\nthem.--=He saith unto Philip.= He spent the greater part of the day in\nteaching and healing (Matt. 14:14; Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11). The people,\nabsorbed by their interest, took no note of the passage of time. As\nthe afternoon drew on, the disciples proposed to Christ to send the\npeople away to procure food (Matthew, Mark, Luke); it was probably as\na result of this proposition that Christ addressed to Philip the\nquestion here, Whence shall we buy? This question is reported alone by\nJohn. Why did Jesus address this inquiry to Philip? Some commentators\nhave supposed that he was the purveyor for Christ and the apostles;\nothers that his faith was especially weak and needed strengthening;\nstill others that the question was addressed to him because he\nbelonged to Bethsaida (ch. 1:44), and therefore would be the one to\nknow where food could be procured; but there is no evidence to support\neither hypothesis. Christ frequently questioned his disciples in order\nto bring out to their own consciousness the measure of their faith\n(Matt. 9:28; 16:13; 19:17; Luke 24:17, etc.).--=For he himself knew\nwhat he would do.= A statement made by the apostle to emphasize the\ntruth that Jesus himself was not in perplexity, and taking counsel\nwith his apostles for his own guidance. This he is never recorded to\nhave done. According to Matthew the question of providing for the\nmultitude was not raised until \u201cit was evening\u201d (Matt. 14:15). Yet\nboth Matthew and John say that \u201cwhen evening was come\u201d Jesus was left\nalone in the mountain (ver. 16; Matt. 14:23). The explanation of this\ndiscrepancy lies in the fact that there were two evenings recognized\nby the Hebrews, as by the Greeks, one beginning with the declining sun\nat or about three in the afternoon, the other with the setting sun. It\nwas during the first evening, _i. e._, between three and six, that the\npeople were fed; at the second evening, _i. e._, about sunset, they\nhad departed and left Jesus alone.\n\n\n 7 Philip answered him, Two[207] hundred pennyworth of bread\n is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take\n a little.\n\n [207] Numb. 11:21, 22; 2 Kings 4:43.\n\n\n 8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter\u2019s brother,\n saith unto him,\n\n\n 9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and\n two small fishes: but what are they among so many?\n\n=7-9. Two hundred pennyworth of bread.= The penny, or denarius, was\nequal in value to seventeen cents American coin; but it was the day\u2019s\nwages of a common laborer (Matt. 20:2); two hundred pennyworth\ntherefore would be practically equivalent to $200 worth in our time.--\n=One of his disciples said unto him.= Christ bade them ascertain how\nmuch they had on hand for themselves (Mark 6:38). Andrew ascertained\nand reported in response to Christ\u2019s direction. The lad here mentioned\nwas therefore probably some one in attendance upon Christ and the\ntwelve, and carrying their simple store for them. How much blessing\nthe Lord can impart to the service of a little child. Comp. 2 Kings\n5:2, 3. Here a _little boy_ (\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) had but five loaves, and they\nof barley, and yet when given to the Lord, and blessed by Him, they\nfeed five thousand.--=Five barley loaves.= The loaves of the Jews were\nthin round cakes or crackers; for illustration and description, see\nMark 8:3-5, note. Barley was the food only of the lower classes. \u201cOne\nin the Talmud, speaking of barley bread, says, \u2018There is a fine crop\nof barley.\u2019 Another answers, \u2018Tell this to the horses and asses.\u2019 A\nRoman soldier who had quitted his ranks, had for part of his\npunishment that he received barley bread instead of wheaten.\u201d--(_Geike\u2019s\nLife of Christ._) Thus we have here (1) an indication of the\nsimplicity of the living of our Lord; without a place to lay his head,\n_i. e._, a permanent home, and with the plainest possible food for his\nfare, the bread of the peasant classes; (2) a suggestion of true\nbenevolence; he did not create wheaten bread for the multitude; he\ngave such as he had. To share what we have, not to aspire to give what\nwe have not, is true benevolence.--=And two small fishes.= The word\nhere rendered _small fishes_ (\u1f40\u03c8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) denotes any relish eaten with\nbread; hence, because fish was a common accompaniment, the most common\nfrom the animal kingdom, it came to be used for fish, generally salt\nfish, prepared for and used as a relish.\n\n\n 10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was\n much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number\n about five thousand.\n\n\n 11 And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks,\n he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them\n that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as\n they would.\n\n=10, 11. Make the men sit down.= It requires little imagination to\npicture to the mind the wondering surprise with which the disciples\nprepared to obey a direction the object of which they could not\nconceive, and the perplexity of the people as they prepared to take\ntheir places, wondering what was to occur next. They sat down; Mark\ntells us _in ranks_, literally _garden plats_ (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u1f76;\nthe repetition without \u03ba\u03b1\u03af denotes distribution). With their\nbright-colored Oriental dresses, these men sitting cross-legged on the\nground in groups of fifty each (Mark 6:40), so that their number was\nafterward easily estimated, presented an appearance which recalled a\nbrilliant garden in the early summer. The picture thus presented by\nMark, but lost in our English translation, is one of the pictorial\ncharacteristics of his Gospel, and is thought to have been derived by\nhim from Peter, the most effective and therefore probably the most\npictorial of all the apostolic preachers.--=There was much grass in\nthe place.= This is not inconsistent with its description by the other\nEvangelists as a _desert_ place, the word desert implying simply\nsolitude, not an arid soil. The location (_Thompson\u2019s Land and Book_,\nVol. II, p. 29) was probably the rich level plain of Butaiha, forming\na triangle, of which the Eastern mountains make one side and the lake\nshore and the Jordan the other two. It was at the southeastern angle\nof this plain, near the point where the hills abut upon the lake, that\nthe feeding took place. \u201cFrom the four narratives of this stupendous\nmiracle we gather: 1st, that the place belonged to Bethsaida; 2d, that\nit was a desert place; 3d, that it was near the shore of the lake, for\nthey came to it by boats; 4th, that there was a mountain close at\nhand; 5th, that it was a smooth, grassy spot, capable of seating many\nthousand people. Now all these requisites are found in this exact\nlocality, and nowhere else, so far as I can discover. This Butaiha\nbelonged to Bethsaida. At this extreme southeast corner of it the\nmountain shuts down upon the lake, bleak and barren. It was,\ndoubtless, desert then as now, for it is not capable of cultivation.\nIn this little cove the ships (boats) were anchored. On this\nbeautiful sward, at the base of the rocky hill, the people were\nseated.\u201d--(_Andrews._)--=About five thousand.= Besides women and\nchildren (Matt. 14:21), who perhaps sat separately from the men, as\nOriental custom would require them to do.--=When he had given thanks.=\nThe same act is differently expressed by the other Evangelists as\nblessing the bread. Asking a blessing upon food before meals was a\nuniversal custom among the Jews, and was practised both by Christ and\nby the apostles (Luke 22:17, 19; 24:30; Acts 27:35).--=He gave [to the\ndisciples and the disciples] to them that were set down.= The words\nwhich I have put in brackets are not in the original according to the\nbest manuscripts. They have been added from Matt. 14:19. They\nundoubtedly represent the actual fact, viz., that the bread was\ndistributed by the hands of the twelve.\n\n\n 12 When they were filled,[208] he said unto his disciples,\n Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing[209] be\n lost.\n\n [208] Neh. 9:25.\n\n [209] Neh. 8:10.\n\n\n 13 Therefore they gathered _them_ together, and filled\n twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley\n loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had\n eaten.\n\n\n 14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that\n Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that[210] prophet that\n should come into the world.\n\n [210] Gen. 49:10; Deut. 18:15-18.\n\n\n 15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and\n take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again\n into a mountain himself alone.\n\n=12-15. Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.=\n\u201cIt was a custom and a rule (among the Jews) that when they ate\ntogether they should leave something to those that served. \u2018Every one\nleaves a little portion in the dish, which is called the servitor\u2019s\npart.\u2019\u201d--(_Lightfoot._) The fragments thus gathered up by the apostles\nwere probably preserved for their own use. The practical lesson is\nimportant: \u201cHe likewise exhorts his disciples to frugality when he\nsays, \u2018Gather the fragments which are left, that nothing be lost\u2019; for\nthe increase of the bounty of God ought not to be an excitement to\nluxury. Let those therefore who have abundance remember that they will\none day render an account of their immoderate wealth, if they do not\ncarefully and faithfully apply their superfluity to purposes which are\ngood, and of which God approves.\u201d--(_Calvin._) This gathering up of\nthe fragments demonstrates also the reality of the miracle. See\nbelow.--=They filled twelve baskets= (\u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2). These baskets were the\ncommon baskets used universally by the Jews in traveling to carry\ntheir food. See for description and illustration, Matt. 16:9, 10,\nnote. Christ there distinguishes between this miracle and that of the\nfeeding of the 4,000, which are evidently not to be confounded as one\nevent.--=That prophet that should come into the world.= Foretold in\nDeut. 18:15, 16, and referred to by the delegation sent from Jerusalem\nto inquire of John the Baptist as to his character and authority (John\n1:21). By some Rabbis this prophet was regarded as a forerunner of the\nMessiah; by others as the Messiah himself. Here apparently the people\nregarded the two as identical; this at least is indicated by their\ndesire to take Christ at once and crown him as king.--=Jesus knowing\nthat they were about to come and seize him that they might make him\nking.= Either by reading in their hearts the half-formed design; or\nperceiving it in their whispered conference; or informed of it by the\napostles, who doubtless shared the enthusiasm of the multitude, and\nwho may have been as eager as any for the coronation of their Lord.\nThis attempt of the people to make Christ a temporal king was a\nrenewal of Satan\u2019s endeavor to tempt him to secure the kingdoms of the\nearth by Satanic methods (Matt. 4:8-10, note). The Jews anticipated a\nrealm of material marvels and miracles with the advent of the Messiah.\n\u201cDrought and famine should then be known no more. The prophecy of\nIsaiah (Isa. 65:13), \u2018My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry,\u2019\nshould be literally fulfilled. Israel should be gathered together. The\nyoung men should feed on bread, the old men on honey, the children on\noil. Every palate should be pleased, every appetite satisfied, and the\nprolific profusion of the Garden of Eden should repeat itself in the\nland of the Messiah. These prophecies of the scribes, with which\nconstant repetition in the synagogue had made the common people\nfamiliar, seemed to them about to be fulfilled.\u201d--(_Abbott\u2019s Jesus of\nNazareth._)--=He departed again into the mountain.= For solitude and\nprayer (Matt. 14:23; Mark 6:46). He first constrained his disciples to\nembark for Bethsaida, a fact which Matthew and Mark state (Matt.\n14:22; Mark 6:45) without giving the reason for it; John alone tells\nof the purpose of the multitude to make Christ a king. There is\nsignificance for us in Christ\u2019s refusal of their homage. They desired\nto _make_ him king, not to accept him as king; to give him a sceptre,\nnot to own allegiance to the sceptre he possessed; to secure his power\nand authority in aid of their designs, not to recognize his royal\nauthority and be obedient to his will. When they found out what that\nwill involved, from his discourse on the following Sabbath at\nCapernaum, they would have him for their king no longer. It is one\nthing to attempt to make Christ serve our wills; it is a very\ndifferent thing to make our wills obedient to his.\n\nVarious attempts have been made to explain this miracle on\nrationalistic principles. The two principal explanations offered are:\n(1) that the people were so satisfied with Christ\u2019s instruction that\nthey did not feel the claims of hunger (_Schenkel_); (2) that they had\ntheir hearts opened by the beneficence of Christ, so that those who\npossessed food themselves provided for those that had none, and thus\nall were furnished by a miracle of love, operating not by the literal\ncreation of new supplies, but by the inspiration of a new spirit of\nbenevolence in the people themselves. This, if I understand him\naright, is Lange\u2019s explanation. See his _Life of Christ_, Vol. II, p.\n140. For a more elaborate classification of rationalistic theories,\nsee _Lange\u2019s Commentary on Matthew_, Am. ed., p. 266. Neither\ninterpretation deserves serious refutation. The first is inconsistent\nwith the fact that twelve baskets of the fragments were gathered up\nafter the meal was ended; the second is contradicted by the language\nof the disciples, who plainly imply that the people are without food\n(Matt. 14:15; Mark 6:36; Luke 9:12), and by the enthusiasm of the\npeople after the miracle has been performed. They were not of a kind\nto be ready to crown a prophet as king, merely because he had opened\ntheir hearts and inclined them to benevolence. It is, however, to be\nnoted that here as elsewhere the Evangelists simply state the facts,\nleaving the reader to make his own deductions. These facts are that\nover 5,000 people were upon a plain, without provisions; that all the\nfood which Christ had for them was five loaves and two small fishes;\nthat he distributed this to the twelve, and they to the multitude;\nthat all had enough; and that when the meal was over there were twelve\nbaskets full of fragments remaining. Assuming these to be the facts,\nthe explanation of a miraculous creation of bread is the only\nreasonable explanation; any other hypothesis impugns the historical\nverity of the four Gospels. The attempt to explain the miracle as an\nacceleration of the processes of nature (_Olshausen_), to which, as\nDr. Schaff well says, \u201cmust be added an accelerated process of art, or\nthe combined labors of the reaper, miller, and baker,\u201d gives no help\nin understanding the process by which Christ provided for all. We can\naccept the fact without comprehending the method, which is indeed as\nentirely incomprehensible as are God\u2019s methods in the ordinary\nphenomena of nature, _e. g._, the multiplication of a single kernel of\ncorn into the many kernels upon the stalk. The parallel and contrast\nbetween this miracle and the analogous but different multiplication of\nfood wrought by the O. T. prophets Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:16; 2\nKings 4:42-44) are instructive. Like all of Christ\u2019s miracles, this\nmultiplication is a parable. (1) It illustrates Christ\u2019s method: the\nway to men\u2019s hearts is often through ministering to their bodies; in\nthe recent famines in India and China (1877), the missionaries have\nfound the way opened for the gospel in many districts by their ability\nto provide the starving with food or employment. (2) It manifests the\nmiraculous grace of God: \u201ceverything wastes in the hands of men; but\neverything multiplies in those of the Son of God.\u201d--(_Quesnel._) (3)\nIt rebukes distrust: \u201cHe who feeds here five thousand men in an\nextraordinary manner and by a visible miracle, cannot He find means to\nsupport this numerous family, which raises in the mind of this father\nand mother so many unceasing and distrustful thoughts?\u201d--(_Quesnel._)\n(4) It is an inspiration and a prophecy of Christian love. It is \u201cthe\nbrilliant inauguration of that fruitful miracle of Christian charity\nwhich has ever since gone on, multiplying bread to the hungry. The\nheart of man once touched, like the rock in the desert touched by the\nrod of Moses, has gone on pouring over thirsty crowds the\ninexhaustible stream of generosity.\u201d--(_Pressense._) (5) It is a\nsymbol of the inexhaustible love of Christ himself; a symbol of that\nmiraculous multiplying of sacred influences which, from one brief life\nof three active years, and one body pierced and broken on the tree,\nfeeds innumerable thousands, a love which Christ imparts to his\ndisciples, and which they in turn convey throughout the ages and to\nall lands.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 6:16-21. JESUS WALKS ON THE SEA.--CHRIST THE LORD OF NATURE: LIGHT\nIN OUR DARKNESS; PEACE IN OUR STORMS.--HE COMES TO THOSE WHO ARE\nTOILING TO COME TO HIM.--HIS MESSAGE TO ALL HIS DISCIPLES: FEAR\nNOT.--THE GROUND OF THAT MESSAGE: HE IS THE I AM. Compare Matt. 14:22,\n23; Mark 6:45-52, and see Prel. Note at beginning of this chapter.\n\n\n 16 And[211] when even was _now_ come, his disciples went\n down unto the sea,\n\n [211] Matt. 14:23; Mark 6:47, etc.\n\n\n 17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward\n Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to\n them.\n\n\n 18 And the sea arose[212] by reason of a great wind that\n blew.\n\n [212] Ps. 107:25.\n\n=16-18. And when even was come.= This was the second evening, which\nbegan at sunset. See on ver. 6.--=His disciples went down unto the\nsea.= From the plain where the five thousand had been fed. By the\ndisciples here is meant the apostles. They went reluctantly, yielding\nto Christ. This is implied by the language of Matthew and Mark, he\n\u201cconstrained his disciples.\u201d While they departed by sea Jesus sent the\nmultitude away.--=And entered into a ship.= A fishing-boat; large\nenough to carry Christ and the twelve; not too large to be propelled\nby oars. See for description, Mark 6:36, note.--=And went over the sea\nunto Capernaum= (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u039a.). Mark says _toward Bethsaida_ (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b2.). John\nindicates the final aim of their journey; Mark the direction in which\nthe boat was steered. They started _for_ Capernaum _via_ Bethsaida.\nSee Prel. Note above, and Mark 6:45, note.--=Jesus was not come to\nthem.= An evidence that they expected to meet him along the shore;\nprobably (this is implied upon a comparison of the three gospel\nnarratives) at Bethsaida, _i. e._, at or near the entrance of the\nJordan upon the lake.--=The sea arose by reason of a great wind that\nblew.= It is a common occurrence for the winds to arise suddenly upon\nthis lake, drawing down the Jordan valley from the Lebanon range in\nthe north. See Mark 4:37, note. \u201cMy experience in this region enables\nme to sympathize with the disciples in their long night\u2019s contest with\nthe wind. I spent a night in that wady Shukaiyif, some three miles up\nit, to the left of us. The sun had scarcely set when the wind began to\nrush down toward the lake, and it continued all night long with\nconstantly increasing violence, so that when we reached the shore the\nnext morning the face of the lake was like a huge boiling caldron. The\nwind howled down every wady from the northeast and east with such fury\nthat no efforts of rowers could have brought a boat to shore at any\npoint along that coast. In a wind like that the disciples _must_ have\nbeen driven quite across to Gennesaret, as we know they were. To\nunderstand the causes of these sudden and violent tempests, we must\nremember that the lake lies low--six hundred feet lower than the\nocean; that the vast and naked plateaus of the Jordan rise to a great\nheight, spreading backward to the wilds of the Hauran, and upward to\nsnowy Hermon; that the water-courses have cut out profound ravines and\nwild gorges, converging to the head of this lake, and that these act\nlike gigantic _funnels_ to draw down the cold winds from the\nmountains.\u201d--(_Thompson\u2019s Land and Book_, 2:32.) Dr. Thompson adds a\ntestimony to the suddenness with which these winds arise: \u201cI once went\nin to swim near the hot baths, and before I was aware a wind came\nrushing over the cliffs with such force that it was with great\ndifficulty I could regain the shore.\u201d\n\n\n 19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty\n furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing\n nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.\n\n\n 20 But he saith unto them, It is I;[213] be not afraid.\n\n [213] Ps. 35:3; Isa. 43:1, 2; Rev. 1:17, 18.\n\n\n 21 Then they willingly received him into the ship; and\n immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.\n\n=19-21. So when they had rowed about five-and-twenty or thirty\nfurlongs.= _Stadia_; that is, a little over three miles. The lake at\nthis point is about six miles across; they had therefore rowed about\nhalf way across the lake; but they were unable to make head against\nthe wind, and could not reach the northern shore to keep their\nappointment with Jesus. _It was while they were endeavoring to come to\nJesus that he came out upon the sea to meet them._--=They see Jesus\nwalking on the sea.= That he was really walking on the sea, not\nstanding on the land and supposed to be on the sea because only dimly\ndiscerned through the storm and darkness (_Bleek_), is evident from\nthe facts, (1) that Peter went out to meet him (Matt. 14:28-31); (2)\nthat on receiving him into the ship they were immediately at the land\n\u201cunto which they were going\u201d (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f23\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1fc6\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd). This was the plain of\nGennesaret, on which Capernaum was situated, and was two or three\nmiles away from the point where they met Jesus; for they had as yet\nrowed only about half the distance across the lake.--=He saith unto\nthem, It is I.= Literally, _I am_. The same language used by Jesus in\nJerusalem (ch. 8:58), for which the Pharisees would have stoned him,\nand in the O. T. to designate Jehovah (Exod. 3:14). Here I should\nprefer to give it this meaning. Christ says not merely, \u201cIt is I, your\nFriend and Master;\u201d he says, at least implies, It is the \u201cI am\u201d who is\ncoming to you, the Almighty One who rules winds and waves, who made\nthem, and whom they obey.--=Be not afraid.= This is the message of\nChrist to his people in the hour of his advent (Luke 2:10); of their\ntempest experiences of temptation and struggle (Matt. 14:27; Mark\n6:50; 1 Pet. 3:14); their sorrows (Matt. 28:10; Mark 5:36); and their\nhour of dangerous duty (Acts 18:9).--=Then they willingly received\nhim.= Literally, _Thereupon they willed to receive him_. If this\naccount stood alone we might perhaps doubt whether he actually did\nenter the ship, as some rationalistic commentators have done; but\nMatthew and Mark are explicit in their statements that he did\nso.--=And immediately the ship was at the land to which they were\ngoing.= That is, the shore at Capernaum. This, coupled with the\nstatement of ver. 19 that they had only rowed twenty-five or thirty\nfurlongs, _i. e._, about half way, seems clearly to imply a further\nmiracle, unless indeed we give to the word _immediately_ (\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2) a\nlarge latitude of expression, understanding it merely to mean that\nsince the wind at once ceased (Matt. 14:32) they had no further\ndifficulty in reaching their destination. Matthew adds that they that\nwere in the ship came and worshipped Jesus, saying, \u201cOf a truth thou\nart the Son of God;\u201d and Mark that they were amazed beyond measure,\n\u201cfor they considered not the miracle of the loaves, for their heart\nwas hardened,\u201d rather _dull, stupid_. They had been amazed at the\nmiracle of the loaves, but they had not deduced from it the natural\nconclusion that Christ was the Lord of nature, so when a new\nmanifestation of his power was made they were as much surprised as if\nthey had never seen any previous manifestation. In this they were very\ntypical of Christians in all ages of the church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 6:22-71. SERMON ON THE BREAD OF LIFE.--THE CONDITION OF ETERNAL\nLIFE: FEEDING ON CHRIST.--THE TRUE NATURE OF FAITH SYMBOLIZED.--THE\nMEANING OF THE LORD\u2019S SUPPER.\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--Before entering upon this discourse in detail, some\npreliminary considerations are necessary. 1. _The report._ There is no\nreason to believe that we have a verbatim report of Christ\u2019s\ndiscourse, but good reason to believe the reverse. John makes no claim\nto give the sermon in full. The language of ver. 59 implies that he\ndoes not. The whole sermon occupies in deliberate reading less than\nfive minutes. We can hardly suppose that an actual discourse delivered\nin the synagogue would have been compressed in so brief a space. We\nhave then, here, John\u2019s subsequent report written out from memory,\nthough from memory quickened by divine inspiration, of a discourse\nvery much longer than the report. It embodies in John\u2019s language the\nsubstance of Christ\u2019s thoughts. 2. _The circumstances and connection._\nAfter the feeding of the 5,000, the apostles embark in their boat;\nChrist goes up into the hills to pray; the people linger a while for\nhis return, then conclude that he has returned to Capernaum, and go\nback to Capernaum themselves; on the following Sabbath morning he\nenters the synagogue; their astonishment at his approach is great;\nthey break out in questioning, How did you get here? His answer\ndiverts them from mere astonishment to a serious consideration of\nspiritual truth: \u201cYe are seeking me, not because of the evidence I\nhave given of my divine commission, but because ye did eat of the\nloaves and were filled. Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for\nthat meat which endureth unto everlasting life.\u201d Their response\nindicates some seriousness of desire: \u201cWhat is the work which God\nwould have us to do that we might have this bread of life as our\nreward?\u201d This is the question of all religious aspiration, and\nChrist\u2019s answer is the response of Christianity to the soul-hunger of\nthe ages: \u201cThis is the work of God, that ye have faith in him whom he\nhath sent.\u201d This I believe to be the text of the sermon which follows;\nit gives the subject; it is the key to its mysticism. The object of\nthe discourse is to give Christ\u2019s definition and interpretation of\nfaith. This definition appears and reappears, first in metaphor, then\nin interpretation: My Father is giving you the true bread, which is\ncoming down from heaven. I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me\nshall never hunger; he that believeth on me shall never thirst. This\ncoming is not a literal physical coming; it is a coming of the spirit;\na coming drawn by divine influence; a coming of those who are taught\nof God. To thus believe in me, to thus eat my flesh and drink my\nblood, is to have everlasting life; for to thus eat my flesh and drink\nmy blood is to dwell in me and have in me an indwelling life. Finally,\nto guard his followers against that literalism which has since\nconverted this metaphor into a stone of stumbling and a rock of\noffence, Christ adds to his discourse the decisive words of ver. 63,\n\u201cIt is the Spirit that quickeneth, _the flesh_ profiteth nothing; the\nwords that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.\u201d 3.\n_Meaning of the metaphor._ I believe then that the key to the\nmetaphors of this sermon is to be found in the question and answer of\nverses 28, 29; that it is Christ\u2019s metaphorical interpretation of the\ndeclaration that faith is a condition of spiritual life; that it is\nmystical, because experience is always mystical except to those that\nknow it experimentally; that it is expressed in metaphor, because a\nspiritual experience can never be expressed in any other way; and that\nChrist has emphasized the importance of the metaphor by subsequently\nmaking it a permanent symbol in the Lord\u2019s Supper. To eat his flesh\nand drink his blood is to have faith in him, to come unto him; to\npartake of his character and imbibe his spirit (verses 35, 40, 47, 54,\n57). Faith, according to Christ, is not then merely believing what is\nrevealed in the Word (_Westminster Confession_); nor merely receiving\nwhat God says to be true and resting on it (_George Muller_); it is\nfeeding on Christ. It is interpreted (_a_) by the physical phenomenon\nof eating and drinking. The food enters into us, becomes a part of us;\nbuilds us up; makes us what we are; different food going to different\nparts of the body--some to brain, others to muscle, etc.; different\nnatures and different avocations needing different food. It is Christ\n_in_ us who is the hope of glory. (_b_) By our own use of the same\nmetaphor. We recognize in common language a higher than mere physical\nfeeding; other gateways to the nature than the mouth and the stomach;\nother means that modify, develop, and make the character. Men are made\nby what they receive through interior faculties. So Christ\u2019s metaphor\nconstantly reappears in the language of our common life; we drink in a\npicture; imbibe ideas; devour books; _e. g._,\n\n \u201cMy ears have not yet _drunk_ a hundred words\n Of that tongue\u2019s uttering.\u201d--(_Shakespeare._)\n\n \u201cLonging they look, and gaping at the sight,\n _Devour_ her o\u2019er and o\u2019er with vast delight.\u201d--(_Dryden._)\n\n(_c_) By the Rabbinical use of the metaphor, common in Christ\u2019s time,\nand well understood by the Jews. \u201cThere is nothing more common in the\nschools of the Jews than the phrases of eating and drinking in a\nmetaphorical sense.\u201d--(_Lightfoot._) \u201cTo eat of my bread\u201d was a phrase\nequivalent to partake of my doctrine. Christ borrows a common metaphor\nto emphasize a deeper truth; to have faith in him is not to \u201ceat of my\nbread,\u201d but to \u201ceat of my flesh;\u201d that is, it is to receive not merely\nthe influence of Christ\u2019s teaching, but yet more that of his life and\ncharacter itself, an influence which could be imparted to the world\nonly through his passion and death, through the literal rending of his\nflesh and shedding of his blood. (_d_) By the experience of faith in a\nlower sphere, our faith in each other. The highest faith of a child in\nhis mother is not believing something about her, nor merely believing\nwhat she says; it includes an intellectual belief that she is his\nmother, and a filial trust in her, but it also includes such a\nreverence for her, an uplooking to her, an admiration of her, a\nfeeding upon her, that all her best characteristics are reproduced in\nthe worshipping child. So the character of the best teachers ever\nreproduces itself in the character of their admiring pupils. (_e_) By\nthe actual record of the experience of faith contained in the O. T.\nand the N. T. (_e. g._, Ps. 42:5, 11; 63:5-8; 73:23-26; 2 Cor. 3:18;\nGal. 2:20; Phil. 3:8-14). (_f_) By other metaphors in the N. T. in\nwhich Christ is compared to a way on which we walk, a garment which we\nare to put on, a vine on which we are to be engrafted, a husband to\nwhom we are to be married, a head from which we as a body are to\nderive all our life, the ground in which we are to be rooted, the\nfoundation on which we are to be built, and the Spirit which is to\ndwell in us as in a temple. Faith in Christ then, as defined by Christ\nhimself, if I have rightly interpreted this discourse, _is not belief\nabout him, nor trust in him, but appropriation of him_. It is not mere\nbelief in what the Bible teaches respecting him, though it is\ncertainly founded on historical Christianity; it is not mere trust in\nhis word or power or grace, though it involves the highest personal\ntrust in him as a divine and gracious Saviour. It is making him the\nsoul\u2019s spiritual aliment, following after him, coming to him, dwelling\nin him, so drinking in his words, life, and spirit as to be conformed\nto his image. The soul enters into eternal, that is spiritual life,\nnot by believing any teaching respecting Christ, not by trusting that\nChrist will bestow that life, but by so fastening its love and\naspirations and desires upon Christ that he becomes the All and in all\nto the soul, and at once the model for and modeler of its future and\nfinal character.\n\n\n 22 The day following, when the people which stood on the\n other side of the sea saw that there was none other\n boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples\n were entered, and that Jesus went not with his\n disciples into the boat, but _that_ his disciples\n were gone away alone;\n\n\n 23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias, nigh unto\n the [214]place where they did eat bread, after that the\n Lord had given thanks;)\n\n [214] verse 11.\n\n\n 24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not\n there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping,\n and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.\n\n=22-24. The day following=, etc. A part of the people undoubtedly had\ndispersed to the villages about; others of them remained, hoping for\nthe reappearance of Jesus; when he did not reappear they thought it\npossible that he had returned to Capernaum, and went thither\nthemselves. _The other side of the sea_ indicates the eastern shore,\n_i. e._, the opposite side from Capernaum. In ver. 25 the same phrase\nindicates the western shore, _i. e._, the opposite side from that on\nwhich the multitude had left Christ. The construction of these verses\nis complicated and involved, but the original is fairly well rendered\nin our English version. The facts here stated, together with the\nsurprise of the people (ver. 25) at Christ\u2019s appearance at Capernaum,\nafford an additional though incidental evidence of Christ\u2019s miraculous\npassing from the eastern to the western shore.--=Tiberias.= A town on\nthe southwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee; mentioned in the N. T.\nonly by John; built by Herod Antipas, and named in honor of the\nemperor Tiberius. The present city, Tubanyeh, contains about two\nthousand inhabitants.\n\n\n[Illustration: TIBERIAS.]\n\n\n 25 And when they had found him on the other side of the\n sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?\n\n=25. And when they had found him.= The greater part of the discourse\nwhich follows was apparently delivered in the synagogue (ver. 29),\nand presumptively on the Sabbath day. Maurice supposes that \u201cthe\nconversation commences on the borders of the lake of Tiberias, with\nthe people who had just crossed and found Jesus there,\u201d and is\nafterward continued in the synagogue, and he makes the synagogue\ndiscourse commence with ver. 43. This is certainly possible, though I\nshould think it more probable, from the close connection between the\nbeginning and close of the colloquy as reported, that all occurred\nat one time and in the synagogue. It is not at all incredible that\nsuch interruptions as are here reported should have occurred in the\nsynagogue service.--=Rabbi, when camest thou thither?= \u201cThe question\n_when_ includes _how_.\u201d--(_Bengel._) Wordsworth\u2019s comment on the\nmysterious manner in which Christ crossed the sea and presented himself\nin the synagogue affords a curious illustration of the allegorizing\nmethod which he pursues throughout in dealing with this chapter.\n\u201cBy walking on the sea, invisibly to the eyes of the multitude, and\nsuddenly presenting himself to them in the synagogue at Capernaum, in\na manner unintelligible to them, he instructs us that, though he does\nindeed come by water in holy baptism, and is verily and indeed present\nin the holy eucharist, yet the _manner_ of his presence is not to be\nscrutinized by us. * * * * Let us not speculate inquisitively into the\n_time_ and _manner_ in which he is present in the holy eucharist, but\nlet us receive him joyfully in our hearts, as the disciples received\nhim into the ship; and then we shall soon be at the haven of peace\nwhere we would be.\u201d\n\n\n 26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say\n unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but\n because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.\n\n\n 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for\n that[215] meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which\n the Son of man shall give unto you: for him[216] hath God\n the Father sealed.\n\n [215] verses 54, 58; ch. 4:14; Jer. 15:16.\n\n [216] ch. 8:18; Ps. 2:7; 40:7; Isa. 42:1; Acts 2:22; 2\n Pet. 1:17.\n\n=26, 27. Verily, verily, I say unto you.= See Matt. 5:18, note.--=Ye\nseek me, not because ye saw the signs, but because ye ate of the\nloaves and were satisfied.= Christ leads the people from the lower to\nthe higher, from the earthly to the spiritual, making, as was his\nwont, a simple incident the text of a deeply spiritual discourse. See\nMatt. 11:7; 16:6; Luke 13:1; 14:7; John 4:10. The meaning here is\nthis: You are not seeking _me_ because you have seen and recognized\nthe evidences of my divine commission, and really desire to put\nyourselves under me as your Lord and Master; you are seeking my\n_gifts_, and because you have eaten and been satisfied. He thus\ncharacterizes and impliedly rebukes those who seek not Christ but\nChrist\u2019s, because they want not _him_, but something external to\nhimself, which they think he can give them.--=Busy not yourselves\nabout the meat which perishes.= It is not literally true that we are\nnot to _labor_ for the meat that perishes (Acts 18:3; Eph. 4:28; 1\nThess. 4:10-12); it is true that the meat which perishes is not to be\nthe object of our life-work (Matt. 5:24). \u201cIf any be idle and\ngluttonous, and careth for luxury, that man worketh for the _meat that\nperisheth_. So, too, if a man by his labor should feed Christ, and\ngive him drink, and clothe him, who so senseless and mad as to say\nthat such an one labors for the meat which perisheth, when there is\nfor this the promise of the kingdom that is to come, and of those good\nthings? This meat endureth forever.\u201d--(_Chrysostom._) Comp. with\nChrist\u2019s language here Isa. 55:2, to which perhaps he refers, and John\n4:13, 14, where an analogous metaphor is used to enforce the same\nteaching.--=But about the meat which abides unto everlasting life.=\n_Unto_ (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2) indicates the purpose for which it remains, namely, that\nit may nourish eternal life, _i. e._, the life which continues unto,\nnot which begins in, eternity; for eternal life is a present\npossession (vers. 47, 54). This food abides in us. Chaps. 5:38; 6:56;\n8:31; 15:4, 7; 1 John 2:6, 27; 4:12, 15; 2 John 2 indicate both what\nis the meat and what the abiding of which Christ speaks.--=Which the\nSon of man shall give to you.= The phrase _Son of man_ is here, as\neverywhere in Christ\u2019s use of it, equivalent to the Messiah (Matt.\n10:23, note), and would be so understood by his hearers. This food of\nthe spiritual life is the _gift_ of God through the Messiah (Rom.\n5:17; 6:23). We might well wonder that Christ\u2019s characterization of it\nhere as a gift should not have prevented the question of the multitude\nin the following verse, but for the fact that, despite the explicit\nteaching of the N. T. that eternal life is _given_, even the disciples\nof Christ have ever been seeking to earn it as wages by labor. Christ\nsays _shall give_ (future) because the great sacrifice was not yet\noffered, and so the unspeakable gift (2 Cor. 9:15) was not yet\nperfected.--=For Him hath God the Father sealed.= In the East the\nmethod of authenticating a document is not, as with us, by a\nsignature, but by the impression of a seal (1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:12;\n8:8, 10; Jer. 32:10). The meaning here then is that Jesus\u2019 commission\nas the Messiah of God is authenticated by the Father, by the works\ngiven him to do (John 5:36).\n\n\n 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might\n work the works of God?\n\n=28. What can we do that we may work the works of God?= Observe _can_,\nnot _shall_; subjunctive, not future. _The works of God_ are not works\nwrought by God, but works pleasing to God (Jer. 48:10; 1 Cor. 15:58).\nThe meaning is not, What are the works of God which we shall do? but,\nWhat can we do in order that we may please God by our works? This is\nthe question which humanity has ever been asking, repeated in the\npilgrimages and the self-mutilations of the Oriental religions, in the\npenances and appointed prayers of the medi\u00e6val religions, and in much\nof the so-called Christian activity of modern Protestantism. This was\nthe question which Loyola asked by his vigils, and to which Luther\nfound an answer when, climbing Pilate\u2019s staircase on his knees, he\nheard the words, \u201cThe just shall live by faith,\u201d and fled from the\nreligion of works to that of faith. That the questioners of Christ\nwere seeking, not guidance to devout activity, but to divine rewards,\nis clear from the sequel (ver. 31).\n\n\n 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This[217] is the work of\n God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.\n\n [217] 1 John 3:23.\n\n=29. This is the work of God, that ye have faith in him whom he hath\nsent.= They ask respecting the _works_ of God (plural), he replies\nconcerning the _work_ of God (singular); they ask what they shall\n_do_, he replies _have faith_; they ask respecting work to be done\n_for_ God _by_ them, he replies that it is a work _of_ God _in_ them\nthat is required. The condition of eternal life is not doing any\nwork for God, it is having a work of God done in ourselves. See John\n3:5; Titus 3:5-7. The condition of this work is faith in Christ. The\nnature of this faith it is the object of the discourse which follows\nto explain; it is certainly not equivalent to belief, and the use\nof the word believe is an unfortunate necessity from the poverty of\nthe English language, which contains no verb corresponding to the\nnoun faith. Of this faith I know no better nor more comprehensive\ndefinition than that of Webster\u2019s dictionary, \u201cThat confiding and\naffectionate belief in the person and work of Christ which affects\nthe character and life, and makes the man a true Christian.\u201d See Heb.\n11:1, and notice that it is there defined not only as the _evidence_\nof things unseen, _i. e._, the power of seeing and realizing the\ninvisible world, which would include the imagination, but also as the\n_substance_ of things hoped for, which clearly includes the activity of\nthe desires and affections. The germ of all Paul\u2019s subsequent teaching\nof justification by faith is contained in this one single sentence.\nThe Epistles are but an amplification of the gospel as proclaimed by\nChrist himself. \u201cI know not where we can find any passage, even in the\nwritings of the apostles, which says more significantly that\nall eternal life in men proceeds from nothing else than faith in\nChrist.\u201d--(_Schleiermacher._)\n\n\n 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign[218] shewest thou\n then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?\n\n [218] Matt. 12:38; 1 Cor. 1:22.\n\n\n 31 Our fathers[219] did eat manna in the desert; as it is\n written,[220] He gave them bread from heaven to eat.\n\n [219] Exod. 16:15; Numb. 11:7; 1 Cor. 10:3.\n\n [220] Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:24, 25.\n\n=30, 31. What therefore doest thou as a sign that we may see and\nbelieve thee?= This response of theirs brings out the contrast between\nfaith and belief. Christ has said, Believe in him whom God hath sent;\nthe people, recognizing his reference to himself, reply, Why should\nwe believe you? or, as Norton renders it, \u201cgive you credit.\u201d He calls\nfor an affectionate and confiding belief in his person and work, they\ndecline to give him simple credence.--=What dost thou work?= This is\nnot, as Maurice seems to interpret it, the language of a spiritual\nyearning, but, as Alford, Stier, Meyer, the language of unbelief and\nopposition, a sarcastic retort of his own words. \u201cThou commandest\nus,\u201d say they, \u201cto work; what dost thou work thyself?\u201d This demand,\ncoming so soon after the feeding of the five thousand, has given\nrise to some perplexity, and rationalistic commentators cite it as\nan evidence that no such miraculous feeding took place. If not, why\nshould the people refer to the manna? The fact is that, though the\nfive thousand were fed, no explanation was made to them of the way in\nwhich the food was provided; they were commanded to take their seats;\nthe barley cakes, the bread of the poorest peasantry, were distributed\namong them; they were doubtless astonished; but no conclusions were\ndrawn for them, and they were not in the habit of drawing conclusions\nfor themselves. When, therefore, on the Sabbath, Christ met in the\nsynagogue some of those who had been fed, together with others who\nhad not been present, nothing was more natural than this demand,\nimpliedly for both a repetition and an explanation of the miracle.\nThis is the significance of the reference to the O. T. account of the\nmiracle of the manna, \u201cHe gave them bread from heaven to eat\u201d (Ps.\n78:24). It was as if they said, The Psalmist has explicitly pointed\nout the way in which the commission of Moses was confirmed; leave\nus not in the dark respecting the feeding of the multitude, which\nwas, indeed, strange, but which has not been interpreted.--There is\nalso implied a contrast between the work of Moses and the work of\nChrist; the manna came down from heaven, the bread was distributed\nupon the earth; the manna was given day by day as needed for forty\nyears, the bread had been given but once; the manna was a sweet and\ndelicate food, \u201cthe taste of it like wafers with honey\u201d (Exod. 16:31),\nand it was among the rabbinical prophecies that the Messiah would\ncause manna to descend which would please all tastes, \u201cbread for the\nyoung men, honey for the old, oil for the children;\u201d but the bread\nwhich Christ had distributed was barley bread, the commonest fare of\nthe poorest people.\n\n\n 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto\n you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my[221]\n Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.\n\n [221] Gal. 4:4.\n\n\n 33 For the bread of God[222] is he which cometh down from\n heaven, and giveth life unto the world.\n\n [222] verses 48, 58.\n\n=32, 33. Verily, verily, I say unto you, not Moses gave to you that\nbread from heaven; but my Father is giving you that which is the true\nbread from heaven.= The people have referred to the manna as the\nauthentication of Moses; though they do not in words refer to him, the\nspirit of their response is analogous to that of ch. 4:12, Art thou\ngreater than our father Jacob? Compare ch. 8:53. To this Christ\nreplies (1) that Moses did not give the manna; it was given by God;\nMoses had nothing to do with bestowing it; the Israelites found it in\nthe morning after the dew had dried off the ground (Exod. 16:4, 14).\n(2) This manna was not the true bread, but merely a type or shadow of\nthe spiritual antitype; so the Red Sea, the rock, the brazen serpent,\nwere mute prophets of spiritual verities, to be fulfilled through\nChrist (ch. 4:14, 15; 1 Cor. 10:1-11). (3) Hence, the bread of God was\nnot a past, historic gift fulfilled in the days of the wilderness, but\na present and a perpetual gift, which the Father is ever giving. The\npractical contrast suggested is that between the faith which reveres\nonly a past religion, a providence and an inspiration in the days of\nthe patriarchs and prophets and apostles, and that which holds fast to\na present providence, an ever-living Spirit, and a continuous\ninspiration, a living bread ever given throughout all ages.--=For the\nbread of God is that which comes down from the heaven and gives life\nto the world.= Christ here lays down a general principle in which he\ndefines the essential characteristics of God\u2019s spiritual gift. That\nalone is the true bread (1) which is evermore descending from the\nheavens, a perpetual bestowment; (2) which bestows life; (3) which is\nfor the world. The manna did not last over a single day (Exod. 16:19,\n20), and finally ceased to fall when the Israelites entered the Holy\nLand (Josh. 5:12); they that ate it all died (ver. 49); and it was\ngiven only to a single nation. The type was brief in its duration,\nlimited in its effects, confined to a few recipients. The antitype is\nfor all mankind, confers everlasting life, and is bestowed evermore.\n\n\n 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this\n bread.\n\n=34. Lord, evermore give to us this bread.= Comp. ch. 4:15, note.\nNot spoken ironically (_Calvin_), nor with a definite idea of some\nmiraculous kind of sustenance, a magic food or means of life from\nheaven (_Alford_, _Meyer_), nor with a serious comprehension of\nhis spiritual meaning and a sincere desire for his spiritual gift\n(_Maurice_, _Lucke_). The people were shallow and superficial;\nwithout comprehending the meaning of Christ\u2019s words, they yet saw\nin them the offer of something desirable, they knew not what, and\nasked for it. In the minds of some there may have been a dim sense\nof the value of the inner life, such as is sometimes borne in upon\nsensual and superficial natures by the mere power of the presence of a\ngreat soul. Comp. Luke 14:15. There, as here, Christ by his teaching\nrebukes the superficial and ignorant desire for an uncomprehended\nblessedness; there, by showing parabolically how the spiritual food\nis declined by those to whom it is offered; here, by interpreting\nthe nature of spiritual food. The rejection of Christ by the people\nhere, illustrates the parable uttered by Christ there.\n\n\n 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life:\n he[223] that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he[224]\n that believeth on me shall never thirst.\n\n [223] Rev. 7:16.\n\n [224] chaps. 4:14; 7:38.\n\n\n 36 But I said unto you, That ye[225] also have seen me, and\n believe not.\n\n [225] verse 64.\n\n=35, 36. I am the bread of life.= They say, Give us this bread. His\nreply is, The bread is already given; it is for you to accept and feed\nupon it. And this is always the answer of the gospel to every soul\nthat cries out for a Saviour and a salvation. How the soul is to\naccept this bread he then goes on to say.--=He that cometh to me shall\nnot hunger, and he that hath faith in me shall never thirst.= It is\nclear that the \u201ccoming\u201d and \u201cbelieving in\u201d here are equivalent to the\neating and drinking of ver. 54. See notes there. The coming is a\ncontinuous coming (present participle with \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2); a coming into\nChrist\u2019s likeness, and therefore into spiritual unity with him; a\ncoming perfected only by the process of feeding upon him, drinking in\nhis spiritual power so as to be transformed by it. It is the coming\nwhich David describes in Psalm 63:8, \u201cMy soul followeth hard after\nthee,\u201d and Paul in Phil. 3:13, 14, \u201cForgetting those things which are\nbehind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press\ntoward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ\nJesus.\u201d Comp. with the promise here Matt. 5:6; Rev. 7:16. All\nspiritual hunger and thirst are not ended when Christian experience\nbegins, because in this life we are ever coming toward Christ, we have\nnever come fully into him. This coming is consummated when we are one\nwith Christ as he is one with the Father (John 17:21, 22); the promise\nof the gospel is then fulfilled in the glorious satisfaction of a\nperfected redemption (1 John 3:2; Ps. 17:15). We are not _satisfied_\ntill we awake in his likeness.--=Ye also have seen me and ye have not\nhad faith.= See ch. 20:29. The reference here may either be to words\nactually uttered in this discourse, but not reported by John, or to\nwhat he has said by implication though not by exact words, or to\nrebukes uttered on some previous occasion, _e. g._, John 5:38, 40, 43.\n\n\n 37 All[226] that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and\n him[227] that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.\n\n [226] verse 45, ch. 17:6, 8, etc.\n\n [227] Ps. 102:17; Isa. 1:18; 55:7; Matt. 11:28; Luke\n 23:42, 43; 1 Tim. 1:15, 16; Rev. 22:17.\n\n\n 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will,\n but[228] the will of him that sent me.\n\n [228] ch. 5:30; Ps. 40:7, 8.\n\n=37, 38. The all which the Father has given to me shall come toward\nme, and he that comes toward me I will in no wise cast out.= _Toward_,\nnot _to_ me. The original (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2) indicates the object toward which\nanything is directed, not ordinarily the goal actually reached. The\npromise then is that he who sets out in the direction of Christ shall\nnot be rejected by him. He does not wait till we have come to him; he\nreceives us when we start toward him. In this and the next verse _all_\n(\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd) is in the neuter gender, indicating, not that the body is\nincluded with the soul (_Maurice_), but that _the whole_ is given by\nthe Father in its totality, but is received by the Son separately and\nindividually. \u201cIn Jesus Christ\u2019s discourses, that which the Father\nhath given to the Son himself is termed, in the singular number and\nneuter gender, _all_; those who come to the Son himself are described\nin the masculine gender, or even the plural number, _every one_, or\n_they_. The Father has given to the Son the whole mass, as it were,\nthat all whom he hath given may be one; that whole the Son develops\nindividually in the execution of the divine plan.\u201d--(_Bengel._)\nChrist\u2019s language here indicates his dependence upon the Father\u2019s will\nand power, and is analogous to that in many of his discourses,\nespecially in those reported by John. He has come to do his Father\u2019s\nwill; the works which he does are those which his Father has given him\nto do, and are done by his Father\u2019s power; the words which he speaks\nare his Father\u2019s words; his whole life is represented as the incarnate\nexpression of his Father\u2019s will; and those whom he saves are saved not\nby his own independent power, they are those whom his Father has given\nhim (ch. 10:28, 29). Here then I understand Christ neither to limit\nhis salvation nor to declare it to be without limit. He simply asserts\non the one hand that his saving power is efficacious only over those\nwhom the Father has given unto him, and on the other that there is\nnothing lacking in his grace or power which shall cause those thus\ngiven to fail of a perfected salvation. As a Saviour he is the\nrepresentative of the Father\u2019s gracious love and power. Here there is\nno indication who are the _all_ thus given to him. From other\nScripture, however, it appears clear that it includes many among the\nheathen nations (Ps. 2:8 with Matt. 8:11), and that it does not\ninclude the entire human race (ch. 17:6, 9, 25). This interpretation\nis confirmed by the verse which follows, which further expresses the\nsubjection of the Son in his mediatorial work to the Father.--=Because\nI came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will, but the\nwill of him that sent me.= The catholicity of Christ\u2019s love is a\ndisclosure of the love of the Father toward us. In these words Christ\ngives us a suggestion of the reason of his receiving sinners and\nmaking them companions and associates. His own earthy inclinations,\ntastes, and sensibilities, had he followed them, would all have been\nagainst such society; but all were subordinate to, and overridden by,\nhis great controlling purpose that the world through him might be\nsaved (ch. 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:15). For every Christian disciple there is a\npractical lesson in these words of Christ. We are all sent into the\nworld as Christ also was sent into the world (ch. 17:18); and it is\nours to see to it that no pride, or social taste, or moral\nirresolution, induce us to cast out those who would otherwise come to\nus for help; but we are also to remember that our power to help does\nnot extend beyond those whom the Father in his own gracious wisdom has\nseen fit to give to us as the seals to our apostleship (1 Cor. 9:2).\n\n\n 39 And this is the Father\u2019s will[229] which hath sent me,\n that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing,\n but should raise it up again at the last day.\n\n\n 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that[230]\n every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may\n have everlasting life: and I will[231] raise him up at the\n last day.\n\n [229] chaps. 10:28; 17:12; 18:9; Matt. 18:14; 2 Tim.\n 2:19.\n\n [230] verses 47, 54; ch. 3:15, 16.\n\n [231] ch. 11:25.\n\n=39, 40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that the all which\nhe has given me, from it I should lose nothing, but shall raise it up\nin the last day.= In omitting the word Father from verse 39 and\ninserting it in verse 40 I follow the best MSS. See _Alford_. The\nresurrection here spoken of is the resurrection of life, _i. e._, unto\neternal life (ch. 5:29), which is given only through Christ (ch.\n11:25; Phil. 3:10, 11).--=For this is the will of my Father, that\nevery one= (\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2, not \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd), masculine, not neuter; the _whole_ is given\nto the Son; but each one must come by and for himself to the\nSon.--=Seeing the Son.= Looking unto him, as those bitten in the\nwilderness looked unto the brazen serpent (ch. 3:14, 15; Numb. 21:9;\nIsa. 45:22).--=And having faith in him.= Making Christ the substance\nof his hope as well as the object of his faith (Heb. 11:1; ver. 29,\nnote).--=May have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last\nday.= These verses clearly imply (1) that there is nothing in any\nsecret decree or election of God, or in the nature or extent of the\nprovisions of divine grace, to limit the gift of eternal life or\nprevent any one from receiving it through faith in the Son; (2) that\nthe only condition required is one inherent in the nature of the case,\nnamely, a sincere belief in, and desire for, that spiritual life which\nalone is eternal and of which Christ is the supreme manifestation; (3)\nthat whoever has once thus looked to Christ with living faith has an\nabsolute assurance of preservation from the weakness of his own will,\nas well as from external temptation, an assurance afforded by Christ\u2019s\ndeclaration, \u201cOf all which he has given me I shall lose nothing.\u201d It\ndoes not imply a literal bodily resurrection. The literalism which so\nreads this promise is akin to that which misinterpreted Christ\u2019s\nlanguage respecting eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The whole\nspirit and tone of this discourse is poetic and metaphorical.\n\n\n 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the\n bread which came down from heaven.\n\n\n 42 And they said, Is[232] not this Jesus, the son of\n Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then\n that he saith, I came down from heaven?\n\n [232] Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22.\n\n=41, 42. The Jews then murmured at him.= The _Jews_ are in the usage of\nJohn the _Judeans_; here, those who had come from Jerusalem, or who,\ndwelling in Galilee, partook of the character of the more bigoted and\nsuperstitious dwellers in the southern province.--=Because he said, I\nam the bread=, etc. Their reference is to what he has said in verses\n33, 35, 38. Envy was the real cause of their murmuring. This claim to\nsuperiority offended their pride.--=Is not this Jesus the son of\nJoseph=, etc. Comp. ch. 7:27; Mark 6:3. The Christ they knew was the\nChrist according to the flesh, whom Paul declared he would not know (2\nCor. 5:16); the Christ who came down from heaven, that is, the divine\nSpirit working in him and manifesting itself through him, they\ndid not know. He is known and only can be known by spiritual\napprehension.--=How then saith this fellow= (\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2). There is\nimplied in the original Greek a contempt which may fairly be expressed\nby this translation. The same expression is so translated in Matt.\n12:24; 26:61; Luke 23:2; John 9:29.\n\n\n 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not\n among yourselves.\n\n\n 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent\n me draw[233] him: and I will raise him up at the last day.\n\n [233] Cant. 1:4.\n\n\n 45 It is written[234] in the prophets, And they shall be\n all taught of God. Every man[235] therefore that hath\n heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.\n\n [234] Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:34; Micah 4:2.\n\n [235] Matt. 11:27.\n\n=43-45. Jesus therefore answered=, * * * * =No one= (not, _no man_)\n=can come unto me except the Father which has sent me draw him=.\nParallel to this declaration is that of Matt. 16:17; the true\nknowledge of Christ is revealed to the soul by the Father. There has\nbeen much theological discussion as to the proper interpretation of\nthis passage. On the one hand, Calvin declares that \u201cit is therefore a\nfalse and profane assertion, that none are _drawn_ but those who are\nwilling to be _drawn_, as if man made himself obedient to God by his\nown efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what\nthey already have from himself, who has framed their hearts to obey\nhim;\u201d on the other hand, Adam Clark, representing the Arminian school\nof theology, thus interprets the divine drawing: \u201cA man is attracted\nby that which he delights in. Show green herbage to a sheep, he is\ndrawn by it; show nuts to a child, and he is drawn by them. They run\nwherever the person runs who shows these things; they run after him,\nbut they are not forced to follow; they run through the desire they\nfeel to get the things they delight in. So God draws man; he shows him\nhis wants--he shows the Saviour whom he has provided for him.\u201d The\ntrue interpretation of the declaration involves the long disputed and\nyet unsettled problem of the psychology of the will, what is the\nnature of and what are the limits to its freedom of action, a problem\nwhich belongs rather to the domain of mental science than to that of\ntheology or Biblical interpretation. In interpreting this passage,\nhowever, the student should consider: (1) the literal meaning of the\nword draw (\u1f15\u03bb\u03ba\u03c9). This primarily carries with it the idea of force,\nand is used by Homer of carrying one away captive; by Luke, of\ndragging persons before a court (Acts 16:19; comp. James 2:6); and by\nJohn himself of dragging a net (ch. 21:6, 11). Thus the metaphor\ninvolved in the word implies at least a certain resistance to the\ndivine love and a certain difficulty to be overcome by the divine\ndrawing. (2) Parallel teachings in the O. T. and N. T. (comp. Sol.\nSong 4:1; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; Luke 14:23, note; John 12:32; 1 Cor.\n1:9), where the word _called_ is parallel to the word _draw_ here\n(Phil. 2:12, 13). (3) Christ\u2019s own interpretation of the Father\u2019s\ndrawing, afforded by ver. 45. They that have learned of the Father are\nthey that are drawn by him. (4) The nature of that coming to Christ\nwhich is the object of the divine drawing. \u201cWe do not come to Christ\nby walking, but by believing; not by the movement of the body, but by\nthe free will of the heart. * * * * Think not that thou art drawn\nagainst thy will, for the mind is drawn by love.\u201d--(_Augustine._)\nInterpreting this passage in the light of these considerations, I\nunderstand not that God drags the unwilling by an irresistible grace,\nnor merely the willing by placing before the will in its natural\ncondition such objects--a sense of its needs and a revelation of its\nSaviour--as attract the unsatisfied heart to himself; but that he\nmakes the soul willing in the day of his power, working in us both to\nwill and to do of his good pleasure (Ps. 110:3; Phil. 2:13).--=It is\nwritten in the prophets= (Isa. 54:13), =They shall be all taught of\nGod=. The _all_ here appears clearly from the reference in Isaiah to\nbe all the children of God, not all humanity.--=Every one, therefore,\nhearing from the Father and learning, comes unto me.= Emphasis is\nplaced by the structure of the sentence in the original Greek on the\nword _learning_. The Pharisees heard, but they did not learn. He that\ndoes not reverently recognize the divine glory in the life and\ncharacter of Christ, who sees no beauty in him that he should desire\nhim, does not possess true piety, has not heard and learned of God.\n\n\n 46 Not[236] that any man hath seen the Father, save he\n which is of God,[237] he hath seen the Father.\n\n [236] ch. 5:37.\n\n [237] Luke 10:22.\n\n=46. Not that any one has seen the Father.= The object of this verse,\nwhich is parenthetical, seems to be to guard the Jews against an\nunspiritual interpretation of his words.--=Save he which is from God.=\nEvidently Jesus refers to himself. Comp. ver. 35, and observe how\nhabitually he distinguishes himself from man, never classing himself\nwith men. \u201cImagine a human creature saying to the world, \u2018I came forth\nfrom the Father--ye are from beneath, I am from above;\u2019 facing all the\nintelligence and even the philosophy of the world, and saying, in bold\nassurance, \u2018Behold, a greater than Solomon is here\u2019--\u2018I am the light\nof the world\u2019--\u2018the way, the truth, and the life;\u2019 publishing to all\npeoples and religions, \u2018No man cometh to the Father, but by me;\u2019\npromising openly in his death, \u2018I will draw all men unto me;\u2019\naddressing the Infinite Majesty, and testifying, \u2018I have glorified\nthee on the earth;\u2019 calling to the human race, \u2018Come unto me\u2019--\u2018follow\nme;\u2019 laying his hand upon all the dearest and most intimate affections\nof life, and demanding a precedent love: \u2018He that loveth father or\nmother more than me is not worthy of me.\u2019\u201d--(_Bushnell._)\n\n\n 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[238] He that believeth\n on me hath everlasting life.\n\n [238] verse 40.\n\n\n 48 I[239] am that bread of life.\n\n [239] verses 33, 35, 51.\n\n=47, 48. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hath faith hath\neternal life.= The words _on me_ are wanting in the best manuscripts,\nare omitted by Tischendorf and Alford, and are queried by Schaff;\ninternal evidence is against them. The declaration is generic; faith\nin the largest sense of that word--the power which lays hold upon the\ninvisible and the hope which reaches after it (Heb. 11:1), a faith\nwhich may be and is exercised by those who have never known Christ\n(Rom. 2:7), is the essential condition of spiritual life. This life is\nnot, as in our English version, merely \u201ceverlasting life,\u201d but life\neternal, _i. e._, the spiritual life which is created in the soul when\nit is born from above, which is nurtured in the soul that follows\nafter that it may apprehend Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:12), the fruits of\nwhich are love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal. 5:22, 23). This eternal life is\na present possession; he that hath faith already hath this life.--=I\nam the bread of that life.= Faith may exist without Christ, as it did\nin the O. T. prophets and patriarchs, and as it does in greater or\nless measure in some at least of those in heathen lands; but Christ is\nthe bread of that life; by him it is fed, strengthened, and made to\ngrow; by him faith in invisible things is made rich and strong. The\nuniversal effect of a pure Christianity has been to turn the mind away\nfrom material things to unseen realities (2 Cor. 3:18).\n\n\n 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and[240]\n are dead.\n\n [240] Zech. 1:5.\n\n\n 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a\n man may eat thereof, and[241] not die.\n\n [241] verse 58.\n\n\n 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: it\n any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the\n bread that I will give is my flesh,[242] which I will give\n for the life[243] of the world.\n\n [242] Heb. 10:5, 10, 20.\n\n [243] ch. 3:16; 1 John 2:2.\n\n=49-51.= In these verses Christ marks the contrast between the bread\ngiven in the wilderness through Moses, to which the people had referred\n(ver. 31), and for a repetition of which they had asked, and the\nspiritual bread of which this material manna was but a type. That manna\nwas temporary in its effects, the fathers were dead, of this spiritual\nbread if one eats he shall _not_ die, it is eternal in its effects;\nthat bread was material, dead, this is a living and immortal bread;\nthat was given to a few, the Jewish nation, this descends from heaven,\nthat any one may eat of it, it is for universal humanity; that bread\nwas bestowed without suffering, this bread is a divine sacrifice given\nfor the sake of saving others from suffering.--=This= (fellow) =is the\nbread=. They had said (ver. 42), \u201cHow then saith this fellow?\u201d He\nreplies, repeating their language of contempt, This (fellow, \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2) is\nthe bread which descends from heaven. Observe that his language here,\nas throughout this discourse, implies his pre-existence, if not his\nsupernatural birth.--=In order that any one may eat of it and may not\ndie.= Not merely \u201cthat one may eat;\u201d his language, \u201cthat any one may\neat,\u201d implies the universality of divine grace; the bread is for\nwhosoever will.--=I am the living bread.= Not equivalent to\nlife-giving, for which another Greek word (not \u03b6\u03cc\u03c9, but \u03b6\u03bf\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9)\nwould have been used. Here, as in John 4:10, is signified the\nspiritual life of the food itself which Christ affords by the bestowal\nof himself. It is true that Christ is life-giving, but he is so\nbecause he is ever-living. He _is_ the life, therefore he _gives_\nlife.--=If any one eat of this bread.= Again the universality of\ndivine grace is implied. Comp. Acts 2:38, 39, note and refs.\nthere.--=He shall live unto eternity.= Not merely _forever_. The idea\nhere, as everywhere throughout the N. T., is not merely an endless\nexistence, which might be no boon, but an immortal, a divine life, the\nvery life of God, making the new-born soul a true son of God.--=And\nthe bread which I will give.= Observe the future tense. He speaks\ntherefore of a gift yet to be perfected by his passion and death.--=Is\nmy flesh, which I will give for the sake of= (\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1) =the life of the\nworld=. Comp. ch. 3:16. It seems to me that these enigmatical words\nare added to guard the church from falling into the error of supposing\nthat Christ\u2019s _doctrine_ is the bread of life, and that to hear and\nbelieve his words as a divine teacher is to secure the life eternal of\nwhich he speaks. This bread is not merely the teaching nor the example\nof Christ; the sacrifice is an essential principle of that spiritual\nfood which he has provided for the world\u2019s life.\n\n\n 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying,\n How[244] can this man give us _his_ flesh to eat?\n\n [244] ch. 3:9.\n\n=52. How can this= (fellow) =give us his flesh to eat=? The Judeans\nhere interpret Christ\u2019s words with precisely the literalism with which\nthe church of Rome has interpreted them since. The rest of the\ndiscourse Christ devotes to guarding his hearers against this\nmisapprehension of literal and prosaic natures, and to emphasizing the\nmystical doctrine to the elucidation of which the whole discourse is\ndevoted. Verses 53-55 reiterate and re-emphasize the truth that the\nsoul must feed on Christ, receive him, his life, his death, his\ncharacter, as the supply of its own spiritual life; verses 57-59 and\nverses 61-63 interpret what he means by the metaphor. In the\ninterpretation of Christ\u2019s symbolic language here we are to guard\nourselves against simplifying it, either by a literal rendering on the\none hand, or, on the other, by that process of rationalism which,\nunder pretence of interpreting a metaphor, does away with it\naltogether. If there were nothing mystical in the doctrine, we may be\nsure that Christ would not have clothed it in language seemingly so\nfull of mysticism.\n\n\n 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto\n you, Except[245] ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and\n drink his blood, ye have no life in you.\n\n [245] Matt. 26:26, 28.\n\n\n 54 Whoso[246] eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath\n eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.\n\n [246] verse 40.\n\n\n 55 For my flesh is meat indeed,[247] and my blood is drink\n indeed.\n\n [247] Ps. 4:7.\n\n=53-55. Therefore Jesus said unto them.= Therefore connects what\nfollows with what has preceded; he emphasizes and explains the eating\nand drinking, in response to their interruption in ver. 53.--=Verily,\nverily, I say unto you.= These words give a solemn emphasis to the\ndeclaration which follows.--=Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of\nman.= That is, of the Messiah (Matt. 10:23, note).--=And drink his\nblood.= The use of animal blood in any form was prohibited to the\nIsraelites as food (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26, 27; 17:10-14; 19:26;\nDeut. 12:16, 23; 15:23), and was exceedingly odious to the Jewish\nthought. Moreover, to touch even the corpse of a man rendered the Jew\nunclean. It is not, therefore, strange that Christ\u2019s language here\nshould have offended many even of his disciples (ver. 60).--=Ye have\nno life in you.= The mere physical life is accounted in the N. T. no\nlife at all. The true life is that of God in the soul, the absence of\nwhich is death.--=Whoso eateth my flesh.= The Greek verb rendered in\nboth places _eat_ is different from that used above. The word here\n(\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b3\u03c9) signifies literally to _chew_ or _masticate_, and seems to me\nto have been substituted by Christ for the more general one (\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd),\nin order to add still further emphasis to the doctrine which he is\nexpounding.--=And drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.= A present\npossession. See ver. 47, note.--=And I will raise him up at the last\nday.= This is one of the passages on which the advocates of the\ndoctrine of conditional immortality base their belief. The promise of\nresurrection here certainly is limited to those who through faith have\nreceived the gift of eternal life.--=For my flesh is true meat and my\nblood is true drink.= To Christ the material universe was but a\nshadow, and the realities were those things of which the material\nuniverse is a type. \u201cFood and drink are not here mere metaphors;\nrather are our common material food and drink mere shadows and\nimperfect types of this only real reception of refreshment and\nnourishment into the being.\u201d--(_Alford._) In the interpretation of\nChrist\u2019s language here, the student must remember the declaration\nrespecting him, \u201cWithout a parable spake he not unto them\u201d (Mark\n4:34); unquestionably the language here is parabolic. It is also true\nthat the phrases eating and drinking were used among the Jews in a\nmetaphorical sense, and that bread especially was employed among them\nas a symbol for doctrine (Isa. 3:1; Jer. 15:16; Lightfoot on John\n6:51; Geikie\u2019s Life of Christ, ch. 44, note c). It seems to me,\nhowever, very clear not only that Christ here means something more\nthan receiving his doctrines, but that he employs his peculiar\nlanguage for the express purpose of emphasizing the truth that it is\nnot merely enough to receive him as a teacher. If this had been his\nmeaning, it would have been easy to correct the misapprehension of his\nJewish hearers, and remove the offence which they felt at his\ndiscourse. This he does not do. On the contrary, he declares, not that\nthey must eat the _bread_ of the Son of man, but that they must eat\n_his flesh_ and drink _his blood_ (ver. 53); in a slightly different\nform, he reiterates this declaration in ver. 54; and finally, to avoid\nthe possibility of the misinterpretation which substitutes his\nteaching for his personal presence and influence, he adds the emphatic\ndeclaration of ver. 55. If something more than accepting and following\nthe teaching of Christ is not meant by these verses, then it would\nseem that Christ has embodied a very simple truth in very\nunnecessarily mystical language. That more than this is meant I take\nto be declared unmistakably by verses 53-55; what more than this is\nmeant it is the object of verses 56-58 to show. The commentators have\ndiscussed at great length the question what relation the solemn\nassertions of these verses bear to the Lord\u2019s Supper. There are three\ngeneral opinions: (1) that no reference to the Lord\u2019s Supper is\nintended; (2) that the whole passage exclusively relates to the Lord\u2019s\nSupper prophetically; (3) that the idea involved in the Lord\u2019s Supper,\nbut not the ordinance itself, is referred to. For discussion of these\nopinions, see Alford\u2019s note. To me it seems clear that Christ here\nteaches by a word-parable the same truth which he subsequently\nembodies in a parable in action in the ordinance of the Supper;\nwhether he prophetically refers to it or not is a question of no great\nimportance.\n\n\n 56 He that eateth[248] my flesh, and drinketh my blood,\n dwelleth[249] in me, and I in him.\n\n [248] Lam. 3:24.\n\n [249] ch. 15:4; 1 John 3:24; 4:15, 16.\n\n\n 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the\n Father: so[250] he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.\n\n [250] 1 Cor. 15:22.\n\n\n 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as\n your fathers[251] did eat manna, and are dead: he that\n eateth of this bread shall live for ever.\n\n [251] verses 49-51.\n\n=56-58. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abides= (\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9)\n=in me and I in him=. This result of the eating and drinking\ninterprets the kind of eating and drinking signified. The same truth\nis elsewhere interpreted by other metaphors, ask by that of being\nengrafted on Christ (John 15:4, 5); being rooted in him (Ephes. 3:17);\nbeing joined to him as the body to the head (Ephes. 4:15, 16); being\nmarried to him (Ephes. 5:23); receiving him as a temple receives and\nis made sacred by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 3:16); being clothed with\nhim (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27).--=And I in him.= As Christ is in the\nFather and the Father in Christ, so the disciples are to be one in\nthem (John 17:21).--=As the living Father hath sent me and I live by\nthe Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.= This one\nverse should have prevented the three current errors of interpretation\nin this chapter: (1) that spiritual life is dependent on a literal\nfeeding on Christ\u2019s body and blood; (2) that it is dependent on a\nsacramental feeding on the sacred symbols of his body; (3) that it\nrequires only a belief in him as a religious teacher. How did Christ\nlive by the Father? Certainly not by any literal eating of the\nFather\u2019s flesh or drinking of the Father\u2019s blood; nor by any symbol or\nceremonial whatever; nor yet by any mere hearing and obeying of the\nFather\u2019s words. The Father was personally present in Christ; Christ,\nby his words and his acts, manifested the indwelling glory of the\nFather; so Christ fed on the Father because the Father was the source\nand supply of his spiritual life. In like manner we feed on Christ,\nnot when we merely accept and endeavor to follow his precepts, but\nwhen, under the direct personal influence of his spiritual presence,\nwe manifest his glory unto the world, having not merely a spirit like\nChrist, but having the very spirit of Christ himself in us (Rom. 8:9,\n10).--=This is that bread which came down from heaven.= Christ thus\ninterprets his own previous metaphor.--=Not as your fathers did eat\nand are dead.= Again he guards the Jews against their literal\ninterpretation; the eating of which he has spoken is not the physical\neating for the supply of the body; this can never give true life.\n\nAfter this chapter had gone to press a remarkable article from the pen\nof Dean Stanley appeared on \u201cThe Eucharist\u201d in the Nineteenth Century\n(May, 1878), in which he arrives at substantially the same conclusions\nthat I have arrived at in these notes, and enforces them with his\nusual eloquence and learning. He urges that in all religious\nordinances we ought to try to get beneath the phrases we use, and not\nto rest satisfied with the words, however excellent, till we have\nascertained their meaning; that Christ\u2019s words here and in the\nappointment of the last supper as a permanent memorial ordinance are\nevidently metaphorical; that the very strangeness of the metaphor\nshould turn our thoughts from the outward form to the inward essence;\nthat the body and flesh signify the personality and character of\nChrist; that we must incorporate in ourselves, that is in our\nmoral natures, the substance--the moral substance--of the teaching\nand character of Jesus Christ; that this is the only true\ntransubstantiation; that the blood of Christ is his spirit, the inmost\nessence of his character, the self of his self; and that to drink his\nblood is to imbibe this inmost spirit; that this spirit is love or\ncharity, which is throughout the New Testament represented as the\nfundamental essence of the highest life of God, and therefore of his\nchildren; and he interprets verses 53-56 here, in accordance with\nthese principles, as follows: \u201cThis is one of those startling\nexpressions used by Christ to show us that he intends to drive us from\nthe letter to the spirit, by which he shatters the crust and shell in\norder to force us to the kernel. It is as if he said: \u2018It is not\nenough for you to see the outward face of the Son of man, or hear his\noutward words, or touch his outward vesture. That is not himself. It\nis not enough that you walk by his side, or hear others talk of him or\nuse terms of affection and endearment toward him. You must go deeper\nthan this; you must go to his very inmost heart, to the very core and\nmarrow of his being. You must not only read and understand, but you\nmust mark, learn, and inwardly digest, and make part of yourselves,\nthat which alone can be part of the human spirit and conscience.\u2019 It\nexpresses, with regard to the life and death of Jesus Christ, the same\ngeneral truth as is expressed when St. Paul says, \u2018Put ye on the Lord\nJesus Christ\u2019--that is, clothe yourselves with his spirit as with a\ngarment; or again, \u2018Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ\nJesus.\u2019 It is the same general truth as when our Lord himself says, \u2018I\nam the vine; ye are the branches.\u2019\u201d\n\n\n 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in\n Capernaum.\n\n\n 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard\n _this_, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?\n\n=59, 60. In the synagogue.= I believe the whole discourse to have\nbeen delivered in the synagogue. See Prel. Note above.--=Many of his\ndisciples.= Not of the twelve, but of those who had been theretofore\ninclined to accept him as a teacher.--=This is a hard saying.= Rather,\n_an impious saying_, or at least hard in the sense of harsh and\nrepulsive, rather than in that of merely difficult. To the Jews then,\nas to the world ever since, a system of religion which proposes an\namelioration of condition only by a revolution of moral character, by\na new and divine life, seemed not only not attractive, but\nrepellent.--=Who can hear it?= That is, Who can stay and listen to\nsuch teaching as this?\n\n\n 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured\n at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?\n\n\n 62 _What_ and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend[252] up\n where he was before?\n\n [252] ch. 3:13; Mark 16:19; Ephes. 4:8-10.\n\n\n 63 It[253] is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh\n profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, _they_\n are spirit, and _they_ are life.\n\n [253] 2 Cor. 3:6.\n\n=61-63. When Jesus knew in himself.= Either miraculously or by a subtle\nsense which the delicately organized often possess.--=Doth this offend\nyou?= _Stumble you._ See Matt. 5:29, note; 11:6, note. The teaching of\nthe disciple, as the teaching of Christ, will sometimes be to men a\nstumbling-stone and a rock of offence.--=What and if ye shall see the\nSon of man ascend up where he was before?= Another admonition that\nthey are not to take his words in a material sense, for in his\nglorified body he is to ascend into heaven before their sight. The\nlanguage is a strong testimony to the historical verity of the\nascension.--=The spirit is the life-giver, the flesh profiteth nothing\nwhatsoever=; _i. e._, It is my spirit in your spirit which will give\neternal life, not my flesh in your flesh. This is the natural meaning\nof these words, and they are to be taken in their material sense, not\nwith such qualifications as that of Augustine, \u201cThe flesh alone and by\nitself profiteth not,\u201d _i. e._, without the blessing of the spirit; or\nsuch as that of Alford, \u201cHe does not say _my_ flesh profiteth nothing,\nbut _the_ flesh.\u201d _The_ flesh is _my_ flesh; for it is only of his own\nflesh that he has spoken at all in this discourse. The flesh of\nChrist, if it could be miraculously reproduced by the benediction of a\npriest, would still be of no profit.--=The words which I have spoken\nto you, they are spirit and they are life.= The meaning is not that\nChrist\u2019s words are themselves life-giving, though this is true; but\nthat the words which he has just spoken to them respecting his flesh\nand his blood relate to the spiritual realm and the eternal life, and\nare to be so interpreted.\n\n\n 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus\n knew[254] from the beginning who they were that believed\n not, and who should betray him.\n\n [254] Rom. 8:29; 2 Tim. 2:19.\n\n\n 65 And he said, Therefore said I[255] unto you, that no\n man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my\n Father.\n\n [255] verses 44, 45.\n\n=64, 65. But there are some among you who have not faith.= Such could\nnot receive the teaching of Christ, for it is true in spiritual as in\nphysical gifts, according to one\u2019s faith, so is Christ\u2019s blessing\n(Matt. 9:29).--=For Jesus knew from the beginning=, etc. Compare this\ndistinct statement of Christ\u2019s foreknowledge with Christ\u2019s own\nstatement of the limitations of his knowledge in Mark 13:32. The\ncontrast illustrates one of the inexplicable mysteries of Christ\u2019s\nnature, whose knowledge transcended that of man, yet in his earthly\ncondition was less than that of omniscience. To the question, Why, if\nhe foreknew the betrayal of Judas, did he ordain him as an apostle?\nthere is no satisfactory answer. The problem of divine foreknowledge\nand human free-will, of that divine law the inflexibility of which\nscience has in these later days so strikingly demonstrated, and that\nfreedom of moral action to which universal consciousness testifies, is\none which transcends the limits of the human intellect.--=Therefore\nsaid I unto you that no one can come unto me except it were given unto\nhim of my Father.= Judas and the withdrawing disciples had, in a\nsense, come unto him; they had followed him, accepted him as their\nMaster, and had given him for a time their allegiance. Yet they had\nnot really come to him, for no one truly comes except he is drawn by a\ndivine influence. _Therefore_ connects the declaration of ver. 44 with\nthe fact here stated that some of the disciples were without true\nfaith. The practical warning to us here is this, that we have need to\nexamine ourselves that we may know whether our coming to Christ has\nbeen merely that of a natural inclination or that of obedience to the\nimpulse of the Spirit of God.\n\n\n 66 From that _time_ many of his disciples went back,[256]\n and walked no more with him.\n\n [256] Zeph. 1:6; Luke 9:62; Heb. 10:38.\n\n\n 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?\n\n=66, 67. From this many of his disciples went back.= _From this_\nindicates both, as the English version represents, the _time_ from\nwhich this withdrawal dated, and also the _cause_ from which it\nproceeded. Observe that faithful preaching will drive some apparent\ndisciples away from Christ. The minister, like his Master, will ever\nhave the fan in his hand, and the gospel which he preaches will in\nsome measure separate the chaff from the grain. This was illustrated\nin the experience of the apostle Paul. See Acts 13:44-46; 14:4; 17:12,\n13, etc. \u201cIt will never be possible for us to exercise such caution\nthat the doctrine of Christ shall not be the occasion of offence to\nmany; because the reprobate, who are devoted to destruction, suck\nvenom from the most wholesome food and gall from honey. The Son of God\nundoubtedly knew what was useful, and yet we see that he cannot avoid\noffending many of his disciples.\u201d--(_Calvin._)--=Then said Jesus also\nto the twelve, Ye do not also wish to go away?= The tone is one of\npathetic protest; the language that of one who felt keenly the\ndesertion, and yearned for an expression of the fidelity of his\nimmediate friends, not as an assurance, for he knew from the beginning\nwho believed not, and therefore who believed and would endure, but as\nan utterance of loyalty and love. At the same time he leads them to a\nconfession which draws them more closely and binds them more tenderly\nto himself.\n\n\n 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we\n go? thou hast the[257] words of eternal life.\n\n [257] Acts 5:20; 7:38.\n\n\n 69 And [258]we believe and are sure that thou art that\n Christ, the Son of the living God.\n\n [258] chaps. 1:29; 11:27; Matt. 16:16.\n\n=68, 69. Then Simon Peter answered.= As in Matt. 16:16, he speaks\nquickly, for all.--=Lord, to whom shall we go?= To go away from\nChrist is to go out even here into the darkness; unto loneliness,\nhopelessness, despair.--=Thou hast the words of eternal life.= As\nMartha\u2019s utterance of her faith in John 11:27, so Peter\u2019s declaration\nhere is not wholly responsive to the discourse that has preceded. He\ndoes not fully comprehend the meaning of that personal feeding on\nChrist of which the Lord has been speaking; but he believes that\nChrist\u2019s words, though he does not fully understand them, are words\nof, that is full of, eternal life, and that he is the Messiah and the\nSon of God. And in this faith he is content to await humbly till the\nfull meaning of Christ\u2019s enigmatical discourse shall be revealed to\nhim, as it could not be till Christ\u2019s death, resurrection, and\nascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit.\n\n\n 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and\n one of you is a[259] devil?\n\n [259] ch. 13:27.\n\n\n 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot _the son_ of Simon: for he it\n was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.\n\n=70, 71. Have not I chosen you twelve?= Chosen them, not to be heirs\nof eternal life, but to be apostles; in the inner circle of his\ndisciples; receiving his most sacred influence and intimate\ninstruction.--=And one of you is a devil.= Not _the_ devil; not merely\n_devilish_; but belonging to the kingdom of the devil; one of his\nministers and agents. To Christ all men belong to either the one or\nthe other kingdom. He here, as it were, looks forward to the time when\nJudas should have gone to his own place, forecasts his future, and\ncharacterizes him in the present by what he is to be when the germinal\nsin, now in him, has brought forth its final fruit. On the character\nof Judas Iscariot, see Vol. I, p. 307, Note on character and career of\nJudas Iscariot.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\nCh. 7:1-52. JESUS AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. THE DEMAND OF THE\nUNBELIEVER FOR AN EXHIBITORY CHRIST.--THE WORLD NEVER READY FOR ITS\nREFORMERS AND REGENERATORS; ALWAYS READY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FOR IT\nNO MESSAGE.--THE TRUE AUTHORITY AND ORDINATION OF THE CHRISTIAN\nTEACHER.--LAY PREACHING SANCTIONED BY THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST.--THE LAW\nOF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH AND THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN JUDGMENT.--WHENCE\nCHRIST COMETH; WHITHER HE GOETH.--THE POWER OF FAITH: TO RECEIVE; TO\nIMPART.--THE MORAL POWER OF CHRIST ILLUSTRATED.\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--Between the close of ch. 6 and the beginning of ch.\n7 occurred a period of retirement, employed by Christ in giving to his\napostles especial instructions concerning the kingdom of God. The\nfullest account of these instructions is afforded in Matthew, chaps.\n15, 16, 17, 18. During this time occurred the healing of the\nSyrophenician woman\u2019s daughter and the transfiguration. The public\nministry of Christ in Galilee was substantially brought to an end by\nhis sermon in the synagogue at Capernaum and his consequent rejection\nby the people. The ministry in Judea begins with this chapter and\ncontinues to ver. 39 of the tenth chapter, verses 40-42 affording a\nconcise statement of that ministry in Perea, of which Luke alone gives\nany extended account. The journey to Jerusalem mentioned below (ver.\n10) is, I think erroneously, identified by some harmonists with that\ndescribed by Luke, ch. 9:51, 52. That journey was immediately before\nhis passion, and was notably public, messengers going before his face\nto prepare the way for him; this was \u201cas it were in secret,\u201d and six\nmonths of instruction in Judea and Perea intervened between it and his\ndeath. See Luke 9:51-56, Prel. Note, and Tabular Harmony, Vol. I, p.\n45.\n\n\n 1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would\n not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.\n\n\n[Illustration: BOOTH ON THE HOUSETOP.]\n\n\n 2 Now the Jews\u2019 feast[260] of tabernacles was at hand.\n\n [260] Lev. 23:34.\n\n\n 3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and\n go into Jud\u00e6a, that thy disciples also may see the works\n that thou doest.\n\n\n 4 For _there is_ no man _that_ doeth anything in secret,\n and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these\n things, shew thyself to the world.\n\n=2-4. Now the Jews\u2019 feast of Tabernacles was at hand.= This was one of\nthe three greater festivals to be observed by Israel. It was also\ncalled the feast of Ingathering, from the fact that it was held at the\nyear\u2019s end, when all the labors of the field were consummated. It thus\nresembled nearly our own Thanksgiving Day. It commenced on the\nfifteenth of the seventh month, answering to our October, and lasted\nseven days. It was instituted to commemorate the dwelling in tents\nwhen in the desert; accordingly, while the feast lasted the people\ndwelt in booths or tents placed on the flat roofs of the houses, in\nthe courts of the temple, and in the squares and open places, and the\nstreets when their width allowed. The particular sacrifices to be\noffered are detailed in Num. 29:1-38, and notices of the observance\nare to be found in Neh. 8:13-18; Hos. 12:9; Zech. 14:16-19.--=His\nbrethren.= Their names are given in Matt. 13:55. I believe his half\nbrothers, children of Joseph and Mary, are intended. See Note on\nBrethren of the Lord, Vol. I, p. 187.--=That thy disciples also may\nsee the works that thou doest.= This was after the commission, the\nmissionary tour, and the return of the twelve (Matt., ch. 10), through\nwhose ministry probably many had become in a certain loose sense\ndisciples of our Lord, regarding him as a Jewish rabbi, and perhaps as\nan inspired prophet, who had never seen him personally. The language\nof Christ\u2019s brothers is that of contempt. Leave this province, said\nthey, and go up into Judea, the religious centre of the Holy Land, and\nshow yourself to those who have heard of you, and exhibit to them what\nyou can do. Additional significance is given to this language if we\nremember that it was used after a period of retirement of more than\nsix months. See above.--=For no one does anything in secret, and yet\nseeks himself to be frank and open= (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3). The intimation is\nthat the reason why Jesus does not make more public exhibition of\nhimself and his work is that he is deceiving the people. His brothers\nattempt to compel him to adopt their policy by imputing to him,\nbecause of his course, a lack of frankness and fearlessness.--=If thou\ndo these things, show thyself to the world.= _If_ implies a doubt. In\na worldly view the policy of these brothers would seem wise; but it\nwas really, in a more subtle form, the policy suggested by Satan in\nthe second temptation (Matt. 4:5-7). Christ would be accepted by faith\nand love, not by wonder and fear; for the sake of his truth, not\nbecause of his miracles. These he persistently refused to show to the\nworld as a means of compelling allegiance.\n\n\n 5 For neither did his brethren[261] believe in him.\n\n [261] Mark 3:21.\n\n=5. For neither had his brethren faith in him.= This verse seems to me\nquite conclusive that none of the brethren here mentioned were among\nthe twelve, and therefore that James, Simon, and Judas, the brethren\nof the Lord, cannot be the apostles who bore the same name. They\nafterward became believers (Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5). They may at this\ntime have recognized that Jesus possessed extraordinary powers,\nwithout recognizing in him the Messiah, or even an inspired teacher,\nwhose instructions they were willing to follow. \u201cThey expected him to\nmake a startling exhibition of his power to the eye. They did not\nbelieve in HIM; for faith rests upon that which is not seen; it\nconfesses an inward vital power.\u201d--(_Maurice._)\n\n\n 6 Then Jesus said unto them, My[262] time is not yet come:\n but your time is alway ready.\n\n [262] verses 8, 30; chaps. 2:4; 8:20.\n\n\n 7 The[263] world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because\n I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.\n\n [263] ch. 15:19.\n\n\n 8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this\n feast; for my time is not yet full come.\n\n\n 9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode _still_\n in Galilee.\n\n=6-9. My time is not yet; but your time is always prepared.= The\ncontext indicates the meaning. They had urged him to show himself to\nthe world; his answer is, My time to show myself to the world is not\nyet. This manifestation of himself is gradual and successive; he\npartially manifested himself in the discourse delivered in Jerusalem\nat this very feast (see vers. 16, 18, 28, 29, 37, 38); more fully by\nhis subsequent discourses in the temple during the Passion week\n(Matthew, chaps. 21, 22, 23); still more fully by his crucifixion, in\nwhich was disclosed that love which is the wisdom and power of God\nunto salvation (1 Cor. 1:24), and in which, even at the time and by\nthe manner of his death, his divine Sonship was revealed to the Roman\ncenturion (Mark 15:39); yet again by his resurrection from the dead\n(Acts 2:32-36; 3:15); increasingly in the ages since, by his personal\npresence and power in the church (Matt. 28:18, 20; Rom. 1:3, 4); a\nmanifestation to be finally consummated when he is revealed from\nheaven in his second coming (Matt. 24:27; Col. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:7). For\nthis final coming the church is ever preparing the world, casting up a\nhighway for him; and not till this highway is completed and he comes\nagain shall all flesh see the salvation of God (Luke 3:4-6). The time\nof his brothers was always prepared; for the world is always ready for\nhim who has no message for it. \u201cIf I,\u201d said Luther, \u201cwould speak what\nthe Papists like to hear, I would be very glad, too, to take lodgings\nwith the Bishop of Magdeburg at Rome.\u201d \u201cThe Son of man feels all the\ndifference between those whose time was always ready, who could go up\nto the feasts whenever it pleased them, merely with the expectation of\nmeeting friends and mixing in a crowd, and him who had the straitening\nconsciousness of a message which he must bear, of a baptism which he\nmust be baptized with.\u201d--(_Maurice._)--=The world cannot hate you=,\netc. Comp. chaps. 15:18; 17:14; 1 John 3:13; Luke 6:26. He that would\npreach the gospel of salvation to the world must first testify of it\nthat its deeds are evil. The Holy Spirit convinces the world of\nrighteousness only after convincing it of sin (John 16:8, 9). For\nillustrations of Christ\u2019s preaching against the works of the world,\nsee Matt. 5:20; 6:1, 2, 5, 16; 7:22; 11:16-24; 12:39-15; Luke 6:46;\n10:12-16; 11:45-54; 12:54-57, etc. A study of the preaching of Christ\nand the apostles, and of the writings of Paul, will show that the\ndivine method is always to convince of sin as a preparation for\nproclaiming the good news of salvation from it.--=I go not unto this\nfeast.= The word yet is not in the original, though it probably\ncorrectly interprets the real meaning of Christ\u2019s answer. This was\nnot, =I shall not go= (future), but, =I am not now going= (present).\nPerhaps Christ did not know whether he should go or not; he who acted\nconstantly under the guidance of the Divine Spirit may not have\nreceived guidance on this point. It would at all events have defeated\nhis purpose to have gone up with those who were determined that he\nshould make an exhibition of himself and his work. There is no ground\nfor either the reproach that he deceived his brethren, or that he\nacted in a fickle manner in subsequently going up to the feast.\n\n\n 10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up\n unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.\n\n\n 11 Then[264] the Jews sought him at the feast, and said,\n Where is he?\n\n [264] ch. 11:56.\n\n\n 12 And[265] there was much murmuring among the people\n concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others\n said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.\n\n [265] ch. 9:16.\n\n\n 13 Howbeit, no man spake openly of him, for fear of the\n Jews.\n\n=10-13. Not openly, but as it were in secret.= Not _secretly_, but _as\nif_ in secret, that is, quietly, unostentatiously, _incognito_, in\ncontrast to the way in which his brothers wished him to go up. \u201cNot in\nthe company of a caravan of pilgrims or in any other way of outward\nobservation, but so that the journey to that feast is represented as\nmade in secrecy, and consequently quite differently from his last entry\nat the feast of the Passover.\u201d--(_Meyer._) The description of this\njourney to Jerusalem renders it improbable that it is to be identified\nwith the journey described in Luke 9:51, 52. See Prel. Note.--=Then\nthe Jews sought him.= By the _Jews_ John generally if not invariably\nmeans the inhabitants of Judea, in contradistinction to the other\ninhabitants of the Holy Land. See ch. 6:41, note.--=Where is that\nfellow= (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2)? The language is derisive. \u201cThus contemptuously can\nthey speak of the man, that they cannot name him.\u201d--(_Luther._)--=And\nthere was much murmuring.= The original (\u03b3\u03bf\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2) implies suppressed\ndiscourse.--=Some indeed said.= The Greek particle which I have\nrendered _indeed_ (\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd) implies a concession, at the same time\npointing forward to something antithetic. The implication is that\namong the Judeans the believers were a minority.--=No! but he\ndeceiveth the people.= He that is popular with the multitude is\ngenerally looked upon with aversion by the hierarchy.--=No one spoke\nopenly.= \u201cBoth mistrusted the hierarchy; even those hostile in their\njudgment were afraid, so long as they had not given their official\ndecision, that their verdict might be reversed. A true indication of\nan utterly Jesuitical domination of the people.\u201d--(_Meyer._) Hostility\nto Christianity fears nothing so much as free discussion; and it quite\naccords with human nature that the consideration of Christ\u2019s claims by\nthe people at all should be dreaded by the priesthood. The\ninterpretation of Alford, Godet, Tholuck, and others, that only the\nfriends of Christ feared to speak openly, is in direct conflict with\nthe explicit language of the narrative. Maurice pictures the scene\nwell: \u201cIt is a hum of voices. There is a fear of something, the people\ndo not well know of what. It is a fear of the Jews; the apostle says\neach fears the other. There is a concentrated Jewish feeling in the\nSanhedrim, among the rulers, which all tremble at. Till that has been\npronounced--above all, while there is a suspicion that it will come\nforth in condemnation--it is not wise for any to commit themselves.\nBrethren, do we not know that this is a true story? Must it not have\nhappened in Jerusalem then, for would it not happen in London now?\u201d\n\n\n 14 Now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the\n temple, and taught.\n\n\n 15 And[266] the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this\n man letters, having never learned?\n\n [266] Matt. 13:54.\n\n=14, 15. About the midst of the feast.= Bengel calculates that on this\nyear the middle of the feast would be the Sabbath; the temple would in\nthat case be especially crowded, and the day would suggest the remarks\nrespecting the Sabbath.--=Jesus went up into the temple and taught.=\nHe came to Judea privately, he went into the temple publicly; he would\nnot exhibit himself, he would not conceal his doctrine.--=And the\nJudeans marvelled, saying.= The form of the question which follows\nindicates a hostile spirit; but it may have been raised, not by the\nscribes or teachers (_Meyer_, _Alford_), but by the people\n(_Tholuck_).--=How knoweth this fellow learning, never having been\ntaught?= \u201cA rule analogous to that which still prevails in most church\ncommunions forbade any rabbi to teach new truths except he was a\nregular graduate of one of the theological schools. He might\ncatechise, but he could not preach. This rule the Jews cited against\nJesus. \u2018How,\u2019 said they contemptuously, \u2018does this man know anything\nof sacred literature, being no graduate?\u2019\u201d--(_Abbott\u2019s Jesus of\nNazareth._) _Letters_ (\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1) is here the sacred writings of the\nJews, _i. e._, the sacred Scriptures and the comments thereon. This\nquestion affords the key to the interpretation of the discourse which\nfollows, which is upon the authority, primarily of Christ, secondarily\nof every Christian teacher, an authority derived, not from theological\nschools or clerical ordination, but from the indwelling Spirit of God.\nChrist was himself a \u201clay preacher;\u201d his example and his precept alike\nsanction unordained preaching.\n\n\n 16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not[267]\n mine, but his that sent me.\n\n [267] chaps. 8:28; 12:49.\n\n\n 17 If[268] any man will do his will, he shall know of the\n doctrine, whether it be of God, or _whether_ I speak of\n myself.\n\n [268] ch. 8:43.\n\n=16, 17. My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me.= For\n_doctrine_ read _teaching_; for not merely the subject-matter taught,\nbut the power with which it was presented, was divine. _My teaching is\nnot mine_ is not a hyperbole. It is not merely equivalent to \u201cnot\nacquired by any labor on my part in learning\u201d (_Bengel_), or \u201cnot an\ninvention of my own\u201d (_Geikie_). Neither in origin nor in aim was\nChrist\u2019s teaching his own. Ever about his Father\u2019s business, he was\never teaching his Father\u2019s words and doing his Father\u2019s works (ch.\n5:19, 30). In a sense every true Christian teacher should be able to\nrepeat this saying of Christ (chaps. 14:26; 16:13). It does not follow\nthat the Christian teacher need not be a Christian student; but it\ndoes follow that he should be a student only of those things which\nenable him better to understand and interpret the Father\u2019s will and\nnature. Only so far as schools of theological thought help him to do\nthis are they truly Christian schools.--=If any one wills to do his\nwill, he shall know concerning the teaching, whether it be of God or\nwhether I speak of myself.= An often misunderstood declaration. The\npromise is not that if any man does God\u2019s will all theology shall be\nmade clear to him, nor even that he shall be brought to a correct\napprehension of the most important truths of the Christian system. The\nlast clause qualifies the first; the declaration is that if any man\npurposes to do God\u2019s will, _makes that his ultimate and supreme\nchoice_ (1 Tim. 6:11-16), he shall know respecting Christianity\n_whether it is of divine or human origin_. The declaration is both a\npromise and the enunciation of a spiritual law. The purpose to do\nGod\u2019s will itself clarifies the spiritual sight, so that the soul\nrecognizes the Spirit of God in the life, the character, and the\nteachings of his Son. The degree of advancement which one subsequently\nmakes in comprehending the full significance of those teachings will\ndepend partly upon the purity of his spiritual purposes, but partly\nupon other conditions. Not the mere outward obedience to God\u2019s\ncommandments, but a true spiritual purpose, is declared to be the\ncondition of spiritual light; and to that purpose is attached, not a\npromise of _all_ light, but only of so much as will enable the soul to\nknow the source from which it may obtain constantly increasing\nillumination. Nevertheless, the first step toward the solution of any\ntheological difficulty whatever, is repentance of sin and practical\nobedience to the voice of God in the soul. Except a man be born again\nhe cannot _see_ the kingdom of God.\n\n\n 18 He[269] that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory:\n but he that[270] seeketh his glory that sent him, the same\n is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.\n\n [269] ch. 8:50.\n\n [270] Prov. 25:27.\n\n\n 19 Did not Moses[271] give you the law, and _yet_ none[272]\n of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill[273] me?\n\n [271] John 1:17; Gal. 3:19.\n\n [272] Rom. 3:10-19.\n\n [273] ch. 5:16, 18; Matt. 12:14.\n\n=18, 19. He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory.= _From_\n(\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc) represents the remote cause; _out of_ (\u1f10\u03ba) represents the more\nimmediate cause. The former refers to what is general, the latter to\nwhat is special. See _Rob. Lex._, \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc. Every Christian teacher must\nspeak _out of_ himself, _i. e._, out of his own experience of truth\ninternally possessed and become a part of his nature; but no Christian\nteacher may speak, _from_ himself, _i. e._, of his own notions and by\nhis own authority. The inward experience out of which he speaks is\npowerful only as it is derived from the Spirit of God. Egotism is the\nnatural expression of him who speaks from himself, and has not the\nrhetorical skill to conceal the inherent weakness.--=But he\nthat seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no\nunrighteousness is in him.= This is a general proposition. In so far\nas any one seeks the divine glory he is preserved both from error and\nfrom unrighteousness (Rom. 8:1, 2; 1 John 1:5, 7; 3:6). Christ is the\nonly one who is absolutely true, and in whom is no unrighteousness,\nbecause he is the only one in whom there is no self-seeking.--=Did not\nMoses give you the law=, etc. The connection is well given by Alford:\n\u201cThere is a close connection with the foregoing. The will to do his\nwill was to be the great key to a true appreciation of his teaching;\nbut of this there was no example among _them_; and therefore it was\nthat they were no fair judges of the teaching, but bitter opponents\nand persecutors of Jesus, of whom, had they been anxious to fulfil the\nlaw, they would have been earnest and humble disciples\u201d (ch.\n5:46).--=Why go ye about to kill me?= The reference is to the purposed\nassassination at a previous visit to Jerusalem (ch. 5:18), a purpose\nfrom which the Pharisees had evidently not relented (ch. 7:1).\n\n\n 20 The people answered and said,[274] Thou hast a devil:\n who goeth about to kill thee?\n\n [274] ch. 8:48.\n\n\n 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work,\n and ye all marvel.\n\n\n 22 Moses[275] therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not\n because it is of Moses, but[276] of the fathers;) and ye on\n the sabbath day circumcise a man.\n\n [275] Lev. 12:3.\n\n [276] Gen. 17:10.\n\n\n 23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that\n the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me,\n because[277] I have made a man every whit whole on the\n sabbath day?\n\n [277] ch. 5:8.\n\n\n 24 Judge[278] not according to the appearance, but judge\n righteous judgment.\n\n [278] Deut. 1:16, 17.\n\n=20-24. Thou hast a devil; who goeth about to kill thee?= It is evident\nfrom ver. 25 that some of his auditors knew the secret design which had\nbeen formed for Christ\u2019s assassination. Their language here is that\nof foulest abuse. I judge then that they were startled by Christ\u2019s\nsudden revealing of the secret designs against him; and with that\ninconsistency which is common to the self-condemned, they in the same\nsentence denied that his death had been compassed, and implied that the\nfact that it was compassed had been disclosed to him by an evil spirit\nwhich possessed him.--=Jesus answered * * * * I have done one work,\nand ye all marvel.= The work referred to is that described in the\nfifth chapter of John, the only miracle in Jerusalem up to this time\nwhich is described in detail; not the only one which he had wrought\n(chaps. 2:23; 3:2), but presumptively the last one. They wondered not\nat the miracle, but at the fact that he had performed it on\nthe Sabbath day (ch. 5:16). It is not necessary to give to the\nword _wonder_ here any accessory idea, as of doubt (_Bengel_)\nor disquietude (_Chrysostom_); Christ begins with the mildest\ncharacterization of their sentiment as that of mere surprise. Here, as\nhabitually, he does not proceed to severe language till milder\nlanguage has proved unavailing.--=Moses therefore gave unto you\ncircumcision.= There is some doubt whether the word _therefore_\nbelongs to this or to the preceding verse; _i. e._, whether Christ\nsays, _I have done one work, and ye all therefore marvel_, or, _Moses\ntherefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but\nof the fathers_. The latter reading is preferred by the later\nscholars, _e. g._, Bengel, Meyer, Alford, against Olshausen, Tholuck.\nEither is grammatically possible; and the purely grammatical\nconsiderations appear to me to be about equally balanced. The latter\ninterpretation is preferable, because it gives a better meaning to the\nsentence. Accepting this rendering, the meaning appears to be, Moses\ngave unto you circumcision for this reason, viz., because it was\npatriarchal, not because it originated with him. And this statement of\nthe reason of the Mosaic law respecting circumcision affords a basis\nfor the argument which follows. It was a saying of the rabbis \u201cthat\ncircumcision drives away the Sabbath,\u201d and they held that the rite,\nnotwithstanding the work which it necessarily entailed, might be\nperformed on the Sabbath day, because it was of patriarchal origin,\nand so antedated the Mosaic institution of the Sabbath. Christ,\nreferring to this fact, convicts the Jews of inconsistency in being\nangry with him for placing the law of mercy above the law of the\nSabbath. For the law of mercy was older than either; it belongs to the\neternal law of God\u2019s nature.--=That the law of Moses should not be\nbroken.= That law prescribed that circumcision should be performed on\nthe eighth day (Lev. 12:3); to allow that day to pass by, therefore,\nwithout circumcision would be a breach of the law.--=Because I have\nmade an entire man= (\u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd) =well on the Sabbath day=. We can\nhardly suppose, with Bengel and Olshausen, that the _entire man_ here\nsignifies the healing of both soul and body; for there is no evidence\nin the original account that the physical was accompanied with a\nspiritual healing, and no likelihood that Christ\u2019s auditors would have\nunderstood him here to refer to spiritual healing. The contrast rather\nseems to be between circumcision as an act of wounding, which brought\nonly ceremonial cleanness, and the miracle at the pool of Bethesda,\nwhich gave relief from the consequences of sin (ch. 5:14), and gave\nhealth to the whole body.--=Judge not according to appearance, but\njudge righteous judgment.= See Zech. 7:9. One of Christ\u2019s Sabbath\nlaws; we are ourselves to avoid, but we are not to condemn in others,\nthe appearance of evil. What is Sabbath observance and what Sabbath\ntransgression is to be determined, not by the external act, but by the\ninward motive and the ultimate end.\n\n\n 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he,\n whom they seek to kill?\n\n\n 26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto\n him. Do[279] the rulers know indeed that this is the very\n Christ?\n\n [279] verse 48.\n\n\n 27 Howbeit[280] we know this man whence he is: but when\n Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.\n\n [280] Matt. 13:55.\n\n=25-27. Then said some of them of Jerusalem.= Residents of Jerusalem,\nwho were therefore more likely than the pilgrim strangers to know the\ndesigns of the hierarchy.--=Whom they seek to kill.= See chaps. 5:18;\n7:19, 32.--=Surely= (\u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5) =the rulers do not know that this is\nindeed the Messiah=? The form of the sentence is an inquiry, strongly\nimplying a negative answer.--=Howbeit as to this fellow, we know\nwhence he is; but when the Messiah cometh, no man knoweth whence he\nis.= It is true that prophecy foretold that the Messiah should be born\nin Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:6); but according to the Rabbinical\nteaching he was straightway to be snatched away by spirits and\ntempests, lie hidden for a while, and unexpectedly and supernaturally\nreappear to enter upon his miraculous mission (Lightfoot on Matt.\n2:1). The people here bore an unconscious testimony to the Messiahship\nof Jesus; for they neither knew his earthly nor his heavenly origin.\nThey believed him who was born in Bethlehem to be a native of\nNazareth, and the Son of God to be the son of a carpenter.\n\n\n 28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye\n both know me, and ye know whence I am: and[281] I am not\n come of myself, but he that sent me[282] is true, whom[283]\n ye know not.\n\n [281] ch. 5:43.\n\n [282] Rom. 3:4.\n\n [283] chaps. 1:18; 8:55.\n\n\n 29 But[284] I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent\n me.\n\n [284] ch. 10:15; Matt. 11:27.\n\n=28, 29. Then Jesus cried aloud teaching in the temple, and said, Ye\ndo indeed know me, and ye know whence I am; and I am not come of\nmyself, but it is the True One who hath sent me; him ye do not know. I\nknow him, for I have come from him, and he it is that hath sent me\nforth.= As I read it, this is one of those outbursts of indignation\nwith which we occasionally meet in the teachings of Christ. The\nobduracy and resoluteness in evil of the Jews aroused his indignation\nand elicited his stern rebuke. Comp. chaps. 8:41, 44; 9:41; Matthew,\nch. 23. I understand then his language to be neither ironical nor\ninterrogative, but affirmative, and not to refer to his human nature\nand origin, but to his divine character and mission. In his miracles\nand his instructions they had seen and heard enough to assure them\nthat he was from God (chaps. 3:2; 11:47, 48). Their contemptuous\ndeclaration, _We know this fellow_, he transformed into an indictment\nagainst them. They had whispered it; he proclaimed it aloud. \u201cYe do\nknow me,\u201d he says, \u201cand ye know whence I am, for the authentication of\nmy divine mission is ample. Ye do know that I am not come of myself,\nfor my whole life is a conclusive demonstration that I am not a\nself-seeker.\u201d The _True One_ is not equivalent to the Truthful One nor\nthe Really Existent One merely, but the One True God (2 Chron. 15:3;\nJer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20). Him they did not\nand could not know, because the knowledge of God is only for the pure\nin heart (Matt. 5:8). Jesus knew him, for he had been his companion\nfrom eternity. In a sense we are all from God, but not in the sense in\nwhich Christ here indicates that he is from God. The preposition used\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac) has the sense of _from beside, from near_, French _de chez_\n(_Rob. Lex._). The declaration is interpreted by ch. 1:1; Phil. 2:6.\nThe public exposure of their whispered contempt, the equally public\nexposure of the secret thought of their own hearts, which they had not\nthemselves read as clearly as Christ read it for them, and the tone of\nfearless assumption in which he at once claimed to be the companion of\nthe Only True God and declared that they did not even know Him, whose\npeculiar people it was their peculiar boast to be, angered the\nJudeans, and especially the hierarchy, and led to the unsuccessful\nattempt to arrest Jesus recorded in the succeeding verse.\n\n\n 30 Then[285] they sought to take him: but no man laid hands\n on him, because his hour was not yet come.\n\n [285] ch. 8:37; Mark 11:18; Luke 20:19.\n\n\n 31 And many[286] of the people believed on him, and said,\n When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these\n which this _man_ hath done?\n\n [286] ch. 4:39.\n\n=30, 31. They sought therefore to arrest him.= An arrest for the\npurpose of bringing him before the authorities, not a mere lawless act\nof a mob, is indicated by the original (\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9). The attempt, however,\nwas probably made by some of the people, acting without special\nauthority; this is implied by the account of the official action\nsubsequently taken (ver. 32).--=Because his hour was not yet come.=\nThe hour appointed in the divine counsel for his passion and death.\nThe immediate cause of the failure to arrest may have been a fear of\nthe Galileans and others with whom Christ was popular; but John passes\nthis wholly by to speak of the real reason in the divine counsels.\nPredestination is quite as strongly marked in John as in Paul.--=But\nof the multitude many believed on him.= The degree of faith is not\nindicated. Its spirituality may have been very slight; yet the rest of\nthe sentence certainly indicates that they were inclined to think that\nthis might be the promised Messiah.--=More miracles than these which\nthis one hath done.= To those which had been wrought in Jerusalem were\nprobably added, in their thought, those which had been wrought in\nGalilee; some of these had doubtless been witnessed by many of the\nGalileans present.\n\n\n 32 The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things\n concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests\n sent officers to take him.\n\n\n 33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet[287] a little while am I\n with you, and _then_ I go unto him that sent me.\n\n [287] chaps. 13:33; 16:16.\n\n\n 34 Ye[288] shall seek me, and shall not find _me_: and\n where I am, _thither_ ye cannot come.\n\n [288] ch. 8:21; Hos. 5:6.\n\n=32-34. The Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take\nhim.= This was an official act on the part of the Sanhedrim or its\nofficers, carrying out the design of certain of the people, as\nindicated in ver. 30; and it is the first official endeavor to arrest\nhim, the beginning of a course of action consummated in his final\narrest, trial, and crucifixion.--=Therefore said Jesus unto them.= A\nbreak evidently occurs between verses 31 and 32. The discourse up to\nver. 31 is continuous, and took place about the middle of the feast,\nthat is, the third or fourth day; the discourse in verses 37-39 was on\nthe last day of the feast; between the two the orders for Christ\u2019s\narrest were given. Verses 33, 34 are founded on Christ\u2019s knowledge of\nthose orders, and it is a reasonable surmise that the presence of the\nofficers suggested it to him and interpreted its meaning to some at\nleast of his auditors.--=Yet a little while am I with you.= About six\nmonths after this address he was crucified.--=And I go unto him that\nsent me.= With this explicit statement of his meaning, interpreted as\nit was by the previous declaration that it was the true God who had\nsent him, it is difficult to understand how the Jews could have been\nperplexed respecting his meaning. De Wette\u2019s explanation that they\nknew not the One who had sent him, and therefore that this saying was\na dark one to them, is not wholly satisfactory, for surely they did\nknow who was meant by the phrase, _he that sent me_, and as surely\nthey could not fail to understand that going to God was equivalent to\ndeath. Meyer supposes that the words _him that sent me_ in this verse\nwere not a part of Christ\u2019s discourse, but added, perhaps by John\nhimself; but they are not wanting in any of the manuscripts; and that\nis both a doubtful and a dangerous kind of criticism which removes a\ndifficulty by the summary process of removing the difficult words,\nwithout any external authority for so doing. I believe therefore that\nChrist was explicit, that he was understood, and that the assumed\nperplexity of his hearers was a piece of hypocrisy. See on verses 35,\n36.--=Ye shall seek and shall not find me; and where I am ye cannot\ncome.= The key to the true interpretation of this passage, is afforded\nby Luke 17:22; John 8:21; 13:33. Christ does not refer to an inimical\nseeking; the _search_ here is the same as the _desire_ to see one of\nthe days of the Son of man in Luke 17:22; _i. e._ the Jewish desire\nfor a manifestation of the Messiah. He does not refer to a true\nspiritual seeking, for in ch. 8:21 he declares, to the same Jewish\nauditors, _Ye shall seek me and ye shall die in your sins_. Eusebius\ndeclares that many Jews in consequence of the judgments of God on\nJerusalem became believers; such did indeed seek Christ, but they\nfound him. The meaning then is that in the coming days of travail and\nsorrow, when many should go out after false Christs (Matt. 24:23, 24),\nthe Jews would earnestly desire a Messiah for their deliverer, whom,\nhowever, they could not have, because with their own hands they had\nput him to death. They would seek, but theirs would be a temporal, not\na spiritual seeking; the seeking of fear and self-interest, not of\nrepentance, faith, and love. This verse affords no authority whatever\nfor the opinion that any earnest spiritual soul ever seeks Christ in\nvain.\n\n\n 35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he\n go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the\n dispersed[289] among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?\n\n [289] Isa. 11:12; James 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1.\n\n\n 36 What _manner of_ saying is this that he said, Ye shall\n seek me, and shall not find _me_; and where I am, _thither_\n ye cannot come?\n\n=35, 36. Then said the Jews among themselves.= Their utterance has\nbeen by some regarded as the utterance of a genuine perplexity. So\napparently Maurice: \u201cHe had broken down the barriers between different\nclasses of Israelites--between Galileans, Samaritans, and Jews. Why\nmight he not carry his designs further? Why might he not go to the\ndispersed tribes in heathen lands? Why might he not preach to the\nheathen themselves?\u201d By others it is regarded as the language of scorn\nand contempt. So Meyer: \u201cAn insolent and scornful supposition, which\nthey themselves, however, do not deem probable (therefore the question\nis asked with \u03bc\u03ae), regarding the meaning of words to them so utterly\nenigmatical. The bolder mode of teaching adopted by Jesus, his\nuniversalistic declarations, his partial non-observance of the law of\nthe Sabbath, would lead them, perhaps, to associate with the\nunintelligible statement a mocking thought like this, and all the more\nbecause much interest was felt among the heathen, partly of an earnest\nkind, and partly (comp. St. Paul in Athens) arising from curiosity\nmerely, regarding the Oriental religions, especially Judaism.\u201d The\nlatter view seems to me the more probable, because (1) it is\ninconceivable that the Jews should have misapprehended Christ\u2019s\nmeaning (ver. 33, note); (2) his analogous language in the next\nchapter they clearly did understand to refer to his death (ch. 8:22);\n(3) the fact that what was said was \u201camong themselves\u201d indicates that\nit was not an honest perplexity, in which case they would have asked\nChrist for an explanation, but of the same quality as the murmuring\nreported in verses 26, 27.\n\n\n 37 In the last[290] day, that great _day_ of the feast,\n Jesus stood and cried, saying, If[291] any man thirst, let\n him come unto me, and drink.\n\n [290] Lev. 23:36.\n\n [291] Isa. 55:1; Rev. 22:17.\n\n=37. In the last day, that great day of the feast.= The feast of the\nTabernacles proper lasted for seven days (Lev. 23:34, 41, 42), but on\nthe eighth day a solemn assembly kept as a feast-Sabbath was directed\nto be held (Lev. 23:36; Numb. 29:35; Neh. 8:18); and though the people\ndwelt in the booths only the seven days, this eighth day was reckoned\nby the Jews as a part of the feast. Whether the seventh or the eighth\nis intended here by the \u201clast day of the feast\u201d is a little uncertain,\nas it also is whether the drawing of water from the brook Siloah,\nwhich was a characteristic ceremonial of the other days of the feast,\ntook place also on the eighth day. This ceremonial recalled the\nmiraculous supply of water in the wilderness from the riven rock; it\nwas connected by the more superstitious of the people with the notion\nthat at this time God determined the amount of rain which should fall\nduring the year; and the more spiritual saw in it a symbol of the time\nwhen the promised gift of the Holy Spirit should be bestowed upon\nIsrael (Isa. 12:3). Whether the words of Christ were uttered, as Dr.\nGeikie supposes, during this ceremonial, or, as Alford supposes, the\nday after this service had come to an end, the reference to it is\nunmistakable. Dr. Geikie\u2019s supposition certainly makes this reference\nmore striking, and gives, if not peculiar significance, at least\npeculiar force, to Christ\u2019s words. \u201cThe last day of the feast, known\nas \u2018the Hosanna Rabba\u2019 and the \u2018Great Day,\u2019 found him, as each day\nbefore, doubtless, had done, in the temple arcades. He had gone\nthither early, to meet the crowds assembled for morning prayer. It was\na day of special rejoicing. A great procession of pilgrims marched\nseven times round the city, with their lulabs, music, and loud-voiced\nchoirs preceding, and the air was rent with shouts of Hosanna, in\ncommemoration of the taking of Jericho, the first city in the Holy\nLand that fell into the hands of their fathers. Other multitudes\nstreamed to the brook of Siloah, after the priests and Levites,\nbearing the golden vessels with which to draw some of the water. As\nmany as could get near the stream drank of it amidst loud shouting of\nthe words of Isaiah--\u2018Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the\nwaters,\u2019 \u2018With joy shall we draw water from the wells of\nsalvation\u2019--rising in jubilant chants on every side. The water drawn\nby the priests was, meanwhile, borne up to the temple, amidst the\nboundless excitement of a vast throng. Such a crowd was, apparently,\npassing at this moment. Rising as the throng went by, his spirit was\nmoved at such honest enthusiasm, yet saddened at the moral decay which\nmistook a mere ceremony for religion. It was burning autumn weather,\nwhen the sun had for months shone in a cloudless sky, and the early\nrains were longed for as the monsoons in India after the summer heat.\nWater at all times is a magic word in a sultry climate like Palestine,\nbut at this moment it had a double power. Standing, therefore, to give\nhis words more solemnity, his voice now sounded far and near over the\nthrong, with soft clearness, which arrested all: If any man thirst,\nlet him come unto me and drink.\u201d--(_Geikie._)--=If any man thirst.=\nThis is not an unconditional promise; it is conditioned, not merely on\ndesire, but on a fervent desire. Comp. Isa. 55:1; Matt. 5:6; Rev.\n22:17. \u201cNone are called to obtain the riches of the Spirit but those\nwho burn with the desire of them. For we know that the pain of thirst\nis most acute and tormenting, so that the very strongest men, and\nthose who can endure any amount of toil, are overpowered by\nthirst.\u201d--(_Calvin._) An illustration of this spiritual thirst is\nafforded by David in Psalms 42, 43, and by Paul in Phil. 3:8-14.--=Let\nhim come unto me.= If one can imagine these words spoken to the throng\nwhile the procession is marching into the temple, or even just after\nthe solemn service is over and the minds of the people are still full\nof it, he will form a faint conception of the divine assumption\nimplied in them; and if he further considers the effect produced, both\non the multitude (verses 40, 41) and on the officers sent to arrest\nJesus (ver. 46), he will form a faint conception of the divine dignity\nwith which those words were uttered.\n\n\n 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said,\n out[292] of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.\n\n [292] ch. 4:14; Prov. 18:4; Isa. 58:11.\n\n=38. He that hath faith in me.= As in ch. 6 to eat the flesh and drink\nthe blood of Christ is to have faith in him and live by him, so here,\nto come unto him and drink is to come with the affections and receive\nhim into the soul.--=As the Scripture hath said.= There is no passage\nin the O. T. which directly sustains this citation, and no reason to\nsuppose that Christ refers to any lost book. Alford refers to Ezek.\n47:1-12, where the river of the water of life is described as flowing\nfrom under the temple, which Alford regards as a symbol of the\nbeliever; similarly Olshausen; but both this reference and that to\nZech. 14:8 are remote and unnatural. We are either to suppose that the\nphrase \u201cas the Scripture hath said\u201d refers only to the preceding\nclause, \u201che that believeth on me,\u201d so that the meaning is, He that\naccording to the O. T. believeth on me; or else we are to suppose that\nJohn by the following verse (39) not only interprets the meaning of\nChrist\u2019s promise, but also the meaning of his reference, and that we\nare to look for the Scripture in those passages which refer to\nand promise the gift of the Holy Ghost. The former of these\ninterpretations is that of Chrysostom, the latter that of Meyer, who\nrefers to Isa. 44:3; 55:1; 58:1; Joel 3:18; Zech. 13:1.--=Shall flow\nrivers of living water.= This declaration is not to be limited so that\nit shall be simply equivalent to the promise in John 4:14, \u201cWhosoever\ndrinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst.\u201d The\nlanguage _out of his belly_ clearly implies something received that it\nmay flow _from_ the recipient unto others. The water which he drinks\nbecomes in him a spring from which living waters flow, as the light\nwhich illuminates him makes him in turn one of the lights which\nilluminate the world (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15). That this is the\nmeaning is clear, not only from the language here, but from John\u2019s\ninterpretation in the succeeding verse. \u201cThe mutual and inspired\nintercourse of Christians from Pentecost downwards, the speaking in\npsalms and hymns and spiritual songs, the mutual edification in\nChristian assemblies by means of the charismata even to the speaking\nwith tongues, the entire work of the apostles, of a Stephen and so on,\nfurnish an abundant historical commentary upon this text.\u201d--(_Meyer._)\n\n\n 39 (But this spake he of the[293] Spirit, which they that\n believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not\n yet _given_; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)\n\n [293] ch. 16:7; Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17, 33.\n\n=39. But this spake he of the Spirit.= This declaration of John makes\nthe second chapter of Acts and the succeeding history of the Church of\nChrist the true commentary on Christ\u2019s promise.--=For the Spirit was\nnot yet.= The meaning cannot of course be that the Holy Spirit had no\nexistence, for \u201cthis would be not only in flat contradiction to chaps.\n1:32, 33; 3:5, 8, 34, but to the whole O. T., in which the agency of\nthe Spirit in the _outward world_ is recognized even more vividly than\nin the N. T.\u201d (_Alford._) And it is not only in the outward world that\nthe O. T. recognizes the Holy Spirit, but also in the hearts of\nindividual prophets, who thus became the ministers of divine grace to\nothers (Gen. 41:38; Exod. 4:11, 12; 31:3; 2 Chron. 15:1; Ps. 51:11;\nIsa. 63:11, 14). Nor does the addition by the translators of the word\n_given_ adequately represent the meaning, for the Holy Ghost was given\nbefore the glorification of Christ, but not to all men; he was not a\nuniversal gift. The meaning is that the dispensation of the Holy Ghost\nhad not yet begun; he had not yet been so given that whoever had faith\nin the Son of God received the gift of the Holy Ghost and became one\nof the Lord\u2019s prophets (Acts 2:38). See Acts 2:4, note.--=Because\nJesus was not yet glorified.= The death and resurrection of Christ\nwere the conditions precedent of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost (ch.\n14:16, 17; 16:7; Acts 1:7-9).\n\n\n 40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this\n saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.[294]\n\n [294] ch. 6:14; Deut. 18:15, 18.\n\n\n 41 Others said, This is the[295] Christ. But some said,\n Shall[296] Christ come out of Galilee?\n\n [295] chaps. 4:42, 6:69.\n\n [296] verse 52; ch. 1:46.\n\n\n 42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ[297] cometh of\n the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem,[298]\n where David[299] was?\n\n [297] Ps. 132:11; Jer. 23:5.\n\n [298] Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4.\n\n [299] 1 Sam. 16:1-4.\n\n\n 43 So there was a division among the people because of him.\n\n\n 44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid\n hands on him.\n\n=40-44.= These verses give the impressions produced on different\nauditors by Christ\u2019s discourses at the feast. The word _many_ is\nwanting in the best manuscripts, and is omitted by Lachmann,\nTischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Schaff; for it read _some_. Some regarded\nJesus as the prophet foretold in Deut. 18:15 (comp. ch. 1:21; Matt.\n16:14); others thought that he might even be the Messiah. See ver. 31.\nThe opponents of Christ based their opposition not upon his character\nor that of his teaching, but upon their Jewish prejudice to his\nsupposed Galilean origin. There is no good ground for the conclusion,\narrived at by some rationalistic critics from John\u2019s language here,\nthat he did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Writing his\nGospel many years after the main facts of Christ\u2019s birth, life, and\ndeath were known throughout the church, he here simply narrates as an\nhistorian the objections which the Judeans made to the claim that\nJesus was the Messiah; to have pointed out their mistake would have\nbeen a work of supererogation. Alford\u2019s note on this point is quite\nconclusive: \u201cDe Wette\u2019s \u2018probability that John knew nothing of the\nbirth at Bethlehem\u2019 reaches much further than may appear at first. If\nJohn knew nothing of it, and yet the mother of the Lord lived with\nhim, the inference must be that _she_ knew nothing of it--in other\nwords, that it never happened.\u201d\n\n\n[Illustration: OFFICERS OF THE CHIEF PRIESTS.]\n\n\n 45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees;\n and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?\n\n\n 46 The officers answered, Never[300] man spake like this\n man.\n\n [300] Luke 4:22.\n\n=45, 46. Then came the officers.= Not Roman soldiers, but temple\npolice, answering to the modern constable or the Roman lictor or the\nEnglish beadle. They had been directed by the officers of the\nSanhedrim to arrest Jesus (ver. 32). Presumptively this return of the\nofficers occurred several days after their commission to make the\narrest. They had been watching him during the feast.--=Never man spake\nlike this man.= They were not overawed by the multitude, but by the\nwords of Christ himself. There is no stronger testimony, even in the\nGospels, to the marvellous moral power of Christ\u2019s personality and\nwords than this declaration of the temple police, who were probably\nignorant but also simple men, without the culture, but also without\nthe religious prejudices, of the rulers. In the life of Whitefield are\nseveral illustrations of analogous moral power over roughs who had\ncome to the preaching to break it up, but who remained spell-bound\nunder its influence. To have elicited such testimony as this from such\nmen as these, Jesus must have possessed the power of a true oratory.\n\n\n 47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?\n\n\n 48 Have any of the rulers[301] or of the Pharisees believed\n on him?\n\n [301] ch. 12:42; Jer. 5:4, 5; 1 Cor. 1:26.\n\n\n 49 But this people, who knoweth not the law, are cursed.\n\n=47-49.= The language of the Pharisaic rulers is that of unbounded\nscorn for Jesus and for the multitude. The latter are declared to be\nunder divine wrath and cursed with moral blindness because they have\nan admiration for such a Sabbath-breaker. \u201cAll here is wonderfully\nliving and characteristic. The faint effort of the officers to execute\nthe command of their masters; the awe which held them back; their\nsimple confession of the power which they found in the words of Jesus;\nthe surprise of the Sanhedrim that the infection should have reached\neven their servants; their terror lest there might be traitors in the\ncamp, lest any Pharisee or lawyer (probably some eyes were turned on\nNicodemus) should have been carried away by the impulse to which the\ncrowd, naturally enough, had yielded; their scorn of the people, as\nwretched, \u2018accursed\u2019 men, utterly ignorant of the law--who does not\nfeel as if he were present in that convocation of doctors? as if he\nwere looking at their perplexed and angry faces? as if he were hearing\ntheir contemptuous words?\u201d--(_Maurice._)\n\n\n 50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he[302] that came to Jesus\n by night, being one of them,)\n\n [302] ch. 3:2.\n\n\n 51 Doth[303] our law judge _any_ man before it hear him,\n and know what he doeth?\n\n [303] Deut. 17:8; Prov. 18:13.\n\n\n 52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of\n Galilee? Search and look: for out of Galilee[304] ariseth\n no prophet.\n\n [304] Isa. 9:1, 2.\n\n=50-52.= On the character of Nicodemus, see notes on ch. 3. The\nimpression which Jesus had made upon him in that interview was an\nabiding one. There is a covert sarcasm in his question here, _Doth our\nlaw judge the man except it first hear him and know what he doeth?_\nThey themselves knew not the law, and were openly disregarding it. The\nRabbinical laws explicitly required that every accused person should\nhave a hearing, with an opportunity to confront the witnesses against\nhim and to cross-examine them. See Vol. I, p. 298. That Nicodemus\u2019\nrebuke was felt by the Pharisees is shown by the tone of their answer.\nThey replied, not by argument, but by a sneer, _Art thou also of\nGalilee?_ and by a falsehood, _Out of Galilee hath arisen_ (perfect,\nnot present) _no prophet_. Jonah was of Galilee (2 Kings 14:25),\nElijah very probably so (1 Kings 17:1;--_Alford_), and Nahum either of\nGalilee or of Assyria, a heathen land (Nahum 1:1). The prejudices of\nthe Pharisees led them to forget their history as well as their law.\nIn lieu of _doth our law judge any man?_ read _the man_, _i. e._, this\nman; Nicodemus refers specifically to Jesus. In lieu of _ariseth_ read\n_hath arisen_; though there is some uncertainty. Alford gives the\npresent tense, _ariseth_; Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Meyer, with\ngreater probability, the past tense, _hath arisen_. With either\nreading the meaning is substantially the same; not, as Godet, The\npromised prophet is not now arising, but, as Meyer and Alford, No\nprophet ever ariseth from Galilee.\n\n\n 53 And every man went unto his own house.\n\n=53.= This verse belongs with the next chapter.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nCh. 7:53 to 8:11. THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.--ILLUSTRATES: THE TACT\nOF CHRIST--THE PRECEPT, JUDGE NOT, THAT YE BE NOT JUDGED--THE POWER OF\nCONSCIENCE--THE CHRISTIAN TREATMENT OF THE FALLEN.\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--Verse 53 of ch. 7 belongs unquestionably with the\nfirst eleven verses of ch. 8. Whether the whole passage is really a\npart of John\u2019s Gospel or no is one of the most difficult and doubtful\nquestions in Biblical criticism. The weight of critical authority is\nagainst it; the weight of internal evidence is in its favor. For a\ncomplete discussion of the considerations _pro_ and _con_, the student\nmust be referred to the commentaries of Alford, Meyer, Luthardt,\nand Godet, the last being, of the three, the most comprehensive in\nits treatment. Here I give briefly (1) the facts, (2) the different\nopinions, (3) my own conclusion.\n\nI. _The facts._ (1) The passage in question is wanting in many if not\nmost of the best MSS.; pre-eminently the Alexandrian, the Vatican, the\nEphraem, and the Sinaitic. Of the great manuscripts, the Cambridge\nalone contains it. (2) It is transposed in some documents; one places\nit in John after 7:36; ten at the end of John; four in the Gospel of\nLuke, at the close of ch. 21. (3) In those MSS. which contain it there\nare great variations. Griesbach distinguishes three entirely different\ntexts; the ordinary text, that of the Cambridge MS., and that\nresulting from a collection of other MSS. Alford gives these three in\nhis Greek Testament. Sixty various readings are found in these twelve\nverses. \u201cNo genuine apostolic text has ever undergone such\nalterations.\u201d--(_Godet._) (4) The style and character of the narrative\nis strikingly unlike John. These differences are partly verbal, and\nare apparent only to the Greek scholar. Ten expressions are given by\nMeyer as non-Johannean. They are partly structural, and as easily\nrecognized by the English reader as by the Greek scholar. Such are the\npropounding of a question concerning the law to tempt Christ, and the\ndeparture of Christ at night from the temple, both of which agree\nrather with the Synoptics\u2019 account of the last sojourn in Jerusalem\nthan with John\u2019s account of this period of Christ\u2019s ministry. If the\naccount is omitted altogether, the discourse in ch. 7 and that in ch.\n8 appear to be in close connection; the interruption of this incident\nis not very clearly cognate to either discourse; and it is not John\u2019s\nhabit to narrate incidents that are not connected with and do not lead\nto some discourse of the Lord. (5) Among the fathers Origen,\nChrysostom, Theophylact, and Tertullian are altogether silent about\nthe passage; Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine recognize it as authentic;\namong critical scholars Lucke, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette, Luthardt,\nHengstenberg, Schenkel, Godet, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and\nSchaff apparently agree in regarding it as an addition by some other\nhand to John\u2019s Gospel; Bengel and Hilgenfeld are the only scholars of\nwidely recognized reputation who defend its Johannean authorship. (6)\nBut though the narrative is unlike John, the act is very like Jesus.\nThe whole scene possesses an air of historic reality: the arrest of\nthe woman, the demand on Jesus, the Pharisaic contempt for public\nmorality in obtruding the crime and the criminal on public attention\nin the temple courts; the attempt to entrap Jesus; the skill of his\nreply; the subtle recognition of the woman\u2019s shame and despair, and\nthe gentle avoidance of adding to it, in turning the public gaze from\nher to himself by writing on the ground; the final confusion of the\nPharisees and release of the woman. It is impossible to believe that\nany monkish mind conceived of this and added it to the narrative. The\ndeed is the deed of Christ, whether or no the record is the record of\nJohn.\n\nII. _Opinions._ These are three: (1) That the narrative belongs here;\nwas written by John, and was expunged from the Gospel at an early date\nbecause it was feared that an immoral use would be made of it. This\nwas Augustine\u2019s opinion. But this hypothesis does not account for the\nvariety of readings, nor for peculiarities in character and diction\nwhich make it unlike John\u2019s Gospel. (2) That it is an interpolation of\na later age, for a purpose, by some early copyist. But the copyist who\ncould have conceived this incident must have possessed the moral\ngenius of Christ himself. \u201cIt is eminently Christlike, and full of\ncomfort to penitent outcasts. It breathes the Saviour\u2019s spirit of holy\nmercy, which condemns the sin and saves the sinner. It is parallel to\nthe parable of the prodigal, the story of Mary Magdalene, and that of\nthe Samaritan woman, and agrees with many express declarations of\nChrist that he came not to condemn, but to save the lost (John 3:17;\n12:47; Luke 9:56; 19:10; comp. John 5:14; Luke 7:37, etc.). His\nrefusal to act as judge in this case has a parallel in a similar case\nrelated in Luke 12:13-15.\u201d--(_Schaff._) (3) That it is a tradition of\nthe apostolic age, and was incorporated in the present evangelical\nnarratives, probably in the second or third century, but in different\nforms and in different places. It may have been originally part of one\nof the lost Gospels. Eusebius relates that the work of Papias\ncontained \u201cthe history of a woman accused before the Lord of numerous\nsins, a history contained also in the Gospel of the Hebrews.\u201d This\nopinion, which is substantially that of Godet, Meyer, Luthardt, and\nAlford, accounts for the existence of the narrative, the apparent\ntruthfulness of it, the variations of form, and the non-Johannean\ncharacteristics of style. It seems to me inherently the most probable.\nOn internal grounds it seems to me clear that the narrative is\nhistorical; on critical grounds that it is not John\u2019s; who was its\nauthor and how it became incorporated in John\u2019s Gospel is a matter\nonly of conjecture.\n\n\n 1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.\n\n\n 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple,\n and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and\n taught them.\n\n=Ch. 7:53 to 8:1, 2. Every man went unto his own house; Jesus went unto\nthe Mount of Olives.= The force of the contrast is impaired by the\nunfortunate and unnatural break between the two clauses of what should\nbe printed as a single sentence. The auditors had homes; Jesus had no\nwhere to lay his head; and if, as is probable, this incident belongs\nto the Passion week, it was not safe for him to spend a night within\nthe city walls. He either spent it on the mount or went beyond it to\nBethany, the home of his friends Martha and Mary.--=He sat down and\ntaught them.= One of the indications that this passage is not from\nJohn; for \u201cit is not in John\u2019s manner to relate that Jesus taught\nthem, without relating what he taught\u201d (_Alford_).\n\n\n[Illustration: THE MOUNT OF OLIVES. (From the wall of Jerusalem.)]\n\n\n 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman\n taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,\n\n\n 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in\n adultery, in the very act.\n\n\n 5 Now[305] Moses in the law commanded us that such should\n be stoned: but what sayest thou?\n\n [305] Lev. 20:10.\n\n=3-5. Brought unto him a woman.= There was no reason why they should\nhave brought her to him, except for the purpose of involving him in\ndifficulty.--=When they had set her in the midst.= This public\nexposure to shame was itself a terrible punishment, and aroused the\npity, the shame, and the indignation of Jesus. It was not done in the\ninterest of public morals. They were flagrantly disregarded in this\nobtrusion of a public scandal into the midst of the temple worship, by\naccusers who cared not for her, nor for the general public, if they\ncould but involve in perplexity and bring into disrepute the Rabbi\nwhom they so bitterly hated.--=In the very act.= The man was equally\namenable under the Mosaic law to the death penalty (Lev. 20:10; Deut.\n22:22). But the man they had let go; for then, as now, society\npunished the guilty woman, but not the guilty man.--=That such should\nbe stoned.= Stoning was only commanded by Moses for unfaithfulness in\na betrothed virgin (Deut. 22:23, 24). But infidelity in a wife is made\nby the preceding verse punishable with death, and perhaps, by\nimplication, the same form of death.\n\n\n[Illustration: THE WOMAN AND HER ACCUSERS.\n\n\u201c_He that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her._\u201d]\n\n\n 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to\n accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with _his_ finger\n wrote on the ground, _as though he heard them not_.\n\n=6. This they said tempting him.= The commentators have been needlessly\npuzzled to explain how Christ\u2019s answer to this question could have\nfurnished matter for accusation. The Pharisees would have accused him\nto the people, not to the Roman government. The law of Moses was a dead\nletter. There is no authentic instance in post-Mosaic history of an\nexecution under it. Divorce was easy, and the injured husband generally\navoided public disgrace by simply separating from his unfaithful wife.\nCould Christ refuse to adjudge the case? He had claimed to be King of\nIsrael, in the Sermon on the Mount, had put his own precepts above\nthose of Moses, and had proclaimed a far more stringent law of purity\nthan Moses ever enacted (Matt. 5:27-32). Could he acquit her,\nand so set aside the Mosaic law? He had declared that not one jot or\ntittle of it should pass away till all was fulfilled, and that whoever\nrelaxed the least of its precepts should be least in his kingdom. Could\nhe condemn her? He would thus revive an obsolete statute, and enforce\nit against a hapless and defenceless woman--he who had come to seek\nand to save the lost, who had received the publican and harlot among\nhis disciples, and had accepted the homage of a notorious woman of the\ntown (Luke 7:36-39). It often happens that people are unwilling\nto have a teacher set aside in theory a law which they are equally\nunwilling to see enforced in practice. Only a small minority is willing\nin our own day to abolish capital punishment; but only rarely is a\njury willing to inflict it. There are comparatively few persons who\nare willing to live according to the Sabbath law which they wish their\nminister to preach.--=But Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote\non the ground.= The words _as though he heard them not_ are an addition\nof the translators, though at least one manuscript contains the\nidea. What was the meaning of this action? Various opinions have been\nsuggested, _e. g._, a usual act signifying preoccupation of mind\n(_Alford_); to hide his own confusion, the shock to his own moral\nsensibility by the grossness of the Pharisees\u2019 public abuse of the\nwoman (_Geikie_); as a judge, for a judicial sentence is not only\npronounced, but written (_Godet_); as a refusal to interfere, a sign\nthat he paid no attention to their question (_Meyer_, _Luthardt_).\nHis object in this writing seems to me to be interpreted by its\nresult. It turned all eyes from the wretched woman, in an anguish of\nshame and terror, to himself. She stood alone and forgotten; all eyes\nwere then and have ever since been fixed on the figure of Christ,\nwondering what and why he wrote in the dust. It is not fanciful to\nnote the contrast between this writing and that prescribed in case\nof the trial of a suspected adulteress by the Mosaic law (Numb.\n5:23). The priest was to write certain curses in a book, then\nwash them with bitter water, which the accused was required to drink,\nthat the curses might enter into her if she were guilty. Christ, on\nthe contrary, writes his sentence on the sand, where, in a moment,\nit will be effaced by the pardon, \u201cNeither do I condemn thee; go,\nand sin no more.\u201d What he wrote has been made a matter of ingenious\nrather than profitable conjecture. The most probable conjecture is that\nhe wrote the sentence, \u201cHe that is without sin amongst you,\u201d etc.,\nthus enabling the Pharisees, if they had not been too passionately\nintent on their design, to avoid his public rebuke.\n\n\n 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself,\n and said unto them, He that is without sin among you,[306]\n let him first cast a stone at her.\n\n [306] Deut. 17:7; Rom. 2:1, 22.\n\n\n 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.\n\n\n 9 And they which heard _it_, being convicted by _their own_\n conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest,\n _even_ unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the\n woman standing in the midst.\n\n=7-9. So when they continued asking.= They would not take the rebuke\nof his quiet contempt. Had they stopped to think, conscience would\nhave answered their inquiry; but they were too eager; they did not\nhear what it had to say to them; Christ must interpret its voice; and\nhe did so with a poignant rebuke.--=He that is without sin among you,\nlet him first cast a stone at her.= Christ puts on them the problem\nwith which they had sought to perplex him. In their vindictive haste\nthey had forgotten the provision of the law that the witnesses on\nwhose testimony the accused was condemned should cast the first stone\n(Deut. 17:5-7). They had also forgotten the provision of the\nRabbinical law that, in case of accusation, if the husband was not\nguiltless, the wife could not be condemned (_Lightfoot_). Christ\nrecalls these two principles, and leaves them to solve their own\nproblem. Go on, he says in effect, and try and condemn the accused\naccording to your own law. Let the sinless cast the first stone. But a\ndeeper meaning is in his words. Unchastity was a universal sin in the\nfirst century. Its extent in Palestine is illustrated by the\nlicentious lives of the Herods, father and sons. Nowhere was this vice\nmore flagrant and unrestrained than among the priests, whose\nlicentiousness was no secret to the common people (see Matt. 12:39;\nJames 4:4). It was this revelation of their own guilt, implied in the\nwords and easily understood by the people, which stung them, and drove\nthem, self-condemned, one by one, from the presence of both the\naccused and the judge.--=And again he stooped down.= To give\nconscience in them an opportunity to assert itself, with as little\nresistance as possible from pride. He gave them no opportunity to\nanswer; he did not look to see who was first to withdraw.--=Beginning\nwith the elders.= The word rendered eldest (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd) is almost\nuniversally rendered _elders_, generally as an official designation,\nand frequently in connection with the word _ruler_ (_e. g._, Matt.\n15:2; 16:21; Mark 8:31; 15:1; Luke 7:3; 22:52). Here it seems to me\nmore probably to designate rank (_Lucke_, _De Wette_) than age\n(_Luthardt_, _Godet_). The leaders in the accusation were the first\nto withdraw. The words \u201ceven unto the last\u201d are wanting in most\nMSS.--=Jesus was left alone.= The circle of accusers had all\nwithdrawn. The people and the disciples may have still remained; hence\nthe woman is described as \u201cstanding in the midst;\u201d that is, of the\nauditors who, before this interruption, had been listening to the\nteaching of Jesus (ver. 2). The woman remains waiting, as if to\nreceive the sentence of Jesus. The people remain waiting to hear the\nend of this strange episode.\n\n\n 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the\n woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine\n accusers? hath no man condemned thee?\n\n\n 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither\n do I condemn[307] thee: go, and sin[308] no more.\n\n [307] ch. 3:17.\n\n [308] ch. 5:14.\n\n=10, 11. Hath no man condemned thee?= They had then _all_withdrawn?--\n=Neither do I condemn thee.= He contrasts himself with the accusers;\nthey could not, he will not. He does not, however, pronounce her\nforgiven. There is no evidence of repentance or of faith, as, for\nexample, in the case of the woman that was a sinner in Luke 7:37. His\nlanguage condemns the sin, and it gives opportunity for repentance\nto the sinner. \u201cIt is a declaration of sufferance, not of\njustification.\u201d--(_Godet._)--=Go, and sin no more.= Comp. ch. 5:14.\nThe object of divine forgiveness is a divine life in the forgiven.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 8:12-20. CHRIST\u2019S DISCOURSE CONCERNING HIMSELF.--HE IS LIGHT,\nLIBERTY, LIFE.--HE GIVES LIGHT TO THOSE THAT FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE,\nLIBERTY TO THOSE THAT OBEY HIS WORD, LIFE TO THOSE THAT PUT THEIR\nFAITH IN HIM.--HE IS ATTESTED BY HIS OWN CHARACTER AND BY HIS FATHER\u2019S\nWITNESS.--HE IS MADE KNOWN IN AND BY HIS PASSION AND DEATH.--HIS FATHER\nIS THE SOURCE OF HIS TEACHING, HIS WORKS, AND HIS CHARACTER.--HIS\nCHARACTERIZATION OF WILFUL OPPUGNERS OF THE TRUTH: CHILDREN OF THE\nWORLD; CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL.--CHRIST\u2019S SHORT METHOD WITH DEISTS (ver.\n46). See note at end of chapter.\n\nThe exact chronology of the events from this point to the close of\nthe tenth chapter is very uncertain and quite unimportant. One\ncharacteristic feature of the feast of the Tabernacles was the\nillumination of the temple; the two great candelabra of the Court of\nthe Women were lighted, and it is said in the Rabbinical hooks that\nthe light shone all over Jerusalem. Since Christ was accustomed to\ntake his text from passing events, it is a not improbable surmise that\nthis illumination afforded the suggestion for the discourse on the\ndivine light which follows. The illumination of the temple\ncommemorated the pillar of fire, as the ceremony of drawing water (see\nch. 7:37, etc., notes) commemorated the striking of the rock in Horeb\nand the gift of water from it, and the dwelling in booths recalled the\ntime when Israel dwelt in tents and booths in the wilderness. We may\ntherefore see in Christ an antitype of the fiery cloud that guided\nIsrael in their pilgrimage, and in the Shechinah filling the\nTabernacle (Exod. 40:34, 35), an illustration of the light which\nChrist imparts to those that follow him.\n\n\n 12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I[309] am the\n light of the world: he that[310] followeth me shall not\n walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.\n\n [309] chaps. 1:4; 9:5.\n\n [310] ch. 12:35, 46.\n\n=12. I am the light of the world.= The illumination of the temple\nlighted Jerusalem; that of the fiery cloud, Israel. Christ is\nthe light, not merely of his disciples, or of the Jewish nation,\nbut of the _world_, a word which here, as always in the N. T.,\nstands for the whole human race. Comp. ch. 1:4, 9, notes. He is\nthe _light_ as well as the life, coming to instruct as well as\nto revive; a Saviour from ignorance as well as from wilful sin.\nTherefore no ignorance or doubt need keep the soul that desires\nlight away from Christ. He need not wait for instruction, any more\nthan for reformation, before he comes to Christ.--=He that follows\nme need not walk in darkness.= The best reading is subjunctive,\nnot indicative. _Following Christ_, not believing something about\nhim, is the way out of darkness into light. Comp. ch. 7:17, and note\nthe fact that in no single instance did Christ call on any one of\nhis disciples to form correct opinions about him before becoming\nhis follower. They followed first and learned afterward. Even he\nwho doubts whether Christ is not a myth can still follow the ideal\nlife.--=But shall have the light of life.= That is, the light which\nguides and nourishes the true, the spiritual life. Comp. ch. 6:48,\n\u201cbread of life.\u201d See Ps. 119:105, where the Bible is compared to a\nlantern carried to light the path on a dark night. He is a light not\nfor the illumination of doubtful questions in science or metaphysics or\nabstract theology, but for the solution of practical problems in the\nmoral and spiritual life.\n\n\n 13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou[311] bearest\n record of thyself; thy record is not true.\n\n [311] ch. 5:31.\n\n\n 14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record\n of myself, _yet_ my record is true: for I know whence I\n came, and whither I go; but[312] ye cannot tell whence I\n come, and whither I go.\n\n [312] chaps. 7:28; 9:29, 30.\n\n=13, 14. Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.=\nSee ch. 5:31, note; perhaps the Pharisees here refer to Christ\u2019s\ndeclaration there.--=Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is\ntrue; for I know whence I have come= (my origin) =and whither I go=\n(my destiny). In general no man can bear testimony of himself, however\ntruthful he may be, for no man understands his own mission. He may\nfaithfully do from day to day the work which God gives him to do, and\nyet not comprehend the relation which that work bears to the great\nproblems of life and destiny which the Eternal Spirit is working out\nin the race. But Christ could bear record of himself, for he knew\nhimself; he knew the Father; he knew his own origin and his own\ndestiny; and he knew the relation which his life and death sustained\nto the world\u2019s life.--=Ye know not= (not merely cannot tell) =whence I\nam coming and whither I am going=. Christ knew whence he _had come_\n(\u1f20\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, past tense), _i. e._, from the glory he had with the Father\nfrom the beginning of the world (chaps. 1:1; 17:5); the Pharisees did\nnot know whence he was ever _coming_ (\u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, present tense), _i.\ne._, they had no spiritual sense to perceive and appreciate that\ndivine grace of which he was ever the recipient, and that constant\ncommunion with the Father from which he was ever bringing divine light\nand life wherewith to bless his followers.\n\n\n 15 Ye judge after the flesh; I[313] judge no man.\n\n [313] chaps. 3:17; 12:47.\n\n\n 16 And yet if I judge, my[314] judgment is true: for[315] I\n am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.\n\n [314] 1 Sam. 16:7; Ps. 45:6, 7; 72:2.\n\n [315] verse 29; ch. 16:32.\n\n=15, 16. Ye judge according to the flesh.= They therefore rejected\nJesus Christ as the Messiah, because he did not come with the earthly\npomp, or bring the earthly deliverance, which they had expected.--=I\njudge no one.= Yet his fan is in his hand; and even while he lived he\nwas sifting the wheat from the tares. He judges not; the world is\nself-judged and self-condemned. Every soul that rejects the light doth\nthereby write its own condemnation. \u201cLight is come into the world, and\nmen loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil\u201d\n(John 3:19).--=Yet if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not\nalone, but I and the Father that sent me.= Comp. ch. 5:30. The Spirit\nof the Father, given without measure to Christ, makes his spiritual\njudgments absolutely without error. In the measure in which this\nspirit is received and followed by the disciple, it similarly makes\nthe disciple\u2019s judgments true. See Matt. 16:19, note; John 20:22, 23.\n\n\n 17 It is also written[316] in your law, that the testimony\n of two men is true.\n\n [316] Deut. 17:6; 19:15.\n\n\n 18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the\n Father[317] that sent me beareth witness of me.\n\n [317] ch. 5:37.\n\n\n 19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus\n answered, Ye[318] neither know me, nor my Father: if[319]\n ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.\n\n [318] verse 55; chaps. 16:3; 17:25.\n\n [319] ch. 14:7, 9.\n\n\n 20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury,[320] as he\n taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him;\n for[321], his hour was not yet come.\n\n [320] Mark 12:41.\n\n [321] ch. 7:30.\n\n=17-20. Also in your own law.= Not in _our_ law; Christ never classes\nhimself with the Jews, nor counts himself as under their law. He obeys\nit, not because it is binding, but by a voluntary subjection, for\nexample\u2019s sake (Matt. 3:15; 17:27). The reference here is to Deut.\n17:6; 19:15.--=I am one that bear witness concerning myself.= Not\nmerely nor mainly by words; for Christ said comparatively little in\npublic concerning his character; but by his life and works. See John\n14:11.--=And the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.= By direct\ndeclarations to his divine character and mission (Matt. 3:17; John\n12:28); by the testimony of prophets and apostles, especially of John\nthe Baptist (Luke 2:28-32, 38; John 1:32-34, 36); by the voice of\nangels (Luke 2:9-14); by the miracles wrought (John 11:42); but still\nmore by that manifestation of the divine presence which made itself\nfelt in many ways in Christ\u2019s person, as in his attraction of\npublicans and sinners to himself, his expulsion of the traders from\nthe temple, his passing through the mob at Nazareth, etc. Godet tells\na story in illustration of the power of this witness of the Spirit.\nAbout 1660, Hedinger, chaplain to the Duke of Wurtemberg, took the\nliberty of censuring his sovereign, at first in private, but afterward\nin public, for a serious fault. The latter, much enraged, sent for\nhim, resolved to punish him. Hedinger, after seeking strength by\nprayer, repaired to the prince, the expression of his countenance\nbetokening the peace and the presence of God. The prince, after\nlooking at him for a moment, asked, in agitation, \u201cWhy did you not\ncome alone?\u201d and dismissed him unharmed. The vital communion of this\nservant of God with his God was a sensible fact, even to one whom\nanger had exasperated. Comp. Acts 4:13; 6:15.--=Who is your Father?=\nAsked, not in perplexity, for Christ\u2019s reference to God as his\nFather had been so frequent at Jerusalem that they could not have\nmisunderstood his meaning, but in scorn. Christ\u2019s reply is adapted to\nthe spirit of their inquiry.--=Ye neither know me nor my Father.= They\ngloried in being the peculiar people of God; but they as little\napprehended him as they did Christ his Son.--=If ye had known me ye\nwould have known my Father also.= For the Son is the way to the\nFather. The converse of this proposition is also true, He that knows\nthe Father will know the Son. Both are known by the spiritual\nsense; and the same faculty which appreciates the divine qualities\nresplendent in the Son will answer to and be ready to receive and be\nimpressed by the divine qualities in the invisible Spirit, the Father\nwhom no one hath seen or can see.--=In the treasury.= See Luke 21:1,\nnote. The thirteen trunks or chests placed for the reception of the\ngifts of the worshippers, and properly called the treasury, were in\nthe Court of the Women. Each bore an inscription, indicating the use\nto which the money placed therein was devoted. Probably either that\npart of the Women\u2019s Court where these chests stood, or, more probably,\nan adjoining apartment used in connection with them, perhaps where the\nmoney was kept, was also designated the treasury, and it is this\napartment that is indicated by the word here.--=For his hour was not\nyet come.= See ch. 7:30, note.\n\n\n 21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and\n ye[322] shall seek me, and[323] shall die in your sins:\n whither I go, ye[324] cannot come.\n\n [322] ch. 7:34.\n\n [323] Job 20:11; Ps. 73:18-20; Prov. 14:32; Isa.\n 65:20; Ephes. 2:1.\n\n [324] Luke 16:28.\n\n=21. I go away.= Not _my way_, a translation for which there is no\nauthority whatever in the original.--=And ye shall seek me, and shall\ndie in your sins.= _In your sins_ means not, _by reason of your sins_,\nbut, _while continuing in a state of sin_. This verse is not to be\ntaken as an evidence that a sincere and contrite seeking of Christ as\na pardoning and redeeming Saviour will ever be in vain. It is\ninterpreted by many a so-called death-bed repentance, in which\ndeliverance from a future penalty is sought, without any real\ncontrition of heart for past sins. But, coupled with the next clause,\nit seems to me strongly opposed to the doctrine of a universal\nrestitution.--=Whither I go ye cannot come.= Compare ch. 7:34, \u201cYe\nshall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot\ncome,\u201d and contrast ch. 14:3, \u201cI will come again and receive you unto\nmyself, that where I am, there ye may be also.\u201d See also ch. 17:24.\n\n\n 22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he\n saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.\n\n\n 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from\n above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.\n\n\n 24 I said[325] therefore unto you, that ye shall die in\n your sins: for[326] if ye believe not that I am _he_, ye\n shall die in your sins.\n\n [325] verse 21.\n\n [326] Mark 16:16.\n\n=22-24. Will he kill himself?= This they said to each other, partly in\nperplexity, partly in scorn. Contrast their different interpretation\nbut similar spirit in ch. 7:35. Christ, in his reply, repels the idea\nthat he had referred to his death; they cannot come where he is going,\nbecause he is going to that heaven from which he first came, and they\nare of the earth earthy. Comp. 1 Cor. 15:50, \u201cFlesh and blood cannot\ninherit the kingdom of God.\u201d--=Ye are from beneath, I am from above.=\nThis statement is interpreted by the clause which follows.--=Ye are\nof= (_from_, \u1f10\u03ba) =this world, I am not of= (_from_, \u1f10\u03ba) =this world=.\nMan is born of the flesh, and therefore is flesh, needing to be born\nanew and from above in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven (ch.\n3:5, 6). Christ was born, even in his earthly nature, of the Spirit\n(Luke 1:35), was from his birth the Son of God, and therefore did not\nneed to experience the new birth. Though John does not describe his\nsupernatural birth, he recognizes it. Christ\u2019s language here would be\nincomprehensible but for the interpretation afforded by the narratives\nof his advent in Matthew and Luke. The declaration \u201cYe are from\nbeneath\u201d here is not equivalent to the declaration of ver. 44, \u201cYe are\nof your father the devil.\u201d Here he speaks only of the earthly nature\ninherited; there of the wilful sin superadded.--=If ye believe not\nthat I am, ye shall die in your sins.= In the phrase \u201cI am\u201d there is a\nreference to Exod. 3:14, and the language implies the divinity of\nChrist, and would be so understood by his Jewish auditors, and was so\nunderstood by them. See ver. 38 and note. But it is not equivalent to\na general statement that belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ is\nessential to salvation. It was addressed to men who had abundant\nreason to believe that Christ was the divine Messiah of prophecy, and\nwho were wilfully ignorant of the truth. We must not give the words\nany wider application than our Lord gave to them himself. To reject\nChrist is fatal; to be ignorant of him is not.\n\n\n 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith\n unto them, Even _the same_ that I said unto you from the\n beginning.\n\n=25. Who art thou?= A question asked possibly partly in perplexity and\npartly in scorn, but more for the purpose of evoking an answer which\nwould give them a point for an attack upon Christ.--=Even the same that\nI said unto you from the beginning.= The grammatical difficulties in\nthe correct rendition of this passage are almost insuperable, and no\ntwo scholars give exactly the same shade of meaning to it, while none\nof the interpretations afforded are altogether satisfactory, even to\nthe interpreter. The principal interpretations are: (1) _What I from\nthe beginning am teaching you? do you ask that?_ An interrogative\nexpression of surprise. According to this view Christ does not answer\nthe question at all. (2) _Why indeed do I still speak to you at all?_ A\nlanguage of reproach. (3) _Even the same that I said unto you from the\nbeginning_, the rendering of our English version. (4) _Essentially that\nwhich also I discourse to you_; _i. e._, You are to ascertain my nature\nby a study of my discourses. Neither one of these interpretations, it\nwill be seen, affords a direct answer to the question.\n\n\n 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but[327]\n he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those\n things which I have heard of him.\n\n [327] ch. 7:28.\n\n\n 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.\n\n=26, 27. Many things I have which I might say, and many sentences\nwhich I might pronounce concerning you.= The meaning and the\nconnection is obscure, and the translation which I have given is not\nso literal as that of the English version. But Christ elsewhere\ndeclares that he has not come to judge the world (ver. 15; chaps.\n3:17; 12:47), and to understand him here to assert the contrary makes\nhis utterances contradictory. Moreover, if we interpret his\ndeclaration as the English version does, it is difficult to see any\nconnection with the preceding or the subsequent clause. I understand\ntherefore that he means that he _has_ many things to say, and many\njudgments formed in his own mind, which he might pronounce, but that\nhe will only speak those things which he has been commissioned by the\nFather to speak; and his commission at this time is not to judge, but\nto save the world.--=They understood not that he spake to them of the\nFather.= Strange! Less strange, perhaps, than it now seems to us, for\nwe read this discourse in the light of eighteen centuries of\nChristianity. So far, too, Christ had not designated by any title the\nOne who had sent him. He had veiled his meaning, as he did in the\nparables, that he might not be fully understood at once; for he could\nhope to get lodgment for the truth only by gradually unfolding it.\n\u201cThere is no accounting for the _ignorance of unbelief_ as any\nminister of Christ knows by painful experience.\u201d--(_Alford._)\n\n\n 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up[328]\n the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am _he_, and\n _that_ I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught\n me, I speak these things.\n\n [328] chaps. 3:14; 12:32.\n\n\n 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left\n me alone; for I do always those things that please him.\n\n\n 30 As he spake these words, many[329] believed on him.\n\n [329] ch. 10:42.\n\n=28-30. When ye have lifted up the Son of man.= The phrase Son of man\nwas used by the rabbis, who borrowed it from David, for the Messiah\n(see Matt. 10:23, note). The Greek verb here rendered _lifted up_\n(\u1f51\u03c8\u03cc\u03c9) is used by John only with reference to the crucifixion (chaps.\n3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34), but everywhere else in the N. T. is used in\nthe sense of _exalted_, and is so translated except in James 4:10. See\nMatt. 11:23; Luke 1:52; Acts 2:33; 5:31, etc. This fact is of itself\nan indication that John\u2019s Gospel was written after the cross had been\nseen to be the means by which Christ was himself exalted, his glory,\nnot his shame. It is the cross which has led to his recognition among\nmen as the Son of God (Mark 15:39; 1 Cor. 1:23, 24); to his exaltation\nby the Father (Phil. 2:8-10); to his adoration in heaven (Rev.\n5:12).--=Ye shall know that I am.= See on ver. 24. The passion and\ndeath of Christ is the attestation of his divinity (Mark 15:39).--=I\ndo nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me I speak these\nthings.= In Christ\u2019s time the things _done_, _i. e._, the miracles,\nwere recognized as signs of divine presence and power; more and more\nthe _words spoken_ are recognized as still greater signs of the divine\npresence and power. The word is more than the external work, the truth\nis greater than the miracle.--=He that sent me is with me.= The Son is\na manifestation of the Father, because the Father is ever in and\nworking and speaking through the Son. He is not merely an ambassador\nsent by, he is a tabernacle in which dwells, the Eternal King. So\nChrist, who sends forth his disciples (ch. 17:18), is ever with them\n(ch. 14:17, 23; Matt. 28:20).--=The Father hath not left me alone; for\nI do those things that please him always.= _Always_ is emphatic. In\nthis uniformity of obedience to the Father\u2019s will is the secret of the\nabiding of his presence; it is true for us, as for Christ, that doing\nthe Father\u2019s pleasure secures the divine fellowship (chaps. 14:21;\n15:10).--=Many believed on him.= Comp. ch. 12:42. Faith, like\nknowledge, is of different degrees, and the quality of this faith is\nnot indicated. It may have been like the seed received on stony places\n(Matt. 13:20, 21). But beware of understanding here, or anywhere, by\nthis phrase a mere intellectual belief in Christ as either Rabbi,\nProphet, or Messiah. To _believe on_ always signifies an emotion or\nheart action. \u201cOur Lord\u2019s words did not appeal to the understanding;\nthey were not argumentative; we cannot account for their influence by\nany processes of logic. So far as we can judge from a very simple\nstatement, they went straight to the heart; the faith which they\ncalled forth was a faith of the heart.\u201d--(_Maurice._)\n\n\n 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If\n ye continue[330] in my word, _then_ are ye my disciples\n indeed;\n\n [330] Rom. 2:7; Col. 1:23; Heb. 10:38, 39.\n\n\n 32 And ye shall know[331] the truth, and the truth shall\n make you free.[332]\n\n [331] Hos. 6:3.\n\n [332] ch. 17:17; Ps. 119:45; Rom. 6:14, 18, 22; James\n 1:25; 2:12.\n\n\n 33 They answered him, We be Abraham\u2019s seed, and were never\n in[333] bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be\n made free?\n\n [333] Lev. 25:42.\n\n=31-33. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.=\nA promise and a condition. The thing promised is discipleship. \u201cThey\nshould be--what? Saints? divines? doctors? No; but what is much\nbetter than any of the three--what all the three should wish to\nbe raised into--_disciples_. They will then be learners, learners\nsitting continually at the feet of the true Teacher.\u201d--(_Maurice._)\nThe theology of Christ is a progressive theology; the promise to his\nfollowers is not that they shall be learned, acquiring the truth once\nfor all, but learners, ever acquiring it more and more. This promise is\nconditioned on--what? Receiving his word? defending his word? No; but\nabiding in his word, _i. e._, living, moving, and having their being\nin it. The word of Christ cannot be accepted once for all; the soul,\nto be nourished on it, must abide in it, as the body abides in and is\nnourished by the atmosphere (comp. chaps. 5:38; 6:56; 15:4-10; 1\nJohn 2:6, 10, 14, etc.; 3:6). To be Christ\u2019s disciples indeed, we\nmust _continue_ (Matt. 13:20, 21; John 6:66; Col. 1:23; Heb. 10:38;\nRev. 2:7-11, 17) _in_ (John 15:1-7; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 2:20; Col.\n1:27) _the word of Christ_ (Matt. 11:29, 30; 1 Cor. 3:11; Gal.\n1:8).--=And ye shall know the truth.= Living according to the word\nof Christ is the condition precedent to a true apprehension of\nthe truth. Christ teaches that life precedes creed; the church\nhas too often reversed this, making the creed precede life. But\na creed that does not grow out of spiritual experience is dead.\nThere is no virtue in the doctrine of native depravity except as\nan outgrowth of personal humility; nor in belief in a personal\nGod, except as it is rooted in a living experience of faith in\nhim.--=And the truth shall make you free.= This, too, the church\nhas often reversed, bringing men into bondage unto a creed, instead of\nusing the creed as an instrument to enlarge their intellectual\nindependence.--=We be Abraham\u2019s seed, and were never in bondage to any\none.= This is the language of pride, and it is not more true than the\nlanguage of pride is ordinarily. Politically the nation had been in\nbondage to Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome. Spiritually it had been in\nbondage to idolatries in past times, _e. g._, the reign of Manasseh,\nand was now in bondage to the rabbis, literalists in interpretation,\nand without spirituality or sympathy (Matt. 23:4). Christ, however,\nrarely enters into argument; he makes no attempt to refute their\nstatement, pays no heed to their interruption, but goes on with his\ndiscourse.\n\n\n 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,\n Whosoever[334] committeth sin is the servant of sin.\n\n [334] Rom. 6:16, 20; 2 Pet. 2:19.\n\n\n 35 And the servant[335] abideth not in the house for ever:\n _but_ the Son abideth ever.\n\n [335] Gal. 4:30.\n\n\n 36 If[336] the Son therefore shall make you free, ye[337]\n shall be free indeed.\n\n [336] Isa. 61:1.\n\n [337] Rom. 8:2; Gal. 5:1.\n\n=34-36. Whosoever committeth sin= (lives in the commission of sin) =is\nthe slave= (not servant) =of sin=. He is in bondage to sin. For action\nforms habit, and habit becomes second nature. Thus every sinful act\ntends to bring the soul into bondage to the law of evil habit.\nStriking illustrations of this law of human nature are afforded by\nself-indulgence in appetite; but the same principle is involved in all\nevil-doing--it tends to fasten evil habits on the soul. See Rom.\n6:16-18; 7:9-24. And this law belongs to human nature; it is equally\noperative in Jew and Gentile, in church-member and in man of the\nworld. Every sin helps to weld a chain.--=The slave abideth not in the\nhouse forever, but the Son abideth ever.= The language is parabolic;\nthe meaning seems to me to be this: The world is in bondage; it\n_seems_ to be under Satan; his promise to Christ, \u201cAll these things\nwill I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me,\u201d appears not\nlike a vain promise. But this bondage is short-lived. The kingdoms of\nthe world are _in truth_ the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ.\nHe shall reign forever and forever (Rev. 11:15). He, therefore, who\nyields to the yoke of bondage by conforming to the world gets only a\nbrief advantage, for the period of bondage to sin and Satan will soon\nbe over. He that accepts Christ as his Lord, and acknowledges\nallegiance to him, will have an eternal freedom in the house which God\nhas built, and over which Christ is to have eternal rule (Heb. 3:2-6).\nThe world is God\u2019s house, not Satan\u2019s.--=If the Son therefore shall\nmake you free.= From past penalty, by himself bearing it for us; from\nthe bondage of sin, by giving us power to become the sons of God; from\nthe law, by imparting to us a new spiritual life. See Paul\u2019s Epistle\nto the Galatians, especially chaps. 4 and 5, which may be regarded as\nhis sermon on this text.--=Ye shall be free indeed.= Made free by the\n_truth_ (ver. 32) as it is in Christ Jesus. For freedom is not\nindependence of all law--that never is and never can be; God himself\nis not thus free; it is the comprehension and the right use of law. We\nare free when we perfectly comprehend the laws of nature, _i. e._, of\nGod, perfectly and cheerfully comply with them, and so know how to get\nthe advantage and profit of them. All progress in material\ncivilization has been attained by increasing knowledge of the divine\nlaws, and consequently an increased use of them. We have yet to learn\nthe gain that there is in a similar comprehension of and obedience to\nthe intellectual and the spiritual laws of the universe. Thus it is\nthat the _truth_ makes _free_ (ver. 32).\n\n\n 37 I know that ye are Abraham\u2019s seed: but ye seek to kill\n me, because my word hath no place in you.\n\n\n 38 I[338] speak that which I have seen with my Father: and\n ye do that which ye have seen with your father.\n\n [338] ch. 14:10, 24.\n\n=37, 38. I know that ye are Abraham\u2019s seed.= Not equivalent to _I\nknow that ye regard yourselves as Abraham\u2019s seed_. The reference is\nto the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 17:4-8), which\ninvolved a promise of divine protection and blessing to the nation. The\nPharisees adhere to the idea of political freedom. Christ assents to\ntheir declaration that they are the seed referred to in that covenant,\nbut returns to the spiritual idea which underlies his discourse, and\nemphasizes the extent to which, in character, they have wandered from\nthe pattern set by Abraham.--=Nevertheless= (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70, notwithstanding you\nare Abraham\u2019s seed) =ye seek to kill me= (chaps. 7:1, 19, 32; 8:59;\n10:31, 39). To whom were these words spoken?--to the believing\nJudeans mentioned in ver. 30, or to enemies? The true answer is that\nbelievers and unbelievers were intermixed in the crowd, and that it\nis as little possible for the reader now as it would have been for\nthe observer then to distinguish between them.--=Because my word\nmakes no progress in you.= They heard it--nay, crowded round him to\nhear it, were willing and interested listeners. But the truth did not\nget entrance into their hearts, nor permeate their character. It was\nnot like the leaven hid in three measures of meal. They were thus a\ntype of many modern hearers who listen to the truth, but in whom the\ntruth does not work. The words rendered _hath no place_ (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6)\nsignify, literally, does not _work, spread, go forward_.--=I do that\nwhich I have seen with my Father, and ye do that which ye have heard\nwith your father= (\u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, _heard_, not \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, _seen_, is the\nbetter reading). Christ approaches a truth whose depths, in our\nignorance of the spirit world, we cannot sound. This is that every\nsoul draws its inspiration from an invisible world--either belongs to\nthe kingdom of light and is taught of God, or belongs to the kingdom\nof darkness and is taught of evil spirits. The unseen companions of\nthe soul are the most influential. Demoniacal possession is only an\nexceptional fruitage of a universal demoniacal inspiration. See below,\non ver. 44.\n\n\n 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham[339] is our\n father. Jesus saith unto them, If[340] ye were Abraham\u2019s\n children, ye would do the works of Abraham.\n\n [339] Matt. 3:9.\n\n [340] Rom. 2:28, 29; 9:7; Gal. 3:7, 29.\n\n\n 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the\n truth, which I have heard of God: this[341] did not Abraham.\n\n [341] Rom. 4:12.\n\n=39, 40. Abraham is our father.= They recognize, as we all recognize,\nthat there is a source from which are drawn the ideas and the\ninfluences which mould our character. This fountain is, according to\ntheir conception, Abrahamic. It is true that character is moulded\nby national influences; but these are not the profoundest nor the\nmost potent.--=If ye were Abraham\u2019s children ye would do the works\nof Abraham.= Seed they are, children they are not. Descendants? yes!\ndisciples? no! They do not do that which they have heard from Abraham.\nWe are the children of a noble ancestry, the Reformers, the Puritans,\nand the like, only as we show their spirit in dealing with the men and\nthe problems of our own time.--=This did not Abraham.= Called of God\nto leave his country, and his kindred, and his father\u2019s house, he did\nnot resist, but left all to go out, not knowing whither he went.\nAbraham obeyed the divine message; the seed of Abraham would kill the\ndivine messenger.\n\n\n 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him,\n We be not born of fornication; we[342] have one Father,\n _even_ God.\n\n [342] Isa. 63:16; 64:8.\n\n\n 42 Jesus said unto them, If[343] God were your Father, ye\n would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God;\n neither came I of myself, but[344] he sent me.\n\n [343] Mal. 1:6; 1 John 5:1.\n\n [344] ch. 17:8, 25.\n\n=41, 42. Ye do the deeds of your father.= A generic truth; the\nspiritual paternity of any soul may be known by its deeds; the\nsource of its life is witnessed by the life itself.--=We be not\nborn of fornication.= It is a Jewish legend to this day that\nJesus was born of adultery. This is the Jewish explanation of his\npremarital birth. I believe that this legend had been invented in\nChrist\u2019s own time to account for his supernatural birth, and that\nthe expression here is a scornful allusion to this dishonoring\nreport. This, at least, though I do not find it suggested by any\nof the commentaries, seems to me the most natural explanation of\nthe language of the Pharisees, which has given the scholars\nno little difficulty. Other explanations suggested--_e. g._, that Sarah\nwas not an adulteress, and therefore the Jews were certainly children\nof Abraham (_Meyer_), or that, unlike the Samaritans, there was no\ntaint of heathen blood in their veins (_Alford_, _Godet_)--seem to me\nunnatural and far-fetched, and are apparently not very satisfactory\neven to those who suggest them.--=We have one Father, even God.= They\nabandon their claim to have derived their life from Abraham, and\nsubstitute a claim to derive it from the God of Abraham. Or we may\nsuppose that, the first interlocutors being silenced, others make this\nassertion.--=If God were your Father ye would love me.= The practical\nand present application is that every soul whose life is truly rooted\nin God will be drawn toward Christ by spiritual sympathy.--=For I came\nforth and am here from God.= The first verb (\u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd) indicates\nChrist\u2019s _coming forth_ from the glory which Christ had with the\nFather from the beginning of the world (John 17:5); the second verb\n(\u1f25\u03ba\u03c9, present formed from a perfect) indicates the _perpetual\npresence_ of the Father with Christ, and Christ\u2019s continuous\nmanifestation of the Father to the world.--=Neither came I of myself.=\nTherefore that phase of theology which represents the Son as\ninterceding to make a just God merciful, and thus induce him to\nforgive the sinful, is thoroughly false. The mercy of Christ\noriginated with the Father; the mission of Christ was wrought out by\nthe Father. Christ came not of his own will, but of the Father\u2019s. See\nchaps. 3:16, note; 6:38, note.\n\n\n 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? _even_ because ye\n cannot hear my[345] word.\n\n [345] Isa. 6:9.\n\n\n 44 Ye[346] are of _your_ father the devil, and the lusts\n of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the\n beginning, and abode[347] not in the truth, because there\n is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of\n his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.\n\n [346] Matt. 13:38; 1 John 3:8.\n\n [347] Jude 6.\n\n=43, 44. Why do ye not understand my speech?= He has thus far spoken\nparabolically, as though reluctant to characterize them openly as\nchildren of the devil. He now abandons the dark saying, and speaks\nplainly.--=Even because ye cannot hear my word.= _Word_ is the doctrine\ntaught, _speech_ is the form in which it is clothed; to _hear_ is to\nreceive with the heart, as in Matt. 13:16, 20; John 5:24; 8:47, etc.;\nto _understand_ is to comprehend intellectually. The implication then\nis that he who is unwilling to receive and act upon the doctrine of\nChrist in his heart and life cannot comprehend the forms in which it is\ncouched. The declaration is thus the converse of ch. 7:17.--=Ye are\nfrom your father the devil.= God is the Father of Christ, and of all\nthose who through faith in Christ are born again; they become by\nadoption his children (Rom. 8:15-17), are sent into the world by their\nFather (ch. 17:18), and manifest their Father unto the world (Phil.\n2:15). In like manner they that resist the truth are children, by\ntheir own choice, of the devil, commissioned by him, serving him, and\nmanifesting his spirit, in their selfishness, cupidity, malice, and\nall uncharitableness. In each case the soul derives its spirit from\nits own chosen father. The whole contrast would be almost meaningless\nif by the devil Christ understood only a poetic personification of\nevil in human nature. There are two households, one of God, the other\nof Satan; two churches, one of truth and love, the other of falsehood\nand malignity. \u201cThis verse is one of the most decisive testimonies for\nthe objective personality of the devil. It is quite impossible to\nsuppose an accommodation to Jewish views, or a metaphorical form of\nspeech, in so solemn and direct an assertion as this.\u201d--(_Alford._)--\n=The will= (lusts is too narrow a word; the original signifies earnest\ndesire, but generally of a bad sort) =of your father ye are determined\nto do=. Literally, _will to do_. Resolute determination to evil is\nclearly indicated by the form of the sentence (\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd). The\nlanguage of Christ here, therefore, does not apply to sins of\nignorance and inattention. He is speaking to wilful opposers of the\ntruth.--=He was a murderer from the beginning.= Not because he\ninspired Cain\u2019s murder of his brother Abel, but because, from the very\noutset, he endeavored to seduce into disobedience, and so to destroy,\nthe human race. His declaration \u201cYe shall not surely die\u201d (Gen. 3:4)\nwas not merely a lie, but a lie having for its object the death of\nmankind.--=Stood not in the truth.= It seems to me that there is here\na reference to the fall of the devil. So Augustine and the Roman\nCatholic commentators generally; _contra_, Meyer, Alford, and the\nmoderns. Satan was in a high position, but he did not _stand_, because\ntruth was not his foundation, and--=Because truth is not in him=. No\ndefinite article is appended to _truth_ here. Satan did not _stand_ on\nthe truth of God, because in him, in his inner character, truth found\nno place. We can only stand _by_ the truth when truth is in _our\ninward parts_ (Ps. 51:6), _i. e._, in our desires and our affections.\nThe truth must be _in_ us to be _under_ us.--=He speaketh of his own.=\nOut of (\u1f10\u03ba) his own treasury of evil things. So the evil man, out of\nthe evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things (Matt. 12:35).--=For he\nis a liar, and the father of it.= Or _of him_; either the father of\n_lying_ or the father of the _liar_. Either rendering is grammatically\npossible. The latter better fits the context.\n\n\n 45 And because[348] I tell _you_ the truth, ye believe me\n not.\n\n [348] Gal. 4:16; 2 Thess. 2:10.\n\n\n 46 Which of you convinceth[349] me of sin? And if I say the\n truth, why do ye not believe me?\n\n [349] Heb. 4:15.\n\n\n 47 He that is of God heareth God\u2019s words: ye therefore hear\n _them_ not, because ye are not of God.\n\n=45-47. But because I tell you the truth ye believe me not.= \u201cA\nthoroughly tragical _because_; it has its ground in the alien character\nof the relation between that which Jesus speaks and their devilish\nnature, to which latter a lie alone corresponds.\u201d--(_Meyer._) Truth\nhas not always its evidence in human nature; for human nature may be\nso warped as to be more ready to believe a lie than the truth (Rom.\n1:21; Ephes. 4:18; 2 Thess. 2:11). If Christ had told a lie they\nwould have believed him, just as many of those who now rejected him\ndid subsequently believe the false Christs of a later date.--=Which of\nyou convinceth me of sin.= Not of _error_ (_Calvin_), but of _sin_\n(_Alford_, _Godet_, _Meyer_). Indeed, _error_ in Christ\u2019s teaching in\nthis matter would be _sin_; for if his declaration respecting himself,\nthat he came not from the earth but from above, from the Father, and\nwas the long-anticipated Messiah, was not true, it would have been\nfalse and fraudulent--not merely a mistake, but a lie. By this\nquestion he asserts, by implication, his sinlessness; he defies his\nopponents to point out a single sin in his life, a single flaw in his\ncharacter. And they were speechless, as scepticism has been ever\nsince, before his incomparable character. The argument is this: If I\nam not the Son of God, find out some human defect that indicates a\nhuman origin and kinship. And this has never been done. I imagine a\npause, a moment\u2019s expressive silence, no answer from the Pharisees,\nand then the crushing words that follow, calmly uttered:--=If I say\nthe truth, why do ye not believe?=--=He that is of God=--as the\nPharisees had claimed to be (ver. 41)--=heareth= (receiveth) =God\u2019s\nwords; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God=. This is\nChrist\u2019s method with deists. Point out a single flaw in his stainless\ncharacter. You cannot? Then at least listen with reverent attention to\nthe words of the sinless man. To refuse a hearing to such an one\ndemonstrates hostility to purity and truth, and so to God.\n\n\n 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not\n well that thou art a Samaritan, and[350] hast a devil?\n\n [350] ch. 7:20.\n\n\n 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my\n Father, and ye do dishonour me.\n\n\n 50 And I[351] seek not mine own glory: there is one that\n seeketh and judgeth.\n\n [351] ch. 5:41.\n\n=48-50. Say we not well thou art a Samaritan and hast an evil\nspirit?= The Jews take to the common resort of men silenced\nand convinced against their will; they reply to argument\nby calling names. _Devil_ is an unfortunate translation, giving the\nEnglish reader the impression that they use the same word which Christ\nhas used in ver. 44. Their word is _demon_ (\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), and signifies\nprimarily, in classic usage, a tutelary demon or genius; in N. T.\nusage, an evil spirit. These spirits are represented as fallen angels\n(2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), subject to Satan (Matt. 9:34; 25:41;\n2 Cor. 12:7; Rev. 12:9), possessing the power of working miracles\n(Rev. 16:14), dwelling in the idols of the heathen and uttering\nthe heathen responses and oracles (Acts 16:17; 1 Cor. 10:20; Rev.\n9:20), and the authors of evil to mankind (2 Cor. 12:7; 1 Tim.\n4:1). See _Rob. Lex._, art. \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. The charge had before\nbeen made by the Pharisees that Christ cast out devils by Beelzebub\nthe prince of devils (Matt. 12:24). It is not necessary to trace any\nconnection between the two epithets _a Samaritan_ and _possessing a\ndemon_. Passion is never coherent. The language is wild, bitter,\npassionate, but illogical and inconsequential.--=I have not a devil *\n* * * ye do dishonor me.= He passes by the charge of being a Samaritan\nin silence, for the author of the parable of the Good Samaritan\nrefuses to recognize opprobrium in it; he calmly denies the charge of\nhaving a demon, and declares that by the discourses which they\nattribute to a demon he honors the Father, while they dishonor him.\nPeter\u2019s declaration (1 Pet. 2:23), \u201cWho, when he was reviled, reviled\nnot again, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously,\u201d is\nillustrated by Christ\u2019s response here. Contrast his indignation at the\nwrong done to others (Matt. 23:14, 15, 23, etc.) with his mildness\nwhen wrong is done to himself. And the next verse gives the secret\nreason of his calmness.--=I am not seeking my own glory.= Therefore he\nis comparatively indifferent to public abuse and dishonor.--=There is\none who seeks and judges.= Because God cares for the honor of his\nchildren, they can well be unconcerned respecting it; because God\njudges them righteously, they can well disregard the unrighteous\njudgments of men.\n\n\n 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying,\n he shall never see death.\n\n=51. Verily, verily.= With Calvin and Godet, I regard Christ\u2019s\ndiscourse to his opponents as ended with the preceding verse.\nRecognizing the fact that some of his auditors have been inclined\ntoward him, though with but a feeble faith, he addresses them in the\nwords that follow, that he may strengthen their faith. The connection\nwhich Alford and Meyer endeavor to trace between this and the\npreceding verse I cannot perceive: _e. g._, \u201cYe are now the children\nof the devil; but if ye keep my word ye shall be rescued from that\nmurderer.\u201d--(_Alford._) The very words with which Christ begins the\nsentence, \u201cVerily, verily\u201d (\u1f00\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd) indicate a new topic.--=If any\none.= Emphasis is put on the pronoun. The promise is universal; it\nembraces Jew and Gentile.--=Keep my word.= _Keep_, as a guard his\nprisoner, with watchfulness (Matt. 19:17, note), against all\nseductions and assaults; _Christ\u2019s word_, that which he had taught,\nand therefore pre-eminently that faith in him as a divine Saviour\nwhich had been the pre-eminent theme of his teaching. We are to keep\nnot merely the _sayings_ in _memory_, or the _teaching_ in the\n_heart_, but, with sentiments of reverence and affection, the _truth_\nin our _life_, both in the inward experience and in the outward\nconduct.--=Shall not see death for ever.= Not, _Shall not see eternal\ndeath_, but, _Shall never see death_. \u201cThe death of the body is not\nreckoned as death, any more than the life of the body is life, in our\nLord\u2019s discourses. See ch. 11:25, 26.\u201d--(_Alford._) Christ puts\nhimself in contrast with the devil, whose slaves, by evil-doing, the\nJews have become (ver. 34). The devil is a murderer, a life-taker\n(ver. 44); Christ is a life-giver, even to those that are dead in\ntrespasses and sins (Ephes. 2:1).\n\n\n 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast\n a devil. Abraham is dead,[352] and the prophets; and thou\n sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of\n death.\n\n [352] Zech. 1:5.\n\n\n 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead?\n and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?\n\n=52, 53. The Judeans.= Not the believers of ver. 30. The opponents of\nChrist reply to words which were not addressed to them.--=Abraham is\ndead.= * * * * --=Art thou greater than our father Abraham?= * * *\n=Whom makest thou thyself?= Their argument is, as Chrysostom\ninterprets it: \u201cThey who have heard the word of God are dead, and\nshall they who have heard thee not die?\u201d Their perplexity was real,\nfor the unspiritual never comprehend either spiritual natures or\nspiritual teaching. They are literalists, and understand Jesus to\nspeak of natural death. They are dull and will not comprehend his\ndeclaration that he is the Messiah in hope of whom Abraham and the\nprophets had lived. Compare with their question here that of the\nSamaritan woman (ch. 4:12), \u201cArt thou greater than our father Jacob?\u201d\nbut contrast their spirit with hers. She is in doubt; they are\nscornful. See also Christ\u2019s declaration in Matt. 12:42, \u201cBehold, a\ngreater than Solomon is here.\u201d\n\n\n 54 Jesus answered, If[353] I honour myself, my honour is\n nothing: it is my Father[354] that honoureth me; of whom ye\n say, that he is your God:\n\n [353] ch. 5:31, 41.\n\n [354] ch. 17:1.\n\n\n 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I\n should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto\n you: but I know him, and keep his saying.\n\n\n 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he[355]\n saw _it_, and was glad.\n\n [355] Gen. 22:13, 14; Heb. 11:13.\n\n=54-56. If I glorify myself my glory is nothing.= To _honor_ or\n_glorify_ (\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9) is to attribute honor, generally by words. Christ\u2019s\nreply to the question, _Whom makest thou thyself?_ is that he makes\nnothing of himself; he leaves others to interpret his character from\nhis life and teachings. And this is singularly true; Christ is to each\nsoul what its spiritual sight is able to discern in him. He does not\ndeclare himself.--=It is my Father that glorifieth me.= He leaves his\nreputation in the hands of his Father, an example to his followers\nwhen belied and misrepresented. See on ver. 18.--=Ye have never\nlearned him, but I know him.= There is a double contrast in the two\nverbs (\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 and \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1), the one signifying acquired, the other\ndirect intuitive knowledge; and in the tenses, the one signifying a\npast act, _never have known_, the other a perpetually present\npossession, _I always know_. The sense may be expressed: _Ye have\nnever acquired any knowledge of God, but I am always in fellowship\nwith him._--=I should be a liar like unto you.= To boast of one\u2019s\nspiritual experience is to glorify one\u2019s self; such glory is nothing.\nTo deny it, under pretence of humility, is to become a liar. There may\nbe hypocrisy in disavowing the sense of God\u2019s presence and love, as\nwell as in falsely pretending to it. The true method is that of\nChrist, who showed it by his life, not by his professions.--=Your\nfather Abraham exulted that he might see my day= (_i. e._, that it was\npromised to him); =and he has seen it and was glad=. There is some\ndifficulty in the interpretation of this passage, to which I have\ngiven a literal translation. Some scholars regard it as wholly\nprophetical, \u201cAbraham rejoiced in anticipation of Christ\u2019s advent;\u201d\nothers as historical but typical, \u201cHe rejoiced, seeing in the birth of\nIsaac a type of the advent of the Messiah,\u201d and they even suppose that\nChrist refers to Abraham\u2019s laughter (Gen. 17:17); still others\ninterpret it as partly prophetic and partly historical, \u201cHe rejoiced\nin anticipation of the promised advent; he has since seen it from his\nhome in paradise, and was glad.\u201d The latter view seems to me best to\naccord with the original and with the context. So Godet, Meyer,\nAlford. For a statement of different views, see _Meyer_. The\ndeclaration is responsive to the question, Art thou greater than our\nfather Abraham? The answer is, Your father Abraham rejoiced because he\nwas promised that he should see my advent, and the realization of his\nhope has given him new joy in the heavenly kingdom. If this\ninterpretation be correct, the language incidentally confirms the\ndoctrine that the saints in heaven are cognizant of what passes upon\nearth.\n\n\n 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty\n years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?\n\n\n 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you.\n Before Abraham was, I[356] am.\n\n [356] ch. 1:1, 2; Exod. 3:14; Isa. 43:13; Col. 1:17;\n Rev. 1:8.\n\n\n 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid\n himself, and went out of the temple, going through the\n midst of them, and so passed by.\n\n=57-59. The Judeans therefore said to him, Thou art not yet fifty years\nold.= No indication of his actual age. The fifty years was specified\nbecause this was the age of a perfected maturity, according to Jewish\nnotions (Numb. 4:3, 39; 8:24--Lightfoot).--=And hast thou seen\nAbraham?= He did not say that he had, but that Abraham had seen him.\nThey pervert his words, partly through stupidity, partly through\nwilfulness.--=Verily, verily.= The precursor of a specially solemn\ndeclaration.--=Before Abraham was born, I am= (\u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9-\u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af). Two\nSocinian explanations are afforded of this passage: (1) Before Abraham\nwas born I (Christ) existed in the divine counsels, _i. e._ I was\npurposed by God and foretold by him; (2) Before Abram can become\nAbraham, a spiritual father of nations, I (Christ) must be sent forth\nas the Messiah. They both seem to me to be shifts devised to\naccommodate Scripture to a theological preconception. All independent\nGreek scholars (Meyer, Luthardt, Alford, Godet, Tholuck, etc.) agree\nsubstantially in their interpretation of the language. Its meaning is\nmade clear by a consideration of the original Greek, in which the\ncontrast is strongly marked between Abraham, who began to be, and\nChrist, who eternally is; by the context, in which the pre-eminence of\nChrist above Abraham is clearly implied; by the unexpressed but hardly\ndoubtful reference to the appellation given by the O. T. to Jehovah as\nthe I AM (Exod. 3:14; comp. Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; 14:62; John 8:24,\n25); and by the interpretation which was put upon Christ\u2019s words by\nhis auditors, who understood them as a claim of divinity, and took up\nstones to stone him as a blasphemer. Christ, then, by these words, as\nI understand him, identifies himself, as the N. T. manifestation of\nthe unseen God, with the I AM of the O. T., the One who had manifested\nthe Invisible to Israel in all their history.--=Then took they up\nstones to cast at him.= The building of the temple was still going on,\nand stones were probably lying about in the temple court. Stoning was\nthe O. T. punishment for blasphemy, but it could not be lawfully\ninflicted without trial and judgment.--=Jesus hid himself.= There is\nno good ground to suppose any miraculous escape, either here or in\nLuke 4:30. And there is good reason to believe that there was not a\nmiraculous interposition, for Christ never availed himself of any\nmiracle for his own benefit. See Matt. 4:6, note. The clause \u201cgoing\nthrough the midst of them, and so passed by,\u201d is wanting in the best\nMSS., and is omitted by Alford, Meyer, Godet, Luthardt. The latter\ntraces a curious analogy between this typical expulsion and the final\ncrucifixion of Christ. He hides himself from the eyes of those whom\nthe God of this world has blinded; he leaves the Pharisees apparent\nvictors and in possession of the field; in taking up stones to stone\nhim they show themselves to be murderers at heart, as they afterward\nbecame in outward act.\n\nIn this discourse, or these discourses, for it is not quite clear\nwhether it is one or more, the connection is sometimes obscure, and\nthe meaning accordingly difficult. The student must remember (1) that\nChrist addresses a very different audience from that in Galilee. There\nhe spoke to willing but ignorant disciples; in Jerusalem he speaks to\nobstinate and perverse enemies. (2) Hence the difference in spirit. In\nGalilee gentleness is predominant, in Jerusalem severity. (3) The\ncontinuity of the discourse is affected by the sudden transitions of\nfeeling in Christ, which are great, as in all natures of deep and\nready sympathy. He speaks now with great pathos, as in the question, a\nsemi-soliloquy, Why do ye not understand my speech? (ver. 43), then\nwith indignation, Ye are of your father the devil (ver. 44); now with\nself-abnegation, I judge no man (ver. 15), If I honor myself my honor\nis nothing (ver. 54), again with divine self-assertion and the power\nof an unconcealed divinity, I am from above (ver. 23), Before Abraham\nwas I am (ver. 58). (4) The continuity of his speech is constantly\nbroken in upon by rude interruptions (verses 19, 22, 39, 41, 48, 52,\n53, 57), and by changes in the direction of his discourse, which is\nsometimes addressed to his disciples (ver. 31), and sometimes to his\nopponents (verses 42, 49, etc.). (5) Nevertheless we may say generally\nthat the discourse embodies Christ\u2019s teaching respecting himself, and\nembraces the following points: He is (_a_) the light, _i. e._, the\nmoral and spiritual illuminator, of the world (ver. 12); (_b_)\nsuperhuman in his origin (ver. 23); (_c_) the manifestation of the\nFather, because the tabernacle (ch. 1:14) in which the Father dwells\n(ver. 29); (_d_) the emancipator of all those that accept and obey the\ntruth as manifested by him (verses 31-36); (_e_) sinless (ver. 46);\n(_f_) the life-giver (ver. 51); (_g_) the great I AM (ver. 58). To\nreceive the benefit of the light which he confers, we must follow his\nexample (ver. 12); to receive the benefit of the freedom he brings, we\nmust live habitually in the truth which he teaches (verses 31, 32); to\nreceive the life which he bestows, we must be born from above (ch.\n3:3) by faith in him as our Messiah (ver. 24).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\nCh. 9:1-41. THE HEALING OF THE MAN BORN BLIND.--A MIRACLE OF CHRIST\nATTESTED BY A JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION.--A PARABLE OF REDEMPTION.--A\nLESSON IN FAITH. See note at ver. 38.\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--This miracle is reported only by John. There is\nnothing peculiar in this, since John alone reports Christ\u2019s Judean\nministry, in which it occurred. The place was Jerusalem; the time is\nuncertain; it was on a Sabbath (ver. 14), in the fall of A. D. 29\n(Vol. I, p. 45), between the feast of Tabernacles in October (ch. 7:2)\nand the feast of Dedication in December (ch. 10:22). Some identify it\nwith the last day of the former feast (ch. 7:37), which was a Sabbath,\nsupposing ch. 7:53 to 8:11 to be an interpolation. It is not probable\nthat it occurred at the time which seems to be indicated by its place\nin the report furnished by the Evangelists. That Christ stopped on\nescaping from a mob who threatened to stone him, in order to work this\nmiracle, is not probable; that under such circumstances his disciples\nshould have asked him the abstruse question of ver. 2 is still more\nimprobable. I put it therefore at some other time in his Judean\nministry, which lasted a little over two months. See ch. 7, Prel.\nNote. In studying this chapter the student will do well to observe its\nnatural division into three parts: (1) the miracle (verses 1-7); (2)\nthe investigation (verses 8-33); (3) the result (verses 34-38).\n\n\n 1 And as _Jesus_ passed by, he saw a man which was blind\n from _his_ birth.\n\n=1. And passing by, he saw a man blind from birth.= To the ordinary\nreader the connection of this verse with the last verse of the\npreceding chapter indicates that this miracle was wrought as Jesus\npassed from the temple driven by the mob. But the latter clause of\nthat verse is of doubtful authenticity. The phrase \u201cpassing by\u201d\nappears to be used here simply to indicate that the miracle of mercy\nwas called forth by the occasion, not by the blind man\u2019s petition nor\nby any previously formed purpose. \u201cIt was he who saw the blind man,\nnot the blind man who came to him; and so earnestly did he look upon\nhim that even his disciples perceived it.\u201d--(_Chrysostom._) Compare\nthis case with that in Luke 18:35-43. There the blind man appeals to\nChrist, here Christ heals without being appealed to. There, in the\nstillness of the country, the noise of the multitude awakens the\nattention of the blind man. Here, in the crowded city, there is\nnothing to announce to the blind man a healer until Christ speaks to\nhim. There, therefore, he awaits the petition; here he does not.\nCongenital blindness is incurable by modern science. How it was known\nto the Evangelist that this man was blind from his birth has been\nquestioned. The man appears, from the following narrative, to have\nbeen a well-known mendicant. Perhaps he proclaimed the nature and\nextent of his misfortune as a means of awakening charity.\n\n\n 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin,\n this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?\n\n=2. Who did sin?= It was not only a Jewish opinion that such\nafflictions were a divine punishment for sin, it is the teaching of\nexperience that special diseases are frequently the natural\nconsequence of sin either in the sufferer or in his ancestry, and the\nteaching of Scripture that all disease, and even death itself, is the\nfruit of sin. This truth Christ had already recognized in at least two\ninstances (Mark 2:5; John 5:14), and it is enforced both by warnings\nand by historical illustrations in the O. T. (Lev. 26:16; Deut. 28:22;\nNumb. 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27). The Jewish error consisted in believing\nthat all special afflictions were divine visitations for special sins\n(Job 4:7; 8:6), an opinion which was not confined to the Jews (Acts\n28:4). This error Christ here corrects. The form of the disciples\u2019\nquestion has given rise to some needless perplexity. How could they,\neven in imagination, attribute a blindness from birth to the blind\nman\u2019s own sin? All such explanations as that some among the Jews\nbelieved in the transmigration of souls and others in a pre-existent\nstate, and therefore in sins committed in a previous life, and still\nothers in the possibility of sin committed by the unborn babe in the\nwomb, a doctrine deduced by the rabbis from such passages as Gen.\n25:22 and Psalm 51:5, are inadmissible, because these refinements in\ntheology, even if actually entertained among the Jewish rabbis,\ncertainly were not accepted among the common people, from whom Christ\ndrew his disciples. The question appears to be in spirit this: What is\nthe explanation of this man\u2019s blindness? his own sin? That cannot be,\nfor he was born blind. Is he then punished for his parents\u2019 sin?\n\n\n 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his\n parents: but that[357] the works of God should be made\n manifest in him.\n\n [357] ch. 11:4.\n\n=3. Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.= That is, his\nblindness is not a punishment for his or their sin.--=But that the\nworks of God should be made manifest in him.= Manifest to us by his\nmiraculous cure; but this is not all. The work of God is to believe on\nhim whom he hath sent (ch. 6:29), and to this belief the blind man was\nbrought by his cure (ver. 38). Thus the work of God was made manifest,\nnot only through him to us, but _in_ him. Thus Christ gives the key to\nthe Christian doctrine of suffering. It is inflicted sometimes as a\nspecial punishment for special sins (see references above), but more\nfrequently it is a means of grace, inflicted either that by our\nendurance we may manifest the grace of God to others (2 Cor. 12:9), or\nmay be taught of God ourselves (Heb. 12:6, 11). Compare with Christ\u2019s\nlanguage here his declaration concerning the sickness and death of\nLazarus (ch. 11:4).\n\n\n 4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is\n day: the night cometh, when no man can work.\n\n\n 5 As long as I am in the world, I[358] am the light of the\n world.\n\n [358] chaps. 1:5,9; 8:12; 12:35, 46.\n\n=4, 5. While it is day; the night cometh.= The day is life; the night\nis death. Christ in his human estate was subject to the law under\nwhich all his disciples are placed. Death cut short his human work.\nThe day for work is short, the night is at hand; therefore the greater\nneed of earnest and urgent labor. Sleep is a parable of death (Ps.\n104:23) that should perpetually remind us that our day is short.=--The\nlight of the world.= It was prophesied that the Messiah should open\nthe eyes of the blind (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). The direct reference\nis to Christ\u2019s fulfilment of these prophecies (Luke 4:18, 21). But it\nis true, in a larger sense, that just so far as Christ is in the\nworld, and accepted by the world, he becomes its light, intellectual,\nmoral, and spiritual (ch. 1:9, note).\n\n\n 6 When he had thus spoken, he spat[359] on the ground, and\n made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the\n blind man with the clay,\n\n [359] Mark 8:23.\n\n\n 7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,[360]\n (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He[361] went his way\n therefore, and washed, and came seeing.\n\n [360] Neh. 3:15.\n\n [361] 2 Kings 5:14.\n\n=6, 7. Spat on the ground * * * * and he anointed the eyes with the\nclay.= Clay and spittle were both believed in ancient times to possess\ncurative properties. Why Christ used them here is a matter only of\nconjecture. Certainly not as remedies, for one blind from birth could\nnot be cured by a remedy so simple, and he who healed the blind men at\nJericho by a touch (Matt. 20:34) had no need here to resort to other\nmeans. Not to conceal the miracle, as may have been the case in\nanalogous instances (see Mark 7:33; 8:23, notes), for here his object\nwas to manifest the works of God, and the result was a public and\nprotracted investigation of his own character. It is noticeable,\nhowever, that Christ never cured without giving the healed something\nto do, as a test of his faith and obedience. Even in the three cases\nof raising from the dead he called on the mourners, to indicate by\ntheir obedience to his direction their faith in him (Matt. 9:24, 25;\nLuke 7:14; John 11:39, 40). When he was asked to heal, the simple\nrequest served as an indication of faith; when, as here, he\nvolunteered the cure, he seems always to have required some act as an\nevidence of faith. Comp. ch. 5:6-8.--=Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.=\nOne of the pools in the vicinity of Jerusalem, entitled also Siloah or\nShiloah (Neh. 3:15; Isa. 8:6). It is identified with a pool or tank\nstill found in the vicinity of Jerusalem, which stands to the south of\nthe Temple mount, and consists of an oblong tank, partly hewn out of\nthe rock and partly built of masonry, measuring about fifty-three feet\nin length, eighteen feet in width, and nineteen feet in depth, with a\nflight of steps leading down to the bottom. Several columns stand out\nof the side walls, extending from the top downward into the reservoir,\nthe design of which it is now difficult to conjecture. The water\npasses out of this reservoir through an open channel cut in the rock,\nwhich is covered for a short distance, and a few yards off is partly\ndammed up by the people of the adjoining village of Siloam, for the\npurpose of washing their clothes, and then divided into small streams\nto irrigate the gardens below. The water flows into this reservoir\nfrom an artificial cave or basin under the cliff. This cave is entered\nby a small archway hewn in the rock. It is irregular in form, and\ndecreases in size as it proceeds from about fifteen to three feet in\nheight. It is connected with what is known as the Fountain of the\nVirgin by a remarkable conduit cut through the very heart of the rock\nin a zigzag form, measuring some seventeen hundred and fifty feet,\nwhile the distance in a straight line is only eleven hundred feet.\nThis remarkable fact was discovered by Dr. Edward Robinson, who\nhad the hardihood to crawl through the passage.--=Which is by\ninterpretation Sent.= The meaning of this addition has been doubted,\nbut does not seem to me to be doubtful. The pool, by its very name,\nwas a symbol of Him who was sent into the world to work the works of\nGod (ver. 4), and who gives light to the world by providing a fountain\nin which not only all uncleanness is washed away, but all ignorance\nand blindness of heart.--=He went therefore=, etc. Compare with the\ncure of Naaman (2 Kings 5:11, 13), who was in like manner bid to wash\nin Jordan, and only reluctantly and after angry resistance consented.\nObserve how great the trial to this blind man\u2019s faith, directed to\ntake so considerable a walk, in his blindness, as a condition of cure.\nObserve, too, in the miracle a parable of redemption. The whole world\nlieth in darkness from the beginning (Ps. 107:10; Matt. 4:16; 1 John\n5:19); Christ, the light of the world, comes to call us out of\ndarkness into marvellous light (Acts 26:18; 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:13; 1\nPet. 2:9); the condition of receiving that light is faith, exemplified\nby obedience, without which the soul remains in darkness (chaps. 1:5;\n3:19); and he often calls us to prove our faith by walking, in\nobedience to his direction, in the darkness for a while, in order that\nwe may come into the light (Mark 8:22-26, notes).\n\n\n 8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen\n him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and\n begged?\n\n\n 9 Some said, This is he: others _said_, He is like him:\n _but_ he said, I am _he_.\n\n=8, 9. The neighbors therefore, and they which before had seen him\nthat he was a beggar.= The best manuscripts have _beggar_, not, as in\nour English version, _blind_. So Alford and Tischendorf.--=Is not this\nhe that sat and begged?= Apparently he was a well-known beggar, like\nthe one described in Acts 3:2, 10. Comp. Luke 18:35. He is described\nas one that _sat and begged_, in contrast with such as beg from door\nto door. Beggars of this description having a regular place, where\nthey may always be found soliciting alms, are a not uncommon sight in\nthe East.--=Some said, This is he. Others, No! but he is like him. He\nhimself said, I am he.= This is the correct rendering of the best\nreading; it varies slightly from our English version. His own response\nseems to have settled the question of his identity among the common\npeople. That some should have at first doubted is not strange,\nconsidering the alterations in appearance made by the clear eye in\nplace of the sightless eyeballs, and the fact that he was no longer to\nbe found in his accustomed place, begging.\n\n\n 10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?\n\n\n 11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made\n clay,[362] and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to\n the pool of Siloam, and wash; and I went and washed, and I\n received sight.\n\n [362] verses 6, 7.\n\n\n 12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know\n not.\n\n=10-12.= The first investigation is made informally, and without\nprejudice, by the common people. It is curiosity alone which inquires,\nand it is easily convinced of the facts in the case.--The man\u2019s reply\nto his questioners is more laconic in the original than in our English\nversion. It is literally, \u201c_And going and washing, I saw._\u201d It reminds\none of C\u00e6sar\u2019s famous report, \u201cI came, I saw, I conquered.\u201d The verb\nrendered I saw or I received sight (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9) is literally, _I saw\nagain_. Sight being the prerogative of humanity, he speaks as though\nit were really once his prerogative (though in fact he never possessed\nit), had been lost, and was now recovered to him again.--The question,\n_Where is he?_ appears to be asked, not in a spirit of enmity, but\nsimply from a natural curiosity and interest to see him who had\nwrought the cure. Christ\u2019s escape from the blind man and the multitude\nis analogous to his course on other occasions (comp. ch. 5:13), and is\ncharacteristic of one who ordinarily avoided all occasions of public\ntriumph and enthusiasm (ch. 6:15; Matt. 8:4; 9:30; Mark 5:43).\n\n\n 13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was\n blind.\n\n=13.= Verses 13-34 report a semi-official investigation by the\nPharisees, instigated not by a sincere desire to ascertain the truth,\nnor by mere curiosity, but by a determination to break the force of\nthe miracle that had been wrought. For this purpose they first examine\nthe man (verses 15-17) and his parents (18-21), in hope to prove an\nimposture; next they subject the man to a further cross-examination in\nan unsuccessful endeavor to break down his testimony (verses 24-33);\nfailing in that, they do what they can to discredit his testimony by\nexcommunicating him (ver. 34).--=The Pharisees.= It is generally\nsupposed that this phrase indicates the Jewish court formally\nassembled, either the Sanhedrim, _i. e._, the supreme court of the\nnation, or the lesser Sanhedrim, _i. e._, one of the local courts in\nJerusalem. But the passages cited to show that John uses the term\n\u201cPharisees\u201d to designate a court rather indicate the opposite. In both\nJohn 7:32, 45-47 and John 11:46, 47, he distinguishes between the\n\u201cchief-priests and Pharisees\u201d who constituted the council, and the\nPharisees who constituted not a body, but a party. I judge then that\nthe investigation which follows is an informal one. It must be\nremembered that in that age, and even to the present time in that\ncountry, no such clear line was drawn as with us between an official\nand an unofficial trial.\n\n\n 14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and\n opened his eyes.\n\n\n 15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had\n received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon\n mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.\n\n\n 16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not\n of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others\n said, How[363] can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?\n And[364] there was a division among them.\n\n [363] verse 31; ch. 3:2.\n\n [364] ch. 7:12, 43.\n\n=14-16. The Sabbath day.= For analogous case of Sabbath healing, see\nch. 5, notes.--=Then again the Pharisees also asked him.= Not that\nthey had asked him before; the \u201cagain\u201d refers to the question by the\npeople in ver. 10.--=Some said * * * * Others said.= It is a mistake\nto suppose that all the Pharisees were hypocrites. Among them were\nsuch men as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, Saul of Tarsus.\nSee Matt. 3:7, note. But the honest Pharisees were timid, and were\neasily overborne by their opponents. For account of a similar\nconflict, see ch. 7:47-52. Observe the inherent vice of Pharisaism,\nancient and modern; it puts the ceremonial above humanity; it is of\nthe essence of Christianity that it regards all ceremonials and\nobservances as for humanity (Mark 2:27; note on Matt. 12:8).\n\n\n 17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou\n of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a\n prophet.[365]\n\n [365] ch. 4:19.\n\n\n 18 But the Jews did not believe[366] concerning him, that\n he had been blind, and received his sight, until they\n called the parents of him that had received his sight.\n\n [366] Isa. 26:11.\n\n\n 19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye\n say was born blind? how then doth he now see?\n\n\n 20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is\n our son, and that he was born blind:\n\n\n 21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath\n opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he\n shall speak for himself.\n\n=17-21. What sayest thou of him because he hath opened thine eyes?=\nThey ask for the man\u2019s opinion, each party perhaps hoping to get\nsupport for its own views.--=He is a prophet.= At first to the blind\nman Christ was only \u201ca man that is called Jesus\u201d (ver. 11).\nThe discussion has not only deepened, it has clarified his\nconvictions.--=But the Jews did not believe * * * * until they had\ncalled the parents.= The Pharisees make a twofold endeavor to break\nthe force of the miracle, first by questioning the identity of the\nman, second by questioning the method of his cure.--So they ask the\nparents if this is their son, and how he was cured.--=His parents\nanswered them=, etc. The answer of the parents was probably literally\ntrue, but it was evasive.--Their knowledge of the cure was probably\nderived from their son; hence they justify themselves in referring the\ninquirers to him. But duty, both to truth and to their son, required\nthat they should have sustained his testimony by their own expressed\nbelief in the miraculous cure.\n\n\n 22 These _words_ spake his parents, because they[367]\n feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if\n any man did confess that he was Christ, he[368] should be\n put out of the synagogue.\n\n [367] chaps. 7:13; 12:42; Prov. 29:25.\n\n [368] verse 34; ch. 16:2.\n\n\n 23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.\n\n=22, 23. Because they feared the Jews.= The term \u201cJews,\u201d as John uses\nit, generally means the Judeans, _i. e._, the inhabitants of Judea, as\ndistinguished from the Galileans or other dispersed Israelites. Living\nin the vicinity of Jerusalem, they were most attached to its ritual,\nand most intolerant of any departure from Jewish ceremonials or any\nfellowship with the Gentiles. Through their influence the Sanhedrim\nhad resolved that any one who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah should\nbe excommunicated. When this resolution was arrived at does not\nappear. It clearly indicates that even in Judea there was growing a\nfeeling, if not a faith, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Promised\nOne.--=He should be put out of the synagogue.= That is, excommunicated.\nAccording to the Jewish scholars, there were three kinds of discipline\nknown in the ancient synagogues, all of which are entitled\n_excommunication_ or _cutting off_. Excommunication in the slightest\ndegree involved separation from the synagogue, and the suspension of\nintercourse with all Jews whatever, even with one\u2019s wife and\ndomestics. A person who had exposed himself to excommunication was not\nallowed to approach another nearer than a distance of four cubits.\nThis separation was continued for thirty days; and in case the\nexcommunicated person did not repent, the time might be doubled\nor tripled, even when the transgression, by means of which it\nwas incurred, was of small consequence. The second degree of\nexcommunication is denominated _the curse_, and was more severe in its\neffects. It was pronounced with imprecations, in the presence of ten\nmen, and so thoroughly excluded the guilty person from all communion\nwhatever with his countrymen, that they were not allowed to sell him\nanything, even the necessaries of life. The _third degree of\nexcommunication_ was more severe in its consequences than either of\nthe preceding. It was a solemn and absolute exclusion from all\nintercourse and communion with any other individuals of the nation;\nand the criminal was left in the hands, and to the justice of God. It\nis probable that in the time of Christ the second degree of\nexcommunication was not distinguished from the third. It is uncertain\nwhat degree of excommunication was here threatened; but it is quite\nunimportant, since the first was sure to be succeeded by the others,\nunless the condemned repented, and made confession of his wrong-doing;\nin this case retracted his confession of Jesus as the Messiah.\n\n\n 24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said\n unto him, Give God[369] the praise: we know that this man\n is a sinner.\n\n [369] Josh. 7:19; Ps. 50:14, 15.\n\n\n 25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner _or no_, I\n know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now\n I see.\n\n=24, 25.= The Pharisees attempt to overawe the blind man. The\nconference with his parents has been held in his absence. They then\nsummon him into their presence with the declaration that they have\ndiscovered the imposture, and call on him to confess it.--=Give God\nthe praise= is not equivalent to _Give to God the glory of your cure_;\nthey do not admit that any cure has been wrought. It is a solemn form\nof adjuration to confess the fraud which they pretend to have\ndiscovered (Josh. 7:19).--=We know that this man is a sinner=,\nindicates that their investigation has discovered the imposture. The\nman\u2019s reply is shrewd and wise. He will not undertake to dispute the\nconclusion which these doctors of the law pretend to have reached; but\nneither will he abate in the slightest his testimony to the miraculous\ncure.--=One thing I know, that being blind, now I see.= No testimony\nto Christ is more pertinent or potent than this personal experience of\nhis grace. Comp. Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:12-18.\n\n\n 26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how\n opened he thine eyes?\n\n\n 27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did\n not hear: wherefore would ye hear _it_ again? will ye also\n be his disciples?\n\n=26, 27.= Defeated in an attempt to overawe the blind man, the\nPharisees resort to the common artifice of cross-examination; they\ncall on him to repeat his story, in the hope of detecting some real or\nimaginary discrepancy in his two accounts, by which they may discredit\nhim. He refuses to be cross-examined; grows impatient at their manifest\ninjustice; answers defiantly.--=Ye will not hear.= Equivalent to, Ye\nwill not heed, will not accept. It is useless to repeat testimony\nwhich they have resolved to reject. He thus illustrates Christ\u2019s\nprecept, Neither cast ye your pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6).--=Will\nye also be his disciples?= Ironical. The man affects to misunderstand\ntheir object, and to think that they are inquiring for the purpose of\nbecoming Christ\u2019s disciples. The mere suggestion elicits an indignant\ndisclaimer, and so brings out clearly that they are not honestly\nseeking to get at the truth respecting Jesus, but are attempting to\ndiscredit him. The word _also_ scarcely indicates, as some suppose,\nthat the man is resolved to become Christ\u2019s disciple. We know too\nlittle concerning him, as yet, to come to that conclusion (ver. 36).\n\n\n 28 Then they reviled[370] him, and said. Thou art his\n disciple; but we are Moses\u2019 disciples.\n\n [370] 1 Pet. 2:23.\n\n\n 29 We know[371] that God spake unto Moses: _as for_\n this _fellow_, we[372] know not from whence he is.\n\n [371] Ps. 103:7; Heb. 3:5.\n\n [372] ch. 8:14.\n\n=28, 29.= A curious illustration of the inconsistency of bigotry is\nafforded by a comparison of the language of the Pharisees here and in\nch. 7:27. There, because they suppose they know the parentage of\nJesus, they say he cannot be the Messiah; here, the pretence that he\nis an unknown, affords an equally satisfactory reason for rejecting\nhim.\n\n\n 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why[373] herein is\n a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and\n _yet_ he hath opened[374] mine eyes.\n\n [373] ch. 3:10.\n\n [374] Ps. 119:18; Isa. 29:18, 19; 35:5; 2 Cor. 4:6.\n\n\n 31 Now we know that God[375] heareth not sinners: but\n if[376] any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his\n will, him he heareth.\n\n [375] Job 27:9; Ps. 66:18; Prov. 28:9; Isa. 1:15; Jer.\n 11:11; Ezek. 8:18; Micah 3:4; Zech. 7:13.\n\n [376] Ps. 34:15; Prov. 15:29.\n\n=30, 31.= The argument of these verses is, (1) founded on the\nPharisees\u2019 doctrine that man is made acceptable to God by his good\nworks. The Pharisees could furnish no reply to it, because they\nbelieved that God only heard the prayers of the pious (see Neh. 13:14,\n22, 31; 2 Sam. 22:21). The doctrine that he hears and answers the\nprayers of the penitent, though abundantly taught in the O. T. (Ps.\n25:11; 32:5; Isaiah 55:6, 7), they wholly ignored; (2) It is founded\non the Scriptural doctrine that God does not hear the prayer of\ndeliberate, willful and persistent sinners, while continuing in their\nsins. If this \u201cman that is called Jesus\u201d was the impostor that the\nPharisees declared him to be, God would not accompany his ministry\nwith such manifestations of divine blessing (Isaiah 1:11-15; 59:1, 2;\nProv. 15:8, 29; 21:27; 28:9; Jer. 14:11, 12; Amos 5:21-23; Micah 3:4);\n(3) It accords in fact with the N. T. doctrine of prayer, which\nteaches us to pray in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ, in\nand through whom we are heard, though sinners (chaps. 14:13, 14;\n15:16; 16:23, 24). Observe the double condition of prayer, as\nindicated by this man: (1) a true reverence of God, (2) a sincere\npractical obedience to his will. Comp. ch. 15:17; Heb. 11:6; James\n5:16. In the failing of one or the other of these conditions we may\nfind one principal reason why so many prayers are not answered.\n\n\n 32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man\n opened the eyes of one that was born blind.\n\n\n 33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.\n\n=32, 33.= It was prophesied of the Messiah that he should restore sight\nto the blind (ver. 5, note). This peculiar form of miraculous\ncure is not narrated to have been performed by any one except Christ,\nunless 2 Kings 6:18, 20 be regarded as an instance; it was performed by\nChrist on several occasions (Matt. 9:27-30; 11:5; 12:22; 20:30-34;\nMark 8:22-25); but this is the only case of the cure of one blind\nfrom birth.--=If this man was not from God he could do nothing.= The\nman now openly confesses his conviction, which in his previous answer\nhe has concealed. Observe that he enunciated the same principle as\nNicodemus, and in almost the same words. The declaration is\nspiritually true of Christ (ch. 5:19-30) and of every one of Christ\u2019s\ndisciples (ch. 15:5; comp. Phil. 4:13).\n\n\n 34 They answered and said unto him, Thou[377] wast\n altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they\n cast him[378] out.\n\n [377] verse 2.\n\n [378] Isa. 66:5.\n\n=34.= Failing in their attempt to break the force of the man\u2019s\ntestimony, the Pharisees endeavored to discredit it by excommunicating\nhim. Religious persecution is generally the last resort of intellectual\nweakness and defeat. Their declaration _Thou wast altogether born in\nsins_ is a reference to the fact that he was born blind. Thus they\nbecome themselves unconscious witnesses to the miracle; for their\nlanguage here shows their belief that he was born blind, and the man\nhimself affords ocular demonstration of the cure. The declaration _They\ncast him out_ means, not they drove him out of the court-room, as\ninterpreted by Chrysostom, Tholuck and others, but they excommunicated\nhim, in conformity to the resolution previously taken (ver. 22).\n\n\n 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had\n found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe[379] on the\n Son of God?\n\n [379] 1 John 5:13.\n\n\n 36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might\n believe on him?\n\n\n 37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him,\n and[380] it is he that talketh with thee.\n\n [380] ch. 4:26.\n\n\n 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.[381]\n\n [381] Matt. 14:33.\n\n=35-38. When Jesus heard that they had cast him out.= Perhaps he\npurposely waited, that the man\u2019s fidelity to the truth might be fully\ntested. This trial of the blind man symbolizes the trial to which\nChrist subjects his church (1 Pet. 1:7). When men cast the faithful\nwitness out, Christ comes to him (Ps. 27:10). Thus the man realizes\nthe promise of Luke 6:22.--=Dost thou believe on the Son of God.=\nThere is an emphasis on _Thou_ in the original, which cannot well be\nrepeated in the English. Christ contrasts his belief with the\ndisbelief of the Pharisees. \u201cBelievest thou, whilst so many others are\ndisbelievers\u201d (_Trench_).--=Who is he, Sire, that I might believe on\nhim.= The word translated lord (\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) is only a general term of\nrespect. It is sometimes translated _Sir_ (Matt. 21:30; chaps. 4:11,\n15, 19, 49; 5:7; 12:20; 20:15). It does not imply here that the man\nrecognized in Jesus the Son of God. But his language, _That I might\nbelieve on him_, indicates that he was ready to believe when the\nMessiah should be made known to him. This spirit of desire always\nbrings the answer of disclosure (Matt. 5:6; Acts, ch. 10).--=Thou hast\nboth seen him.= A reminder of the benefit which has been conferred\nupon the man.--=And it is he that talketh to thee.= To no one did\nChrist disclose his divine nature more clearly than to this blind man,\nwhose fidelity to truth showed him worthy to receive the disclosure of\nfurther truth, and one which even the disciples but imperfectly\napprehended.--=Sire, I believe. And he reverenced him.= Not\nnecessarily _worshipped_. The original does not necessarily signify\nanything more than a form of salutation paid by an inferior to a\nsuperior, by falling upon the knees and touching the forehead to the\nground. For meaning of both words, \u201clord\u201d and \u201cworshipped,\u201d see Matt.\n8:2, note. It is clear, however, that the man accepted fully Christ\u2019s\ndeclaration respecting himself, though not so clear that he fully\ncomprehended his meaning.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTHE CURE OF THE MAN BORN BLIND. It is safe to assume that John has\nnarrated no event at such length as this miracle and its subsequent\ninvestigation without a definite purpose. The general lessons taught\nby this account, apart from those incidentally conveyed in single\nutterances, appear to me to be three. (1) This is the only one of\nChrist\u2019s miracles which was subjected to a judicial or _quasi_\njudicial investigation. That investigation originated not with the\ndisciples, but with the people, and was carried on before a hostile\ntribunal. The identity of the blind man was established by his own\ntestimony and corroborated by that of his parents. That he was born\nblind was established by the same indisputable evidence. That he was\ncured was ocularly demonstrated. The cure necessarily involved a\nmiracle, since congenital blindness is not curable by natural means.\nThe value of the evidence is increased by the facts that the parents\nwere reluctant witnesses; that the man himself had no interest to\nfurther the cause of Christ, since he did not even know who he was;\nthat the Pharisees themselves were forced to the unconscious admission\nthat a miracle had been wrought (ver. 34, note); and that,\ndefeated in their attempt to browbeat the witness, they endeavored\nto discredit his testimony by excommunicating him. (2) There is an\ninstructive contrast in the characters so briefly but graphically\nportrayed. (_a_) The people, moved by mere wonder, investigate\ncuriously but not earnestly, reach no conclusion, and so learn nothing\nof Christ; (_b_) The Pharisees, instigated by malice and religious\nbigotry, investigate thoroughly, and are compelled to adopt the\nconclusion that a miracle has been wrought, but refuse to\naccept the Worker as even a man sent from God, and so learn nothing of\nChrist. (_c_) The parents, honest but timid, accept the facts, but are\nunwilling to risk persecution for truth\u2019s sake, and so learn nothing\nof Christ. (_d_) The man himself, who is faithful to his convictions,\nand whose convictions grow by reason of his fidelity, is brought to a\nknowledge of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. Thus is illustrated\nthe principle that to find the truth as it is in Christ Jesus it is not\nenough to investigate curiously, earnestly, honestly; it is necessary\nalso to confess fearlessly the truth so far as it is apprehended. (3)\nThe history of the blind man illustrates the growth of faith, as well\nas its conditions. At first he knew nothing of Jesus; but without\nknowledge or definite hope he obeys Christ\u2019s direction, goes to the\npool of Siloam, washes, sees. He still knows nothing of the Healer but\nthat he is \u201ca man that is called Jesus.\u201d Despite the timidity of his\nparents, and the threatening of the Pharisees, he maintains the truth,\ndefends the unknown, asserts him to be a prophet, and a man of God.\nFinally, he finds in him the Messiah, the Son of God. Fidelity, in that\nwhich is least, is the condition of receiving larger gifts in knowledge\nand faith.\n\n\n 39 And Jesus said, For[382] judgment I am come into this\n world, that they which see not[383] might see; and that\n they which see might be made blind.[384]\n\n [382] ch. 5:22, 27; 12:47.\n\n [383] 1 Pet. 2:9.\n\n [384] ch. 3:19; Matt. 13:13.\n\n=39. For judgment am I come into this world.= Contrast chaps. 8:15;\n12:47. Christ does not hesitate to state truths at different times in\nforms which make his statements apparently contradictory. He does not\ncome to announce judgment or condemnation, but to provide mercy;\nnevertheless, he has come _for judgment_, since he draws to himself\nall that love the divine character and the divine life, and repels all\nthat are worldly and selfish. He does not condemn, but they that\nreject him are self-condemned, testifying that they love darkness\nrather than light because their deeds are evil.--=That they which see\nnot might see, and that they which see might be made blind.= The\nmeaning is not, _That they which see not their own blindness might be\nmade to see it_; this interpretation makes the second clause of the\nsentence either a mere repetition of the first, _And that they which\nthink they see might be made aware that they are blind_, or unmeaning.\nNor is it to be rendered, _That they which see not spiritual things\nmight be made to see them, and they which see the world might be made\nblind to that as a preparation for seeing Christ_; for though this\nwould be in analogy with Paul\u2019s metaphor (Rom. 6:11; 7:9), it would\nnot interpret Christ\u2019s declaration that he has come for judgment. The\ntwo clauses of the sentence are to be interpreted alike. Christ\u2019s\ncoming gave moral and spiritual sight to the publicans who were\nwithout moral culture, but opened their hearts to receive Christ\u2019s\ninstructions; and it darkened such moral sense as the Pharisees\nalready possessed, since they closed their eyes to the clear\nrevelation which Christ brought. Thus Christ is both savor of life\nunto life and of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16), both the corner-stone\nand the stone of stumbling (1 Pet. 2:6-8; comp. Matt. 3:12, note).\n\n\n 40 And _some_ of the Pharisees which were with him heard\n these words, and said unto him, Are we[385] blind also?\n\n [385] Rom. 2:19; Rev. 3:17.\n\n\n 41 Jesus said unto them, If[386] ye were blind, ye should\n have no sin: but now ye say, We see: therefore[387] your\n sin remaineth?\n\n [386] ch. 15:22, 24.\n\n [387] Is. 5:21; Luke 18:14; 1 John 1:8-10.\n\n=40, 41. Some of the Pharisees which were with him.= That is, who\nhappened to be present. But their presence as auditors, coupled\nwith their question, perhaps implies that they were of that class\nwhich were inclined to regard Jesus as a prophet (ver. 17; ch.\n10:21).--=Are we blind also?= The form of the original implies a\nstrong expectation of a negative reply. It might be rendered, _Surely\nwe are not blind also_.--=If ye were blind ye should have no sin.=\nThis is not to be interpreted away, as equivalent to, Your sin would\nbe less. It is literally true, that sin is in the proportion of\nknowledge, so that one who is, by no fault of his own, absolutely\nignorant of moral distinctions, is absolutely free from moral\nresponsibility.--=Ye say, We see; therefore your sin remains.= They\nhad the law and the prophets which foretold the Messiah (ch. 5:39),\nand they had the knowledge of his works and the moral capacity to\njudge them, and did adjudge that God was with him (ch. 3:2), and that\nhe could not be a sinner (ch. 9:16). This was enough to render them\nguilty in not following out their convictions by a public confession\nof Christ as a prophet, which they really saw him to be. Comp. ch.\n15:24; and with the entire passage (vers. 39-41), Rom. 2:17-24.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n\nCh. 10:1-21. THE PARABLE OF THE SHEEPFOLD AND THE SHEPHERD.--THE\nCHURCH OF CHRIST AS ONE FLOCK.--TO THIS FLOCK THERE IS BUT ONE\nDOOR, JESUS CHRIST.--THIS DOOR IS OPENED TO THE SOUL BY THE HOLY\nSPIRIT OF GOD.--EVERY ONE WHO ENTERS IN BY THIS DOOR IS SAVED.--AND\nBECOMES A MINISTER OF GRACE (A SHEPHERD) TO OTHERS.--THE PATTERN IS\nJESUS CHRIST, THE GOOD SHEPHERD.--EVERY TRUE SHEPHERD LIVES FOR THE\nFLOCK.--HE WHO DOES NOT IS A HIRELING, AND IS RECREANT IN TIME OF\nDANGER.--THE LIFE OF THE FLOCK IS ASSURED BY THE DEATH OF THE GOOD\nSHEPHERD.--THAT DEATH WAS NOT COMPELLED; IT WAS VOLUNTARY.\nThis parable was probably uttered in Judea, and in the immediate\nvicinity of Jerusalem. The figure is drawn from the spectacle, likely\nat any evening to be witnessed on the hillsides of Judea, a flock\nof sheep gathered from the different fields in which they had been\nwandering, and _following_ their shepherd, who conducts them to the\nsheepfold, which they enter, one by one, for protection, the shepherd\ngoing before and leading them in. To understand aright its meaning, two\nfacts, often forgotten, must be borne in mind: (1) that the metaphor\nis used in the O. T., and for a double purpose; sometimes the shepherd\nis the religious teacher of Israel, whose unfaithfulness is rebuked\nin the prophets (Jer. 23:1-4; Ezek., ch. 34); sometimes the\nshepherd is the Lord, who leads, defends, and feeds the soul which\ntrusts in him (Ps. 23; Isaiah 40:11); (2) the parable is closely\nconnected with the discourse concerning blindness, growing out of the\ncure of the blind man, and is given for the purpose of emphasizing\nand carrying out the warnings therein contained against the Pharisees\nas blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 15:14). I understand, then, that\nit is a parable with a double application. First, Christ compares the\nPharisees to shepherds, himself to the door, and declares that they\nalone are true shepherds who enter into Israel through, _i. e._, under\ncommand from, and with the authority of, Christ as the Messiah--all\nothers are thieves and robbers (vers. 7-10); he then changes the\napplication, retaining the figure, declares himself to be the shepherd,\nwhose praises David and Isaiah sang, and indicates the nature of the\nservice which he will render to his sheep, namely, giving his life for\nthem. The parable itself embraces verses 1-6; the first application, a\nlesson against the false Pharisaical teachers, verses 7-10; the second\napplication, a lesson concerning himself as the good shepherd, verses\n11-18. The first application is interpreted by Ezekiel, ch. 34; the\nsecond, by Psalm 23 and Isaiah 40:11. The ordinary interpretation,\nwhich regards Christ as referring to himself throughout as shepherd,\nnecessarily supposes that he employs a mixed metaphor, in which,\nwithout any apparent reason, he alternately represents himself as the\ndoor and the shepherd.\n\n\n 1 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[388] He that entereth\n not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some\n other way, the same is a thief and a robber.\n\n [388] Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.\n\n=1. He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold.= Sheepfolds,\nas usually constructed in the East, are low, flat buildings, erected\non the sheltered side of the valleys, and when the nights are cold,\nthe flocks are shut up in them, but in ordinary weather they are\nmerely kept within the yard. During the day, of course, they are led\nforth to pasture by the shepherds. The folds are defended by a wide\nstone wall, crowned by sharp thorns which the wolf will rarely attempt\nto scale. The leopard and panther, however, when pressed with hunger,\nwill overleap the thorny hedge, and make havoc of the flock. In\nGreece, folds are sometimes built merely of a parapet of bushes or\nbranches, placed at the entrance of caves, natural or made for the\npurpose, in the side of hills or rocky ledges. A porter guards the\ndoor of the larger sheepfolds. See _Thompson\u2019s Land and Book_, I, 299,\nand _Smith\u2019s Bible Dict._, Art. _Sheepfold_. The sheepfold, in this\nparable, answers primarily to Israel, the then visible and organic\nchurch of God, but secondarily to the church of Christ in all ages,\nthe visible and external organization, in which the professed\ndisciples of Christ, his sheep, are gathered for better protection. He\nthat enters not by the door, but furtively climbs up some other way,\nmarks himself thereby as evil disposed.\n\n\n[Illustration: AN EASTERN SHEEPFOLD.]\n\n\n 2 But he that entereth in by the[389] door is the shepherd\n of the sheep.\n\n [389] Verse 7, 9.\n\n=2. He that entereth in by the door the same is a shepherd of the\nsheep.= Not, as in our English version, _the_ shepherd. The definite\narticle is wanting. Christ does not declare that the evidence that he\nis the Shepherd consists in the fact that he entered through the door,\nfor he is himself the door. He declares to the Pharisees, who reject\nhim as their Messiah, that there is a double test of the religious\nteacher: (1) he must enter into the church by the way by which\nhe directs the sheep to enter. There is not one salvation for the\nteacher and another for the taught; the door is the same to all; and\n(2) he must enter by the one only door, Jesus Christ. Whoever comes in\nthe name and with the authority of Jesus Christ is a shepherd of the\nsheep; whoever comes to preach any other Gospel, comes to rob the sheep\nof their Saviour and salvation (Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 John, ver. 10).\n\n\n 3 To him[390] the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his\n voice: and he calleth[391] his own sheep by name and\n leadeth[392] them out.\n\n [390] Rev. 3:20.\n\n [391] Ezek. 34:11; Rom. 8: 30.\n\n [392] Isa. 40:11.\n\n=3. To him the porter openeth.= \u201cThe Holy Spirit is especially He\nwho opens the door to the shepherds; see frequent uses of this\nsymbolism by the apostles (Acts 14:27; 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12;\nCol. 4:3); and instances of the porter shutting the door (Acts\n16:6, 7).\u201d--(_Alford._) There is the implication here of a truth\nelsewhere abundantly taught in Scripture, that the teacher has access\nto the heart of the church only through the influence of the Spirit of\nGod, who opens and closes the heart of the hearer (1 Thess. 1:5;\n2:1), and the door of opportunity (Acts 4:7, 8; 16:9; 17:10,\n11).--=And he calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them out.=\nThis figure exactly corresponds with the actual facts of shepherd life\nin the East. \u201cAs we eat and looked, almost spell-bound, the silent\nhillsides around us were in a moment filled with life and sound. The\nshepherds led their flocks forth from the gates of the city. They were\nin full view, and we watched them and listened to them with no little\ninterest. Thousands of sheep and goats were there, grouped in dense,\nconfused masses. The shepherds stood together until all came out. Then\nthey separated, each shepherd taking a different path, and uttering, as\nhe advanced, a shrill, peculiar call. The sheep heard them. At first\nthe masses swayed and moved, as if shaken by some internal convulsion;\nthen points struck out in the direction taken by the shepherds; these\nbecame longer and longer, until the confused masses were resolved into\nlong, living streams, flowing after their leaders. Such a sight was not\nnew to me, still it had lost none of its interest. It was, perhaps, one\nof the most vivid illustrations which human eyes could witness of that\nbeautiful discourse of our Lord recorded by John.\u201d--(_Porter._)\n\n\n 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before\n them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his\n voice.[393]\n\n [393] Cant. 2:8; 5:2.\n\n\n 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee[394]\n from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.\n\n [394] 2 Tim. 3:5; Rev. 2:2.\n\n=4, 5. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them,\nand the sheep follow him.= The true pastor is an example and leader as\nwell as a teacher of his people (1 Cor. 11:1; Gal. 4:12; Phil. 3:17;\n1 Thess. 1:6).--=A stranger will they not follow.= The stranger is not\nthe shepherd of another flock, but one who is a stranger and a\nforeigner, outside the fold and separated from the great flock of the\nIsrael of God. The true Christian is never a stranger to the disciples\nof Jesus Christ (Ephes. 2:19).--=They know not the voice of\nstrangers.= The shepherd knows his own sheep by name, and they know\nhis voice; but the stranger\u2019s voice they do not know. The figure is\nall true to the life. \u201cThe shepherd calls sharply to them from time to\ntime to remind them (the sheep) of his presence. They know his voice\nand follow on; but if a stranger calls, they stop short, lift up their\nheads in alarm, and if it is repeated, they turn and flee, because\nthey know not the voice of a stranger. This is not the fanciful\ncostume of a parable; it is a simple fact.\u201d--(_Thompson\u2019s Land and\nBook_, I, 301.) This personality of relation between the true\nreligious teacher and the taught, abundantly illustrated by Christ\u2019s\npersonal love for his disciples, and by Paul\u2019s love for the converts\ngathered under his ministry, is in strong contrast to the distance\nwhich was maintained between the Pharisees and the common people. It\nis not then a fanciful deduction that, under ordinary circumstances,\nthe pastor should have a personal acquaintance with his people, should\nnot have so large a charge that he cannot know his people by name, and\nshould ordinarily depend for his influence upon his personal\nacquaintance with them, and their personal confidence in him.\n\n\n 6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood\n not what things they were which he spake unto them.\n\n=6. This parable spake Jesus unto them.= Rather _allegory_ or\n_obscure saying_. The original word (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1) is different from\nthat in the other Evangelists translated _parable_, and the\nstructure of the teaching is somewhat different from that of the\nparables narrated by the other Evangelists. See on the nature of the\nparable, Matthew, ch. 13, Prel. Note. This, however, more nearly\napproximates a true parable than any other of Christ\u2019s instructions\nreported by John.--=But they understood not what things they were\nwhich he spake unto them.= That is, the Pharisees to whom he was\nspeaking did not understand the meaning and application of his\nimagery. \u201cThey did not feel the application of it; they did not see\nwhat shepherds and sheepfolds had to do with them. They could hardly\nhave given a greater proof how little they understood the things which\nwere written in the books they prized most--how their worship of the\ndivine letter had destroyed all commerce between their minds and the\nrealities which it set forth.\u201d--(_Maurice._)\n\n\n 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say\n unto you, I[395] am the door of the sheep.\n\n [395] Eph. 2:18.\n\n=7.= Verses 7-10 inclusive, contain the first application of the\nparable, primarily to the Pharisees as religious teachers of Israel,\nand secondarily to all that claim to be shepherds of God\u2019s people,\nthen or now.--=I am the door.= \u201cThat is, through me all the truths and\nblessings of religion are to be communicated to the flock, or people of\nGod. Whoever addresses them as an authorized teacher must enter through\nme.\u201d--(_Norton._) It is the Holy Spirit (the porter, ver. 3)\nwho opens Christ to the heart and the heart to Christ, and makes it\npossible for either the sheep (the learners) or the under-shepherd (the\nteacher) to enter into the fold through him (chaps. 6:37, 44; 14:26;\n15:26).\n\n\n 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but\n the sheep did not hear them.\n\n=8. All whosoever came before me are thieves and robbers.= This verse\nis declared by Tholuck to be \u201cone of the most difficult sentences in\nthe N. T.\u201d If _before_ (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc) be taken as an adverb of time, as is\ngenerally done, then Christ\u2019s declaration is that all religious\nteachers who preceded him were thieves and robbers, and this would on\nits face include the long line of prophets from Moses to Malachi; or\nif the sentence is modified, as some propose, by the fact that the\nverb is in the present tense, _are_ thieves and robbers, so that\nChrist embraces only the then living teachers, still this would\ninclude such instructors as Gamaliel and Nicodemus, if not John the\nBaptist, who belonged to that generation. The qualification of this,\nby the supposition that Christ did not include true teachers but only\nthe false, not only falsifies his declaration which points out the way\nin which the true may be distinguished from the false, but reduces the\nsentence to a truism, viz., All false religious teachers who came\nbefore me, are thieves and robbers, _i. e._, teachers of falsehood,\ndepriving men of the truth. The other proposed qualification, All who\nhave come claiming to be Messiah, are thieves, etc., not only adds an\nimportant qualification to Christ\u2019s declaration, but is historically\nan anachronism, inasmuch as there is no historical evidence that any\nfalse Messiah preceded the time of Christ. I am inclined, therefore,\nto take _before_ (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc) as an adverb signifying precedence in rank or\nauthority, as it does in Col. 1:17, James 5:12, and 1 Pet. 4:8, and to\nunderstand the passage, _All whosoever come claiming precedence above\nme are thieves and robbers_. The verb _come_ (\u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd) is in the aorist\ntense, and does not necessarily indicate a coming in the past only,\nbut would be properly used for the enunciation of a general principle.\nThe prophets of the O. T. claimed no such precedence above Christ; on\nthe contrary, they were but his heralds; and John the Baptist\ndistinctly disavowed such precedence (Matt. 3:14; chaps. 1:26, 27;\n3:30). The Pharisees, on the other hand, denied Christ\u2019s right to\nteach, because he did not belong to their schools (ch. 7:15), and in\ntheir conference with the blind man had put themselves above Christ\n(ch. 9:16, 24). Where there is no general agreement among scholars, I\nhesitate to offer an interpretation which differs from all, but this\nappears to me on the whole more consistent with the context, and with\nthe teaching of the N. T. elsewhere, than any other, and not\ninconsistent with the original. If this be a correct interpretation,\nChrist\u2019s claim here is directly antagonistic to those who would make\nan eclectic religion, by selecting truth from all the world\u2019s\nreligious teachers, including Christ among the rest. For he declares\nall to be robbing the world of truth, not imparting it, who deny him\nthe pre-eminent rank as a religious teacher. On the other hand, he\ndoes not stigmatize genuine moral teachers, such as Buddha or\nSocrates, as thieves and robbers, for they had no knowledge of Christ,\nand claimed no precedence above him.--=But the sheep did not hear\nthem.= This has been eminently true of all teachers in the church who\nhave put themselves above Christ; it is the preachers of Christ who\nalone have secured the world\u2019s attention. This is illustrated by the\nhistory of Paul (2 Cor. 4:5), Luther, Wesley, and in our own times\nSpurgeon, Moody, and others.\n\n\n 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be\n saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.\n\n=9. I am the door; by me if any enter in, he shall be safe.= Christ is\nnot only the door by whom the shepherd (the teacher) can alone enter\nin to feed the flock, he is also the door by which alone the sheep\n(the disciples) can enter into the church and into security (Acts\n4:12). The extent and assurance of this safety is expressed below\n(vers. 28, 29). And observe, the promise is not merely _shall be\nsaved_ in the future, but _shall be safe_, _i. e._, from the time of\nentering the door (ch. 3:18, 36; Rom. 8:1, 28, 31, etc.)--=And shall\ngo in and out and find pasture.= To \u201cgo in and out\u201d was a common\nHebraistic phrase to denote the whole life and action of man (Deut.\n28:6; Psalm 121:8). Here, therefore, the meaning is that he who thus\nenters the door, shall be blessed in all his ways. His pasture is the\nbread of life and water of life, promised in chaps. 4:14; 6:48-51. So\nthat Christ is at once the door, the shepherd, and the pasture; the\nentrance, the guardian and guide, and the food of the disciple.\n\n\n 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and\n to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that\n they might have _it_ more abundantly.\n\n=10. The thief cometh not but for to steal * * * * I am come that they\nmight have life=, etc. A contrast between false religion and the true,\nheathenism or Pharisaism and Christianity. The false religion comes to\ndeprive men of their liberty, their property, their earthly happiness,\nto kill their natural and free life, and to destroy, finally, the\nsoul. The true religion comes first to give this present life more\nabundant development, and then through that to give eternal life.\nHence, whatever form of religion tends to deprive mankind of its free,\nnatural, and joyous life is anti-Christian; the constant tendency of\nChrist\u2019s teaching and influence is to make the whole life, social,\nintellectual, moral, and spiritual, more abundant.\n\n\n 11 I[396] am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth\n his life for the sheep.\n\n [396] Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25.\n\n\n 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd,\n whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and\n leaveth[397] the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth\n them, and scattereth the sheep.\n\n [397] Ezek. 34:2-6; Zech. 11:17.\n\n=11, 12.= With these verses Christ gives a new direction to the\npreceding parable. He has thus far spoken of religious teachers\nin general, and of himself as the _door_ by which they alone can\nenter in to feed the flock, and by which alone the flock can enter\nin to find safety. He now speaks of himself as the Great Shepherd\nand Bishop of souls (1 Pet. 2:25), under whom are all the shepherds,\nand in contrast with whom are the hirelings.--=I am the Good\nShepherd=, more literally the _beautiful_ Shepherd; but this word\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2), though strictly speaking esthetic, was used by the Greeks to\ndesignate moral beauty, and referred to the most symmetrical and\nperfect goodness. Throughout the O. T. the church of God is regarded\nas a fold, Israel as a flock, and Jehovah himself as the Shepherd (Ps.\n23; Isa. 40:11; Ezek., ch. 34; Jer., ch. 23; Micah 5:3; Zech., ch.\n11). It is impossible but that Christ\u2019s auditors should have\nunderstood him as claiming to be this Shepherd of Israel. Observe the\ndifference between the phraseology here and in verse 2; here _the_\ngood Shepherd; there _a_ Shepherd.--=The good shepherd layeth down his\nlife for the sheep.= This is not a prophecy, equivalent to, I am about\nto die for my sheep; it is the enunciation of a general principle by\nwhich every good shepherd can be distinguished from the hireling; for\nevery good shepherd is ready to sacrifice his life for his sheep\nbecause they are his; the hireling flees when danger threatens,\nbecause he is an hireling and has no real interest in the sheep.\nNeither is the expression _to lay down the life_ a circumlocution for\n_die_. Christ rarely uses circumlocution of any kind. The good\nshepherd may or may not be called on to die for his sheep; but he\nalways lays down his life for them. To lay down the life is to\nconsecrate it, devote it to the flock; as a mother, who is always\nready to die for her children, but who, living or dying, belongs to\nher children and surrenders herself to them. So we ought also to lay\ndown our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16), though comparatively\nfew are ever called on to die for them. Wickliffe and Luther as truly\nlaid down their lives for the flock as Huss and Tyndale. The sacrifice\nof Christ consisted not merely in his death--which was indeed in its\nmere physical aspects the least part of it--but in his whole\nincarnation. His entire life from his advent to the grave was laid\ndown for his sheep. This laying down of his life includes his death;\nbut it includes much more. The whole thirty years was a living\nsacrifice for sinful humanity (Phil. 2:5-8).--=But he that is an\nhireling, not being a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the\nwolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and fleeth.= Every clause in this\nsentence must be carefully weighed by the student; for every clause is\nfull of weighty significance. There is nothing in the sentence, if the\nwhole be considered, adverse to a paid ministry. Not every one who is\nhired is an hireling (1 Tim. 5:18); only he who _serves for hire_,\nwhether emoluments or reputation; who accordingly is not a shepherd,\n_i. e._, has none of the shepherd\u2019s instincts and none of the\nshepherd\u2019s love for his flock; _whose own the sheep are not_, _i. e._,\nwho has none of that sense of ownership in his flock which Paul\nexperienced and expressed (1 Cor. 4:14, 15; 1 Thess. 2:11; 1 Tim. 1:2;\nTitus 1:4; Philemon 10); who, therefore, _careth not for the sheep_\n(ver. 13), but only for himself. Here, as everywhere in Christ\u2019s\ninstructions, it is the evil spirit which he condemns and the right\nspirit which he exalts. The hirelings of Christ\u2019s day were those among\nthe chief rulers and the priests, the religious teachers of Israel,\nwho believed on Jesus, but would not confess their faith for fear of\nthe hierarchy (ch. 9:22; 12:42, 43; 19:38). The hirelings ever since\nhave been those in the church, whether paid preachers or no, who have\nfeared to withstand falsehood and danger, and have suffered popular\nsins to pass unrebuked lest they should bring obloquy upon themselves,\nor loss of friends, or personal peril, or any martyrdom, large or\nsmall. The hireling, too, does not merely _flee_; the true shepherd\nhas sometimes to do this (Matt. 10:23); Christ himself did this\nrepeatedly (Matt. 14:13; Luke 4:30; John 8:59; 10:39). It is\ncharacteristic of the hireling that he _leaveth the sheep_ and fleeth.\nCaution may lead the true pastor to avoid a conflict which will bring\ngreater disaster on the flock than battle; but his caution is always\nto be exercised for the sheep, not for himself. It is caring for one\u2019s\nself more than for the church that marks the hireling.--=The wolf\ncatcheth them and scattereth the sheep.= Any and every willful and\ndetermined opponent to truth and righteousness is a wolf; whether he\nis a persecuting power like that of pagan and papal Rome, or a false\nteacher, a wolf in sheep\u2019s clothing (Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:29). The wolf\nat this particular juncture was the Pharisaic party, which was\nravaging the church of God, and binding heavy burdens on the people,\nwhom Christ denounced, and in battle with whom he suffered death.\n\n\n 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and\n careth not for the sheep.\n\n\n 14 I am the good shepherd, and[398] know my _sheep_, and am\n known[399] of mine.\n\n [398] 2 Tim. 2:19.\n\n [399] 1 John 5:20.\n\n\n 15 As[400] the Father knoweth me, even so know I the\n Father: and[401] I lay down my life for the sheep.\n\n [400] Matt. 11:27.\n\n [401] ch. 15:13; Isa. 53:4,5.\n\n=13-15. The hireling * * * careth not for the sheep * * *=--=I know my\nsheep.= Christ reiterates the contrast between the hireling and the\ngood shepherd; and indicates anew points of distinction between the\ntwo. The hireling careth not for the sheep; he cares only for his\nwages; the good shepherd knows his sheep and is known by them. In a\nlimited way this is true of the good pastor or shepherd; he knows his\nflock personally and sympathizingly; he is not merely a preacher to\nthem; he is their best friend and adviser (ver. 3, note). But this\nknowledge is never perfect, and never can be, in the under shepherd.\nHis insight is imperfect; his sympathy is partial. It is only Christ\nwho can say I _know_ my sheep. \u201cIf you would think rightly of the Son\nof Man, think of the Person who knows thoroughly everything that each\none of you is feeling, and cannot utter to others or to himself--every\ntemptation from riches, from poverty, from solicitude, from society,\nfrom gifts of intellect, from the want of them, from the gladness of\nthe spirit, from the barrenness and dreariness of it, from the warmth\nof affection and from the drying up of affection, from the anguish of\ndoubt and the dulness of indifference, from the whirlwind of passion\nand the calm which succeeds it, from the vile thoughts which spring\nout of fleshly appetites and indulgences, from the darker, more\nterrible suggestions which are presented to the inner will. Believe\nthat he knows all these, that he knows _you_. And then believe this\nalso, that all he knows is through intense, inmost sympathy, not with\nthe evil that is assaulting you, but with you who are assaulted by it.\nBelieve that knowledge, in this the Scriptural sense of it--the human\nas well as the divine sense of it--is absolutely inseparable from\nsympathy.\u201d--(_Maurice._)--=And am known of mine.= Christ\u2019s knowledge\nof the Christian is the basis of the Christian\u2019s knowledge of Christ.\nBoth are sympathetic and personal, the knowledge of love. It is\nbecause the Good Shepherd knows his sheep that he is known of them. It\nis because by his knowledge he is able to enter into our innermost\nexperience, and to give us comfort and strength when all human helpers\nfail, that we come to know him as our Helper and our Strength. We know\nhim as the Good Shepherd only as we follow his guidance, accept the\nfood and water he gives us, are restored by him when wandering, and\ndelivered by him from danger and death.--=As the Father knoweth me,\neven so know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.= The\nconnection is not very clear between this sentence and the preceding\none, or between the different clauses of this sentence. It seems to\nme, however, that Christ refers to this knowledge between himself and\nthe Father, not merely to illustrate the knowledge between himself and\nhis disciples, but to turn their thoughts from himself to the Father.\nChrist has been accused of blasphemy by the Jews; that is, of\nendeavoring to deflect the reverence and allegiance of the people from\nGod to himself. It must be confessed that there has often been a\ntendency in his disciples to substitute the Saviour for the Father, to\nbelieve in the sympathy of Christ, but not in the sympathy of God, to\nbelieve in the love of the Redeemer, but to attribute justice and\nwrath to Jehovah. Christ guards against this tendency, and refutes\nthis accusation, by the declaration that he knows perfectly every wish\nand will of the Father, and in the whole course of his self-sacrifice,\nin all the laying down of his life for humanity, he is carrying out\nthat will. Thus the declaration of this verse leads one to that of\nverse 17: \u201cTherefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my\nlife.\u201d\n\n\n 16 And[402] other sheep I have, which are not of this fold;\n them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;\n and[403] there shall be one fold, _and_ one shepherd.\n\n [402] Isa. 49:6; 56:8.\n\n [403] Ezek. 37:22; Ephes. 2:14.\n\n\n 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because[404] I lay\n down my life, that I might take it again.\n\n [404] Isa. 53:7-12; Heb. 2:9.\n\n\n 18 No man taketh it from me, but[405] I lay it down of\n myself. I have power to lay it down, and I[406] have power\n to take it again. This[407] commandment have I received of\n my Father.\n\n [405] Phil. 2:6-8.\n\n [406] ch. 2:19.\n\n [407] ch. 6:38.\n\n=16-18. Other sheep I have which are not from= (\u1f10\u03ba) =this fold=. Not,\nWhich are in other worlds; for the Bible does not anywhere recognize\nthis world as the fold of God: nor, Others from among the dispersed\nJews scattered among the Gentiles; for these were already in \u201cthis\nfold,\u201d none the less belonging to Israel because they were\ngeographically separated from their brethren. The reference is to\nthose whom Christ has among the Gentiles, and, as I believe, still has\namong the heathen (Acts 10:35; 18:10). They are not, however, in a\nflock or fold, but scattered (ch. 11:52). Observe, Christ does not say\n_I am to have_--the present is not used in lieu of the future. He\nalready has them; they are his sheep; he recognizes as his own those\nwhose spirit is akin to his, though they do not recognize him as\ntheirs (Matt. 25:37-40).--=Them also I must lead.= Not _bring_, _i.\ne._, to the Jewish nation, but _lead_ as a shepherd. He must be leader\nto all who will follow him, whether Jew or Gentile.--=And there shall\nbe one flock, one Shepherd.= Not one _fold_, as unfortunately\ntranslated in our English version (\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7, not \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03ae). \u201cNot\n_one fold_, but _one flock_; no one exclusive enclosure of an outward\nchurch--but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd, and known of\nHim.\u201d--(_Alford._) And one flock because one Shepherd; one not in\ncreed, or organization, or method of worship, but one in Christ Jesus\n(see ver. 30).--=Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down\nmy life.= Not because I _have_ laid it down, as though the love of the\nFather were caused by the earthly love and sacrifice of Christ, but\nbecause I _lay_ it down. That is, because Christ\u2019s Spirit is one of\nself-sacrificing love, manifested by, but not alone embodied in the\nincarnation, he is loved by the Father. See Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9.--=In\norder that I may take it again.= Beware of understanding this, as many\nof the commentators seem to do, as equivalent to, _I die in order that\nI may rise from the dead_. The meaning is interpreted by Christ\u2019s\ndeclaration to his disciples: \u201cHe that loseth his life for my sake\nshall find it.\u201d Christ lays down his life by his humiliation, his\nincarnation, his passion and his crucifixion, that he may take it\nagain in the life of the myriads whom he has redeemed from death by\nhis own death. He takes it again when he sees of the travail of his\nsoul and is satisfied (Isa. 53:11), which he does when those who have\nbeen washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb stand before him\n(Rev. 7:14, 15). So every mother, laying down her life in continued\nself-sacrifice for her children, takes it again in their developed\nmanhood and womanhood.--=No one taketh it from me, but I lay it down\nof myself.= _No one_ is not equivalent to _no man_, a translation\nwhich weakens if it does not destroy the sense. The sacrifice of\nChrist, the whole experience of humiliation and suffering, commencing\nwith the laying aside of the glory which he had with the Father and\nculminating in the crucifixion, was not imposed upon him by any one,\nneither by man, nor by Satan, nor even by the Father; it was\nself-assumed. This fact is the answer to all those objections to the\nN. T. doctrine of the atonement, which misrepresent it as portraying a\nGod who inflicts on an innocent victim the punishment which was\ndeserved by others.--=I have power to lay it down and I have power to\ntake it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.= The\nword rendered _power_ (\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1), includes both _power_ and _right_\n(see ch. 1:12, note); the word rendered _commandment_ (\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74), is\nnot equivalent to authority; the original word always means _law_\nor _command_. Christ\u2019s disciples have no authority to frame\nself-sacrifices for themselves; doing this is always characteristic of\na corrupt and _quasi_ pagan religion. They are to bear with cheerful\nheroism whatever self-sacrifice the providence of God may lay upon\nthem. So also they have never a right to seek death, but are always to\nseek to _live_ to the glory of God and for their fellow-men. But\nChrist voluntarily chose his life of humiliation and cross-bearing;\nvoluntarily sought its privations; and finally went, not to an\ninevitable death, but to one which he might easily have avoided by\nflight, if he had acted according to the directions which he gave his\nfollowers, and on which the apostle subsequently acted. He might have\nfled from Jerusalem on the fatal night of his arrest, as he had done\nbefore, and this without leaving his sheep to be seized or scattered\nby the wolf; or he might have been protected by supernatural power\n(Matt. 26:53). He did not because he had a peculiar authority given to\nhim, which his followers do not possess, to lay down his own life,\nboth in the self-assumed humiliation of the incarnation, and in the\nfinal tragedy of his death. And this peculiar authority he possessed\nbecause in all his incarnation and passion and death he was carrying\nout the will and obeying the command of his Father. To us the\ndivine command is interpreted by providence; Christ needed no such\ninterpreter, for he knew the Father\u2019s will, knowing the Father even as\nhe was known by the Father.\n\n\n 19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for\n these sayings.\n\n\n 20 And many of them said, He[408] hath a devil, and is mad;\n why hear ye him?\n\n [408] ch. 7:20.\n\n\n 21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a\n devil. Can a devil open[409] the eyes of the blind?\n\n [409] ch. 9:6, etc.\n\n=19-21. There was a division therefore again among theJews.=--Christ\u2019s\nfan was in his hand. His teachings were tests of the character of his\nauditors.--=He hath a devil.= Rather _an evil spirit_ (see ch. 8:52,\nnote).--=Why hear ye him?= Why listen to him at all? The words were\naddressed by the opponents of Jesus to those who were inclined to\nbelieve on him, and indicate the uneasiness with which the Pharisees\nobserved the impression which Christ was making on the less prejudiced\nand better disposed among the people (comp. ch. 7:46-49).--=These are\nnot the words of one possessed by an evil spirit.= A pregnant saying.\nInfidelity must afford some explanation of the teachings and life of\nChrist; and they are not the teachings and life of either a fanatic or\na deceiver.--=Can an evil spirit open the eyes of the blind?= These\nwords show that the whole discourse of this chapter was not distant in\ntime from the healing of the blind man narrated in Chapter IX, and was\nprobably closely connected with it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 10:22-42. DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION.--THE GIFT\nOF CHRIST: ETERNAL LIFE.--THE POWER OF CHRIST: THE POWER OF THE\nFATHER.--THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE O. T. PROPHETS AND CHRIST.--THE\nEVIDENCE OF CHRIST\u2019S DIVINITY; HIS WORKS.\n\nThere is no reason to suppose that Christ left Judea during the time\nwhich elapsed between the feast of Tabernacles (ch. 7:2) and\nthe feast of Dedication; on the contrary, the intimate connection\nbetween the discourse here reported and the preceding parable of the\nGood Shepherd (see vers. 26, 27), indicates that this discourse\nfollowed almost immediately after that one; certainly while the latter\nwas still fresh in the minds of the people. I believe that the ministry\nin Judea, reported in John, chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10, was a continuous\none, unbroken by any departure into Galilee or Perea.\n\n\n 22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and\n it was winter.\n\n\n 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon\u2019s porch.[410]\n\n [410] Acts 3:11; 5:12.\n\n\n 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him,\n How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ,\n tell us plainly.\n\n=22-24. The feast of the Dedication.= A Jewish feast instituted by\nJudas Maccabeus, in commemoration of the cleansing of the second\ntemple and altar, after they had been polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes.\nThe profanation took place B. C. 167, the purification B. C. 164. The\nfestival commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month, Kislev,\nanswering to our December, and lasted eight days. It was also called\nthe feast of Lights, from the fact that the Jews illuminated their\nhouses as long as the feast lasted. Instituted by the Maccabean\ndynasty, and observed chiefly by the more rigid Judeans, it afforded\nto Christ an audience only of the more narrow-minded and bigoted of\nthe Jews, a fact which must be borne in mind in studying his teaching\non this occasion.--=It was winter.=--The fact is stated to explain our\nLord\u2019s walking in Solomon\u2019s portico. For description and illustration\nof this portico, see Acts 5:12, note. This minute detail, the\nexact locality where he gave this instruction, is one of the many\nindications which this Gospel affords of being written by an\neye-witness.--=The Judeans therefore surrounded him.= The verb\n(\u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03cc\u03c9) is generally used in a hostile sense, _e. g._, of armies\nencompassing a city (Luke 21:20; Heb. 11:30; Rev. 20:9). This is the\nmeaning here; an excited and threatening crowd hedged about Jesus as\nhe was quietly walking in the porch. \u201cTheir fixed design was, not to\nleave him at liberty till he should have uttered the decisive\nword.\u201d--(_Godet._) This was the earliest manifestation of that design\nwhich was finally accomplished when the oath was administered to Jesus\nby the High Priest, and he was adjured to say whether he was the Son\nof God (Matt. 26:63, note).--=How long dost thou keep our souls in\nsuspense?= This English idiom almost literally answers to the Greek\nidiom (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2), which is still more exactly, _How long dost\nthou keep our souls lifted up?_ _i. e._, with expectation and\nuncertainty. Commingled and contradictory feelings in the crowd were\nprobably represented by this question; some hoped that Jesus was the\nMessiah and desired to compel him to declare himself; others were\nenraged with him, and desired to extort some utterance which would\ngive them the opportunity to condemn him for blasphemy, or to excite\nthe mob against him.\n\n\n 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not;\n the[411] works that I do in my Father\u2019s name, they bear\n witness of me.\n\n [411] ch. 5:36.\n\n\n 26 But[412] ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep,\n as I said unto you.\n\n [412] ch. 8:47.\n\n\n 27 My[413] sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they\n follow me:\n\n [413] verse 4.\n\n=25-27. I told you * * * the works * * * bear witness of me.= He had\ntold them (ch. 5:19; 8:36, 56, 58, etc.), not it is true as plainly as\nhe had told the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:26), but more plainly than he\nhad told his own disciples previous to Peter\u2019s confession of faith,\n\u201cThou art the Christ, the Son of the living God\u201d (Matt. 16:16); and he\nnow answers them as he answered John the Baptist, who, in a very\ndifferent spirit, preferred the same request for a definite answer to\nthe question, \u201cArt thou He that should come?\u201d (Matt. 11:2-6.) He\nrefers them to his works. The evidence of Christ\u2019s divinity is not in\nhis declaration about himself, nor in the declarations made concerning\nhim by others, but in his life, his character, and the work which he\nhas done and is still doing in the world. Works (\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1) includes his\nmiracles but is not equivalent to miracles. See ch. 14:12, note. The\nreason why he did not answer more directly is well given by Godet: \u201cHe\ncould not answer \u2018I am,\u2019 for the meaning which they attached to the\nword Christ had, so to speak, nothing in common with that in which he\nused it. Still less could he reply, \u2018I am not;\u2019 for he was indeed the\nChrist provided by God, and in that sense he whom they expected.\u201d--=Because\nye are not of my sheep, as I said to you.= The reference is either to\nthe implied teaching of the parable of the Good Shepherd, or to some\nspecific statement not reported by the Evangelist. The genuineness of\nthe words _as I said to you_ is doubted by some, but they are regarded\nas authentic by most critics. What does he mean by _ye are not of my\nsheep_. If we look back we shall see that the sheep of Christ are\nthose that hear (_i. e._, accept and obey) his voice, and follow him\n(_i. e._, imitate his life and example). See verses 3, 4, 14, 16, 27.\nThe declaration, then, _Ye believe not because ye are not of my\nsheep_, is that those who do not spiritually recognize the beauty of\nChrist\u2019s teaching, and do not attempt to follow his incomparable\nexample, are not to be expected to be convinced of his divinity by\npurely intellectual arguments.--The answer to the skeptic is\ngenerally, You cannot believe in Christ as your personal Saviour till\nyou begin to recognize and to follow his teaching and example as a\nprophet and a man. The declaration is the converse of John 7:17. Comp.\n2 Peter 1:5-8, where the possession of the Christian virtues is\ndeclared to be the efficient cause of a sound Christian knowledge. The\ncreed does not precede but follows spiritual life.\n\n\n 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they[414] shall\n never perish, neither shall any _man_ pluck them out of my\n hand.\n\n [414] ch. 17:12; 18:9.\n\n\n 29 My[415] Father, which gave[416] _them_ me, is greater\n than all; and no _man_ is able to pluck _them_ out of my\n Father\u2019s hand.\n\n [415] ch. 14:28.\n\n [416] ch. 17:2.\n\n\n 30 I[417] and _my_ Father are one.\n\n [417] ch. 17:11, 22.\n\n=28-30. And I give unto them eternal life.= Life is the _gift_ of God\nthrough Jesus Christ (ch. 1:12; 4:10, 14; 6:27, 32, 51; Rom. 5:17;\n6:23; Eph. 1:17), but the necessary condition of receiving it is\nfaith in his Son, _i. e._, the ability to appreciate spiritual life\nin its highest and most perfect manifestation, and a readiness to\nfollow after it, by leaving all things else to attain it, as did Paul\n(Phil. 3:13, 14).--=And they shall never perish, neither shall\nany pluck them out of my hand.= The word rendered _perish_ is literally\n_destroy themselves_ (\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _middle voice_); and this seems to\nme to be the meaning here; otherwise there would be a repetition,\nthe second clause of the promise only reiterating the first clause.\nThe word _man_ is not in the original; _any_ includes all powers,\nhuman and superhuman. I, then, understand Christ\u2019s declaration to be\nthat the souls which trust in him _shall never destroy themselves,\nand no one shall pluck them out of his hand_; _i. e._, he promises\nto protect his disciples both against their own weaknesses and also\nagainst the strength of assailants; from fears without and foes\nwithin; from treachery in the soul, and from assaults on the soul.\nSee 1 Cor. 10:13; 15:10; Phil. 4:19; Col. 1:11, etc.--=My Father which\ngave them to me, is greater than all.= There is some uncertainty as to\nthe reading, but the best critics agree in sustaining the received\ntext.--=No one is able to pluck them out of my Father\u2019s hand. I and my\nFather are one.= Without entering into any doubtful disputations\nrespecting the relation of the Father and the Son, a problem which I\nbelieve transcends human knowledge, it is evident that the connection\nhere requires us to understand Christ as declaring himself one with\nthe Father, not merely in will or desire, as the disciple is to be one\nwith his Lord, but also in spiritual power. The argument is, \u201cMy sheep\nshall never perish, since my Father who gave them into my hand is\ngreater than all, and I who hold them, am one with him.\u201d This argument\nwould be without force if the meaning was not that Christ\u2019s _power_ is\nequal to that of the Father. His will might be perfectly in harmony\nwith the divine will, he still could not be trusted as a divine\nSaviour unless his power was commensurate with his will. So all the\nbest expositors, _Alford_, _Godet_, _Meyer_, _Luthardt_, _Tholuck_.\n\n\n 31 Then[418] the Jews took up stones again to stone him.\n\n [418] ch. 8:59.\n\n\n 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed\n you from my Father; for which of those works do ye\n stone me?\n\n\n 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone\n thee not; but for blasphemy; and because[419] that thou,\n being a man, makest thyself God.\n\n [419] verse 30; ch. 5:18; Ps. 82:6; Rom. 13:1.\n\n=31-33.= The moral power of Christ is singularly illustrated by the\nmanner in which he restrains the mob by his voice and compels them to\nanswer his question. That question implies that punishment is due only\nto wrong actors, and he asks them before they execute sentence, to\ndesignate any wrong that he has done. The question is thus analogous\nto that of ch. 8:46, \u201cWhich of you convinceth me of sin.\u201d--Blasphemy\nwas a regularly recognized crime under Jewish law; it consisted in any\nendeavor to draw away the allegiance of the people from the one true\nGod, and answered to treason with us, Jehovah being under the\ntheocracy, the Supreme head of the nation (see Matt. 12:32, note). The\nreply of the Jews to Christ\u2019s question plainly shows how they regarded\nhis declaration, \u201cI and my Father are one,\u201d not as indicating mere\nunity in spirit and purpose, but also in power and essential being.\nThis is not indeed conclusive, for the Jews constantly misunderstood\nChrist; but it is an indication of his meaning. One practical lesson\nof the unity of the Godhead, of Christ and the Spirit with the Father,\nis eloquently presented by Maurice: \u201cThe unity of the Father and the\nSon is the only ground of the unity between the Shepherd and the\nsheep; undermine one and you undermine both * * * *. Do you think\nsects would last even for an hour, if there was not in the heart of\neach of them a witness for a fellowship which combinations and\nshibboleths did not create, and which, thanks be to God, they cannot\ndestroy. The Shepherd makes his voice to be heard through all the\nnoise and clatter of earthly shepherds; the sheep hear his voice and\nknow that it is calling them to follow him into a common fold where\nall may rest and dwell together; and when once they understand the\nstill deeper message which he is uttering here, and which the old\ncreeds are repeating to us, \u2018I and my Father are one;\u2019 when they\nunderstand that the unity of the church and the unity of mankind\ndepends on this eternal distinction and unity in God himself, and not\nupon authority or decrees of any mortal pastor, the sects will crumble\nto pieces, and there will be in very deed, one flock and one\nShepherd.\u201d\n\n\n 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I\n said, Ye are gods?\n\n\n 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,\n and the scripture cannot be broken;\n\n\n 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified,[420] and\n sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I\n am[421] the Son of God?\n\n [420] ch. 6:27; Isa. 11:2, 3; 49:1, 3.\n\n [421] Phil. 2:6.\n\n=34-36. Is it not written in your law.= He does not say in _our_ law,\nnor in _the_ law, but in _your_ law. Christ does not identify himself\nwith the Jews, nor regard himself as subject to the law, though made\nunder it, and yielding himself to it for a season. Comp. ch. 7:19;\n8:17. The reference is to Psalm 82:6. There is no passage in the law,\n_i. e._, in the Pentateuch, which corresponds exactly to Christ\u2019s\nwords here, or to those of the Psalmist; but in Exodus 22:28, the\ntitle of \u201cgods\u201d is given to the judges. The Psalm in question is\nbelieved to have been written on the occasion of Jehosaphat\u2019s reform\nof the courts and re-establishment of the law (2 Chron., ch. 19), and\nit contrasts the unjust judges of Israel, who had been called gods in\nthe law, with God the Judge of all the earth.--=Unto whom the word of\nGod came.= _The word of God_ is not the mere saying, \u201cI have said ye\nare gods\u201d (_Meyer_); it is never used in the N. T. in so limited a\nsense, to signify merely a particular phrase or utterance. It is\neither, The Spirit of God, _i. e._, God revealing himself to and\nthrough the prophet, as in ch. 1:1 (see note there) and Heb. 4:12; or\nit is the word given to the prophets by the Holy Spirit and by them\nrepeated to the nation, _i. e._, nearly equivalent to the O. T.\nScripture, as in Mark 7:13; Luke 5:1, etc.--=And the Scripture cannot\nbe broken.= Literally _loosened_ (Matt. 5:19, note). This\nparenthetical declaration is a very significant testimony to the\ninspiration of the O. T.--=Whom the Father hath sanctified.= The\noriginal (\u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9) may be rendered either made holy, in the sense of\nmade clean and pure in character, or made holy in the sense of set\napart to a holy use. It is evidently in the latter sense that it is\nemployed here.--=And sent into the world.= The sanctifying of Christ\npreceded the sending into the world. Evidently, therefore, the\nreference is not to any act recorded in the life of Christ, as the\ndescent of the Holy Spirit at the baptism, but to a consecration in\nthe will of God to the work of redemption, and which preceded the\nAdvent.--=Thou blasphemest.= That is, art guilty of diverting the\nallegiance of the people from God to thyself.--=Because I said I am a\nSon of God.= The article is wanting in the Greek, and ought not to be\nadded in the translation.\n\nThese verses (34-36) have been sometimes regarded as a partial\nretraction, or at least a material modification of the declaration, \u201cI\nand my Father are one;\u201d as indicating that Jesus Christ is a Son of\nGod only as every obedient soul is a child of God (1 John 3:1). If\nthis passage stood alone, such an interpretation might possibly be\ngiven to it; but if the audience, the circumstances, the effect, and\nthe other utterances of the speaker be taken into account, it cannot\nbe fairly so understood. This sentence is spoken to a mob for the\npurpose of checking their rage. They have understood Christ to claim\ndivinity. He does not in terms explicitly disavow it. On the contrary,\nwhen his explanation is ended, they resume their design (ver. 39), and\nhe is obliged to flee for his life. We should not look in such an\nutterance for a disclosure of the profoundest truths respecting\nChrist\u2019s character, not because Christ would conceal or modify the\ntruth to save his life, but because an angry mob is not the sort of an\naudience to whom he would choose to reveal it, or indeed could reveal\nit, a certain receptiveness of soul being necessary to the\ncomprehension of spiritual truth. The argument of these verses seems\nto me to be this: He to whom the Spirit of God comes, and who receives\nit and becomes in so far an exponent and manifestation of God, is in a\nsense divine; he becomes partaker of the divine nature; a sharer of\nthe divine life (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 12:10; 2 Pet. 1:4). This is the\ntestimony of the Scriptures which cannot be set aside. He, then, who\nis not of this world but from above (ch. 8:23), and whom the Father\nconsecrated above and sent down into this world, is not guilty of\nblasphemy in calling himself a Son of God. In other words, Christ\ncompares himself with inspired men only to contrast himself with them;\nhe shows that, even according to the principles of the O. T.\nScriptures, by which the Jews pretended to condemn him, he was not\nguilty of blasphemy, even if, being but a man, he had made himself a\nson and so a representative of God, while he, at the same time,\nclearly claims to be other and higher than the O. T. prophets and\njudges. But for the full disclosure of Christ\u2019s character, we must\nlook to his quiet conferences with his own disciples, who were at\nleast willing, if not able, to understand him.\n\n\n 37 If[422] I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.\n\n [422] ch. 14:10, 11; 15:24.\n\n\n 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the\n works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father _is_\n in me, and I in him.\n\n=37, 38. If I do not the works of my Father, put no faith in me.= Works\nwhich show forth his power and glory and are in accordance with his\nwill and character (ch. 17:4).--=But if I do, though ye put no faith\nin me, put faith in the works.= Beware of understanding faith,\nrendered in our English version by _believe_, as a mere intellectual\nact. The idea is, If prejudice against the person of Christ prevents\nan affectionate regard for him, the soul may still have respect and\nreverence for the work he has done, and is doing in the world. =That\nye may perceive and know= (\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5) is the best\nreading.--_Alford_, _Meyer_. To _perceive_, or recognize, denotes the\noutward act; to _know_ denotes the permanent state.--=That the Father\nis in me and I in the Father.= A spiritual unity, such as cannot be\npredicated of any other son of God. The Father is in the Son because\nhe lives and moves in him; is the spirit which animates and controls\nand makes divine the man Jesus. The Son is in the Father because his\nthoughts, wishes, purposes, desires, all centre in Him. The argument\nof these verses is substantially the same as that addressed by Christ\nto the Jews in verse 25 (see note there), and that addressed to his\nown disciples in ch. 14:11. The best evidence of the divinity of\nChrist is his own character; next is a consideration of the divine\nwork which he has done and is doing in the world.\n\n\n 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped\n out of their hand;\n\n\n 40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place[423]\n where John at first baptized: and there he abode.\n\n [423] ch. 1:28.\n\n\n 41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no\n miracle: but all things that John spake[424] of this man\n were true.\n\n [424] ch. 3:30-36; Matt. 3:11, 12.\n\n\n 42 And many believed on him there.\n\n=39-42. They sought again to take him.= To arrest him. Their passion\nhad time to cool, and they abandoned the idea of mob violence, which\nwould have brought, as in Paul\u2019s case (Acts 21:31, 32), the\ninterference of the Romans. Instead, they endeavored to seize Christ\nand bring him before the authorities for trial.--=But he escaped out\nof their hand.= There is no reason to suppose a miracle. In the throng\nwere some at least who believed in him, and under cover afforded by\nthem he could have escaped.--=Where John at first baptized.= See ch.\n1:28, note.--=All things that John spake of this man were true.= Being\ndead he yet spake. Gave his testimony to Christ. See ch. 1:15-34. This\nwas the end of Christ\u2019s Judean ministry proper, which had lasted three\nmonths. It had been one of continuous storm. Twice during this period\nhe had been mobbed (ch. 8:59; 10:31); once an attempt was made to\narrest him (ch. 7:32, 45); secret plans for his assassination\nwere laid (ch. 7:19, 25; 8:37). All that we know of this ministry\nis contained in John, chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10; though it is not\nimprobable that the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Pharisee\nand the Publican, and the incidents at the house of Mary and Martha\nbelong to the same era (Luke 10:25-42; 18:9-14).--=And many believed\non him there.= A period of a little over three months, from some time\nin December to the first of April, intervened between the retreat of\nChrist from Judea and his final entry into Jerusalem at the Passover\nweek. I believe that this time was devoted to his ministry in Perea,\nthe district beyond Jordan; a ministry of which John here gives a\nhint, to which Matthew and Mark also refer (Matt. 19:1, 2, etc.; Mark\n10:1, etc.), but of which Luke alone gives any full account. See Luke,\nch. 10, Prel. Note. Many thronged his ministry there (Luke 11:29;\n12:1; 14:15, 25; 15:1). This ministry was broken in upon by the\nmessage from the sisters of Lazarus, as recorded in the next chapter.\nSee Prel. Note there.\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n\n\nCh. 11:1-44. THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.--THE DIVINE OBJECT IN ALL\nSEEMING EVIL: NOT HUMAN DEATH BUT DIVINE GLORY (4).--THE MYSTERY OF THE\nDIVINE SILENCE IN OUR SORROW ILLUSTRATED AND PARTIALLY INTERPRETED (6,\n12).--THE CONDITIONS OF DIVINE PROTECTION AND THE CHRISTIAN\u2019S SAFETY\n(9, 10).--THE CHRISTIAN\u2019S DEATH A SLEEP (11).--THE ANGUISH OF \u201cIF\u201d (21,\n32).--THE PHARISAIC CREED AND THE CHRISTIAN\u2019S FAITH CONCERNING DEATH\nAND THE RESURRECTION CONTRASTED (23-27).--CHRIST\u2019S INDIGNATION AT HUMAN\nFALSEHOOD (33, 38).--CHRIST\u2019S SYMPATHY WITH HUMAN SORROW (35).--THE\nRESISTANCE OF FAITHLESSNESS; THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH (39, 41).--THE\nPRAYER OF ASSURANCE OF FAITH (42).--THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE (43,\n44).--A PARABLE OF HUMAN SORROW AND DIVINE COMFORT.--A PARABLE OF HUMAN\nSIN AND DIVINE REDEMPTION. See Supplementary Note.\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--There is nothing in John to indicate the time at\nwhich this miracle took place; and there is no general agreement\namong harmonists respecting it. Robinson places it immediately at\nthe close of Christ\u2019s Judean ministry and prior to his ministry in\nPerea; Andrews and Ellicott place it at the close of the Perean\nministry and immediately preceding the Passion week. The reasons\nfor so doing are: (1) It seems the immediate occasion both of the\ntriumphal procession accorded to Jesus by the spontaneous action of\nthe common people, and of the more deliberate determination on the\npart of the ecclesiastics of Jerusalem to put him to death. It does\nnot seem reasonable, therefore, to suppose that a long period of\nactive service in another part of the Holy Land intervened between\nthis the greatest miracle wrought by Christ and the effects which it\nproduced, both upon the church party and upon the common people. (2)\nImmediately after this miracle, and in consequence of the excitement\nproduced by it, Christ retired into the wilderness, and is said by\nJohn to have continued there with his disciples; and the\nimplication is that he remained in this retirement until after the\nPassover (vers. 54, 55). To suppose that the Perean ministry,\nwhich lasted something like three months, was interjected into this\nperiod of retirement, which is Robinson\u2019s supposition, breaks into the\ncontinuity of John\u2019s narrative, and does violence to its order and\nsymmetry, without any adequate reason. (3) Jesus was at a considerable\ndistance from Bethany at the time when Lazarus was taken sick. The\nsisters sent unto him at once; after receiving their message, he\nremained where he was two days; but when he reached Bethany, Lazarus\nhad been four days dead (comp. vers. 6 and 39). Presumptively,\ntherefore, he was at least one day\u2019s journey from Bethany, even if\nwe assume that Lazarus had died before the messengers had reached\nJesus; more probably he was two days\u2019 journey distant, for verse\n11 indicates that the death of Lazarus took place after Jesus had\nreceived word of his sickness. Thus the narrative of this miracle\ntallies with the supposition that Christ was carrying on his ministry\nin the region beyond the Jordan, rather than with the supposition that\nhe was anywhere in Judea; the more so that we have no intimation in\nthe Gospels of any ministry in Judea except in and about Jerusalem,\nof which Bethany was practically a suburb. (4) In Luke 13:32, Christ\nuses the following language: \u201cBehold I cast out devils and I do cures\nto-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.\u201d This\noccurs in the Perean ministry, and the \u201ctwo days\u201d here referred to,\nhave been hypothetically identified with the \u201ctwo days\u201d during which,\naccording to John\u2019s narrative here, Jesus tarried where he was after\nreceiving the message of Lazarus\u2019s sickness. The coincidence between\nthe two passages is at least curious, though it may be nothing more\nthan a coincidence. These reasons make the chronology of Andrews and\nEllicott more probable than that of Robinson. I believe, then, that the\nresurrection of Lazarus took place in the latter part of February or\nthe early part of March A. D. 30, and that it was followed, after the\nbrief retirement at Ephraim, by the triumphal march of Christ and his\ndisciples up to Jerusalem, and by his Passion and his death there. See\n_Tab. Har._, Vol. I, p. 45; for some general considerations respecting\nthis miracle, see Sup. Note, ver. 44.\n\n\n 1 Now a certain _man_ was sick, _named_ Lazarus, of\n Bethany, the town of[425] Mary and her sister Martha.\n\n [425] Luke 10:38, 39.\n\n\n 2 (It was _that_ Mary which[426] anointed the Lord with\n ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother\n Lazarus was sick.)\n\n [426] ch. 12:3; Mark 14:3.\n\n=1, 2. Now a certain one was sick named Lazarus.= The only historic\nperson of this name mentioned in the Bible; the indications are\nthat he was a younger brother. From the incident in Luke 10:38-42,\nwe judge that Martha was the head of the household. Simon, probably\nthe father, though possibly the husband of one of the sisters, was a\nleper; he had probably died or been banished by the law, because of\nhis leprosy (Matt. 26:6). The family appear to have been one\nof wealth and social distinction; this is indicated by the facts that\nthey owned their house, had their tomb in their garden, and were able\nto give three hundred dollars worth of ointment as a costly token of\nhonor to Jesus (John 12:5). I say three hundred dollars worth\nbecause the penny, or denarius, was a day\u2019s wages, and therefore\nequivalent to our dollar. How and where the household first became\nacquainted with Jesus, we do not know. An ingenious writer in _Smith\u2019s\nBible Dictionary_ endeavors to identify Lazarus with the rich young\nruler who had great possessions, and went away from Christ sorrowful\nbecause he was bid to sell all that he had to give to the poor\n(Matt. 19:16-22); but this ingenious hypothesis has only its\ningenuity to commend it. Of Lazarus\u2019s life after his resurrection,\nnothing whatever is known; there are traditions respecting him, and\nhis bones were discovered by some of the credulous relic-worshippers\nof the ninth century in the island of Cyprus; but the traditions are\nas little to be trusted as the relics.--=Of Bethany.= This village\nlies on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, less than two miles\n(ver. 18, note) southeast of Jerusalem. See for description\nand illustration, ch. 12:1, 2, note. Its present name is El-Azarieh,\nderived from, and memorializing the resurrection of Lazarus. Of\ncourse, the house of Simon and of Lazarus, and the tomb of the latter\nare pointed out to the traveler by the accommodating monks, and of\ncourse, nothing is known about either of these sites, except that\nthe tomb cannot possibly be the real one. It is a deep vault partly\nlined with masonry, entered upon by a long, winding, half-ruined\nstaircase; the masonry is comparatively modern, and the situation\nof the tomb in the centre of the village is inconsistent with the\nGospel narrative; the genuineness of the site is repudiated by Porter,\nRobinson, Thompson, and defended by no scholar.--=The town of Mary and\nher sister Martha.= It is so characterized because their home served\nas a retreat to Jesus during his ministry in Jerusalem, and it is thus\ndistinguished from the Bethany beyond the Jordan mentioned in ch.\n1:28, note. There is no reason whatever for identifying this Mary with\nMary Magdalene or with the \u201cwoman which was a sinner,\u201d or the anointing\nreferred to here and described in ch. 12:1-8 with the anointing\nperformed by that unnamed woman and described in Luke 7:36-50; see note\nthere.--The designation of Bethany as the town of Mary and her sister\nMartha, whom John has not before mentioned, as well as his incidental\nreference in the parenthetical sentence following, to the anointing of\nthe Lord by Mary, are indications that John wrote not only with a\nknowledge of the other Gospels, or at least with the main facts,\nincidents, and characters described in the other Gospels, but also\nwith the assurance that they were familiar to most of his readers. The\nfact that Mary\u2019s name is mentioned first, would, taken by itself,\nimply that she was the elder sister, and the head of the household;\nbut the fact that Martha took the responsibility of providing for the\nguests in the two instances recorded in Luke 10:38-42 and John 12:1-8,\nindicates that Martha was the elder sister and the housekeeper.\n\n\n 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord,\n behold, he[427] whom thou lovest is sick.\n\n [427] Heb. 12:6; Rev. 3:19.\n\n\n 4 When Jesus heard _that_, he said, This sickness is not\n unto death, but[428] for the glory of God, that the Son of\n God might be glorified thereby.\n\n [428] verse 40; ch. 9:3.\n\n=3, 4. Lord, behold whom thou lovest is sick.= They have complete\nconfidence in the sympathy of their Lord; they do not urge him to come;\nthey do not present any petition; they simply report their trouble to\nhim.--=He said, This sickness is not unto death.= That is, has not\ndeath for its object; (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 with the accusative, marks strictly the\nobject towards which anything is directed.) Christ does not say that\nLazarus will not die, but that death is not the end for which this\nsickness is ordained of God.--=But for the glory of God, that the Son\nof God might be glorified thereby.= Comp. ch. 9:3, note. He was\nglorified, (1) perhaps by the development of a higher spiritual life\nin Lazarus through his sickness, death and resurrection (_Trench_),\nthough of this the Evangelist gives us no hint; (2) by the\nmanifestation of the divine power of Jesus Christ, as one whom the\nFather always hears (ver. 42); (3) by the Passion and death of Jesus\nChrist, to which the resurrection of Lazarus directly led (vers.\n47-53). This saying of Christ seems to have been uttered not merely to\nhis disciples; it was apparently his message to the sisters, and to it\nhe refers in verse 40 (see note there).\n\n\n 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.\n\n\n 6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode\n two days still in the same place where he was.\n\n\n 7 Then after that saith he to _his_ disciples, Let us go\n into Jud\u00e6a again.\n\n=5-7. Now Jesus loved Martha=, etc. This statement is made in\nexplanation of verse 6, that the reader may not fall into the error of\nsupposing that Christ\u2019s delay was due to any indifference or unconcern\non his part.--=He abode two days in the same place where he was.= Why?\nEither because this delay was necessary to complete the work in which\nhe was engaged, and from which he would not suffer himself to be drawn\naway even by considerations of personal sympathy, he himself acting on\nthe principle \u201cLet the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach\nthe kingdom of God\u201d (Luke 9:60); or because this delay was necessary\nto the consummation of the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus in\nsuch form as to forever prohibit the impression that death had not\nreally taken place. The former is the better hypothesis, since in no\ncase does Christ seem to have wrought a miracle for the mere purpose\nof producing by it a profound impression, and it is therefore hardly\nconsistent to believe that he would have delayed merely for the\npurpose of making the miracle more startling and marvelous.--=Let us\ngo into Judea again.= This plainly implies that Jesus and his\ndisciples were not then in Judea, and thus incidentally confirms the\nsupposition (see Prel. Note) that the resurrection of Lazarus was\nsubsequent to the close of the ministry in Perea, and that he was\nsummoned from Perea.\n\n\n 8 _His_ disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of\n late[429] sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither\n again?[430]\n\n [429] ch. 10:31.\n\n [430] Acts 20:24.\n\n\n 9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?\n If[431] any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because\n he seeth the light of this world.\n\n [431] ch. 12:35.\n\n\n 10 But if a man walk in the night,[432] he stumbleth,\n because there is no light in him.\n\n [432] Eccles. 2:14.\n\n=8-10. The disciples say to him, Master, the Judeans were just now\nseeking to stone thee.= On the chronological hypothesis adopted above,\nthe mob in Jerusalem had threatened the life of Jesus about three\nmonths previous. But he had not been in Judea since. The disciples\nattributed Christ\u2019s remaining in Perea to the fear of the Jews, and\nremonstrated against his again braving them.--=Jesus answered, Are\nthere not twelve hours in the day=, etc. In interpreting Christ\u2019s\nenigmatical saying here, the student must remember that it was his\nhabit to speak in parables, and that he rarely gave any interpretation\nof them. This is to be regarded as a condensed and uninterpreted\nparable. John has himself given us the key to its interpretation by\nhis use of the same metaphor in his Epistle (1 John 1:5-7). God is the\nlight. As he has appointed the hours of activity for the human race,\nthe twelve hours of the day, so he has appointed the hours of service\nfor each individual man. What was true of Christ is true of every one;\nhe cannot die until his time has come (John 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20). He\ntherefore who walks with God in the path of duty, fulfilling the\ndivine will, cannot stumble; no harm can come to him; not a hair of\nhis head can be injured (Psalm 91; Matt. 10:29-31; Luke 10:19; 21:18).\nHe may and must come to his death; but not until his twelve hours have\npassed away.--But if a man work in darkness, _i. e._, not with God,\nnot in the path of duty, not endeavoring to fulfil the divine will,\nfor him there is no assurance of protection; he is always liable to\nstumble and fall. This is the general principle which Christ\nparabolically asserts; its immediate application here is that to\nChrist there is no danger in going into Judea, for he will not die\nuntil his appointed time has fully come. Comp. ch. 9:4, note.\n\n\n 11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them,\n Our friend Lazarus sleepeth:[433] but I go, that I may\n awake him out of sleep.\n\n [433] Deut. 31:16; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 15:18, 51.\n\n\n 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he\n shall do well.\n\n\n 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought\n that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.\n\n\n=11-13. Our friend Lazarus sleepeth.= An interval is indicated as\nhaving taken place between the previous discourse and the present\ndeclaration, by the words, _after that he saith unto them_. _Our\nfriend_, implies that Lazarus was loved by the disciples as well\nas by their Lord. This language, coupled with that of verse 3,\nindicates that he possessed a peculiarly lovable character. _Sleep_\nis used both in the O. T. and N. T. as a metaphor of death (2\nChron. 14:1; Ps. 13:3; Jer. 51:57; Job 14:12; Dan. 12:2; Matt.\n27:52; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1\nThess. 4:13, 14, 15). Some of the rationalistic critics think\nthat the disciples were extraordinarily stupid, not to understand\nChrist\u2019s metaphor; and yet they are guilty of a similar but greater\nstupidity. Thus, the author of _Supernatural Religion_ says (Vol.\nII, 460): \u201cThe disciples reply with the stupidity with which\nthe fourth Evangelist endows all those who hold colloquy with\nJesus: (Lord, if he has fallen asleep he will recover;)\u201d and yet,\non the immediately preceding page, he interprets Christ\u2019s similar\ndeclaration respecting the daughter of Jairus (Matt. 9:24):\n\u201cThe maid is not dead but sleepeth,\u201d as \u201can express declaration\u201d that\nthe case is \u201cone of mere suspension of consciousness.\u201d The\nmisapprehension of the apostles here was not extraordinary; certainly\nnot more so than that afforded by some analogous instances in the\nfirst three Gospels (see Matt. 16:7; Luke 22:38). They had understood\nfrom verse 4, that Lazarus was to be restored; they had interpreted\nChrist\u2019s words as a promise of healing; they had witnessed cases of\nmiraculous healing in at least two instances, wrought by a word on an\nabsent patient (Luke 7:10; John 4:50-53); so when Jesus said, \u201cLazarus\nis sleeping,\u201d they thought the crisis of the disease had passed, and\nthat there was no reason why their Master should brave the dangers of\na Judean mob to go to the bedside of a convalescent friend.\n\n\n 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead;\n\n\n 15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to\n the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.\n\n\n 16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his\n fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.\n\n=14-16. Then Jesus said unto them plainly= (\u03c0\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3). That is,\ndropping all metaphor.--=And I am glad for your sakes that I was not\nthere.= He accompanies the declaration of the friend\u2019s death with\nwords of consolation and inspiration. Plain as those words are to us,\nthey must have been inexplicable to the disciples. They did not\nforecast the resurrection; how could they understand why Christ should\nnot have been present to prevent so great a sorrow. The sympathy of\nChrist with us in our sorrow does not prevent him, who sees the end\nfrom the beginning, from rejoicing even when he sees our tears. He\nsees the sheaves brought home with joy even while the seed is sown in\ntears, and rejoices at the tears because of the harvest. To him, faith\nwrought in the soul is worth immeasurably more than all the sorrow\nwhich soul-culture involves (Rom. 5:1-5; 8:18).--=Then said Thomas\nwhich is called Didymus=, that is, the twin.--=Let us also go that we\nmay die with him.= With Christ, not with Lazarus. The little that we\nknow about Thomas shows him to have been a man of strong passions and\nof little faith and hope; to such a man life is full of pathos. He\ncould not believe that Christ could with safety go into Judea again;\nin this, indeed, he really forecast the result, which was the\ncrucifixion of his Lord; but neither could he bear to be separated\nfrom him. Chrysostom notes the power of Christ on this timid nature:\n\u201cThe very man who dared not to go in company with Christ to Bethany,\nafterwards traveled with him through the inhabited world, and dwelt in\nthe midst of nations that were full of murderers desirous to kill\nhim.\u201d On the character of Thomas, see further, Vol. I, p. 149; John\n20:24, note.\n\n\n 17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had _lain_ in the\n grave four days already.\n\n\n 18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen\n furlongs off:\n\n=17, 18. He had lain in the grave four days already.= Various\nexplanations are made respecting these four days; they are given in\ndetail in _Andrews\u2019 Life of Our Lord_. Since, however, we do not know\ndefinitely where Christ was, except that it was some point apparently\nbeyond Jordan, and we do not know at all what engagements and duties\ndetained him there, surmises as to the way in which these four days\nwere taken up are decidedly unprofitable. The narrative seems to me\nclearly to imply that Lazarus was not dead when the messengers first\nreached Jesus. Probably of these four days, two were occupied by\nChrist in completing his ministry where he was when he received the\nmessage, and two, or part of two days, in a leisurely journey to the\nhome of Lazarus.--=Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem.= The use of the\npast tense _was_, not _is_, indicates that Bethany had ceased to exist\nat the time when John wrote his Gospel; it thus incidentally confirms\nthe opinion that he wrote a considerable time after the destruction of\nJerusalem, and when that city and its environs were lying\nwaste.--=About fifteen furlongs off.= Literally, _stadia_. The\n_stadium_, is about six hundred feet; fifteen stadia or furlongs were,\ntherefore, about nine thousand feet, or a little less than two miles.\n\n\n 19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to[434]\n comfort them concerning their brother.\n\n [434] 1 Chron. 7:22; Job 2:11; 42:11; Rom. 12:15; 1\n Thess. 4:18.\n\n=19. And many of the Judeans came to Martha and Mary.= The word\n_Jews_, as used by John, indicates always the inhabitants of Judea, as\ndistinguished from those of other provinces in the Holy Land, and\ntherefore generally those who were prejudiced against, if not\nabsolutely hostile to Jesus. The fact that most of those who were\npresent at the scene about to be described were these Judeans, is an\nimportant one, and must be borne in mind by the student, for it gives\na peculiar color and significance to the entire narrative.--=To\ncomfort them concerning their brother.= The Jewish mourning rites were\nmost carefully defined by the Rabbinical law; they included rending\nthe clothes, dressing in sackcloth, sprinkling of ashes or dust on the\nperson, fasting, loud lamenting. Professional mourners were employed\nto increase the noisy demonstrations of grief (see Mark 5:38, note).\nThe days of mourning were thirty, which were divided into three for\nweeping, seven for lamentation, and twenty for less demonstrative\nmourning. During the first three days the mourners were forbidden to\nwear their phylacteries or to engage in any servile work, or to bathe\nor anoint themselves; during the seven days they fasted or ate nothing\nbut an occasional egg or some lentiles. After the funeral services\nwere over (for account of which see Luke 7:12, note), friends and\nprofessional mourners came and sat with the afflicted ones upon the\nground, no one speaking until the bereaved ones had done so, but every\nsentence of theirs was followed by some word of sympathy and comfort\nor by the wail of the mourners. Everything was done according to a\nprearranged system; in Phariseeism there was no liberty, even in the\nhour of grief.\n\n\n 20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming,\n went and met him: but Mary sat _still_ in the house.\n\n\n\n 21 Then said Martha unto Jesus. Lord, if thou hadst been\n here, my brother had not died.\n\n\n 22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever[435] thou wilt ask\n of God, God will give _it_ thee.\n\n [435] ch. 9:31.\n\n=20-22. Then Martha * * * went and met him.= Jesus did not enter into\nthe village, but stopped without and sent some one to let the sisters\nknow that he had come. Geikie supposes that he thus remained without\nfrom fear of the Jews; but Christ never stopped in the performance of\na duty from considerations of fear; his reply to the remonstrances of\nhis disciples (vers. 8-10) should have prevented this prosaic\ninterpretation of Christ\u2019s action. To him the conventional mourning\ncustoms of Oriental society were exceedingly distasteful. He who put\nall the noisy mourners out of the room in which the daughter of Jairus\nlay dead (Mark 5:40), and who so gently rebuked the noisy and\nostentatious lamentations of the women of Jerusalem at the time of his\nown crucifixion (Luke 23:27-31), might naturally be expected to\ndecline to enter into the circle of formal mourners, with the\nalternative of either violating the precedents and rules of good\nsociety, or of submitting himself in such an hour to the bondage which\nthey imposed.--=But Mary sat still in the house.= It would appear from\nverse 29, that she did not know that Jesus had come; yet the contrast\nbetween the two sisters, the one of whom with bustling activity waited\nupon her Lord, the other of whom, in the quieter offices of love, sat\nat his feet to listen to his words, or anoint those feet with precious\nointment (Luke 10:38-42; John 12:1-8), reappears here. Martha, who was\nprobably the head of the household, was naturally the first to hear of\nChrist\u2019s coming, and even in her grief found comfort in activity; to\nMary, in the solitude of her sorrow, no one at first reported Christ\u2019s\napproach.--=Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.=\nThis is the language both of reproach and of lamentation, though the\nreproach is implied rather than asserted. Her language expresses the\nvery essence of soul torture at such times. We are slow to believe\nthat our sorrow is \u201cfor the glory of God that the Son of God may be\nglorified thereby,\u201d and in our affliction continually echo Martha\u2019s\n\u201cif,\u201d saying to ourselves, if we had not done this, or if we had not\ndone that, if it had not been for our blunder or that of our friends\nor our physician, our beloved would not have died. Chance is the God\nof Atheism, and is a comfortless God in the time of our trouble.--=But\nI know that even now whatsoever thou shouldst ask of God, God will\ngive it thee.= This is interpreted by Meyer and Godet as an expression\nof Martha\u2019s faith that Jesus is able to raise even the dead to life\nagain; but in order to sustain this interpretation, they are obliged\nto depart from a natural and simple interpretation of Christ\u2019s\ndeclaration in vers. 25, 26, to suppose that Martha desired or was\nanticipating her brother\u2019s resurrection, and yet was so obtuse as to\nentirely miss the meaning of Christ in that declaration, and, finally,\nto suppose that the faith which she possessed when she first beheld\nChrist disappeared when she reached the tomb, where she remonstrated\nagainst opening it that the resurrection might be accomplished. I\nunderstand Martha\u2019s utterance here to be that simply of an undefined\nhope. She had counted so much on Christ; he had not come in the hour\nof her need; all was over now; and yet now that he had come, although\ntoo late, she went out to him with a vague, restless hope of some\nsuccor or consolation, she knew not what. In our own experience in the\nunreasonableness of grief, like vague and delusive hopes are not\nuncommon. Calvin\u2019s interpretation of Martha\u2019s experience better\naccords both with what we elsewhere know of her character and with the\nnarrative here, than does that of those who eulogize her extraordinary\nfaith: \u201cWhen she assures herself that her brother would not have died\nif Christ had been present, what ground has she for this confidence?\ncertainly it did not arise from any promise from Christ. The only\nconclusion, therefore, is that she inconsiderately yields to her own\nwishes, instead of subjecting herself to Christ. When she ascribes to\nChrist power and supreme goodness, this proceeds from faith; but when\nshe persuades herself of more than she had heard Christ declare, that\nhas nothing to do with faith. * * * Martha\u2019s faith, mixed up and\ninterwoven with ill-regulated desires, and even not wholly free from\nsuperstition, could not shine with full brightness; so that we\nperceive but a few sparks of it in these words.\u201d\n\n\n 23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.\n\n\n 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again\n in the[436] resurrection at the last day.\n\n [436] ch. 5:29.\n\n=23-24. Thy brother shall rise again.= Evidently these words were not\nunderstood by Martha to contain a promise of immediate resurrection,\nand therefore we are not justified in saying that they were so intended\nby Jesus. They are vague, and are intended to be vague and suggestive,\nin order to lead on the mind of Martha, and to evoke an expression of\nher faith. This method of calling out the experience of his pupil was a\ncustomary one with Jesus in all his instruction.--=I know that he\nshall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.= This statement\nof Martha\u2019s faith is to be interpreted by the belief of the orthodox\nJews. This was that all the dead departed to Hades or the Under-world,\nwhere they dwelt in a shadowy prison-house; the righteous in Paradise;\nthe wicked in Hell; and awaited the coming of the Messiah, who would\ncall all the righteous from the Under-world, while the wicked would be\nthrust back into it again. Martha believed that her brother had gone\nto this abode of the dead, and there was awaiting a day of judgment\nand of resurrection; but she found in this faith very little\nconsolation. Her brother, to her thought, was as if he were not, and\ndwelt among the dead. A vague hope of a far-distant revival did not\ncomfort her. It is in contrast to, and in correction of this creed,\nthat Christ utters the declaration of verses 25, 26.\n\n\n 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the[437] resurrection, and the\n life;[438] he that believeth in me, though[439] he were\n dead, yet shall he live;\n\n [437] ch. 6:40, 44.\n\n [438] ch. 14:6; Isa. 38:16; 1 John 1:2.\n\n [439] Job 19:26; Isa. 26:19; Rom. 4:17.\n\n\n 26 And whosoever[440] liveth and believeth in me shall\n never die. Believest thou this?\n\n [440] chaps. 3:15; 4:14.\n\n=25, 26. I am the resurrection and the life. He that believeth in me\neven if he could die= (\u03ba\u1f04\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u1fc3) =yet he should live, and every one\nthat liveth and believeth in me never can die.= The various and\nconflicting interpretations afforded by the commentators of this\ndeclaration of Christ agree only in being complicated and abstruse. It\nis essential to comfort that it should be simple truth simply\nexpressed; and that Christ should offer as a consolation to Martha a\ntruth so subtle and involved in so much mystery that skillful\nscholarship can scarce unlock its meaning, seems to me utterly\nincredible. I understand these words as an embodiment of Christ\u2019s\ncreed respecting life and immortality. Jesus is the source of the\nresurrection, and the fountain of life. Whoever, therefore, by faith\nin Christ, has Christ in him the hope of glory, never knows death; to\nhim there is no Hades, no dark and dismal abode of the dead, no long\nand weary waiting for a final great jail delivery--a judgment and an\nacquittal. He passes at once from the lower to the higher state; he\nhas already come to the general assembly and church of the first-born\n(Heb. 12:22-24). What we call death summons him simply to depart and\nbe straightway with Christ (Phil. 1:23; Luke 23:43). The eternal life\nwhich Christ here and now gives to those who are by faith united to\nhim (John 5:24), is never suspended. So immortal and potent is this\nlife principle which Christ offers to those who have received him,\nthat, if it were possible that one having died should receive it, he\nwould by it be made to live again. Against the conception, common now\nas then, of death as a long sleep or a long and dreary waiting for a\nfinal resurrection, is Christ\u2019s teaching here that \u201cThere is no death;\nwhat seems so is transition.\u201d In confirmation of this view, observe,\n(1) That Christ\u2019s declaration is present, not future: \u201c_I am the\nresurrection_,\u201d not, _I shall by-and-by become so_. (2) The\nconditional clause _though he were dead_, is literally _even though he\nshould die_, and is fairly rendered by the phrase adopted above, _even\nif he could die_. (3) Thus interpreted, Christ\u2019s declaration is\nresponsive to Martha\u2019s confession of faith, and leads on to and agrees\nwith the event which follows, the restoration of Lazarus to his\nearthly life. (4) It accords with the general teaching of the N. T.,\nin which Christ is represented as the source of eternal life, and the\ndeath of the saints as a doorway into his immediate presence (Acts\n7:59; Rom. 14:8; 2 Cor. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:8; 2 Peter 1:11,\netc.). It is not necessary to give here other interpretations, for\nthey are complicated, incongruous, and almost impossible to classify.\nThey are the results of various and unsuccessful endeavors to bring\nChrist\u2019s declaration into accord with the Pharisaic faith, which still\nlingers in the Christian church, of a resurrection and an eternal life\npostponed to the future, and an abode in death, meanwhile, in some\nsort of an intermediate state.\n\n\n 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art\n the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the\n world.\n\n=27. Yea, Lord; I have believed that thou art the Messiah, the Son of\nGod, he who was to come unto the world.= _I have believed_\n(\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1), the perfect tense, indicates the expression of a\nwell-established faith; perhaps of one which Christ well knew that she\nhad entertained. Martha still adheres to her Pharisaic creed; we do\nnot give up our religious beliefs easily. At Christ\u2019s question,\n\u201cBelievest thou that I am the Resurrection and the Life, and that they\nthat believe in me shall never die?\u201d she replies in effect: \u201cYea,\nLord; I believe that thou art the Messiah of the prophets at whose\nword all the dead shall come forth from Hades unto judgment.\u201d And in\nthis faith she does have some comfort, because she supposes this day\nof general resurrection cannot, in the nature of the case, be far\ndistant.\n\n\n 28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and called\n Mary her sister secretly,[441] saying, The Master[442] is\n come, and calleth[443] for thee.\n\n [441] ch. 21:7.\n\n [442] ch. 13:13.\n\n [443] Mark 10:49.\n\n\n 29 As soon as she heard _that_, she arose quickly, and came\n unto him.\n\n\n 30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in\n that place where Martha met him.\n\n=28-30. She went her way and called Mary her sister secretly.=\nEvidently, from her words _The Master calleth for thee_, she did this\nin obedience to Christ\u2019s direction. She went secretly because she did\nnot desire the presence of the Judeans at the quiet conference between\nJesus Christ and herself and sister.--=The Master is come and calleth\nfor thee.= She represses the name, perhaps because she does not desire\nit to be overheard by those who are present. The general designation,\nhowever, _the Master_ or _the Teacher_ is enough. To Mary there is no\none else worthy to be called the Teacher.--=As soon as she heard that,\nshe rose quickly.= Therefore presumptively, Mary had not before heard\nthat Jesus had arrived.--=Jesus * * * was in that place where Martha\nmet him.= Not at the grave where Lazarus was buried (ver. 34), but at\nsome point a little outside the village.\n\n\n 31 The Jews[444] then which were with her in the house, and\n comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily\n and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the\n grave to weep there.\n\n [444] verse 19.\n\n\n 32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him,\n she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if[445]\n thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.\n\n [445] verses 21, 37; ch. 4:49.\n\n=31, 32. She goeth unto the grave to weep there.= It was the custom of\nJewish women often to visit the graves of their dead, especially during\nthe first days of mourning. These too obtrusive mourners could not\ncomprehend that Mary might desire solitude in her sorrow. They would\nnot allow her to retreat from them. Thus the private interview which\nJesus desired with the two sisters was denied him. Consequently there\nwas no real conference between Jesus and Mary; as soon as she came he\nasked to be shown the grave.--=She fell down at his feet.= With a more\npassionate nature than that of Martha, her action and her attitude\nwere both more strongly indicative of her uncontrollable emotion.\nPossibly she threw herself prostrate at his feet in the form of\nsalutation ordinarily paid by an inferior to a superior in the East;\nyet, with her face upon the ground, she could hardly have carried on\nany conference whatever. More probably, therefore, she flung herself\nat first at his feet, then partially raised herself again to break\nforth in her reproachful complaint.--=Lord, if thou hadst been here my\nbrother would not have died.= Her language is nearly the same as that\nof Martha, but she adds no expression of hope; her profounder nature\nrefuses to entertain a hope for which she can give herself no reason.\n\n\n[Illustration: FELL AT HIS FEET.]\n\n\n 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also\n weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and\n was troubled,\n\n\n 34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him,\n Lord, come and see.\n\n\n 35 Jesus wept.[446]\n\n [446] Isa. 63:9; Luke 19:41; Heb. 2:16, 17.\n\n=33-35. When Jesus therefore saw her lamenting and the Judeans also\nlamenting which came with her.= The word translated in the English\nversion _weeping_, but which I have rendered _lamenting_, is not the\nsame as that employed in the declaration of verse 35, \u201cJesus wept.\u201d It\nimplies not only the shedding of tears but also every external\nexpression of grief--the loud outcries, the rending of garments, and\nthe whole vociferous and ostentatious manifestation of mourning.--=He\ngroaned in the spirit and was troubled.= There seems to be no doubt\nthat the Greek word rendered _groaned_, necessarily involves in it the\nidea of anger or indignation; it is so rendered in the Vulgate and in\nLuther\u2019s translation. \u201cThe words _brimaomi_ (\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) and\n_embrimaomi_ (\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) are never used otherwise than of hot anger\nin the classics; the Septuagint and N. T. (Matt. 9:30; Mark 1:43;\n14:5), except where they denote snorting or growling proper.\u201d--(_Meyer._)\nWith this agree both the lexicons and the critics generally. What was\nthe cause of this indignation? According to some of the older\ncommentaries, Christ was indignant with himself for his weakness in\nyielding to his emotions; his divinity was irritated at the emotion of\nhis humanity, and violently repressed it. This opinion needs no\nrefutation with those who believe that Christianity tends to\nintensify, not to suppress the natural affections--that Christian\nsympathy weeps with those that weep as well as rejoices with those\nthat rejoice; and who find in the tears of Christ at the grave of\nLazarus, not a manifestation of human weakness, but an expression of\ndivine sympathy which draws God very near to every sorrowing heart.\nOthers suppose that Christ saw in this scene a type of the woe that\nsin has wrought in the world; seeing its effects his indignation was\naroused. Thus Trench: \u201cHe beheld death in all its dread significance,\nas the wages of sin; the needs of the whole world, of which this was\nbut a little example, rose up before his eyes; all its mourners and\nall its graves were present to him.\u201d We may certainly believe that\nthis profound sense of the significance of this scene of sorrow\naffected Christ and intensified his sympathy; that the tears that he\nshed were tears of sympathy, not only with Mary and Martha, but also\nwith all sorrowing households. This, however, interprets rather his\nsorrow than his indignation. A simple and natural interpretation of\nthis indignation is afforded by a consideration of the circumstances\nand surroundings. He was indignant at the display of the affected\ngrief of those who were bitter enemies of the truth, and who would, as\nhe well knew, make use of this very miracle to promote his death, and\nwould even join with those who would seek to put Lazarus himself to\ndeath again (ch. 12:10). He was indignant _when he saw the Jews also\nlamenting_, and again when he heard the sneer uttered by them (see\nver. 37, note). To this effect is Meyer: \u201cHe was angered, then, at the\n_Judeans_, when he saw them lamenting with the deep-feeling Mary, and\nprofessing by their cries (of condolence) to share her feelings,\nwhilst at the same time aware that they were full of bitter hostility\nto him who was the beloved friend both of those who mourned and of him\nwhom they mourned.\u201d--=And was troubled.= Literally, _he troubled\nhimself_. The words \u201cindicate a physical emotion, a bodily\ntrembling, which might be perceived by the witnesses of this\nscene.\u201d--(_Godet._)--=Lord, come and see.= They did not anticipate his\npurpose; they simply invited him to come to the grave, as would be\nnatural in such circumstances.--=Jesus wept.= The Greek (\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c9)\nsignifies simply shedding of tears, weeping silently. This silent\ndropping of the tears from his eyes is in contrast with the weeping\nover Jerusalem (Luke 19:41, \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9). That was a public lamentation of a\nprophet; this was the expression of the personal sympathy of a friend.\nBeware of that false philosophy which represents Christ as weeping\nonly as a man. In this, as in every utterance of his nature, he was\nGod manifest in the flesh. By his tears at the grave of Lazarus he\ninterprets to us the divine sympathy which shares all our sorrows,\nhowever much the great Sympathizer, with his clear view of final\nresults, may, like Christ, be glad of the brief experience of grief\nthat is soon to produce so much joy (ver. 15).\n\n\n 36 Then said the Jews, Behold,\n how he loved him!\n\n\n 37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which[447]\n opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this\n man should not have died?\n\n [447] ch. 9:6.\n\n=36, 37. Then said the Judeans, Behold how he loved him; but some of\nthem said, Could not this fellow who opened the eyes of the blind have\ncaused that even this man should not have died?= Some, touched by\nChrist\u2019s genuine though silent sorrow, in striking contrast with the\nnoisier demonstrations of grief of the less sincere mourners,\nexpressed their sense of the Rabbi\u2019s love for his friend; others\nreplied with a sneer. This is indicated in the original by the Greek\nparticle (\u03b4\u03ad), which our English version renders _and_, but which\nshould be rendered _but_; and by the phrase _This fellow_, which\nfairly represents the spirit of the original (see ch. 6:42, note).\nThey referred, not to previous resurrections, for these had taken\nplace in Galilee, and with them they were not familiar, but to the\nhealing of the blind man, which had only a little previously taken\nplace in Jerusalem, and which had led to a formal investigation by the\nSanhedrim, and no little public excitement (ch. 7).\n\n\n 38 Jesus therefore, again groaning in himself, cometh to\n the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.\n\n=38. Jesus therefore, again indignant in himself.= He is indignant at\nthe sneer, and his manner gives some expression to his indignation,\nthough it is not uttered in words.--=Cometh to the grave. It was a\ncave, and a stone lay upon it.= The grave was sometimes cut\nperpendicularly in the rock, but the declaration that it was a cave\nimplies that the tomb of Lazarus was in a horizontal chamber. The\nphrase _A stone lay upon it_, may as well mean that a stone was laid\nagainst the open doorway as upon a perpendicular opening. \u201cThe family\nvaults of the Jews were sometimes natural (Gen. 23:9), sometimes, as\nwas this, artificial, and hollowed out from a rock (Isa. 22:16; Matt.\n22:60), in a garden (John 19:41), or in some field, the possession of\nthe family (Gen. 23:9, 17-20; 35:8; 1 Kings 2:34), with a recess in\nthe sides (Isa. 14:15), wherein the bodies were laid, occasionally\nwith chambers one beyond another. Sometimes the entrance to these\ntombs was on a level; sometimes, as most probably here, there was a\ndescent to it by steps. The stone which blocked up the entrance and\nkept aloof the beasts of prey, above all the numerous jackalls, which\nelse might have found their way into these receptacles of the dead and\ntorn the bodies.\u201d--(_Trench._) For further description and\nillustration of Jewish tomb, and the manner of closing it with a\ncircular stone, see Mark 16:2-4, note. Presumptively, in this case,\nthe stone was rolled away from the door of the cave, and Jesus and the\nfriends stood in the doorway, while from the inner chamber or recess\nwhere the body of Lazarus had been laid, he issued forth at the word\nof the Lord. The accompanying illustration (p. 146) better represents\nthe nature of the scene than it is possible to do by description only.\n\n\n 39 Jesus said, Take ye away[448] the stone. Martha, the\n sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this\n time[449] he stinketh: for he hath been _dead_ four days.\n\n [448] Mark 16:3.\n\n [449] Ps. 49:7, 9; Acts 2:27.\n\n\n 40 Jesus saith unto her, Said[450] I not unto thee, that,\n if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of\n God?\n\n [450] verses 4, 23.\n\n=39, 40. Martha * * * saith unto him, Lord, already he stinketh.= This\nis taken by Alford as the statement of the plain fact, and he\napparently believes that it was made sensible by the ill odor which\nproceeded from the cave. Trench objects that this supposition gives to\nthe miracle almost \u201ca monstrous character.\u201d The text seems to me to\ndetermine the question. Martha asserts the decomposition of the body,\nnot as a _fact known_, but as a _conclusion deduced_ from the length\nof time that had passed since the death. With her it clearly was an\nopinion--whether correct or not is purely a matter of surmise.\nApparently the body had not been embalmed; no explanation is offered\nof this singular fact. In the East it was usual to embalm the corpse\nat once.--=For he hath been four days= (dead). We may supply either\nthe word _dead_, as the translators have done, or the word _buried_;\nit will make little difference, for burial in the warm climate of the\nEast usually took place on the day of the death. It was a Jewish\nnotion that for three days the spirit wandered about the sepulchre\nhoping that it might return unto the body; but on the fourth day it\nabandoned this expectation and left the body to itself. Thus Martha\u2019s\nexpression involves the idea that all hope of resuscitation was past,\nand negatives the interpretation of Meyer that her language in verse\n22 implies her hope of a present resurrection.--=Said I not unto\nthee.= The reference is probably to the message sent to the sisters as\nreported in verse 4.--=If thou wouldst believe, thou shouldst see the\nglory of God.= The faith of the sisters was to be displayed, not in\nany definite expectation of the work which their Lord was about to\naccomplish, but in obedience to his directions; and in fact Martha\ntacitly withdraws her remonstrance, and the stone is rolled away from\nthe grave. The performance of the miracle was itself dependent on the\nfulfillment of the condition, If thou wouldst believe. The New\nTestament throughout treats faith as the power of moral and spiritual\ndiscernment, and therefore the fundamental condition of receiving the\ndivine blessing. \u201cTo unbelieving Martha, Jesus could no more have\nrestored the dead brother, than to the unbelieving Jairus his child\n(Luke 8:50), or to the widow of Nain her son, if her attitude toward\nhis compassion and his injunction \u2018Weep not\u2019 (Luke 7:13), had been one\nof unbelief.\u201d--(_Meyer._) Observe the order in which Christ put seeing\nand believing. Men are always desirous to see in order to believe.\nMartha is called upon to give an example of the contrary course: to\nbelieve that she may see.\n\n\n 41 Then they took away the stone _from the place_ where\n the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up _his_ eyes, and\n said,[451] Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.\n\n [451] ch. 12:28-30.\n\n\n 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because\n of the people which stand by I said _it_, that they may\n believe that thou hast sent me.\n\n=41, 42. They took away therefore the stone.= The words _where the\ndead man was laid_ are wanting in the best manuscripts.--=And Jesus\nlifted up his eyes.= Toward heaven; not because God is in heaven more\ntruly than upon earth (Ps. 139:7-12), but because the visible heaven\nis ever suggestive to the human mind of the invisible God; and Jesus\nthus quickened his own faith in the Father, as we may well do. He\nprayed toward the heavens as the devout Jew prayed toward the temple\n(1 Kings 8:30; Dan. 6:10).--=Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard\nme.= It is not necessary to suppose, as Alford does, a reference to\nsome previously uttered prayer, in Perea, for example, when the\nmessage respecting Lazarus\u2019s sickness was brought to Jesus. The\nlanguage is that of the assurance of faith--faith in a God who hears\nthe desire before it is expressed in prayer, who teaches the believing\nsoul how and for what to pray, and who thus continually answers our\nprayers by anticipation. Christ regards his prayer as answered before\nit is presented.--=And I knew that thou hearest me always.= Alike when\nthe prayer is granted and when it is denied; at the grave of Lazarus\nand in the agony in Gethsemane. God hears us when his providence says\nNo to our petition none the less than when it says Yes. The true\nChristian\u2019s faith, like Christ\u2019s faith, rests not on the answer but on\nthe direct personal consciousness of spiritual communion with\nGod.--=But because of the people which stand by I said it.= Thus\nChrist on occasion violates the letter of his own rule which prohibits\nmen to pray \u201cthat they may be seen of men\u201d (Matt. 6:5, 6), just as in\nGethsemane he seemed to violate the letter of his rule against\nrepetitions in prayer (comp. Matt. 6:7 with Matt. 26:44). Here his\nprayer was public in order that men might know that he did pray, and\nthat his resurrection power was not his own but was given to him by\nhis Father, and thus might glorify not him, but the Father in\nhim.--=That they may have faith that thou hast sent me.= Not merely\nthat they might believe intellectually that he was a messenger or\nrepresentative sent by the Father, but that their thoughts might be\nturned from him, who was but the instrument, the voice of God, to the\ninvisible Father himself, who spoke in him and wrought through him.\nThis prayer of thanksgiving is in instructive contrast with the prayer\nof Elijah when he raised the dead (1 Kings 17:20, 21). There was the\nearnestness of an anxious faith; here is the assurance of a restful\nfaith; there the importunity of request intensified by a fear of\ndenial; here the calmness of thanksgiving already assured of a\nfavorable response. The simple grandeur of this prayer has not\nprevented it from being criticised as artificial (Supernatural\nReligion), \u201ca show prayer\u201d (_Weisse_), \u201ca sham prayer\u201d (_Baur_). If\nprayer were only petition there would be ground for this criticism;\nbut if prayer is the frank and free communion of the soul with its\nFather, there is none. It will seem artificial only to those who are\nunable to comprehend the filial relation between a Son and his\nheavenly Father.\n\n\n 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice,\n Lazarus, come forth.\n\n\n 44 And[452] he that was dead came forth, bound hand and\n foot with graveclothes; and his face[453] was bound about\n with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let\n him go.\n\n [452] 1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:34, 35; Luke 7:14, 15;\n Acts 20:9-12.\n\n [453] ch. 20:7.\n\n=43, 44. He cried with a loud voice.= The previous prayer had been\nspoken in a subdued voice; apparently, this is implied by the\nsuggested contrast, was only heard in Christ\u2019s immediate vicinity. The\nothers knew that he was praying, and thus recognized the miracle as a\nresult of his appeal to his Father; but they did not hear the words of\nthe prayer. The \u201cloud voice\u201d was a type, a suggestion of that voice\nlike the sound of many waters (Rev. 1:15), at which all who are in\ntheir graves shall come forth (John 5:28; 1 Thess. 4:16).--=Lazarus,\ncome forth.= Literally _Here! out!_ \u201cThe simplicity of these two words,\nare in glorious contrast with their efficacy.\u201d--(_Godet._)--=And\nhe that had been dead came forth, bound hand and foot with\ngrave-clothes.= Literally _swathing-bands_ (\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1). The supposition\nof Chrysostom, Lightfoot and others that this coming forth _bound_\nnecessitated a new miracle is entirely unnecessary. It was the Jewish\ncustom to wrap the dead comparatively loosely in a winding sheet or\nshroud, which would have impeded though not prevented arising and\nwalking. The exact nature of the swathing-bands does not appear to be\nknown. The word occurs nowhere else in the N. T. There is, however, no\nreason to suppose that the limbs were so tightly bound that motion\nwould be impossible. The same word is used in classic literature to\nsignify a flounce worn about the bottom of the dress of the living.\nThe accompanying cut, which in its representation of the tomb and\ngrave-clothes, is produced from a careful study of the best\narch\u00e6ological authorities, illustrates the probable appearance of\nLazarus better than descriptive words could do. --=His face was bound\nabout with a napkin.= A handkerchief; probably, as sometimes with us,\nto prevent the falling of the lower jaw.--=Loose him and let him go.=\nChrist gives them something to do. This is partly to recall them from\ntheir speechless and dazed astonishment, partly to prevent the too\ngreat and dangerous revulsion of feeling, partly because he has done\nhis work and would bid them to do what in them lies to be sharers with\nhim in the restoration of the loved one to life and liberty. In this\nis a moral significance; we cannot raise the spiritually dead; but we\ncan bring Christ to their grave by our prayers, and we can aid in\ntheir perfect liberation when the divine voice has called them from\ntheir sleep of death.\n\n * * * * *\n\nNOTE ON THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.--This miracle is recorded only by\nJohn. Why? It was not only the climax of all Christ\u2019s wonderful works,\nbut it also led directly on the one hand to the triumphal procession\ninto Jerusalem, which is recorded by all, and on the other to the\nfinal plans for Christ\u2019s arrest and crucifixion. Several explanations\nhave been suggested for the silence of the synoptists: (1) That the\nmiracle aroused hostility to Lazarus and his sisters, and involved\nthem in danger (ch. 12:10), and that therefore all mention of it was\nomitted (_Godet_, _Olshausen_). But this hostility could hardly have\ncontinued to threaten any real danger to Lazarus for twenty-five or\nthirty years; and if it did, we can hardly think that he or his\nsisters would have shrunk from being designated as living witnesses to\nthe resurrection power of their Lord. They would rather have gloried\nin being permitted to suffer for him. (2) That the narration of the\nresurrection would have made the household \u201cthe focus of an intense\nand irreverent curiosity\u201d (_Farrar_). But it would also have made them\nthe focus of an intense and reverent desire to know something with\ngreater certainty respecting Jesus and his work. And if the miracle\nwere wrought for the glory of God, to keep silence respecting it was\nto weaken if not to destroy its intended effect. (3) That the\nSynoptists confine themselves to a narrative of Christ\u2019s Galilean\nministry and exclude all the events in Judea prior to the Passion week\n(_Meyer_). But this does not explain the omission of this miracle; it\nsimply reiterates the fact, and leaves the perplexing problem\nunsolved. Why should the Synoptists avoid all mention of miracles and\nteachings in Judea, especially one so notable as this? I agree with\nTrench in saying that to this question it is now difficult to find a\nsatisfactory answer. Possibly Peter, from whom Mark is believed to\nhave derived all his information, and Matthew were not present, and\neach may have limited himself to facts actually witnessed by them.\nThis still leaves Luke\u2019s omission of the miracle unexplained.\n\n\n[Illustration: RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.]\n\n\nThe significance of this miracle as an evidence of Christ\u2019s divine\ncharacter, authority and mission has always been felt, even by the\nmore resolute unbelievers in historic Christianity. Thus Spinoza\ndeclared that \u201ccould he have persuaded himself of the truth of the\nraising of Lazarus, he would have broken in pieces his whole system,\nand would have embraced without repugnance the ordinary faith of\nChristians.\u201d Various rationalistic explanations have been attempted,\nof which the chief are the following: (1) The mythical (_Strauss_),\n_i. e._, that the story is a myth which grew up out of some slight\nfoundation, assumed its present form in the second or third century,\nand then was embodied in this narrative by an ecclesiastical forger,\nwho used John\u2019s name to give sanction to his story. (2) That the story\nwas created by the writer for the purpose of illustrating the truth\nthat Christ is the resurrection and the life, and that it was\ndeveloped by him out of some conversation of Jesus, or perhaps out of\nthe parable of Lazarus and the rich man, or possibly out of some\nincident in the life of Lazarus. It is even suggested that Nain is an\nabbreviation of Bethany, and that the narratives of the resurrection\nof Lazarus and of the widow of Nain\u2019s son have a common origin\n(_Schenkel_). To such straits is naturalism reduced in dealing with\nthe miraculous. (3) That the death of Lazarus was apparent, not real;\nthat the resurrection was a fraud contrived by the friends of Jesus in\norder to give _eclat_ to his anticipated entry into Jerusalem, and\nthat to this fraud he lent himself, in a moment of intense fanatical\nenthusiasm (_Renan_). The various explanations are stated more in\ndetail by Meyer, but may all be reduced to these three: a denial that\nJohn wrote the account; a suggestion that he invented it, building on\na very slight foundation; and a suspicion that it was a fraud\nperpetrated by Lazarus and the sisters and acquiesced in by Jesus. The\nonly alternative is belief in the miracle. The evidence of John\u2019s\nauthorship of the Fourth Gospel (see Introduction) refutes the first\nhypothesis; the simplicity of the narrative and the character of John,\nthe second; the character of Christ himself, the third. The narrative\nitself is neither ideal nor dogmatic, neither an artistic picture nor\na concealed argument. It is a perfectly colorless narrative of events\nconcerning which there was no possible room for mistake. The writer\ndoes not draw from the narrative any conclusion; he does not say that\nany miracle was wrought or even that the dead was raised. He simply\ntells his readers what he saw and heard, and leaves them to draw their\nown conclusions. He was with Jesus beyond Jordan; word came to them\nthat Lazarus was sick; Jesus remained where he was two days; then he\ntold the disciples that Lazarus was dead; when they reached Bethany\nthey found a scene of mourning; the friends had come according to\nJewish custom to console the sister\u2019s family; both sisters stated\nimpliedly and reproachfully that Lazarus was dead; when they arrived\nat the grave, one of them said that he had been dead four days, and\nthat corruption--though this apparently was only her presumption--had\nalready commenced; Christ directed the stone to be rolled away,\ncommanded in a loud voice, \u201cLazarus, come forth,\u201d and he came forth\nbound in his grave-clothes. A scientific commission could not have\nreported the facts with more absolute impartiality. The writer\nexpresses no opinion whatever respecting the occurrence. This is not\nthe method of an idealist who has invented the occurrence for the\npurpose of glorifying his Master, or of a dogmatist who has written it\nto prove a doctrine; it is the language of a pre-eminently honest,\nfair-minded and impartial witness. And upon this narrative the great\nmass of readers and students have come to but one conclusion--that to\nwhich both friend and foe came at the time--that it was a genuine\nresurrection of the dead, a great and notable miracle.\n\nAn instructive parallel may be traced between the experience of these\nsisters in their sorrow and that of many a Christian household since.\n(1) _The burden of grief._ When the sisters first sent for Christ to\ncome, he delayed. Still he often delays to answer our petitions. The\nhouse of mourning is sometimes a Christless house, not only because of\nour infirmity (Psalm 77:10), but also because of his will. We, like\nour Master, seem sometimes to be forsaken of our God (Matt. 27:46).\n(2) _The aggravation of grief._ Both sisters approach Christ with an\n\u201cif\u201d:--\u201cIf thou hadst been here my brother had not died.\u201d But his\ndeath was not the result of an \u201cif,\u201d but for the glory of God. There\nis no \u201cif\u201d; nothing ever _happens_. Even the cup which Judas,\nCaiaphas, Herod and Pilate mingle for Christ is the cup which his\nFather gives him (ch. 18:14; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28). (3) _The sympathy\nof Christ._ The tears of Jesus are a witness to the breadth and depth\nof the divine sympathy. He feels the anguish of our _present_ sorrow\nthough he stands by a grave so soon to be opened, perceives\nprophetically the resurrection so soon to take place, and knows that\nweeping is but for the night and joy cometh in the morning. See Heb.\n4:15, 16. (4) _The true and false conception of death._ We too often\nimagine, as Martha, the believer awaiting in Hades a future\nresurrection and a remote restoration to life. Our hearts are dead\nbecause buried in the grave of our loved ones. To us Christ declares\nhere that the believer never dies, but steps at once from the lower to\nthe higher life, through the grave into heavenly companionship (Luke\n23:43; Phil. 1:23). (5) _The power of Christ._ This scene is a witness\nto the truth that all the dead shall hear his voice and come forth in\nresurrection. Death is but a sleep; from it he will awaken all that\nsleep in him (Dan. 12:2; John 5:21-29; 6:39; 1 Cor. 15:26, 54; 2 Cor.\n4:14; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 1:18; 20:14). (6) _A parable of\nredemption._ Sin a spiritual death; Christ the spiritual life-giver.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 11:45-57. THE EFFECT OF THE MIRACLE.--IT PRODUCES FAITH IN SOME;\nIT INTENSIFIES ENMITY IN OTHERS.--AN UNPRINCIPLED MAN AN UNCONSCIOUS\nPROPHET.--CHRIST\u2019S SACRIFICE: VICARIOUS; FOR SINNERS; FOR ALL\nPEOPLE.--CHRIST FEARS NEITHER TO FLEE FROM NOR TO FACE DANGER.--FALSE\nSEEKING FOR CHRIST ILLUSTRATED.\n\n\n 45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had\n seen[454] the things which Jesus did, believed on him.\n\n [454] chaps. 2:23; 10:41, 42; 12:11, 18.\n\n\n 46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and\n told them what things Jesus had done.\n\n=45, 46. Many of the Jews * * * believed on him.= Not necessarily were\nspiritually converted. They recognized in him a prophet, perhaps even\nthe Messiah.--=But some of them went to the Pharisees.= _But_\n(adversative) marks the contrast between the two classes, and\nindicates their hostile purpose. The term Pharisees here, as\nfrequently with John, indicates the rulers of the Jews, the Jewish\nhierarchy.\n\n\n 47 Then[455] gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a\n council, and said, What[456] do we? for this man doeth many\n miracles.\n\n [455] Ps. 2:2.\n\n [456] Acts 4:16.\n\n\n 48 If we let him thus alone, all[457] _men_ will believe on\n him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place\n and nation.\n\n [457] ch. 12:19.\n\n=47, 48. A council.= A meeting of the Sanhedrim. On its constitutional\ncharacter and methods of procedure, see Vol. I, p. 298. Geikie gives\nus no good reason for accepting his dogmatic statement that the\nSanhedrim had before this time been broken up by Herod.--=What do we?\nfor this man doeth many miracles.= Not, What _shall_ we do? but, What\n_are we_ doing? They reproach themselves for their inaction. There is\nan ellipsis in the sentence; the meaning is, Something must be done,\nfor this man, etc. For similar instance of perplexity see Acts 4:16.\nIt always exists where conscience gives a clear command which ambition\nand selfishness refuse to obey.--=If we let him thus alone.= This was\na causeless self-reproach; for they had already condemned him without\ntrial (ch. 7:30, 50, 51), and determined to excommunicate all his\nfollowers (ch. 9:22). It indicates a purpose which the speaker dared\nnot put in words, to proceed to more extreme measures.--=The Romans\nshall come and take away both our place and our nation.= Our _place_,\nit seems to me, designates neither the city, the land, nor the temple;\nbut the office of these rulers. They were placemen, and feared the\nloss of their dignities and authority in the utter overthrow of the\nnation, which did, indeed, subsequently take place. But why should\nthey fear this from any increase of Christ\u2019s popularity? Not, as\nAugustine interprets, because he would persuade all men to live\npeaceful lives, and so prevent any successful revolt against the Roman\ngovernment. In common with all the Jews, they expected in the Messiah\na temporal king; the people had already attempted to crown Christ as\nking (ch. 6:15); the council did not believe that he was the Messiah,\ndid not believe that any attempt by him to emancipate the nation would\nsucceed; and yet his popularity was such, and the popular movement\nwhich they anticipated was likely to be such, as to provoke from the\nRomans the destruction of what little national life was left. Their\nselfishness blinded them utterly to the true nature of Christ\u2019s\nmission.\n\n\n 49 And one of them, _named_[458] Caiaphas, being the high\n priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at\n all,\n\n [458] ch. 18:14; Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6.\n\n\n 50 Nor consider that it is[459] expedient for us, that one\n man should die for the people, and that the whole nation\n perish not.\n\n [459] Luke 24:46.\n\n=49, 50.= Caiaphas puts boldly into words thoughts which others less\nunscrupulous dared not phrase. He overrules all scruples, whether\nthose of conscience against the murder of an innocent man and evident\nprophet, or those of the Pharisaic party against appealing to the\nRoman government to put a prophet to death, which was necessary to\ncarry out their purpose (Matt. 27:1, 2, note).--This he does by a\nJesuitical casuistry: It is better that one innocent man should die\nthan that the nation should be destroyed. Thus a pretended patriotism\nis made to cover a proposed judicial murder. The argument is that of\nan unprincipled politician: the end justifies the means. The\nsignification here and in verse 51 of the phrase \u201chigh priest _that\nyear_\u201d is somewhat uncertain. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas,\nreally held the office from A. D. 27 to A. D. 36 or 37. The high\npriesthood was originally a life office. It was now bestowed and taken\naway by the Romans at their will. In 107 years there were twenty-seven\nappointees. I am inclined to think the language here a sarcastic\nreference to the degenerate nature of the office; John refuses to give\nto Caiaphas the honor once but no longer due to the high priesthood.\nProf. Fisher (_Beginnings of Christianity_) explains it \u201con account of\nthe supreme importance which \u2018that year\u2019 of the trial and crucifixion\nof Jesus had in his (John\u2019s) mind.\u201d The language of Caiaphas here\nagrees with his course in Matt. 26:62, 67. He was an unscrupulous,\nvehement, and self-seeking ecclesiastical politician, such a leader as\nis often produced by a degenerate and turbulent era.\n\n\n 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest\n that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that\n nation;\n\n\n 52 And not[460] for that nation only, but that also he\n should gather together in one the children of God that were\n scattered[461] abroad.\n\n [460] Isa. 49:6; Rom. 3:29; 1 John 2:2.\n\n [461] ch. 10:16; Ephes. 2:14-17.\n\n=51, 52.= The meaning of the Evangelist is plain. It is not merely\nthat by accommodation a prophetic reference to Christ\u2019s sacrifice can\nbe put upon the words of Caiaphas, but that, unwittingly, he\nprophesied of that death and its signification. So Balaam prophesied\nblessing to Israel despite himself (Numb., ch. 23). \u201cHe who believed\nin no angel or spirit was compelled to be the spokesman of the Divine\nWord, even when he was plotting his death. Strange and awful\nreflection! And yet so it must be--so experience shows us continually\nthat it is. Our words are not our own; we are no lords over them\nwhatever we may think.\u201d--(_Maurice._) Observe the two truths connected\nwith the atonement here indicated: (1) that Jesus Christ dies for the\nnation which by its constitutional rulers is plotting his death; he\ndies for sinners, not for the righteous (Rom. 5:6-8); (2) by his death\nhe gathers into _one_, _i. e._, into one nation or kingdom (see Matt.\n21:43, note) the children of God from every nation under the heavens\n(Matt. 8:11; John 10:16; 17:20, 21; Ephes. 2:16-18; Col. 3:11; Rev.\n5:9). \u201cThe cross was emphatically a message to mankind, to all tribes\nand races within the circle of the empire that had appointed this\npunishment for rebels and slaves. It is a thought which possessed the\nminds of all the apostles--of none more than St. John. The cross was\nto do what the eagle had tried to do. It was to bind men in one\nsociety.\u201d--(_Maurice._)\n\n 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together[462]\n for to put him to death.\n\n [462] Ps. 109:4, 5.\n\n=53.= The speech of Caiaphas was successful; it united Pharisee and\nSadducee in an agreement to do _whatever might be necessary_ to\ncompass the death of Jesus. The effect of this agreement is seen in\ntheir subsequent course (Matt. 22:15, 16, 23; 27:1, 2).\n\n\n 54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly[463] among\n the Jews: but went thence unto a country near to the\n wilderness, into a city called Ephraim,[464] and there\n continued with his disciples.\n\n [463] chaps. 7:1; 18:20.\n\n [464] 2 Sam. 13:23; 2 Chron. 13:19.\n\n=54.= The site of Ephraim is involved in some uncertainty. The\n\u201cwilderness\u201d probably designates the wild uncultivated hill country\nnortheast of Jerusalem, lying between the central towns and the Jordan\nvalley. Dr. Robinson identifies Ephraim with the Ophrah referred to in\nJosh. 18:23; 1 Sam. 13:17, the Ephraim or Ephram referred to in 2\nChron. 13:19, and the modern et-Taiyibeh, and Ewald supposes it to be\nthe same Ephraim near which occurred the murder of Amnon (2 Sam.\n13:23). Taiyibeh is four or five miles east of Bethel and sixteen from\nJerusalem, is situated on a conspicuous conical hill, and commands an\nextended view over the whole eastern slope, the valley of the Jordan\nand the Dead Sea. But the identification with Taiyibeh is only\nhypothetical. See _Andrews\u2019 Life of our Lord_, p. 385. Christ must\nhave returned to this place immediately after the resurrection of\nLazarus, and his place of retirement was evidently unknown to the\npublic (ver. 57). The \u201cdisciples\u201d who abode there with him undoubtedly\nincluded the twelve, but may have also included others. The length of\nhis stay is uncertain. If the chronology which I have adopted (see ch.\n11, Prel. Note), be the correct one, it could only have been for two\nor three weeks, not five or six weeks as supposed by Andrews and\nEllicott. It is not improbable that the special instructions\nconcerning prayer, reported by Luke, were given during this period of\nretirement (Luke 11:1-8: 18:1-14). There is nothing in Luke to fix the\ntime or place of these instructions; but as Christ was accustomed to\ndraw his illustrations from circumstances and events occurring about\nhim, it is probable that at least the parable of the Pharisee and the\npublican was given in or near Judea. From Ephraim Christ went up to\nJerusalem to attend the last Passover, and to his passion there. See\nch. 12, Prel. Note.\n\n\n 55 And[465] the Jews\u2019 passover was nigh at hand: and\n many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the\n passover, to purify themselves.\n\n [465] chaps. 2:13; 5:1; 6:4.\n\n\n 56 Then[466] sought they for Jesus, and spake among\n themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye,\n that he will not come to the feast?\n\n [466] ver. 8; ch. 5:16, 18.\n\n\n 57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a\n commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should\n shew _it_, that they might take him.\n\n=55-57. Out of the country.= From different parts of the country: not\nonly from Palestine, but from remote provinces where the dispersed\nJews were scattered. (See Acts 2:9-11.)--=To purify themselves.= No\nspecial purifications were required by the O. T. before the Passover,\nbut the people were commanded to purify themselves before any\nimportant event (Gen. 35:2; Exod. 19:10, 11), and were accustomed to\ngo through certain special rites of purification prior to the Passover\n(2 Chron. 30:13-20).--=Then sought they for Jesus=, etc. \u201cVerse 56\ngraphically describes the restless curiosity of these country people,\nwho were collected in groups in the temple and discussing the\napproaching arrival of Jesus.\u201d--(_Godet._) His miracles and teachings\nin Galilee and Perea, and above all the resurrection of Lazarus, led\nhis friends and _quasi_ disciples to expect his immediate revelation\nof himself as the Messiah (Luke 19:11); while the fact that the\nSanhedrim had pronounced against him and given orders for his arrest\ncoupled with his sudden disappearance, led others to think that he had\nfled from the country, or at least would for the present conceal\nhimself (comp. John 7:11, 12).--=But the chief priests and the\nPharisees=, etc. (\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7.; the first \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 is spurious). This is\nstated as an explanation of the doubt of the people whether Christ\nwould appear or no. Godet\u2019s suggestions that the order was given to\nintimidate Christ and his disciples is reasonable; for it could not\nhave been difficult to ascertain Christ\u2019s place of retreat, and when\nhe emerged from it, and came up with peculiar publicity to the feast,\nno attempt was made to arrest him. According to a Hebrew tradition, as\nreported by Lightfoot, an officer of the Sanhedrim, during the forty\ndays preceding this Passover, \u201cpublicly proclaimed that this man, who\nby his imposture had seduced the people, ought to be stoned, and that\nany one who could say aught in his defence was to come forward and\nspeak. But no one doing so, he was hanged on the evening of the\nPassover.\u201d To some such public proclamation John here perhaps refers.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n\n\nCh. 12:1-11. ANOINTING OF JESUS BY MARY.--A COSTLY EXPRESSION OF A\nFERVENT LOVE IS NOT WASTE.--HYPOCRISY SETS PHILANTHROPY AND PIETY IN\nCONTRAST.--NONE ARE SO DEAF AS THEY THAT WILL NOT HEAR.\n\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--This anointing is not to be confounded with that of\nwhich Luke (7:36-50) gives an account. The reasons for distinguishing\nit from that anointing I have stated in the preliminary note there.\nThis anointing is not mentioned by Luke. It is reported by Matthew\n(26:6-13) and Mark (14:3-9). It is true that some harmonists have\nsupposed two distinct anointings in Bethany, but that opinion is\nentertained by very few scholars and by none of the moderns, and is\nnot a reasonable hypothesis; the differences between John\u2019s account\nand those of Matthew and Mark are not greater than might have been\nexpected in accounts given by independent witnesses. Matthew and Mark\nsay that Mary anointed Jesus\u2019 head, John that she anointed Jesus\u2019\nfeet; but certainly she may have anointed both the head and the feet.\nThe principal difference lies in the fact that Matthew and Mark\nimpliedly place the anointing two days before the Paschal feast (Matt.\n26:2; Mark 14:1), while John impliedly places it six days before the\nfeast (ver. 1). The chronology is uncertain; some scholars adopt that\nof Matthew and Mark (_Robinson_, _Geo. W. Clark_, _Hackett_)--others,\nthat of John (_Townsend_, _Andrews_, _Alford_). The former of these\nopinions appears to me the more probable for reasons stated in the\nnote on Matthew 26:6-16. In such a case as this, where there appears\nto be a conflict in the chronology of the evangelists, neither of whom\nputs any emphasis upon chronological data or gives what may properly\nbe called a date, we may reasonably allow the order of events to be\ndetermined by a consideration of the probable way in which one event\nleads on to another. In this case the discourses of Jesus in the\ntemple and the overthrow of the ambitious hopes of Judas Iscariot\nnaturally led to his complaint at this anointing, and Christ\u2019s sharp\nrebuke of his spirit here naturally led in turn to his final act of\ntreachery. The note of time afforded by John in verses 1 and 12,\nthough they certainly indicate that the anointing took place prior to\nthe triumphal procession, are not conclusive; for verses 2-9 may be\nregarded as parenthetical. Thus Dr. Hackett: \u201cJohn is the only one of\nthe evangelists who speaks of the Saviour stopping at Bethany on the\nway between Bethany and Jerusalem. Hence, this feast being the\nprincipal event which John associates with Bethany during these last\ndays, he not unnaturally inserts the account of the feast immediately\nafter the speaking of the arrival at Bethany. But having (so to speak)\ndischarged his mind of that recollection, he then turns back and\nresumes the historical order, namely, that on the next day after\ncoming to Bethany Jesus made his public entry into Jerusalem as\nrelated by the Synoptists.\u201d We suppose, then, that after the tarry in\nEphraim Christ came up to the Passover; stopped at Jericho, where\noccurred the healing of the blind man, the conversion of Zaccheus, and\nthe parable of the ten pounds (Luke 18:35 to 19:28); from Jericho\nproceeded to Jerusalem, stopping on the way at Bethany, where,\nperhaps, he spent the Sabbath; entered Jerusalem in triumph on the\nfollowing day, and drove from the temple the traders (Luke 19:28-48),\nand there gave the instructions recorded more or less by all the\nSynoptists, but most fully by Matthew (chaps. 21:12 to 25:46); and\nthence retreated to Bethany, where this supper, made for him by Martha\nand her sister Mary, led directly to the conspiracy of Judas Iscariot\nfor his betrayal (Matt. 26:14-16). See _Tabular Harmony_, page 45.\n\n\n[Illustration: BETHANY.]\n\n\n 1 Then Jesus, six days before the passover, came to\n Bethany, where[467] Lazarus was which had been dead, whom\n he raised from the dead.\n\n [467] ch. 11:1, 43.\n\n\n 2 There they made him a supper, and Martha[468] served: but\n Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.\n\n [468] Luke 10:38-42.\n\n=1, 2. Six days before the passover.= This note of time is quite\ninconclusive, because it is uncertain whether the day of Christ\u2019s\narrival and the first day of the passover should be excluded or\nincluded, or one should be excluded and the other included, and also\nbecause it is uncertain on which day of the month the passover is to\nbe considered as having begun. For various chronological views, see\n_Andrews\u2019 Life of our Lord_, page 397. The most probable hypothesis,\nand the one commonly accepted, makes Christ arrive at Bethany on\nFriday night, spending there the Sabbath and going on to Jerusalem on\nthe following day, the first day of the week.--=Came to Bethany.= A\nwell known village about fifteen stadia (ch. 11:18), that is, about a\nmile and a half, east of Jerusalem, on the eastern slope of the Mount\nof Olives, not far from the point at which the road to Jericho begins\nits more sudden descent toward the valley. Fruit and other trees\ngrowing around--olive, almond, and oak--give the spot an air of\nseclusion and repose. It is not mentioned in the O. T., but is\nintimately associated with the life of our Lord. Here Lazarus was\nraised from the dead; here Christ found a secluded retreat and the\nrefreshment of friendship during the stormy periods of his ministry in\nJerusalem; thence he ascended when the cloud received him from the\nside of his disciples. The present village, El-Azariyeh, is a ruinous\nand wretched hamlet of some twenty families, the inhabitants of\nwhich display even less than the ordinary Eastern thrift and\nindustry.--=They made him a supper.= The word _supper_ (\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2)\nrepresents the chief meal of the Jews and also of the Greeks and\nRomans, taken at evening after the labors of the day were over, and\nsometimes prolonged into the night. The same word is sometimes used to\nsignify a banquet or feast (Matt. 23:6; Mark 6:21; Luke 14:12; 20:46;\nRev. 19:9). Who made the supper is not directly stated, by either John\nor the other Evangelists. It was in the house of one Simon the leper\n(Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3). Godet supposes that he was a leper who had\nbeen healed by Jesus and who claimed the privilege of entertaining, in\nthe name of the rest of the inhabitants of Bethany, Jesus, who had\nconferred on their town so great a favor by raising Lazarus from the\ndead. This seems to me a wild hypothesis on the part of a very sober\nand cautious scholar. The fact that Martha served is at least an\nindication that the supper was given at the house of Martha and Mary,\nwho were certainly Christ\u2019s most intimate friends in the village.\nThere is nothing to indicate that Simon was present or had been cured.\nThe common hypothesis is more reasonable, that he was the father of\nthe sisters, or possibly the husband of Martha, and was either dead or\nthrough his leprosy exiled from his home, and that the house is\ndescribed by the two Synoptists as his house because he was a\nwell-known resident, and also because they wished to avoid\nconcentrating the attention of the Pharisees, who had already\ndetermined upon the death of Lazarus, on him and his two sisters. They\nare not mentioned by name in the Synoptical narratives. The difference\nin character between Martha and Mary, as indicated both by their\nconduct here and the incident narrated in Luke 10:38-42, is one of\nthose incidental coincidences which attest the historic truth of the\nGospels.\n\n\n[Illustration: ANOINTING OF FEET.]\n\n\n 3 Then[469] took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard,\n very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his\n feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour\n of the ointment.\n\n [469] ch. 11:2; Matt. 26:6, etc.; Mark 14:3, etc.\n\n\n 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon\u2019s\n _son_, which should betray him,\n\n\n 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence,\n and given to the poor?\n\n\n 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because\n he was a thief,[470] and had[471] the bag, and bare what\n was put therein.\n\n [470] 2 Kings 5:20-27; Ps. 50:18.\n\n [471] ch. 13:29.\n\n=3-6. A pound of ointment of spikenard.= Mark and John both add a word\ncharacterizing this ointment, which is not elsewhere found, in either\nBiblical or classic Greek (\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2). Commentators disagree in their\ntranslation of this word, and the English translators seem to have\navoided the difficulty by omitting it altogether. Some scholars derive\nit from a Greek verb (\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9) meaning _to drink_, and suppose it to\nindicate that the ointment was liquid, perhaps drinkable. By other\nscholars it is derived from the verb (\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9) _to believe_, and is\nsupposed to signify a trustworthy or a reliable ointment; that is, one\nthat was pure or unadulterated. This is the more probable meaning.\nSpikenard was liable to all kinds of adulteration. Pliny enumerates\nnine plants with which it might be mixed in preparing it for the\nmarket. The spikenard appears to have been procured from an Indian\nplant of the family of _valeriana_, and to have been imported from\nIndia by way of Arabia. It was highly prized among the ancients.\nHorace, writing to Virgil, asks his guests to bring as contribution to\nthe feast a little spikenard, and by way of equivalent he would match\nit with a cask of wine. The use of fragrant oils and ointments were\nvery common among the ancients, who anointed themselves twice or three\ntimes a day in order that the delicious fragrance might not be\ndissipated. The wealthier classes carried their ointments and perfumes\nin small boxes of costly material and beautiful workmanship. This\nointment was contained in an alabaster box (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3).\nThis box Mary broke, pouring the ointment first on Christ\u2019s head and\nthen on his feet. There is doubt as to the meaning of the expression\n\u201cshe brake the box;\u201d some suppose that she simply broke the seal;\nothers, that she broke off the neck of the box with a sharp blow, so\npouring out the whole ointment as an offering to Christ, a very little\nof which would have sufficed for the purpose of an ordinary anointing.\nFor an illustration of alabaster boxes see Luke 7:38, note.--=Very\ncostly.= A pound was an enormous quantity to lavish on a single\nanointing.--=Wiped his feet with her hair.= So did the woman who was a\nsinner (Luke 7:38). But there is this characteristic difference\nbetween the two cases: the unknown woman in Luke washed his feet with\nher tears, and it was the tears which she wiped off with her hair.\nHere there are no tears; all is joy and gladness.--=And the house was\nfilled with the odor of the ointment.= The service rendered to Christ\ndid not stop with him alone. Such service never does; it becomes\nfragrant to all who are within the reach of its influence.--=One of\nhis disciples.= The objection was started by Judas Iscariot. The\nothers, however, shared this feeling; they too had indignation (Matt.\n26:8; Mark 18:4), and regarded Mary\u2019s action as wasteful. To prosaic\nnatures the expression of love always seems a waste, but to ardent\nnatures nothing seems too costly to express the enthusiasm of\nlove.--=For three hundred denarii.= The denarius, or, as the word is\ntranslated in the New Testament, _penny_, was a coin of about\nseventeen cents in value, but at that time was a day\u2019s wages (Matt.\n20:10). Thus, this offering of Mary was practically equivalent to an\noffering in our time of three hundred dollars.--=And given to the\npoor.= A pretended regard for the poor is often made a cloak for an\nattack upon the Christian church, and especially upon Christian\nworship. In the case of Judas, as in many other cases, it was but a\ncover for a more sordid motive, but it served its purpose.--=But\nbecause he had the bag.= Possibly a _box_; more probably a money bag\nor purse (Latin, _sacculus_), in which the funds of Jesus and his\ndisciples were carried. These funds were doubtless small and were made\nup of gifts from other disciples (Luke 8:3). This is implied by the\nlanguage here, \u201cwhat was put therein,\u201d signifying literally what had\nbeen cast therein; that is, by friends of Jesus.--=And bare what was\nput therein.= The original is capable of being translated \u201c_purloined_\nwhat was put therein.\u201d This is the significance given to it by most of\nthe scholars (_Meyer_, _Alford_, _De Wette_, _Godet_).\n\n\n[Illustration: ANCIENT MONEY BAG.]\n\n\n 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my\n burying hath she kept this.\n\n\n 8 For[472] the poor always ye have with you; but[473] me ye\n have not always.\n\n [472] Deut. 15:11; Matt. 26:11; Mark 14:7.\n\n [473] verse 35; chaps. 8:21; 13:33; 16:5-7.\n\n=7, 8.= If we combine the reports of the three Evangelists, it will\nappear that Christ\u2019s words were substantially as follows: \u201cLet her\nalone. Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work\nupon me; she hath done what she could; against the day of my burying\nhath she kept this, and is come beforehand to anoint my body for the\nburial. The poor always ye have with you, and whensoever ye will ye\nmay do them good; but me ye have not always.\u201d _Let her alone_ is the\nlanguage of sharp rebuke. Christ was indignant at the hypocrisy which\nmade a pretended consideration of the poor an excuse for attacking\nand condemning an act of love towards himself. _Why trouble ye the\nwoman?_ indicates that Mary was herself abashed and downcast by\nthe criticism of the twelve. Perhaps, as Maurice says, \u201cshe could\nnot herself have answered Judas Iscariot\u2019s complaining question.\u201d\n_For she hath wrought a good work upon me_, is a strong expression of\napprobation of an act which was service only as it was an expression\nof love. The word rendered _good_ is literally _beautiful_; but with\nthe Greeks, who were an \u00e6sthetic race, the word expressive of moral\nbeauty was one of the highest commendation. To express love to Christ\nis to render a good work unto Christ. _She hath done what she could_,\ncommends Mary in the same spirit in which the poor widow was commended\n(Mark 12:44). Whether her act was wise or not was not to be\nquestioned. It was the outpouring of a heart full of love, and there\nis no condemnation to those who are thus in Christ Jesus. There is\nsome question respecting the reading of the phrase _Against the day of\nmy burying hath she kept this_. Some critics (_Meyer_, _Alford_)\nunderstand its meaning to be, _Against the day of my burying let her\npreserve this_. And Meyer supposes that only a part of the ointment\nwas used in the anointing, and that Christ expresses the idea that the\nrest is not to be sold for the poor, but to be preserved to complete\nMary\u2019s unfinished act. But there is no question respecting the reading\nof the text in Matthew. That the anointing was treated by Christ as a\nprophetic act is more in accordance both with the reports of the other\nEvangelists and with the spirit of the entire narrative. Christ\u2019s\ndeclaration then is, not that Mary should reserve the rest of the\nointment for the anointing of his corpse, nor that she had\ndeliberately and intentionally preserved it for a prophetic anointing,\nbut that it was in accordance with a divine purpose that she had\npoured it upon him while he lived. His body was not anointed at the\ntime of his death, the completion of the funeral honors being\nprevented by his resurrection (Mark 16:1, 2).--_The poor always ye\nhave with you, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good_, is founded\nupon the great principle that philanthropy needs no special emotion,\nonly opportunity, and that is never wanting; while the expression of\nlove can only be made when the love itself burns ardently in the\nheart, and that must of necessity be occasional and exceptional; in\nother words, philanthropy may always exhibit itself in acts of\ncharity, but emotion can only occasionally exhibit itself in acts of\nreverence and love. Matthew and Mark add the declaration by Christ,\nthat _Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world\nover, shall also this that this woman hath done be told for a memorial\nfor her_. See Matt. 26:13, note.\n\n\n 9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there:\n and they came not for Jesus\u2019 sake only, but that they might\n see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.\n\n\n 10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put\n Lazarus also[474] to death;\n\n [474] Luke 16:31.\n\n\n 11 Because that[475] by reason of him many of the Jews went\n away, and believed on Jesus.\n\n [475] verse 18; ch. 11:45.\n\n=9-11. Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there.= This\nis an indication that he tarried there at least over one day, probably\nthe Sabbath preceding the passion. See Prel. Note.--=But that they\nmight see Lazarus also.= They were drawn together by curiosity.--=But\nthe chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus to death.=\nThat is, they were at this time consulting. While the people were\ndrawn to Lazarus by curiosity, and others were led by the story of his\nresurrection, confirmed by himself, to believe that Jesus was the\nMessiah, the chief priests in Jerusalem were consulting how they might\nget rid both of Jesus and of the witness to his divine power. Thus\nthey demonstrate the truth of Christ\u2019s saying, \u201cNeither will they\nbelieve though one rose from the dead\u201d (Luke 16:31).--=Believed on\nJesus.= That is, they believed that he was the Messiah. Nor was this a\nmere intellectual opinion. It involved attachment to Christ and hope\nin him; a looking forward to a revelation of himself in some\nmiraculous and decisive display of divine power against the Romans.\nThe period was one of a brief but great popularity, which accounts for\nthe triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and the Pharisees\u2019 fear of the\npeople which kept them from openly arresting Christ during his\nteaching in the temple on the eventful days that immediately followed.\n\n\n 12 On[476] the next day much people that were come to the\n feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,\n\n [476] Matt. 21:8, etc.; Mark 11:8, etc.; Luke 19:36,\n etc.\n\n\n 13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet\n him, and cried,[477] Hosanna! Blessed _is_ the King of\n Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.\n\n [477] Ps. 118:25, 26.\n\n\n 14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat\n thereon; as it is[478] written,\n\n [478] Zech. 9:9.\n\n\n 15 Fear not, daughter of Sion; behold, thy King\n cometh, sitting on an ass\u2019s colt.\n\n\n 16 These things[479] understood not his disciples at\n the first: but when Jesus was glorified,[480] then\n remembered[481] they that these things were written of\n him, and _that_ they had done these things unto him.\n\n [479] Luke 18:34.\n\n [480] ch. 7:39.\n\n [481] ch. 14:26.\n\n\n 17 The people therefore that was with him when he\n called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from\n the dead, bare record.\n\n\n 18 For[482] this cause the people also met him, for\n that they heard that he had done this miracle.\n\n [482] verse 11.\n\n=Ch. 12:12-18.= THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. Comp. Matt.\n21:1-17; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-44. The account is on the whole the\nfullest in Luke. See notes there. The statement that some from\nJerusalem took palm branches and came out to meet the procession as it\napproached the city is peculiar to John. So also is his account of the\neffect produced on the Pharisees (ver. 19). The statement in Luke\n19:39, that some of the Pharisees called on Jesus to rebuke his\ndisciples is equally indicative of their feeling, which was one of\nintense though suppressed hostility. _The next day_, verse 12, might\nmean the day after the anointing, but I believe means the day after\nthe visit to Bethany, the account of the anointing being\nparenthetical. See Prel. Note. Those who came out to meet Jesus are\nnot described as _Jews_, and may have been, as Meyer surmises,\nunprejudiced pilgrims who had come to the feast and had there heard\nthe fame of the Messiah. For account of how the young ass was found,\nsee Matthew 21:2-7.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 12:19-50. GREEKS VISIT JESUS--HIS DISCOURSE THEREON.--DEATH\nTHE CONDITION OF LIFE (24, 25).--FOLLOWING CHRIST THE CONDITION OF\nCOMPANIONSHIP WITH HIM (26).--THE SOUL CONFLICTS OF CHRIST ILLUSTRATED\n(27-30).--THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST; IT JUDGES THE\nWORLD; DEFEATS OF THE WORLD\u2019S FALSE PRINCE; DRAWS ALL MEN TO THE TRUE\nKING (31-33).--DISOBEDIENCE OF THE INNER LIGHT OF THE SOUL QUENCHES\nIT; FAITH IN AND FOLLOWING OF THAT LIGHT NOURISHES AND PERFECTS IT\n(34-40).--THE CRIME OF COWARDICE ILLUSTRATED (42, 43).--CHRIST A GUIDE\nTO THE FATHER (44-46).--CHRIST\u2019S WORDS MAN\u2019S JUDGE (47, 48).--THE\nSOURCE OF CHRIST\u2019S AUTHORITY AND POWER (49, 50).\n\n\n 19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves,\n Perceive[483] ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world\n is gone after him.\n\n [483] ch. 11:47, 48.\n\n\n 20 And there were certain[484] Greeks among them that[485]\n came up to worship at the feast:\n\n [484] Acts 17:4; Rom. 1:16.\n\n [485] 1 Kings 8:41, 42.\n\n\n 21 The same came therefore to[486] Philip, which was of\n Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we\n would see Jesus.\n\n [486] ch. 1:44.\n\n\n 22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and\n Philip tell Jesus.\n\n=19-22. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves.= Some among the\nPharisees were friendly to Jesus, but dared not come out openly in his\nfavor. Of this number was Nicodemus. To the same class belonged the\nlawyer that answered Christ discreetly and the ruler whom it is said\nJesus loved (Mark 10:21; 12:34). Chrysostom supposes that the\nPharisees here referred to were of this sort, and that their language\nis that of remonstrance against the endeavors of the rest to destroy\nhim. The language seems to me rather that of approval of Caiaphas\u2019\ncounsel. They point to the fact that the cautious methods have availed\nnothing. So Bengel and most modern critics.--=The world is gone out\nafter him.= Literally _are departing after him_; that is, are leaving\nus, the old and acknowledged teachers, to go after him, this new and\nunordained rabbi. The _world_ signifies the multitude, not especially\nthe wicked; but it is a term of reproach.--=But there were certain\nGreeks.= _But_, not _and_. The particle (\u03b4\u03ad) is adversative, and\nindicates a contrast between the persons mentioned in the previous\nsentence and those here referred to. So do the terms _Pharisees_, who\nwere Hebrews of the Hebrews, and _Greeks_ who were, not Jews dispersed\nin Greece and coming up thence to the feast, but men who belonged to\nthe Greek nationality and had adopted the Hebrew religion, _i. e._,\nGreek proselytes. On the character of these proselytes from foreign\nnations, see Matthew 23:15, note. That these were Greeks, not Grecian\nJews, is evident from the word employed to describe the Greeks\n(\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2), which is one signifying nationality, not location; that\nthey were proselytes is evident from the characterization as\n_among them which were accustomed_ (present participle signifying\nhabit--_Meyer_) _to come up to worship at the feast_. They were of the\nsame character as the centurion whose son Christ healed, the Cornelius\nwho sent for Peter, and the Eunuch to whom Philip preached (Matt.\n8:7-10; Acts 8:27-40; ch. 10). The pilgrims to Jerusalem were\nincreased considerably in the increasing decay of the polytheistic\nworship of Greece and Rome, with such converts to the simple and\nsublime monotheism of Judea.--=The same came therefore to Philip.= Why\nto Philip is purely a matter of conjecture. In fact, Philip and Andrew\nare both Greek names, and the only names of Greek origin among the\ntwelve.--=Sir= (\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5). The term is the same one translated _lord_\nwhen used in addressing Christ. Its fair equivalent in the English\nlanguage is Sire. They address Philip with marked respect.--=We would\nsee Jesus.= Rather, _we have desired_ to see him. They assume that a\nprivate interview will be readily granted them. That this is what they\ndesire is evident, because Christ was publicly teaching in the temple\nduring the four days preceding his arrest, and therefore it was very\neasy for them to both see and hear him in public. The motive of this\nrequest may probably have been a mixed one; partly a curiosity to see\nand hear more of this extraordinary Rabbi, partly a real moral and\nspiritual appreciation of and drawing to him; possibly a dim and\nunconfessed wonder whether he might possibly be the promised Messiah.\nStier compares this visit to that of the Magi at the birth, one a\ncoming to the cradle, the other to the cross. Godet refers to the\ntradition narrated by Eusebius, that an embassy was sent by the king\nof Edessa, in Syria, to invite Jesus to take up his abode with him,\nand to furnish him such a royal welcome as should compensate him for\nthe obstinacy with which the Jews rejected him.--=Andrew and Philip\ntell Jesus.= The two were of the same city (ch. 1:44). The fact that\nPhilip takes Andrew with him is one of the not unfrequent indications\nof the awe with which, despite the fullness and even familiarity of\nhis love, Christ inspired his most intimate disciples (Luke 9:45; Mark\n9:32, etc.). So Bengel: \u201cPhilip feared to introduce the Greeks alone;\nwith a friend he ventured to do so.\u201d It is to be remembered, however,\nthat the request would seem a doubtful one to them, since the\nRabbinical theology forbade to teach the truth to a Gentile, who was\nregarded as unworthy of it, and Jesus himself had confined his\nministry to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5; 15:24).\n\n\n 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is[487] come,\n that the Son of man should be glorified.\n\n [487] chaps, 13:32; 17:1.\n\n\n 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[488] Except a corn of\n wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but\n if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.\n\n [488] 1 Cor. 15:36.\n\n\n 25 He[489] that loveth his life shall lose it: and he that\n hateth his life in this world, shall keep it unto life\n eternal.\n\n [489] Matt. 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33.\n\n\n 26 If[490] any man serve me, let him follow me; and\n where[491] I am, there shall also my servant be: if[492]\n any man serve me, him will _my_ Father honour.\n\n [490] ch. 14:15; Luke 16:46; 1 John 5:3.\n\n [491] chaps. 14:3; 17:24; 1 Thess. 4:17.\n\n [492] 1 Sam. 2:30; Prov. 27:18.\n\n=23-26. But Jesus answered them.= _But_ (\u03b4\u03ad) not _and_; the\nadversative particle indicates that the request was refused. So also\ndoes the word (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) rendered _answered_, literally to\ndistinguish, then to reject after inquiry; then to make response; but\nprimarily a negative response. So also, it appears to me, does the\ndiscourse which follows. Neither, however, is conclusive. Tholuck\napparently thinks the request granted; Meyer supposes that Christ\nintended to grant the request, but was interrupted by the voice from\nheaven; a quite improbable conjecture. Whether the interview was\ngranted or refused, is a point on which John lays no emphasis. He\nnarrates the request only because it leads to a brief utterance by\nJesus, called out by it, and which he could not intelligibly report\nwithout reporting the incident which led to it.--=The hour is come\nthat the Son of man should be glorified.= _Hour_ is here equivalent to\nthe more general word _time_ or _era_. The prophets of the O. T.\nforetell the ingathering of the Gentiles through the Messiah. This is\nboth his glory and the glory of the Jewish nation in him (Psalm 2:8;\nIsaiah 53:11). In this application of these Greek proselytes, Christ\nsees a prophetic indication of the time when, with a profounder\nmeaning, the Gentile world will everywhere put forth a request to see\nJesus, when, being lifted up, he will draw all men unto him, when they\nwill come from the north and the south, the east and the west, to sit\ndown with Jesus in his kingdom (Matt. 8:11), when he will break down\nthe partition wall between Jew and Gentile (Ephes. 2:14), and gather\ninto one nation the dispersed children of God (John 11:52; Col. 3:11;\nRev. 7:9). The term _Son of man_ is here, as always when used by\nChrist in reference to himself, equivalent to _the Messiah_.--=Verily,\nverily, I say unto you.= A customary prelude to an important saying\n(Matt. 5:18, note). Here it is used by Christ to emphasize a truth\nwhich the disciples had already proved themselves so loth to receive\nthat they were practically unable to understand it (Mark 9:32; Luke\n18:34), namely, that the Messiah\u2019s death must precede this ingathering\nof the Gentiles and prepare the way for it, and itself become the\ninstrument for its accomplishment. He states this truth, first under a\nfigure drawn from nature (ver. 24), then as a general law, alike\napplicable to the Master and his disciples (ver. 25).--=Except a\nkernel of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone.= In\nthe granary it is _safe_, but _useless_. Its death is the precursor of\nits usefulness. Paul employs the same figure in a different connection\nin 1 Cor. 15:36. Christ embodies it in the Lord\u2019s Supper, which\nreminds us of this law of self-sacrifice. It is the wheat ground to\npowder that makes the bread, and the body bruised that makes the bread\nof life; it is the grape crushed that makes the wine, and the blood\npoured out as a libation that makes the wine of life. This truth of\nself-sacrifice symbolized by nature is one of the universal laws of\nspiritual life.--=He that loveth his life shall lose it.= The _life_\nor _soul_ (the same Greek word, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, is indiscriminately rendered by\nboth English words in our English version) is the \u00e6sthetic and\nintellectual part of man in contrast with the spiritual nature (\u1f45\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1). If one gives himself to the saving of this soul or life he\ndestroys it; for this is but the adjunct of the spiritual nature, and\nperishes if that is left to perish. \u201cLange points out that this saying\ninvolved a condemnation of Hellenism. For what was Greek civilization\nbut human life cultivated from the view-point of enjoyment, and\nwithdrawn from the law of sacrifice.\u201d--(_Godet._) The same judgment\nPaul re-affirms in 1 Cor. 1:18-21; and it is equally applicable as a\njudgment of modern unreligious culture. Culture without religion\ndestroys what it would preserve.--=He that hateth his life in this\nworld shall guard it unto life eternal.= Two different Greek words\n(\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae and \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae) are rendered by the same English word _life_ in the two\nclauses of this sentence. Yet if we were to render it, _He that hateth\nhis soul shall guard it unto life eternal_, the rendering would be at\nleast equally liable to misapprehension. If the reader understands\n_soul_ to mean the earthy side of human nature, in contrast with the\nspiritual, as explained above (and this is the N. T. use of the term),\nthis substituted rendering will give him the true meaning of the\noriginal. Beware of understanding _hate_ to mean merely does not love,\nor _guard_ as merely equivalent to _keep_, as it is rendered in our\nEnglish version. The meaning is that he who finds no satisfaction in\nearthly sources of enjoyment, who turns away from them with a sense of\nsatiety that, at least at times, becomes a generous contempt and\na noble loathing, toward the higher spiritual life which mere\nintellectual and \u00e6sthetic culture does nothing to satisfy, is by that\nvery hate protected from the excesses and the demoralization which of\nnecessity inheres in a life contented with the provisions for the\nearthly nature. The hate inspired in a noble nature by every unworthy\nthing is the best protection against subtle temptations.--=If any man\nwould serve me, let him follow me.= This is Christ\u2019s answer to the\nrequest of the Greeks. Service of Christ is to be sought, not by\nsecret interviews, not by sacred and saintly communings, which he\ngives to whom he will, but by practical following of him in a life of\ndaily self-sacrifice for others.--=And where I am, there shall my\nservant be.= This practical following is the way that leads to\nintimate fellowship. The sacred conversations of Christ with the\ntwelve, recorded in John, chaps. 13-16, did not come till for three\nyears they had followed him, forsaking all things for the sake of his\ncompanionship. This following has the promise both of heavenly\ncompanionship with Christ on earth (ch. 14:21-23), and eternal\ncompanionship with him in heaven (Rom. 8:17; 2 Tim. 2:11, 12).--=If\nany man serve me, him will my Father honor.= For it is with the\nFather, not with the Son, to determine who shall sit at his right hand\nand his left (Mark 10:40), who are to receive the honors, what is to\nbe the allotment of rank in the kingdom of God. The Christian\u2019s\nambition, therefore, is to be Christ-like in the life of earthly\nservice, and leave all else to the will of the Father concerning him.\n\n\n 27 Now[493] is my soul troubled: and what shall I say?\n Father, save me from this hour: but[494] for this cause\n came I unto this hour.\n\n [493] ch. 13:21; Matt. 26:38, 39; Luke 12:50.\n\n [494] ch. 18:37.\n\n\n 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice[495]\n from heaven, _saying_, I have both glorified _it_, and will\n glorify _it_ again.\n\n [495] Matt. 3:17.\n\n\n 29 The people therefore that stood by, and heard _it_, said\n that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.\n\n=27-29. Now is my soul troubled.= Literally, _stirred up, in\nconflict_. In 11:33 it is said that Jesus was indignant in _spirit_,\nhere that his _soul_ is in conflict. See note on 11:33, and on this\ncontrast between soul and spirit, see above on verse 25; the one links\nman to God, the other to the animal. At the grave of Lazarus the\nhigher spiritual nature was indignant at the exhibition of formalism\nand false pretence; here the lower and earthly nature was in conflict\nbetween the instincts of self-preservation and the impulse of love and\nduty. \u201cA horror of death and an ardor of obedience concurred.\u201d--(_Bengel._)\nIt was a real struggle; the narration of it refutes the rationalistic\nhypothesis that John omitted the agony at Gethsemane because he\ndesired to portray a Son of God superior to all trial and conflict. It\nillustrates and is interpreted by Heb. 2:18; 4:15; 5:7; see Notes on\nTemptation of Christ, Matt. 4:1-11; and on Lessons of Gethsemane,\nMatt. 26:36-46.--=And what shall I say? Father, save me from this\nhour?= This is to be taken not affirmatively but interrogatively.\nChrist does not first pray to be delivered from his passion and then\nchange his mind, recall the prayer and put up another and a different\none. Nor is it uttered didactically, to teach his disciples. The\ncontrast between the two petitions is explained by the precedent\ndeclaration, \u201cNow is my soul in conflict;\u201d the nature of that conflict\nis hinted at in the twofold prayer, the first hypothetical, the second\nfinal: Shall I ask my Father to save me from this hour? (That is the\nsuggestion of the natural instincts.) No! for this cause came I unto\nthis hour. Rather, Father, glorify thy name. (That is the victory of\nthe spiritual nature.) \u201cThe struggle is like one of those fissures in\nits crust, which enables science to fathom the bowels of the earth. It\nlets us read the very inmost depths of the Lord\u2019s being.\u201d--(_Godet._)\nBeware of understanding this conflict as one between the God and\nthe man in the God-man. The _spirit_ is in every child of God,\nincreasingly dominant, though in none absolutely, unquestionably and\nalways supreme as in Jesus Christ. _This hour_ is the hour of the\npassion toward which Christ had steadfastly set his face (Luke 9:51)\nin coming up for the last time to Jerusalem.--=For this cause came I\nunto this hour.= In order to be a sacrifice he had both come from\nheaven to earth, and also, at this very moment, from the safety and\ncomparative popularity of Perea to Jerusalem.--=Father, glorify thy\nname.= Comp. Matthew 26:39. In both cases there is not merely\nresignation to a superior will, an invincible fate, but a real and\nsupreme desire to fulfil that will whatever it may entail.--=Then came\nthere a voice from heaven.= The critics since, as the people then,\nhave discussed whether this was really an articulate voice, speaking\nwords, or only a sound of thunder which Christ interpreted as a divine\nresponse to his prayer. The word _voice_ (\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74) is not conclusive,\nbecause it signifies sometimes an inarticulate sound, as of a trumpet,\nchariots, waters, thunder, and the like (Matt. 24:31; 1 Cor. 14:7, 8;\nJohn 3:8; Rev. 9:9; 6:1; 14:2; 18:22, etc.). But the plain implication\nof the narrative is that this was an articulate voice, the words of\nwhich were understood by others than Jesus, though not by all. So at\nPaul\u2019s conversion his companions heard the _sound_, but understood not\nthe _words_ of the voice that spake to him (Acts 9:7 with 22:9,\nnotes). This is the view of nearly all evangelical scholars, _e. g._,\nAlford, Meyer, Godet, etc. The latter\u2019s illustration is apt: \u201cThe\nwhole multitude heard a noise; but the meaning of the voice was only\nperceived by each in proportion to his spiritual intelligence. Thus\nthe wild beast perceives only a _sound_ in the human voice; the\ntrained animal discovers a _meaning_, a command, for example, which it\nimmediately obeys; man alone discerns therein a _thought_.\u201d--Here the\nmultitude (\u1f41 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, _the people_) did not comprehend; but some (\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9,\n_others_), a smaller number, did.--=I have both glorified it and will\nglorify it again.= The Father had glorified his name by giving Jesus\ndaily and hourly the power to do and to bear all that had been laid on\nhim up to that moment; and he would glorify it by continuing to give\nhim the power to do and to bear all that should be laid on him to the\nend. The prayer and the promise are both for us. In our passion-hour\ntrue prayer will be the cry, not of the soul, but of the spirit; a\ncry, not to be saved from our Calvary, but to be enabled to glorify\nour Father\u2019s name in and through it. And the answer is interpreted by\nour experience in the past (Psalm 77:10-12); the grace that has been\nsufficient will be sufficient to the end.\n\n\n 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of\n me, but[496] for your sakes.\n\n [496] ch. 11:42.\n\n\n 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall[497] the\n prince of this world be cast out.\n\n [497] ch. 16:11; Luke 10:18; Acts 26:18; Ephes. 2:2.\n\n\n 32 And I, if I be lifted[498] up from the earth, will draw\n all[499] _men_ unto me.\n\n [498] ch. 8:28.\n\n [499] Rom. 5:18.\n\n\n 33 This he said, signifying[500] what death he should\n die.\n\n [500] ch. 18:32.\n\n=30-33. Not for me but for you.= If there were no articulate words, if\nChrist simply imputed to the sound of thunder the meaning, there would\nhave been in it no value to the bystanders. This declaration,\ntherefore, seems to me conclusive that a voice spoke comprehensible\nwords; and even to indicate that the hypothetical explanation \u201cIt\nthundered,\u201d was not an honest one.--=Now is the judgment of this\nworld.= The language is anticipative. Christ speaks as though the\npassion on which he was entering were already accomplished. That\npassion he declares will be characterized by a threefold result: the\nworld will be judged, the devil conquered and cast out, and the\nall-conquering Christ brought in. The judgment of the world has\nalready begun. It \u201cdates from Good Friday\u201d (_Godet_). While Christ\ncame not to judge the world but that the world through him might be\nsaved, his cross is in fact a judgment-seat, and men are discriminated\nmorally and spiritually by their reception of the suffering,\nself-sacrificing Redeemer.--=Now the prince of this world is cast\nout.= The Prince of this world was a phrase much used by Jewish\nwriters to designate the spiritual monarch of the Gentiles in\nopposition to the one true God whom they regarded as in a peculiar\nsense the God of Israel. Christ employs their language; he sees in the\napplication of the Greeks for an interview with him a prophecy of the\ntime when Satan will be cast out and all the kingdoms of this world\nwill become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. This he\nregards as accomplished _now_, that is, by the sacrifice of Calvary.\nThe world\u2019s battle was fought and the victory won there. The second\ncoming is not to redeem the world, but to realize for the world the\nfruits of redemption, in an established and eternal kingdom of\nrighteousness, after, by the cross, humanity has been judged, the\ndevil cast out, and the redeemed race lifted up into oneness with\nChrist Jesus. The passages of the N. T., which imply the continuing\ninfluence of the devil (Rom. 16:20; 2 Cor. 4:4; Ephes. 2:2; 6:12,\netc.) are not inconsistent with Christ\u2019s language here, because it is\nprophetic; he speaks of that as already accomplished which is\nabsolutely certain to be accomplished by the power of that divine\nsacrifice so soon by him to be consummated.--=And I if I be lifted up\nwill draw all men toward myself.= _If_ is not to be rendered as\nequivalent to _when_. The language is sympathetic with that of verse\n27; it is the last trace of that soul-storm. His crucifixion was\ncontingent; it was made, to the last, dependent on his own voluntary\nsubmission. Even in the hour of his arrest the way of deliverance was\nopen to him (Matt. 26:53). He is still, as it were, arguing with\nhimself. The whole language is that of _quasi_ soliloquy. The phrase\n_lifted up from the earth_ certainly does not refer to his ascension,\nas Meyer interprets it. John\u2019s own interpretation in the next verse is\nconclusive on that point. Apart from inspiration, he, as a sympathetic\near-witness, is to be trusted as a correct interpreter. Nor does it\nrefer to the mere physical elevation from the ground of a foot or two\nin the crucifixion. The N. T. use of the original word rendered\n_lifted up_ (\u1f51\u03c8\u03cc\u03c9) as well as the added words _from the earth_, is\nconclusive on that point. To give a physical interpretation to the\nphrase is to belittle and degrade it. The word here rendered _lifted\nup_ is generally rendered _exalted_ (Matt. 11:23; 23:12; Luke 1:52;\n14:11), and is used in reference to Christ\u2019s divine exaltation in\nconsequence of his voluntary sacrifice (Acts 2:33; 5:31). The\ncrucifixion is exaltation because self-sacrifice is divine glory (1\nCor. 1:23, 24). _From the earth_ is added to mark the contrast between\nthe kingdom of the Prince of this world which is to be overthrown and\nthat of the Prince of Light which takes its place. The one is of the\nearth earthy; the other is not of this world (ch. 18:36), but _over_\nit, a kingdom lifted up from the world but dominating it. In each\nindividual soul the kingdom of God begins, as it began in the world of\nhumanity, in crucifixion. When we take up our cross and follow Christ,\nwe are lifted up from the earth and in us the Prince of this world is\ncast out (Mark 9:49, 50; Luke 14:27, notes). The word _drawing_ here\nrefers not primarily to the influence of the Holy Spirit winning men\nto Christ (ch. 7:39; 14:18, 19; 16:7), certainly not to what\ntheologians call effectual calling, but to the attractive power of the\ncross itself. Self-sacrifice always draws us toward the sacrificed\none, the soldier, the martyr, the mother; and has drawn all hearts\ntoward Christ as the pre-eminent martyr. This is not, however, a\npromise that all men shall be actually brought to Christlikeness of\ndisposition. The original does not imply this. The preposition _to_\n(\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2) should rather be rendered _towards_; for it indicates\n_direction_, not _result_, the place or person toward which anything\nmoves or an affection is directed, not that to which anything comes or\nupon which an affection is finally centered. _All men_ must not be\nrendered with Calvin as equivalent to \u201call the children of God;\u201d nor\ndoes it merely mean men of both Gentile and Jewish origin, _i. e._,\nall classes of men. Christ\u2019s words need no mending. All men to whom\nthe simple story of the cross is told are drawn toward him who gave\nhimself for us; whether they _follow him_ and become like him through\na like voluntary cross-bearing is another question. Of that Christ\nsays nothing here. The whole sentence, then (vers. 31, 32), may be\nparaphrased thus: Already is the judgment of this world beginning to\ntake place; already is the Prince of this world beginning to be cast\nout; and I, if I am faithful to the end in enduring that cross for\nwhich I came into this hour, will draw all hearts toward me, even as\nnow these stranger hearts are drawn toward me.\n\n\n 34 The people answered him, We have heard[501] out of the\n law[502] that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou,\n The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?\n\n [501] Ps. 89:36, 37; 110:4; Isa. 9:7.\n\n [502] Rom. 5:18; Ps. 72:17-19.\n\n\n 35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the\n light[503] with you.[504] Walk while ye have the light,\n lest darkness come upon you: for he[505] that walketh in\n darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.\n\n [503] ch. 8:12.\n\n [504] Jer. 13:6.\n\n [505] ch. 11:10.\n\n\n 36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may\n be[506] the children of light. These things spake Jesus,\n and departed, and did hide himself from them.\n\n [506] Ephes. 5:8.\n\n=34-36. We have heard out of the law that the Messiah abideth\nforever.= They evidently understand Christ\u2019s language to refer to his\ndeath, at least to his departure from the earth, and are really\nperplexed. For the idea of an earthly Messianic kingdom was so firmly\nfixed in the public mind that they were absolutely incapable of\nreceiving any other; and the O. T. in many passages does describe that\nkingdom as an everlasting one (Ps. 89:36; 145:13; Isaiah 9:5, 7; Dan.\n7:13, 14).--=Who is this Son of man?= The language is that of sneer.\nWhat strange sort of a Messiah is this, that must die in order to draw\nall nations unto him, and enter into his kingdom?--=Then Jesus said\nunto them.= His reply is not responsive to their question. He rarely\nif ever replied to sneers.--=Yet a little while is the light with\nyou.= The commentators generally regard the phrase _the Light_ as\nChrist\u2019s designation of himself. So Alford, Godet, Meyer, among the\nmoderns, and Chrysostom and Calvin among the older commentators. But\nthis interpretation entangles the whole sentence. Christ then bids his\nauditors to walk, _i. e._, \u201cbe not slothful but spiritually active\u201d\n(_Meyer_), for the two or three days that intervene before his death;\nfor his death will bring darkness on them, and make it impossible for\nthem to walk intelligently thereafter. The direction is thus deprived\nof all significance to us, and is contradicted by history; for the\ndeath of Christ brought light, not darkness, and was itself the\nnecessary precursor of highest spiritual activity in all that believe\non him. The _light_ here, as in Matthew 6:23, is the moral and\nspiritual nature of man, that which links him to the divine and makes\nit possible for him to become a child of God. God is the Light of the\nworld (1 John 1:5) because he is the fountain, the central sun which\nsupplies and keeps alive this moral and spiritual nature in men.\nChrist is the Light of the world (ch. 9:5), because in him this\nspiritual nature shone out without any dimness from sin or moral\ninfirmity. Christians are lights in the world (Matt. 5:14), because\nthis spiritual nature in them is their guide, illuminating them and\nthrough them others. If one follows this inner light it grows brighter\nand brighter unto perfect day (Prov. 4:18); if he disobeys it he\nquenches it and goes into moral darkness, losing the very power of\nmoral and spiritual discrimination (1 John 2:8-11). I understand\nChrist\u2019s meaning then to be this: You have yet for a little while\nlonger the light of conscience; it is not utterly quenched. Beware.\nWalk according to such light as you possess, lest utter moral darkness\ncome upon you. And he who walks in such darkness knows not the future\nfate that awaits him. _Walk while ye have the light_ should rather be\nrendered, _Walk as ye have the light_ (\u1f61\u03c2 not \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 is the best reading,\nso _Alford_, _Meyer_, etc.); that is, _According to the light ye\npossess_. The phrase _Come upon you_ is hardly forcible enough to\nexpress the meaning of the original (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9) which is literally\nto _seize_ or _take violent possession of_. See Mark 9:18; John 8:3; 1\nThess. 5:4. _Knoweth not whither he goeth_ indicates the awful mystery\nwhich hangs about the final fate of those who refuse to follow the\nlight of their own better nature, and so to accept the light which\ncomes from God through Jesus Christ his Son.--=As ye have the light,\nhave faith in the light, that ye may become the children of light.=\nObserve the difference between this rendering, which accurately\nfollows the original, and that of the English version, from which it\ndiffers in three important particulars. Christ does not say _while ye\nhave the light_, but _according as ye have the light_, that is, faith\nis to be exercised according to the opportunity; he does not say\n_believe_, a word which indicates an intellectual act, but _have\nfaith_, a word which indicates a spiritual habit; he does not say _may\nbe the children of light_, as though a single act of belief perfected\nthe soul in sonship, but _may become the children of light_, faith in\nsuch light as the soul possesses being the way unto a final perfection\nin the divine life. Faith is the evidence of things unseen (Heb.\n11:1), that is, the power of the soul by which it appreciates unseen\nmoral qualities; hence the divine qualities in Christ: hence, by\ndirect, immediate communion, the invisible spirit of God. The\ndirection here is the natural outcome of the preceding warning,\nand may be paraphrased thus: \u201cAs you have moral and spiritual\nillumination, exercise faith toward it, apprehend, appreciate, obey\nthe sacred inner monitions of your moral nature; so shall you be led\nconstantly into clearer light, and shall at last become children of\nlight, wholly possessed and pervaded by it.\u201d This of course includes\nthe exercise of faith in Christ according to the measure in which he\nis revealed to the soul; but it certainly is much more than a mere\nexhortation to the Jews to believe in Jesus as the Messiah while he\nremained in the flesh among them. Both the warning against quenching\nthis inner light by disobedience, and the exhortation to nourish it by\nappreciating and following it are applicable to all men and for all\ntime.--=And departed and hid himself from them.= The very fact that\nthese were among Christ\u2019s last words, and that immediately on uttering\nthem he departed into a concealment from which apparently he did not\nissue till the time for his passion, should have sufficed to prevent\nthe common but unspiritual interpretation controverted above. \u201cThis\nwas the farewell of Jesus to Israel. He then retired and did not\nreappear on the morrow. This time it was no mere cloud which obscured\nthe sun; the sun itself had set.\u201d--(_Godet._) This statement fixes\nthe time of this incident; it was concurrent with his farewell to\nJerusalem, that is, on the same day with, and probably just subsequent\nto the discourse recorded in Matthew, ch. 23. In the discourses\nof which that was the culmination, Christ plainly foretold the\ndestruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, and indicated\nthe calling of the Gentiles (Matt. 21:43; 23:37-39). It may be that\nthose prophecies led to this application of the Greeks for a more\nprivate interview with the prophet who thus foretold the ingathering\nof the Gentiles.\n\n\n 37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet\n they believed not on him:\n\n\n 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled,\n which he spake,[507] Lord, who hath believed our report?\n and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?\n\n [507] Isa. 53:1.\n\n\n 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said[508]\n again,\n\n [508] Isa. 6:9, 10.\n\n\n 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart: that\n they should not see with _their_ eyes, nor understand with\n _their_ heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.\n\n\n 41 These things said Esaias, when[509] he saw his glory, and\n spake of him.\n\n [509] Isa. 6:1.\n\n\n 42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed\n on him; but[510] because of the Pharisees they did not\n confess _him_, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:\n\n [510] ch. 9:22.\n\n\n 43 For[511] they loved the praise of men more than the\n praise of God.\n\n [511] ch. 5:44; Rom. 2:29.\n\n\n=37-43.= These words are John\u2019s comments on the whole incident and\nteaching. The passages from Isaiah (6:9, 10; Isaiah 53:1)\nillustrate Christ\u2019s warning, and Christ\u2019s warning interprets Isaiah\u2019s\nprophecy. The blinding and hardening are here attributed to God\nbecause they take place in accordance with the divine law which Christ\nhas enunciated, namely, that disobedience to the light quenches and\ndestroys it. In Matthew 13:13-15, the Jews are represented as blinding\ntheir own eyes, etc., because they have done so by their disobedience.\nSee notes on Matthew. To those who recognize the authority of John,\nhis language here is conclusive that Isaiah spoke as a prophet, and\nunder divine inspiration. Observe that Isaiah, though living seven\ncenturies before Christ, _saw his glory_, which the blinded eyes\nof the Pharisees, though they were his contemporaries, could not\nsee. _Putting out of the synagogue_, that is, excommunication, was\nin those days a very serious matter. See ch. 9:22, note. I make no\nattempt to follow other commentators in a discussion here respecting\nthe relation of divine decrees and human free agency; that belongs\nnot to the commentator but to the metaphysician and theologian.\nTaking the whole passage together with its context, it seems to me\nclear (against _Alford_) that the statement of John _Therefore they\ncould not believe_, refers not backwards to the precedent prophecy of\nIsaiah, so that the meaning is that they could not believe \u201cbecause\nit was otherwise ordained in the divine counsels,\u201d but forward to the\nsubsequent prophecy of Isaiah, so that the meaning is that they could\nnot believe because their eyes were blinded and their hearts hardened.\nEither interpretation is grammatically possible; this one makes\nJohn\u2019s comment germane to Christ\u2019s discourse respecting the light,\nand the effect of refusing obedience to it; the other does not. An\ninterpretation which represents God as blinding the eyes and hardening\nthe heart, so as to prevent the exercise of faith, and this in order\nthat a prophecy may be fulfilled, cannot be reconciled with the divine\nrighteousness, much less with the divine infinite mercy.\n\n\n 44 Jesus cried and said, He[512] that believeth on me,\n believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.\n\n [512] Mark 9:37; 1 Pet. 1:21.\n\n\n 45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.\n\n\n 46 I[513] am come a light into the world, that whosoever\n believeth on me should not abide in darkness.\n\n [513] chaps. 1:5; 3:19.\n\n=44-46. But Jesus cried and said.= What follows, to the end of\nthe chapter, is not to be regarded as a report of a further\ndiscourse by Jesus, but as a summary furnished by John, of his\nLord\u2019s previous discourses. This view is required by the context,\nwhat follows being closely connected with John\u2019s previous\ncomments, by the structure of the discourse, which is substantially\na repetition of previously reported discourses (see notes), and by the\nconsideration that, not only no time or place is indicated, but that\nnone is allowed, since it is expressly asserted, immediately before,\nthat Christ departed and hid himself from the people (ver. 36). This\nview is taken by all the moderns (_Alford_, _Meyer_, _Godet_,\n_Luthardt_). Bengel is hardly self-consistent. In his Grammar he\ncharacterizes this as \u201cthe peroration and recapitulation, in John\u2019s\nGospel, of Christ\u2019s public discourses;\u201d in his _Harmony_ he suggests\nthat Christ \u201cspake in the very act of departure, when he was now at a\nconsiderable distance from the men; wherefore he is said to have\ncried, in order, doubtless, that those very persons with whom he had\nspoken might hear;\u201d an hypothesis which Luthardt justly characterizes\nas artificial, unwarranted by the Gospel account, and disagreeable.--=He\nthat hath faith in me, hath faith not in me but in him that sent me.=\n_In_ (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2) indicates the ultimate end or object of the faith. The\nnegative is not to be omitted or reduced to a mere rhetorical\nexpression, or read as though it was equivalent to \u201chath not faith in\nme alone.\u201d True scriptural faith in Christ does not _stop_ with him,\nbut finds in him the way to the Father, the Spirit who is to be\nworshipped in spirit as well as in truth, and whom no man hath seen at\nany time. Hence Paul\u2019s declaration, \u201cYea, though we have seen Christ\nafter the flesh, yet now henceforth we know him no more.\u201d \u201cChrist\ndescended to us that he might unite us to God. Until we have reached\nthat point, we are, as it were, in the middle of the course. We\nimagine to ourselves but a half Christ, and a mutilated Christ, if he\ndo not lead us to God.\u201d--(_Calvin._) For parallel teaching of Christ,\nsee ch. 5:24, 30, 38, 43; 8:19, 42; 10:38; 14:10, 11.--=And he that\nseeth me seeth him that sent me.= _See_ is here used not of external\nbut of spiritual perception, as in chaps. 4:19; 6:40; 14:19; 17:24. He\nthat has a spiritual perception and appreciation of the glory of\nChrist\u2019s character has a perception and appreciation of the divine\nglory; for the Son is the express image of the Father\u2019s person and the\nbrightness of his glory (Heb. 1:3). \u201cJesus\u2019 essence does not consist\nin his merely external appearance, but in his internal relation to the\nFather.\u201d--(_Luthardt._) Comp. ch. 14:9, where the language is almost\nprecisely the same.--=I am come a light into the world.= A light to\nlead to the Father, and to the divine life which is lived only by\ncommunion with the Father through the Spirit.--=In order that\nwhosoever believeth in me should not abide in darkness.= The object of\nChrist\u2019s incarnation and atonement is that through faith in him we may\nbe delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the\nkingdom of God\u2019s dear Son (Col. 1:13), and thus walk no longer in the\ndarkness but in the light, by walking in fellowship with God (1 John\n1:5-7; 2:8-11). This light is the illumination and inspiration of the\nmoral and spiritual nature afforded by faith in and a life of\nfollowing after Jesus Christ. Comp. ch. 8:12; 9:5.\n\n\n 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge\n him not: for I came[514] not to judge the world, but to\n save the world.\n\n [514] ch. 3:17.\n\n\n 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words,[515]\n hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the\n same shall judge him in the last day.\n\n [515] Deut. 18:19; Luke 9:26.\n\n\n 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which\n sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and\n what I should speak.\n\n\n 50 And I know that his commandment[516] is life\n everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the\n Father said unto me, so I speak.\n\n [516] 1 John 3:23.\n\n=47-50. I judge him not * * * * The word that I have spoken the same\nshall judge him.= This declaration is not inconsistent with other\npassages of the N. T. which declare that Jesus Christ shall judge the\nworld (ch. 5:25-27); but it interprets them. That judgment shall not\nbe an arbitrary one; nor one pronounced by a judge after trial, like a\nhuman judgment, in which questions of law and fact are involved. The\nbook of each man\u2019s life shall be opened, and compared with the life of\nChrist which is the pattern; and the life and teaching of Christ will\nitself be the judgment; the comparison will be conclusive; there will\nbe no need of investigation or of sentence. Hence every man is judging\nand condemning himself, and if unrepentant and unpardoned is condemned\nalready. Comp. ch. 3:18, 19; 5:45.--=He that rejecteth me= (\u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9).\nLiterally, _displaces me_. To reject Christ does not necessarily\ninvolve a deliberate decision against him. Simply putting him one side\nas of no practical importance is a rejection of him.--=And receiveth\nnot my words.= We receive them only by obeying them. See Matthew\n13:23.--=Because I have not spoken out of myself.= Christ is not the\nultimate source of his own authority. His words are divine because\nthey are God-given. The Father is the reservoir from whom Christ\ndraws. Compare ch. 5:30; 7:16-28; 8:26, 28, 38.--=What I should say\nand what I should speak.= \u201cThe former is to be understood of the\ncontents and the latter of the external act of speaking.\u201d--(_Luthardt._)\nTo the same effect Meyer. The double expression indicates that not\nonly the _substance_ but also the _form_ and _method of expression_ of\nChrist\u2019s teaching are God-given.--=And I know that his commandment is\nlife eternal.= It has for its aim to produce life eternal; it has for\nits subject-matter the conditions and nature of life eternal; it is,\nin other words, the law of the spiritual life. As science has to do\nwith the laws of the external, so Christianity with the laws of the\ninternal or spiritual world. Comp. ch. 6:63, 68. There is a weighty\nsignificance in the words \u201cI know.\u201d By his own acceptance of and\nobedience to the Father\u2019s commands Christ made, as it were, trial of\nthem, and spoke out of his own personal experience of their value and\neffect. It is only as the Christian thus knows and speaks that his\ntestimony is effective (2 Cor. 4:13).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n\n\nCh. 13:1-30. CHRIST WASHES HIS DISCIPLES\u2019 FEET AND FORETELLS HIS\nBETRAYAL.--THE NATURE OF HUMILITY ILLUSTRATED: NOT SELF-ABASEMENT BUT\nSELF-ABNEGATION (3, 4).--TRUST AND OBEDIENCE HERE; KNOWLEDGE HEREAFTER\n(7).--THE DOUBLE CLEANSING WROUGHT BY CHRIST: THE WASHING OF THE WHOLE\nNATURE IN REGENERATION; THE WASHING AWAY OF SPECIFIC SINS IN\nSANCTIFICATION (10).--CHRIST\u2019S DESIGNATION OF HIMSELF: MASTER AND LORD\n(13).--THE UTILITY AND THE INUTILITY OF CEREMONIAL.--CHRIST OUR\nEXAMPLE IN THE SPIRIT AND IN THE LETTER (14, 15).--THE OFFICE OF\nPROPHECY (19).--CHRIST SEEN BEARING THE SIN OF THE SINNER\n(21).--CHRIST\u2019S ENDEAVOR TO RECLAIM THE IRRECLAIMABLE (26-29).\n\n * * * * *\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--John alone of the Evangelists gives no account of\nthe institution of the Lord\u2019s Supper. But he alone gives us a report\nof the last words of Christ, and his last prayer with his disciples at\nthe time of the institution of the Supper. This report occupies\nchapters 13-17. This most sacred legacy which the Lord has left to his\ndisciples can never be interpreted except by the heart which enters\ninto the secret place of the Most High. All that the commentator can\nhope to do is to point out the significance of the original, and the\nconnection between the various parts of this uninterpretable\ndisclosure of divine love. That the supper referred to in ver. 2 here\nis the same described in Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke\n22:19, 20, I think is beyond question, and is indeed questioned by few\nif any of the scholars except Lightfoot, who endeavors to identify it\nwith the supper at which Mary anointed the feet of Jesus (Matt.\n26:1-16; John 12:2-8). The time when the Last Supper was celebrated,\nwhether it was a true Paschal feast or one which ante-dated and\nanticipated it, is confessedly one of the most difficult questions in\nBiblical chronology. If we had only the Synoptical Gospels no one\nwould doubt that the Last Supper was the real Jewish Passover; if we\nhad only John, few would question that it was previous to the\nPassover. This question I have stated and discussed in the notes on\nMatthew (note on Lord\u2019s Supper, Vol. I, p. 286), and to the discussion\nthere refer the student. I have no doubt, on a careful comparison of\nthe four accounts, that the four Evangelists refer to the same supper,\nand that it was taken at the time of and was for them the true\nPassover Supper. In that case Christ\u2019s act here receives new\nsignificance from a comparison with the events recorded by Luke (ch.\n22:24-30 and notes). The disciples sat down to the meal without\nwashing their feet, after a hot and dusty walk. There was no servant\nto perform the menial act for them; and no one would volunteer to do\nit for the rest. They quarreled as to which should have the\npre-eminence at the table. Christ said nothing, waited till the\nquarrel was over and they had taken their seats, and then rose from\nthe table, and girding himself as a servant, performed the slave\u2019s\noffice in washing their feet. This was his answer to their unseemly\nstrife for the post of honor at the table.\n\n\n 1 Now[517] before the feast of the passover, when Jesus\n knew that his hour[518] was come that he should depart out\n of this world unto the Father, having[519] loved his own\n which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.\n\n [517] Matt. 26:2, etc.\n\n [518] ch. 17:1, 11.\n\n [519] Jer. 31:3; Ephes. 5:2; 1 John 4:19; Rev. 1:5.\n\n=1. Now before the feast of the Passover.= That is, immediately\nbefore; just as he was about to sit down with his disciples to the\nPaschal feast.--=Jesus knew that his hour was come.= In the full\nconsciousness of his approaching agony and passion. At the time when\nabove all others he needed that friends should sustain him, he carried\nthem in his heart; their burdens were his own.--=Having loved his own\nwhich were in the world, he loved them unto the end.= The end both in\ntime and in accomplishment; that is, he loved them till death broke in\non his life of love; he loved them till love had finished its purpose\nin them by their redemption--loved them despite their quarrels and\ncontentions, that by love he might brood and perfect the new life in\nthem. Properly the word (\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9) signifies not merely _end_ but\nalso _completion_. So in 1 Thess. 2:16: \u201cWrath is come upon _them to\nthe uttermost_\u201d (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2), _i. e._, till it has accomplished its\npurpose; and 1 Tim. 1:5, \u201cThe end of the commandment is love,\u201d _i.\ne._, love is the purpose which the commandment is designed to\naccomplish. The phrase _his own which were in the world_, does not\nimply a limitation of love, as though his love were for a limited\nnumber; but it is only in his own that his love accomplishes its\ndesigns. The language does imply that he has others who are his own\nwho are not in this world; either the O. T. saints who had died in\nhope of him, or inhabitants of some other world who belong to him by\nthe purchase of his love, who are his own because redeemed by his\nblood (Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9).\n\n\n 2 And supper being ended, the[520] devil having now put\n into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon\u2019s _son_, to betray\n him;\n\n [520] ch. 6:70; Luke 22:3, 53.\n\n\n 3 Jesus knowing[521] that the Father had given all things\n into his hands, and that[522] he was come from God, and\n went to God;\n\n [521] Matt. 28:18; Heb. 2:8.\n\n [522] ch. 17:11.\n\n\n 4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and\n took a towel, and girded himself.\n\n\n 5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to\n wash the disciples\u2019 feet, and to wipe _them_ with the towel\n wherewith he was girded.\n\n\n 6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him,\n Lord, dost[523] thou wash my feet?\n\n [523] Matt. 3:14.\n\n=2-6. And supper being in progress.= Not _being ended_; for (ver. 12)\nhe sat down to supper again; nor does the original require the\ntranslation given to it in our English version (see _Godet_, _Alford_,\n_Meyer_). Christ waited till all contention was over, all had taken\ntheir seats and were ready to begin the meal, before he rose to wash\ntheir feet.--=The devil having already dropped into the heart of Judas\nIscariot to betray him.= The devil was the sower, but the soil was\nready to receive the seed. A past suggestion is indicated. The time\nwhen and the way in which this suggestion was made is reported by\nMatthew. It was at the time when Christ rebuked Judas for complaining\nof the anointing of her Lord by Mary at Bethany (comp. John 12:4-7\nwith Matt. 26:14).--=Jesus knowing that the Father had given all\nthings into his hands.= See Col. 1:16. He acted in the full\nconsciousness of his divine power and majesty. Humility consists not\nin a low estimate of one\u2019s powers, but in a willingness to use them in\na lowly service.--=That he was come from God and went to God.= This\ndivine sense shone out in him, so that it was seen and felt by the\napostles, perhaps most of all by John, who was the most susceptible to\nsuch spiritual impressions. For illustration of other times in which\nthe divinity of our Lord thus shone out upon men, see Matt. 21:12;\nMark 9:15; 10:32; Luke 4:20, 30; John 7:44-46; 18:6.--=He laid aside\nhis garments= (\u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1). His outer mantle or cloak (see note on Matt.\n24:18). Then the inner tunic was girded about the loins with a towel,\nused partly in lieu of a girdle, partly to wipe the feet. Thus Christ\nput on the ordinary habit of a servant for a servant\u2019s work. In this\nfeet-washing the feet were not put into the basin; the water was\npoured over the feet and then they were wiped by the servant. The\naccompanying cut, from an original sketch by Mr. A. L. Rawson, shows\nthe manner of feet-washing, dress of servant, etc., as observed to-day\nin the East.--=And began to wash the disciples\u2019 feet.= Some of the\ncommentators suppose that he came first to Simon Peter (_Alford_); but\nI see no ground in the narrative for this supposition, which indeed\nseems to me to be negatived by the natural reading of the original.\nThe objection of Peter was an unexpected episode and interruption. So\n_Meyer_, _Chrysostom_, and others. Feet-washing did not rise to the\ndignity of a ritualistic observance, except in connection with the\nservice of the sanctuary (Exod. 30:19-21). It held a high place,\nhowever, among the rites of hospitality. \u201cImmediately after a guest\npresented himself at the tent door, it was usual to offer the\nnecessary materials for washing the feet (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32;\n43:24; Judges 19:21). It was a yet more complimentary act betokening\nequally humility and affection, if the host actually performed the\noffice for his guest (1 Sam. 25:41; Luke 7:38-49; John 13:5-14; 1 Tim.\n5:10). Such a token of hospitality is occasionally exhibited in the\nEast either by the host or by his deputy. The feet were again\nwashed (Sol. Song 5:3) before retiring to bed.\u201d--(_Smith\u2019s Bible\nDictionary._)--=Dost thou wash my feet?= There is an emphasis on the\nword _thou_. Dost thou, my Lord and Master, act as my menial? \u201c\u2018With\nthose hands,\u2019 he saith, \u2018with which thou hast opened eyes, and\ncleansed lepers, and raised the dead!\u2019\u201d--(_Chrysostom._)\n\n\n [Illustration: WASHING OF FEET.]\n\n\n 7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest\n not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.\n\n\n 8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet,\n Jesus answered him, If[524] I wash thee not, thou hast no\n part with me.\n\n [524] 1 Cor. 6:11; Ephes. 5:26; Titus 3:5.\n\n=7, 8. Thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.= The\nmeaning is not merely that he would explain to them the significance\nof his act, nor that they would understand it and him in the future\nkingdom, though both may be indicated. But spiritual truth is only\nspiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14, 15), and the most significant acts\nand teachings of Christ can be comprehended only as the character is\nconformed to his character (2 Pet. 1:5-8). The meaning for Peter was\nthat he must submit to Christ\u2019s authority and wait till time and\nspiritual development enabled him to understand it; the meaning for us\nis that if Christ is our Master, we must accept in his word, his life\nand his providence much that is now incomprehensible, and wait for the\nfuture to make it plain. But if this implies a limit to our present\nknowledge, it also promises revelation hereafter. \u201cThou shalt know\u201d\nassures that all will be made plain by-and-by.--=Thou shalt never wash\nmy feet.= Literally, _Thou shall not wash my feet to eternity_. Pride\nin Peter could not comprehend humility in Christ. He thought the act,\nwhich was a manifestation of the true glory of the Lord, dishonored\nhim. The same spirit in our day accounts the declaration of the\nincarnation and of the atonement dishonorable to God; it sees no glory\nin the humiliation of love.--=If I wash thee not, thou hast no part\nwith me.= The phrase _to have part with another_ signifies to share in\nhis riches and glory (Josh. 22:25; 2 Sam. 20:1). Here it includes the\nidea of a partnership in the divine nature of Christ (2 Pet. 1:4) as\nwell as in the glory of Christ which he has with the Father (John\n17:22-26; Rev. 20:6). Washing was, it must be remembered, a symbolical\nact, recognized so among the Jews, and signifying purification from\nuncleanness. Christ\u2019s act in rising from the table and washing the\nfeet of the disciples was the severest rebuke to their pride. See\nPrel. Note. Peter\u2019s refusal to be washed was a resistance to this\nrebuke. That Christ\u2019s language was understood by Peter to signify a\nspiritual cleansing is indicated by his reply.\n\n\n 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but\n also _my_ hands and _my_ head.\n\n\n 10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save\n to wash _his_ feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are\n clean, but not all.\n\n\n 11 For[525] he knew who should betray him; therefore said\n he, Ye are not all clean.\n\n [525] chap. 6:64.\n\n\n 12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his\n garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know\n ye what I have done to you?\n\n=9-12. Not my feet only, but also the hands and the head.= This is\ngenerally regarded as the expression of an impulsive revulsion of\nfeeling in Peter. \u201cWe have here the same Peter who one minute rushes\ninto the water, and the next calls out \u2018I perish\u2019; who now smites with\nthe sword and now flees; who goes even into the high priest\u2019s palace\nand who denies his Lord.\u201d--(_Godet._) I should rather regard it as the\nlanguage of argument and remonstrance still continued. \u201cIf,\u201d he says\nin effect, \u201cthis is the reason of your washing, why stop with the\nfeet? why not go on and wash the rest, the hands and the head?\u201d _i.\ne._, the face and neck. To this argument Christ replies--=He that is\nbathed needeth not save to wash the feet, but is wholly clean.= In the\noriginal there is a distinction between _bathing_ of the whole person\nand _washing_ of the feet which our English translation ignores, but\nwhich is important. The meaning is, As he that has been once bathed,\nand so cleansed, needs only to wash what has become soiled in his\nwalk, so he who by the washing of regeneration has been once cleansed\nof his sins (Titus 3:5), needs only to come to Christ hereafter for\npartial cleansing, _i. e._, for forgiveness and redemption from those\nsins which are in some sense the product of his daily walk and\nlife. He does not need to come again and again for the washing of\nregeneration, but only for the cleansing of special faults. But even\nhe who has been bathed still needs to be constantly washed by Christ\n(1 John 1:8, 9).--=Ye are not all clean.= Not all that seem to have\ncome to Christ and to have entered his service, are really cleansed by\nhim (Matt. 7:21-23).--=He knew who should betray him.= Among those\nwhose feet were washed was Judas. No love can touch or change the\nheart resolutely set to do evil.--=Know ye what I have done to you?=\nThat is, do you comprehend the reason why it is done, and the meaning\nof the action. The disciples are silent. In the following verses\nChrist goes on to explain its significance.\n\n\n 13 Ye[526] call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for\n _so_ I am.\n\n [526] Matt. 23:8-10; Phil. 2:11.\n\n\n 14 If I then, _your_ Lord and Master, have washed your\n feet; ye also ought to wash one another\u2019s feet.\n\n\n 15 For[527] I have given you an example, that ye should do\n as I have done to you.\n\n [527] 1 Pet. 2:21.\n\n\n 16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not\n greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than\n he that sent him.\n\n\n 17 If[528] ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.\n\n [528] James 1:25.\n\n=13-17. Ye call me the Master= (literally _Teacher_) =and the Lord=.\nObserve the definite article, not merely a teacher, or your teacher,\nbut _the_ teacher and _the_ Lord. For instances in which they had done\nso, see ver. 6, 9, 25, 36, 37; ch. 14:5, 8, 22. Stress is perhaps not\nto be laid on the fact that the phrase _the Lord_ (\u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) is used\nin the Septuagint (Greek O. T.) for Jehovah; but it certainly is here\nmore than a mere title of respectful address; and the declaration of\nChrist here, coupled with the declaration of Matthew 23:8, One is your\nMaster (Teacher), and all ye are brethren, distinguishes him clearly\nfrom his disciples, as not merely the chosen leader among them, but\nhaving a divine authority over them.--=Ye say well; for I am.= The\nhumble office of feet-washing had been done by one who was not only\nfully conscious of his supremacy, but who in the very act claimed that\nsupremacy. This divine authority Christ never abdicated; his divine\nconsciousness he never lost.--=If I then, the Lord and the Master.=\n_The_ Lord, not merely _your_ Lord. He might have been their Lord and\nteacher by their selection; he was _the_ Lord and teacher by divine\nappointment, and by virtue of his own character.--=Ye also ought to\nwash one another\u2019s feet.= If we are to interpret literally the\ncommands of Christ, the command of feet-washing as a perpetual\nobservance is even more explicit than that for the observance of\nthe Lord\u2019s Supper. That is in form a simple request: \u201cDo this in\nremembrance of me;\u201d this is a request thrice repeated: \u201cYe ought also\nto wash one another\u2019s feet;\u201d \u201cI have given you an example that ye\nshould do as I have done to you;\u201d \u201cIf ye know these things, happy are\nye if ye do them.\u201d Nevertheless feet-washing has never been generally\npractised by the Christian church. There is no indication of its\nintroduction into the apostolic church. The only reference to it in\nthe N. T. is 1 Tim. 5:10, and the probability is that the reference\nthere is to a rite of hospitality, not to a religious or symbolical\nservice. We first meet with feet-washing in ecclesiastical history in\nthe fourth century. It was practised in connection with baptism, on\nthe catechumens in some parts of the early church, especially in Gaul,\npossibly in Africa and Spain. It is practised in some of the Greek\nconvents of to-day; by the R. C. church once a year on Maunday-Thursday,\nwhen the Pope washes the feet of twelve pilgrims in Rome; and by the\nBrethren (popularly known as Dunkards), a sect of German Baptists\nchiefly found in Pennsylvania; the Mennonites, a sect of Dutch\nAnabaptists, chiefly confined also to the eastern district of\nPennsylvania in this country; and possibly by some other minor sects.\nWith these exceptions, it has never been attempted to maintain\nfeet-washing as a religious observance in the Christian church. This\napparent disregard of Christ\u2019s seemingly explicit command can be\ndefended only on the general ground that no ceremonial is of the\nessence of Christianity; that the thing symbolized, not the symbol,\nhere the spirit of self-sacrifice and serving love, not the form by\nwhich it is typified, is the essential thing; that as eating the bread\nand drinking the wine, not discerning the Lord\u2019s body (1 Cor. 11:29),\nis not a true observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper, so, on the other hand,\nthe spirit that is willing to serve others to their cleansing, in\nhumbleness of love, is a true observance of the rite of feet-washing,\nthough the rite itself is disused. \u201cIt is not the act itself, but its\nmoral essence which, after his example, he enjoins upon them to\nexercise. This moral essence, however, consists not in lowly and\nministering love generally, in which Jesus by washing the feet of\nhis disciples desired to give them an example, but, as ver. 10\nproves, in that ministering love which, in all self-denial and\nhumility, is active for the moral purification and cleansing of\nothers.\u201d--(_Meyer._)--=I have given you an example.= It is the inward\nspirit of Christ, not the mere outward act, that is an example for us\nto follow; the cleansing love, not the girded garment and the washing\nof feet, that is our pattern. For the spiritual signification of this\ndeclaration, see ch. 17:18; 1 John 3:16.--=The servant is not\ngreater=, etc. The repetition of this seemingly self-evident truth\nindicates that Christ apprehended for his followers that spiritual\npride which has been in the history of the church almost their\ngreatest danger. See ch. 15:20; Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40.--=If ye know\nthese things.= This language itself should have sufficed to guard\nagainst the literalism which would maintain feet-washing as a\nperpetual ceremonial. Know what things? That he had washed their feet?\nOf course they knew that. The meaning clearly is, If ye understand the\nmeaning of my act, happy are ye if ye exemplify the same spirit in\nyour lives. _Per contra_, he that does not know, that does not\ncomprehend the spirit, is not blessed in going through the mere form,\nand this is equally true respecting all ceremonials. He only is\nblessed in them who comprehends their spiritual significance.\n\n\n 18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but\n that the[529] scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth\n bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me.\n\n [529] Ps. 41:9.\n\n\n 19 Now I tell[530] you before it come, that, when it is\n come to pass, ye may believe that I am _he_.\n\n [530] ch. 14:29; 16:4.\n\n\n 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[531] He that receiveth\n whomsoever I send receiveth me: and he that receiveth me\n receiveth him that sent me.\n\n [531] Matt. 10:40.\n\n=18-20. I speak not of you all.= The highest service of Christ is\nserviceable only to those who will receive it. The fact that Christ\nwashed the feet of Judas, and broke bread with him, added to the\nblackness of his treachery and the enormity of his guilt. The church,\nthe Bible, the Sabbath, the Lord\u2019s Supper will rise up in judgment\nagainst those who have participated in them but have not imbibed the\nspirit of Christ from them.--=I know whom I have chosen.= Couple this\nwith the declaration of ch. 15:16, \u201cYe have not chosen me, but I have\nchosen you.\u201d The meaning is that Christ comprehended the character of\nthose whom he had selected for his work; he was not deceived; and he\nis not now deceived by false professions, however they may deceive the\nchurch, the world, and even the false professor himself. Why Christ\nshould have chosen Judas is one of the unsolved enigmas of N. T.\nhistory. We can see (1) that there was in every apostle the same\nconflict between the spiritual and the earthly nature which there was\nin Judas Iscariot, though the final issue was so different. (2) We\ncannot say that there was not a possibility that it might have been\ndifferent in the case of Judas Iscariot. In other words, we cannot say\nwhat are the limits to the freedom of the will, what the possibility\nof good for the evil soul, what the possibility of evil for him who is\npreserved from it by accepting the grace of God and so becoming his\nchild. (3) The case of Judas Iscariot has been full of warning to the\nchurch in all ages; thus the development of his character in the\napostolate has been made a means of service to mankind. His spirit was\nthat of the Pharisee; his position simply gave that spirit an\nopportunity to exhibit itself.--=But that the Scripture might be\nfulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel\nagainst me, now I tell you before it come.= Observe the difference in\nthe punctuation, from that of the English version. The meaning is not,\n_I have chosen Judas that the Scripture might be fulfilled_, for (1)\nthis interpretation, though that of Alford and Meyer, requires us to\nsupply or imagine a most important hiatus in the text. Christ says\nnothing about his choice of Judas; he lays emphasis on the fact that\nall the twelve were chosen by him, and therefore all were known to\nhim. Nor is the meaning, _I speak not of you all, in order that the\nScripture may be fulfilled_, which would make Christ withhold a\nblessing for the purpose of fulfilling a prophecy, an incredible\ninterpretation. But _that the Scripture_ (which he parenthetically\nquotes) _may be fulfilled_, _i. e._, that the disciples may recognize\nits fulfillment in the events soon to take place, _I now tell you\nbefore it is come to pass_. Thus the particle _but_ (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac) connects\nthis sentence not with the declaration which precedes, but with that\nwhich follows. The Scripture is Psalm 41:9. The Psalm is clearly not,\nin strictness of speech, a prophetic Psalm, uttered as by the Messiah,\nfor ver. 4 contains a confession of sin and a prayer for redemption.\n\u201cI said, Lord be merciful unto me and heal my soul; for I have sinned\nagainst thee.\u201d In that Psalm, ver. 9, \u201cYea mine own familiar friend in\nwhom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel\nagainst me,\u201d primarily refers to some treachery displayed towards the\nPsalmist, perhaps that of Ahithophel to David (2 Sam. 15:31; 16:23).\nBut events as well as words are prophetic; and the treachery of\nAhithophel towards David was itself a prophecy of the treachery of\nJudas towards David\u2019s greater Son. To eat bread with another is, in\nthe East, the highest possible confirmation of a sacred covenant with\nhim. To lift up the heel is a figure taken from the kick of a horse,\nwho turns suddenly upon one who has been feeding him. This seems to me\na better interpretation than that of Canon Cook, who sees in it a\nfigure taken from the act of a conqueror putting his heel on the neck\nof a prostrate foe.--=That when it is come to pass ye may believe that\nI am.= The office of prophecy is here intimated. It is not designed to\ngive us in the present a definite knowledge of future events. The most\nspiritually minded among the Jews did not comprehend the O. T.\nprophecy of Christ, and did not understand the nature of his advent.\nIt is rather so to depict the future as (1) to awaken hope or serve as\na warning; and (2) to serve as an evidence of the inspiration of the\nwriter of the book after the fulfillment of the prophecy has\ndemonstrated the prescience of the author. On the phrase _I am_, see\nch. 8:58, note.--=He that receiveth you=, etc. See Matt. 10:40, note,\nwhere the same declaration is made in a different connection. Here\nChrist, in order to encourage the disciples, reiterates a principle\nwith which they were already familiar. Although, he says, you are to\nserve in humble ways, as I have served you, and although you will meet\nwith many a discouraging rebuff from without and with treachery from\namong your own number, yet you are not to forget that you are sent\ninto the world as your Master was sent into the world, so that to\nreceive you will be to receive me.\n\n\n 21 When[532] Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit,\n and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you,\n that one of you shall betray me.\n\n [532] Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21.\n\n\n 22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of\n whom he spake.\n\n=21, 22.= An account of this prophecy of the betrayal is given by all\nthe Evangelists (Matt. 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:21-23). See\nnotes on Matthew. There is some difficulty in determining the exact\nnature and order of the events, though not more than we might expect\nin a comparison of four independent accounts of circumstances involved\nin so great confusion. The fullest account is that of John. He alone\nmentions Judas\u2019 departure from the room. Matthew declares that Christ\nreplied directly in the affirmative to Judas\u2019 question, Is it I? John,\non the other hand, asserts that no one in the room knew why Judas went\nout (comp. Matt. 26:25 with vers. 28, 29 here). The differences are\nnot irreconcilable. Comparing the four accounts, it would appear that\nChrist\u2019s declaration, \u201cOne of you shall betray me,\u201d produced the\nutmost consternation and excitement; that all the disciples eagerly\nasked, \u201cIs it I?\u201d \u201cIs it I?\u201d that Peter asked John to tell him who it\nwas, assuming that John knew, or could ascertain (see ver. 24); that\nat the same time Judas, thunderstruck at the disclosure of his\ntreachery, which had been already planned (Matt. 26:14-16), asked,\nperhaps somewhat tardily, the question, \u201cIs it I?\u201d to hide his\nconfusion; that Jesus replied in an aside to him, \u201cThou hast said\u201d\n(Matt. 26:25), a reply that in the confusion either was not heard or\nwas not heeded; that John, turning toward Jesus so as to rest upon his\nbosom (ver. 25), asked who the betrayer should be; that Jesus seemed\nto give the information, but really refused to do so, in his reply,\n\u201cHe it is to whom I shall give a sop\u201d (ver. 26), since he gave a sop\nin turn to all; so that when a moment or two later Judas went out\nangered by what he erroneously believed to be a public disclosure of\nhis treachery before all the disciples, no one, not even John, knew\nwhy he had gone. The question whether Judas was at the Lord\u2019s Supper\nhas been greatly discussed. The question seems to me of no practical\nimportance; and it is one impossible to answer with positiveness, for\nJohn, who alone mentions his going out, gives no account of the\ninstitution of the Lord\u2019s Supper. I believe, however, on a comparison\n of the four accounts, that he was not at the Last Supper, but went\nout immediately before its institution. According to Matthew, the\nprophecy of the betrayal preceded the institution of the Supper;\naccording to John, Judas went out _immediately_ after receiving the\nsop (comp. Matt. 26:25, 26 with ver. 30 here). And the explanation of\nChrist\u2019s course, as described by John, appears to me to be his desire\nto have, in this last sacred conference, only those who were really\nhis friends, and measurably in spiritual sympathy with him. This I\nbelieve to be the explanation of the direction to Judas in ver. 27.\nFor an elaborate discussion of this question, see Andrews\u2019 _Life of\nour Lord_; for a fuller harmonic account of the events, Lyman Abbott\u2019s\n_Jesus of Nazareth_.--=He was troubled in spirit.= Compare ch. 11:33;\n12:27. Our own experience helps to interpret this, which Alford calls\na \u201cmysterious troubling of spirit.\u201d The presence of an uncongenial\nsoul often suffices to destroy the sympathy of a sacred circle; the\npresence of a known traitor might well have prevented Christ from an\noutpouring of his soul in confidential converse which renders the\n14th, 15th, 16th and 17th chapters of John the most sacred in the\nBible to the disciples of Christ.--=One of you shall betray me.=\nChrist had before foretold his betrayal, Matt. 17:22; 20:18;\n26:2, etc., but now for the first time he declares that he\nshould be betrayed by one of the twelve. No wonder that they were\nstartled.--=The disciples looked one on another doubting of whom he\nspake.= And asking one another (Luke 22:23) and eagerly asking Christ\n(Matt. 26:22; Mark 14:19). Not one of them ventures to question the\ntruth of the Lord\u2019s prophecy, and each asks the personal question, \u201cIs\nit I?\u201d No one accuses, even by implication, his neighbor. Is not this\na pattern for us in that self-examination which should always precede\nour seasons of sacred communion with our Lord (1 Cor. 11:28)? an\nexamination which should look forward rather than backward; prepare\nfor the future rather than attempt to measure the past; and always be\na _self_ examination.\n\n\n 23 Now there was leaning on Jesus\u2019 bosom one[533] of his\n disciples, whom Jesus loved.\n\n [533] ch. 20:2; 21:7, 20.\n\n\n 24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should\n ask who it should be of whom he spake.\n\n\n 25 He then lying on Jesus\u2019 breast saith unto him, Lord, who\n is it?\n\n=23-25. There was leaning on Jesus\u2019 bosom.= The party were reclining\nat the table according to the Greek and Roman fashion. For\nillustration, which better than any description shows the manner, see\nMatt. 26:20, note. John was lying next to Jesus.--=Whom Jesus loved.=\n\u201cHere, out of the recollection of that sacred and by him\nnever-to-be-forgotten moment, there first breaks from his lips this\nnameless, and yet so expressive designation of himself.\u201d--(_Meyer._)\nThe phrase \u201cwhom Jesus loved\u201d occurs seven times in John\u2019s Gospel;\ntwice as a designation of Martha, Mary and Lazarus (John 11:3, 5);\nfive times as the designation of one of the disciples (John 13:23;\n19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). It has been almost universally regarded as\na designation of John, the author of the Fourth Gospel, who is\naccordingly known in the church as the \u201cbeloved disciple,\u201d though this\ndesignation is not found in the Gospels themselves. The main reasons\nfor this opinion are two. (1) John is not once named in the Fourth\nGospel, while an unnamed disciple is frequently referred to (John\n1:35, 40; 18:15; 19:27; 21:3, 4, 8; 21:23; and see refs. above). It is\nnot easy to conceive of any reason why the author should leave unnamed\nany other disciple, but it is not at all strange that he should use a\ncircumlocution to designate himself. (2) His character, so far as we\nknow it, corresponds with his designation as the \u201cbeloved disciple.\u201d\nSee Introduction. It has been, indeed, objected that there is a\ncertain appearance of egotism in his singling himself out as the\ndisciple whom Jesus loved, a designation never given to him by either\nof the other Evangelists. The reply to this is, or at least may be,\nthat the designation was employed by John, not because he desired in\nany sense to claim or imply a supremacy above the other disciples, but\nbecause the wonder of his life was that Jesus should love such an one\nas he, and by love should transform him. All facts in his life sink\ninto insignificance in his thought by the side of this fact, that he\nwas beloved of Jesus, chosen to be the witness of his transfiguration,\nhis nearest companion at the Last Supper, the sympathizing sharer in\nhis agony at Gethsemane, and the guardian of his mother after the\ndeath of her son (Matt. 17:1; 26:37; John 13:23; 19:26, 27).--=Simon\nPeter therefore beckoned to him and said, Tell us who it is.= This is\nthe true reading, adopted by all critics, Alford, Meyer, Lachmann,\nTischendorf, etc. The expression has been altered to that of the\nReceived Text in order to adapt Peter\u2019s question to John\u2019s account as\ndescribed in the next verse. The Sinaitic manuscript has the Received\nText, \u201cThat he should ask who it should be,\u201d as an explanatory gloss\nor comment alongside the original expression, \u201cTell who it is.\u201d Peter\nseems to have assumed that John would know. Possibly in the general\ntumult the latter preserved his composure, and conscious of his own\nsupreme love for his Lord, did not join in the general exclamation,\n\u201cIs it I?\u201d--=He then throwing himself back on Jesus\u2019 breast.= (See\nRobinson\u2019s _Lexicon_, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9.) The language of the English version\nis inadequate and incorrect, since it merely repeats the phrase used\nin verse 23, as though to identify the person; whereas the original\nimplies an action on John\u2019s part, by which he turned and rested more\nclosely than before on Christ\u2019s bosom. He had before been reclining\nnext to Jesus in the manner indicated in the illustration on page 282\nof Vol. I of this Commentary. He now raises himself, and turns so as\nto rest upon Jesus\u2019 breast and whisper in his ear. The graphic details\nof this entire narrative are unmistakably those of an eye-witness.\n\n\n [Illustration: DIPPING THE SOP.]\n\n\n 26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop,\n when I have dipped _it_. And when he had dipped the sop, he\n gave _it_ to Judas Iscariot, _the son_ of Simon.\n\n=26. He it is to whom I shall give a sop.= This reply, and Christ\u2019s\naccompanying action, is generally regarded as a designation, at least\nto John, of the traitor. I think this is a mistake. It is no uncommon\nact in an Eastern meal for the host, as a special act of\nconsideration, to dip a piece of bread or meat in the sauce or gravy\nand pass it to a special guest, or even put it into his mouth. In the\nPassover feast, the head of the house habitually took from the\npassover cake a piece, dipped it in the sauce of bitter herbs (Exod.\n12:8), and passed it in turn to the persons at the table. Christ\u2019s\nanswer to John, therefore, was simply a more solemn reiteration of the\ndeclaration of ver. 18, \u201cHe that eateth bread with me hath lifted up\nthe heel against me.\u201d He dipped the piece of bread in the sauce, and\npassed it to the disciples in turn. In doing so he gave it first to\nJudas. John may have understood the significance of the act; but it is\nplain from ver. 28 that none of the others at the table did so. I\nshould rather regard the act as a new endeavor on the part of Christ\nby love to turn Judas from his evil purpose. He has answered without\ndesignating him. He now endeavors to draw him to himself by singling\nhim out for a manifestation of special love. In the same spirit are\nthe last words he addressed to the apostate--words not of angry\nrebuke, but of pathetic remonstrance: \u201cFriend, wherefore art thou\ncome? Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?\u201d (Matt. 26:50; Luke\n22:48.)\n\n\n 27 And after the sop Satan[534] entered into him. Then said\n Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.\n\n [534] Luke 22:3.\n\n\n 28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake\n this unto him.\n\n\n 29 For some _of them_ thought,[535] because Judas had the\n bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy _those things_ that\n we have need of against the feast: or, that he should give\n something to the poor.\n\n [535] chap. 12:6.\n\n\n 30 He then, having received the sop, went immediately out:\n and it was night.\n\n=27-30. Satan entered into him.= It is a mistaken literalism which\ninterprets this phrase as indicating that Judas was from this time\ndemoniacally possessed. Nor, on the other hand, is it to be regarded\nas a merely figurative expression, indicating that Judas gave himself\nup wholly and unreservedly to evil. The N. T. teaching assumes the\nexistence of evil spirits and their influence over human beings (Matt.\n13:19, 38; Luke 4:6; 22:31; John 14:30; Acts 5:3; 26:18; 2 Cor. 2:11;\nEphes. 2:2; 4:27; 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:26; Jas. 4:7; 1 John 3:8; 5:18), and\nthe language here is in accordance with its spiritual philosophy. It\nsimply indicates that Judas\u2019 determined resistance to the warning\nwords and the winning love of Christ gave to the Evil One a new\nadvantage and influence over him. The solemn lesson for us is that, as\nevery faithful performance of known duty opens our heart to the\nincoming of God (ch. 14:23), so every determined resistance of sacred\ninfluences and every persistence in sin, opens our nature to the\nincoming of unknown but tremendous Satanic influences. It has before\nbeen said of Judas that Satan entered into him (Luke 22:3). There is\ngrowth in the kingdom of darkness as in that of light. As God enters\nby successive manifestations of himself into his saints, so Satan into\nthose that give themselves up to him.--=That thou doest, do quickly.=\nLiterally, _more quickly_ (\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd); _i. e._, hasten it. This is not to\nbe regarded as merely permission, as Adam Clarke: \u201cWhat thou art\ndetermined to do, and I to permit, do directly; delay not; I am\nready;\u201d nor yet as mandatory, and involving the utterance of a divine\ndecree, as Alford: \u201cThe course of sinful action is presupposed, and\nthe command to go on is but the echo of that mysterious appointment by\nwhich the sinner in the exercise of his own corrupted will becomes the\ninstrument of the purposes of God;\u201d but as the expression of Christ\u2019s\ndesire to be rid of the oppressive proximity of the traitor, as\nAmbrose and Tholuck. He sees that the purpose of Judas is fully fixed;\nhe will not have him remain there, contaminating the very atmosphere,\nand increasing his own guilt by his dissembling. We are apt to judge\nmen by the external act; no wonder then that Christ has been accused\nof pushing Judas over the precipice. But he who judged by the heart,\nand accounted him already a murderer who has murder in his heart\n(Matt. 5:22), would not have the resolute apostate increase the guilt\nof betrayal by that of hypocrisy. Moreover, Christ wishes the few\nminutes that remain for sacred converse with his faithful friends; and\nthat he cannot have in the presence of the hypocrite and traitor. So\nhe bids him begone. \u201cPlay the hypocrite here no longer,\u201d he says to\nhim; \u201cbut since you are determined on treason, go on and consummate\nit.\u201d--=Now no one at the table knew why he thus spake to him.= Perhaps\nthe writer himself, that is John, is to be excepted from this general\nstatement. This is the opinion of most of the commentators. Yet it is\nnot at all impossible that not even John comprehended the significance\nof Christ\u2019s act in handing the sop to Judas first of the\ndisciples.--=Because Judas had the bag.= Being treasurer of the little\nband. See ch. 12:6, note.--=Buy those things we have need of against\nthe feast.= From this phrase it is argued by Alford and Meyer that the\nsupper at which our Lord was sitting with his disciples could not have\nbeen the Passover Supper. \u201cHad it been the night of the Passover, the\nnext day being hallowed as a Sabbath, nothing could have been\nbought.\u201d--(_Alford._) But Tholuck has shown that according to\nRabbinical rules a purchase could be made on the Sabbath by leaving a\npledge and afterwards settling the account. The feast lasted for the\nweek; therefore the disciples may well have supposed that a purchase\nfor a later period of the feast was contemplated. And the fact that\nChrist hastened Judas would have been better understood if the\nfollowing day was the Sabbath, when the shops would be shut.--=Or that\nhe should give something to the poor.= Evidently this little band\ncarried out the precepts of Christian love which their Master\ninculcated. Small as was their store, it is clear that out of it they\nwere accustomed to bestow alms on the more needy.--=Went out\nimmediately.= There was then, clearly, no opportunity for the\ninstitution of the Lord\u2019s Supper during his presence, unless it was\ninstituted either before the feet-washing, which the order of the\nnarrative and its probable connection with the contest about places\ndescribed in Luke, makes exceedingly improbable, or between verses 20\nand 21, which seems from the connection to be also very improbable. I\nbelieve it is to be regarded as occurring between the departure of\nJudas and the beginning of Christ\u2019s discourse in ch. 14. Matthew and\nMark both put it immediately after the prophecy of the betrayal; Luke\nbefore.--=And it was night.= A graphic addition to the picture;\nsignificant of the fact that the narration is that of an eye-witness\nin whose memory every detail was indelibly impressed; and suggestive\nof the darkness of the deed about to be consummated, and of the\ntraitor\u2019s heart. It is always night when a deed of determined sin is\nentered upon. \u201cThe night which this miserable wretch has in his heart\nis, without comparison, blacker and darker than that which he chooses\nfor his work of darkness.\u201d--(_Quesnel._)\n\n\n 31 Therefore when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now[536] is\n the Son of man glorified, and God[537] is glorified in him.\n\n [536] ch. 12:23; 17:1-6.\n\n [537] ch. 14:13; 1 Pet. 4:11.\n\n\n 32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him\n in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.\n\n=31, 32. When he was gone out Jesus said.= The departure of Judas is a\nrelief. Now for the first time Christ can speak freely, unoppressed by\nthe presence of a traitor and a hypocrite.--=Now has the Son of man\nbeen glorified, and God has been glorified in him= (\u1f72\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, aorist).\n=If God has been glorified in him, God also shall glorify him in\nhimself, and shall straightway glorify him.= The significance of this\nutterance has been, it seems to me, misapprehended by the\ncommentators, from a failure to consider the mental attitude and\nexpectation of the disciples. The phrase _Son of man_ was a common\nJewish designation of the Messiah, borrowed from Daniel, and would\nhave been so understood by the disciples (Matt. 10:23, note). They had\ncome up to Jerusalem anticipating the coronation of the Messiah as\nKing of the Jews. They had entered Jerusalem in triumph, hailing him\nas such (Matt. 21:1-11). Two of the disciples on the way had come to\nhim privately for the best offices (Matt. 20:20, 21). The twelve even\nhad quarreled for pre-eminence as they were sitting down at the table\n(Luke 22:24). The immediate object of Christ in the discourse which\nfollows is to prepare them for the terrible revulsion of feeling, the\nshock of disappointment and despair which the morrow had in store for\nthem. He begins, therefore, with the declaration that the glory of the\nMessiah is an already accomplished fact. He has been glorified; by his\nincarnation, his life of loving self-sacrifice, his patience, courage,\nfidelity, love; and in his life and character, God has been glorified.\nThe disciples have beheld already the glory of the only begotten of\nthe Father, full of grace and truth (ch. 1:14). Then he adds a\nprophecy of further glory; not that of the death; not that of the\nresurrection; not that of the ascension; but that of being again one\nwith the Father.--The Father shall glorify him, _in himself_. He\nforesees and foretells the answer to be given to the prayer \u201cGlorify\nthou me, _with thine own self_, with the glory which I had with thee\nbefore the world was\u201d (ch. 17:5). And for this there is to be no\nwaiting; no delay for an earthly coronation. There must be a long\ninterval of redeeming work before he can see of the travail of his\nsoul and be satisfied; before every knee will bow and every tongue\nconfess him Lord; before he can reign King of kings and Lord of lords;\nbut for this the Father will not wait. Immediately that his work of\nsuffering and self-sacrifice is over, he will return to the bosom of\nthe Father, to share with him the glory which he had from the\nfoundation of the world.\n\n\n 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye\n shall seek me: and[538] as I said unto the Jews, Whither I\n go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.\n\n [538] chaps. 7:34; 8:21.\n\n\n 34 A new[539] commandment I give unto you, That ye love one\n another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.\n\n [539] ch. 15:12, 17; Lev. 19:18; Ephes. 5:2; 1 Thess.\n 4:9; Jas. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 2:7, 8; 3:11,\n 23; 4:20, 21.\n\n\n 35 By this shall all _men_ know that ye are my disciples,\n if ye have love one to another.\n\n=33-35. Little children.= The only place where this phrase is used by\nChrist in addressing his disciples. But we find it more frequently in\nthe Epistles of Paul (1 Cor. 4:14, 17; 2 Cor. 6:13; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim.\n2:1). It \u201caffectingly expresses his, not only brotherly, but fatherly\nlove (Isa. 9:6) for his own, and at the same time their immature and\nweak state, now about to be left without him.\u201d--(_Alford._)--=And as I\nsaid to the Jews= (ch. 8:21), =Whither I go ye cannot come, so now I\nsay to you.= But though they could not go to him, he would come to\nthem, and abide with them (ch. 14:18, 23). The longing to depart and\nbe with Christ is to be gratified only by our having Christ with us,\nuntil the time of final departure comes. It is one thing to desire him\nhere, willing to fill up the measure of his suffering in our own life,\nif he is in us and with us (2 Cor. 12:10); it is another and very\ndifferent thing to desire to depart and be with him that we may\nescape the suffering. The first is a Christian longing; not so the\nsecond.--=A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;\nas I have loved you, that ye also love one another.= The commandment\nto love is not new (Lev. 19:18). But Christ\u2019s life gives to it a new\ninterpretation and makes it new. Love has, ever since the life and\ndeath of Christ, taken on a new signification. To forgive is now to\nbless those that curse us, and do good to those that despitefully use\nus. The language here is parallel to and interpreted by ch. 17:18, \u201cAs\nthou (Father) hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent\nthem into the world.\u201d It is the interpretation of the direction,\n\u201cFollow me.\u201d We are to be followers of his spirit, especially of his\nlove. This general definition includes other special definitions that\nhave been given, _e. g._, it is new because with it there comes a new\nmotive power, the love of Christ experienced in the heart, which\nbecomes in turn the fountain of love to all others (_Meyer_); a\nrenewed commandment, rejuvenated, cleansed of the overlay of\nceremonialism which Pharisaism had put upon it (_Calvin_); new to the\ndisciples, unexpected by them, who were looking for a new disclosure\nof divine glory in a very different direction (_Semler_ quoted\nin _Meyer_); new because love is ever new, never can grow old\n(_Olshausen_); new because the law of the new covenant, the\nfirstfruits of the Spirit in the new dispensation (Gal. 5:22). It is\nnotable how this one law of love runs through and colors all this last\nsacred discourse of Jesus. Comp. ch. 14:15, 24; 15:9, 10, 17. The last\nwords of Jesus are words full of the comfort and inspiration and\nexaltation of love.--=By this shall all men know that ye are my\ndisciples.= Not by professions, or creeds, or ceremonials, or\nreligious services, but by love one towards another. Love is the\nChristian water-mark, the Christian uniform. The banner over Christ\u2019s\nchurch is love (Sol. Song 2:4).\n\n\n 36 Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou?\n Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me\n now; but[540] thou shalt follow me afterwards.\n\n [540] ch. 21:18; 2 Pet. 1:14.\n\n\n 37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now?\n I will[541] lay down my life for thy sake.\n\n [541] Matt. 26:33, etc.; Mark 14:29, etc.; Luke 22:33,\n etc.\n\n\n 38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my\n sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not\n crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.\n\n=36-38. Prophecy of Peter\u2019s denial.= This is probably identical with\nthe prophecy of Luke 22:31-38, see notes there; but distinct from that\nof Matt. 26:31-35; Mark 14:27-31. =Thou canst not follow me now.=\nBecause it was not the divine will that the apostles should share in\ntheir Master\u2019s death.--=But thou shalt follow me afterwards.= Peter,\naccording to tradition, was crucified; thus he followed Christ in\ndeath, and through death into glory. Comp. John 21:18.--=The cock\nshall not crow.= The second crowing at dawn is intended. See Matt.\n26:34, note.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n\n\nCh. 14:1-31. THE HEART OF CHRISTIANITY--THE DIVINE IMMANENCE.--THE\nPROMISE OF THE COMFORTER: INVISIBLE, INDWELLING, ABIDING.--THE\nCONDITION OF THE PROMISE: THE OBEDIENCE OF LOVE.--THE RESULT: A\nFRUITFUL, SPIRITUAL LIFE, COMFORT, INSTRUCTION, PEACE, JOY, LOVE.\n\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--The 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th chapters of John are\nthe Holy of Holies of the Bible. Christ is about to depart from his\ndisciples; the cloud of the coming trouble casts its shadow on their\nhearts; he sees clearly, they feel vaguely the impending tragedy. They\nare to behold their Master spit upon, abused, execrated; they are to\nsee him suffering the tortures of a lingering death upon the cross;\nthey are to be utterly unable to interfere for his succor or even for\nhis relief; they are to see all the hopes which they had built on him\nextinguished in his death. It is that he may prepare them for this\nexperience, that he may prepare his disciples throughout all time (ch.\n17:20) for similar experiences of world-sorrow (ch. 16:33), and that\nhe may point out to them and to the church universal the source of\ntheir hope, their peace, their joy, and their life--moral and\nspiritual--that he speaks to the twelve, and through them to his\ndiscipleship in all ages, in these chapters, and finally offers for\nthem and for us that prayer which we may well accept as the disclosure\nof his eternal intercession for his followers. The discourse is\nsympathetic, not philosophical or critical; it is addressed to\nsympathetic friends, not to a cold or critical audience; and it is to\nbe interpreted rather by the sympathies and the spiritual experience\nthan by a philosophical analysis. It sets forth the source of all\ncomfort, strength, guidance and spiritual well-being in the truth of\nthe direct personal presence of a seemingly absent but really present,\na seemingly slain but really living, a seemingly defeated but really\nvictorious Lord and Master. This truth appears and reappears in\nvarious forms in these chapters, like the theme in a sublime symphony.\nNow it is plainly stated, \u201cI will come to you\u201d (ch. 14:18); now it\nis interpreted by a metaphor, \u201cYe are the vine, I am the branches\u201d\n(ch. 15:5); now it is a promise of the Spirit\u2019s presence, now of\nChrist\u2019s, now of the Father\u2019s (ch. 14:16, 18, 21, 23); now the\ndisciples are bid to turn their thoughts toward this spiritual\npresence, this Divine Immanence, for their own sake (ch. 16:7), now\nthey are appealed to by the love they bear the Master (ch. 14:28). The\nconditions of this personal experience of the unseen spiritual\npresence of their God and Saviour is declared to be obedience in the\ndaily life to the law of love (ch. 14:21, 23; 15:10); the result is\ndeclared to be a constant growth in the knowledge of divine truth (ch.\n14:26; 16:12, 13); a sacred peace and joy (ch. 14:27; 15:11); a\nsupernatural strength in sorrow (16:20-22). These truths are not\nlogically arranged; the structure of the discourse is not that of a\nsermon, but that of a confidential conversation, in which in different\nforms the same essential truth is repeated and re-repeated, because\nthe heart is so full that a single utterance does not suffice, and the\ntruth is so transcendent that no logical statement is adequate. After\nthe conversation is closed and the disciples rise to depart, Christ\nrecurs to the theme in a new form, and continues the discourse, while\nthe disciples wait standing for a new signal to go out (ch. 14:31; ch.\n15, Prel. Note); and, finally, when for a second time he draws his\ndiscourse to a close, he re-embodies the same consolatory and\ninspiring truth in a prayer, breathing the aspiration that the reward\nand secret and source of his own power may be given to his disciples,\nsent into the world to complete the mission which he has but\ninaugurated (ch. 17:18). Thus these chapters of John contain a\ndisclosure of the very heart of Christianity, the personal knowledge\nof a living God by direct communion with him, as a teacher, a\ncomforter, an inspirer, the one and only true source of faith, hope,\nlove. The commentator must point out the connection of the verses and\nthe meaning of the words; his work must be in a measure critical and\ncold; but only the devout heart, which knows by experience that love\nof Christ which passes the knowledge of the intellect, can interpret\nthe spiritual meaning of the truth, since the condition of\nunderstanding it is not a critical knowledge of words or an\nintellectual apprehension of theology, but a love for Christ that\nkeeps Christ\u2019s words, that recognizes Christ\u2019s mission to be also the\nmission of the Christian, and that abides in Christ in the spirit\nthat it may follow Christ in the life. Without this spirit the student\nin vain addresses himself to the study of this \u201cwisdom of God in a\nmystery,\u201d hidden except to the soul to whom God hath revealed it by\nhis Spirit (1 Cor. 2:7-10).\n\n\n 1 Let[542] not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God,\n believe[543] also in me.\n\n [542] verse 27; Isa. 43:1, 2; 2 Thess. 2:2.\n\n [543] Isa. 12:2, 3; Ephes. 1:12, 13; 1 Pet. 1:21.\n\n\n 2 In my Father\u2019s house are many mansions: if _it were_ not\n _so_, I would have told you. I go[544] to prepare a place\n for you.\n\n [544] Heb. 6:20; 9:8, 24; Rev. 21:2.\n\n\n 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will[545] come\n again, and receive you unto myself: that[546] where I am,\n _there_ ye may be also.\n\n [545] Heb. 9:28.\n\n [546] ch. 12:26; 17:24; 1 Thess. 4:17.\n\n=1-3. Let not your heart be troubled.= In this hour of unparalleled\nsorrow, with Gethsemane, the betrayal, the denial, the mock trials and\nthe crucifixion full in view, Christ thinks not of himself, but of his\ndisciples. He does not seek comfort, but imparts it. We may well\nimagine a momentary silence after the prophecy of the preceding\nverses. The disappointment of the Judaic expectation of temporal and\npolitical deliverance, the prophecy of treason, the sudden and\nunexpected departure of Judas, the prophecy of Peter\u2019s denial, and of\nthe abandonment of their Lord by the other disciples, have all tended\nto sober and sadden them.--=Ye have faith in God, have faith also in\nme.= The forms of the indicative and the imperative are the same\n(\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5). Some critics read both verbs indicative, _Ye have faith\nin God, ye have faith also in me_; some both imperative; treating both\nas an exhortation, _Have faith in God; have faith also in me_; and\nsome, as our English version, which makes the statement of the first\nclause the ground of the exhortation of the second clause, _Ye have\nfaith in God, have faith also in me_. Either rendering is\ngrammatically legitimate; the latter seems to me preferable. As Jews\nthey had faith in the one only true and living God; a faith which, in\nthe experience of patriarchs and prophets, trial and trouble had not\nbeen able to shake (Hab. 3:17, 18). Christ urges them to a like faith\nin him, a faith strong enough to survive the brief though terrible\nseparation of death. Theism is the foundation of Christianity; faith\nin one only living and true God precedes and prepares the way for\nfaith in Christ his Son, the living and true way to the Father. To\nbelieve in him is not to believe anything about him, nor merely to\ntrust in him, but to have such a spiritual apprehension of his\ncharacter, that when he is crucified the disciples shall not lose\ntheir confidence in him as the Messiah. He warns them against that\ndoubt which augmented and intensified their distress when they saw him\nwhom they had trusted should have redeemed Israel put to an open shame\nand a cruel death (Luke 24:21). They were trusting in themselves.\nPeter\u2019s declaration, \u201cI will lay down my life for thy sake,\u201d\nexpressed the common confidence of all (Mark 14:31). Christ first\ndemolished this false confidence, then seeks to build up a new and\nbetter confidence in himself.--=In my Father\u2019s house are many\ndwelling-places.= The phrase \u201cmy Father\u2019s house\u201d is generally regarded\nas a circumlocution for heaven; Christ\u2019s declaration as tantamount to\nthe general statement that in heaven there is room enough for them all\n(_Alford_, _Meyer_, etc.); and in support of this view such O. T.\npassages as Ps. 23:13, 14; Isaiah 63:15, are quoted, which refer to\nthe heavens as God\u2019s habitation. I would rather regard the universe as\nGod\u2019s house according to the spirit of Isaiah 66:1, \u201cHeaven is my\nthrone, and earth is my footstool,\u201d and the declaration that in it are\nmany dwelling-places, as a new light thrown upon the abode of the dead\nwho die in Christ Jesus. The ancients regarded Hades, or the abode of\nthe dead, a deep and dark abode in the under-world, fastened with\ngates and bars, a ghostly abode, a prison-house of the disembodied\n(Job 10:21, 22; 11:8; Ps. 88:6; 89:48; Eccles. 9:4; Isa. 5:14;\n14:9-20, 38:10; Ezek. 31:17; 32:21). The O. T. thought of death and\nthe abode of the dead was hardly more hopeful than that of the ancient\nGreeks and Romans. Homer makes the dead Achilles declare:\n\n \u201cI would be\n A laborer on earth and serve for hire\n Some man of mean estate, who makes scant cheer,\n Rather than reign over all who have gone down\n To death.\u201d\n\nParallel to this, in some respects more gloomy, were the ancient\nHebrews\u2019 thoughts of Hades. Dying was bidding farewell to God. \u201cWilt\nthou show wonders to the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise thee?\n* * * Shall thy righteousness be known in the land of forgetfulness?\u201d\n(Ps. 88:10-12). \u201cIn death there is no remembrance of thee\u201d (Ps. 6:5).\nComp. Isaiah, ch. 38, and Job, ch. 14. The hope of better things is\nbut an occasional gleam in a night of great darkness and almost\ndespair. See Job 10:21, 22; Ps. 89:45-49; Eccles. 9:4; Isaiah 5:14,\n15; 14:9-20; Ezek. 31:16, 17; and especially Isaiah, ch. 38, and Job,\nch. 14. In contrast with this gloomy view of death is that of the N.\nT., the germ of which is afforded by Christ\u2019s declaration here, which\nmay be paraphrased thus: \u201cThe earth is not the only abode of God\u2019s\nchildren; in my Father\u2019s house (the universe) are many dwelling-places\nfor them; and I, in leaving you, am not going to the dark abode of the\nvoiceless dead, but to prepare for you a place, and to return again to\ntake you to myself, that you may witness and share the glory which I\nhave with the Father.\u201d Out of this declaration grows, as a fruitful\ntree out of a seed, the whole of the discourse contained in this and\nthe two following chapters. Out of it grows, too, the Christian\u2019s\nconception of and experience in death. See for example 2 Cor. 5:1-4.\nIt should be added that the word _house_ (\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1) is never used in the\nN. T. as a designation of heaven, but with the analogous word (\u03bf\u1f37\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2)\n_household_, is used of the world (John 8:35), the temple (John 2:16),\nand the whole kingdom of God (Heb. 3:2-6); so that N. T. usage\nconfirms the interpretation here given. The word rendered _mansions_\n(\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae) occurs nowhere else in the N. T., but is derived from a verb\n(\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9) signifying to _abide_, and here unquestionably indicates not a\n_mansion_, but simply a permanent dwelling-place. This was indeed the\noriginal meaning of the English word mansion (Fr. _maison_).--=If not,\nwould I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?= The\nreference is to some previous statement not preserved in our Gospels.\nThe argument is this: I could not have assured you, as I have done,\nthat I am going to prepare a place for you, if the place of the dead\nwere the dark abode which you have imagined it to be. This, which is\nthe interpretation of the French translation, seems to me,\nnotwithstanding the objection of the modern writers (_Meyer_, _Godet_,\n_Tholuck_, etc.), better than the construction of our English version,\nthough either is grammatically admissible. If we take the other\nconstruction, the connection is as Godet gives it: \u201cIf our separation\nwas to be an eternal one, I would have forewarned you; I would not\nhave waited for this last moment to declare it unto you.\u201d--=And if I\ngo and prepare a place for you.= The implication of this entire\npassage is not merely \u201cheaven large enough for all,\u201d but a heaven with\nvarious provisions for various natures. In the Father\u2019s house is not\nmerely a large mansion, but _many_ mansions; and there is prepared a\nplace not merely for all but for _you_, a personal preparation in\nglory _for_ each child as by grace _in_ each child; a room, a house\nfor each nature adapted to its needs. But how does Christ _prepare_ a\nplace for us? To that question revelation makes no answer. We can only\nsay that redemption did not end with Christ\u2019s death, that he is still\ncarrying on his work of redeeming love for us as well as in us. In\nevery death of a friend he lays up treasure in heaven for us; those\nthat have gone before and entered into their rest, and await our\ncoming, are a part of this divine preparation. The sorrow here is a\npart of the preparation of unmeasured joy hereafter.--=I will come\nagain and receive you unto myself.= In order to understand this, we\nmust bear in mind what Stier well calls the perspective of prophecy.\n\u201cThe coming again of the Lord is not one single act--as his\nresurrection, or the descent of the Spirit, or his second personal\nadvent, or the final coming in judgment--but the combination of all\nthese, the result of which shall be his taking his people to himself\nto be where he is. This coming is begun (ver. 18) in his resurrection;\ncarried on (ver. 23) in the spiritual life (see also ch. 16:22, etc.),\nthe making them ready for the place prepared; further advanced\nwhen each by death is fetched away to be with him (Phil. 1:23);\nfully completed at His coming in glory when they shall be\nforever with Him (1 Thess. 4:17) in the perfected resurrection\nstate.\u201d--(_Alford._)--=That.= _In order that_ (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1). The going,\nthe preparing, the returning are all for the sake of them, his\ndisciples.--=Where I am there ye may be also.= Death is no longer\n\u201cfarewell to God;\u201d it is going home to be forever with the Lord (ch.\n17:24; Phil. 1:23; 1 Thess. 4:17).\n\n\n 4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.\n\n\n 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou\n goest; and how can we know the way?\n\n=4, 5. And whither I go= (ye know and) =the way ye know=. There is\nsome doubt as to the reading; most critics (_Meyer_, _Alford_,\n_Tischendorf_, _Lachmann_) either omit or doubt the words I put in\nbrackets. But their omission obscures without changing the sense; the\nmeaning is undoubtedly that conveyed by our Received Version. While in\nform a statement, it is in fact an inquiry; its object is to provoke\nquestioning, as it does from Thomas. Whither he goes is to the Father\n(ch. 20:17); the way he goes is the way of death and resurrection,\nalready foretold them (Matt. 16:21; 17:22, 23; 20:17-19).--=Thomas\nsaith unto him, We know not=, etc. On the character of Thomas, see ch.\n20:26. The few indications of his character afforded by the Gospels\n(John 11:16; 20:24-29) show him to have possessed an affectionate but\nunimaginative nature, desiring much, hoping little, and easily given\nto despair. Such a nature takes nothing for granted; it wants every\nstatement explained, nothing left to the imagination, nothing to the\ninterpretation of the future. \u201cThe heavenly _whither_, however\ndistinctly Jesus had already designated it, Thomas did not yet know\nclearly how to combine with his circle of Messianic ideas; but he\ndesired to arrive at clearness.\u201d--(_Meyer._)\n\n\n 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the[547] way, and the\n truth,[548] and the life:[549] no[550] man cometh unto the\n Father, but by me.\n\n [547] ch. 10:9; Isa. 35:8, 9; Heb. 10:19, 20.\n\n [548] ch. 1:17; 15:1.\n\n [549] ch. 1:4; 11:25.\n\n [550] Acts 4:12.\n\n\n 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:\n and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.\n\n=6, 7. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.=\nThis is not directly responsive to the implied question of Thomas.\nThat is theoretical; this is practical. The disciples desire to\nunderstand the way by which Christ is to depart, and the place to\nwhich he is going; Christ\u2019s answer points out the way in and by which\nthe disciple can follow his Lord and be with him where he is. There is\nhere, therefore, not merely a play upon the word \u201cway,\u201d though\nChrist uses it in one sense in ver. 4 and in a different sense in ver.\n6; but the same word is used to turn the thoughts of the inquirer from\na purely theoretical question about Christ to a practical truth\nconcerning himself. It was always the habit of Christ to answer\nquestions in theoretical theology by directions helpful to the\nspiritual life (see ver. 22-24; ch. 3:4-6; 4:19-24). The phrase, _I am\nthe way, the truth, and the life_, may be interpreted, according to\nLightfoot, as a Hebraism equivalent to the true and living way; but it\nis better to take the two latter phrases as explanations of the\nformer. Christ is the way unto the Father, not because he points out\nthe way, but because he is the truth concerning the Father, and\npossesses in himself the divine life, and has power to impart it to\nus. He does not merely reveal the truth; he _is_ the truth; the truth\nincarnated in a living form; the truth of God, whom he manifests to\nthe world (Matt. 11:27; John 1:1, 2, 14; 10:30; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9;\nHeb. 1:13), and the truth of life, which he illustrates more forcibly\nby his example than by his words, so that all his precepts are summed\nup in the one command, \u201cFollow me.\u201d He is the life, having life in\nhimself (ch. 5:26), imparting it to others (ch. 10:10), and so giving\nthem power to become sons of God (ch. 1:12) by the possession of that\ndivine life without which no man can ever see God (ch. 3:3; Heb.\n12:14). To come to the Father by Christ as the way is not, then,\nmerely to accept him as an inspired teacher respecting the Father, nor\nmerely as an atoning sacrifice, whose blood cleanses away the sins\nwhich intervene between the soul and the Father (Heb. 10:20); it is to\nbe conformed to him as to the truth, and to be made partaker of his\nlife (Phil. 3:8-14).--=No one cometh to the Father but by me.= He now\nsays \u201cto the Father,\u201d not to the Father\u2019s house, because, as Godet\nwell says, \u201cIt is not in heaven that we are to find God, but in God\nthat we are to find heaven.\u201d By _me_ is equivalent to, by me as the\nway, the truth, and the life. This does not necessarily require a\nknowledge of, still less a correct theological opinion concerning\nChrist. The conception of God\u2019s character may be really derived from\nChrist\u2019s teaching, the life may be conformed to Christ\u2019s example, and\nthe soul may be partaker of his spirit, and yet the individual may be\nunconscious of the source from which he has derived his knowledge of\nGod, his ideal of life, and his inspiration. This declaration is\ninclusive rather than exclusive; it is equivalent to that of ch. 1:9\n(see note there), \u201cThat was the true Light which lighteth every man\nthat cometh into the world.\u201d All spiritual life comes through Christ,\nbut not necessarily through a clear and correct knowledge about\nChrist.--=If ye had known me ye should have known my Father also.=\nComp. ch. 8:19. The practical lesson for us clearly is that the way to\ncome to a true spiritual knowledge of the Father is by a study of the\nlife and character of Christ, and above all by a sympathetic and\npersonal spiritual acquaintance with him. His disciples had not known\nChrist. They had up to this time believed in him as a temporal\nMessiah. Of a Messiah crucified, the power of God and the wisdom of\nGod unto salvation to Gentile as well as Jew (1 Cor. 1:24), they had\nknown nothing, and hence of God as their Father and their Friend they\nknew nothing.--=From henceforth ye have known him and have seen him.=\nFrom this time. He refers to what he has already disclosed of the\ndivine nature, in the washing of the disciples\u2019 feet, in the prophecy\nof his own betrayal and death, and in what he is about to tell them of\nthe spiritual presence of himself and the Father, through the Holy\nSpirit, in their hearts. From the time of this disclosure it will\nindeed be their own fault if they fail to comprehend, at least in some\nmeasure, \u201cthe breadth and length and depth and height, and to know the\nlove of Christ (and so the love of the Father revealed in and through\nChrist), which passeth knowledge\u201d (Ephes 3:18, 19).\n\n\n 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father and it\n sufficeth us.\n\n\n 9 Jesus saith unto him. Have I been so long time with you,\n and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he[551] that hath\n seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou _then_,\n Shew us the Father?\n\n [551] Col. 1:15.\n\n=8, 9. Philip saith unto him, Shew us the Father and it sufficeth us.=\nOn Philip\u2019s life and character, see Vol. I, p. 149. Compare the\nrequest of Moses (Exod. 33:18). Philip has in mind the O. T.\nappearances of God; he wants such a manifestation of the Deity, _a\nseeing_ of God. \u201cOne such sight of God would set at rest all these\nfears, and give him perfect confidence.\u201d--(_Alford._) He wants to walk\nby sight, and not by faith. He expresses the universal longing of\nhumanity for a vision of the unknown. This request furnishes the text\non which the following discourse is founded. Christ replies that the\nunknown Father is manifested to the world in his Son (ver. 9-11), and\nin the spiritual life, the inward experience, of those that love him\nand keep his commandments (ver. 15-21); he points out the way to\nsecure this inward experience, namely, by loving the Son and keeping\nhis commandments (ver. 22-26); he declares that this indwelling of the\nFather in the soul of the believer brings abundant peace (ver.\n27-31); it is more than a vision, it is an abiding, by which the life\nof God flows into the soul of man, making it partaker of the divine\nnature and fruitful in works of divine love (ch. 15:1-8); this love,\npatterned after and imbibed from Christ, extends to the world that\nhates both the Lord and his disciples (ch. 15:9-27); this love, born\nand kept alive by the indwelling of the unseen Father, is the\nilluminator, the instructor, and the inspirer of him who possesses it,\nand gives him assurance of the divine love and intimacy of spiritual\ncommunion with the divine Being (ch. 16). See, further, Prel. Note.\nThere is a real connection in this discourse, though not that of an\noration; the unity is spiritual rather than intellectual; but it all\ncircles about a single central truth, the provision which divine love\nhas made for satisfying the soul-hunger for a vision of the unseen and\ninvisible God. In a sense Philip is right, though the _sight_, if the\nsight of a spirit was possible, would not satisfy; but we see God only\nas we become like him, and we shall be satisfied when we awake in his\nlikeness and so see him as he is (Ps. 17:15; 1 John 1:2).--=Have I\nbeen so much time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?=\nNot merely the length of time is indicated; it had been but about\nthree years, probably a little less; but during that three years he\nhad been constantly with his disciples; they had eaten, slept,\njourneyed, lived together; the companionship was most intimate, the\nopportunity for familiar acquaintance perfect.--=He that hath seen me\nhath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?=\nThere is a physical and there is a spiritual sight. The disciples had\nknown Jesus after the flesh; but Christ according to the spirit they\ndid not know till after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.\nTo admire the Son of man is one thing; to receive the Spirit of God\nmanifested in and through him is quite different. He that has a\nspiritual discernment of Christ will recognize the spiritual character\nof the unknown Father, the truth, mercy, love of God, shining in and\nthrough the Son. There is and can be no physical vision of God; he is\na spirit, and is to be spiritually known, to be worshipped in spirit\nas well as in truth (ch. 4:24). The language of Christ here, and\nindeed throughout this whole discourse, is utterly inconsistent with\nthe conception of him as a mere human or superhuman _ambassador_ of\nGod. He represents not merely the divine government, but the divine\nBeing. The Father is so in him that whoever looks within the\ntabernacle beholds the glory as of the only begotten of the Father\n(ch. 1:14). He is the manifestation in the flesh, not of the divine\ngovernment, but of God (1 Tim. 3:16). It is impossible to refer this\nanswer to the mere union in sympathy and purpose of Jesus with God.\n\u201cNo Christian, even if perfected, could say, \u2018He that has seen me has\nseen Christ.\u2019 How much less, then, could a Jew, though perfect, have\nsaid, \u2018He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.\u2019\u201d--(_Godet._)\n\n\n 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the\n Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not\n of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the\n works.\n\n\n 11 Believe me that I _am_ in the Father, and the Father in\n me: or else believe me for the very works\u2019 sake.\n\n=10, 11. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in\nme?= God is in everything which he has made; the All and in All (Jer.\n23:24; 1 Cor. 15:28). We also are intended to be temples in which he\nis to dwell (Ps. 91:1; Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:14). But sin,\nwhich has been admitted to dwell in us (Rom. 7:17), has driven out the\nSpirit of God, so that the temple is destroyed by defilement (1 Cor.\n3:17, marg.); it ceases to be the temple of God. He dwells no longer\nin it. In Christ Jesus there was no sin; in Christ Jesus, therefore,\ndwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9); and it is by\nunion with him, and a new life received in and by and from him, that\nthe fullness of the divine indwelling is to be at length restored to\nall that are his (ch. 17:21-23; Ephes. 3:17).--=The words that I speak\nto you I speak not of myself.= _From myself_ (\u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6). _From_\nsignifies the fountain or source; the source of Christ\u2019s authority is\nnot in himself, but in the Father, who dwells in and speaks through\nhim. See ch. 5:19, note.--=But the Father, he who abides in me, he\ndoeth the works.= Some read, _doeth his own works_. So Tischendorf and\nMeyer. The Received reading is preferable, but the meaning is much the\nsame. Whether we read, He that dwelleth in me doeth his own works\n(\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6), or, He that dwelleth in me, he it is who doeth\nthe works (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1), the emphasis is equally put upon the\nFather as the One who, abiding in the Son, does all things through\nhim. The _works_ are here, not merely the miracles, but the whole\nrange of beneficent action of the Son, including certainly the\nmiracles, but those only as a part of the whole service of love. This\nword _work_ (\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd) is rarely, I think never, used in the N. T. as\nequivalent to _miracle_ (\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd).--=Have faith in me, that I am in\nthe Father.= Beware of understanding this as equivalent to, Believe\nme, on my mere personal assurance; this is apparently the\ninterpretation of our English version, and is sustained by even so\neminent an authority as Meyer. It is grammatically possible; but it\nneither accords with Jesus\u2019 use of the word _believe_ (\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9), which\nhe habitually uses to signify a spiritual apprehension, not merely an\nintellectual opinion; nor with the spirit of this discourse, which,\nbeginning with ver. 1, is throughout addressed, not to the formation\nof correct opinions, but to the building up of a right spiritual\napprehension of Christ, and through him of the eternal Father. The\nmeaning is, _Have faith in me that I am in the Father, and the Father\nin me_; _i. e._, Look beneath the surface, the flesh; behold in the\ninward grace, manifesting itself in the outward speech and action, the\nlineaments of the divine character; so have faith in me as one in whom\nthe Father dwells, and through whom the Father is made manifest. But\nif this spiritual sense is lacking, then--=Through= (_by reason of_,\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac) =the works themselves believe=. \u039c\u03bf\u03b9 is omitted by Godet, Meyer,\nLachmann, and Tischendorf, on the authority of the Sinaitic,\nCambridge, and Vatican manuscripts. Christ places his own character in\nthe front rank, as the principal evidence of the divine origin and\nauthority of Christianity. He is his own best witness. But, for those\nwho cannot discern the divinity of his life and character, he appeals\nto the works wrought by him and by the religion of which he is the\nfounder, and which was more powerful after his death than during his\nlife. The evidence from the miracles, and from the whole miraculous\nhistory of Christianity, is secondary to the evidence from the\ncharacter and person of Christ himself.\n\n\n 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He[552] that believeth on\n me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater\n _works_ than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.\n\n [552] Matt. 21:21.\n\n=12. Verily, verily, I say unto you, * * * greater works than these\nshall he do; because I go to my Father.= If by _works_ was\nmeant merely miracles, this declaration would be difficult of\ninterpretation; for none of Christ\u2019s disciples have ever wrought\ngreater miracles than the Master, nor is it easy to conceive of a\ngreater miracle than the resurrection of the dead. But if by _works_\nwas meant Christ\u2019s whole life of beneficent activity, then this\npromise has been abundantly fulfilled. For Christ worked in a very\nnarrow sphere, both of time and place; for three years, in a province\nno larger than the State of Vermont. More souls were converted at\nPeter\u2019s preaching on the day of Pentecost than during the whole of\nChrist\u2019s personal ministry. At Christ\u2019s death the whole number of\nChristian converts does not seem to have exceeded five hundred, and\nChristianity was utterly unknown outside of Palestine. At John\nWesley\u2019s death Methodism had spread over Great Britain, the Continent\nof Europe, the United States, and the West Indies, and its communion\nembraced over eighty thousand members. Whitefield, Wesley, Spurgeon,\nMoody preached during their lives to immensely greater numbers than\nChrist ever personally taught; and probably many Christian physicians\nhave healed more sick than Christ ever healed. Thus in _extent_ the\ndisciples have already done greater works than their Master. And this\nfor the reason here assigned, namely, because he has gone to the\nFather; and because of that going the Comforter has come to bless the\nlabors of the disciples with a wider and more powerful divine\ninfluence than could, in the nature of the case, proceed from God\nincarnate in a single human life (ch. 16:7). But we have no right to\nsay that this promise does not await even further fulfillment. When\nthe fullness of time shall have come, and God dwells in all his\nchildren in the fullness foreseen in ch. 17:21, there may be in them a\npower over nature of which modern science gives possibly a\nforeshadowing, and which will be, in its effects, much greater than\nthat which Christ exercised over it, because they that exercise it\nwill have the whole earth as their inheritance. Only thus can I\nunderstand such promises as that here and in Mark 11:23, etc.\n\n\n 13 And[553] whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I\n do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.\n\n [553] 1 John 5:14.\n\n\n 14 If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do _it_.\n\n=13, 14. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do.= For\nanalogous promises of answers to prayer, see Exod. 22:27; Deut. 4:29;\nPs. 34:15; 37:4, 5; Jer. 29:12, 13; Joel 2:32; Matt. 7:7, 8; Mark\n11:24; John 15:16; 16:23; James 1:5; 1 John 3:22; 5:14, 15. A\ncomparison of these passages shows clearly that God does not give an\nunconditional promise of affirmative answer to every prayer. This\nwould be to place omnipotence at the command of ignorance and\nselfishness; it would be a curse, not a blessing. The condition here\nis embodied in the words, _In my name_; the promise is only to those\npetitions asked in the name of _Jesus Christ_. To ask in the name of\nChrist is not to introduce his name into the petition, as in the\nfamiliar phrase, For Christ\u2019s sake; nor is it merely to approach the\nFather through the mediatorship of Jesus; this, but much more than\nthis, is included. \u201cIn the name\u201d of any one, as used in the N. T.,\ngenerally, if not always, signifies representing him, standing in his\nstead, fulfilling his purposes, manifesting his will, and imbued with\nand showing forth his life and glory. With John it always has this\nsignification. Thus, \u201cThe works that I do in my Father\u2019s name\u201d (ch.\n10:25) is equivalent to, The works that I do in my Father\u2019s stead, for\nhim and by his power and authority; \u201cBlessed is the King of Israel\nthat cometh in the name of the Lord\u201d (ch. 12:13) is equivalent to,\nThat cometh as the representative and manifestation of the Lord; \u201cThe\nHoly Ghost whom the Father will send in my name\u201d (ch. 14:26) is\nequivalent to, The Holy Ghost who comes to represent me, and teach the\ntruths concerning me, and implant and keep alive my life in the souls\nof my disciples; \u201cI kept them in thy name\u201d is equivalent to, I, as one\nwith thee (ch. 10:29, 30), have kept them within the circle of thine\ninfluence, because within mine own, which is thine. Comp. Acts 3:6;\n4:7; Phil. 2:10; Col. 3:17, and notes. Here, then, the declaration is\nthat whatsoever we ask, speaking for Christ, seeking his will,\nrepresenting him and his interests, and his kingdom, not merely our\nown special and personal interests (Phil. 2:21), will be granted. So\nin Matt. 6:9 (see note there) the Lord makes the petition, \u201cHallowed\nbe thy name,\u201d the portico to every prayer--so teaching us that in\nevery prayer the desire for the glory of God should be supreme. So\nagain in Rom. 8:26 the apostle represents us taught both how and for\nwhat to pray by the Spirit of Christ within us. But every prayer thus\noffered in the name of Christ and with a supreme allegiance to him,\nrepresenting his kingdom and imbued by his spirit, will be in\ncharacter, like his prayer at Gethsemane. It will carry with it the\npetition, \u201cNot my will but thine be done,\u201d and thus, as Meyer says,\n\u201cThe _denial_ of the petition is the _fulfillment_ of the prayer, only\nin another way.\u201d See 2 Cor. 12:8, 9.--=That the Father may be\nglorified in the Son.= When the church is a true representative of\nChrist, filled with his spirit, manifesting his character and life, so\nthat it prays in his name, in his name casts out devils (Luke 10:17),\nand in his name suffers, filling up what is behind of the Lord\u2019s\naffliction (Col. 1:24), and doing all in his stead, as his\nrepresentative, and because imbued with his spirit, then the Father is\nglorified in the Son, because he is glorified in humanity, whom he\nhath redeemed; for then the glorified and redeemed church is the body\nof Christ (Ephes. 1:23), the visible manifestation of his invisible\npresence, his perpetual incarnation.--=If ye shall ask anything in my\nname, I will do it.= The promise is specific; a promise not merely to\nprovide generally for the wants of the disciples, but to hear and\nanswer their specific requests. Comp. Matt. 7:9, 10. Observe, too, the\nlanguage, _I will do it_, and compare the phraseology here with that\nof the analogous promise in ch. 16:23, \u201cWhatsoever ye shall ask the\nFather in my name, _he_ will give it you.\u201d What inspired prophet or\nangelic messenger could make such a promise? \u201cThis _I_ already\nindicates the glory\u201d (_Bengel_), the glory of him who is _one_ with\nthe Father.\n\n\n 15 If[554] ye love me, keep my commandments.\n\n [554] ver. 21, 23; ch. 15:10, 14; 1 John 5:3.\n\n\n 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you\n another Comforter,[555] that he may abide with you for ever;\n\n [555] ch. 15:26.\n\n\n 17 _Even_ the Spirit of truth; whom[556] the world cannot\n receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but\n ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and[557] shall be in\n you.\n\n [556] 1 Cor. 2:14.\n\n [557] Rom. 8:9; 1 John 2:27.\n\n=15-17. If ye love me keep my commandments.= The object of the Gospel\nis the inspiration of love, not mere obedience; but obedience is the\ntest because the manifestation of love. The N. T. recognizes no other\ntest of love to Christ than compliance in the daily life with his\nwill. See for striking illustration of this, ch. 21:15-17.--=And I\nwill pray the Father.= The poverty of the English language has\nprevented our translators from producing in the English Bible the\ndistinction between three Greek verbs, which bear different\nsignifications, but are all indiscriminately translated by the word\n_pray_. These are _to request_ (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9), _to ask_ (\u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c9), and\n_to entreat_ (\u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9). Christ is said in the N. T. _to request_ the\nFather (Matt. 14:23; 26:36; Mark 1:35, etc.), and _to ask_ of the\nFather (ch. 16:26; 17:9; 15:20), but never _to entreat_ the Father.\nHere the second of these words is used. \u201cOur Lord never uses _entreat_\n(_aitein_, _aitesthai_, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd or \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) of Himself in respect of\nthat which he seeks on behalf of his disciples from God; for his is\nnot the _petition_ of the creature to the Creator, but the request of\nthe Son to the Father. The consciousness of his equal dignity, of his\npotent and prevailing intercession, speaks out in this, that as often\nas he asks or declares that he will ask, anything of the Father, it is\nalways _requesting_ or _inquiring_ (_erotas_, _erotaso_, \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c9,\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9), that is, as upon equal terms, never _entreating_ (_aiteo_,\n_aiteso_, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9 or \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9).\u201d--(_Trench._) See further ch. 16:23, 24,\nnote.--=And he shall give you another Paraclete.= The original word,\ninadequately rendered in our English version by the word _Comforter_,\nis simply untranslateable. It is composed of two Greek words (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9), _to call to one\u2019s side_, and signifies one who is called to\naid another. And this etymological signification of the word indicates\nthe office of the Holy Spirit in his relations to us; he is our\npresent help in every time of need, the one with whom we walk, our\nConsoler, our Strength, our Guide, our Peace-giver, our ever present\nGod. The word _Comforter_ must then be taken in its etymological and\nold English sense, as one who gives not mere consolation, but strength\n(_con fortis_). He is here called another Comforter; yet a little\nbelow, Christ seemingly identifies him both with the Father and with\nhimself, in the declaration \u201cI will manifest myself to him (ver. 21),\nand we\u201d (_i. e._, the Father and I,) \u201cwill make our abode with him\u201d\n(ver. 23). In the Comforter Christ himself is ever present with his\nchurch (Matt. 28:20), for the Comforter is one with Christ as both are\none with the Father, so that the presence of one is the presence of\nall (Rom. 8:9, 10; Gal. 2:20; 4:6). We know too little of the interior\nnature of the Deity to be able to draw any clear distinction between\nthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We only know that as God in\nthe Father is manifested to us as providing for us, and in the Son as\nmaking atonement for us, so in the Spirit he is manifested by being\nspiritually ever present with us. The mystery of their diversity in\nunity defies philosophical analysis. But Christ is speaking to the\nexperience, not to the intellect; and to the spiritual experience the\nfather, the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Provider, the Atoning Saviour\nand the Indwelling Spirit, God in nature, in the flesh, and in our own\nsouls, are one.--=That he may abide with you forever.= In contrast\nwith the Son, who came but for a time, and because he was God\n_manifest in the flesh_, could abide only with a few and only for a\nlimited period. To long for the laws of the O. T., or even for the\nvisible presence of the limited and earthly manifestation of God\nafforded by the N. T., is to desire to go back from the broader,\ndeeper, fuller manifestation, to one narrower and more limited. To be\ngoverned by precedents or rules of the past is to ignore the\nperpetually abiding presence of the Comforter, the promised guide into\nall truth. Of his office Christ speaks more fully in ver. 26 and ch.\n16:7-15.--=The Spirit of Truth.= So called, (1) because it is by\ngiving a spiritual knowledge of the truth that he ministers to those\nthat receive him. The Comforter strengthens, guides, liberates,\nSanctifies by the truth (ch. 8:32; 16:13; 17:17, 19; 1 Cor. 2:4; 1\nThess. 1:5). (2) Because his ministry is perfectly true without any\nadmixture of error. All teaching that is ministered through human\nlanguage, even that of Christ and the apostles, is subject to the\nerrors and the misapprehensions of the human medium through which it\npasses. The instruction of the Spirit, ministered directly to our\nspirits, though still liable to be misapprehended and perverted by us,\nis not subject to error in the interpretation. It is perfect truth;\nall other teaching is truth with alloy, from which we must separate\nit, as best we may.--=Whom the world cannot receive.= To be literally\nunderstood. _Cannot_ is not here equivalent to _will not_. He that is\nof the world, living unto it, making it his end, cannot receive\nspiritual truth or spiritual influences. His mind is blinded by the\ngod of this world (Isa. 6:9, 10; 2 Cor. 4:4). The declaration here is\nanalogous to that of Christ in John 3:3, \u201cExcept a man be born again\nhe cannot _see_ the kingdom of God,\u201d and to that of Paul in 1 Cor.\n2:14, \u201cThe natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God;\nfor they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them; because\nthey are spiritually discerned.\u201d--=Because it seeth him not, neither\nknoweth him.= There is no visible manifestation of the Comforter; he\nis not and cannot be discerned by the senses as Christ could be and\nduring his life was, by the manifestation of his miraculous power; and\nthe unspiritual has no inward consciousness of his presence, no\nspiritual experience of his comfort, strength, or guidance. Hence,\nsince the Comforter is not discernible by the outward sense, and the\nunspiritual have never had developed within them the inward sense of\nfaith, they cannot receive him. In contrast with the world in this\nrespect is the disciple of Christ, in whom the spiritual life has been\nawakened in the new birth.--=But ye know him because he abides with\nyou, and shall be in you.= There is no hint here that the disciples\ncan _see_ the Comforter any more than the world. This should have\nprevented Godet\u2019s misapprehension of this passage, that \u201cbefore\nreceiving they must have _seen_ and known the Spirit.\u201d To see (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9)\nis to recognize with the senses, or to recognize intellectually by\ndeductions from what is perceived by the senses. Neither by sight, nor\nby deduction from sight can the Comforter be known. He is known only\nby those with and in whom, as a conscious Presence, he abides. Some\ntexts read _is in you_ instead of _shall be in you_. The future is the\npreferable reading, and the antithesis between the first and last\nclauses of the verse indicates a progressive development in the\nspiritual life. The Comforter was even then _with_ the disciples,\nthough they were not yet ready to receive him; he was _in_ them,\ninspiring and moulding their life and character, after the day of\nPentecost. So he is ever with the church and the individual Christian;\nbut he is _in_ the church and _in_ the Christian only when they wait\nand watch for his appearing, as the apostles waited and watched before\nthe day of Pentecost.\n\n\n 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I[558] will come to\n you.\n\n [558] ver. 3:28.\n\n\n 19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more: but\n ye see me: because[559] I live, ye shall live also.\n\n [559] Heb. 7:25.\n\n\n 20 At that day ye shall know that I _am_ in my Father, and\n ye in me, and I in you.\n\n=18-20. I will not leave you orphans.= This, which is the marginal\nreading, exactly renders the original. Our English version, _I will\nnot leave you comfortless_, though made sacred by many an association,\ndeprives the promise of the singular significance involved in the\noriginal. An orphan is not a person without parents, but one who is\nseparated from his parents by death; memory looks back to them, hope\nlooks forward to them, but they are not personally present. Christ\ndeclares that he will not thus leave his disciples. Their Saviour\nshall be more than a memory, more than a hope; he will be their\npersonal present God.--=I will come to you.= He refers here not to his\nreappearance in the resurrection, for that was followed by his\ndisappearance in the ascension, so that if on this the disciples alone\ndepended they were left more than ever before in orphanage. Nor did he\nthen make his abode with the disciples; he vouchsafed them only brief\nand transient appearances of himself. He does not refer to his second\ncoming; for the world, as well as his own disciples, will then see him\n(Rev. 1:7; 6:15-17). He refers to that spiritual manifestation which\nhe makes of himself, and of the Father through him, by the gift and\nindwelling of the Holy Spirit, whom the Father sends in his name. This\nis clear from vers. 19, 20, 23, 26, etc.--=Yet a little while and the\nworld seeth me no more; but ye see me, because I am living and ye\nshall live also.= According to the punctuation of our English version\nthere is here a double promise, first that the disciples shall again\nsee their Lord, secondly that they shall share his life. According to\nthe punctuation which I have adopted, the second promise is implied\nrather than asserted, and is made the basis of the first. Either is\ngrammatically possible; the second rendering is preferable, because\nthe whole of Christ\u2019s teaching here refers not to the life of the\ndisciple, but to the manifestation to him of his Lord, and because\nthus the two clauses of the sentence are brought into close\nconnection. The soul\u2019s perception of the personal presence of Christ\nis then dependent upon sharing his spiritual life; and this is\nabundantly taught, both here and elsewhere. We are changed into the\nimage of Christ by beholding him (2 Cor. 3:18), and we behold him by\nconforming to his image (2 Pet. 1:5-9). The promise is one of\nspiritual sight, dependent upon spiritual life. Since the world does\nnot and cannot see him (ver. 17), arguments based on visible phenomena\nto prove the reality of that which is a spiritual experience are\nalways in vain. Hence the futility of the ordinary methods of arguing\nwith skeptics. They are endeavors to prove to the blind; whereas the\nblind must first _see_, then learn.--=At that day ye shall know that I\nam in the Father, and ye in me and I in you.= _That day_ was in the\nhistory of the church the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was first\nrevealed with power to the entire body of believers. But each\nbelieving soul has also its Pentecost, when it first learns the\nmeaning of Christ\u2019s promises in this chapter. This is to it _that\nday_, the one great day of its existence. It is not said that the\ndisciple will understand _how_ the Father, the Son, and the disciples\nare in one another, but he will know it _as a fact_; the unity of the\nFather and the Son, and the indwelling of both in the believer, will\nbecome a part of his experience. This experience, promised here, is\nexpressed as a realized fact by Paul in Gal. 2:20: \u201cI am crucified\nwith Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:\nand the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the\nSon of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.\u201d\n\n\n 21 He[560] that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he\n it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved\n of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself\n to him.\n\n [560] ver. 15, 23.\n\n=21.= Having given expression to the mystical truth of the spiritual\nmanifestation of their Lord to the believers, Christ next states the\nconditions under which it is realized. These are not _external_; this\nspiritual revelation is not made dependent upon retiring from the\nworld and living a life of asceticism and artificial self-denial. They\nare not _intellectual_; this revelation and indwelling of Christ is\nnot made dependent upon the creed of the disciple. They are _moral_;\npractical obedience to the words of Christ assures spiritual enjoyment\nof his presence and companionship.--=He that hath my commandments and\nkeepeth them.= These clauses are not to be read as repetitions of\nthe same idea, made for the sake of emphasis. To _have_ is not the\nsame as to _keep_. He hath Christ\u2019s commandments _not_ who has a\nknowledge of them, so that the promise is conditional upon a certain\ndegree of Christian education, but who has a _spiritual apprehension\nof them_, who appreciates their spirit. Since all of Christ\u2019s commands\nare comprised in the one direction \u201cFollow me,\u201d the first condition of\nreceiving this spiritual manifestation of Christ as a real and living\nPresence in the daily life, is a spiritual appreciation of his life\nand character as they are disclosed in the N. T., and therewith a like\nappreciation of the precepts, principles, and spirit of the life which\nhe has inculcated. He _keeps_ Christ\u2019s commandments who carefully\nguards them in his daily life, regarding them as a possession which he\nis in danger of losing. See Matt. 19:17, note.--=That one is he that\nloveth me.= The evidence of love which Christ recognizes is not\nprofession, or ceremonial, or emotional experience, or intellectual\nopinion, but spiritual appreciation of his precepts and practical\nobedience to them. The good Samaritan is a more acceptable lover than\nthe priest or the Levite.--=He that loveth me shall be loved of my\nFather, and I will love him.= Every disciple may thus become a\n\u201cbeloved disciple.\u201d For the love here spoken of is not that love of\ncompassion which the Father and the Son have for the whole world (ch.\n3:16), even while it was dead in trespasses and sins (Ephes. 2:4, 5),\nbut the love of spiritual fellowship and personal friendship (ch.\n15:14, 15; Gal. 4:7). \u201cThere is between these two feelings the same\ndifference as between a man\u2019s compassion for his guilty and unhappy\nneighbors and the affection of a father for his child or of a husband\nfor his wife.\u201d--(_Godet._) Christ is here speaking not of the\ncondition on which men may become his disciples; he is instructing his\ndisciples, is pointing out the condition on which each one of them may\ncome into a higher spiritual experience of their Master\u2019s love and\nspiritual presence. This is indicated not only by the context and\ngeneral character of the discourse, but also by the peculiar language\nhere, _That one it is who loveth me_. _That one_ (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) indicates\nan exceptional individual, one among many, who, by his course, becomes\nthe special friend of Jesus.\n\n\n 22 Judas[561] saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it\n that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the\n world?\n\n [561] Luke 6:16.\n\n 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me,\n he will keep my words: and my Father will love him,\n and[562] we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.\n\n [562] 1 John 2:24; Rev. 3:20.\n\n=22, 23. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot.= The same person called\nLebbeus in Matt. 10:3 and Thaddeus in Mark 3:18. In Luke 6:16, etc.,\nand Acts 1:13, he is called \u201cJudas (the brother) of James.\u201d See Note\non Twelve Apostles, Vol. I, p. 149.--=Lord, and what has happened that\nthou wilt manifest thyself to us, but not at all= (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76) =to the\nworld?= His question is not, as represented by our English version,\nthe expression of a mere curiosity, In what way wilt thou make this\nmanifestation of thyself? it is the expression of amazement and\nperplexity. All the disciples were anticipating that Christ would\nmanifest his Messiahship in some unexpected manner, striking terror\ninto the hearts of all his opponents, and becoming, by some miraculous\nforth-putting of power, King of kings and Lord of lords. Judas,\nhastily concluding that there is to be no other manifestation than\nthat of which Christ is now speaking, expresses his amazement and\nperplexity. What has happened to lead to the abandonment of a world\nmanifestation of the Messiah? is the meaning of his question. But\nChrist has not said that he will not at all be manifested to the\nworld; only that the world cannot see that manifestation of him of\nwhich he is now speaking.--=Jesus answered and said unto him.= He does\nnot reply to the question of Judas; enters into no explanation; simply\nreiterates that the condition of receiving the spiritual manifestation\nof Christ as a personal Presence is obedience to his directions.\nChrist never suffers himself to be turned aside from practical\ninstruction by inquiries in theoretical theology.--=If any one loves\nme, he will keep my word.= _Word_, not _words_; singular, not plural.\nHis command is but one word: love.--=My Father will love him, and we\nwill come unto him and make our abode with him.= This promise is more\nthan the preceding one (ver. 21). There Christ promises simply that\nthe obedient disciple shall see his Lord; here that he shall become a\ntemple in which his Lord will constantly dwell; there that Christ\nshall manifest himself to the soul; here that the Father and the Son\nshall dwell in the soul. \u201cThey shall come like wanderers from their\nhome and lodge with him; will be daily his guests, yea, house and\ntable companions.\u201d--(_Meyer._) Thus Christ by his commandments knocks\nat the door of the heart; he that hath those commandments hears the\nvoice; he that keeps them opens the door (Rev. 3:20). Thus, too, the\nChristian\u2019s experience on earth is a foretaste of his experience in\nheaven. \u201cHere below it is God who dwells with the believer; above, it\nwill be the believer who will dwell with God.\u201d--(_Godet._) By his\nlanguage here, _We will come unto him_, Christ identifies himself as\nthe companion of the Father in the spiritual experience of the\ndisciple. See ver. 15-17, note.\n\n\n 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the\n word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father\u2019s which sent\n me.\n\n=24.= In contrast with the disciple who _has_ and _keeps_ the word of\nChrist, our Lord portrays the opposite character. He loves not Christ;\nhe makes no attempt to treasure and guard his instruction; and in\nrejecting the word and its Bearer he rejects the Father whom the\nBearer represents and by whom the word is given. Beware of reading the\nnegative, \u201cThe word is not mine,\u201d as equivalent to The word is not\nmerely mine. Christ here, as in many other passages, disavows the\npaternity of his own instructions. They are not his; they are the\nFather\u2019s who dwells in him, and inspires the words and performs the\nworks. See ch. 12:49, note.\n\n\n 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being _yet_ present\n with you.\n\n\n 26 But[563] the Comforter, _which is_ the Holy Ghost,\n whom the Father will send in my name, he[564] shall teach\n you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,\n whatsoever I have said unto you.\n\n [563] verse 16.\n\n [564] ch. 16:13; 1 John 2:20, 27.\n\n=25, 26. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with\nyou.= That is, As far as this I am able to carry my instructions, but\nno farther; the Spirit shall complete them. Christ has already\ncontrasted the work of the Spirit with his own: his own dwelling with\nhis disciples is temporary, the abiding of the Spirit is forever; he\nspeaks _to_ his disciples, the Spirit speaks _in_ them (ver. 16, 17).\nHe now indicates a further point in the contrast. His own teaching was\npartial; for he had many things to say which they could not bear (John\n16:12), and much which he did say they could not understand till their\nexperience, developed by the indwelling of the Spirit of God, had\nprepared them to comprehend it. But the promised Spirit shall, as the\nChristian is able to bear the truth, teach all things.--=But the\nComforter.= See above on ver. 16.--=The Holy Spirit.= That is, the\nSpirit of holiness. As he is the Spirit of truth, because all\nexperience of the higher spiritual truth comes in and through him, so\nhe is the Spirit of holiness, because all holiness of life and\ncharacter is wrought out by the soul only as the Holy Spirit works in\nand with us the good pleasure of God (Phil. 2:12, 13; Heb. 13:20,\n21).--=Whom the Father will send in my name.= As the disciple is to\npray in Christ\u2019s name (see ver. 13, note), so the Father will answer\nhim in Christ\u2019s name. That name is Jesus, _i. e._, Saviour, because he\nsaves his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21), and Christ, _i. e._,\nThe Anointed One, because he is the High Priest who makes atonement\nfor the sins of his people, and reconciles them unto God. See Vol. I,\np. 57, Note, etc., on Names of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is, then, sent\nin his name, not because he is sent in his stead; he is not; the work\nof the Spirit and of the Son are not the one in lieu of the other; nor\nbecause he is sent in answer to the intercessory prayer of the Son;\nthe love of the Father is the cause of the dispensation of the Spirit,\nas of the incarnation and the atonement of the Son; but because he is\nsent to complete the work of the Son, to perfect that salvation\nwhich is represented by the name Jesus, and that atonement and\nreconciliation which is represented by the word Christ (John 3:5, 6;\n7:39; Rom. 8:14-16, 26; 14:17; Gal. 5:16, 17; Ephes. 2:18, etc.).--=He\nshall teach you all things.= That is, all things respecting the divine\nlife.--=And bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have\nsaid unto you.= \u201cHe will teach new truths by recalling the old, and\nwill recall the old by teaching the new.\u201d--(_Godet._) In its\napplication to the apostles, this is a promise of inspiration and a\nguarantee of substantial accuracy, both in their reports of events and\nof the instructions of Jesus Christ, and in their interpretation of\nthe laws and principles of the spiritual life. \u201cIt is in the\nfulfillment of this promise to the apostles that their sufficiency as\nwitnesses of all that the Lord did and taught, and consequently the\nauthenticity of the Gospel narrative, is grounded.\u201d--(_Alford._) But\nthere is no reason to limit this promise to the twelve to whom it was\nimmediately spoken. It occurs in the middle of a discourse which by\nuniversal consent belongs to the church universal. There is no\nconsistency in claiming the promise of the manifestation of Christ in\nver. 21, the indwelling of the Father and the Son in ver. 23, and the\npeace of God in ver. 27, and rejecting the promise of inspired\ninstruction in ver. 26. This promise, then, like that of Matt. 28:20,\nis made to the church for all time; it is a promise of a continually\nprogressive instruction in the spiritual life, adapted to varying\nneeds and exigencies, both of the community and of the individual,\ncarrying on to its consummation the necessarily incomplete instruction\nof the N. T., as well as making clear to the spiritual apprehension\nthat which preceding generations either imperfectly understood, wholly\nfailed to understand, or only partially comprehended. The spiritual\nguide of the church is not an official hierarchy, nor ecclesiastical\ntradition, but the living experience of those that love Christ, have\nhis words and keep them. This promise points to and assures the church\nof a progressive Christian theology, and corresponds with the apostle\nPaul\u2019s declaration, \u201cWe know in part and we prophesy in part\u201d (1 Cor.\n13:9, 10).\n\n\n 27 Peace[565] I leave with you, my peace I give unto you:\n not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your\n heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.\n\n [565] Ephes. 2:14-17; Phil. 4:7.\n\n=27. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you.= As the peace\nof a child depends on the presence of his mother, so the peace of\nthese disciples on the presence of their Lord. He speaks to their\nunuttered forebodings, and declares that he will leave this peace in\nhis departure as a legacy to them. But he will do more than this. Thus\nfar they have had peace in his presence; he will henceforth impart to\nthem his own source of strength in sending to them the indwelling\nSpirit of God, so that they shall have, as he had, peace in\nthemselves. \u201c_My peace_\u201d implies the peace which belongs to himself,\nis a characteristic of his own experience and a part of his own\nnature. So in Phil. 4:7 the \u201cpeace of God\u201d is that peace which is\ncharacteristic of the Divine Being. It was this peace which enabled\nChrist to stand unmoved and unperturbed in the court of Caiaphas and\nthe hall of Pilate. It was the fulfillment of this promise which\nenabled the apostles to meet in like manner, unfearing and untroubled,\nthe threats and persecutions of the authorities in Jerusalem\nimmediately after the day of Pentecost (Acts 4:8, 19, 31; 5:29, 41);\nwhich gave Stephen serenity in the storm of stones (Acts 6:15; 7:59,\n60); enabled Peter to sleep in chains (Acts 12:6); gave to Paul and\nSilas their songs in the night (Acts 16:25); kept Paul unmoved in the\nmidst of the mob at Jerusalem (Acts 21:31-40), and in the peril of\nshipwreck (Acts 27:21-26, 31-35). Compare also, for expressions of\nthis peace of Christ in the Christian\u2019s experience, Rom. 5:1-5;\n8:35-39; 2 Cor. 4:7-9; Phil. 4:11-13; Heb., ch. 4. This peace is a\ncharacteristic of the divine nature (Phil. 4:7), therefore a\ncharacteristic of Christ, who is called Prince of Peace, because one\nof the distinguishing characteristics of his kingdom is peace (Isa.\n9:6; Rom. 14:17); therefore a fruit of the Spirit in the experience of\nthe followers of Christ (Rom. 8:6; Gal. 5:22); therefore the privilege\nand duty of every disciple, who because of his peace and his power to\nbestow it upon others is called a son of God (Matt. 5:9). It is\ntherefore not the peculiar luxury of a favored few, but the duty and\nprivilege of all (Rom. 2:10); not dependent on temperament or\ncircumstances, but on a faith which receives and recognizes an\nindwelling God (Rom. 5:1; Ephes. 2:14; Phil. 4:9); not the occasional\nsiesta of the wearied worker, but the abiding spirit and sacred power\nof his work (Phil. 4:7; Col. 1:11; 3:15). It is not without Spiritual\nsignificance that Christ\u2019s last words, as of \u201cone who is about to go\naway and says goodnight and leaves his blessing\u201d (_Luther_), are a\npromise of peace.--=Not as the world giveth give I unto you.= The wish\nof peace was a customary leave-taking among the Jews (1 Sam. 1:17;\nLuke 7:50; Acts 16:36; 1 Pet. 5:14; 3 John 14. Compare Gen. 43:23;\nJudges 6:23). Christ distinguishes his promise here from the\nsalutations, which were often, as with us, mere empty formalities, and\nwhich at best were but wishes or possibly prayers. This salutation is\nmore than a benediction, it is the promise of an actual gift.--=Let\nnot your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.= He thus returns\nto the opening words of his discourse, words of strength-giving and\nreassurance (see ver. 1).\n\n\n 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come\n _again_ unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because\n I said, I[566] go unto the Father: for my[567] Father is\n greater than I.\n\n [566] verse 12.\n\n [567] 1 Cor. 15:27, 28.\n\n=28. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away= (verses 2, 3,\n12).--=If ye loved me ye would rejoice.= There is a gentle rebuke in\nthis language. It does not involve a denial or even a doubt of their\nlove, but it recalls them from the selfish thoughts fixed wholly on\ntheir own sorrow to their allegiance and love to him. It may well be\nrepeated to ourselves in the hour of death--parting from any Christian\nfriend. Their thought of their own future gives them comfort (ver. 2\nand 3); their thought of Christ\u2019s love for and presence with them\ngives them peace (ver. 26, 27); their thought of his glory and their\nlove for him gives them joy. Thus in the fruit of the Spirit joy and\npeace follow because they grow out of love (Gal. 5:22). We, as well as\nthey, should rejoice, not sorrow, because Christ no longer dwells\nincarnate on the earth, but has gone to the Father.--=Because I said I\ngo unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.= His departure to\nbe with the greater Father was to be a cause of rejoicing, not merely\nto the eleven, but to his church universal. This is not because he is\nthus enabled to ensure his disciples a more powerful and perfect\nprotector, for the protection of the Father is accorded through the\nSon, and as a protector the Son is one in power as well as in will\nwith the Father (John 10:30, note). Moreover, it is our love for\nChrist, not the thought of our own interest, not even our spiritual\ninterest, which is the secret of the joy which the Christian should\nexperience in the exaltation of his Lord. Nor is the cause of that joy\nthe fact that Christ was about to enter into glory and blessedness;\nfor it is of the _greatness_, not of the _blessedness_ of the Father,\nnor of his own heavenly condition, Christ speaks; the phrase, \u201cThe\nFather is greater than I,\u201d cannot, without violation of the meaning,\nbe rendered, The Father is more blessed than I. It is true that\nbecause the Father is _greater_ than Christ, Christ in going to the\nFather went to a condition of greater power for his own redemptive\nwork, for the up-building of that kingdom to which he and his\nfollowers are consecrated. Christ is more to his followers, more\npowerful in his work of redeeming love, in the Spirit than in the\nflesh, absent from his disciples and with the Father than absent from\nthe Father and with the disciples. But more than this, more than in\nour ignorance of both the Father and Son we can comprehend, is meant\nby the declaration that Christ\u2019s going to the Father was an\nexaltation, and in that exaltation we, his followers, ought to rejoice\nwith and in him, if indeed we love him. The declaration, \u201c_The Father\nis greater than I_,\u201d is not inconsistent with the preceding\ndeclaration, \u201cHe that hath seen me hath seen the Father,\u201d for that\ndeclaration is interpreted by the one which immediately follows, \u201cI am\nin the Father and the Father in me;\u201d he that has a spiritual\napprehension of Christ has a spiritual apprehension of the Father, who\nis manifested in and through him. Nor is it inconsistent with Christ\u2019s\ndeclaration, \u201cI and my Father are one,\u201d for Christ as the protector of\nhis people may be one with the Father, and yet the Father may be\ngreater than the Son in the eternal relation between the two. Nor is\nit inconsistent with John\u2019s declaration that \u201cThe Word was God,\u201d for\nthe _Word_ is not Jesus Christ (see ch. 1:1, note), but God as\nmanifested to the race, Jesus Christ being the Word _made flesh_ (ch.\n1:14). It is inconsistent with any view of Christ\u2019s character which\ndenies the essential divinity of his nature; for the creature cannot\nsay of God, without an extraordinarily irreverent egotism, \u201cMy Father\nis greater than I.\u201d \u201cThe creature who should say, \u2018God is greater than\nI,\u2019 would blaspheme no less than one who should say, \u2018I am equal with\nGod.\u2019 God alone can compare himself with God.\u201d--(_Godet._) It accords\nwith Christ\u2019s habitual teaching concerning himself, as one who is sent\nforth the Father, derives his authority from the Father, does all\nthings through the power of the Father, in all things obeys the will\nof the Father, and will return to the Father again (Matt. 11:26, 27;\n20:23; John 5:19, 22, 26, 27; 6:57; 8:18, 29; 10:18, 36; 15:15;\n17:18); and with that of the N. T. generally, which constantly\nrepresents Christ as receiving his divine power as Creator, Redeemer,\nand Judge from the Father (Ephes. 1:20-22; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:8, 9; 1\nCor. 15:28). Jesus Christ is God _manifest in the flesh_, and God in\nhis absolute essence is greater than any manifestation of him is or\ncan be. As the artist is greater than his picture, the architect than\nhis house, the orator than his oration, so God is greater than the\nWord through which he utters himself to human apprehension. In thus\ninterpreting this much debated passage, according to the plain and\nnatural meaning of the words, and, as it seems to me, the teachings of\nChrist and his apostles, I accept substantially the interpretation of\nMeyer, who sees in this declaration an illustration of \u201cthe absolute\nmonotheism of Jesus (ch. 17:3), and of the whole N. T., according to\nwhich the Son, although of divine essence, of one nature with the\nFather (ch. 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15-18), nevertheless was and is and\nremains subordinated to the Father, the immutably higher one, since\nthe Son as Organ, as Commissioner of the Father, as Intercessor with\nHim, etc., has received his whole power in the kingly office from the\nFather (ch. 17:5), and, after the accomplishment of the work committed\nto him, will restore it to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28).\u201d To the same\neffect, but more concisely, Edward H. Sears (_Heart of Christ_): \u201cGod\nas absolute is more than God as revealed.\u201d Similarly Olshausen and\nEllicott\u2019s Commentary. Observe, however, that Christ\u2019s language here\ninvolves only the relations between the Son as incarnate and the\nFather; in saying that the Son _was_ and _remains_ subordinated to the\nFather, Meyer attributes to the words here a meaning confessedly\nborrowed from other passages.\n\nTwo other interpretations have been offered from the orthodox point of\nview: (1) That Christ speaks here of himself _as a man_. But this\nancient interpretation, invented in the early controversy with the\nArians, and revived recently by Ryle, has not, I think, despite the\nauthority of Augustine in its favor, the sanction of a single modern\nexegetical scholar of any eminence. It is repudiated by Schaff, Godet,\nLuthardt, Meyer, Alford, Tholuck. This easy method of solving the\nseeming contradictions of Christ\u2019s mysterious nature is utterly\nuntenable, for whatever opinion may be entertained respecting his\ntwofold nature as both God and man, no reader is authorized to say\nwhat acts and words were manifestations of the human and what of the\ndivine nature. It is utterly inapplicable here, for \u201cthis\ninterpretation implies a mere platitude. Who needs to be told that the\nhuman nature is inferior to the divine?\u201d--(_Schaff._) (2) That Christ\nhere compares his present earthly condition with that to which he will\nattain in going to the Father. This is Calvin\u2019s interpretation.\n\u201cChrist does not here make a comparison between the divinity of the\nFather and his own, nor between his own human nature and the divine\nessence of the Father, but rather between his present state and the\nheavenly glory to which he is afterwards to be received.\u201d To the same\neffect, substantially, are Alford, Luthardt, and Tholuck. This is\ncertainly involved in the language; the return from union with\nhumanity to union with the Father was a change from a lower and lesser\nto a higher and greater condition. But much more is involved, for\nChrist by his words institutes a comparison, not between his earthly\nand his heavenly condition, as does Paul in Phil. 2:6-11, but between\nhimself and his Father.\n\n\n 29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that,\n when it is come to pass, ye might believe.\n\n\n 30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the\n prince[568] of this world cometh, and hath nothing[569] in\n me.\n\n [568] ch. 16:11; Ephes. 2:2.\n\n [569] 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 John 3:5.\n\n\n 31 But that the world may know that I love the Father;\n and as[570] the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.\n Arise, let us go hence.\n\n [570] Ps. 40:8; Phil. 2:8.\n\n=29-31. And now I have told you * * * that when it is come to pass ye\nmight have faith.= That is, before the Passion he foretells it and\ndirects the thoughts and hopes of his disciples to a point beyond, to\nthe results which are to be produced by the crucifixion, so that when\nthe night of darkness comes these words may remain to keep alive their\nfaith in him as one not _dead_, but only gone to the companionship of\nthe Father, and coming again _with the Father_ to be the spiritual and\nindwelling companion of his own. Indirectly the office of prophecy is\nimplied in these words; it is not to give in the present a clear view\nof the future, but to sustain faith and hope and courage, and make it\nclear to the believer, when the events themselves take place, that\nnothing is unexpected and unprovided for by his Father and\nSaviour.--=The prince of this world is coming.= See note on ch. 12:31.\n\u201cJesus sees the devil himself in the agents and executors of his\ndesigns (ch. 13:2, 27; 6:70; Luke 4:13).\u201d--(_Meyer._) And yet the cup\nwhich they presented to him he accounts the cup which his Father\ngiveth him (ch. 18:11), for even the prince of this world is not\nbeyond the supreme control of God. The language here, as in ch. 12:31,\nplainly implies Christ\u2019s belief in a personal devil, and the devil\u2019s\ninfluence over and use of men as his instruments.--=Hath nothing in\nme.= Satan never succeeds in the accomplishment of his evil designs\nexcept when he finds _in_ the tempted something that recognizes him\nand pays allegiance to him. He that is only _in_ the world but not of\nthe world may be _under_ the power of Satan, but cannot be _in_ his\npower. The declaration here is confirmatory of that implied by ch.\n8:46.--=But that the world may know that I love the Father=, etc.,\n* * * =arise, let us go hence=. Our English version is erroneously\npunctuated. There should be no break in the verse. Christ knew that\nJudas had gone out to perfect arrangements for the betrayal, knew the\nshame and torture that were before him, knew also the power of the\nFather to accomplish the world\u2019s redemption by that suffering if it\nwas endured to the end, and bade his disciples arise that they might\ngo forth with him, as he went forth to show the world his love for and\nobedience to the Father. Thus, as he has just told his disciples that\nthey are to show their love to him by their obedience (ver. 21, 23),\nhe prepares to show his love to the Father by his obedience. But\nthough they arose, they did not go immediately out. See Prel. Note to\nnext chapter, and ch. 18:1.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n\n\nCh. 15:1-27. CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH.--CHRIST ABIDES IN THE SOUL.--THE\nSOUL IS SAFE ONLY AS IT ABIDES IN CHRIST.--THIS ABIDING IS THE\nCONDITION OF SUCCESSFUL PRAYER; OF PRACTICAL GODLINESS; OF\nSELF-SACRIFICING LOVE; OF SPIRITUAL JOY.--CHRIST A REVEALER, NOT A\nLAW-GIVER.--THE WORLD AND THE CHURCH.--THE PERSECUTION OF THE WORLD;\nTHE WITNESSING POWER OF THE CHURCH.\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--Some scholars suppose that Christ, at the close of\nthe preceding discourse, arose with his disciples and passed out of\nthe room where they had been at supper into the valley of the Kedron,\nthe vicinity of the garden of Gethsemane, and that the discourse was\ncontinued there, in or near one of the vineyards which abound in the\nneighborhood of the city. Others suppose that they arose to go; that,\nthe heart of the Master being surcharged with the truth which he was\nendeavoring to express to them, the Divine Immanence, he broke forth\nafresh with the same truth in a new form, and that the discourse\nrecorded in this and the next chapter, and the prayer recorded in ch.\n17, were uttered in the same room in which the preceding discourse was\nuttered. Both suppositions are purely conjectural; the latter appears\nto me the more rational, because: (1) The truths embodied in this and\nthe succeeding chapter are the same as the one embodied in the\npreceding one; the form alone varies. The structure and the fibre of\nthe discourse is that of one which flows from a heart burdened with\na profound truth which can be expressed only by reiteration, and even\nthen only inadequately. (2) It is hardly credible that such a\nconversation could have been uttered, as some have imagined, while\nJesus and his disciples were on their way out of the city; and no\nreason is offered for the hypothesis that it was abruptly broken off\nand transferred to another and apparently less convenient place. (3)\nCh. 18:1 plainly implies that Jesus did not _go forth_, _i. e._, from\nthe room where they were gathered, till the end of this conversation\nwith them and after the prayer with which it was closed. Various\nhypotheses have also been proffered respecting the probable\ncircumstance that suggested to Christ the metaphor which underlies the\nfirst part of this chapter: Vineyards on the way to Gethsemane\n(_Lampe_), the carved vine on the great doors of the temple\n(_Rosenmuller_), a vine trained about the window of the great chamber\n(_Knapp_), the cup so lately partaken (_Meyer_, _Stier_), O. T.\nsymbolism of the vineyard and the vine (_Alford_). These are also all\nconjectural; it is enough to say that the parable here must be studied\nin the light of the teachings both of nature and of the O. T. use of\nnature in the passages below referred to. The use of the vine as a\nsymbol by O. T. prophets was so familiar that it could hardly have\nbeen absent from the minds of both Christ and the apostles. Examine\nwith care Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 15:2, 6; and especially Psalm 80:8-19, and\nIsaiah 5:1-7. The truth taught here by a metaphor is the same as that\ntaught in the preceding chapter unmetaphorically, and in other\npassages by other metaphors. (1) The vine and its branches are a\nperpetual parable of Christ and his church. It is not enough to learn\nof Christ as from a teacher, to follow him as an example, or to accept\nforgiveness through him as both priest and sacrifice; we must be\npersonally united to him, and from him draw our spiritual life, and so\ngrow into his image. As the branch draws its sap by a continuous flow\nfrom the vine, and becomes identified with it in character, and bears\nits fruit, and dies when separated from it, so we must abide in a\nliving Christ, draw our spiritual sustenance from him, become more and\nmore Christlike in our nature, and bear his fruit in our lives. See\nJohn 6:56-58, note, and refs. there cited. (2) In the O. T. imagery\nthe vine planted by the husbandman was the house of Israel. But\ndespite the divine cultivator it brought forth wild grapes; it proved\nto be no _true_ vine. Wherefore it was broken down, laid waste,\nburned, and a new vine was planted in its place. This _true_ vine is\nChrist; not the man Christ Jesus, but the living, abiding Christ, the\nChrist who is with his people alway, even unto the end of the world\n(Matt. 28:20), the Christ whose true body is his church (1 Cor.\n12:27), who is the head from which they all draw their life (Ephes.\n4:15; Col. 1:18), who reproduces himself in every true disciple, since\nonly they in whom is the spirit of Christ are truly his (Rom. 8:9),\nand who is thus far more widely and potently in the earth to-day than\nhe ever was or could be in the flesh. This living and perpetually\nincarnate Christ is in a sense identical with his living church, as\nthe vine is identical with its branches; for as there could be no vine\nwithout branches, so neither could this Christ be without the church\nwhich he animates. This Christ incarnate, not in the body of a single\nman, but in the church universal which is now his body, is the true\nIsrael of God, the nation to whom the kingdom of God has been given,\nthat was taken from the old Israel because it brought not forth the\nfruits thereof (Matt. 21:43). This _true_ vine is contrasted with the\nold Israel which proved to be no true vine. No longer is there any\npossibility that the vine shall be broken down and destroyed with fire\nas the old vine was (Isa. 5:5; Ps. 80:16); but each branch that abides\nnot in this everlasting vine, this living, perpetually incarnate and\never extending Christ, is broken off from the vine and destroyed. In\nbrief, in studying this parable, the student must not forget, what the\ncommentators have often forgotten, that throughout this last discourse\nwith his disciples Christ speaks of himself not as a man about to die,\nbut as a living Christ, forever incarnate in the hearts and lives of\nhis own, living on in the world with mightier and wider influence, and\nin more intimate communion and companionship with his disciples after\nhis crucifixion than before. It is this ever-living Christ, reproduced\nin all his members, and spreading over the whole earth, that is the\ntrue vine, in contrast with the old Israel, which proved to be no true\nvine; of this vine the Father is the husbandman; in this vine each\nindividual disciple is a branch or shoot.\n\n\n 1 I am the true vine,[571] and my Father is the\n husbandman.[572]\n\n [571] Isa. 4:2.\n\n [572] Cant. 8:12.\n\n\n 2 Every branch[573] in me that beareth not fruit he taketh\n away: and every _branch_ that beareth[574] fruit, he\n purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.\n\n [573] Matt. 15:13.\n\n [574] Heb. 12:15; Rev. 3:19.\n\n=1, 2. I am the true vine.= So he is the _true_ light (ch. 1:9) and\n_true_ bread (ch. 6:32, 33), the spiritual being the true, the\nexternal and material being the shadows that are \u201cfigures of the true\u201d\n(Heb. 9:24). The images of the Bible, especially those employed by\nChrist, are not merely poetic figures. The outward world is a real\nsymbol of the invisible world, physical growths are a parable of\nspiritual growths, the kingdom of nature a picture of the kingdom of\ngrace, because both come from the same creative hand, are made\nsubject to the same great laws, and are under the same great King. The\nphysical vine is the shadow; Christ is the true, real vine, whom the\nshadow symbolizes; and it will last when the shadow has passed away;\nas he is the true priest and sacrifice, outlasting the apparent\npriest and sacrifice of the O. T. dispensation.--=My Father is the\nhusbandman.= Cultivating the vine, and superintending its growth. This\ncultivation has been going on through the centuries, in all the growth\nof that invisible but perpetually incarnated Christ whose body is the\nchurch, and who dwells in and is therefore represented by all his\nmembers. The language shows clearly that it is not of the man Christ\nJesus about to die upon the cross, but of the ever-living Christ,\nimmanent in the Holy Catholic Church, that he here speaks.--=Every\nbranch in me that beareth not fruit.= How can a branch be in Christ\nand bear no fruit? Calvin\u2019s explanation that _in me_ is equivalent to\n_supposed to be in me_ is inadmissible. It does not explain Christ\u2019s\nwords, but substitutes others for them. Alford\u2019s explanation is\nbetter, but it labors under the serious disadvantage of substituting\nfor Christ\u2019s declaration \u201cI am the vine,\u201d the very different\ndeclaration, The visible church is the vine. \u201cThe vine is the visible\nchurch here, of which Christ is the _inclusive_ head; the vine\n_contains_ the branches, hence the unfruitful as well as the fruitful\nare _in me_.\u201d But to be in the visible church and to be in living\ncommunion with Christ are very different things. I should rather say\nthat Christ here lays down, in a simile, the general law that to him\nthat hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken\naway even that which he hath. If the soul, in the measure in which it\nhas knowledge of Christ, bears Christian fruit, it will grow more and\nmore into oneness with and likeness of Christ; if, on the other hand,\nit does not realize the fruits of its knowledge in a life fruitful in\nChristian works, it will gradually lose its knowledge and become\nseparated from Christ. Thus both the grafting into and the separating\nfrom the vine are in the spiritual experience gradual processes, and\nthey depend on the fidelity with which the conscious branch avails\nitself of its privilege, and shows itself worthy of larger privilege.\nThus Christ gives grace for grace (ch. 1:16).--=He taketh away.= The\nsame word (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03c9) is used in 1 Cor. 5:2 of excommunication; that\nindicates the meaning here. It is not declared that the fruitless\nChristian shall be destroyed, though later, in ver. 6, destruction\nis declared to be the final result of cutting off from Christ.\nFruitlessness cuts off (excommunicates) the soul from communion with\nand drawing life from Christ; this ends in spiritual withering, death,\nand destruction (ver. 6). Thus this declaration is the converse of\nthat of ch. 14:23, \u201cIf a man love me he will keep my words (bear my\nfruit), and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and\nmake our abode with him.\u201d If he keep not Christ\u2019s words (bear not\nChrist\u2019s fruit), he will not have the abiding of the Father and the\nSon. The fruit of Christ is the same as the fruit of the Spirit (Gal.\n5:22, 23); and in the measure in which this fruit is borne in the\nlife, is the soul enriched in the spiritual knowledge of Christ which\nenables it to bear still more fruit. Thus fruitfulness in the\nlife develops the consciousness of Christ\u2019s indwelling, and the\nconsciousness of Christ\u2019s indwelling in the soul develops Christian\nfruitfulness in the life. The whole truth is well illustrated by 2\nPet. 1:5-9.--=And every branch that beareth fruit, he cleanseth it\nthat it may bring forth more fruit.= The word rendered in ver. 2\n_purgeth_ and that rendered in ver. 3 _clean_ are radically the same.\nChrist cleanseth the soul (1) by the operation of the law that right\ndoing develops right feeling and opens the heart to higher influences\n(ch. 7:17); (2) by the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit,\nwhich is given to each soul in the measure in which each proves itself\nworthy of and willing to receive him; (3) by the discipline of life,\nwhich is the manifestation of God\u2019s special love to the soul (Heb.\n12:6). The object of all this redemptive work is in order that (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1)\nthe soul may bring forth more fruit. Thus Christian fruitfulness in\nthe life is both the condition and the final result of the divine\npurifying process in the life of the soul.\n\n\n 3 Now ye[575] are clean through the word which I have\n spoken unto you.\n\n [575] ch. 17:17; Ephes. 5:26; 1 Pet. 1:22.\n\n\n 4 Abide[576] in me, and I in you. As[577] the branch cannot\n bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more\n can ye, except ye abide in me.\n\n [576] 1 John 2:6.\n\n [577] Hosea 14:8; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:11.\n\n=3, 4. Already ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto\nyou.= Ver. 3 must be read in connection with ver. 4, to which it is\nintroductory. _Through_ (\u03b4\u1f76\u03b1) always indicates the instrument, never\nthe cause. The spoken word is the instrument in God\u2019s hand for the\ncleansing of the soul (ch. 17:17); and when received by an obedient\nfaith, becomes the means of regeneration (James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23) and\nthe power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). This word is not any\nparticular utterance of Christ, but his whole ministry, both of\npromise and teaching, including his gift of pardon and peace, and his\ncall to Christian activity. The meaning, then, is this: You are\nalready cleansed from past sin through your acceptance of and\nobedience to my word. But you are not to imagine that my work is done\nwhen I depart and cease to be visibly present with you. You are still\nto abide in me spiritually; for without this spiritual abiding all\nyour past cleansing can accomplish nothing; without me as a living and\nlife-giving Saviour you can bear no Christ-like fruit in your lives.\nThe lesson for us is that Christ\u2019s work was not finished (though his\nsacrifice was) on the cross, that our work is not finished in\naccepting forgiveness through him and consecrating ourselves to\nobedience to his will, but that the finished work of his death was\nonly preparatory for the entire work of his life in us (Rom. 5:10),\nand that our acceptance of pardon is only a preparation for a life\ncontinually hid with Christ in God (Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:3).--=Abide in\nme and I in you.= This is not a direction and a promise, equivalent\nto, If you abide in me I will abide in you; it is a twofold direction:\nAbide in me; see to it that I abide in you. It thus implies that\nChrist\u2019s indwelling in us is dependent upon ourselves. If any man hear\nChrist\u2019s voice and opens the door, Christ comes in to him and sups\nwith him (Rev. 3:20). He that hungers and thirsts after righteousness\nis filled (Matt. 5:6). By fidelity and obedience we abide in Christ;\nby docility and spiritual obedience we open the door that Christ may\nabide with us.--=As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself= (\u1f00\u03c6\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) =except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide\nin me=. So the Son can do nothing of _himself_ (ch. 5:19, note), but\ndoes all things abiding in and through the power of the Father. The\ndisciple abiding in Christ comes at last to abide with Christ in the\nFather; and this is the consummation, when the Father becomes all in\nall (ch. 17:21, 24; 1 Cor. 15:28). Thus all spiritual life comes from\nthe Father by Christ, through the instrumentality of the word, to the\nsoul that abides in and with Christ as Christ abides in and with the\nFather.\n\n\n 5 I am the vine, ye _are_ the branches; He that abideth in\n me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for\n without me ye can do nothing.\n\n\n 6 If a[578] man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a\n branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast\n _them_ into the fire, and they are burned.\n\n [578] Matt. 3:10; 7:19.\n\n=5, 6. I am the vine, ye are the branches.= Note the contrast. No mere\nteacher or prophet could have spoken thus to his fellow-creatures.--=He\nthat abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit.=\nThis mystical dwelling with a living and present Christ is the\ncondition of a fruitful Christian character.--=Because apart from me\nye can do nothing.= Rather _severed_, as a branch from the vine; and\nthe negation is intense, a double negative: _ye can by no means do\nanything_. All Christless activity counts for nothing; it harvests\n\u201cnothing but leaves.\u201d Thus moral excellence is not the preparation for\nand the condition of spiritual life; spiritual life is the preparation\nfor and the condition of moral excellence. Though each promotes the\nother, the first step for the reforming soul should be to seek union\nwith Christ, without whom we can do nothing. Contrast with Christ\u2019s\ndeclaration here Paul\u2019s in Phil. 4:13, \u201cI can do all things through\nHim (Christ) that strengtheneth me.\u201d No conclusion can be drawn from\nthis utterance respecting the vexed question of the natural ability of\nthe soul to repent of sin and accept Christ by faith. For Christ is\nhere speaking to those who have thus accepted him, and he declares\nsimply the condition of fruitful Christian activity for all those who\nare, at least in avowed purpose, already his.--=In case any one shall\nnot have abided in me he has been cast out like the branch that is\nwithered, and they gather them together and they are burned.= This\ntranslation is Meyer\u2019s, who thus comments on the significance of the\nchange in the tenses: \u201cJesus places himself at the point of time of\nthe execution of the last judgment, when those who have fallen away\nfrom him are gathered together and cast into the fire, after they have\nbeen previously cast out of his communion and become withered, having\ncompletely lost the true life.\u201d They that gather the withered branches\nfor the fire are not _men_, but the angels (Matt. 13:49, 50). The\nmetaphorical language ought not, however, to be too far pressed. The\nparable ends in a tragic consummation, but Christ pictures only the\nend of the fruitless and severed branches, as a warning to the\ndisciples; he does not declare that this fate actually impends over\nany truly new-born soul. Hence we cannot deduce from his language the\nconclusion of Meyer and Alford that the verse involves the possibility\nof falling from grace. The whole teaching is full of warning to every\none to make his calling and election sure, not to rest in a \u201cfinished\nsalvation;\u201d and in this it corresponds with the uniform teaching of\nthe N. T. (Phil. 2:12, 13; Heb. 4:11; 12:15; 2 Pet. 1:10). The\nadmonition is somewhat analogous to and may be interpreted by that of\nPaul in Ephes. 5:6, 7, and Col. 3:5, an admonition pertinent to all\nwho substitute a supposed faith in Christ\u2019s perfect work for practical\nobedience, a faith that works by love. Alford\u2019s interpretation\n\u201c_burneth_, not is burned in any sense of being consumed,\u201d is a\nstriking illustration, such as Alford does not often afford, of\nmodifying the text to escape an unwelcome conclusion. The verb\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) is in the passive tense, and the figure is certainly one of\ndestruction, not of torment. But it is not to be taken literally. The\nessential truth which underlies the metaphor is simply this, that the\nsoul which is separated from Christ is separated from the source of\nspiritual life, withers away, and is eventually destroyed. What is\nsoul destruction is a question not here considered.\n\n\n 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye[579]\n shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.\n\n [579] ch. 16:23.\n\n\n 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit;\n so shall ye be my disciples.\n\n=7, 8. If ye abide in me and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what\nye will, and it shall be done unto you. Therein is my Father\nglorified; so that ye shall bear much fruit and shall become my\ndisciples.= The _words_ of Christ are his whole teaching, his\ncommandments, revelations, promises; to be accepted by obedience,\nfaith, hope. They are said to abide in the soul only as they spring up\nand bear fruit in the life (Matt. 13:8, 23). Thus to have Christ\u2019s\nwords abiding in us is the same as to bear Christian fruit. To him who\nthus abides in Christ and bears his fruit this promise is made,\nanalogous to and interpreted by that of ch. 14:13, 14. The prayers of\nthose who are thus pervaded by the spirit of Christ are, like their\nMaster\u2019s, those of not merely a humble submission to, but a supreme\ndesire for, the will of God (Matt. 6:9, 10; 26:39).--Hence in\nanswering them the Father is glorified. For the prayer of him in whom\nChrist\u2019s words abide will always embrace a supreme desire for the\nFather\u2019s glory. Comp. Christ\u2019s prayer in ch. 17. Answer to such\nprayers is given that the praying Christian may both bear much fruit\nand become a disciple; both fruit-bearing in the life and docility of\nspirit, _i. e._, both practical obedience to Christ and the spiritual\ncapacity to appreciate Christ\u2019s instructions, are the result of this\nlife of prayer, and are a divine answer to prayer. The translation\ngiven in the English version, _so shall ye be my disciples_, is\npossibly legitimate, but it reverses the true order of the spiritual\nlife, by representing that fruit-bearing is the condition of becoming\na disciple of Christ; and the other construction is both more in\nharmony with the general teaching of the N. T. and also with the\noriginal here. _That_ (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 is _telic_) is equivalent to _in order\nthat_, but the meaning is not that God is glorified for the purpose of\nperfecting Christian character, but that prayer in the name and spirit\nof Christ is answered for that purpose.\n\n\n 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you:\n continue ye in my love.\n\n\n 10 If ye[580] keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my\n love; even as I have kept my Father\u2019s commandments, and\n abide in his love.\n\n [580] ch. 14:21, 23.\n\n\n 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might\n remain in you, and _that_ your[581] joy might be full.\n\n [581] ch. 16:24; 17:13.\n\n=9-11. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you. Abide ye in\nmy love.= _As_ indicates the quality and character of the love.\nChrist\u2019s love for the disciples is, like the Father\u2019s love for Christ,\na love personal, warm, strong; but one that does not shield from all\ntemptation, suffering, or even injustice. The word rendered _continue_\nin ver. 9 is the same rendered _abide_ in ver. 7. _My_ love is\nChrist\u2019s love for us, not our love for him. The meaning then is, I\nhave loved you with the love which the Father has for me; so live as\nto retain this love. And the next sentence indicates how this is to be\ndone.--=If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love, even\nas=, etc. On the meaning of the word _keep_, see ch. 14:21, note. The\ncommandments are all summed up in the one command, \u201cFollow me,\u201d and\nthis again is interpreted by the command, \u201cThat ye love one another as\nI have loved you.\u201d Love is the key to Christ\u2019s character; to love is\nto follow Christ. A life of asceticism or of retirement and meditation\nis not the way to this indwelling with Christ. The condition is love\nin activity of service; a love and life like that of Christ, which was\nneither one of asceticism nor one of repose.--=These things have I\nspoken unto you that my joy might remain in you, and your joy might be\nfull.= One object of his address (comp. ver. 17; ch. 16:1, 4, 33) is\nthat he may perfect in them and in us that Christian joy which is one\nof the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22; Rom. 14:17), joy in the Lord,\n_i. e._, in his companionship, in fulfilling his will, in suffering\nwith and for him, in doing his service (Acts 5:41; Phil. 2:17, 18;\n4:4); the joy which Christ sets before himself, and for which he\nendured the cross, despising the shame (Luke 24:26; Heb. 12:2). By _my\njoy_ is meant, not joy concerning Christ, nor joy derived from Christ,\nnor joy of Christ himself in us, his disciples, though this last is a\npossible interpretation, but his own joy, _i. e._, joy like his,\nhaving the same source in God and the same quality, enduring and\ninvincible. And if this joy is in the soul, the soul is _full_; it\nleaves nothing to be desired. In words there is, in experience there\nis not, a contradiction in the implication that he who was a man of\nsorrows and acquainted with grief was also one possessing the most\nradiant joyfulness. This promise of joy, uttered by Christ just before\nGethsemane and Calvary, is itself a song in the night, and a promise\nof one to every Christian soul in its own passion hour.\n\n\n 12 This[582] is my commandment, That ye love one another,\n as I have loved you.\n\n [582] ch. 13:34.\n\n\n 13 Greater love[583] hath no man than this, that a man lay\n down his life for his friends.\n\n [583] Rom. 5:7, 8.\n\n\n 14 Ye[584] are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command\n you.\n\n [584] verse 10.\n\n=12-14. This is my commandment, that=, etc. Comp. ch. 13:34, note.\nChrist reiterates the commandment which he has before given, and\npoints to his own life as the true interpreter of that commandment, in\norder that he may guard them and us against that Pharisaic obedience\nof external rules which selfishness and earthliness are continually\nsubstituting for a spiritual obedience to the one interior law of\nChristian character, self-sacrificing love.--=Greater love hath no one\nthan this, that one lay down his life for his friends.= Beware of\nreading this as though laying down the life were equivalent to dying.\nTo die for a friend is not the greatest manifestation of love; to live\nfor him, by consecrating the whole life to him, is far greater. See\nch. 10:11, 17, notes.--As Christ consecrates not only his earthly\nlife, but, in his intercession with us and for us, his eternal life,\nto his friends, so, if we are his friends, we shall lay down our lives\nfor him, not necessarily by dying for him, but by doing whatsoever he\ncommands us, that is, by living for him. Thus Christ points out at\nonce both the perfection of his love for his disciples and the\nperfection of that love which he desires from his disciples. He does\nnot here say, however, that to lay down one\u2019s life for one\u2019s friends\nis the highest manifestation of love; still higher is that\nmanifestation made by laying down the life for enemies. (Rom. 5:8; 1\nJohn 4:10.)\n\n\n 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant\n knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you\n friends:[585] for all things that I have heard of my Father\n I have made known unto you.\n\n [585] James 2:23.\n\n=15. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not\nwhat his lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for all things\nthat I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.= There is a\nverbal but not a spiritual inconsistency between the language here and\nthat of ver. 20. The service which Christ expects of his disciples is\nthat of love. His declaration here explains his previous language,\nwhich is that of authority. He has said, \u201cI am your Lord and Master\u201d\n(ch. 13:13), and has reiterated again and again that the condition of\ntheir spiritual life is obedience to his commandments (ch. 14:15, 23;\n15:10). He now explains the sense in which he is a lawgiver. He does\nnot issue an imperial ukase and demand of his disciples a blind and\nunquestioning obedience; he speaks as a divine friend, interpreting to\nhis disciples those laws of the spiritual life which he has himself\nlearned in the indwelling of the Father.\n\n\n 16 Ye[586] have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and\n ordained[587] you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit,\n and _that_ your fruit should remain: that whatsoever[588]\n ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.\n\n [586] 1 John 4:10, 19.\n\n [587] Ephes. 2:10.\n\n [588] verse 7; ch. 14:13.\n\n=16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you.=\nPrimarily the reference is to the choice of the twelve from among the\ndisciples of Christ to be witnesses and apostles (Luke 6:13; John\n6:70; Acts 9:15); and this choice did not prevent one of them from\nbecoming an apostate. It is Christ who chooses for each one of us his\nplace and work in life. That this is the primary meaning is evident,\nnot only from the parallel language employed in the passages above\ncited, but also from the second clause of the verse here. The word\nrendered _ordained_ is literally _placed_; and that is the meaning in\nthis passage: I have chosen you and appointed you your place in life.\nSo in Acts 13:47; 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:12. But it is also clear from the\nlanguage of ver. 19, _I have chosen you out of the world_, that Christ\nrefers not merely to a choice of the twelve from among the whole\ndiscipleship for a particular work, but also to a choice of them from\nthe world to be followers of him. And as an historic fact, so far as\nwe know the history of the twelve, each one was first called by\nChrist. See for example Matt. 9:9; Mark 1:16-20; John 1:43. The vine\nprecedes the branches; the first life flows from the vine into the\nbranches; the first choice is the choice of the dead soul by the\nliving Christ, not the choice of the living Christ by the dead soul.\nWe love him because he first loves us (1 John 4:10, 19; Ephes. 2:4,\n5), and choose him because he first chooses us. And, however difficult\nit may be for us to reconcile this truth with our _a priori_\nconceptions of divine impartiality, rightly held it is an inspiration\nto Christian activity and a source of Christian humility. \u201cEven when\nthis doctrine of election has taken a narrow form--even when it has\nbeen recognized chiefly as exclusive--it has had a mighty power over\nthe hearts of men. They have given themselves up, as they never could\ndo when they thought they had selected their own destiny, or were\ngoing on errands of their own. But when it takes the form it has\nhere * * * there cannot be any principle which is at once so humbling\nand so elevating, which so takes away all notion from the disciple\nthat there is any worth in his own deeds or words, which gives him so\nconfident an assurance that God\u2019s word, spoken through him or through\nany man, will not return to Him void.\u201d--(_Maurice._)--=That you should\ngo and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain.= They\nwere chosen that they should go forth as apostles, everywhere carrying\nthe gospel of reconciliation, and bringing back to their Master the\nfruits, in sinners converted and saints edified. So every Christian is\nchosen that he may go forth out of himself, out of a life of mere\npersonal enjoyment of religion, and bring forth fruit that shall abide\nin other lives after his life comes to its close. And he is bound to\ntake heed that both in his life (2 John, ver. 8), and in other lives\n(Rev. 14:13), there is fruit that abides unto life eternal.--=That\nwhatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.=\nBoth clauses of the verse are dependent on the general declaration, \u201cI\nhave chosen you.\u201d For analogous construction, see ch. 13:34. Christ\nchooses his disciples that they may go out into the world and bring\nforth much fruit, and also that they may ask of the Father in his name\nwhat they need; that is, both for a life of Christian activity and of\nChristian devotion. And the one is necessary to the other. The\nChristian brings forth much fruit only as he has power in prayer, the\npower of a faith that God is able to do much in and through him (Phil.\n4:13); and he has power in prayer only as he brings forth much fruit\n(ch. 9:31; 14:7). Besser notes an evidence of emphasis which Christ\nlays upon prayer in the fact that prayer in the name of Jesus is urged\nin all three chapters of this farewell discourse.\n\n\n 17 These things[589] I command you, that ye love one\n another.\n\n [589] verse 12.\n\n=17. These things I command you that ye love one another.= _These\nthings_ are all the precepts which have preceded from the beginning of\nthis interview, ch. 13:12. The whole object of Christ\u2019s precepts is to\nproduce a loving spirit and a loving life in his followers. See Matt.\n22:37-40; Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14; 1 Tim. 1:5.\n\n\n 18 If the world[590] hate you, ye know that it hated me\n before _it hated_ you.\n\n [590] 1 John 3:13.\n\n\n 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own:\n but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you\n out of the world, therefore[591] the world hateth you.\n\n [591] ch. 17:14.\n\n\n 20 Remember[592] the word that I said unto you, The servant\n is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me,\n they will also persecute you; if they[593] have kept my\n saying, they will keep yours also.\n\n [592] ch. 13:16; Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40.\n\n [593] Ezek. 3:7.\n\n\n 21 But all[594] these things will they do unto you for my\n name\u2019s sake, because they know not him that sent me.\n\n [594] ch. 16:3; Matt. 10:22; 24:9.\n\n=18-21.= From this point to the end of the chapter Christ passes to\nspeak of the relation of the disciples to the world, and continuing\nthe theme in the next chapter, points out (ch. 16:1-4) the\nparticular manifestation of the world\u2019s enmity which the disciples may\nexpect.--=If the world hates you, know that it hated me before you.=\n_The world_, in John\u2019s use of the term, signifies the unspiritual\nportion of mankind, those who have not been taken out of an animal and\nsensual condition by being born from above. See for illustration of\nhis meaning ch. 1:10, 29; 3:16; 4:42; 12:31, etc. Many in the visible\nchurch may be of the world; some without the visible church may not be\nof the world. It was the church which most bitterly hated Christ; the\npublicans and sinners were drawn to him, and their enthusiasm for him\nwas his protection against the machinations of the hierarchy (Mark\n12:12; Luke 20:19; 22:2). Christ does not assert that the world will\nnecessarily hate the disciples. The disciple\u2019s life may be so ordered\nof God that it is never brought into direct collision with the\nself-interest, the pride, and the ambition of the world. But if the\ncollision does arise, and the disciple suffers the world\u2019s enmity, he\nis to be strengthened and comforted by the reflection that that has\nbefallen him which previously befel his Master. Comp. ch. 7:7, where\nChrist declares that the world cannot hate those that act in\naccordance with worldly policies and principles, and 1 Pet. 4:12, 13;\n1 John 3:13, 14; 4:4, 5, where the apostles employ the same\nconsideration employed by Christ here, and for the same purpose. It is\nbetter to take _know_ as an imperative than as an indicative, as an\nexhortation than as a mere statement of a fact. It is thus analogous\nto _remember_ in ver. 20.--=If ye were of the world * * * because ye\nare not of the world.= The Christian is _in_ but not _of_ the world,\nbecause he is born from above (John 3:3), and so is made a member of a\nkingdom which, like its king, is not of this world (ch. 8:23;\n18:36).--=Therefore the world hateth you.= Not merely because the\ndisciple is chosen by Christ, but because he is chosen out of the\nworld, and by his life of nonconformity bears a perpetual testimony\nagainst the world. This enmity is illustrated by the case of Daniel\n(Dan. 6:1-5), Peter and John (Acts 4:21), and Christ himself (John\n11:49, 50). It is aroused whenever Christian principle comes into\ncollision with worldly interests.--=Be mindful of the word which I\nsaid unto you.= Bear it in mind as a talisman in time of persecution.\nSee marg. ref. This truth, employed here and in Matt. 10:24 for\nencouragement, is assigned in ch. 13:16 as a reason for humility.--=If\nthey have kept my saying they will keep yours also.= This is not to be\nregarded as ironical, as rendered by Grotius, nor is the word _keep_\nto be rendered _watch_ with a hostile intent, a forced meaning given\nto it by Bengel, nor is the language merely general and hypothetical,\nwhich is apparently Meyer\u2019s interpretation. Some will persecute,\nothers will accept and carefully keep, the gospel. The disciple must\nanticipate both results, persecution and glad reception. So it was in\nPaul\u2019s experience (Acts 13:42, 45, 48, 50; 14:4; 17:4, 5, etc.). The\nmost popular preachers are also the most reviled and persecuted, from\nthe days of Christ down through those of Luther and Whitefield, to the\npresent day.--=They will do unto you for my name\u2019s sake.= As the name\nof Christ inspires the Christian with peculiar courage and devotion,\nso it incites in his enemies peculiar hostility. The fact that this\nhostility is directed against Christ, and that in enduring it the\ndisciples are suffering for Christ and in his stead, gives them\npeculiar strength and joy in their sufferings (Acts 5:41; 21:13; Rom.\n5:3; 2 Cor. 11:23; 12:10, 11; Phil. 2:17, 18; Gal. 6:14; 1 Pet. 4:12,\n13). Thus the declaration here interprets the promise of Matt. 5:11,\n12.--=Because they know not him that sent me.= See ver. 23; ch. 8:42.\n\n\n 22 If I[595] had not come and spoken unto them, they had\n not had sin: but[596] now they have no cloke for their sin.\n\n [595] ch. 9:41.\n\n [596] James 4:17.\n\n\n 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.\n\n\n 24 If I had not done among them the works[597] which none\n other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both\n seen and hated both me and my Father.\n\n [597] ch. 7:31.\n\n\n 25 But _this cometh to pass_, that the word might be\n fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated[598] me\n without a cause.\n\n [598] Ps. 35:19; 69:4.\n\n=22-25. If I had not come * * * they had not known sin.= The meaning\nis not, They would not have had _the_ sin of hating me without a\ncause; there is no definite article attached to the word _sin_; the\ndeclaration is general, as it is rendered by our English version.\nMoreover, to say that men would not have been guilty of the sin of\nhating Christ if Christ had never come to their knowledge is to utter\nthe merest truism. This, though it is the common interpretation, and\nis adopted, though not defended, by such scholars as Meyer and Alford,\nseems to me utterly untenable. Nor is the meaning, They would not have\nhad so great sin; Christ often uses metaphor, _but he never\nexaggerates_. By his death the Lamb of God has taken away, not some\nsins from the world, but _the sin of the world_. See ch. 1:29, note.\nHence the only sin for which men are condemned is that of deliberately\nrejecting the offer of free forgiveness and a new life through Jesus\nChrist (ch. 3:18, 19, notes). Other sins are not reckoned against them\n(Acts 17:30; Rom. 3:25). They are judged by Christ, because they are\njudged worthy of life if they accept his free offer of it, and\nunworthy of life if they put it away when it is offered to them (Acts\n13:46). Hence those to whom Christ has been offered are not condemned\nbecause of their past sins, which are freely forgiven; they are\nmeasured by their acceptance or rejection of Him. \u201cNo man shall die in\nhis sins, except him who through unbelief thrusts from him the\nforgiveness of sin, which in the name of Jesus is offered to him. This\nis the real sin which contains all others. For if the word of Christ\nwas received every sin would be forgiven and remitted; but since men\nwill not receive it, this constitutes a sin which is not to be\nforgiven.\u201d--(_Luther._)--=But now they have no cloak for their sin.=\nNo cover or excuse. Ignorance is an excuse; but when the offer of\npardon and a new life is refused, the sin is shown to be deliberately\nchosen. Every man naturally seeks an excuse for his sin (Gen. 3:12,\n13). Christ takes away every excuse and leaves the sinner, at the\njudgment day, to the sentence of condemnation. \u201cI would * * * but ye\nwould not\u201d (Matt. 23:37).--=He that hateth me hateth my Father also.=\nBecause Christ is the manifestation of the Father, therefore\nanti-Christ is anti-God. See ch. 8:42.--=If I had not done among them\nworks which none other did.= Not merely _miracles_; the whole\nlife-work of beneficent activity is that which attested to the Jews\nChrist\u2019s character; and the whole work of beneficent activity wrought\nby him in the church universal is the ever-living testimony to the\ndivine nature and authority of Christianity. The evidence of a divine\nredemption through Jesus Christ is cumulative; and the sin of hating\nChrist, as embodied in Christian principles, truths, and lives, is\nconsequently continually enhanced.--=They have both seen and hated\nboth me and my Father.= This was literally true in respect to the\nhierarchy at Jerusalem, who even as these words were spoken were\nplotting with Judas for the arrest and execution of Christ. They\ndetermined to slay him, because in no other way could they countervail\nhis wonderful works (ch. 11:47-50).--=They hated me without a\ncause.= See marg. ref. The language was employed by the original\nauthor--whether David or not is not quite certain--not with any\ndistinct understanding of its prophetic significance. It is here\napplied by Christ to himself, not by an accommodation, but because all\ngodly suffering in the O. T. was itself a type of the great sacrifice\nfor God and man consummated by the cross of Christ, as all suffering\nin the Christian church fills up what is lacking of that sacrifice to\nperfect the world\u2019s redemption (Col. 1:24). \u201cThese (verses 21-25)\nare perhaps the most terrible words in the O. T. or the N. T. No\ndescriptions of divine punishment which are written anywhere can come\nthe least into comparison with them for awfulness and horror. This\ngratuitous hatred, this hatred of Christ by men because they hate God,\nthis hatred of God because he has manifested and proved himself to be\nlove, is something which passes all our conception, and yet which\nwould not mean anything to us if our conscience did not bear witness\nthat the possibility of it lies in ourselves. Do not let us put away\nthat thought, brethren, or the one which is closely akin to it, that\nsuch hatred is only possible in a nation which, like the Jewish, is\nfull of religious knowledge and of religious profession.\u201d--(_Maurice._)\n\n\n 26 But when the Comforter[599] is come, whom I will send\n unto you from the Father, _even_ the Spirit of truth, which\n proceedeth from the Father, he[600] shall testify of me:\n\n [599] ch. 14:17.\n\n [600] 1 John 5:6.\n\n\n 27 And ye[601] also shall bear witness, because ye[602]\n have been with me from the beginning.\n\n [601] Luke 24:48; Acts 2:32; 4:20, 33; 2 Pet. 1:16.\n\n [602] 1 John 1:2.\n\n=26, 27. But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from\nthe presence of= (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70) =the Father= (ch. 14:16), =even the Spirit of\ntruth= (ch. 14:17, note), =which proceedeth from the presence= (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70)\n=of the Father=. On the meaning of the particle here rendered _from_,\nsee ch. 5:34, note. These two clauses are not repetitions; the one\ndefines the other. The Comforter whom Jesus sent at the day of\nPentecost to the church is that Spirit of truth who ever proceeds from\nthe Father. Christ attributes all blessed redemptive influences in the\nlast instance to his Father; as he is himself from the Father, so the\nSpirit is from the Father (ch. 7:29; 8:26, 38; 10:18; Gal. 4:6), and\nis sometimes called his (Christ\u2019s) Spirit (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; Phil.\n1:19; 1 Pet. 1:11). To trace out from this verse the eternal relations\nbetween the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is to import into this\nspiritual converse the unspiritual metaphysics of the scholastic\nperiod of theology.--=He shall testify of me= (ch. 16:13-15). =And ye\nalso shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the\nbeginning= (Luke 1:2; Acts 1:22). A double testimony to the truth of\nChristianity, the spiritual and the historical. After Christ\u2019s death\nand resurrection the Spirit made clear to the apostles the meaning of\nthe enigma, interpreted the prophets to them, and opened unto them the\ntrue nature of Christ\u2019s spiritual kingdom, that they might testify\nunto others (Acts 1:8; 1 Cor. 2:9, 10; comp. Matt. 10:20; Mark 13:11).\nThe apostles also testified to the facts which they had themselves\nwitnessed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, as evidences\nof his Messiahship (Acts 1:22; 3:15). But, secondarily, every\nChristian is a witness of Christ by his own life and conversation,\ntestifying things which in his own experience he has both seen and\nheard; and the Spirit of truth bears witness both in him and through\nhim to the power of God in a devout life (Rom. 8:16; 9:1; 1 Cor.\n12:8-11; 1 Pet. 1:11; 1 John 3:24).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI.\n\n\nCh. 16:1-33. CLOSE OF CHRIST\u2019S DISCOURSE.--THE PRESENCE, OFFICE, AND\nWORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT MORE FULLY DESCRIBED.\n\n\n 1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not\n be offended.\n\n\n 2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time\n cometh, that whosoever[603] killeth you will think that he\n doeth God service.\n\n [603] Acts 26:9-11.\n\n=1, 2. These things have I spoken unto you that ye should not be\noffended.= Scandalized; caused to fall into sin. See Matt. 5:29, note;\n15:12; 17:27; John 6:61; 1 Cor. 8:13. The object of Christ\u2019s teaching\nin these chapters is not merely to impart consolation to the apostles\nin their impending sorrow in his death, but to impart strength to his\ndisciples throughout all time in their experience of temptation.--=They\nshall put you out of the synagogues.= Excommunicate you. This was not\nin that age a mere ecclesiastical censure; it involved the most\nserious consequences, in exclusion from all business and secular\nrelations with men. See ch. 9:22, note.--=Yea, the hour cometh that\nwhosoever killeth you will think that he is offering a sacrifice to\nGod.= Illustrated by Saul of Tarsus (see Acts 25:9), and by the\nproverb found in the Rabbinical books, \u201cWhoever sheds the blood of the\nimpious does the same as if he had offered a sacrifice;\u201d not less\nillustrated by the history of religious persecutions, in which the\npersecutor has very generally believed that by slaying the heretic he\nwas appeasing God\u2019s wrath against the community and the church. Such\nan experience, if it came without forewarning, would endanger their\nfaith. \u201cIt would be a strange result; fellowship with their brethren\ndestroyed because they proclaimed the ground of fellowship; death\ninflicted upon them because they preached that death was overcome.\nMight not poor Galileans, conscious of folly and sin, often say to\nthemselves: \u2018We must be wrong; the rulers of the land must be wiser\nthan we are. Ought we to turn the world upside down for an opinion of\nours?\u2019\u201d--(_Maurice._) This is always a temptation in times when\nChristian principle seems counter to public sentiment, a temptation\nnot merely to abandon Christian principle in order to conform to\npublic sentiment, but to think the principle which commends itself to\nso few and arouses the hostility of so many cannot be sound. [The\nGreek student will find in Alford\u2019s and Meyer\u2019s interpretation of \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1,\n_that_, a curious illustration of the straits to which the commentator\nis put who insists on giving it always its accurate (_telic_), never\nits more popular (_ecbatic_) signification. They are compelled, in\norder to be consistent, to read this declaration, _The hour cometh in\norder that whosoever_, etc., that is, that which shall happen in the\nhour is regarded as the object of its coming; it is ordained for that\npurpose.]\n\n\n 3 And these[604] things will they do unto you, because\n they[605] have not known the Father, nor me.\n\n [604] ch. 15:21.\n\n [605] 1 Cor. 2:8; 1 Tim. 1:13.\n\n\n 4 But these things have I told you, that when the time\n shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And\n these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because\n I was with you.\n\n=3, 4. And these things will they do unto you because they have not\nknown the Father nor me.= The root of all religious intolerance is a\nnarrow, false, pagan conception of God. Intolerance is impossible in a\nheart which rightly appreciates God as manifested in Christ Jesus, and\nsincerely seeks to please him by imbibing his Spirit and imitating his\nexample and method. On the other hand, a conscience uninstructed by a\nmeasurably correct conception of God becomes itself an instigator of\nthe most remorseless cruelty. The cause of the wrong is in not\nreceiving as a little child the teaching of Christ, and even of nature\n(Matt. 5:45), respecting the comprehensiveness of the Divine love. All\nintolerance is rooted in self-worship, making a god of our own\nself-will.--=But these things have I told you that when the hour has\ncome ye may call to mind these things, that I have told you them. But\nthese things I have not told you from the beginning, because I was\nwith you.= What are _these things_? Most commentators understand\nChrist to refer to his prophecies in verses 2 and 3, and they\nunderstand his meaning to be, _I have forewarned you of those\npersecutions, that when they come upon you you may remember that I did\nforewarn you of them_. But this interpretation is not consistent with\nthe added words, _These things I have not told you from the\nbeginning_; for the prophecies of future perils which threatened them\nare quite as clear in Matt. 10:17-22, 28; Mark 13:9-13; Luke 21:12-17,\nas they are here. Meyer and Godet even suppose that Matthew has\ninserted the warnings in his Gospel (ch. 10) out of their place,\ntaking them from Christ\u2019s discourse here; and the explanations given\nby other commentators, if they violate the text less, violate its\nmeaning more. Luthardt gives them all briefly. _These things_, I\nthink, are not merely the prophecy of the persecutions which are to\nfall upon the disciples; they are the whole comforting and inspiring\ninstructions of this discourse respecting the person, advent,\npresence, and indwelling grace and power of the Spirit of Truth and\nHoliness. The phrase is used here as in ch. 14:25; 15:11, 17; 16:1, 6.\nCombining these verses, we get Christ\u2019s object in this whole\ninstruction in the truth of the Divine Immanence, namely, that the\ndisciples may be prepared for the progressive teaching of the Spirit\nof Truth; that their Master\u2019s joy in the Holy Spirit may be theirs,\nand so their joy may be full; that their lives may abound in the\nfruits of a love that is nourished only by the indwelling of the\nSpirit; that in trial and persecution they may not be offended and\ninduced to abandon faith in him as their Master; and he urges them\nwhen this trial hour comes upon them to recall to mind this teaching\nrespecting the indwelling and ever-abiding Comforter, teaching not\ngiven before except in hints and suggestions, rudimentary and\nfragmentary, because while he was yet with them in the flesh they\ncould and notably did depend upon him.\n\n\n 5 But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you\n asketh me, Whither goest thou?\n\n\n 6 But because I have said these things unto you,\n sorrow[606] hath filled your heart.\n\n [606] verse 22.\n\n=5, 6. But now I go away.= Not _my way_; the idea of departure simply\nis conveyed by the original.--=And no one of you asketh me, Whither\ngoest thou? but because I have said these things unto you sorrow hath\nfilled your heart.= The first clause is not literally true. Peter\ndirectly, Thomas indirectly, had asked, Whither goest thou? (ch.\n13:36; 14:5). It is to be interpreted by the latter clause. The\nmeaning is, Instead of turning your thoughts towards me and my future\nglory, and asking after my Father and my home, which you would do with\nrejoicing if you loved me supremely (ch. 14:28), your thoughts are on\nyour own loneliness in the future when I shall have left you, and\nbecause of it sorrow has completely filled your heart, that is, to the\nexclusion of every other thought. My words should bring you comfort;\nthey bring you pain. There is a pathetic reproach in Christ\u2019s\nlanguage, easily comprehended by every pastor who has attempted to\npoint sorrowing souls to the invisible world, only to see their grief\nburst out afresh at the awakened recollection of the earthly loss.\nNotice, your _heart_, not hearts; the singular is used, as in Rom.\n1:21, because they are so thoroughly a unit in their common feeling of\nsorrow. Stier notices the contrast between the experience of these\nsame disciples now and at the subsequent parting at the ascension:\n\u201cThese are the same disciples who afterwards, when their risen Lord\nhad ascended to heaven, without any pang at parting with him, returned\nwith great joy to Jerusalem (Luke 24:52).\u201d A practical lesson to every\nmourner here, as in ch. 14:28, is that he should not allow a selfish\nsorrow to fill his heart so completely that he cannot follow in his\nthoughts the loved one to his heavenly home.\n\n\n 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for\n you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter\n will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him\n unto you.\n\n=7. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is for your benefit that I\nam going away.= The original is stronger than our English version; the\nimplication is plainly, as Alford gives it, \u201cthat the dispensation of\nthe Spirit is a more blessed manifestation of God than was even the\nbodily presence of the risen Saviour,\u201d and the reasons why it is so\nare intimated in previous parts of this discourse. See especially ch.\n14:16, 17, notes.--=For if I go not away the Comforter will not come\nunto you.= He does not say will not come, but will not come _unto\nyou_. Hitherto the Spirit had been given only to men especially fitted\nby their spiritual nature to receive its teachings and to become in\nturn teachers to others. After the death and resurrection of Christ\nthe Spirit was given to the church universal, to all believers. See\nActs 2:8. The language therefore does not prove, according to Alford,\nthat \u201cthe gift of the Spirit at and since Pentecost was and is\nsomething totally distinct from anything before that time.\u201d The\ndifference consisted in its universal bestowal, whereas before it was\nlimited to a few. Why could not the Spirit be sent until Christ had\nfirst gone away? Because it is impossible for men to live at the same\ntime by faith and by sight. So long as the disciples had a visible\nmanifestation of God with them, they would not and could not turn\ntheir thoughts inward to that more sacred but less easily recognized\nmanifestation which could not be seen, and therefore could be known\nonly by spiritual apprehension.\n\n\n 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin,\n and of righteousness, and of judgment:\n\n=8. And coming, that one shall convince the world respecting sin and\nrespecting righteousness and respecting judgment.= In this and the\nthree succeeding verses Christ describes briefly the office and work\nof the Holy Spirit. As the advent of Christ was itself a preparation\nfor the dispensation of the Spirit, and as in his departure he points\nhis disciples to the indwelling of that Spirit as the source of their\nhope, their joy, their love, their entire spiritual life, these\nverses, in which he points out specifically the manner in which the\nSpirit will develop this spiritual life, may be regarded as the heart\nof this discourse. To attempt to give the various opinions of\nconflicting commentators on this passage would almost inevitably\nentangle the mind of the student in a mesh of contradictory\ninterpretations, and would obscure rather than clarify the meaning. I\nhave therefore, with Alford, \u201cpreferred giving pointedly what I\nbelieve to be the sense of this most important passage, to stringing\ntogether a multitude of opinions on it, seeing that of even the best\ncommentators no two bring out exactly the same shade of meaning, and\nthus classification is next to impossible.\u201d Much depends on the right\nreading of the five words rendered in our English version _reprove_,\n_world_, _sin_, _righteousness_, and _judgment_, and I believe that\nvery much of the difficulty in interpretation has grown out of\nimputing to these words a theological and scholastic meaning instead\nof taking them according to their most simple and natural meaning. (1)\nThe word _reprove_, which I have rendered _convince_, properly\nsignifies to convince one of truth in such a way as to convict him of\nwrong-doing. It is rendered _tell_ him his _fault_ (Matt. 18:15);\n_reprove_ (Luke 3:19; John 3:20); _convict_ (John 8:9); _convince_ of\nsin (John 8:46; 1 Cor. 14:24); _rebuke_ (Titus 2:15; Rev. 3:19). Here,\nthen, the meaning is that the Holy Spirit will so bring to the world\u2019s\nconsciousness the spiritual truths respecting sin, righteousness, and\njudgment that the world will stand self-convicted. (2) _The world_ is\nhere, as always with John, the great mass of humanity, not necessarily\nexcluding believers, but in contrast with the distinctive body of\nbelievers. This world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth, for it seeth\nhim not, neither knoweth him (ch. 14:17). Nevertheless it is this\nunseen and unknown Spirit who can alone convince and convict the\nworld. The disciples \u201care to despair of its ever coming from them;\nthey are to be sure it will come from the Spirit with which He will\nendue them. Not they, but He, will convince the world; because, though\nthe world may not receive Him neither know Him, it has been formed to\nreceive all quickening life from Him; it must confess His presence,\neven if it would hide itself from His presence.\u201d--(_Maurice._) (3)\n_Sin_ is primarily a miss or wandering, but in the N. T. only in a\nmoral sense, that is, a wandering or turning away from the line of\ntruth and righteousness. It is the first office of the Holy Spirit to\nshow the world how this turning away from righteousness is the great\nfolly, the mistake in comparison with which all other mistakes are as\nnothing (Prov. 1:32; 8:36). (4) _Righteousness_ is primarily\nrectitude, uprightness, perfectitude of character. John\u2019s use of the\nterm is indicated by his employment of it in 1 John 2:29; 3:7, 10, \u201cHe\nthat doeth righteousness is righteous.\u201d To understand the language\nhere to refer to any doctrine of an imputed or transferred\nrighteousness is to import into the simple language of the Master\ntheological ideas born of scholasticism and belonging to a later date.\nThe meaning is that he who convicts the world of having departed from\nrighteousness will also bring to the world\u2019s consciousness a\nrealization of the elements of true righteousness of character. (5)\n_Judgment_ is primarily moral discrimination, whether exercised by God\nor man; its use, to signify a tribunal, whether human (Matt. 5:21, 22)\nor divine, as in the frequent use of it to signify the day of judgment\n(Matt. 12:42; Luke 10:14; Heb. 9:27), is secondary. John always uses\nit in the primary sense of moral and spiritual discernment, except in\n1 John 4:17, where he defines his meaning by employing the phrase _day\nof judgment_. The third truth of which the Holy Spirit will convince\nthe world will be the true divine canons of moral judgment. The\ngeneral declaration, then, is that the Holy Spirit when he comes will\nconvict the world, by bringing to its spiritual consciousness the\ntruth respecting sin, or wandering from God and his law;\nrighteousness, or the divine ideal of character; and judgment, or the\ntrue principles of spiritual discrimination.\n\n\n 9 Of sin,[607] because they believe not on me;\n\n [607] Rom. 3:20; 7:9.\n\n\n 10 Of righteousness,[608] because I go to my Father, and ye\n see me no more;\n\n [608] Isa. 42:21; Rom. 1:17.\n\n\n 11 Of judgment,[609] because[610] the prince of this world\n is judged.\n\n [609] Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:2; Rev. 20:12, 13.\n\n [610] ch. 12:31.\n\n=9-11. Concerning sin, because they have not had faith upon me.=\n_Because_ indicates, not the reason why the Spirit shall convince of\nsin, but the nature and evidence of the sin itself. It may be rendered\n_in that_. The meaning is not, The Holy Spirit will convince of sin\nbecause they have not had faith, but, That they have sinned in that\nthey have not had faith. The fact that the character of Christ does\nnot call forth the moral and spiritual affections of the soul is the\nstrongest evidence of that soul\u2019s insensibility; and the fact that the\noffer of free pardon and the impartation of a new spiritual life is\nnot accepted, demonstrates that continuance under condemnation and in\nsin is the soul\u2019s free choice. Thus the sin of the world both consists\nin and is demonstrated by its rejection of Christ (ch. 3:18-21); not\nby any intellectual opinion entertained respecting him, but by the\nlack of spiritual appreciation and the failure to give to him and his\nteaching the welcome of an affectionate and obedient faith.--=Concerning\nrighteousness, because I go away to my Father and ye see me no\nmore.= Christ is himself the ideal of human character, the divine\nrighteousness interpreted by a human life. But this righteousness was\nnot, and could not be, comprehended while Christ still lived in the\nflesh among men. The eyes of men were fastened upon the apparent\nignominy of his position and circumstances, and the divine love which\nis interpreted to us by his humiliation was to his contemporaries\nobscured by it. It was necessary that he should go away to his Father\nbefore the world could begin to appreciate the sacred meaning of a\nlife which was so wholly laid down for others. So, habitually, the\nworld learns the meaning of a life after it has ended, and honors\nafter death those whom it has despised while living, and forgets after\ndeath those whom it has honored while living. The Holy Spirit\nconvinces the world respecting true righteousness of character, by\nspiritually interpreting to it, through the ages, the glory of one who\ncould only be understood after he had gone away to the Father and the\nworld saw him no more. To appreciate his righteousness they must look\non him by faith and not by sight. The more common explanation (see\n_Godet_ and _Meyer_) that he who was put to death as a sinner\nwas proved to be righteous by his resurrection and ascension is\ninadmissible, because Christ here says nothing of his resurrection or\nhis ascension; he uses the same phraseology which he has previously\nemployed in this discourse in speaking of his death (ch. 13:33, 36;\n14:28; 16:5); and because he adds emphasis to the truth that it is his\n_departure from them_, not his visible exaltation or ascension to\nwhich he refers, by adding to the words \u201cbecause I go to my Father\u201d\nthe explanatory clause \u201cand ye see me no more.\u201d--=Concerning judgment,\nbecause the prince of this world is judged.= Comp. John 12:31. In the\nhistory of the race, the methods, principles, and policies of the\nworld and its prince are being perpetually tried and perpetually\nproved false by their results. Thus the world and its prince are ever\nbeing judged, and humanity, by the progressive teaching of the Holy\nSpirit, interpreting the book of God\u2019s Providence, are being taught\nthe divine canons of moral and spiritual judgment. This work is\nrepresented here, as in ch. 12:32, as being completed in the death of\nChrist (\u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, perf.), because the crucifixion of Christ, the\nconsummate work of the Evil One, was at once his apparent victory and\nhis real defeat. In the crucifixion he pre-eminently had his own way,\nand by the crucifixion he is defeated throughout the ages. Thus it is\nin and by the cross that he is pre-eminently judged. On the phrase\n_prince of this world_, see John 12:31; 14:30; and comp. Ephes. 2:2.\nInterpreting it to mean Christ is contrary to all N. T. usage. In all\nthis threefold work the Holy Spirit glorifies Christ (ver. 14); it\nconvicts the world of sin, by showing what a Saviour it has rejected;\nit teaches the world of righteousness, by showing the world in Christ\nthe divine ideal of sanctified humanity; and it educates the world in\njudgment, by the perpetual contrast between the policies of the\nworld and the enduring and peace-bringing principles of Christ,\ndemonstrating in the cross that the weakness of Christ is stronger\nthan the strength of Satan, and the defeat of Christ is a victory over\nSatan. See 1 Cor. 1:23-25.\n\n\n 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye[611]\n cannot bear them now.\n\n [611] Heb. 5:12.\n\n=12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them\nnow.= This was Christ\u2019s last conference with his disciples, and in his\ninterviews with them after the resurrection he added very little to\nthe instructions previously given to them. Clearly, therefore, he here\nimplies a progressive teaching to be afforded by him through the\nSpirit to the church in the future ages. It is of this future teaching\nhe speaks in this and the next three verses. These truths the\ndisciples could not then bear, that is, _lift up and take away with\nthem_ (\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03c9), because they had not yet the mental and spiritual\nstrength. Among the truths which were thus too much for them, and\nwhich were mercifully concealed from their knowledge, was the long\nperiod which must intervene before the spiritual work of the church\ncould be completed and the world be ready for the Second Coming of its\nLord. Christ\u2019s language clearly implies that he held back phases of\ntruth for which his disciples were not ready, and thus affords a\nclear example and divine authority for the religious teacher, who may\nnever suppress the truth because it is unpopular--this Christ never\ndid--but who may and should adapt his teaching of the truth to the\nspiritual capacity of his hearers.\n\n\n 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he[612]\n will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of\n himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, _that_ shall he\n speak: and he[613] will shew you things to come.\n\n [612] ch. 14:26.\n\n [613] Rev. 1:1, 19.\n\n=13. Howbeit when that one= (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, emphatic), =the Spirit, is come,\nhe will guide you into all the truth=. \u201cThe term guide (\u1f41\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c9, _to\nshow the road_) presents the Spirit under the image of a guide\nconducting a traveler in an unknown country. This country is\ntruth.\u201d--(_Godet._) This guidance is given to the church throughout\nall ages, leading them by gradual processes into ever higher and\nbroader conceptions of divine truth.--=For he shall not speak from\nhimself.= _From_ (\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc) marks the remote or ultimate origin or cause.\nAs Christ traces all the source of his own authority back to the\nFather, who dwelleth in him (ch. 5:19, 30; 7:28; 14:20), so he traces\nback to the same source the authority of the Holy Spirit. Thus he\nguards his disciples against that subtle tritheism which regards the\nFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as practically three deities. See\nch. 15:26. Both the Son and the Spirit take those things which they\nreceive of the Father and give to the believer, and the object of\ntheir ministry is to bring the believer into fellowship with the\nFather.--=And he will show you things to come.= Rather _the coming\nthings_. As the coming one (\u1f41 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) (Matt. 3:11; Rev. 1:4) is the\nMessiah, and as the coming world (Mark 10:30) is the Messiah\u2019s\nkingdom, so the coming things (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1) are those things which are\nconnected with the future advent and the final kingdom of the Messiah.\nThe Holy Spirit shall not merely bring all things which their Lord has\ntaught them to the disciples\u2019 remembrance (ch. 14:26), but shall also\nteach them concerning the things of the future; he shall inspire their\nhope as well as clarify their memory. This promise of Christ was\nprimarily fulfilled in the prophetic hopes and anticipations inspired\nin the early church, and in the prophetic character given to many of\nthe apostolic utterances, _e. g._, Rom. 11:25-32; 1 Cor. 15:50-53; 1\nThess. 4:13-18; Titus 2:11-14. But this office of the Spirit was not\nconsummated in apostolic times; those who submit themselves to his\nguidance and instruction will still press forward toward the mark for\nthe prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, ever looking for\nthat blessed and glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour\nJesus Christ. \u201cHe will not allow us to be satisfied with our advanced\nknowledge or great discoveries, but will always be showing us things\nthat are coming; giving us an apprehension of truths that we have not\nyet reached, though they be truths which are \u2018the same yesterday,\nto-day, and forever.\u2019\u201d--(_Maurice._)\n\n\n 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and\n shall shew _it_ unto you.\n\n\n 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said\n I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew _it_ unto you.\n\n=14, 15. He shall magnify me.= That is, the office of the Spirit shall\nbe to magnify Christ, his character, his work. See above on verses\n9-11. Any pretended dispensation of the Spirit which draws the thought\nof the world away from Christ to some other and independent authority\nis spurious, whether it be that of ecclesiastical tradition as of the\nChurch of Rome, or that of the mysticism which substitutes an inner\nlight for the word and authority of Christ, or that of spiritism,\nintroducing in lieu of that word communications with the spirit world.\nThat only is the message of the Holy Spirit which tends to magnify\nChrist.--=He shall receive of mine, and shall it show unto you.= To\nreceive of Christ (\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9) is to accept, acknowledge, and follow his\ninstructions as a teacher. This use of the word is especially marked\nin John\u2019s employment of it in respect to Christ, _e. g._, ch. 1:12;\n5:43; 13:20. The declaration, then, is that the Holy Spirit comes not\nto gainsay or cancel, and not even, in strictness of speech, to add to\nthe instructions of Christ, but to accept them, and accepting,\ninterpret them, giving to them in the future apprehension of the\nchurch a profounder significance than they had or could have in the\napprehension of his own contemporaries.--=All things that the Father\nhath are mine; therefore said I=, etc. We are not, however, to imagine\nthat Christ\u2019s teaching is confined to the words uttered by him in the\nflesh and reported to us in the Gospels. All things that the Father\nhath are his; the book of nature and the book of Providence are his as\ntruly as the spoken and reported word. And in receiving and\nspiritually interpreting the testimony of nature and life, the Holy\nSpirit is receiving from him and showing to us. If we understand his\nteaching aright, we shall always see in it Christ magnified.\n\nIn these verses (7-15) Christ points out more specifically than he has\npreviously done to his disciples, and through them to us, the office\nof the Holy Spirit and the nature of his dispensation. It is for our\nbenefit that the manifestation of God in the flesh and to the sense\nhas ceased, in order that the inward manifestation to the\nfaith--profounder, broader, and more universal--may take its place.\nThis invisible but indwelling Spirit comes that he may teach the world\nthe reality and greatness of its sin, the true conception of\nrighteousness, and the canons of a divine spiritual discernment. This\nwork of the Spirit is a perpetually progressive work, guiding, by\nsuccessive steps, the church into the way of all truth. In it the\nSpirit speaks from and by authority of the Father, and concerning the\nfuture, turning the thoughts of the believer ever toward a larger\nknowledge and a higher and diviner life; albeit in all he acts not as\na revealer of a new Gospel, but as an interpreter of the teachings of\nChrist, in the written word and in all the things of God, in nature\nand life, which are themselves the things of Christ; so that the\ndispensation of the Spirit is not an addition to but an essential part\nof Christianity, the revealing in its fullness to the ever-growing\nspiritual apprehension of the church the truth of and from Christ.\n\n\n 16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a\n little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the\n Father.\n\n=16. Yet a little while and ye shall not see me= (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9), =and again\na little while and ye shall perceive me= (\u1f41\u03c1\u03ac\u03c9), =because I go away to\nthe Father=. There is some doubt respecting the last clause, _because\nI go to the Father_; it is omitted by Alford, Meyer, Luthardt, and\nTischendorf, queried by Lachmann, retained by Godet. But the fact that\nthe phrase reappears in the disciples\u2019 expression of their perplexity,\nin the next verse, seems to me to furnish very nearly conclusive\nevidence that it belongs here. Those who omit it here suppose that the\ndisciples put with what he has just now said, what he had previously\nsaid in ver. 10. Observe the contrast between the first and second\nseeing; two different verbs are both rendered _see_; the one signifies\nproperly an external perception by the senses; the other is also used\nto indicate a mental or spiritual perception, and that appears to be\nits meaning here. In a little while Christ should be no longer visibly\npresent with his disciples; a little while more, and, in the\ndispensation of the Spirit inaugurated at Pentecost, they should again\nperceive him by spiritual apprehension. It is evident that Christ does\nnot refer to his Second Coming, both because he changes the form of\nthe verb, so indicating another and unsensuous seeing, and because\nnot a little but a long while was to elapse between the departure of\nthe Lord and his Second Coming.\n\n\n 17 Then said _some_ of his disciples among themselves, What\n is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall\n not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me:\n and, Because I go to the Father?\n\n\n 18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A\n little while? we cannot tell what he saith.\n\n\n 19 Now Jesus knew[614] that they were desirous to ask him,\n and said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves of that\n I said, A little[615] while, and ye shall not see me: and\n again, a little while, and ye shall see me?\n\n [614] ch. 2:24, 25.\n\n [615] verse 16; ch. 7:33; 13:33; 14:19.\n\n=17-19.= The disciples, however, had no other thought of any second\nadvent of their Master than that in which they should sensuously see\nas well as spiritually perceive him. They therefore ask among\nthemselves what he means by this distinction between _seeing_ and\n_perceiving_ him. Their difficulty was the same as that previously\nexpressed by Judas, with the analogous declaration of Christ that he\nwould manifest himself to them (ch. 14:22). It was enhanced by\nChrist\u2019s statement that this new manifestation to the spirit should be\nin a little while; for in his discourse on the Last Day (see Matt.,\nch. 24, notes) he had plainly implied that a long interval of trial\nand persecution must intervene before his Second Coming in power and\nglory. They therefore inquire in whispers of one another what he means\nby this, \u201c_Ye shall not see me, and ye shall perceive me_,\u201d and what\nby \u201c_A little while_.\u201d Their fear to ask Christ is one of the many\nindications of the peculiar awe which his presence inspired in them;\ntheir love was reverential, not familiar; the love of a child for an\nhonored teacher, not that of an equal (Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45). See\nfurther, note on verses 29, 30, below.\n\n\n 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye[616] shall weep\n and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be\n sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.\n\n [616] Luke 24:17, 21.\n\n=20. Ye shall weep and lament * * * ye shall be sorrowful.= These\nthree different words are used to express the same substantial idea;\nnot to convey different shades of meaning, but to give emphasis, and\nto indicate the largeness and breadth of the impending anguish of the\ndisciples. _To weep_ (\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9) is a general word including every\nexternal expression of grief; _to lament_ (\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9) is somewhat more\nspecifically to wail, and is used respecting the lamentation of hired\nmourners (see notes on Mark 5:38; Luke 23:27); _to be sorrowful_\n(\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03ad\u03c9) is more spiritual, and expresses the feeling of the heart\nrather than any outward expression. The disciples lamented the death\nof Christ at the time of his crucifixion, and their lamentation was in\nstriking contrast with the malignant joy of the world (comp. Matt.\n27:39-44 with John 19:25-27). They experienced in the apparent shame\nof their Master\u2019s ignominious death a deep, heartfelt sorrow, but it\nwas turned into joy when later they saw in the cross the manifestation\nof the wisdom and glory of God (1 Cor. 1:23-25).\n\n\n 21 A woman[617] when she is in travail hath sorrow, because\n her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the\n child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a\n man is born into the world.\n\n [617] Isa. 26:17.\n\n\n 22 And ye[618] now therefore have sorrow: but I will see\n you again, and your[619] heart shall rejoice, and your\n joy[620] no man taketh from you.\n\n [618] verse 6.\n\n [619] ch. 20:20; Luke 24:41, 52.\n\n [620] 1 Pet. 1:8.\n\n=21, 22. A woman when she brings forth hath sorrow.= The figure of a\nwoman in travail is used in the O. T. to illustrate sudden and great\nanguish (Isa. 21:3; 26:17; 66:7; Hos. 13:13; Micah 4:9, 10). Christ\nlays hold upon this familiar figure and gives it a new signification,\nindicating that the pain is but a preparation for and a presage of a\ngreater joy. And this is generally the N. T. use of the figure (Matt.\n24:8, note; Rom. 8:22). The contrast is an instructive illustration of\nthe difference between the O. T. and the N. T. We are not mystically\nto interpret the figure here by saying that the travail of the Son of\nGod was necessary in order to bring the Messiah forth as a King and\nlawgiver. However true this may be, it is not the truth here enforced.\nChrist speaks not of his own suffering for sinners, but of the\nsuffering of the disciples in and because of him; and this suffering\nhe declares will be forgotten when it has accomplished its purpose and\nbrought forth its fruits in and for them. See the same general truth\nillustrated by Rom. 5:3-5; Heb. 12:11. Observe that, as above, the\nsorrow is not merely displaced by joy, but is _turned into joy_; the\ntravail is not merely followed by gladness, but brings forth that\nwhich is the cause of the gladness. Comp. Rom. 8:18, where the glory\nis represented as revealed in us because of the sufferings, and Heb.\n12:11, where the fruits of chastening are promised only to those that\nare \u201cexercised thereby.\u201d Comp. Rev. 7:14.--=I will see you again, and\nyour heart shall rejoice.= But he does not say, Ye shall see me again.\nHe is speaking not of his second and visible coming, but of his\nspiritual and invisible presence. His words are interpreted to us by\nhistory, and the distinction between the two is plain; to the apostles\nthey were not so interpreted, and upon the traditional report of such\nwords as these the apostolic church may have built its hope of\nChrist\u2019s Second Coming in their own time. _I will see you_ expresses\nChrist\u2019s sympathy for his church in all their experiences, whether of\njoy or sorrow. See Rev. 1:12, 13; 2:1. He weeps with those that weep,\nand rejoices with those that rejoice; not a hair of the head perishes,\nnot a sparrow in the church falls without his knowledge. _Your heart\nshall rejoice_ foretells such experiences as those of Peter and other\napostles (Acts 5:41), Stephen (Acts 6:15), Paul and Silas (Acts\n16:25), etc.--=And your joy no one taketh away from you.= Because it\nis Christ\u2019s joy (ch. 15:11), a joy in God (Phil. 3:1; 4:1), which is\n_in_ the new-born soul, not merely given _to_ it, and therefore cannot\nbe taken from it by any experience whatever (Rom. 8:28, 37-39).\n\n\n 23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily,\n I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my\n name, he will give _it_ you.\n\n\n 24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name; ask,[621] and\n ye shall receive, that your[622] joy may be full.\n\n [621] Matt. 7:7, 8; James 4:2, 3.\n\n [622] ch. 15:11.\n\n=23, 24. And in that day ye shall inquire nothing of me. Verily,\nverily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father he will give\nit to you in my name.= In our English version two different Greek\nwords are rendered by the word _ask_ in this verse, suggesting a\ncontrast which does not exist in the original. Christ does not\ndistinguish between two epochs in Christian experience; in the earlier\nand more imperfect one prayer being offered to Christ, in the later\nand perfected one prayer being offered directly to the Father. He\nspecifies two distinct blessings which shall attend upon the\ndispensation of the Holy Spirit. The disciples, perplexed by Christ\u2019s\nenigmatical language, had desired but feared to ask an explanation\n(verses 17, 18). Christ tells them that when the Holy Spirit shall\nhave come with his illuminating and quickening influences, they shall\nno longer be perplexed by truths which now they cannot understand. In\nthat day they shall no longer need to interrogate him for an\ninterpretation. Then he adds that this dispensation shall be one of\ngreat power in prayer: Whatsoever ye shall request the Father he will\ngive it you. \u201cThere is not in this verse a contrast drawn between\nasking _the Son_, which shall cease, and asking _the Father_, which\nshall begin; but the first half of the verse closes the declaration of\none blessing, namely, that hereafter they shall be so taught by the\nSpirit as to have nothing further _to inquire_; the second half of the\nverse begins the declaration of a new blessing, that whatsoever they\nshall _seek_ from the Father in the Son\u2019s name, he will give it\nthem.\u201d--(_Trench._) And in fact one of the first and most notable\ninfluences of the descent of the Spirit was to make clear to the minds\nof the apostles those spiritual truths concerning the character of\nChrist and his kingdom which had theretofore been hidden from their\neyes. And ever since, growth in spiritual life has made clear sayings\nwhich are dark and incomprehensible to the unspiritual. The reading,\n_He will give to you in my name_, is preferable to the reading of the\nReceived Text, _Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name_, (_Tischendorf_,\n_Meyer_, _Alford_.) But the fact that the Father gives in the name of\nChrist, by whom He made, sustains, and governs the world (Col.\n1:16-20; Heb. 1:1, 2), and through whom all his redeeming love is\nmanifested to his earthly children, presupposes that they present\ntheir requests through him as their Mediator, that is, in His\nname.--=Until now ye have asked nothing in my name; ask and ye shall\nreceive, that your joy may be full.= Not until the descent of the Holy\nSpirit did the disciples recognize Christ as a Divine Mediator and\nIntercessor. Prayer out of Christ is offered to a God from whom the\nsoul is separated by a consciousness of sin (Isa. 59:2). Such prayer\nis often one of wrestling and of anguish; and the deeper the\nconsciousness of sin the greater the mental and spiritual stress.\nChrist lays emphasis here upon the fact that his disciples are to pray\nin his name, that is, standing in his stead, the prophecies of the O.\nT. fulfilled and their sins and iniquities blotted out as a thick\ncloud (Isa. 44:22), and they themselves brought into filial relations\nwith the Father, reconciled unto God, and receiving the Spirit of\nAdoption whereby they cry Abba Father (Rom. 8:15). Thus prayer, which\nin the O. T. was often characterized by fear and wrestling (Gen.\n18:27, 30, 32; Exod. 32:31, 32; Psalms 42, 43), is in the N. T. almost\nalways characterized by joy and thanksgiving (Ephes. 3:14-21; Col.\n1:9, 12; 2 Thess. 1:11, 12). In the reading of this direction of\nChrist respecting prayer we are to interpret the direction to ask in\nChrist\u2019s name and the declaration that the Father will give in\nChrist\u2019s name by the experience of the apostolic church, who did all\nthings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 20:31; Acts 2:38;\n3:6; 5:28; 9:27; 10:43; 16:18; Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 6:11; Ephes. 1:21;\nPhil. 2:9, 10; Rev. 2:3, 13; 22:4).\n\n\n 25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but\n the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in\n proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.\n\n\n 26 At that day[623] ye shall ask in my name: and I say not\n unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:\n\n [623] verse 23.\n\n\n 27 For the Father[624] himself loveth you, because ye have\n loved me, and have believed that I[625] came out from God.\n\n [624] ch. 14:21, 23.\n\n [625] verse 30; ch. 17:8.\n\n=25-27. These things have I spoken unto you in figures; * * * but I\nshall show you plainly of the Father.= In the imperfection of human\nlanguage all teaching respecting spiritual things is of necessity in\nfigures. Christ\u2019s teaching, not only to the multitude, but to his own\ndisciples, and in this last interview, was figurative. See for example\nch. 14:2, 16, 18; 15:1; 16:21. But he foretells a time in which these\nspiritual truths shall be spiritually revealed (1 Cor. 2:9, 10). \u201cThe\nentire human language is a parable, as it does not admit of adequate\nexpression concerning some things. The Lord therefore contrasts with\nthe use of this feeble medium of communication the employment of one\nmore internal and more real. By the impartation of his Spirit, the\nLord teaches the knowledge of the nature of God freely and openly\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3), without any fear of a misunderstanding.\u201d--(_Olshausen._)--=At\nthat day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not to you that I will\nrequest the Father on your behalf, for the Father himself loveth you,\nbecause ye have loved me and have had faith that I come from the\npresence of the Father.= Or _from God_; there is some uncertainty as\nto the reading. Christ does not say that he will not request the\nFather on behalf of his disciples; but if we take the whole sentence\nin its connections he does clearly teach, not only that no\nintercession is required to win the love of the Father, but also that\nthey who have loved Christ, and have spiritually recognized the divine\nlife manifested in him, are thereby brought into direct personal\ncommunion with the Father, and need no intercessor. \u201cWhile their\nhearts are the temples of the Holy Ghost and they maintain communion\nwith the Father they will need no other advocate; but \u2018If any man sin\nwe have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous\u2019 (1\nJohn 2:1).\u201d--(_Watkins._) Beware of supposing that this passage\nimpliedly teaches that the Father\u2019s love depends on the prior faith\nand love of the disciple. The contrary doctrine is abundantly taught\nin the Bible, and nowhere more clearly than in the writings of John\n(ch. 3:16; 1 John 4:9, 10, 19). But love has many inflections, and the\nfullness of the Divine love is possible only to those who by love and\nfaith enter into the adoption of the children of God. The love of the\nfather to the prodigal in the far country is not the same as the love\nto the same son, clothed and in his right mind, sitting at his\nfather\u2019s board.\n\n\n 28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the\n world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.\n\n=28.= \u201cThis verse,\u201d says Bengel, \u201ccontains the most important\nrecapitulation;\u201d \u201ca simple and grand summary of Christ\u2019s entire life,\nhis origin, his incarnation, and his destiny,\u201d Meyer calls it. It is\nthis, but also more than this. The disciples have believed that Christ\ncame from the Father; Christ seizes on this belief that he may awaken\ntheir hope by leading them to see that in going from the world he\nmust return to the Father. Thus he leads back their minds to the\ndeclaration, \u201cIf ye loved me ye would rejoice because I go unto the\nFather\u201d (ch. 14:28).\n\n\n 29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest\n thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.\n\n\n 30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and\n needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we\n believe that thou camest forth from God.\n\n=29, 30.= These verses clearly show a change in the spirit of the\ndisciples. They had begun the supper by a contention for the first\nplace at the table. They had almost scouted at Christ\u2019s prophecy of\ntheir desertion (Matt. 26:33-35). The questionings of Thomas, Philip,\nand Judas (ch. 14:5, 8, 22) indicate not only perplexity, but a state\nof semi-skepticism, removed from absolute disbelief on the one hand\nand from unquestioning faith on the other. This spirit is abated as\nthe conference proceeds, and it is because the disciples are ashamed\nto confess it that they question with bated breath among themselves\nthe meaning of his words, \u201cA little while and ye shall not see me, and\nagain a little while and ye shall perceive me\u201d (verses 17-19). Now\nthey declare their doubts allayed; there is no need to question him\nfurther; they are convinced that he knows all things; they are willing\nto take his declarations without questioning; this absolute credence\nthey declare as the evidence of their faith that he came forth from\nGod. They do not profess fully to understand their Master, only fully\nto believe him. Augustine\u2019s remark, therefore, is more epigrammatic\nthan just: \u201cThey so little understand that they do not even understand\nthat they do not understand. For they were babes.\u201d\n\n\n 31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?\n\n\n 32 Behold,[626] the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye\n shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave\n me alone: and yet I[627] am not alone, because the Father\n is with me.\n\n [626] Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27.\n\n [627] ch. 8:29; Isa. 50:7, 9.\n\n=31, 32. Do ye now believe?= Most of the commentators take this\naffirmatively, _Ye do now believe_, and the original is capable of\neither construction. Our English version seems to me preferable.\nChrist does not indeed deny their faith, but he questions it, that he\nmay lead them to question themselves. He cautions them that their\nfaith in his divine origin, sweet as it may be to them in this hour of\nquiet conference, is not sufficiently strong to stand in the hour of\ntreachery, peril, and death. So many a disciple has had faith in\ndivine principles and truths in the hour of his quiet meditation upon\nthem, which he has deserted when holding fast to them would involve\nsuffering.--=And ye shall leave me alone; and yet I am not alone,\nbecause the Father is with me.= This sentence is one of those\nparenthetical asides which give us a glimpse of the inmost heart of\nChrist: his spiritual loneliness, and the temper of his solitude. See\nRobertson\u2019s Sermon on the _Loneliness of Christ_.\n\n\n 33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me[628]\n ye might have peace. In[629] the world ye shall have\n tribulation; but be of good cheer: I have overcome the\n world.\n\n [628] ch. 14:27; Rom. 5:1; Ephes. 2:14.\n\n [629] ch. 15:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:12.\n\n=33. These things I have spoken unto you that in me ye might have\npeace.= By _these things_ is meant the whole discourse contained in\nchaps. 14, 15, and 16. Comp. ch. 14:27; 16:4, notes.--=In the world ye\nshall have tribulation; but be of good courage, I have conquered the\nworld.= Thus Christ ends as he began this discourse, with\nencouragement. In Christ we have peace, because in Christ we are more\nthan conquerors (Rom. 8:37. Comp. 2 Cor. 4:7; 6:4-10). Meyer well\nremarks that Paul\u2019s whole life is a commentary on this verse; and\nLuther, whose life was a scarcely less eloquent interpretation, thus\nparaphrases it: \u201cThe game is already won. Do not be afraid that I will\nsend you thither to venture it at your own risk. The victory is\nalready there, only be undespairing and hold fast to it.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII.\n\n\nCh. 17:1-26. CHRIST\u2019S INTERCESSORY PRAYER.--HIS PRAYER OF PREPARATION\nFOR THE PASSION.--HIS PRAYER OF INTERCESSION FOR HIS CHURCH.--HIS\nMISSION AND ITS FULFILLMENT.--THE MISSION OF HIS FOLLOWERS.--HIS\nFOURFOLD PETITION FOR THEM: PRESERVATION; CONSECRATION; SANCTIFICATION;\nGLORIFICATION. See on ver. 24.\n\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--We rightly hesitate to analyze or criticise any\nprayer; the language of devotion is too sacred. How much more when the\nprayer is the intimate communing of the only begotten Son with his\nFather, a prayer which no soul can ever comprehend, and none can\ntherefore ever interpret. Nevertheless, it would not have been\nrecorded if it had not been intended for our profit; and it can only\nbe for our profit as it is made the theme of our reverent study. In\nthis exposition of it I avoid as far as possible verbal and textual\ncriticism, giving results rather than discussions. These the student\ncan find in other commentaries, especially Tholuck and Meyer. For the\nsame reason I eschew theological polemics. Socinian, Arian, and\nTrinitarian have fought over the words and phrases of this sacred\nprayer, each, and perhaps the one not more than the other, evolving\nfrom it arguments for his philosophy of the character of Christ, and\nof life here and hereafter. Into such conflicts I have no heart to\nenter. The student will find them indicated, and even illustrated, in\nAlford. I have sought by meditation to enter into the spirit of\nthis, the most sacred utterance of our Lord, and I seek with\nsimplicity to aid others in meditating upon it; if through such\nmeditation the spirit of the believer is brought into unity with the\nSpirit of his Lord, it is enough. The prayer is not didactic;\ncertainly not dogmatic. The office of public prayer--and by giving to\nhis church a record of this prayer our Lord has made it public--is not\nto teach a system of theology, but to deepen the springs of spiritual\nlife, by leading the sympathetic soul into the presence of God. This\nprayer has a twofold aspect. It is a revelation of the communings of\nthe only begotten Son with the Father; it thus presents to the church\nChrist as the Son and Intercessor, pleading for his church, and shows\nus what are his most secret and sacred desires for us. These are four:\nelection out of the world and preservation from its evil;\nsanctification and consecration unto and in the truth; the perfect\nunity of love, in God and with one another; and spiritual appreciation\nof and participation in the glory of the Father and the Son in the\neternal life. But since we are all brought through Christ into the\nadoption of the sons of God, this prayer is also an example and\ninspiration for us. It is, in a sense, Christ\u2019s second and fuller\nanswer to the request of his church universal, \u201cLord, teach us how to\npray.\u201d The Lord\u2019s prayer is given at the outset of our Lord\u2019s ministry\nto those who are just learning the Fatherhood of God. This prayer of\nintercession is given at the close of our Lord\u2019s ministry, to those\nthat had learned from him both what were their own wants and what\ntheir heavenly Father\u2019s grace had provided for them. The former is the\nmodel for the universal church, young and old in Christian experience;\nthe latter is an inspiration to those who, through the teachings of\ntheir Lord, have come into fellowship with God and his Son Jesus\nChrist. It is not without significance that it follows close upon the\nteaching that Christ is the vine and we are the branches, that we see\nthe Father in seeing the Son, that after Christ is gone and is seen no\nmore, he will yet be really present and spiritually perceived, and\nthat we are to ask in his name of the Father, who has himself loved\nus. It is thus the Holy of Holies to which the preceding instructions\nhave been as outer courts conducting us. The key to its true\ninterpretation I believe will be found in two facts: (1) that it\nimmediately precedes and is a spiritual preparation for the impending\nPassion, which in a measure the disciples shared with their Master;\nand (2) the only glory which the N. T. recognizes is a glory of\n_character_, not of circumstance or condition. Thus Christ\u2019s prayer\nhere is that he may be sustained by divine grace in the hour of trial,\nso that the character of the Father may be manifested by him in his\npatient fidelity to the end, and that, through his example and his\nFather\u2019s influence, his disciples may be made like the Father and like\nthe Son in the glory of their love. See further on ver. 1.\n\nThere is some question whether we have the exact words of the Lord or\nno. Alford goes beyond the declaration or even clear implication of\nthe sacred narrative, in saying, in opposition to Olshausen and the\nGerman commentators generally, that we have here \u201cthe very words of\nour Lord himself, faithfully rendered by the beloved apostle, in the\npower of the Holy Spirit.\u201d We can only say that the Lord has just\npromised his disciples that the Holy Spirit will bring all things to\ntheir remembrance which he has said to them (ch. 14:26); that on no\nheart would these sacred words be more deeply impressed than on that\nof the apostle who was leaning on Jesus\u2019 bosom at the supper; that we\ncannot conceive any utterance in the rendering of which that promised\ninspiration would be more likely to be sought by John and vouchsafed\nby the Lord; and that if we cannot be sure that we have the very words\nof our Lord, we can be sure that no modern commentator has the right\nto sift out the prayer and tell us what were Christ\u2019s words and what\nwere the Evangelist\u2019s. That the Holy Spirit did not consider the very\nwords essential to our profit is evident from the fact that, while the\nprayer was almost certainly in Hebrew, John\u2019s record is in Greek, and\nour version of it is in English; but that we have in these words the\nvery spirit of the prayer, expressed as the Holy Spirit would have it\nexpressed for the guidance and inspiration of the church universal, is\nas certain as the doctrine of inspiration itself.\n\n\n 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to\n heaven, and said, Father, the hour[630] is come; glorify\n thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:\n\n [630] ch. 12:23; 13:32.\n\n\n 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he[631]\n should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.\n\n [631] verse 24; ch. 5:27.\n\n\n 3 And this[632] is life eternal, that they might know\n thee[633] the only[634] true God, and Jesus Christ, whom\n thou[635] hast sent.\n\n [632] 1 John 5:11.\n\n [633] Jer. 9:23, 24.\n\n [634] 1 Thess. 1:9.\n\n [635] ch 10:36.\n\n=1-3. And lifted up his eyes to heaven.= See ch. 11:41, note. This is\nnot an indication that he and his disciples had gone out from the\nchamber and were now in the environs of the city, though Godet even\nundertakes to fix the exact location: \u201cJesus had spoken the preceding\n words on the road from Jerusalem to Gethsemane; he was therefore on\nthe point of passing the brook of Kedron.\u201d In fact, these words\nindicate nothing as to locality. \u201cThe eyes may be lifted to heaven in\nas well as out of doors; _heaven_ is not the _sky_, but the upper\nregion, above our own being and thoughts, where we all agree in\nbelieving God to be especially present, and which we indicate when we\ndirect our eyes or our hands upward. The Lord, being in all such\nthings like as we are, lifted up his eyes to heaven when addressing\nthe Father.\u201d--(_Alford._)--=And said, Father.= Not _our_ Father, for\nChrist never identifies himself with his disciples; nor _my_ Father,\nfor that would too strongly emphasize the separation between him and\nthem; without identifying himself with his disciples, he yet uses\nlanguage on which their spirits too can ascend towards God.--=The hour\nis come.= The hour of the Passion, to which all prophecy had pointed,\nfor which all the O. T. dispensation had prepared, and from which all\nredemptive influences proceed. Comp. Matt. 26:45; Mark 14:41; John\n7:30; 8:20, etc.--=Manifest thine own Son in his glory, that thy Son\nalso may manifest thee in thy glory.= The changed position of the\nwords, in the two clauses, in the original (\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd in the first\nclause, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 in the second), justifies the rendering _thine own\nSon_. _To glorify_ (\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9) in N. T. usage nearly if not quite always\nsignifies to _manifest_ glory. The authorities which Robinson (_Lex._,\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9) cites in justification of the definition to _make glorious_\nare at best of doubtful interpretation. The glory of Christ is his\nself-sacrificing love. The noblest manifestation of this glory is his\npatient and peaceful endurance of the Passion. In the cross of Christ\nalone would Paul glory (Gal. 6:14); it is the Lamb slain that is the\nglory of heaven (Rev. 5:6). Christ here prays that the Father will so\nenable him to endure the cross that it may become glorious, and so a\nmanifestation of the Father\u2019s glory; it is Jesus Christ \u201clifted up\u201d\nwho draws all men unto him, and this in order that through him they\nmay be drawn to the Father. He prays that every knee may bow and every\ntongue confess him Lord, but only to the glory of God the Father\n(Phil. 2:11). Throughout this prayer the thought is always the same;\nglory is of character, not condition; the glory of a divine love\nmanifested in self-sacrifice; making the Son worthy to receive the\npeculiar love of the Father; making all that, through Christ, become\npartakers of the same divine nature, participators also in the same\ndivine love, sons of God, and therefore one with the Father and with\nhis Son.--=Inasmuch as thou hast given him power over all flesh, in\norder that= (for the very purpose that) =unto the all which thou hast\ngiven to him, to them he should give eternal life=. Maurice\u2019s\ncriticism on our English version is just: \u201cOur translators would have\nappeared to themselves and to many of their readers to be using an\nuncouth and strange form of speech, if they had rendered the words\nliterally. But I think they were bound to encounter any apparent\ndifficulty of construction, rather than to incur the risk of\ncontracting or perverting the sense.\u201d Christ has authority (the\noriginal implies both _power_ and _authority_; see ch. 1:12, note) not\nmerely over all mankind, but over all terrestrial life and the earth\nitself, the abode of flesh and the realm of his redemptive work (Col.\n1:14-18); but this authority and power is conferred upon him by the\nFather (ch. 5:19, 30) for a purpose, namely, that out of the world he\nmay gather a kingdom, receiving the entire body which God has given to\nhim, and conferring on each individually, in that body, eternal life.\nThus here, as in ch. 6:37 (see note there), Christ speaks of the _all_\n(\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd, neuter singular) as given to him in a body by the Father, but of\n_each one_ as receiving individually (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2) the special, personal\ngift of eternal life. Observe on the one hand that Christ declares\nhimself, by implication, Lord of all, not of Jews, or elect, or\nChristendom merely; but on the other hand he also declares, by\nimplication, that not all will receive from him the gift of life\neternal. There is implied a redemption universal in its offer, but not\nin its results. The _whole_ is given to him, but only that he may\nimpart eternal life to the _chosen_. Who are thus chosen is indicated\nin ch. 6:40, namely, every one that seeth (spiritually) the Son and\nhath faith in him. Because the Father has thus conferred divine\nauthority on the Son, for the work of redemption, the Son pleads with\nthe Father to so carry him through the Passion hour that this\nredemptive work may be consummated and eternal life imparted to the\nbeliever. Beware of reading _eternal_ life here as equivalent to\n_everlasting_ life or _age-abiding_ life. The duration is merely\nincidental; spiritual life _is_ everlasting; but that which is\nessential is its spirituality, not its endurance. The nature of this\nlife is indicated in the next sentence.--=But this is eternal life,\nthat they may know thee the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent\nforth, Jesus the Messiah.= _That_ (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1) cannot here be rendered _in\norder that_, and curiously both Alford and Meyer, who insist that it\nis always _telic_, _i. e._, always signifies intention, here render it\nwithout that signification. \u201cThis knowledge of God here desired _is_\nthe eternal life\u201d (_Meyer_); \u201c_is_, not is the way to\u201d (_Alford_).\nSpiritual knowledge and spiritual life are in so far the same that\nneither is possible without the other. We become like God only as we\nknow him (2 Cor. 3:18; 1 John 3:2); we know him only as, becoming like\nhim, we become sharers of his life (Matt. 5:8; John 3:3; Heb. 12:14; 2\nPet. 1:5-9). For this knowledge (\u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9) is not intellectual\nunderstanding of the truth about God, but a personal and spiritual\nacquaintance with him; it is not psychological, but sympathetic. See\nJer. 9:24; Ephes. 3:19; Phil. 3:10; comp. 1 Cor. 8:2. The connecting\nparticles are important. Christ prays that the Father will glorify him\nin the approaching Passion, in order that he may be able to give\neternal life to those whom the Father has given to him, for this life\ncan be given only by giving them a true apprehension of the one God,\nand he can be made known to them only through him whom he hath sent\ninto the world, Jesus the Messiah. The knowledge of the only true God\nis in contrast with polytheistic paganism; knowledge of Jesus as the\nMessiah is in contrast with Jewish pride and prejudice. The first was\nthe burden of Paul\u2019s preaching at Athens; the second of Peter\u2019s\npreaching at Jerusalem (Acts 2:22-36; 17:22-34). The use of the third\nperson here, and the phrase Jesus Christ, often found together in the\nEpistles, but never in Christ\u2019s previous discourses, have been cited\nby rationalistic critics as an evidence that this prayer was the work\nof a later writer, who with doubtful dramatic license put it into the\nmouth of Christ. The answer is (1) that the time had now come for\nJesus to declare in unmistakable language his Messiahship, and that no\nmore natural or suitable form could be employed than that of such a\nprayer; (2) that the very fact that the names appear so frequently in\nconjunction in the Apostolic writings, and in the early church, is\nitself a reason for believing that the apostles derived them from\ntheir Master.\n\n\n 4 I[636] have glorified thee on the earth: I[637] have\n finished the work which thou gavest me to do.\n\n [636] ch. 14:13.\n\n [637] ch. 19:30; 2 Tim. 4:7.\n\n\n 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with thine own self,\n with the glory which I[638] had with thee before the world\n was.\n\n [638] ch. 1:1, 2; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:3, 10.\n\n=4, 5. I have manifested thy glory on the earth: I have finished the\nwork which thou gavest me to do.= By anticipation Christ regards that\nas consummated, the consummation of which is so near at hand. In fact,\nnot the least part of his work was the endurance of the Passion of the\nnext twenty-four hours. Comp. Paul in 2 Tim. 4:7, \u201cI have finished my\ncourse,\u201d etc.--=And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with\nthat glory which I have always had with thee before the world was.=\nThat is, _Manifest my glory in and with thee, that glory which I have\nalways possessed_. The word _glorify_ is used throughout this prayer,\nI believe, always with the one signification, viz., to show forth\nglory, not to confer it (see on ver. 1), and that the glory of\ninherent character, not of circumstance or condition. _I have had_\n(\u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, imperfect) is, as above rendered, equivalent to _always_ or\n_habitually had_. The language _before the world was_ clearly implies\nChrist\u2019s pre-existence with the Father from the creation of the world.\nIt is not, and by no candid interpretation can be made, the language\nof a merely human experience. God is said to have chosen his saints\n(Ephes. 1:4), but not to have loved and glorified them, from before\nthe beginning of the world; but Christ\u2019s grace was prepared and his\nglory was manifested before the foundation of the world (Col. 1:17; 2\nTim. 1:9; Titus 1:2). Christ declares that he has manifested the glory\nof the Father by the fulfilling of the Father\u2019s work thus far; and he\nprays the Father to remember the glory of love which bound the Son and\nthe Father together in the eternal life of the past, and to so sustain\nhim in the trying experiences of the present, that this divine glory,\nwhich he has had with the Father from before the beginning of the\nworld, may be made manifest.\n\n\n 6 I[639] have manifested thy name unto the men which\n thou[640] gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and\n thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy[641] word.\n\n [639] verse 26; Ps. 22:22.\n\n [640] verses 2, 9, 11; Rom. 8:30.\n\n [641] Heb. 3:6.\n\n=6.= Christ here passes from the prayer for himself to the\nintercessory prayer for his disciples, with whom, by the request in\nver. 20, he includes all who have faith in him, through all time.--=I\nhave manifested thy name unto the men whom thou entrusted to me out of\nthe world. Thine they were, and thou entrusted them to me; and they\nhave guarded thy teaching.= To _manifest_ is literally to cause to\nshine (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c9, from \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9). The name that was enveloped in darkness,\nof him whom no one by searching can find out, who was, and apart from\nChrist ever is, the unknown and unknowable, Christ has made to shine\nforth out of the darkness. The _name_ represents all that which lies\nback of and gives meaning to the name, here the power and character of\nGod. See Matt. 28:19, note. Especially his name of Father Christ has\nmade to shine out upon a before orphaned world, both by manifesting in\nhimself the character of God the Father, and by his life, and notably\nby this prayer, manifesting also the relation which may and should\nsubsist between the children and the Father to whom Christ gives\naccess (Rom. 5:2; Ephes. 2:18; 3:12). The verb rendered _gave_, here\nand below (\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9), is equally capable of being rendered _entrusted_\nor _committed_ (_Rob. Lex._). This is clearly its meaning in Matt.\n16:19; 25:15; John 5:22; and I think represents the meaning here and\nin John 10:29 better than the word _gave_. The Father entrusts his\nchildren to the guardian keeping of his Son, but will at the end\nreceive them again unto himself when the Son delivers up the kingdom\nto God, even the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). They were the Father\u2019s\n(_thine_) before they were entrusted to the Son, not because they were\nIsraelites; for Christ includes all, Gentiles as well as Jews, in this\nprayer, and elsewhere makes it clear that he does not regard any one\nas of God because descended from Abraham (ch. 8:37, 39, 40; comp. Luke\n3:8); nor because they were chosen by God from the foundation of the\nworld; for there is no distinct declaration nor any necessary\nimplication of election, either absolute or conditional, here. The\ndisciple of Christ is the Father\u2019s, because he is born from above, by\nthe Spirit of God, before he can see the kingdom of God, certainly\ntherefore before by faith he can enter it. Thus he is of the Father\nbefore he hears Christ\u2019s voice; he is given by the Father to the Son\nbefore he comes to the Son (John 3:5; 6:37, 44; 8:47). _Teaching_ or\n_word_ (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), a different Greek word from that rendered _words_ in\nver. 8, indicates the whole system of divine truth entrusted by the\nFather to Christ and by him taught to his disciples, and pre-eminently\nthat truth of God which was embodied in the Son\u2019s life and death even\nmore than in his verbal instructions (ch. 7:16; 12:48, 49). It is\ncalled the Father\u2019s _word_ or _teaching_ because the words of Christ\nwere not his, but the Father\u2019s (ch. 14:24). To _keep_ (\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9) is to\nguard watchfully, as one guards a prisoner; it therefore includes the\nidea both of watchful attention to the word and solicitude to preserve\nit by obedience in the life and heart (ch. 8:51, note). Christ then\ndeclares that he has made luminous the name of God, by interpreting\nthe divine Fatherhood, not to the whole world, but to those selected\nout of the world and entrusted to his guardian keeping; and that those\nthus entrusted to him by the Father, to whom they owe the first\nimpulse of divine life that sent them to Christ for light, have been\nattentive to hear and careful to preserve the instructions they have\nreceived from him. In the succeeding two verses he indicates what was\nthe heart of this divine instruction.\n\n\n 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast\n given me are of thee.\n\n\n 8 For I have given unto them the words[642] which thou\n gavest me; and they have received _them_, and have known\n surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed\n that thou didst send me.\n\n [642] ch. 6:68; 14:10.\n\n=7, 8. Now.= _Already_; the word is emphatic.--=They know.= _Assuredly\nknow_; the perfect tense has the present signification, but\nindicates completed knowledge; not that the disciples were perfect in\nknowledge of Christian truth, but they were fully convinced of the\nfundamental truth of Christianity, viz., that it is a divine\nrevelation, not an earth-born and human philosophy.--=That all things\nwhatsoever thou hast entrusted to me are bestowed by thee.= _Are of\nthee_ (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd) signifies _bestowed by thee_; the former is the\nmore literal, the latter is the truer translation, because it renders\nthe Greek idiom into its English equivalent (see _Rob. Lex._, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac,\nI:2). Christianity is a _gift_ of the Father through Christ.--=That\nthe words which thou hast entrusted to me I have entrusted to them.=\nThis clause, like the preceding one, is dependent on the first clause;\nthe disciples have assuredly known that whatsoever truths are\npossessed by Christ came from the Father, and that whatsoever the\nFather has entrusted to him he has in turn entrusted to them, keeping\nnothing back for fear or favor. Comp. Acts 20:20, 27. I see no reason\nfor translating the same Greek particle (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9) _that_ in ver. 7, _for_\nor _because_ in ver. 8, first clause, and _that_ again in the last\nclause of the same verse. Christ before spoke of _doctrine_ or\n_teaching_ (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), _i. e._, the system as a whole; he now speaks of\n_words_ (\u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1), thus emphasizing the truth that each specific word in\nhis teaching, whether of promise, commandment, or instruction, is from\nthe Father. These words were entrusted by the Father to Christ, and\nnow that Christ is about to leave his disciples he entrusts these\nwords in turn to them, sending them forth, as he himself was sent\nforth, to teach only what they are commanded. See ver. 18; Matt.\n28:20. He does not merely give these words to us for our own behoof;\nhe entrusts them to us to be used for others.--=And they have\nreceived= (not _them_, an addition by the translators which the\ncontext does not warrant), =and known assuredly that from thee I came\nforth=. They have just declared their reception of this central truth\nof Christianity, that Jesus Christ came forth from the Father (ch.\n16:29, 30). They not only have known that Christ has taught only what\nthe Father imparted to him, _i. e._, is a teacher sent from God (ch.\n3:2, note), but they have gone on from this _knowledge_ to the\nspiritual reception _by faith_ of the truth that Christ himself has\ncome forth from the Father. Their faith has laid hold on not only his\ndivine teaching, but also his divine character. Whosoever begins by\naccepting Christ as a divine and authoritative teacher, and holds fast\nto that faith, grows into the experience of continuous acceptance of\nhim in his person and character as a manifestation of the Father from\nwhom not only the words, but he himself, came forth.--=And have had\nfaith that thou didst send me.= \u201c_That I came out from thee_ is more a\nmatter of conviction from inference, hence _they have known_; whereas\nthe other side of the same truth, _thou hast sent me forth_, the act\nof the Father unseen by us, is more a matter of pure faith, hence\n_they have had faith_.\u201d--(_Alford._)\n\n\n 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world,[643] but for\n them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.\n\n [643] 1 John 5:19.\n\n\n 10 And all mine[644] are thine, and thine are mine; and\n I[645] am glorified in them.\n\n [644] ch. 16:15.\n\n [645] Gal. 1:24; 1 Pet. 2:9.\n\n=9, 10. I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world.= It is\nmonstrous exegesis to conclude from this that Christ never prays for\nthe world; he simply says, I am not now praying for the world, but for\nmy own disciples. He enjoined on his followers to pray for the\nunbelieving (Matt. 5:44); he prayed upon the cross for them, \u201cFather,\nforgive them, for they know not what they do\u201d (Luke 23:34); in this\nvery prayer, in ver. 23, he prays \u201cThat the world may know that thou\nhast sent me,\u201d etc. The tense here is present, and the above\ntranslation accurately represents the original. In asking for those\nwho have accepted him as a manifestation of the glory of the Father,\nthat they may be kept even unto the end, he is praying for his own.\n\u201cThe most he asked for the world is that it may be converted, not that\nit may be sanctified or kept.\u201d--(_Luther._) To the same effect are\nGodet, Alford, Meyer, and the modern commentators generally.--=But for\nthose whom thou hast entrusted to me; for they are thine; and mine all\nare thine, and thine mine, and my glory is manifested in them.= _All_\nis emphatic; the only begotten Son has nothing in reserve from the\nFather. What Luther says is true: \u201cAny man may say, What is mine is\nthine, but only the Son can say, What is thine is mine;\u201d nevertheless\nthere are few that can utter with the whole heart, and without any\nreserve, even the first clause, \u201cMine _all_ are thine.\u201d Christ pleads\nfor his own on two grounds: (1) They are the Father\u2019s in the ownership\nof love; thus the covenant mercy of God for his own is plead as one\nground of intercession. Comp. Ps. 51:1; 69:13, 16. (2) They are\nentrusted to the Son\u2019s safe-keeping, and their preservation and\nsanctification will manifest the Son\u2019s glory, _i. e._, the glory of\nhis redeeming love and power; thus the Father\u2019s love for the Son is\nplead as a second ground of intercession. Thus also his example\nindicates what it is to pray to the Father in the name of the Son,\nviz., in order that his glory of redeeming love may be manifested.\nWhile this declaration, \u201cMine all are thine and thine mine,\u201d is to be\ntaken in its more comprehensive sense, as indicating the unity of the\nSon and the Father in all things, yet the context gives a peculiar and\nspiritual significance to it. All that come to Christ by faith, so\nbecoming his, are born from above and are the children of God; and all\nthat are truly born from above and are the children of God come to\nChrist by faith, and so become his (ch. 6:44, 45; 8:42, 47).\n\n\n 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the\n world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep[646] through\n thine own name[647] those whom thou hast given me, that\n they may be one, as we _are_.\n\n [646] 1 Pet. 1:5; Jude 1:24.\n\n [647] Prov. 18:10.\n\n\n 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in\n thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and\n none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the\n scripture[648] might be fulfilled.\n\n [648] Ps. 109:8; Acts 1:20.\n\n=11, 12. And now I am no more in the world, and these are in the\nworld, and I am coming to thee.= An additional plea for those whom he\nis leaving behind. He can no longer be with them, their guide and\nguardian; therefore he pleads for the guidance and the guardianship of\nthe Father.--=O Holy Father, guard them in that name of thine which\nthou hast entrusted to me, in order that they may be one in like\nmanner as we are.= There is some uncertainty as to the reading; (\u1f45,\nand \u03bf\u1f55\u03c2 and \u1ff6 are all found in MSS.) Some manuscripts give authority\nfor our English version, _Keep those whom thou hast entrusted to me_;\nothers give as above, _Keep those in thy name which thou hast\nentrusted to me_. The latter is sustained by the best critics\n(_Alford_, _Meyer_, _Bengel_, _Groesback_, _Tischendorf_). Every word\nin this sentence is weighty. The meaning of _holy_ is pure, clean,\nwithout blemish. The divine holiness is ever going out of itself,\nimparting of itself to others, aiming to make all other natures holy;\nthus by the appellation _Holy Father_ Christ appeals to the cleansing\nnature of the Father. To _keep_ is to guard with watchful care. See\nabove on ver. 6. _In_ (\u1f10\u03bd) is instrumental; as the life of the flower\nis preserved _in_ the sunshine, so the life of the soul _in_ the name\nof the Father, in whom we live and move and have our being. The _name_\nstands here, as above (ver. 6), for all which that name represents:\nthe paternal God. This name was not _given_ to Christ, he does not\nbear it; but it was _entrusted_ to Christ, that he might manifest it\nto his disciples, by teaching them the Fatherhood of God; and it is to\nthis name that Christ commends his disciples, for it is by faith in\nthis name, _i. e._, in the essential fatherly character of God, that\nthe disciple receives the spirit of adoption whereby he becomes a\nchild of God (Rom. 8:15-17), and it is this faith in his Father\u2019s\nholy keeping which is a shield to quench all the fiery darts of the\nwicked (Ephes. 6:16). _In order that_ may grammatically express either\nthe object for which the Father\u2019s name was entrusted to Christ, or the\nobject of the holy keeping which Christ seeks for his disciples. In\nfact, the object of the manifestation and of the fatherly guardianship\nis the same, namely, that the disciples who have by faith received\nthat name, and are protected by it, may become partakers of the divine\nnature, and so become one with the Son and the Father, not only in\ngeneral purpose, but in all essential elements of character (Heb.\n12:10; 2 Pet. 1:4).--=While I was with them I guarded them in that\nname of thine which thou didst entrust to me.= The reading here, as\nabove, is involved in some uncertainty, but this is the better\nreading. The words _in the world_ are a gloss, and are needless.--=And\nI preserved them.= Our English version obscures the meaning by\nrendering two different Greek words (\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9 and \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9) by the same\nEnglish word (_keep_) in this and the preceding verse. Christ declares\nabove that he has kept watch, here that this watch has been\nsuccessful, and that he has _preserved_ those over whom he has\nwatched.--=And no one of them has destroyed himself.= This, which is\nthe sense of the middle voice in Greek, it is important to preserve.\n\u201cChrist did not lose Judas, but he lost himself.\u201d--(_Alford._) But the\nlanguage implies that every one might have destroyed himself but for\nthe guardian care of Christ.--=Except the son of destruction, that the\nScripture might be fulfilled.= See John 13:18; Acts 1:20; Ps. 41:9. It\nwas predetermined, not that one who might have been saved should\ndestroy himself in order to fulfill prophecy, but that one who would\ndestroy himself should be among the twelve. Judas was not lured to\ndestruction in order to fulfill prophecy, but prophecy was fulfilled\nin his self-destruction. See ch. 19:28, note. \u201cJudas fell that the\nScripture might be fulfilled. But it would be a most unfounded\nargument if any one were to infer from this that the revolt of Judas\nought to be ascribed to God rather than to himself, because the\nprediction laid him under a necessity. * * * Nor was it the design of\nChrist to transfer to Scripture the cause of the ruin of Judas, but it\nwas only intended to take away the occasion of stumbling by showing\nthat the Spirit of God had long ago testified that such an event would\nhappen.\u201d--(_Calvin._) It is a noticeable fact that the phrase _son of\ndestruction_, here employed to designate Judas, is employed by Paul in\n2 Thess. 2:3 to designate the Anti-Christ.\n\n\n 13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the\n world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.\n\n\n 14 I have given them thy word; and the world[649] hath\n hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am\n not of the world.\n\n [649] ch. 15:18, 19.\n\n\n 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the\n world, but[650] that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.\n\n [650] Gal. 1:4.\n\n\n 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.\n\n=13-16. But now I am coming to thee.= and therefore can no longer be\nan earthly guardian. As a mother dying entrusts her children to God,\nso Christ his disciples.--=And these things I speak in the world that\nthey may have my joy filled to overflowing in themselves.= _These\nthings_ include not only the prayer now offered for the disciples, but\nalso the whole course of instruction given to them and immediately\npreceding the prayer. The object of both instruction and prayer is the\nsame, that his disciples may be brought into that oneness with the\nFather, that life in him, and that consequent consecration to his will\nand service, which filled the Son with an abiding peace and joy, and\nthat so they might be filled to the full with the same joy. See ch.\n14:27; 15:11, notes.--=I have entrusted to them thy teaching.= Not\n_given_, but _entrusted_. See above on ver. 6. The teaching which the\nFather entrusted to the Son, the Son in turn entrusted primarily to\nthe apostles, secondarily to his disciples throughout all time, that\nthey may become lights of the world as he was the Light of the world,\nteachers of the truth of God as he was the Great Teacher (Matt. 5:14;\nPhil. 2:15). That this is the meaning is indicated by what follows. It\nis only as the disciples become, by their life and words, teachers of\nthe truth, that the world hates them.--=And the world has hated them,\nbecause they are not from= (\u1f10\u03ba) =the world, in like manner as I am not\nfrom the world=. The disciple of Christ is born from above (ch. 3:3;\nGal. 6:15; 1 Pet. 1:3), and thus is spiritually like his Master (ch.\n8:23). The origin of the divine life in Christ and his followers is\nthe same; in both it proceeds from the Father.--=I pray not that thou\nshouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest guard them\nfrom the Evil One.= Not as Norton renders it, and as our English\nversion implies, from what is evil, though that is included by\nimplication; but from the Evil One, _i. e._, Satan. The original is,\nindeed, capable of either meaning; but the latter interpretation\nagrees best with John\u2019s usage elsewhere. See 1 John 2:13, 14; 3:12;\n5:18. The Evil One is treated by Christ as the source, or at least the\nrepresentative, of all that is evil, as the prince of the kingdom of\ndarkness and sin. Compare Matt. 13:25, 38, 39, where the tares, _i.\ne._, the children of the wicked, are represented as sown by the enemy,\n_i. e._, the devil.--If Christ does not desire for us that we should\nbe taken out of the world, we are not to desire it for ourselves.\nTemporary retreat from the world, the better to prepare us for it, is\nlegitimate; so Christ sometimes retreated, seeking strength in\nsolitude and communion with his Father. But Christianity is not\nasceticism. The disciple is sent into the world that he may be a light\nto the world, and the measure of his Christian life is not his\nexperience in hours of retirement from it, but the fidelity of his\nlife in it.\n\n\n 17 Sanctify[651] them through thy truth: thy word[652] is\n truth.\n\n [651] Acts 15:9; Ephes. 5:26; 2 Thess. 2:13.\n\n [652] Ps. 119:151.\n\n=17. Consecrate them in thy truth; thy teaching is truth.= The\noriginal (\u1f00\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9) may be rendered either _consecrate_ or _sanctify_.\nIt means both to set apart from a common to a sacred use, and also to\nmake holy for that use; in other words, it may mean to make holy in\n_mission_ or in _character_. But the former is evidently the meaning\nhere; for it cannot be said that Christ made himself holy in character\nfor the sake of his disciples (ver. 19). Christ prays that the Father\nwill set apart his disciples to a life of divine service, as priests\nunto God (Rev. 20:6). This consecration of the disciple involves his\nsanctification; for the sinner cannot be set apart to a holy work\nwhile yet in his sins. It does not involve sanctification in the Son,\nbecause he had no sins to be cleansed away. This consecration of the\ndisciple is effected both by imparting to him through the Holy Spirit\nthe truth of God (ch. 14:26), and by commissioning him to serve that\ntruth by bearing witness of it unto others (Matt. 28:20; Acts 1:8).\n_In thy truth_ (\u1f10\u03bd, dative) expresses the idea that the truth is both\nthe instrument by which and the service to which the disciple is\nconsecrated. We are consecrated unto the truth as we live _in_ the\ntruth; so Samuel was consecrated to the temple by being brought while\nyet a child to live _in_ the temple. Christ designates the teaching or\nword which he has imparted, and which the Holy Spirit will further\nimpart to his disciples, _thy teaching_, because all that comes\nthrough the Son and the Spirit comes from the Father (ch. 14:10;\n16:13).\n\n\n 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also\n sent them into the world.\n\n\n 19 And[653] for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they\n also might be sanctified through the truth.\n\n [653] 1 Cor. 1:2, 30.\n\n=18, 19. In like manner as thou hast sent me into the world, I also\nhave sent them into the world.= Full weight is to be given to the\nphrase _as_, _i. e._, _in like manner as_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2). This is the most\nweighty and solemn declaration of the mission of the disciple, I\nthink, in the N. T., albeit it corresponds with the universal teaching\nof both Gospel and Epistle, viz., that Christ is the first-born among\nmany brethren, and that those who are his disciples are also to be _in\nall things_ his followers; like him _teachers of the truth_; like him\n_manifesting the life and character of God_ in the world, by the\ndivine life begotten in them from above; like him _bearing the sins of\nothers in their own person_, and so filling up what is behind of the\nsufferings Of Christ (Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24; 1 Pet. 4:13). Christ does\nnot merely _leave_ his disciples in the world, he _sends_ them into\nit, as he was sent, each disciple to be in his narrower sphere a\nsaviour of others, and the whole discipleship to be the body of an\never living, ever incarnate, ever teaching, and ever atoning Lord.\nThus, too, not only because they are _left alone_, but yet more\nbecause they are _sent forth_ to complete his work, does the Son ask\nthe Father to be to them what he has been to their Lord in his earthly\nmission.--=And for their sakes I consecrate myself, in order that they\nalso might be consecrated in the truth.= As above, both _in_, _i. e._,\nby means of, and _unto_, _i. e._, to serve the cause of the truth. The\ndefinite article is wanting, and Meyer reads the phrase _consecrated\nin truth_, as simply equivalent to \u201ctruly consecrated\u201d; but the other\ninterpretation is warranted by Greek usage, and better accords with\nthe context. While Christ identifies himself with his disciples in his\nprayer that they may become one with him, in his declaration that they\nare in the spiritual life born of the same divine Father, and in his\ncommission to them to carry out his work, he distinguishes between\nhimself and them; for he _consecrates himself_; they must be\nconsecrated by a higher power. The consecration which the Lord made of\nhimself was not made, though it was consummated, at Calvary. His death\nwas a crowning act, not the whole act. \u201cOur Lord possessed a human\nnature like our own, endowed with inclinations and dislikes as our own\nis, though of such only as are perfectly lawful. Of this nature he was\ncontinually making a holy offering; he constrained it to obedience;\nnegatively by sacrificing it when it was in contradiction with his\nmission; positively by devoting to his divinely appointed task all his\npowers, all his natural and spiritual talents. It was thus that \u2018He by\nthe Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot unto God\u2019 (Heb.\n9:14).\u201d--(_Godet._) So also substantially Calvin, Alford,\nHengstenberg. Comp. John 10:11, note.\n\n\n 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which\n shall believe on me through their word;\n\n\n 21 That they all may be one;[654] as thou, Father, _art_ in\n me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that\n the world may believe that thou hast sent me.\n\n [654] Rom. 12:5.\n\n=20, 21. Not for these only am I praying, but also for those who have\nfaith upon me through their teaching.= The statement is not general,\n_I am accustomed to pray for believers_, but special, _It is for all\nbelievers that I am now praying_. His intercessory prayer is for us no\nless than for them.--=That all may be one; in like manner as thou,\nFather, in me, and I in thee, that also they in us one may be; that\nthe world may have faith that thou hast sent me.= The emphasis of the\nGreek is partially represented in this nearly literal rendering.\nObserve the close connection with what has gone before. The burden of\nChrist\u2019s prayer has been that his disciples may be preserved in the\nworld, and consecrated for their mission as truth-bearers to the\nworld; he now adds, I ask this in order that they may be one in us.\nHis prayer is not merely that they may be one, but that they _may be\nconsecrated in and to the truth, so that they may become one_. The\nimplication is that whenever Christians are thoroughly consecrated to\nthe service of Christ all differences so disappear that they work\ntogether in unity of the spirit and of faith; and this truth history\nabundantly confirms. This unity is not in creed, ceremonial, or\necclesiastical organization, but in the _Father and the Son_, _i. e._,\nthe unity of personal devotion to, and love for, and spiritual\ncommunion and fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (1\nJohn 1:3). This spiritual union in and with God will finally lead to\nbut it is not founded on unity in opinion. It is a union that is\napparent as well as real. The world will see it, and seeing will be\nled to believe that the Father has sent the Son, _i. e._, that\nChristianity is of divine origin, so marvellous will seem to be the\npower of love uniting in one kingdom elements, opinions, and\nnationalities so diverse. This spiritual unity of the discipleship of\nChrist is almost the consummation of Christ\u2019s prayer. He has only one\nhigher request to prefer for his church, namely, that through this\nunity in him and the Father who has sent him, the church may come to a\ntrue spiritual appreciation of the Son\u2019s eternal glory with and in the\nFather (ver. 24).\n\n\n 22 And the glory[655] which thou gavest me I have given\n them; that they may be one, even as we are one:\n\n [655] 2 Cor. 3:18.\n\n\n 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect\n in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me,\n and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.\n\n=22, 23. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, that\nthey may be one in like manner as we are one.= _I_ is emphatic. The\nFather has given glory to the Son; the Son makes all his followers\nparticipators in that glory. In what does this glory consist? Not in\nthe power of working miracles (_Chrysostom_), for this he has not\ngiven to all those that believe in his name. Not the glory of the\nheavenly state (_Meyer_), for this he _will_ give, but had not given\nto his disciples when he uttered this prayer. Not the glory of unity\nwith the Father and the Son (_Hengstenberg_), for the glory is given\nin order that this unity may be attained; this unity with the Godhead\nis not the glory, but the result of it. The glory which the Father\ngave the Son was the glory of being the Son of God (Matt. 3:17; John\n1:14; Heb. 1:5; 3:6). This glory Christ imparts to his followers, who\nthrough him are received into the adoption of God by faith, and become\nthemselves sons of God (ch. 1:12; 1 John 3:1). And it is as we become\nthus sons of God that we become one with each other because one in\nhim, one household of faith only as we are united to one Father (Rom.\n8:29; Ephes. 1:10; 2:19). This glory of sonship involves not only\nfilial relations with the Father, but the possession of a divine life\nbegotten by the Father, and therefore a nature akin to that of the\nFather, who is love, and whose children we are only as we dwell in\nlove (1 John 3:9, 10; 4:8, 16).--=I in them and thou in me.= And\ntherefore the Father in them through the Son, by whom they have access\nto the Father.--=That they may be perfected unto unity.= This unity of\nlove with the Father and the Son, and therefore with one another, is\nthe culmination of the divine life, as well as the disclosure of it.\nComp. Ephes. 4:11-13: \u201cTill we all come in the unity of the faith of\nthe knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man.\u201d--=In order that\nthe world may know that thou hast sent me forth.= It shall no longer\n_have faith_ merely; it shall _know_ assuredly the divine origin and\nauthority of the Christian religion, and this conviction shall be\ncompelled by the moral and spiritual power of a spiritually united\nchurch.--=And that thou hast loved them in like manner as thou hast\nloved me.= Comp. ch. 16:27. With a love not merely of compassion, but\nnow, all quarrels with one another ended because all separation\nand estrangement from God are at an end, with a love of cordial\napprobation. Then the voice shall speak to the universal discipleship,\nBehold my beloved sons in whom I am well pleased; and the whole world\nshall hear and acknowledge him who has wrought this redemption (Phil.\n2:10; Rom. 14:11).\n\n\n 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me,\n be[656] with me where I am; that they may behold my glory,\n which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the\n foundation of the world.\n\n [656] 1 Thess. 4:17.\n\n=24. Father, whom thou hast entrusted to me, I will that where I am\nthey also may be.= (The sense is the same whether the reading \u1f45 or \u03bf\u1f55\u03c2\nbe adopted.) Christ changes his expression; he no longer says _I\npray_, but _I will_. \u201cHe demands with confidence as a Son, not as a\nservant.\u201d--(_Bengel._) There are two Greek verbs which are capable of\nbeing rendered _I will_; the one (\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) expresses an inclination,\nthe other (\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9) a positive purpose. The latter is the word used here.\nIt might justly be rendered _It is my will_. It is nowhere else used\nby Jesus. With the close of his prayer there comes such assurance of\nhis own unity with the Father that he no longer prefers a request; he\ndeclares his purpose. In this declaration of his purpose he recurs to\nthe promise which he had made at the opening of this most sacred\ninterview, \u201cI will come again and receive you unto myself, that where\nI am, there ye may be also\u201d (ch. 14:3). In this expression _I will_,\nChrist\u2019s prayer can hardly be a model for his followers. We may say to\nour Father, I wish; but we can never be so sure of his gracious\npurposes and of our union with him in them, that we can safely say to\nhim, _Father, I will_.--=That they may behold my glory, which thou\ngavest me, because thou lovedst me before founding a world.= Observe,\nnot _before the foundation of the world_, but _before founding any\nworld_; the definite article is not in the original. On the\nsignificance of this declaration as a testimony to the pre-existent\nglory of Christ, see on ver. 5. To _behold_ (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9) is primarily to\nbe a spectator of, and in its primary signification includes the idea\nof attention, wonder, admiration. It is, however, here used certainly\nof spiritual apprehension; we shall be filled with wonder and surprise\nwhen the veil drops from our eyes and we see him as he is. The glory\nwhich Christ had with the Father from the beginning is the glory of\nthe Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), the glory\nof a character whose radiance is infinite love, of which the sacrifice\nof Christ, purposed from the remote past, is the highest\nmanifestation; and this is the glory which the saints, redeemed by\nhis blood, behold in heaven (Rev. 5:8; 7:9; 21:23). Christ\u2019s will,\nthen, for his disciples is that they may be so spiritually exalted\nthat they may be able to apprehend the full glory of that\nself-sacrificing love which now they look upon with so feeble\nappreciation, and which to the unbelieving world is inglorious (1 Cor.\n1:23). This is the consummation of his prayer; what a climax in what\nan ascending scale! First that his disciples may be guarded in his\nabsence by the divine care in which he himself has trusted (11-13);\nthen that, guarded in the world, they may be consecrated to their\nChristly mission, to teach, to manifest God, to suffer (15-19); then\nthat, with all believers, they may be brought into spiritual unity\nwith the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, being made sons of God, and\nso sharers in the glory of him whose greatest glory it was and is to\nbe the well-beloved Son of the Father (20-23); and finally that, thus\npreserved, consecrated, adopted, they may be able to realize the glory\nof that love of self-sacrifice, to which we all sometimes find it\ndifficult even to submit without rebellion, and in which only the most\nconsecrated are ever able to rejoice.\n\n\n 25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I\n have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent\n me.\n\n\n 26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare\n _it_: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in\n them, and I in them.\n\n=25, 26. O righteous Father.= Christ first appealed simply to the\nFatherhood of God (ver. 1), then to his holiness (ver. 11), now at\nlast even to his righteousness or justice. For since the Son has\nfinished the work which the Father gave him to do, he may ask of\nrighteousness itself to complete it. Thus justice and purity compete\nwith love in pleading for the fulfillment of redemption. So in 1 John\n1:9 it is said that \u201che is faithful and _just_ to forgive us our\nsins.\u201d--=Though= (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76) =the world has not known thee, I have known\nthee, and= (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76) =these have known that thou hast sent me forth=. The\nworld, the Son, and the disciples stand here in a triple contrast; to\nthe world God is the absolute unknown; to the Son he is known; to the\ndisciples God is manifested in the Son, who comes forth from God and\ngoes to God again.--=And I have made known thy name to them, and will\nmake it known.= And with the name all that the name represents--the\njustice, the holiness, and pre-eminently the Fatherhood. See on ver.\n6. These words attest the consciousness in Christ that an answer has\nbeen vouchsafed to his prayer. He began by asking the Father to\nglorify the Son, that the Son might glorify the Father. He closes by\ndeclaring, not only that he has thus far made known the name of the\nFather (ver. 5), but that in the impending hour of passion and death\nhe will make the Father known, and so will glorify him. It is true\nthat the whole work of the church ever since, and of Christ in his\nchurch, has been making known the name of the Father; but it has been\nby interpreting the meaning of the cross of Christ, by preaching\nChrist and him crucified, as the wisdom and power of God (Rom. 1:16; 1\nCor. 1:23, 24; 2:2). Thus this prayer ends, as it began, with an\nimplied reference to the impending Passion; but it begins with\npetition; it ends with assurance of victory.--=In order that the love\nwherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.= That is,\nboth that they may possess an experience of the Father\u2019s love for\nthem, and may possess a love like the Father\u2019s, being made perfect in\nlove, even as their Father in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48); so also\nthat the Spirit of Christ may dwell in them, and that by this\nindwelling their own spirit may be conformed unto his (2 Cor. 3:18).\nIn this simple and sublime sentence the Son embodies the object of his\nmission as the Divine Teacher, the Divine Revealer, and the Divine\nSufferer. The object of his teaching, incarnation, and atonement is\nthat he may make known the Father to those that will learn of his Son;\nand this that he may make them one with the Father and his Son--one in\nspiritual fellowship, because one in spiritual character.\n\nIt is a shallow criticism which imagines an incongruity between this\nprayer recorded by John and the prayer in Gethsemane which immediately\nfollowed, and which John has not recorded. Here Christ asks that he\nmay be enabled to glorify the Father\u2019s name to the end; there he asks\nthat the same results may, _if it is possible_, be accomplished\nwithout the terrible ordeal of the betrayal, the desertion, the mock\ntrials, the mob, the crucifixion, the veiling of the Father\u2019s face.\nBut in the agony of Gethsemane, as portrayed by the other three\nEvangelists, the Son never for a moment wavers from the supreme wish\nthat the Father\u2019s will may be accomplished and the Father\u2019s name made\nmanifest. The power, not merely to resign himself to the Father\u2019s\nwill, but affirmatively to pray, \u201cNot my will but thine be done,\u201d was\na part of that very glory with which he besought the Father to invest\nhim. The devout student will recognize in the prayer of Gethsemane a\npartial answer to the prayer in the upper chamber; for in\nGethsemane, no less than in the court of Caiaphas, the judgment hall\nof Pilate, and the death on Calvary, the Father glorified the Son and\nthe Son glorified the Father.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n\n=Ch. 18:1-11.= THE BETRAYAL AND ARREST OF JESUS.--THE DIVINE MAJESTY\nOF OUR LORD EXEMPLIFIED.--Narrated by all the Evangelists: Matt.\n26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53. As usual where the four\nEvangelists narrate the same events, John gives particulars omitted by\nthe others--the falling back to the ground of the guard, and Christ\u2019s\ninterposition for the disciples (ver. 6-9)--and omits events recorded\nby the others--the conference between Jesus and Judas, and the\ntraitor\u2019s kiss (Matt. 26:49, 50; Mark 14:44, 45). That John wrote with\nthe other accounts before him, and to supply their omissions, is the\nmost reasonable explanation of these and like variations in their\naccounts. He does not describe the agony in Gethsemane, because he can\nadd nothing to what is already told; he narrates of the arrest only\nwhat is not already known. Even in describing the attempted resistance\nto the arrest, this peculiarity is to be seen; for he alone of the\nEvangelists mentions the name of the disciple who drew the sword and\nof the servant who was wounded by it. The discrepancies in the four\naccounts of the arrest are such as we should expect in four individual\naccounts of a scene of such confusion. The probable order of events,\nas indicated by a comparison of the accounts, I have given in the\nnotes on Matthew, which consult throughout. Here I treat only what is\npeculiar to John\u2019s account.\n\n\n 1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his\n disciples over the brook Cedron,[657] where was a garden,\n into the which he entered, and his disciples.\n\n [657] 2 Sam. 15:23.\n\n=1. With his disciples.= That is, with the eleven. Judas was with the\npriests, consummating arrangements for the arrest of Jesus.--=Beyond\nthe brook of the Cedars.= Or the _black torrent_, which is the meaning\nof the Hebrew, from which the Greek is derived. The word rendered\n_brook_ (\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03bf\u03c2) indicates a winter torrent, flowing in the rainy\nseason, but dry in summer. It flowed through a ravine to the east of\nJerusalem, and between it and the Mount of Olives.--=Where was a\ngarden.= Rather an orchard. The original signifies any place planted\nwith herbs and trees. This was called Gethsemane, and was a customary\nresort of Christ and his disciples. See next verse; and compare Luke\n22:39. On its location, see Matt. 26:36 and illustration there. On the\nagony in this garden, see notes on Matt. 26:36-46. It occurred\nbetween Christ\u2019s entering the garden and the arrival of Judas and the\nguard.\n\n\n 2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place:\n for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.\n\n\n 3 Judas[658] then, having received a band _of men_ and\n officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh\n thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.\n\n [658] Matt. 26:47, etc.; Mark 14:43, etc; Luke 22:47,\n etc.\n\n=2, 3. Judas then, having received the band, and, from the chief\npriests and Pharisees, temple officers= (\u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), =cometh thither=.\nThe band was composed of Roman soldiers; the officers were temple\npolice; the former were armed with swords, the latter with staves.\nServants of the priests, and some of the priests themselves,\naccompanied the force. See Matt. 26:47, note; Luke 22:52.--=With\nlanterns and torches.= \u201cThe fact of its being full moon did not make\nthe lights unnecessary, as in searching for a prisoner they might have\nto enter dark places.\u201d--(_Alford._) They appear also to have had a\nfear of attempted flight or rescue. See Matt. 26:48, note. I doubt\nwhether any definite distinction is intended between lanterns and\ntorches. The annexed cuts give illustrations of two kinds of night\ntorches used among the Romans. The one (_fax_), (_Rich._, p. 280) was\nmade out of a piece of resinous wood, cut into a point and dipped in\noil or pitch, or of inflammable materials enclosed in a tube. The\nother (_lampas_), (_Rich._, p. 365) was in the nature of a\ncandlestick, with a handle beneath and a large disk above, to protect\nthe hand from the drippings of the pitchy or resinous matter of which\nthe torch consisted. This _lampa_ was carried by the youth of Athens\nin a peculiar race, in which the winner had to outstrip his\ncompetitors without extinguishing his light. The ancient Oriental\nlantern, like those still employed in Egypt (see Lane\u2019s _Modern\nEgypt_), consisted of a wax cloth, strained over a sort of cylinder of\niron rings and a top and bottom of perforated copper. Both the Roman\ntorch and the Oriental lantern may have been used on this occasion.\n\n\n [Illustration:\n\n ROMAN TORCHES. ORIENTAL TORCH.]\n\n\n 4 Jesus therefore, knowing[659] all things that should come\n upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?\n\n [659] ch. 10:17, 18; Acts 2:28.\n\n\n 5 They answered him, Jesus of[660] Nazareth. Jesus saith\n unto them, I am _he_. And Judas also, which betrayed him,\n stood with them.\n\n [660] ch. 19:19; Matt. 2:23.\n\n=4, 5. Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that should come upon\nhim.= Not merely knowing that the guard had come to arrest him (Matt.\n26:45), but with the full consciousness of all the agony of the morrow\n(Matt. 20:17-19; Luke 18:31-34). Of his own will he submits to the\nPassion (Matt. 26:53; John 10:18).--=Went forth.= Possibly from the\nshadow of the trees into the moonlight, or from the garden walls, or\nperhaps simply advanced to meet the guards. His object in so doing is\nindicated by ver. 8. He put himself between the guards and his\ndisciples to prevent the arrest of the latter. Judas preceded the band\n(Luke 22:47), and Christ\u2019s questions addressed to the apostate, and\nthe traitor\u2019s kiss (Matt. 26:49, 50; Luke 22:48), seem to have taken\nplace before Christ spoke to the guard.--=Jesus the Nazarene.= Jesus,\nor Joshua--the names are the same--was a common one among the Jews,\nand the term \u201cNazarene\u201d was a customary appellation, especially by his\nfoes, to designate our Lord. Its tone, to the Judeans, was one of\ncontempt (Matt. 2:23; John 19:19).--=And there stood Judas, he that\nbetrayed him, with them.= If we suppose that Jesus hurried forth from\nthe garden, before the three disciples were well awake, to the spot\nwhere the others had been sleeping, then, not improbably, John did not\nsee the traitor\u2019s kiss, but, arriving after, saw Judas standing with\nthe guard, who had meanwhile come to the spot; thus he narrates only\nwhat he personally witnessed. His language, by its very simplicity,\nsuggests to the imagination the contrast between Jesus and Judas, the\nbetrayed and the betrayer.\n\n\n 6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am _he_,\n they[661] went backward, and fell to the ground.\n\n [661] Ps. 27:2; 40:14.\n\n=6. They= (the guard) =went backward and fell to the ground=. That\nthis states a literal fact will not be questioned by any who believe\nin the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel narratives. That it\ndescribes a miracle, that is, a sign of the superhuman character of\nChrist, is equally certain. Whether it is to be regarded as an effect\nproduced by the _will_ of our Lord, or by the mere _majesty_ and\n_dignity_ of his mien, and his reply, is the only question which\nbelievers in the N. T. have to consider. I think the latter. The scene\nis interpreted, though not fully explained, by similar instances of\nmoral power excited by noble over savage natures. History records\nseveral analogous cases, as when before Mark Antony, Marius, and\nColigny, the murderers recoiled panic-stricken. So Avidius Cassius,\n\u201cspringing to the door of his tent in nightdress, quelled a mutinous\narmy by his mere presence.\u201d--(_Farrar._) Lange cites Matt. 28:4; Luke\n4:30; John 7:44-46; 8:59; 10:39; Acts 5:5, 10, as partially parallel.\nThe historical cases above referred to illustrate the _human_ power of\na noble soul; this case differs from them in that it shows the\n_divine_ power of Him who not only spake as never man spake, but who\ncarried in his person the evidence that he was in very deed the image\nof God and the brightness of his glory. This view is confirmed by the\nreflection that he came forth to meet the guard from an hour of sacred\nand solemn communion with God, of ecstasy unfathomable by us. \u201cI\nregard it,\u201d says Alford, \u201crather as a miracle _consequent upon_ that\nwhich Christ said and did, and the state of mind in which his enemies\nwere, than as one in the strict sense _wrought_ by him; bearing,\nhowever, always in mind, that to Him nothing was unexpected or a _mere\nresult_, but everything foreknown.\u201d Thus interpreted it is a striking\ntestimony, one of many, to the personal glory of Him who was ever full\nof \u201cgrace and truth,\u201d and gives a solemn significance to such passages\nas Matt. 25:31; Rev. 1:7; 6:15-17. \u201cIf he did this when about to be\njudged, what shall he do when he shall sit in judgment? If he did this\non the eve of death, what shall he do when reigning?\u201d--(_Augustine._)\n\n\n 7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said,\n Jesus of Nazareth.\n\n\n 8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am _he_: if\n therefore ye seek me,[662] let these go their way:\n\n [662] Isa. 53:6; Ephes. 5:25.\n\n=7, 8.= I surmise that the attack on the guard followed their sudden\nterror. The disciples were eager to make it (Luke 22:49), though Peter\nwas the only one who carried the will into action. Only one other\ndisciple was armed (Luke 22:38). The request of Christ, \u201c_Let these go\ntheir way_,\u201d was interpreted by the disciples as a direction for them\nto flee, which they did. That there was anything cowardly or wrong in\nthis flight is by no means clear. To sanction it, both Christ\u2019s\nprecept (Matt. 10:23) and his example (Luke 4:30; John 8:59; 10:39)\nmight be quoted. Nothing would have been gained for Christ or his\ncause by the disciples subjecting themselves to arrest.\n\n\n 9 That the saying might be fulfilled which he spake,[663]\n Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.\n\n [663] ch. 17:12.\n\n=9. That the saying might be fulfilled.= The saying is quoted from\nChrist\u2019s prayer, John 17:12. The present deliverance of the eleven\nfrom physical danger was not a final fulfillment of the saying, but\nwas itself a historical prophecy of its further spiritual fulfillment,\nas God\u2019s providential care of us in respect to present and temporal\nwants is a testimony of the love that provides even more abundantly\nfor every spiritual want. See Matt. 2:15, note.\n\n\n 10 Then[664] Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and\n smote the high priest\u2019s servant, and cut off his right ear.\n The servant\u2019s name was Malchus.\n\n [664] Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49, 50.\n\n\n 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the\n sheath: the cup[665] which my Father hath given me, shall I\n not drink it?\n\n [665] Matt. 20:22; 26:39, 42.\n\n=10, 11.= Christ follows his rebuke of Peter by healing Malchus (Luke\n22:51). John alone gives the name of either assailant or assailed. See\nfor reason, note on Matt. 26:51. Compare Christ\u2019s language here with\nMatthew\u2019s report.--Observe that the evils brought upon us by wicked\nmen are yet recognized here as given by God. The sufferings inflicted\nby Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate, and rendered necessary by the sins of\nthe world, are yet to Christ\u2019s faith the cup which his Father hath\ngiven him.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=12-27.= THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS, AND THE\nDENIALS BY PETER.--This examination, narrated by John, is distinctive\nfrom the trial reported by the Synoptists (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark\n14:53-65; Luke 22:63-71). For a general consideration of the harmony\nof the Gospel narratives, and of their lessons, see notes on Matthew.\nIf John is the other disciple referred to in verses 15, 16, he is the\nonly one of the Evangelists who was an eye and ear witness of these\nevents, and his order is presumptively the correct one. For reasons\nappearing partly in the notes on Matthew, partly in the notes below, I\nbelieve that Jesus was sent at once from Annas to Caiaphas, though the\ntwo may have occupied different apartments in the same palace; that\nthe preliminary examination was conducted by Caiaphas; that while it\nproceeded Peter was in the adjoining courtyard, and there denied his\nLord; that at its conclusion Jesus was conducted to the Sanhedrim,\nwhere the formal trial reported by the Synoptists took place; and that\nthis trial is not described by John, perhaps because he was not\npresent, and wrote only of the events which he personally witnessed.\n\n\n 12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews\n took Jesus, and bound him,\n\n=12. Then the band * * * bound him.= John alone describes the binding.\nThis it was, probably, which called forth the remonstrance and rebuke\nof Christ recorded in Matt. 26:55, 56; Luke 22:52, 53. \u201cTo apprehend\nand bind One, all gave their help: the cohort, the chiliarch, and the\nJewish officers. This the Evangelist brings prominently forward, to\nshow how deep the impression of that previous incident still was: only\n_by the help of all_ did they feel themselves secure. And thus\nit was ordered that the disciples might escape with the more\nsafety.\u201d--(_Luthardt._)\n\n\n 13 And led him away to Annas[666] first; for he was father\n in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same\n year.\n\n [666] Luke 3:2.\n\n\n 14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel[667] to the\n Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the\n people.\n\n [667] ch. 11:49, 50.\n\n=13, 14. Annas first.= Annas was appointed High Priest of the Jews A.\nD. 7, but had been removed by the Roman Procurator several years\nprevious, and Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, had been appointed in\nhis stead. In Luke 3:2 both are designated as high-priests, and in\nActs 4:6; 23:2, the title is given to Annas. The probable explanation\nis that while Caiaphas held the office, he was really controlled by\nhis father-in-law, who may have been regarded by the Jews as their\ntrue high-priest, notwithstanding his deposition by the Romans. He\nseems to have been one of that class of politicians who are willing\nthat others should possess the honors and offices, provided they may\nwield the powers of the state.--=Caiaphas.= See Matt. 26:57,\nnote.--=That same year.= The high-priest was originally appointed for\nlife, but the office was now filled by appointees of the Roman\ngovernment. There were no fewer than twenty-eight high-priests from\nthe reign of Herod to the destruction of the temple by Titus. Of\nthese, five besides Caiaphas were sons of Annas. It is possible that\nthere is a delicate sarcasm in John\u2019s incidental allusion to the\ntransitoriness of the office. This, at least, seems to me better than\nto render the original (\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2) _era_ instead of _year_, though that\nis a possible translation, or to suppose, with Prof. Fisher, that John\nthus simply emphasizes the supreme importance which that year, of the\ntrial and crucifixion of Jesus, had in his mind.--=Which gave\ncounsel.= See John 11:49-51.\n\n\n 15 And[668] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and _so did_\n another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high\n priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high\n priest.\n\n [668] Matt. 26:58, etc.; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54.\n\n=15. Another disciple.= Who this other disciple was is not certainly\nknown, though Alford says \u201cthere is no reason to doubt the universal\npersuasion that by this name John intends _himself_, and refers to the\nmention in ch. 13:23 of a disciple whom Jesus loved.\u201d The notion that\nit was Judas Iscariot is refuted by the language of this verse. Judas\ndid not follow Jesus, but accompanied the band; and that Peter should\nhave entered the palace under the protection of Judas after the\nbetrayal is incredible. Some manuscripts have the reading _the_ other\ndisciple, which would identify him with John (ch. 20:2, 3, 4). But it\nseems more probable that the article was added by some copyist to give\ndefiniteness to the expression, than that it was subsequently\nomitted.--=Was known unto the high-priest.= How, we have no means of\nascertaining. John 19:27 is, however, thought to indicate that the\napostle John had a house in Jerusalem.--=Into the palace of the\nhigh-priest.= Since John describes Caiaphas as high-priest, this verse\nclearly indicates that Jesus was taken at once from Annas to Caiaphas.\nSee on ver. 24.\n\n\n 16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that\n other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and\n spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.\n\n\n 17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art\n not thou also _one_ of this man\u2019s disciples? He saith, I am\n not.\n\n=16, 17.= See Matt. 26:69, note, and illustration there. The\ndoorkeeper was not unfrequently a maid (Acts 12:13). The language\nhere, Art not thou _also_ one of his disciples? indicates that John\nwas known to her as a disciple, and that Peter\u2019s first denial was\nuttered on entering, and for the purpose of gaining an entrance.\nObserve that it is not being in bad company, but fellowship in it,\nthat is dangerous. Peter and John were both in the same company, but\none concealed his discipleship, the other did not.\n\n\n [Illustration: ANCIENT FIRE UTENSILS.\n 1, 2. Braziers.\n 3. Fire-hod.\n 4. Bellows.\n 5. Tongs.]\n\n\n 18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had\n made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed\n themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.\n\n=18. The servants * * * had made a fire of coals.= Probably an open\nfire in a portable stove or brazier, in the open courtyard around\nwhich the Jewish house was customarily built. It is doubtful whether\nchimneys were known to the ancients; they were certainly very rare.\nFires were built sometimes in a little brazier or chafing-dish,\nsometimes in a small portable stove or fireplace. The fire was always\ncarried from one room to another in a fire-basket made of iron, with\nperforated sides, to create a draft of air. Bellows and tongs were\nalso in use among them. The accompanying illustrations, taken from\nancient bronzes and paintings, will give the reader an idea of these\narticles. Peter, by joining the group around the fire and concealing\nhis true character, identified himself with the persecutors of Christ.\n\n\n 19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and\n of his doctrine.\n\n\n 20 Jesus answered him, I spake[669] openly to the world. I\n ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither\n the Jews always resort; and[670] in secret have I said\n nothing.\n\n [669] ch. 7:14, 26, 28; 8:2; Luke 4:15.\n\n [670] Acts 26:26.\n\n\n 21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have\n said unto them: behold, they know what I said.\n\n=19-21. The high-priest then asked Jesus.= It was customary among the\nJews to subject an accused person to an examination analogous to\nthat practised at a later day in the Inquisition. Witnesses\nconcealed behind a screen reduced his replies to writing. To such an\nexamination, preliminary to his formal trial, Jesus Christ was now\nsubjected.--=Of his disciples and of his doctrine.= The object of the\nfirst question was to get evidence against his adherents, the object\nof the second to get evidence against Jesus himself. To the first\nJesus pays no attention; to the second he interposes a calm and\ndignified protest.--=I spoke openly.= Rather freely, boldly. The\noriginal (\u03c0\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1) signifies literally _speaking out all_, that is,\nfree-spokenness. Observe that boldness and frankness of utterance are\nessential qualifications of the true preacher.--=In secret have I said\nnothing.= Some truths he had reserved because they could not be\nunderstood (John 16:12, 25), and others which he had taught were not\nunderstood (Matt. 13:13; 1 Cor. 2:7, 8); but there were no mysteries\nin his religious teaching which he had sought to conceal and for which\nhe was amenable.--=Ask them which heard me.= Not improbably some of\nthe very officers so strangely affected by his preaching were present.\nIf so, this appeal to their own subordinates would have incensed the\npriests, by making manifest their own injustice.\n\n\n 22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which\n stood by struck[671] Jesus with the palm of his hand,\n saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?\n\n [671] Job 16:10; Jer. 20:2; Acts 23:2, 3.\n\n\n 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness\n of the evil: but[672] if well, why smitest thou me?\n\n [672] 1 Pet. 2:19-23.\n\n=22, 23. With the palm of his hand.= Or _with a staff_; either meaning\nis admissible. Contrast with Christ\u2019s calm rejoinder Paul\u2019s response\nto similar maltreatment (Acts 23:3).--The commentators note in\nChrist\u2019s course here his own interpretation of Matt. 5:39. \u201cAn angry\nman may turn in sullenness the other cheek visibly to the smiter;\nbetter is he who makes a true answer with mildness, and prepares his\nheart in peace to endure great sufferings.\u201d--(_Augustine._) \u201cChrist\nforbids self-defence with the hand, not with the tongue.\u201d--(_Luther._)\n\u201cChrist\u2019s precept does not exclude the remonstrance against unjust\noppression, provided it be done calmly and patiently.\u201d--(_Alford._)\n\n\n 24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high\n priest.\n\n=24. Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas.= Some scholars (so\nAlford, Lange, and Meyer) render this verse, _Sent him bound_, and\nsuppose that Jesus was sent from Annas to Caiaphas at this time; but\nWiner (p. 275, \u00a7 40, 5_a_) and Buttman (p. 200, \u00a7 137) show that the\naorist is sometimes used for the pluperfect, as rendered by our\nEnglish version, and that the sentence may be accordingly regarded\ngrammatically as parenthetical. I believe (see ver. 15, note) that\nthis is the true construction, and that the parenthesis is introduced\nat this place for the purpose of showing that Jesus was still bound\nwhen the indignity here described was inflicted upon him.\n\n\n [Illustration: DENIALS OF PETER.]\n\n\n 25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said\n therefore unto him, Art not thou also _one_ of his\n disciples? He denied _it_, and said, I am not.\n\n\n 26 One of the servants of the high priest, being _his_\n kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee\n in the garden with him?\n\n\n 27 Peter then denied again: and[673] immediately the cock\n crew.\n\n [673] ch. 13:38; Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:60.\n\n=25-27. Peter stood and warmed himself.= In apparent indifference to\nhis Lord; concerned only for his comfort, and absorbed in his\ncuriosity.-- =Did not I see thee?= This question was apparently put to\nPeter after he had retreated to the porch. It must be remembered that\nPeter\u2019s danger was real and imminent; for his assault on Malchus had\nrendered him amenable to legal penalty. On the denial and its lessons,\nsee notes on Matt. 26:69-75.\n\n * * * * *\n\n [Illustration: JESUS BEFORE PILATE.\n\n \u201c_Art thou the king of the Jews._\u201d]\n\n\n\nCh. 18:28 to ch. 19:16. TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE PILATE.--THE CONSCIENCE\nOF THE CEREMONIALIST (28).--JESUS A KING; HIS KINGDOM TRUTH; ITS\nDEFENCES NOT WORLDLY; IT CONQUERS ONLY THE WILLING (33-38).--IN CHRIST\nNO FAULT (38; ch. 19:4, 6).--THE WORLD CHOOSES BARABBAS AND REJECTS\nCHRIST (39, 40).--CROWNED SUFFERING (ch. 19:1-3).--BEHOLD THE MAN\n(5).--BEHOLD YOUR KING (14).--THE TESTIMONY OF THE JEWS TO THE\nDIVINITY OF CHRIST (7).--THE SILENCE OF JESUS (9).--THE END OF\nREJECTING CHRIST IS REJECTING GOD: WE HAVE NO KING BUT C\u00c6SAR\n(15).--THE CRIME OF COWARDICE ILLUSTRATED BY PILATE.\n\nThis trial is reported also in Matt. 27:11-31; Mark 15:1-23; Luke\n23:1-25. John\u2019s account is the fullest, and has indications of being\nby an eye and ear witness; but he does not mention Pilate\u2019s wife\u2019s\ndream and Pilate\u2019s washing of his hands in attestation of his\ninnocence, recorded only by Matthew, nor the accusation preferred by\nthe priests and the sending of Jesus to Herod, recorded only by Luke.\nFor chronological order of events, see Matt. 27:11-31, Prel. Note. For\na consideration of the character of Pilate, the reasons for his\nvacillating course, and the practical lessons to be drawn from it, see\nnote below, ver. 16. The place of this trial I believe to have been\nthe tower of Antonia; the reason for the trial is explained in ver. 31\n(see note there).\n\n\n 28 Then[674] led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of\n judgment; and it was early; and they themselves went not\n into the judgment hall, lest[675] they should be defiled;\n but that they might eat the passover.\n\n [674] Matt. 27:2, etc.; Mark 15:1, etc.; Luke 23:1,\n etc.\n\n [675] Acts 10:28.\n\n\n 29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What\n accusation bring ye against this man?\n\n=28, 29. Unto the hall of judgment.= Literally Pr\u00e6torium--the name\ngiven among the Romans to the headquarters of the Roman military\ngovernor, wherever he happened to be; here it is the residence which\nPilate occupied in Jerusalem. Whether that was the palace of King\nHerod, as Farrar and others have supposed, or the tower of Antonia, is\nuncertain; more probably the latter, which was at the time and long\nafterwards the citadel of Jerusalem, the headquarters of the army, and\nthe residence of the Roman governors. It was built upon the same broad\nplatform of solid rock upon which the temple stood, and so adjoined\nthe walls of the latter that the Gentile camp seemed a part of the\nJewish sanctuary. Four towers at its four corners gave it the\nappearance of a castle and the strength of a fortress. One of these\ntowers looked down into the broad courts of the temple, and thus\nsubjected all the gatherings there to the oversight of the hated\nheathen, while its gates, opening directly into those courts, rendered\nit easy, at a moment\u2019s notice, to quell any disturbance which might\noccur there.--=And it was early.= The original (\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u0390\u1fb3) properly\nsignifies the period between daybreak and sunrise (John 20:1), but it\nis also used in a more general sense to signify the early part of the\nforenoon (Matt. 21:18), and that must be its meaning here, for this\ntrial before Pilate occurred certainly after the cock-crowing, and\nprobably the formal trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim and the\nsubsequent deliberations of the Sanhedrim to secure the execution of\nthe death-sentence intervened between the cock-crowing and their\nconducting Jesus to Pilate.--=Lest they should be defiled.= According\nto the Pharisaic ideas they could not enter a Gentile house without\ndefilement, and this precluded their participation in the passover,\nwhich in such case must be postponed by those who were defiled (Numb.\n9:6-11). A curious illustration of the fallibility of conscience is\nthis superstition of the Pharisees, who feared defilement from\nentering the house of a heathen, but none from the endeavor to secure\nby fraud and violence the condemnation of their Lord.--=That they\nmight eat the Passover.= Here not the paschal supper, but the festival\nwhich followed it, and which lasted for seven days. See Note on the\nLord\u2019s Supper, Matt. 26:30. The paschal supper itself I believe to\nhave been observed the night before. An incidental confirmation of\nthis opinion is afforded by Wieseler, quoted in Lange, who asserts\nthat chronological calculations show that in the year 30, the 14th of\nNisan, on the evening of which the supper proper took place, actually\nfell on a Thursday; and it is certain that the crucifixion of Christ\noccurred on Friday. If Wieseler is correct, the Lord\u2019s Supper must\nhave been the true paschal supper.--=Pilate went out unto them.=\nPontius Pilate was the Roman procurator or resident governor of Judea\nat this time. On his authority, see Matt. 27:2, note; on his\ncharacter, career, and course here, see note below, ch. 19:16. His\ngoing out to them was itself a concession.--=Against this man.=\nProbably he knew something of Jesus (Matt. 27:18, 19); for a guard had\nbeen furnished from his headquarters for the arrest of Jesus (John\n18:3, note).\n\n\n 30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a\n malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.\n\n=30. They answered=, etc. It seems to have been their endeavor to\nsecure the ratification of the death-sentence without any hearing,\npartly because they knew that the Roman governor would be indifferent\nto the charge of blasphemy (Acts 18:14-17), and partly because their\npride revolted against submitting the decision of their court to the\nhated Gentile.\n\n\n 31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him\n according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It\n is not lawful for us[676] to put any man to death:\n\n [676] Gen. 49:10; Ezek. 21:27.\n\n=31. Then said Pilate, Take ye him and judge him. * * * It is not\nlawful for us to put any man to death.= It seems to have been the\ncustom of the Romans to take into their own hands in conquered\nprovinces the power of life and death, as one of the principal\nattributes of sovereignty. There is no good reason to doubt that this\nhad been done in Palestine, and that the Sanhedrim had no longer power\nto execute the death-sentence. The execution of Stephen, though in a\ncertain sense sanctioned by the Sanhedrim, was the act of a mob (Acts\n7:57, 58). Pilate\u2019s answer to the demand of the priests is ironical, a\nbitter reminder to them that they had no longer the power of\nsovereignty. Other interpretations, such as that they had no power to\ncrucify, or none to execute on the feast-day, or none to punish crimes\nagainst the state, are both unnecessary and improbable.\n\n\n 32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he\n spake,[677] signifying what death he should die.\n\n [677] Matt. 20:19; Luke 18:32, 33.\n\n=32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, signifying=, etc.\nSee ch. 12:32, 33; Matt. 20:18, 19, where Christ foretold his\ncrucifixion. It was also hinted at in O. T. prophecy (Numb. 21:8, 9,\nwith John 3:14; Ps. 22:16, 18; Isa. 53:8, 9). Death was inflicted\nunder the Jewish law by stoning (Deut. 13:9, 10; 17:5-7). Calvin\nobserves the indication in this that Christ\u2019s death in all its\nparticulars fulfills the eternal purpose of God. Comp. Acts 2:23.\n\n\n 33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and\n called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the\n Jews?\n\n=33. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again.= Meantime the\npriests had framed and presented their accusation of sedition (Luke\n23:2). This accusation may well have perplexed Pilate. Christ had\nclaimed to be King; promulgated laws; organized in the heart of\nC\u00e6sar\u2019s province the germ of an imperishable kingdom; entered\nJerusalem in triumph, hailed by the throng as King of the Jews; and\nhis arrest had been forcibly resisted by one of his followers. These\nfacts a wily priesthood could easily pervert and exaggerate so as to\ngive color to their accusation. How unscrupulous they were is evident\nfrom a comparison of Luke 23:2 with ch. 20:22-25.--=And called Jesus.=\nFor a private examination apart from the priests and the gathering\nmob.\n\n\n 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself,\n or did others tell it thee of me?\n\n\n 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own[678] nation and\n the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast\n thou done?\n\n [678] ch 19:11; Acts 3:13.\n\n=34, 35. Jesus answered him=, etc.--This question is not asked for\ninformation as to the nature of the charge preferred against him and\nthe character of his accusers, for evidently Jesus was present when\nthey preferred it; nor as a means of ascertaining in what sense Pilate\nused the title _king_, whether in the Jewish sense, to signify the\npromised founder of the kingdom of heaven, or in a Roman sense, to\nsignify a political kingdom antagonistic to Jewish authority. For he\nwho knew what was in man, understood Pilate\u2019s character and mind. It\nwas the most forcible possible reply to the accusation. Who, he asks,\nhas preferred this charge? The Jews. Pilate\u2019s mind instantly grasps\nthe conclusion. \u201cIf it had been preferred by a Roman centurion, it\nwould have been worthy of examination. But when was it ever known that\nthe Jewish priesthood complained of one who sought the political\nemancipation of the nation? None knew better than Pilate how uneasy\nwere the people under the Roman yoke. The voices of the mob before the\njudgment-seat crying out for Jesus\u2019 blood were unwitting witnesses of\nhis innocence.\u201d--(_Lyman Abbott\u2019s Jesus of Nazareth._)--The reply had\nthe desired effect. Pilate\u2019s response, \u201cAm I a Jew? Thine own nation\nand the chief priests have delivered thee unto me,\u201d shows how quickly\nhe filled out the argument which Christ by a question suggested to his\nmind.--=What hast thou done?= An honest question. He rejects the\ntestimony of the priesthood to the sedition of the prisoner (Luke\n23:2), and appeals to Jesus himself to explain their enmity.\n\n\n 36 Jesus[679] answered, My[680] kingdom is not of this\n world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my\n servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:\n but now is my kingdom not from hence.\n\n [679] 1 Tim. 6:13.\n\n [680] ch. 6:15; Ps. 45:3, 6; Isa. 9:6, 7; Dan. 2:44;\n 7:14; Zech. 9:9; Luke 12:14; Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13.\n\n=36. Jesus answered.= Honest perplexity he would not refuse to answer.\nContrast his silence before Caiaphas (Matt. 26:62), Herod (Luke 23:9),\nand later before Pilate himself (John 19:9).--=My kingdom is not of\nthis world.= Its origin is not from the earth. The preposition _of_\n(\u1f10\u03ba) signifies the source or origin from which anything springs.\nChrist\u2019s kingdom is _in_ the world and _over_ the world, but not\n_from_ the world nor maintained by worldly means.--=If my kingdom were\nof this world, then would my servants fight.= Not angels, of which\nPilate knew nothing; nor the twelve, of whom it is doubtful whether he\nknew anything. The argument was one which readily addressed itself to\nPilate\u2019s understanding. If Jesus were an earthly king, his followers\nwould have defended him from arrest by his enemies and theirs. It is\ntrue Peter had done so (ver. 10), but he had been rebuked, and the\nwound he inflicted had been miraculously healed, so that the\npriesthood could not appeal to this resistance in support of their\ncharge, except by misrepresenting it.--=That I should not be delivered\nto the Jews.= _Jews_ generally in John means the Judeans, the\ninhabitants of the southern province of Palestine, who were Christ\u2019s\nespecial opponents.--=But now is my kingdom not from hence.= _Now_\nis not here a particle of time, but of connection. That is, the\nmeaning is not, My kingdom is not _now_ of this world, as though its\ntemporal power and glory was to come by and by, but, _Thus_ you see my\nkingdom is not, etc. The former meaning has been given to the word by\nsome Roman Catholic commentators, to break the force of the\ndeclaration as a testimony against the temporal power of the Pope and\nthe priesthood. For similar connective use of the particle (\u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd)\n_now_, see Acts 12:11; 22:16; 1 Cor. 14:6. Observe in this verse: (1)\nA distinct declaration of the supernatural origin and character of\nChrist\u2019s kingdom. Christianity is not a development of _human\nthought_, but a gift to man _from God_. Comp. John 3:3; 8:23; 13:3;\nRev. 21:2. (2) It is to be defended by spiritual, not by earthly or\nphysical means. With the spirit of this declaration all attempts to\nmaintain the church or its truth by civil enactment or the power of\nthe sword are inconsistent. How little the spiritual nature of\nChrist\u2019s kingdom was understood in the middle ages is indicated by the\nfact that even Calvin, on this passage, argues that kings and princes\nmay \u201cemploy all the power they possess in defending the church and\nmaintaining godliness.\u201d (3) The strength and permanence of Christ\u2019s\nkingdom as compared with kingdoms built up on or defended by might of\narms. \u201cHere he sheweth the weakness of kingship among us, that its\nstrength lies in servants; but that which is above is sufficient for\nitself, needing nothing.\u201d--(_Chrysostom._)\n\n\n 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then?\n Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end\n was I born, and for this cause came I into the\n world, that I should bear[681] witness unto the truth.\n Every one[682] that is of the truth heareth my voice.\n\n [681] Isa. 55:4; Rev. 1:5; 3:14.\n\n [682] ch. 8:47; 1 John 4:6.\n\n=37. Art thou then not a king?= Or perhaps, with a touch of irony,\n_Thou art then a king_. Either rendering is admissible (see _Winer_,\np. 512).--=Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest= (truly); =for I am a\nking=. This is truer to the original than our English version. The\nfirst clause of the sentence, \u201c_Thou sayest_,\u201d is a common form of\nJewish affirmation, and was not confined to the Jews (Matt. 26:64,\nnote). The second clause gives emphasis to this affirmation, and the\nreason for it, _for I am a king_. Observe how the solemn testimony of\nChrist to his divine Messiahship before Caiaphas is here, in a\ndifferent form, reiterated before Pilate.--=To this end was I born,\nand for this cause came I into the world.= The first clause does not\nnecessarily imply a pre-existence, because, in a sense, every creature\nis born to fulfil a divine purpose; but the second clause would be\ntautological, a mere repetition of the first, if it did not indicate a\ncoming into the world from a pre-existent state and for a particular\npurpose. And Pilate seems to have partially, at least, so understood\nit (ch. 19:9, note).--=Every one that is of the truth= (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03ac\u03c2). _Proceeding from the truth_; that is, who has so far come\nunder the influence of truth, is so far born anew by the power of the\ntruth on his own soul, as to be a sincere seeker after truth, and\nhence, in a deeper sense, so far under the influence of the Spirit of\nGod, who is the Truth, as to be seeking to know Him who is the Truth\nincarnate in human life. Parallel to this declaration are John 6:45;\n8:47. Observe, (1) Jesus Christ is not only a teacher, an example, and\na Saviour, but a King; and we can accept him as a Saviour only as we\naccept him as our King (John 15:10; 1 John 3:22-24); (2) the object of\nhis incarnation is to testify to the truth, which he does by his\nwords, and yet more by incarnating the truth in living forms,\nperfectly in his own life, imperfectly in the lives of his followers;\n(3) they only hear (_receive_) him, in whom the spirit of\ntruth-seeking already exists. Comp. Matt. 13:13-15.\n\n\n 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had\n said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto\n them, I find in him no fault _at all_.\n\n=38. What is truth?= This famous inquiry of Pilate is certainly not\nthe inquiry of an honest seeker for truth (_Chrysostom_), for he does\nnot even wait for an answer; nor apparently the disconsolate question\nof one who despaired of ever arriving at a standard of truth\n(_Olshausen_), for there is no evidence that he had ever sought to\nknow the truth, either in philosophy or in religion; nor the scoffing\nquestion of one who believes that truth can never be found (_Alford_),\nand whose modern type is the positivist who believes that all creeds\nare false, and God, immortality, and the soul are unknowable, for\nthere is nothing to indicate that such problems had any interest for\nhim. It is rather asked, half in pity, half in contempt, the question\nof the practical man of the world, to whom this conception of a\nkingdom built on truth and maintained without army or exchequer seemed\nbut the baseless phantom of a harmless religious enthusiast\n(_Ellicott_).\n\n\n 39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one\n at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you\n the King of the Jews?\n\n\n 40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but\n Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.\n\n=39, 40.= It is apparently at this point in the trial that Pilate\nsends Jesus to Herod; on his return the demand is made by the people\nfor the customary release of a prisoner (Mark 15:8), and in reply to\nthis demand he makes the proposition, reported by all the Evangelists,\nto release Jesus.--On the character of Barabbas, see note on Matt.\n27:15-18. On the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus, see Acts 3:14.\nThe origin of the custom here referred to is not known. It is\ndifficult to conceive why John should omit the sending of Jesus to\nHerod (Luke 23:5-7) and Pilate\u2019s wife\u2019s dream and Pilate\u2019s washing of\nhis hands (Matt. 27:20-25), unless he wrote with the other Gospels\nbefore him, and therefore omitted what they had sufficiently\ndescribed.--=At the Passover.= Not necessarily on the day of the\npaschal feast, but during the Passover week.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n\n\n 1 Then[683] Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged[684]\n _him_.\n\n [683] Matt. 27:26, etc.; Mark 15:16, etc.\n\n [684] Isa. 53:5.\n\n\n 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put _it_\n on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,\n\n\n 3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with\n their hands.\n\n\n 4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto\n them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know\n that[685] I find no fault in him.\n\n [685] verse 6; ch. 18:38.\n\n\n 5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and\n the purple robe. And _Pilate_ saith unto them, Behold the\n man!\n\n=1-5.= The scourging of Jesus is recounted by all the Evangelists\nexcept Luke, and the mockery more fully by Matthew than here. See\nnotes on Matthew. Scourging was a common precursor of the\ndeath-sentence; here, however, it appears to have been proposed by\nPilate as a compromise (Luke 23:16).--=And said, Hail, King of the\nJews.= Some manuscripts insert the words _they came unto him_, and\nthis reading is approved by Tischendorf and Alford. It indicates a\nmock reverential approach as to a crowned king, with obeisances and\npretended homage.--=Behold the man.= Pilate\u2019s own sympathies were\nawakened by the sight of this patient sufferer, and he made one more\nattempt to release him by appealing to the sympathies of the people.\nIn this act the commentators see an unconscious symbolical teaching\nparallel to that of Caiaphas (John 11:51, 52); Jesus is _the_ man, the\nonly perfect man, the ideal toward which all aspiration is to strive\n(Ephes. 4:13). The scene has been a famous one in art, and the picture\nof Christ thorn-crowned receives its customary title, _Ecce Homo_,\nfrom two Latin words meaning Behold the man.\n\n\n 6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him,\n they cried out, saying, Crucify _him_, crucify _him_.\n Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify _him_: for\n I find no fault in him.\n\n=6. When the chief priests, therefore, and attendants.= The original\nhere signifies an officer answering to the modern constable or\npoliceman.--=They cried out.= The priests mingled in and joined their\nvoices with those of the crowd. The sight of blood, so far from\nappeasing, only whetted their revengeful appetite.--=Take ye him and\ncrucify him.= This was not a sentence, but rather an endeavor to cast\nthe responsibility of its execution upon the priesthood. Comp. Matt.\n27:24; Luke 23:25. That they felt the reproach is indicated by their\nreply.\n\n\n 7 The Jews answered him, We[686] have a law, and by our law\n he ought to die, because[687] he made himself the Son of\n God.\n\n [686] Lev. 24:16.\n\n [687] ch. 5:18; 10:33.\n\n=7. The Jews answered him, We have a law=, etc. Not because their\nprevious accusation had failed, and they wished to present a new one\n(_Lange_); but because, the death-sentence being already pronounced\nand ratified by the act of scourging, they felt safe in disclosing\ntheir real animus. The object of their reply is to justify themselves\nto his rebuke.\n\n\n 8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more\n afraid;\n\n\n 9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto\n Jesus, Whence art thou? But[688] Jesus gave him no answer.\n\n [688] Ps. 38:13; Isa. 53:7; Matt. 27:12, 14; Phil.\n 1:28.\n\n=8, 9. He was the more afraid, * * * and saith unto Jesus, Whence art\nthou?= But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate\u2019s was not a superstitious\nfear, but a genuine awe produced by the personal presence of Jesus,\nthe power of which was conspicuously manifested on other occasions in\nhis life (Luke 4:30; 5:8; John 7:45, 46; 18:6). It was doubtless\nenhanced by the report of his wife\u2019s dream (Matt. 27:19). His\nquestion, _Whence art thou?_ is to be interpreted by this awe; not\n_from what province_, for he knew this (Luke 23:6, 7), nor _of what\nparents_, for this was a matter of indifference. The question\nindicates that even skeptical Pilate vaguely felt that the prisoner\nbefore him--the King of a kingdom of truth--was no ordinary man.\nChrist\u2019s silence was a bitter rebuke. Pilate was no longer an honest\nseeker after truth. Christ \u201ckept silent, in fine, because he knew as\nwell when to hold his peace as when to speak, and no word that he ever\nuttered was fuller of inspiration than that silence; no, not even does\nthat lofty declaration to Pilate, \u2018Yes, I am a King, and every true\nman is my subject,\u2019 show a more regal dignity of mind. From every\nfeature, from his whole person, it spoke--spoke of a world of power in\nhim, power to rise above all personal considerations, and, under the\nmost terrible circumstances, to find entire serenity in the perfect\npossession of himself.\u201d--(_Furness._)\n\n\n 10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me?\n knowest[689] thou not that I have power to crucify thee,\n and have power to release thee?\n\n [689] Dan. 3:14, 15.\n\n=10. Then said Pilate unto him.= His pride is piqued by the silence of\nthe prisoner. He boasts of his power, and so seeks to extort an answer\nfrom the prisoner\u2019s fears. Observe that _power_ he had, but right he\nhad not. \u201cThis very boast was a self-conviction of injustice. No just\njudge has any such power as this to punish or to loose (see 2 Cor.\n13:8), but only patiently to inquire and give sentence according to\nthe truth.\u201d--(_Alford._)\n\n\n 11 Jesus answered, Thou[690] couldest have no power _at\n all_ against me, except it were given thee from above:[691]\n therefore he[692] that delivered me unto thee hath the\n greater[693] sin.\n\n [690] ch. 7:30; Luke 22:53.\n\n [691] Ps. 39:9.\n\n [692] ch. 18:3; Mark 14:44.\n\n [693] Heb. 6:4-8; James 4:17.\n\n=11.= The connection of Christ\u2019s answer here is difficult. It appears\nto me to be as follows: All civil and political power comes from God\n(Rom. 13:1; comp. Ps. 75:6, 7; Dan. 2:21). Even on earth kings are\nrecognized as the administrators of the divine will (Isa. 44:28;\n45:1). Caiaphas and the priesthood, therefore, in delivering Jesus to\nPilate, are endeavoring not only to accomplish a deed of injustice,\nbut to induce a divinely appointed minister of God to prove false to\nthe trust reposed in him. Therefore their sin is greater than his;\nthey are the instigators, he the partially ignorant and unwilling\ninstrument. Comp. Luke 12:47, 48. Stier observes that Pilate\u2019s\nignorance includes him in the Lord\u2019s prayer, \u201cFather, forgive them,\nfor they know not what they do\u201d (Luke 23:34). That most wonderful\ndeclaration of the O. T., \u201cHe knoweth our frame, he remembereth that\nwe are dust\u201d (Ps. 103:14), receives its most wonderful illustration in\nChrist\u2019s compassion for the perplexed but guilty Pilate.\n\n\n 12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but\n the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou\n art not C\u00e6sar\u2019s friend: whosoever[694] maketh himself a\n king, speaketh against C\u00e6sar.\n\n [694] Luke 23:2; Acts 17:7.\n\n=12. From thenceforth.= Or rather, _on this account_. The original is\ncapable of either rendering; but Pilate had already sought to release\nJesus; he now made a new effort, moved thereto apparently in part by\nhis awe for Christ, and in part by Christ\u2019s expression of compassion\nfor him.--=Thou art not C\u00e6sar\u2019s friend.= Of all the C\u00e6sars, Tiberius\nwas the most suspicious and exacting; and of all crimes, that of\nindifference to his interests was in his eyes the worst. In these\nwords of the priesthood there is implied a threat of an accusation to\nTiberius against Pilate if he release Jesus.\n\n\n 13 When[695] Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought\n Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in a place\n that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.\n\n [695] Prov. 29:25; Acts 4:19.\n\n=13. Upon the judgment-seat in a place called Pavement.= The\njudgment-seat was probably a small elevated platform, such as was used\namong the ancients, on which orators stood to address a concourse,\ngenerals to harangue their troops, or magistrates to hear causes. The\naccompanying illustration from a bas-relief represents Trajan sitting\non such a judgment-seat to receive the submission of a Parthian king.\nThe employment of a similar platform both by Pilate and by Florus is\nreferred to by Josephus (_Wars of Jews_, Rom. II: 9, 3; 14, 8). The\nPavement was probably a tessellated or mosaic square in front of the\ntower of Antonia, on which the judgment-seat or bema was placed.\n\n\n [Illustration: ROMAN JUDGMENT-SEAT.]\n\n\n 14 And[696] it was the preparation of the passover, and about\n the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your\n King!\n\n [696] Matt. 27:62.\n\n=14. It was the preparation of the passover.= That is, the preparation\nfor the Passover Sabbath. The strictness of the Mosaic law respecting\nthe Sabbath necessitated special preparations for it on the previous\nday, and in process of time the whole day prior came to be known as\n_the preparation_ (Mark 15:42). If we so understand the passage, there\nis nothing in it inconsistent with the fact indicated by the other\nEvangelists that the paschal supper was taken by Christ and his\ndisciples, in common with the rest of the nation, on the evening\npreceding.--=About the sixth hour.= But according to Mark it was the\n_third hour_ (Mark 15:25); and this is sustained by the whole course\nof the transactions and the circumstances, as also by the statements\nof Matthew (27:45), Luke (23:44), and Mark (15:33), that the darkness\ncommenced at the sixth hour, after Jesus had for some time hung upon\nthe cross. Of this discrepancy many explanations have been proposed,\nbut only two are worthy of any consideration. One that by an early\nerror in transcription the sixth was substituted for the third hour\nhere; the other that John here only indicates that the sixth hour was\napproaching, or, as Lange renders it, _it was going on towards the\nsixth hour_; that is, the third hour, which closed the preceding watch\ninto which the day was divided, had already passed, and that Mark\u2019s\nlanguage simply implies that the third hour had already passed\nbefore the crucifixion. It is certain that the ancients did not fix\nthe time with as great precision as we do, and that in particular, as\nGodet says, \u201cthe apostles did not count with the watch in their\nhands.\u201d--=Behold your King.= The previous appeal (ver. 5) had been to\nthe pity of the people; this was to their national pride.\n\n\n 15 But they cried out, Away with _him_, away with _him_,\n crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your\n King? The chief priests answered, We[697] have no king but\n C\u00e6sar.\n\n [697] Gen. 49:10.\n\n\n 16 Then[698] delivered he him therefore unto them to be\n crucified. And they took Jesus, and led _him_ away.\n\n [698] Matt. 27:26, etc.; Mark 15:15, etc.; Luke\n 23:24, etc.\n\n=15, 16. We have no king but C\u00e6sar.= This was true. By this very act\nthey disavowed allegiance to Jehovah as their King (1 Sam. 12:12).\nThey were thus emphatically guilty themselves of the crime of\nblasphemy, for which they had condemned Jesus. Some of these very men\nsubsequently perished in rebellion against C\u00e6sar, thus by their death\ntestifying to the hypocrisy of their pretended zeal. He who refuses\nChrist as his King subjects himself to the despotism of worldly\nauthority.--=Then delivered he to them to be crucified.= Giving them a\nguard of soldiers to execute the decree. Thus Roman and Jew shared in\nboth decreeing and executing the sentence.\n\n * * * * *\n\nON THE CHARACTER OF PONTIUS PILATE.--Concerning Pilate\u2019s life before\nhe became procurator nothing is known, except that his name indicates\na probability that he was a freedman, or the descendant of a freedman,\nconnected with the Pontian house. He succeeded Valerius Gratus as\nprocurator of Judea and Samaria, about the year 26 A. D., and he held\nthe appointment for a period of ten years. Secular history shows him\nto have been unscrupulous in the exercise of his authority; and\ninstances are recorded by Josephus of his contempt of the Jews. His\nbehavior was equally tyrannical toward the Samaritans; and on their\ncomplaint to Vitellius, president or prefect of Syria, Pilate was\nordered to go to Rome to answer for his conduct before the emperor.\nHis deposition must have occurred in A. D. 36, most probably prior to\nthe Passover. Before he arrived in Rome, however, Tiberius was dead.\nAccording to tradition, Pilate was banished by Caligula to Vienne, in\nGaul; according to Eusebius, he died by his own hand.\n\nThough in the oldest Christian creed his name is indissolubly linked\nwith the crucifixion, in the phrase \u201csuffered under Pontius Pilate,\u201d\nand though he was directly responsible for it, since it could not have\nbeen consummated without his judicial approbation, yet that\napprobation was wrested from him by a mob, and he yielded only when\nfurther resistance would have hazarded his office, if not his life.\nThe story of the trial of Christ before Pilate is the story of a\nconflict between a judge who appealed in vain to the moral sense of\nthe priesthood, and a priesthood who appealed not in vain to the fears\nof the judge. First he scornfully bids the Jews try Jesus according to\ntheir own law, knowing that they cannot put their prisoner to death\n(ch. 18:31); then catches, in the clamor, the word \u201cGalilee,\u201d and\nendeavors to rid himself of responsibility by sending the prisoner to\nHerod (Luke 23:4-12); on the return of the prisoner to his custody,\nproposes to release him, as a customary act of good-will, to the\npopulace (Matt. 27:19-23; Mark 15:8-14); orders the scourging, in an\nidle hope so to satisfy the clamor of the mob (Matt. 27:26-30; Mark\n15:15-19; John 19:1-3); having appealed in vain to their pity,\nappeals, also in vain, to their patriotism (John 19:4-15); and finally\npronounces sentence of death only under an implied threat of complaint\nto the jealous Tiberius C\u00e6sar (John 19:12, 16). But it would be a\nmistake to suppose that in this pitiable conflict with a mob, which it\nwas Pilate\u2019s first duty to quell, he was influenced by considerations\nof either humanity or justice. The contempt which a Roman soldier\nwould naturally feel for the Jewish priesthood was intensified into a\nbitter personal hate by the fact that their cunning had twice\novermatched his strength--once when, immediately after his\ninauguration, they had compelled him to remove the hated Roman\nstandards from the city of Jerusalem to the old-time Roman military\nheadquarters at C\u00e6sarea Philippi; once when they had secured orders\nfrom Tiberius C\u00e6sar directing him to take down the Roman shields from\nthe vicinity of the temple. The one sentiment which was strong in a\nRoman soldier was that of justice; to be compelled by a Jewish mob,\ninstigated by the Jewish priesthood, to assume the judicial robes only\nto do flagrant injustice in them, and that in executing the Jewish\nwill, angered him. He was a tool in the hands of an unscrupulous and\ndespised hierarchy; knew it, and fought against the humiliation\nweakly, and therefore in vain. He was also powerfully affected by the\npersonal bearing of Christ. \u201cIf there is any power in the human\ncountenance, in the eye, in the voice, in the whole air and manner of\na man, that power must have been manifested in Jesus in the very\nhighest degree. * * * Not that he (Pilate) had the slightest insight\ninto the lofty nature of that power. His very ignorance of it served,\nby creating a feeling of mystery, only to heighten the effect of it\nupon his mind.\u201d--(_Furness._) And this effect was still further\nincreased by the dream of his wife; for skepticism and superstition\nare twins, and the skeptical Pilate was not above the universal\nsuperstitions of his times. All these elements made Pilate angry with\nhimself and with the hierarchy, but they did not serve in lieu of a\nnoble resolution, which alone could have enabled him to resist the\nthreatening danger of an emeute. So he dallied, argued, appealed,\nyielded. The crime of Pontius Pilate was the crime of moral cowardice.\nIt was more appalling in its results, but it was not different in its\nnature, from the many manifestations of that crime which we all often\nwitness, and which most of us sometimes have experienced.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCh. 19:17-42. DEATH AND BURIAL OF JESUS.--A FALSE JUDGE WRITES A TRUE\nEPITAPH (19).--A WEAK JUDGE PROVES HIMSELF OBSTINATE (22).--THE\nINHUMANITY OF MAN (24).--THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST ILLUSTRATED (27).--THE\nFULFILLMENT OF ALL SCRIPTURE (28).--REDEMPTION A FINISHED WORK\n(30).--THE HYPOCRISY OF CEREMONIALISM (31).--THE NATURE, MEANING, AND\nCERTAINTY OF CHRIST\u2019S DEATH (34, 35).--THE POWER OF THAT DEATH TO MAKE\nCOWARDS COURAGEOUS (38, 39).--THE SEPULCHRE IN THE GARDEN; THE TOMB\nAMID FLOWERS (41, 42).\n\nThe accounts of all Evangelists should be compared. For chronological\nharmony and for full notes on what is common to them all, see Matt.\n27:32-56. Several incidents are peculiar to Luke; some to John. The\nlatter gives more fully the division of Christ\u2019s garments among the\nsoldiers (verses 23, 24); alone speaks of Christ\u2019s parting words to\nhis mother (verses 25-27), and of the piercing of his side (ver. 34).\n\n\n 17 And he bearing his cross went[699] forth into a place\n called _the place_ of a skull, which is called in the\n Hebrew, Golgotha:\n\n [699] Numb. 15:36; Heb. 13:12.\n\n\n 18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on\n either side one, and Jesus in the midst.\n\n=17, 18.= The cross was usually borne by the condemned. In this case\nit was transferred from Christ to Simon the Cyrene. See Matt. 27:32,\nnote. The Hebrew word Golgotha is the same as the Latin word Calvary\n(_Calvaria_), and means _a skull_. The location is uncertain. For\nstatement of different hypotheses and picture of most probable site,\nsee Matt. 27:33, note.--The two others crucified with Christ were\nbrigands, one of whom joined in the taunts of the multitude; the other\nrebuked his companion, and sought and obtained the blessing of the\ndying Redeemer. See Luke 23:39-43, notes.\n\n\n 19 And[700] Pilate wrote a title, and put _it_ on the\n cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF\n THE JEWS.\n\n [700] Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38.\n\n\n 20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place\n where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was\n written in Hebrew, _and_ Greek, _and_ Latin.\n\n\n 21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write\n not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of\n the Jews.\n\n\n 22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.\n\n=19-22. And Pilate wrote a title.= It was customary to bear before the\ncondemned an inscription which designated his crime; this was\nsubsequently attached to the cross, as a warning against similar\noffences.--The inscription in this case was written in the three\nlanguages of the time--that of the court (Latin), that of the Gentile\npopulation (Greek), and that of the Jews (Hebrew or Aramaic).--It\nreally affixed a stigma rather upon the Jews than upon Jesus. Hence\ntheir attempt to have it altered, and Pilate\u2019s refusal. The Jews were\ninsulting Jesus; Pilate took a petty revenge upon them for their\nvictory over him by insulting them. The inscription is reported by the\nfour Evangelists, in all of them substantially, in none of them\nverbally, the same. Thus:\n\n This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.--(_Matthew._)\n The King of the Jews.--(_Mark._)\n This is the King of the Jews.--(_Luke._)\n Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.--(_John._)\n\nApparently there were three inscriptions, in the three different\nlanguages; some commentators suppose that they differed slightly, and\nthat the variations in the language of the inscription indicate the\nvariations in the original. See this ingeniously argued in Townsend\u2019s\nN. T. But the better opinion is that the inscription was the same in\nthe three languages, and that the verbal differences are such as we\nmight expect from individual narrators, who, in minor details, were\nleft to their own recollection. So Robinson, Alford, Greenleaf, etc.\nAnalogous verbal differences are to be constantly met with in the\nEvangelists: Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27--Matt. 9:11;\nMark 2:16; Luke 5:30--Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28--Matt. 16:6-9; Mark\n8:17-19--Matt. 20:33; Mark 10:51; Luke 18:41--Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9;\nLuke 19:38--Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42--Matt. 28:5, 6; Mark\n16:6; Luke 24:5, 6. Pilate illustrates the difference between firmness\nand obstinacy. In yielding the crucifixion of an innocent man, Pilate\nshowed a pitiable lack of firmness; in insisting on retaining an\ninsulting inscription, he showed a petty obstinacy. In this\ninscription he was an unconscious prophet of the truth to all\non-lookers--Greek, Roman, Jew. Comp. John 11:51, 52.\n\n\n 23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took\n his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a\n part; and also _his_ coat: now the coat was without seam,\n woven[701] from the top throughout.\n\n [701] Exod. 39:22.\n\n\n 24 They said therefore among themselves. Let us not rend\n it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the\n scripture might be fulfilled, which saith,[702] They parted\n my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast\n lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.\n\n [702] Ps. 22:18.\n\n=23, 24.= The account of John of this incident is fuller and more\nexact than those of the other Evangelists. Comp. Matt. 27:35; Mark\n15:24; Luke 23:34. There were four soldiers--a quaternion--detailed\nto watch the execution of the sentence of the procurator. The clothing\nof the convicted was the perquisite of the soldiers. The outer\ngarments of Christ were divided among them, one to each. The inner\ngarment, or tunic, was a seamless robe, woven in one piece, probably\nof wool. There is no ground for the fanciful comparison of this robe\nwith those worn by the priests, as though it indicated a priestly\nfunction on Christ\u2019s part. There is more reason in the surmise that it\nwas a gift to him by some of the women who had followed him from\nGalilee (Luke 8:1-3).--But this is a mere surmise, having no other\nsupport than the fact that the soldiers seem to have recognized in it\na peculiar value, a garment which it were a pity to destroy. Dice were\nin Rome what cards are in modern life. One of the soldiers took a set\nout of his pocket; the helmet would have served as a dice-box; and\nthus, under the shadow of the cross, they gambled for this seamless\nrobe. The incident affords a most striking illustration of the\ninhumanity of man, and scarcely less of the indurating influence of\nthe passion for gambling. \u201cNo earthly creatures but gamblers could be\nso lost to all feeling as to sit down coolly under a dying man to\nwrangle for his garments, and arbitrate their avaricious differences\nby casting dice for his tunic, with hands spotted with his spattered\nblood, warm and yet undried upon them.\u201d--(_H. W. Beecher._) The\ntwenty-second Psalm, to the prophecy of which John refers, was\nregarded by the Jews, as it has been universally regarded by all\nChristian critics, as a Messianic Psalm. A curious illustration of\nfanciful interpretation is afforded by Wordsworth\u2019s treatment of this\nscene, though he quotes Augustine as his authority: The parted\ngarments is an emblem of the church in its universality, to be sent\nout into the four quarters of the globe; the unparted garment is\nemblematic of the church in its unity, to be kept whole and unparted;\nthe gambling soldiers are an emblem of those who treat the unity of\nthe church of Christ as a matter of indifference.\n\n\n 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and\n his mother\u2019s sister, Mary the _wife_ of Cleophas,[703] and\n Mary Magdalene.\n\n [703] Luke 24:18.\n\n\n 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple\n standing by,[704] whom he loved, he saith unto his mother,\n Woman,[705] behold thy son!\n\n [704] ch. 13:23.\n\n [705] ch. 2:4.\n\n\n 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother![706]\n And from that hour that disciple took her unto his\n own[707] _home_.\n\n [706] 1 Tim. 5:2.\n\n [707] ch. 16:32.\n\n=25-27. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother=, etc. There\nis some question whether we are to understand by this verse that\nthere were _four_ women there, or only three. Some scholars read the\nphrases \u201chis mother\u2019s sister\u201d and \u201cMary of Cleophas\u201d as in apposition,\nand suppose them to refer to the same person; but the better opinion\nregards them as different persons, the mother\u2019s sister being\nidentified with Salome, the mother of James and John, who, if this\ninterpretation be correct, were own cousins to Jesus. See Note on the\nTwelve Apostles, Matthew, ch. 10, Vol. I, p. 148, where this question\nis more fully discussed. It is important only in its bearing on the\nquestion of the relationship of Jesus to James and John.--=Woman,\nbehold thy son; * * * behold thy mother.= Some doubt has been thrown\non this incident by rationalistic critics, who have thought it\nimprobable that these women could have been standing near enough to\nthe cross to hear the words of Jesus; or that they could have been\nwilling to do so; or that the incident, if it really occurred, could\nhave escaped the other Evangelists; for it is peculiar to John. The\nanswer to this criticism is admirably given by Dr. Furness:\n\u201cUnquestionably it must have been agonizing to her to witness that\nawful sight. And it would have been no less agonizing to her to keep\nat a distance from him. May she not have thought within herself, \u2018It\nkills me to see him suffer so, but I cannot lose a word that may fall\nfrom his lips; perhaps he may speak to me\u2019? The women friends of Jesus\nstood looking on at a distance; but if there were one among them who\nstood nearer to the cross than the others, it must have been his\nmother. Here again the words of Jesus to his mother and the beloved\ndisciple lose the living truth of nature in our Common Version, which\ngives them in the form of complete sentences, \u2018_Woman, behold thy\nson_,\u2019 and to John, \u2018_Behold thy mother_.\u2019 But in the original it is\n\u2018_Woman! look! thy son!_\u2019 and to John, \u2018_Look! thy mother!_\u2019 brief as\npossible, ejaculatory, broken, and in the fullest accord with the\nphysical condition in which he then was--a state of extreme torture,\nadmitting only at the moment of such imperfect utterance. His mother\nwas not very near the cross, but near enough to allow Jesus, by a\nstrong effort mastering his agony, to gasp out these few words,\nleaving it to the keen sense of his mother and John to make out his\nmeaning. Indeed, if I could suspect such an incident as this to be an\ninvention, I should not know what limit to assign to the inventive\npower of the authors of the Gospels.\u201d--(_Notes on Schenckel\u2019s\nCharacter of Jesus._)--=And from that hour that disciple took her to\nhis own.= The words _from that hour_ are not to be taken literally, as\nthough John and the mother of Jesus did not remain till death had\nbrought the lingering tortures of the crucifixion to an end. The words\n_his own_ are more significant without the addition of the word\n_home_, added by the translators. John took the mother into his own\ncircle, and as his own mother, from that time. The language does not\nimply that he had a fixed domicile in Jerusalem. This is not\ninherently probable, for he was a Galilean; and certainly nothing\nrecorded had occurred to make any of the disciples prior to this time\ninclined to take up a permanent residence in Jerusalem.\n\n\n 28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now\n accomplished, that the scripture[708] might be fulfilled,\n saith, I thirst.\n\n [708] Ps. 69:21.\n\n\n 29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and\n they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put _it_ upon\n hyssop, and put _it_ to his mouth.\n\n\n 30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he\n said, It[709] is finished: and he bowed his head, and\n gave[710] up the ghost.\n\n [709] ch. 17:4.\n\n [710] Isa. 53:10, 12; Heb. 2:14, 15.\n\n=28-30.= See Matt. 27:47-49, notes. The incident is common to all the\nEvangelists, but their accounts are quite different. John alone\nrepeats the utterance, \u201cIt is finished,\u201d which is to be regarded not\nmerely as a presage of death, equivalent to, The era of suffering is\nended, the era of joy begins; but as triumphant and prophetic: The\nwork which thou gavest me to do is finished (ch. 17:4); and this\nbecause Christ died once for all, thus perfecting a sacrificing which\nneeds never to be repeated (Heb. 9:28), and because by it he offers to\nthe believer a redemption which is finished, and which needs not to be\nsupplemented to make it efficacious. The cry of almost despair, \u201cMy\nGod, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\u201d was followed by the cry of\ntriumph, uttered with a loud voice (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke\n23:46); and then, with the prayer, \u201cFather, into thy hands I commit my\nspirit\u201d (Luke 23:46), he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. Some\nscholars (_Chrysostom_, _Hengstenberg_, _Godet_, etc.) hold that the\nreference to prophecy here is to Psalm 69:21, and that the meaning is\nthat Christ said \u201cI thirst\u201d in order to fulfill prophecy; others\n(_Meyer_, _Luthardt_) make the phrase \u201cthat the Scripture might be\nfulfilled\u201d dependent on the preceding clause, and the meaning to be\nthat all things were accomplished that the Scripture might be\nfulfilled. This seems to me to be the better interpretation. The other\nmakes Christ utter the expression of thirst for the purpose of calling\nforth in others the fulfillment of a prophecy. It may be remarked here\nthat the constant use of the phrase _that the Scripture might be\nfulfilled_ gives to a casual reader the impression that a multitude\nof minor incidents were ordered by God, and unimportant acts were\nperformed by Christ, merely to fulfill O. T. prophecy. The reader\nmust, however, remember that the Gospels were written primarily for\nJewish readers in large measure, and that the test by which every Jew\ndetermined whether or no Jesus was the Messiah was by asking the\nquestion, Does he fulfill the ancient prophecies? While, therefore, it\nis true that Christ\u2019s life does fulfill, even in marvellously minute\ndetails, the prophecies of the O. T., it is also true that these\nfulfillments are pointed out by the Evangelists with an emphasis which\nin our time seems excessive, but which was not so in their age and for\ntheir immediate purpose. Compare the apostolic speeches to Jewish\naudiences, as reported in Acts, which are almost wholly devoted to\nproving that Christ\u2019s life and death were in accordance with ancient\nJewish prophecies.\n\n\n 31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation,[711]\n that the bodies should not remain[712] upon the cross on\n the sabbath day, (for[713] that sabbath day was an high\n day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and\n _that_ they might be taken away.\n\n [711] verse 42.\n\n [712] Deut. 21:23.\n\n [713] Lev. 23:7, 8.\n\n\n 32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first,\n and of the other which was crucified with him.\n\n\n 33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead\n already, they brake not his legs:\n\n\n 34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,\n and forthwith came thereout blood[714] and water.[715]\n\n [714] Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 John 5:6, 8.\n\n [715] 1 Pet. 3:21.\n\n\n 35 And[716] he that saw _it_ bare record, and his record\n is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might\n believe.\n\n [716] 1 John 1:1-3.\n\n\n 36 For these things were done, that the scripture[717]\n should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.\n\n [717] Exod. 12:46; Numb. 9:12; Ps. 34:20.\n\n\n 37 And again another scripture[718] saith, They shall look\n on him whom they pierced.\n\n [718] Ps. 22:16; Zech. 12:10; Rev. 1:7.\n\n=31-37. Because it was the preparation.= That is, for the Sabbath. At\nfirst the hours, then the entire day, immediately preceding the\nSabbath, was called by the Jews the Preparation. See on ver. 14, and\nmore fully on Mark 15:42. The Jews, who had no hesitation about\ncompassing by the most unscrupulous methods the death of an innocent\nman, were scrupulous about leaving his corpse to hang on the cross\nover the Sabbath--a notable illustration of Sabbatical ceremonialism.\nIt was the Roman custom to leave the corpse to putrefy; this was\nforbidden by the Jewish law, which, partly as a sanitary, partly as a\nceremonial regulation, required immediate burial. See Deut.\n21:23.--=That their legs might be broken.= A barbarous but not\nuncommon method of accelerating death, adopted in order to enhance\nrather than mitigate the horrors of the execution.--=Then came the\nsoldiers and brake the legs=, etc. The implication is, of course, that\nthis was done under the orders of Pilate. Nor is there anything\ninconsistent in this account with that in Mark (Mark 15:44), that\nPilate was surprised to learn that Jesus was dead, and inquired into\nthe certainty of the fact before giving permission to Joseph of\nArimathea to remove the body. For when the death of Jesus was reported\nto him, the circumstances would also have been reported; and thus\nPilate would have known that the soldiers found him already dead when\nthey came to break the legs of the three.--=But one of the soldiers\nwith a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and\nwater.= On the physical significance of this fact, see below, Note on\nthe Physical Cause of Christ\u2019s Death. From it the spiritualizing\ncommentators have drawn many mystical lessons, most of them of very\ndoubtful profit; _e. g._, the comparison of the drawing of Eve from\nthe side of Adam and the drawing of the church from the side of\nChrist; the necessity of both blood and water to regeneration (ch.\n3:5); the use of both as emblems of the sacraments, etc. All such uses\nof this incident belong at best to the poet, not the commentator, and\nits use even by the poet must be cautious, or it becomes unprofitable.\nThe object of the spear-thrust was not to determine whether death had\nactually taken place so much as to ensure death, if there were any\ndoubt. The record is given partly to set at rest the ancient Gnostic\nskeptical whim that the death took place only in seeming; it equally\ndoes set at rest the suggestion of more modern skepticism that Christ\nmerely fainted from exhaustion and was subsequently restored by the\ndisciples.--=And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true=,\netc. The use of this phraseology shows the importance which John gave\nto this particular fact; partly, perhaps, because it established the\nall-important fact of the actual death of the Lord, the culmination of\nhis life of self-sacrifice, and equally the foundation of that proof\nof his divinity which is afforded by his resurrection from the dead.\nBut I believe that it also gives emphasis to the real cause of the\ndeath of our Lord--a broken heart, broken for the sins of the world,\nwhich he bore on the tree. It is also a water-mark of authorship. \u201cThe\ntestimony thus declared to be veracious is just the record itself\nwhich the narrator was setting down; and, as he says it comes from no\nother than the eye-witness, he certainly gives us to understand that\nhe, the Evangelist, is also the disciple whom Jesus loved.\u201d--(_James\nMartineau._)--The prophetic Scriptures referred to are Exod. 12:46 and\nZech. 12:10. The first passage, \u201cA bone of him shall not be broken,\u201d\nrefers primarily to the paschal lamb; but that lamb was regarded by\nthe Jews, and is treated both by the Old Testament and the New, as a\ntype of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.\n\n * * * * *\n\nNOTE ON THE PHYSICAL CAUSE OF CHRIST\u2019S DEATH.--The immediate cause of\nChrist\u2019s death is veiled in obscurity; for a brief statement of\nvarious critical opinions on this subject, see Meyer\u2019s notes on this\npassage. I believe that there is at least good reason for the opinion\nthat he died of a literally broken heart. Crucifixion produced a very\nlingering death. No vital organ was directly affected. The victim\nrarely died in less than twenty-four hours. Instances are recorded of\nhis lingering a full week. It was customary to dispatch the condemned\nafter a few hours of torture by speedier means. This was done in the\ncase of the thieves. Pilate was surprised at the intelligence that\nJesus was already dead. The guard seems to have shared that surprise.\nUp to the last moment there was no sign of weakness, no decay of power\nor vitality. Jesus conversed with the thief and spoke to his friends.\nHis last cry was not that of exhausted nature; he cried with a\nloud--literally great, _i. e._, strong--voice. His death was instant.\nThere was something remarkable in it--something that attracted the\nattention of the centurion and his band. It followed immediately after\nthe cry, \u201cMy God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?\u201d This agony\nsucceeded that of Gethsemane. In that midnight struggle the heart and\nblood-vessels were affected. The palpitation of the heart was so\nintense as to cause bloody sweat--a phenomenon rare, but not unknown,\nand produced by intense mental excitement. That this was a truly\nbloody sweat, see Luke 22:44, note. The heart would probably have been\nweakened by such an experience. A repetition of the agony then endured\nmight truly rupture the membrane of the heart. Such an experience has\nbeen known to produce such a result. If it did, death would instantly\nensue. The blood would flow into the pericardium, an outer sac in\nwhich the heart is enclosed; there it would be liable to separate very\nrapidly into clots of extravasated blood and water. When the soldier\nthrust the spear into Jesus\u2019 side, it was probably with a double\npurpose: to ascertain whether Jesus was dead; to ensure his death if\nhe were not. For this purpose he would aim at the heart. The spear\nwould pierce, of course, the left, not the right side, as portrayed in\nnearly all art representations of the crucifixion. The water, followed\nand accompanied by the clots of blood, would flow from the wound. It\nis impossible to account for this phenomenon, not only recorded by\nJohn, but evidently regarded by him of considerable importance, except\nupon the hypothesis of a broken heart, or of some organic disease.\nAndrews\u2019s hypothesis that it was supernatural has nothing but a devout\nsurmise to sustain it. The reader who desires to investigate this\nsubject more thoroughly will find by far the fullest and ablest\ndiscussion of it in Stroud\u2019s _Physical Cause of the Death of Christ_,\nLondon, 1847, especially ch. iv, pp. 73-156, and notes iv and v, pp.\n389-420. If this is not within his reach, he will find a brief but\nadequate statement of the argument in M\u2019Clintock and Strong\u2019s\n_Biblical Cyclop\u00e6dia_, art. _Crucifixion_.\n\n 38 And after this Joseph of Arimath\u00e6a, being a disciple of\n Jesus, but secretly for[719] fear of the Jews, besought\n Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and\n Pilate gave _him_ leave. He came therefore, and took the\n body of Jesus.\n\n [719] ch. 9:22; 12:42.\n\n\n 39 And there came also[720] Nicodemus, which at the first\n came to Jesus by night, and[721] brought a mixture of myrrh\n and aloes, about an hundred pound _weight_.\n\n [720] ch. 3:1, 2; 7:50.\n\n [721] 2 Chron. 16:14.\n\n\n 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound[722] it in\n linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is\n to bury.\n\n [722] Acts 5:6.\n\n\n 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a\n garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was\n never man yet laid.\n\n\n 42 There[723] laid they Jesus therefore because[724] of the\n Jews\u2019 preparation _day_; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.\n\n [723] Isa. 53:9; 1 Cor. 15:4.\n\n [724] verse 31.\n\n=38-42. After this came Joseph of Arimathea.= Of him nothing is known\nexcept what may be gathered from the accounts of the Evangelists\nconcerning him in this connection. Mark implies that he was a member\nof the Sanhedrim (Mark 15:43), and Luke that he had nothing to do with\nthe condemnation of Jesus; probably was not present (see Luke 23:51,\nnote), either because he knew what was coming before them and that his\nresistance would be in vain, or because the others knew his character,\nand did not summon him. Luke also describes him as a \u201cgood man and\njust.\u201d His act in requesting the body of Christ after the crucifixion\nwas one requiring some courage. In later martyrdoms such a request\ncost men their lives; in this case it must at least have cost Joseph\nmuch obloquy. The site of Arimathea is entirely uncertain. The effect\nof Christ\u2019s death to make the cowardly strong is noticed by all\ncommentators.--=Pilate gave him leave.= After making sure that Christ\nwas really dead (Mark 15:44, 45). --=Took the body of Jesus.= This\ntaking down from the cross was probably done by the loving hands of\nthe disciples; this is more probable than that it was done by the\nRoman soldiers. Their last duty was performed when they made sure of\nthe death of the condemned.--=There came also Nicodemus.= It was now\neven, that is, the early evening, probably between four o\u2019clock and\nsunset. See Matt. 27:57, note. On the character of Nicodemus, see ch.\n3:1, note.--=Brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred\npounds weight.= \u201cMyrrh-resin and aloe-wood; these fragrant materials\n(Ps. 45:8) were placed, in a pulverized condition, between the\nbandages. But the surprising quantity (comp. ch. 12:3) is here\nexplained from the fact that superabundant reverence in its sorrowful\nexcitement does not easily satisfy itself; we may also assume that a\nportion of the spices was designed for the couch of the body in the\ngrave\u201d (_Meyer_); or to be burned. See below.--=As the manner of the\nJews is to bury.= There is no evidence that the Hebrews ever practised\nsystematic embalming, as the Egyptians did. In the O. T. there is but\none mention of any such practice, that of the case of Asa, and he was\nnot properly embalmed, but laid in the bed which he had prepared for\nhimself \u201cwith perfumes and spices\u201d (2 Chron. 16:14). It appears to\nhave been the custom in the time of Christ to wash the body and anoint\nit, then to wrap it in fine linen, with spices and ointments enveloped\nin the folds, and afterwards to pour more ointment upon it, and\nsometimes to burn spices. In the case of Christ, the approach of the\nSabbath hurried the preparations of the body, which were not yet\ncompleted at sunset, and were left to be finished the day after the\nSabbath.--Comparing the four accounts of the burial, it appears that\nthe body was wrapped in fine linen, with some of the spices, and laid\nhurriedly away in a rock-hewn sepulchre in a garden near the place of\nthe crucifixion, one in which no previous burial had ever taken place.\nAccording to Matthew, it belonged to Joseph (Matt. 27:59, 60; Mark\n15:46; Luke 23:53, 54). For illustration of the body prepared for\nburial, see Acts 5:6, note; for illustration of Jewish tomb, see Mark\n16:2-4, notes. For a striking sermon on the Significance of the\nSepulchre in the Garden, sorrow amid flowers, see Harper\u2019s edition of\nH. W. Beecher\u2019s sermons.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XX.\n\n\nCh. 20:1-31. THE RISEN LORD.--THE TESTIMONY OF EYE-WITNESSES TO THE\nRESURRECTION.--THE INTUITIONS OF LOVE (8).--THE CONSOLATION OF LIFE TO\nGRIEF AT THE EMPTY TOMB.--THE POWER OF CHRIST\u2019S VOICE.--THE COMMISSION\nOF CHRIST\u2019S DISCIPLES: SENT AS CHRIST; THEIR ENDOWMENT: THE GIFT OF\nTHE HOLY GHOST; THEIR AUTHORITY: TO SAVE, TO JUDGE.--MODERN UNBELIEF\nIN AN ANCIENT EXPERIENCE.--CHRIST\u2019S ANSWER TO THE RELUCTANT\nSKEPTIC.--THE OBJECT OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.\n\nThe accounts of the resurrection and the incidents in the life of our\nLord between the resurrection and the ascension given by the four\nEvangelists are very different, and in some respects seemingly\ninconsistent. The discrepancies have been magnified, and dwelt upon by\nrationalizing critics as a reason for regarding the accounts as\nunhistorical. For a comparison of the four narratives, a statement of\nthe differences between them, and a hypothetical harmony, see Note on\nthe Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Matthew, ch. 28, Vol. I, p. 330.\nAlford goes too far in saying that all attempts at harmony are\nfruitless, though certainly all harmonies are hypothetical, and\nperhaps at best only show that there is no radical and essential\ninconsistency in the four narratives.\n\n\n 1 The[725] first _day_ of the week cometh Mary Magdalene\n early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth\n the stone taken away from the sepulchre.\n\n [725] Matt. 28:1, etc.; Mark 16:1, etc.; Luke 24:1,\n etc.\n\n\n 2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the\n other disciple, whom[726] Jesus loved, and saith unto them,\n They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we\n know not where they have laid him.\n\n [726] ch. 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 24.\n\n\n 3 Peter[727] therefore went forth, and that other\n disciple, and came to the sepulchre.\n\n [727] Luke 24:12.\n\n=1-3.= Matthew says the women came \u201cas it began to dawn,\u201d Mark \u201cat the\nrising of the sun.\u201d John is the one most likely to have been well\ninformed, as he was the first one to whom the women reported the\nfacts; and his language, therefore, is probably the most minutely\naccurate. The time indicated by a comparison of the three accounts is\nthe early dawn, before the sun was fairly up.--With Mary Magdalene\ncame Mary the mother of Joses, Salome, and apparently Joanna, the wife\nof Chuza, Herod\u2019s steward (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1, 10). That\nJohn recognized that there were more than one is indicated by the use\nof the plural here in the report made to the other disciples of the\ndisappearance of the Lord\u2019s body: \u201cWe know not where they have laid\nhim.\u201d Meyer, indeed, argues that the reason borrowed from _we_ know,\nin verse 2, for the plurality of the women at the grave, is outweighed\nby _I_ know, in verse 13; but this is fallacious, for the fact that\nMary was alone at the grave when Jesus spoke to her would not prove,\nnor even indicate, that she was alone when she first came to it. On\nthe contrary, it is evident that she, with the other women, returned\nto the city when they found the grave empty (ver. 2; comp. Matt. 28:8;\nLuke 24:9), and it is probable that she returned again to the tomb,\nfollowing Peter and John, to sorrow there. For illustration of\nsepulchre and rolling stone door, see notes on Mark 16:2-4. For\naccount of the rolling away of the stone, see Matt. 28:2 and note. The\nreport of the women, _They have taken away the Lord out of the\nsepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him_, shows that they\nhad no expectation of the resurrection of their Lord, such as\nrationalism has imputed to them in explaining their belief in the\nresurrection appearances as freaks of a sanguine and excited\nimagination. They supposed that the grave had been robbed by Christ\u2019s\nenemies, and the body hidden; and, in fact, this method of accounting\nfor the disappearance of the Lord\u2019s body is to be found in some of the\nlater Jewish writings, though it has never gained credence even among\nrationalistic critics.\n\n\n 4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did\n outrun[728] Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.\n\n [728] Luke 13:30.\n\n\n 5 And he, stooping down, _and looking in_, saw the linen\n clothes[729] lying; yet went he not in.\n\n [729] ch. 19:40.\n\n\n 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the\n sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,\n\n\n 7 And the napkin,[730] that was about his head, not lying\n with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by\n itself.\n\n [730] ch. 11:44.\n\n\n 8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first\n to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.\n\n\n 9 For as yet they knew not the[731] scripture, that he must\n rise again from the dead.\n\n [731] Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:25-31; 13:34, 35.\n\n\n 10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own\n home.\n\n=4-10.= This narrative bears the unmistakable impress of coming from\nan eye-witness, and all the commentators recognize its striking\naccordance with the well-known characteristics of the two disciples.\nThe information, which from Matthew\u2019s and Luke\u2019s accounts we should\nsuppose to have been given to all the disciples, appears from John\u2019s\nmore minute narrative to have been given only to Peter and John, for\nthere is little doubt that John refers to himself in the phrase \u201cthe\nother disciple whom Jesus loved.\u201d See ch. 13:22, note. They were both\ngreatly excited by the news of the supposed desecration of the tomb,\nand hastened to the spot to see for themselves. Mary Magdalene, as the\nsequel shows, followed them more slowly.--John, who there is reason to\nbelieve was the younger, and therefore not improbably the more agile\nof the two, reached the sepulchre first, but was awed at approaching\nthe grave of his Lord, and waited without, simply looking in\nthrough the open door to assure himself that the tomb was really\nempty.--Peter, who was never hindered by his sense of reverence,\nentered the sepulchre boldly as soon as he arrived, and John followed\nhim. They found the tomb empty, but the winding-sheet in which the\nbody was wrapped (ch. 19:40, note), and the napkin that was about the\nhead, were folded and laid in so orderly a manner as to negative the\nopinion that the grave had been rifled.--The moment John saw the\ncontents of the tomb the truth flashed upon his mind. His quick\nintuitions recalled and interpreted Christ\u2019s misunderstood prophecies\nof his own resurrection: _he saw and believed_. To interpret this\nphrase as meaning simply \u201che saw that the body of Jesus was not there,\nand believed that it had been removed, as Mary Magdalene had said\u201d\n(_Bengel_), is to do violence to the original, for John habitually\nuses this word _believed_ (\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9) of spiritual apprehension. Nor is\nthere any boast in the implication that he alone believed; the fact is\nimportant, for we thus learn when the faith in a risen Saviour first\ndawned on humanity; and John could not state it more modestly.\n\n\n 11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and\n as she wept, she stooped down, _and looked_[732] into the\n sepulchre,\n\n [732] Mark 16:5.\n\n\n 12 And seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the\n head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus\n had lain.\n\n\n 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She\n saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and\n I know not where they have laid him.\n\n=11-13.= Mary, who apparently had followed Peter and John to the\nsepulchre, remained after their departure, to weep. She also stooped\nand looked into the sepulchre, but she was so preoccupied with the\nconclusion which she had already hastily formed, that the orderly\narrangement of the grave-clothes produced no effect upon her\nmind.--For her some further disclosure of the truth was necessary; to\nher, therefore, the angels appeared. Mary is not startled either at\ntheir appearance or their words (comp. Luke 1:29); perhaps she is too\nentirely absorbed in her grief at the disappearance of the Lord\u2019s\nbody.--In answer to their question she repeats what she had reported\nto the disciples: \u201cThey (the Lord\u2019s enemies) have taken away my Lord,\nand I know not where they have laid him.\u201d It is by a very forced\naccommodation that this text is applied to or used to illustrate that\nphilosophy which denies the divinity and atonement of Christ; for here\nit was the outward crucified tabernacle which had been taken away,\nthat the victorious Spirit might be more effectively imparted. The\nobjection of rationalistic critics that the angels had not been seen\nby Peter and John is well answered by Godet: \u201cAngels are not visible\nand immovable, like stone statues.\u201d\n\n\n 14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back,\n and[733] saw Jesus standing, and knew not[734] that it was\n Jesus.\n\n [733] Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9.\n\n [734] ch. 21:4; Luke 24:16, 31.\n\n\n 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom\n seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith\n unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where\n thou hast laid him, and[735] I will take him away.\n\n [735] Cant. 3:2.\n\n=14, 15.= Mary turned back from looking into the tomb, not attracted\nby any sound of Christ\u2019s approach--at least of this there is no\nintimation in the narrative--but more probably in the very\nrestlessness of grief. Her failure to recognize Jesus is best\nexplained, not by any natural cause, as the dimness of the morning\nlight, or her inattention to the person of the supposed stranger, but\nby the analogous experience of the disciples in their walk to Emmaus,\nwhen Christ appeared to them \u201cin another form\u201d (Mark 16:12), and\n\u201ctheir eyes were holden, that they should not know him\u201d (Luke\n24:16).--Mary\u2019s surmise that the unknown was the gardener was a\nnatural one. \u201cWho else could it be in the garden so early in the\nmorning?\u201d--(_Meyer._) The elaborate discussion of the question whether\nhe had on the clothing of a gardener is a somewhat striking\nillustration of the profitless and wholly fruitless debate which is\nunhappily only too common in Biblical interpretation. In the wildness\nof her grief she surmised that the gardener might know what had become\nof the body, might even have taken part in its removal--a wild\nsurmise, since the tomb and the garden both belonged to a disciple of\nChrist (Matt. 27:60). Her assurance, \u201cI will take him away,\u201d is made\nin the strength of a love which promises without reflecting whether it\ncan perform.\n\n\n 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary.[736] She turned[737]\n herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say,\n Master.\n\n [736] ch. 10:3; Isa. 43:1.\n\n [737] Cant. 3:4.\n\n\n 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not\n yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren,[738]\n and say unto them, I[739] ascend unto my Father,\n and[740] your Father; and _to_ my[741] God, and\n your[742] God.\n\n [738] Ps. 22:22; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11.\n\n [739] ch. 16:28.\n\n [740] Rom. 8:14, 15; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26; 4:6, 7.\n\n [741] Ephes. 1:17.\n\n [742] Gen. 17:7, 8; Ps. 43:4, 5; 48:14; Isa. 41:10;\n Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:28; Zech. 13:9; Heb. 11:16; Rev.\n 21:3.\n\n\n 18 Mary Magdalene came[743] and told the disciples\n that she had seen the Lord, and _that_ he had spoken\n these things unto her.\n\n [743] Matt. 28:10.\n\n=16-18.= Christ\u2019s utterance of her name in well-remembered accents\ndisclosed him to her. She had before but listlessly regarded him; she\nnow turned fully toward him, instantly recognized him, responded to\nher name with a word full of reverential affection--\u201c_Rabboni,\nMaster_\u201d--and would have thrown herself at his feet and embraced him\nbut for his prohibition. In an instant she was translated from the\nprofoundest grief to the most exalted ecstasy of love, but her\nintended expression of that love did not accord with that spiritual\ncommunion which the risen Lord proposed to vouchsafe to his disciples.\nThe original rendered _touch_ (\u1f03\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9) signifies literally to hang upon\nsome one. \u201cShe desired to seize, grasp, hold Jesus, in order to enjoy\nhis society and to satisfy her love (comp. Luke 7:36).\u201d--(_Luthardt._)\nOr, perhaps, to convince herself that she was not under an illusion,\nand to hold fast to the Christ whom she had already twice lost--once\nin the crucifixion, once in the disappearance of the body from the\ntomb. There appears to be an inconsistency between Christ\u2019s\nprohibition here and the statement in Matt. 28:9 that the women \u201ccame\nand held him by the feet.\u201d I believe the account there to be an\nimperfect report of the event more accurately reported here. See note\non Matt. 28:9, 10. Why the fact that Christ had not yet ascended to\nhis Father should be assigned as a reason for not embracing him has\ngiven rise to much discussion among the commentators. An account of\nthe explanations which have been afforded, some of which are fanciful\nto the verge of absurdity, may be found both in Luthardt and Meyer.\nThe true interpretation seems to me to be this: Christ had promised to\nhis disciples that after he had gone to his Father he would return to\nbe with them, that they might be in him and he in them, as he was in\nthe Father and the Father in him. This interpretation of his death as\na departure to be with the Father, and this accompanying promise to\nreturn and be with them, form the burden of his discourse in John,\nchaps. 14-16. He restrained Mary from embracing him by declaring that\nhe had not yet gone to the Father, that the time for the fulfillment\nof this promise of his fellowship had not yet come, and that she must\nyet look forward to the future for that intimacy of intercourse which\nhe had foretold. He did not stop to enter into fuller explanations,\nbut his words point to that spiritual acquaintance with Christ to\nwhich Paul gives expression in the declaration, \u201cThough we have known\nChrist after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more\u201d (2\nCor. 6:16). But though refusing to allow Mary to embrace him, he\nconferred upon her a far greater honor in commissioning her to be the\nfirst preacher of the resurrection. By characterizing his disciples as\nhis _brethren_, he indicated that he was still in the flesh. The body\nwith which he had risen was the same in which he was crucified. See\nLuke 24:39, note. The language of his message, \u201cI ascend unto my\nFather and your Father, and to my God and your God,\u201d indicates\ncertainly that the sonship of the disciple is not the same as the\nsonship of the only begotten Son of God. He does not say _our Father_.\nCyril\u2019s interpretation, \u201cMy Father by nature; your Father by\nadoption,\u201d is just, though attributed to rather than found in the\nwords. The Father is by Paul called \u201cthe God of our Lord Jesus Christ\u201d\n(Ephes. 1:17).\n\n\n 19 Then[744] the same day at evening, being the first _day_\n of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples\n were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood\n in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace _be_ unto you.\n\n [744] Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36; 1 Cor. 15:5.\n\n\n 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them _his_\n hands and his side. Then[745] were the disciples glad,\n when they saw the Lord.\n\n [745] ch. 16:22.\n\n=19, 20.= Of this interview Mark gives a briefer, Luke a quite\ndifferent report (Mark 16:14-16; Luke 24:36-49). As John was the only\none of the Evangelists present who has given any account of the\ninterview, it may be assumed that his is the more accurate. It is\npossible that Luke\u2019s account of Christ\u2019s eating broiled fish and a\nhoneycomb, to convince them that he was in the flesh, may have been\nderived from the subsequent interview in Galilee, reported by John in\nch. 21:12-14. The event here recorded took place after the appearance\nof Christ to the two disciples in their walk to Emmaus (Luke\n24:13-35). This was the first appearance of Christ, after the\nresurrection, to the apostles in a body. The doors were probably not\nonly shut, but locked, as a protection; the fear of the Jews was\nnatural, for it was reasonable to expect that the crucifixion of the\nMaster would be followed by an attempt to pursue and punish the\ndisciples; and this natural expectation was increased by the\nprophecies of persecution which formed a part of Christ\u2019s final\ninstructions. The fact that Jesus entered through the closed door does\nnot indicate that the body was other than the natural body which had\nbeen laid in the grave; and Christ\u2019s language at this very time, as\nreported by Luke, \u201cA spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me\nhave,\u201d appears to be conclusive that his resurrection body was his\nphysical body. It is as futile to ask how, with a natural body, he\ncould enter through the closed door, as to ask how he could walk upon\nthe water. Miracles defy explanation. It is to be observed, however,\nthat the Evangelist does not state that Jesus entered _through_ the\nclosed door. He simply states the two facts which came within his own\nobservation: the doors were closed, and while so closed, suddenly\nJesus was seen standing in the midst of the disciples, within the\nroom. The greeting, \u201c_Peace be unto you_,\u201d was a common Jewish\nsalutation. Like the salutation \u201cIt is I, be not afraid,\u201d with which\nChrist greeted the frightened disciples in the storm-tossed boat on\nthe Sea of Galilee (ch. 6:20), it was addressed to calm their natural\nperturbation at the sudden apparition. This it must have done the\nmore effectually in that it recalled to their minds the benediction of\nhis final discourse, \u201cPeace I leave with you, my peace I give unto\nyou; not as the world giveth give I unto you\u201d (ch. 14:27). The showing\nof his hands and side was further to convince them of his identity;\nand it appears probable, from the language of Thomas (ver. 25), from\nthe report of Luke (Luke 24:39), and from the language of John in his\nEpistle (1 John 1:1), that the disciples handled as well as looked\nupon the body of their Lord.\n\n\n 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace[746] _be_ unto you:\n as _my_ Father hath sent me, even so[747] send I you.\n\n [746] ch. 14:27.\n\n [747] ch. 17:18; Matt. 28:19; 2 Tim. 2:2; Heb. 3:1.\n\n=21.= This is John\u2019s report of the commission given by Christ to his\ndisciples after the resurrection, and should be compared with that of\nMatthew (28:18-20), which, however, appears to have been given later.\nMark\u2019s report of the apostolic commission (Mark 16:15-18) is of\ndoubtful authenticity, and Luke\u2019s account (Luke 24:45-49) is to be\nregarded rather as a summary of Christ\u2019s post-resurrection\ninstructions than as the report of any single commission. It is, as\nMeyer well remarks, significant that the mission of the disciples\npreviously implied was formally and solemnly ratified at the first\nmeeting after the resurrection. On the significance of this\ncommission, see ch. 17:18, note. It was his response to their\nexhibition of gladness upon seeing him again, and implied that their\njoy in their Lord was not to be consummated until they had followed\nhim in his ministry of humiliation and sacrifice.\n\n\n 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on _them_, and\n saith unto them, Receive[748] ye the Holy Ghost.\n\n [748] Acts 2:4, 38.\n\n\n 23 Whose soever[749] sins ye remit, they are remitted\n unto them; _and_ whose soever _sins_ ye retain, they are\n retained.\n\n [749] Matt. 16:19; 18:18.\n\n=22, 23. He breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.=\nBreath is a natural symbol of life; in the Bible it is used as a\nsymbol of the divine life. God breathes into man the breath of life\n(Gen. 2:7); in the vision of Ezekiel the wind breathes on the dry\nbones and clothes them with life (Ezek. 37:9, 10); in Christ\u2019s\nconversation with Nicodemus the life-giving power of God is compared\nto the breath of wind (ch. 3:8); and it is significant of the extent\nto which this symbol underlies Scripture that the Greek word used for\nspirit is the one also used for wind, which is poetically represented\nas the breath of God. Here, by breathing on the apostles, Christ\nsymbolically imparted to them that divine life which man never\n_acquires_, which God alone can _give_. _Receive ye the Holy Ghost_ is\nnot to be regarded as a promise to be fulfilled at Pentecost--it is\nnot equivalent to, _Ye shall receive the Holy Ghost_; nor as a full\nbestowal of the power of the Spirit, which came not till Pentecost;\nbut as an _earnest_ of the gift yet to be more fully bestowed in\nsuccessive endowments through all the future ages of the church. This\ngift of the Holy Ghost is to be connected with the commission which\nprecedes: \u201cAs my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.\u201d It is given\nto all who accept this Christian commission, that is, who believe in\nChrist through the word of the apostles, and, believing, become true\nfollowers of him. It is also to be connected with the authority\nconferred in the verse which follows. See below. There is a possible\nsignificance in the omission of the definite article in the original,\nwhich, if literally translated, would read, Receive ye a holy spirit.\nWe receive a spirit of true holiness only as the divine life is\nbreathed upon us by the inspiration of God (Titus 3:4-6).--=Whose\nsoever sins ye put away, they are put away from them; whose soever\nsins ye retain, they are retained.= This passage is confessedly\ndifficult of interpretation. In considering it I endeavor, first, to\nput the English reader in possession of the exact meaning of the\noriginal; next, to suggest to him what seems to me to be the true\ninterpretation of the passage; and finally to give him briefly other\ninterpretations. (1) The word rendered _remit_ signifies primarily and\nproperly to _dismiss_, _put away_, _get rid of_. As applied to sin in\nthe N. T., it indicates not a mere release from the threatened penalty\nof transgression, but redemption from the power of the sin itself. See\nMatt. 6:12, note. The divine forgiveness of sins is interpreted by\nsuch promises as those of Micah 7:19: \u201cHe will subdue our iniquities,\nand thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea;\u201d and\nIsaiah 44:22: \u201cI have blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgressions,\nand as a cloud thy sins.\u201d In the first clause of this verse,\ntherefore, there is no hint of any power in apostle or apostolic\nsuccessor to forgive sins, or to declare with authority sins forgiven,\nor to declare under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to what\ncharacter and on what terms sins shall be forgiven. There is simply\nthe declaration that when the disciple of Christ, acting under his\nMaster\u2019s commission and with the power given by the inbreathed gift of\nthe Holy Ghost, does in fact put away, dismiss, get rid of sin, in the\nindividual or the community, the work shall not be in vain in the\nLord--the devil so cast out shall not return to find the house swept\nand garnished and take possession of it again (Matt. 12:44, 45). The\nwork shall abide. Thus the first clause of this verse embodies a\npromise like that of Isaiah 55:11, and is interpreted by its\nfulfillment in Paul\u2019s experience, as in 1 Thess. 1:4-7. The second\nclause, _Whose soever sins ye retain shall be retained_, is more\ndifficult of interpretation. The word rendered _retain_ primarily\nsignifies to _possess power_, then to _exercise_ it. It is\nemployed both in classic and later Greek, with many derivative\nsignifications--to _rule_, _conquer_, _subdue_, _seize_, _keep_, _hold\nfast_. It is translated in the N. T. by the terms _hold_ or _hold\nfast_, _keep_, _lay hand on_, _obtain_, _take_, and, here only,\n_retain_. It is sometimes used in a material sense, that is, of the\nexercise of physical power, as in Matt. 9:25, _he took her by the\nhand_, or Matt. 26:48, _hold him fast_ (comp. verses 50, 55, 57);\nsometimes it is used in an immaterial sense, that is, of the exercise\nof a mental power, as in Col. 2:19 of Christians who fall away from\ngrace _not holding the head_, or Mark 7:3 of the Pharisees who _hold\nthe traditions of the elders_. But it never loses wholly its primary\nand germinant significance of the possession and exercise of power. It\ncannot therefore here be rendered, without a violation of the\noriginal, _Whose soever sins ye permit to retain their hold on the\nsinner shall be allowed to be retained_; some real exercise of power\non the part of the person receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is\nindicated. There is also an antithesis apparent in the original, as in\nour English version, between the two clauses of the verse, _i. e._,\nbetween remitting or letting go and retaining or not letting go. We\nhave the same antithesis, between the same words, though there used in\na physical sense, in Mark 12:12, They sought _to lay hold_ on him, * *\n* but they _left_ him and went their way. It seems to me that by this\nlatter clause a power is conferred, the more awful that it is not\nclearly, and perhaps cannot be by any possibility clearly defined--a\npower to fasten sin on the sinner by sentence of condemnation, as\nthere is power to put away sin by the proclamation of the salvation.\nThis power is given upon the conditions implied in the commission, _As\nthe Father hath sent me, even so I send you_, and in the gift,\n_Receive ye the gift of the Holy Ghost_; that is, it is conferred, not\non the apostles merely, all of whom were not present (ver. 24); nor on\nthem and their successors, for of successors the N. T. furnishes no\nlimit; nor on an ordained priesthood or ministry; but on all who\naccept Christ\u2019s commission, and in that commission seek and obtain the\ngift of the Holy Ghost; and it is theirs just in the measure in which\nthey receive and act under his divine influence. (2) I read, then, in\nthis language of Christ, the bestowal of a twofold spiritual\npower--one of salvation, the other of judgment. The disciple is sent\ninto the world as his Master was sent into the world, like him\nto become a teacher of divine truth, an example to others, a\nmanifestation of the divine character, a bearer in his own person of\nthe sins of others. See ch. 17:18, note. But also like him he is to be\na judge. The Master\u2019s fan is to be in his hand. He who has power to\nproclaim salvation has also authority to pronounce condemnation, and\nthe one declaration no less than the other, when uttered under the\ninfluence of the Holy Spirit of God, is uttered with divine authority.\nInstances of this judgment against wilful and determined sin are\nafforded by Christ\u2019s denunciation of the Pharisees; by Peter\u2019s\ncondemnation of Ananias and Sapphira, and of Simon Magus; by Paul\u2019s\njudgment against the offender in the church of Corinth. Illustrations\nof perversions of this power are afforded by the anathemas of the\nchurch of the middle ages, and perhaps by some of the severe\ndenunciations of the Puritans. It has been variously illustrated by\npreachers of judgment from the days of Jeremiah to those of John Knox.\nSuch a sentence, when uttered, as it often has been, under the\ninfluence of malign passion, or of ecclesiastical ambition, is but an\nill-spent breath; but when it is the voice of a spirit of truth and\nholiness, aroused to righteous indignation in the presence of\ninveterate sin, and is uttered by a soul acting under the conscious\ninfluence of the Divine Spirit, the sentence becomes an awful one,\nbecause it is an echo of the inaudible sentence of God himself. I must\nadd emphasis to the statement that, as I read this passage, this power\nbelongs, not to a hierarchy, priesthood, or ministry, but to the\nChristian soul, by virtue of its direct life in and with God, and to\nsuch soul only when acting in its highest moods and with the direct\nand conscious influence of the Spirit of God upon it. This authority,\nhere bestowed on all who are inspired by a divinely imparted spirit of\nholiness, interprets and measurably explains the power of a holy soul,\nbefore which often, in the history of the race, the most august\npersonages have trembled, they knew not why. Of course this\ninterpretation will be at once rejected by those who would abolish\njudgment from eternity, much more from this present life, and treat\nsin only as an immaturity or a disease; but possibly the church would\nbe more efficient in its proclamation of the gospel to penitent\nsinners, if its spirit of holiness were sometimes aroused to pronounce\nthe sentence of God against persistent sin; perhaps it would call to\nthe Lord more of the publicans and sinners, if it had more of his\nspirit of judgment against the temple traders and the Pharisees. (3)\nThe principal other interpretations of this passage are the following:\n(_a_) That the Lord gave power to the apostles to absolve men from sin\nand fasten sin upon them, but that this was a purely personal power,\nbelonging to the apostolic age, and ceasing with the gifts of\nmiracles, of tongues, etc. But this interpretation dissociates the\npower here conferred from the accompanying commission and gift, or\nconfines the latter to the apostles, while the general teaching of the\nScriptures gives both to all believers. See ch. 17:18, 20; Acts 2:38,\n39. It would exclude Thomas, who was not present at this interview,\nand Paul, who was not one of the eleven. (_b_) That a power of\ninfallibly absolving and anathematizing is here conferred, but that it\nbelongs exclusively to the apostles and their successors, the\nself-perpetuating hierarchy. This is the ecclesiastical view, held\nvery generally by the Roman Catholic church, and in a modified form by\nmany among the hierarchical denominations generally. But there is\nneither here nor anywhere else in the N. T. any hint of any power in\nthe apostles to appoint successors, nor any hint that they ever did\nso. And indeed the very nature of their office, which was to bear\npersonal witness to the facts of Christ\u2019s life and death and\nresurrection, was such that in the nature of the case no successors\nwere possible (ch. 15:27; Acts 1:21, 22; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8). On this\npoint the dictum of an English dean is significant: \u201cThis gift belongs\nto the church in all ages, and especially to those who by legitimate\nappointment are set to minister in the churches of Christ: not by\nsuccessive delegation from the apostles, _of which fiction I find in\nthe N. T. no trace_, but by their mission from Christ, the bestower of\nthe spirit for their office, when orderly and legitimately conferred\nupon them by the various churches. Not, however, to them exclusively,\nthough for decency and order it is expedient that the outward and\nformal declaration should be so; but in proportion as _any disciple_\nshall have been filled with the holy spirit of wisdom is the inner\ndiscernment his.\u201d--(_Alford._) (_c_) The power here promised is one\nwhich in a very general way accompanies the preaching of the gospel;\nthat it is a promise that \u201cthey should be taught by the Holy Ghost to\ndeclare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind\nGod would extend forgiveness of sins.\u201d This, which is Mr. Barnes\u2019s\ninterpretation, seems to me entirely inadequate. It reduces a definite\nand positive promise of divine ratification of human judgment, under\nthe guidance of the Holy Spirit, to a mere enunciation of the general\nprinciple that the ministers of Christ shall be ministers of the\ntruth. (_d_) That the two clauses of the sentence are, the one a\npromise, the other a warning; that Christians _remit_ sin when, by\ntheir influence, their example, or their teaching, they induce sinners\nto repent of sin and abandon it; that they _retain_ sin when, by their\nnegligence, their acquiescence, or their approval, they directly or\nindirectly help to fasten sins on the individual or the community; and\nthat Christ promises his disciples great results if they are faithful,\nand warns them of equally great but terrible results if they are\nremiss or culpable. The original does not seem to me capable of this\nrendering, for it ignores the fundamental meaning of the word rendered\n_retain_ (\u03ba\u03c1\u1fe6\u03ad\u03c9), which always indicates some real _exercise of\npower_, never a failure or a neglect to exercise it. See above. The\nview which I have adopted is not very widely different from that of\nAlford, Meyer, Ryle, Calvin, Watkins, and the best of the Protestant\ncommentators generally, except that, with Godet, I regard the promise\nas conferring on the moral judgments of the disciple a real efficacy,\nwhile the commentators generally regard it as simply a promise of\nwisdom spiritually to perceive and declare judgments which shall be in\naccordance with the divine will. This interpretation is also adopted\nby some of the more evangelical of the Roman Catholic divines, _e.\ng._, Quesnel in modern and Chrysostom in ancient times, both of whom\nregard the priest as an ambassador of God, and as speaking by\nauthority only in so far as he is filled with the Holy Ghost. \u201cBut why\nspeak I of priests? Neither angel nor archangel can do anything with\nregard to what is given him of God; but the Father, the Son, and the\nHoly Ghost dispenseth all, while the priest lends his tongue and\naffords his hand.\u201d--(_Chrysostom._) \u201cThat such a judgment may be\npronounced upon sinners as is fit to be approved of God, and to be\nconfirmed in heaven, it must be such as is according to the Spirit of\nGod, who is given for that purpose, and to the rules prescribed by\nChrist to sinners, of which the priest is only the minister.\u201d--(_Quesnel._)\n\n\n 24 But Thomas,[750] one of the twelve, called Didymus, was\n not with them when Jesus came.\n\n [750] ch. 11:16.\n\n\n 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have\n seen the Lord. But he[751] said unto them, Except I shall\n see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger\n into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his\n side, I will not believe.\n\n [751] Ps. 78:11, 32.\n\n=24, 25.= Didymus is the Greek equivalent of Thomas, which is of\nHebrew origin. Very little of his life is known; but the two other\noccurrences recorded in the N. T. (John 11:16; 14:5) indicate an\naffectionate spirit but a skeptical intellect, a man who loved much,\nbut believed and hoped but little. He has been well called \u201cthe\nrationalist\u201d among the twelve; but he was a rationalist with a warm\nheart. The incident here recorded shows that the fact of the\nresurrection was so attested that it was accepted by one who could\nonly be convinced by the clearest and most convincing proof. The\nreason of Thomas\u2019s absence is not stated, nor even implied; but the\nconjecture that he had abandoned hope, and therefore the companionship\nof the disciples, is not unreasonable.--His language, _Except I thrust\nmy hand into his side, I will not believe_, is that not merely of\ndejection, but also of defiance. His position is that of modern\npositivism, which refuses to believe anything not verified by actual\nsensuous observation; his demand is that of M. Renan, who, to\nsubstantiate the doctrine of the resurrection, calls for the\nsuccessful raising of the dead before a commission composed of\nphysiologists, physicians, chemists, and skilled critics. See _Life of\nJesus_, Intro. But Thomas\u2019s spirit was very different.\n\n\n 26 And after eight days, again his disciples were within,\n and Thomas with them: _then_ came Jesus, the doors being\n shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace[752] _be_\n unto you.\n\n [752] Isa. 26:12.\n\n\n 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and\n behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand,[753] and thrust\n _it_ into my side: and be[754] not faithless, but believing.\n\n [753] 1 John 1:1.\n\n [754] 1 Tim. 1:14.\n\n=26, 27.= This meeting after eight days, _i. e._, on the eighth day,\nis the first intimation in the N. T. of a commemoration by the\ndisciples of the resurrection; and there is nothing to show that the\ndisciples had not kept together in a continuous meeting during the\nentire week, which, it will be remembered, was the Passover week. But\nit is certainly significant that Christ chose the first day of the\nweek, on which he rose from the dead, to make his second appearance to\nhis infant church, and thus gave an impulse to, if not a suggestion\nof, that apostolic commemoration of the day, which by insensible\ndegrees led to the transfer of the Christian\u2019s weekly festival from\nthe seventh to the first day of the week.--Christ appears as suddenly\nand mysteriously as before, and in his address to Thomas echoes his\nwords, a severe yet a tender and loving rebuke. The evidence which he\nwould have refused to the Pharisee he grants to the disciple; the\ninimical demand of the determined skeptic he always disregards; for\nthe intellectual difficulties of a reluctant skeptic he shows great\ncompassion. But he shows this compassion for unbelief that he may\nrescue the unbeliever from it, and bids him _become not unbelieving,\nbut believing_. Through his doubt of the actual occurrence of the\nresurrection, Thomas was in danger of becoming a disbeliever\ngenerally, and against this danger of lapsing from a state of faith to\none of unfaith Jesus warned Thomas, and through him warns the feeble\nand vacillating believers of all ages.\n\n\n 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My[755] Lord and\n my God.\n\n [755] ch. 5:23; Ps. 118:28; 1 Tim. 3:16.\n\n\n 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen\n me, thou hast believed: blessed[756] _are_ they that have\n not seen, and _yet_ have believed.\n\n [756] 1 Pet. 1:8.\n\n=28, 29.= Thomas was overpowered and convinced by the grace of his\nMaster, not by the physical evidence which he had demanded, and which\nwas vouchsafed to him; not because he handled, but because he _saw_,\nhe believed (ver. 29). In this appears the difference of his spirit\nfrom that of the modern rationalists; his faith finally rested, not in\nthe sensuous evidence, but in the invisible love and mercy of his\nLord. The mere fact that Jesus rose from the dead did not\ndemonstrate his divinity, nor give ground for Thomas\u2019s appeal; for\nLazarus, too, rose from the dead. \u201cIt was an evidence addressing\nitself not to his eyes, but to his heart, which forced him to cry, My\nLord and my God.\u201d--(_Maurice._) To interpret this utterance as a mere\nexpletory outcry is the shallowest of criticism. It reduces a sublime\nand exalted confession of faith to an irrelevant and semi-profane\nexclamation. It is grammatically, psychologically, and spiritually\nuntenable; grammatically, because it is expressly said that Thomas\naddressed the words to Jesus--_he said \u201cunto him\u201d_; psychologically,\nbecause it is equally irrational to suppose that Thomas, just\nconvinced of the resurrection of his Lord and Master, should break out\ninto a mere meaningless exclamation, or that John should have reported\nit if it had been uttered; spiritually, because Christ on the strength\nof this confession of Thomas recognizes his faith: \u201cThou hast\nbelieved.\u201d Equally untenable is the suggestion of Norton (_Notes on\nthe Gospels_), that \u201cthe name God was employed by him, not as the\nproper name of the Deity, but as an appellation, according to a common\nuse of it in his day,\u201d for no such common use existed, and its\nexistence would have been utterly inconsistent with the Hebrew laws\nagainst the use of God\u2019s name in vain. The fact that Thomas recognized\nJesus as both Lord and God might not of itself be conclusive; there\nwould be possible ground for Norton\u2019s argument: \u201cConsidering into how\ngreat an error he had fallen in his previous obstinate incredulity,\nthere would be little reason for relying upon his opinion as\ninfallible\u201d; but Christ not only accepts, he distinctly approves and\nratifies Thomas\u2019s confession, and the faith of the church rests not on\nthe words of the disciple, but on their approbation by his Lord.\nThomas\u2019s words here, then, are to be read in the light of Christ\u2019s\nwords in chaps. 13-17; the disciple accepts in a single sentence\nChrist\u2019s teaching respecting himself as the one sent from and\nmanifesting to the world the eternal Father. It is the answer of a\nsuddenly awakened faith to the before ill-comprehended declaration, He\nthat hath seen me hath seen the Father. In his response, _Blessed are\nthey that have not seen, and yet have believed_, Jesus recognizes two\nkinds of belief, one which rests on seeing or on the witness of those\nthat have seen, the other and higher that which rests simply on\nspiritual apprehension. Parallel to the implied contrast here is\nthat in John 14:11, \u201cBelieve me that I am in the Father, and the\nFather in me; or else believe me for the very work\u2019s sake.\u201d\n\n\n 30 And[757] many other signs truly did Jesus in the\n presence of his disciples, which are not written in this\n book:\n\n [757] ch. 21:25.\n\n\n 31 But[758] these are written, that ye might believe\n that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and[759] that,\n believing, ye might have life through his name.\n\n [758] Luke 1:4.\n\n [759] ch. 3:15, 16; 5:24; 10:10; 1 Pet. 1:9.\n\n=30, 31.= These verses constitute the formal close of John\u2019s Gospel,\nch. 21 being an appendix. See Prel. Note there. The \u201c_many other\nsigns_\u201d referred to are not necessarily only or chiefly those wrought\nafter the resurrection, but include those recorded by the other\nEvangelists, as well as such as have not been recorded.--On the object\nof John in his Gospel as here indicated, see Intro., p. 11. That\nobject was threefold: (1) That the readers might have faith that Jesus\nof Nazareth is the Messiah of prophecy; (2) that they might\nspiritually recognize in this Messiah the well-beloved Son of God; (3)\nthat, believing in his Messiahship and divinity, they might become\npartakers of his life. _Life_ (\u03b6\u03c9\u03ae) in John\u2019s usage always signifies\n_spiritual_ life, and the _name of Christ_, in which this life is to\nbe attained, stands for Christ himself in all the gracious offices\nwhich his names indicate, as Jesus or Saviour, Christ or Messiah, and\nEmmanuel or God with us.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI.\n\n\nCh. 21:1-25. APPENDIX TO JOHN\u2019S GOSPEL.--WAITING FOR CHRIST WHILE WE\nWORK (3).--THE POWER OF THE LORD OVER NATURE (6).--LOVE SEES MOST\nQUICKLY; ZEAL ACTS MOST QUICKLY (7).--CHRIST PROVIDES FOR OUR SIMPLEST\nWANTS; FIRE FOR THE COLD, FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY (9).--A TRUE PROOF OF\nLOVE FOR CHRIST: SHEPHERDING HIS SHEEP (15-17).--SERVICE AND SUFFERING\nARE BOTH FOLLOWING CHRIST (18).--THE IMPERTINENCE OF CURIOSITY REBUKED\n(21-23).--THE LAST WORD AND THE FIRST WORD OF CHRIST THE SAME, FOLLOW\nME.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPRELIMINARY NOTE.--All modern critics agree in regarding this chapter\nas in the nature of a supplement, the original Gospel having been\nbrought to a close in the last verses of the preceding chapter. This\nopinion is based chiefly upon the formal close afforded by those\nverses. That this supplemental chapter was written at a very early\nperiod, and probably before the Gospel itself was given to the public,\nis indicated by the fact that it is found in all the manuscripts.\nWhether it was written by John himself or by some disciple or friend\nis not altogether clear, and certainly not very important; but the\nevangelical critics generally agree, from a careful consideration of\nits internal characteristics, in attributing it to John himself. Thus\nAlford: \u201cThe reader will have perceived in the foregoing comment on\nthe chapter a manifest leaning to the belief that it was written by\nJohn himself. _Of this I am fully convinced._ In every part of it his\nhand is plain and unmistakable; in every part of it his character and\nspirit is manifested in a way which none but the most biassed can fail\nto recognize. I believe it to have been added some years probably\nafter the completion of the Gospel; partly, perhaps, to record the\nimportant miracle of the second draught of fishes, so full of\nspiritual instruction, and the interesting account of the sayings of\nthe Lord to Peter; but principally to meet the error which was\nbecoming prevalent concerning himself.\u201d To the same effect Meyer: \u201cIn\naccordance with all that has been advanced, the view is justified that\nJohn, by way of authentic historical explanation of the legend in ver.\n23, some time after finishing his Gospel, which he had closed with\n20:31, wrote ch. 21:1-24 as a complement of the book, and that this\nappendix, simply because its Johannean character was immediately\ncertain and recognized, already at a very early period, whilst the\nGospel had not yet issued forth from the narrower circle of its first\nreaders, had become an inseparable part of the Gospel.\u201d Similarly,\nthough somewhat more doubtfully, Luthardt and Godet. See also Ezra\nAbbot, in _Smith\u2019s Bib. Dict._, Vol. 2, p. 1430, note b.\n\n\n 1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the\n disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed\n he _himself_.\n\n\n 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called\n Didymus, and[760] Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the\n _sons_[761] of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.\n\n [760] ch. 1:45.\n\n [761] Matt. 4:21.\n\n\n 3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They\n say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth,\n and entered into a ship immediately; and that night\n they caught nothing.\n\n=1-3.= The departure of the disciples into Galilee is not to be\nregarded as an abandonment on their part of hope; for Christ\u2019s\ndirection to his disciples after his resurrection was to go into\nGalilee and meet him there (Matt. 28:7; Mark 16:7). We are rather to\nregard it, therefore, as an evidence that they were convinced by his\nrepeated appearances of the resurrection of their Lord, and went into\nGalilee in anticipation of meeting him there. For the same reason we\nare not to regard Peter\u2019s declaration, _I go a fishing_, as an\nindication that he had abandoned his sacred for a secular calling. His\nrestless temperament did not allow him to wait in inactivity, and he\nsought relief in work. The response of the other disciples, _We also\ngo with thee_, has been rightly used by the homiletical commentators\nas an illustration of the influence of example. John was one of the\nsons of Zebedee. Assuming that the 21st chapter is from his pen, we\nhave in it the description of an eye-witness. There is nothing to\nindicate who were the two unnamed disciples, but the fact that they\nare unnamed has been regarded as an indication that they were not two\nof the twelve. The _ship_ was, of course, simply a fisherman\u2019s boat,\nprobably not very different in shape and size from those to be seen in\nthe Sea of Galilee at the present day, as represented in the\naccompanying illustration.\n\n\n 4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on\n the shore: but the disciples knew[762] not that it was\n Jesus.\n\n [762] ch. 20:14.\n\n\n 5 Then[763] Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye\n any meat? They answered him, No.\n\n [763] Luke 24:41.\n\n=4, 5.= The night of labor spent in vain might naturally have recalled\nto the disciples that other night of toil after which Christ first\ncalled some of these disciples to be his followers (Luke 5:1-11). In\nthe gray twilight they saw a stranger on the shore; that they did not\nrecognize him may have been due in part to the dimness of the early\nlight, but more probably to the fact, illustrated by other\npost-resurrection appearances, that he was recognized only as he chose\nto reveal himself (ch. 20:14; Luke 24:16). Certainly it indicates that\nthe disciples had no such expectation of his appearance as would lead\nthem, according to the theory of M. Renan, to conjure up a spectre.\nThere is nothing in the words, and we may presume there was nothing in\nthe tones of Jesus, to quicken their perception. His language is that\nof a fisherman: _Boys_ (\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1), _have ye no fish?_ The word rendered\n_meat_ (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) is literally _what is eaten therewith_, _i. e._,\nwith bread, and here is equivalent to _fish_, which in Galilee was a\ncommon accompaniment of bread in the peasant\u2019s meal.\n\n\n [Illustration: ANCIENT BREAD.]\n\n\n 6 And he said unto them, Cast[764] the net on the right\n side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore,\n and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of\n fishes.\n\n [764] Luke 5:4-7.\n\n\n 7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto\n Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was\n the Lord, he girt _his_ fisher\u2019s coat _unto him_, (for he was\n naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.\n\n\n 8 And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they\n were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,)\n dragging the net with fishes.\n\n=6-8.= There was nothing to the disciples especially suggestive in the\ndirection to _cast the net on the right side of the ship_. They might\nnaturally suppose that he had perceived indications of a school of\nfishes there.--In the effect produced on the two disciples, Peter and\nJohn, by the miraculous draught of fishes which followed, the\ncharacter of each is strikingly illustrated. John, with his quicker\nintuitions, recalling that other fishing scene, recognized the Lord\nfirst; Peter, with his greater boldness to act, leaped into the water,\nand partly swam and partly waded ashore. Comp. ch. 20:6, 8, notes. The\ndistance was about _two hundred cubits_, that is, about three hundred\nfeet. The _fisher\u2019s coat_, which Peter girt unto him, appears to have\nbeen a sort of loose garment, like the workmen\u2019s blouse of to-day,\nwhich Peter had laid off during his night\u2019s work. This he put on,\ncounting it unseemly to appear without it in the presence of his Lord,\nat the same time drawing it up and tucking it in about the waist, that\nit might not impede his swimming to the shore.--The accompanying\nillustration shows the probable style of the fisher\u2019s coat, in\ncontrast with the long robe worn by one not engaged in manual labor.\nThe net itself was so full of fishes, and they so _great_, that the\ndisciples abandoned the attempt to bring them into the boat, but\ndragged them in the net to the land.\n\n\n [Illustration: HE GIRT HIS FISHER\u2019S COAT UNTO HIM.]\n\n\n 9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire\n of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.\n\n\n 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have\n now caught.\n\n\n 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of\n great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all\n there were so many, yet was not the net broken.\n\n\n=9-11.= On coming to the shore the disciples found a fire of coals\nalready kindled, and some fish laid thereon, and some loaves of\nbread--in short, preparation for a simple meal. There has been some\nunprofitable discussion among the commentators respecting the manner\nin which this provision had been made. It is attributed by different\ncommentators to the ministry of angels, to the activity of Peter, to\nthe forethought of Jesus. Alford, following Stier and the older\ncommentators, insists that it was miraculously provided. Trench\nrightly and briefly disposes of this question: \u201cBy what ministry,\nnatural or miraculous, has been often inquired, but we must leave this\nundetermined, as we find it.\u201d The provision apparently was not\nsufficient for the company, for Christ bade Peter add to the stock\nfrom the fish just caught. Peter went, therefore, to aid the others in\nbringing the net to shore. The fish were counted, and the exact number\nis recorded by the Evangelist. The attempt to draw some spiritual\nlessons from this number affords a curious illustration of the\nabsurdities into which the allegorizing method is liable to carry the\nstudent. The exact enumeration is important only because it is an\nindication of accuracy in the historian; in such an enumeration there\nis no opportunity for the exaggeration of imagination. To me\nAugustine\u2019s allegorical interpretation of the contrast between this\nand the analogous yet widely different miracle recorded in Luke 5:1-11\nis scarcely more profitable than the spiritualizing interpretation of\nthe meaning of the one hundred and fifty-three; the curious in such\nmatters will find it fully reported in Trench on the Parables. It\nmight be possible to account for each single feature in this narrative\nwithout assuming a miracle; but in a candid consideration of all the\nfeatures combined--the fruitless fishing all night, the sudden and\nextraordinary success in the morning, the number of fish, their size,\nthe unbroken net, though dragged full of fish to the shore--it is\nimpossible to doubt that we have here, what evangelical critics have\nalways seen in the narrative, the account of a miraculous\nmanifestation of the Lord\u2019s power.\n\n\n 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come _and_ dine. And none of the\n disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was\n the Lord.\n\n\n 13 Jesus[765] then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth\n them, and fish likewise.\n\n [765] Acts 10:41.\n\n\n 14 This[766] is now the third time that Jesus shewed\n himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from\n the dead.\n\n [766] ch. 20:19, 26.\n\n=12-14.= There is a verbal, but no real inconsistency in the statement\nthat _none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that\nit was the Lord_. \u201cBut seeing that His form was altered, and full of\nmuch awfulness, they were greatly amazed, and desired to ask somewhat\n concerning It; but fear, and their knowledge that He was not some\nother, but the same, checked their inquiry.\u201d--(_Chrysostom._) The\ncareful student will observe that the Evangelist does not characterize\nthis as the third appearance of Jesus, but as the third appearance _to\nhis disciples_, _i. e._, the apostles. This excludes the appearance to\nMary (ch. 20:16), and to the two disciples on the walk to Emmaus (Luke\n24:13-35); the two preceding appearances referred to were that to the\nten on the evening of the day of the resurrection (ch. 20:19) and that\nto the eleven in the week following (ch. 20:26). Without following the\nallegorizing commentators into any of their extravagances, we may\nreasonably see, with Alford, Trench, and others, a spiritual\nsignificance in the fact that Christ provided a meal for the apostles\nat the same time when, by this new miraculous draught, he reminded\nthem of their first call to become fishers of men, thus suggesting to\nthem the spiritual truth involved in the Lord\u2019s Supper, and\nsymbolically represented in the feeding of the five thousand, that\nthey who minister in the things of Christ are themselves dependent on\nChrist for their spiritual support; perhaps also suggesting that when\nthe labor of life is over there will be for them that have wrought for\nChrist a feast with him in the kingdom of heaven. But certainly Trench\ngoes too far in saying that \u201cthe character of the meal was\nsacramental, and it had nothing to do with the stilling of their\npresent hunger.\u201d It is much more reasonable to see in this provision\nfor the disciples\u2019 commonest needs--food and a fire at the end of a\nnight of sleepless toil--a new illustration of the tenderness of\nChrist\u2019s consideration for his own.\n\n\n 15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter,\n Simon, _son_ of Jonas, lovest thou me more[767] than these?\n He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love\n thee. He saith unto him, Feed[768] my lambs.\n\n [767] Matt. 26:33, 35.\n\n [768] Isa. 40:11; Jer. 3:15; Ezek. 34:2-10; Acts\n 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2, 4.\n\n\n 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, _son_\n of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea,\n Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto\n him, Feed my sheep.[769]\n\n [769] Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25.\n\n\n 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, _son_ of\n Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved[770] because\n he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And\n he said unto him, Lord, thou[771] knowest all things;\n thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him,\n Feed my sheep.\n\n [770] Lam. 3:33.\n\n [771] ch. 16:30.\n\n=15-17. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son\nof Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea,\nLord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee. He saith unto him,\nFeed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of\nJonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that\nI have affection for thee. He saith unto him, Shepherd my sheep. He\nsaith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, hast thou\naffection for me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third\ntime, Hast thou affection for me? and he said unto him, Lord, thou\nknowest all things; thou knowest that I have affection for thee. Jesus\nsaith unto him, Feed my little sheep.= This translation will suggest\nto the English reader, though inadequately, points of difference in\nthe original which our English translation wholly fails to preserve,\npossibly through the inattention of the translators, but more probably\nthrough the inadequacy of the English language to represent delicate\nshades of meaning which are represented by the Greek. (1) Two\ndifferent Greek words are rendered indiscriminately _love_ (\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 and\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c9). I have attempted to indicate the difference by rendering the\none to _love_ and the other to _have affection_, though this rather\nsuggests that there is a difference than indicates in what it\nconsists. The word which Christ uses in his question, _Lovest thou\nme?_ (\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c9), signifies, if not the higher, at least the more\nthoughtful and reverential affection, founded on an intelligent\nestimate of character, and accompanied by a deliberate and\nwell-considered choice. Peter\u2019s _I love thee_ represents rather the\npersonal instinctive love, the activity of feeling rather than of\nwill, the affection which, being spontaneous and instinctive, gives no\naccount of itself, and no reason for its existence. We are bid in the\nN. T. to exercise the first form of love (\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c9) towards God, but\nnever the second; while the Father is said to exercise both forms\ntowards his own Son. Two different Greek words are also rendered\nindiscriminately _feed_. To indicate the difference I have rendered\none by the rare but indispensable verb _shepherd_. Finally, three\nwords are used to represent the flock which Christ commends to Peter\u2019s\ncare--_lambs_ (\u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1), _sheep_ (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac), and _little sheep_\n(\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac). There is some uncertainty as to the reading, but the one I\nhave followed is accepted by the best critics--Alford, Meyer, etc. To\n_feed_ the sheep is simply to nourish them; to _shepherd_ them is not\nin contrast the ruling activity (so _Meyer_), but the whole shepherd\ncare of the flock--watching, tending, leading--as illustrated in Psalm\n23 and in John 10:1-18. The term _lamb_ is never used in the N. T.\nexcept of Christ himself (John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12,\netc.), or of the followers of Christ (Luke 10:3). By the _lambs_ here,\nthen, I understand Christ to mean his professed followers; Peter was\nto show his love for the Master by teaching them. The term _sheep_ is\nmore general, and includes in the figurative language of the Bible\nthose who have wandered away from the fold of God (Matt. 9:36; 12:11,\n12; 15:24; Luke 15:4-6). Peter is to show his love for the Master, not\nonly by teaching the Lord\u2019s disciples, but by shepherding the sheep,\nwhether in the fold or wandering from it, as a good shepherd going\nbefore them, going after them, giving his life, if need be, for them\n(John 10:1-13). The _little sheep_ are the young, who have not yet\nwandered away, and whom he is to keep in the Master\u2019s fold by feeding\nthem there with the herbage of life. Christ calls them _my_ lambs,\n_my_ sheep, because the Father has given all to him, and he is, as\nRedeemer and Saviour, Lord of all. The most superficial student will\nnot fail to see in this thrice-repeated question an indirect and\nimplied reference to and recall of the thrice-repeated denial of his\nLord by Peter. In his request for permission to walk on the water, in\nhis protest against the feet-washing, in his assertion \u201cThough all men\nshall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended\u201d\n(Matt. 14:28; 26:33; John 13:8), there are indications of an\noverweening self-confidence in his love for the Lord as greater than\nthat of the other disciples. It was this self-confidence in the\nstrength of his love which had proved his danger. Christ addresses\nhim, not by his new name of Peter, but by the old name which he bore\nbefore he knew the Lord, and asks him, Hast thou for me a greater love\nthan these? Peter, saying nothing of the love of the others, not even\nventuring to claim for himself the intelligent and deliberate love\nwhich rules the life and molds the character, answers in humility:\nThou knowest my affection for thee. Show it then, says Jesus, not by\nassuming pre-eminence over my flock, but by becoming their shepherd (=\n_servant_, ch. 13:12-17). He then repeats the question, Lovest thou\nme? Peter answers as before: Thou knowest my affection for thee. Show\nit then, says Christ, by shepherding my sheep; by seeking the lost,\nrestoring the wanderer. A third time he asks the question, now\nchanging it and adopting Peter\u2019s own language: Art thou sure of thine\naffection for me? Peter is grieved, at the _change_ in the question as\nwell as at its repetition, \u201cbecause he said unto him the third time,\n_Hast thou affection for me?_\u201d and appeals to him as the Searcher of\nhearts to witness for himself the depth and reality of his affection.\nAnd Christ finally bids him show his love by feeding the little\nsheep--the young, the feeble, those most needing care. Meyer well\nnotes the fact that Christ does not question Peter\u2019s _faith_, but the\nlove which proceeds from faith and shows itself by its work; and Godet\nnotes the curious resemblance between the present situation and that\nof two scenes in the previous life of Peter with which it is related.\nHe had been called to the ministry by Jesus after a miraculous draught\nof fishes; it is after a similar draught that the ministry is restored\nto him. He had lost his office by his denial beside a fire of coals;\nit is beside a fire of coals that he recovers it.--(_Godet._) The\necclesiastical commentators see in this scene a reinstatement of Peter\nin his apostolic office, to which Alford well replies that \u201cthere is\nno record of his ever having lost it.\u201d The R. C. divines find in it a\nproof-text for their belief in the primacy of Peter; to which Peter\nhimself furnishes a quite adequate reply in 1 Pet. 5:1-3. The shepherd\nis not a lord over God\u2019s heritage, but one who follows the Chief\nShepherd, goes before the flock, is their example and their leader, by\nhis own life showing them the way to live, and, if need be, by his own\ndeath for their sakes showing them how to die. It must strike one,\ntoo, as curious that Peter should be grieved at words which constitute\nhim the head of the church and the vicar of God upon earth. The true\nlesson of this scene is for all the disciples of Christ. We are all,\nthrough Peter\u2019s experience, admonished to show our love for our\nMaster, not by asking permission to do great things (as to walk on the\nwaves), not by refusing to accept his humiliation for us (as by\nrefusing to allow the feet-washing), nor yet by professing what we\nwill do in the hour of difficulty and danger (as by the assurance, \u201cI\nwill not deny thee\u201d), nor even by entering into fierce battle against\nhis foes (as by drawing the sword on Malchus), but by laying down the\nlife in quiet, humble, self-denying service for the Master\u2019s\nsheep--the followers of Christ, the wanderers from the fold, and the\nweakest and feeblest in the fold.\n\n\n 18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee,[772] When thou wast\n young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou\n wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch\n forth thy hands, and another shall gird[773] thee, and\n carry _thee_ whither thou wouldest not.\n\n [772] ch. 13:36; Acts 12:3, 4.\n\n [773] Acts 21:11.\n\n\n 19 This spake he, signifying by what death[774] he\n should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he\n saith unto him, Follow[775] me.\n\n [774] 2 Pet. 1:14.\n\n [775] ch. 12:26; Numb. 14:24; 1 Sam. 12:20; Matt.\n 19:28.\n\n=18, 19.= In this language, _when thou wast young thou girdedst\nthyself_, there is perhaps a reference to Peter\u2019s act in girding\nhimself and casting himself into the sea (ver. 7). The prophecy\nforetells the manner of his death, which, according to an early and\napparently trustworthy tradition, was by crucifixion at about the same\ntime with Paul, in the persecutions under Nero. According to Origen,\nPeter was crucified with his head downwards, either by his own\nrequest, because in his humility he was unwilling to suffer the same\ndeath as his Lord, or by order of Nero, as matter of wanton and\ningenious cruelty. The contrast between Peter\u2019s experience in his\nyouth and in his old age is one common in Christian experience, a\ncontrast between _doing_ and _suffering_, between active, energetic\nservice of the Lord and the patient endurance of his cross. Both are\ninvolved in following Christ. To interpret this command, _Follow me_,\nliterally, as Godet: \u201cJesus began to move off, and commanded Peter to\nfollow him in the literal sense, and John followed them without any\nexpress invitation,\u201d seems to me a shallow interpretation, which is\nnot helped by supposing it to be a symbolical act, a sort of childish\nobject-teaching. Peter had gone back to his fishing; in saying _Follow\nme_, Christ calls him again to become a fisher of men, by the same\nphrase which he had employed three years before on the shore of the\nsame sea and after a similar miracle.\n\n\n 20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom\n Jesus loved, following; which also leaned on his breast at\n supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?\n\n\n 21 Peter, seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what\n _shall_ this man _do_?\n\n=20, 21.= It is not necessary, and it is hardly reasonable, to impute\nPeter\u2019s question to a feeling of jealousy; it is rather to be\nattributed to the natural and almost universal tendency to inquire\ninto the duty and destiny of others. The Lord\u2019s reply indicates what\nis the answer which he would make to us whenever we, following Peter\u2019s\ndoubtful example, pry curiously into his purposes respecting others.\n\n\n 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I\n come,[776] what _is that_ to thee? Follow[777] thou me.\n\n [776] Matt. 25:31; Rev. 1:7; 22:20.\n\n [777] verse 19.\n\n\n 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren,\n that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not\n unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he\n tarry till I come, what _is that_ to thee?\n\n=22, 23.= It is curious to see how Christ\u2019s language here,\nnotwithstanding John\u2019s interpretation, has been misconstrued, even\ndown to the latest time, as a promise, or a quasi-promise, that John\nshould tarry until the second coming of Christ. Ancient legends report\nthat after his interment there were strange movements in the earth\nthat covered him, that when the tomb was subsequently opened it was\nfound empty, that he was reserved to reappear again in conflict with\nAnti-Christ; so late as the sixteenth century an enthusiast was burned\nat Toulouse who gave himself out as St. John; and even so sober a\ncommentator as Godet submits, though hesitatingly, the hypothesis\nthat, as the primitive epoch of humanity had its Enoch, and the\ntheocratic epoch its Elijah, neither of whom knew death, so also the\nChristian epoch may have had its deathless representative. Two other\ninterpretations are: (1) That Christ refers here to his coming to his\nown in their death, and that by the phrase _If I will that he tarry\ntill I come_ he means, If I will that he meet a natural death instead\nof martyrdom. This interpretation Alford justly characterizes as\nfrigid and inapplicable here, since martyrdom is as truly a coming of\nthe Lord as natural death. (2) That by his Second Coming, Christ\nrefers to the destruction of Jerusalem, an interpretation strangely\nadopted by Alford. That destruction was an historical prophecy, but in\nno wise an historical fulfillment of the promise of the Lord\u2019s Second\nComing. There is no reason for regarding this language of Christ as\nanything else than purely hypothetical, equivalent to, _Suppose that I\nwere to will that he should remain upon the earth unto the end; what\nwould that be to thee?_\n\n\n 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,\n and wrote these things: and[778] we know that his testimony\n is true.\n\n [778] ch. 19:35; 3 John 12.\n\n\n 25 And[779] there are also many other things which\n Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every\n one, I suppose that even the world itself could not\n contain the[780] books that should be written. Amen.\n\n [779] ch. 20:30.\n\n [780] Amos 7:10.\n\n=24, 25.= There is uncertainty respecting the authorship and\nauthenticity of these verses. For discussion of this question, see\n_Smith\u2019s Bib. Dict._, p. 1430, note _b_; _Godet\u2019s Commentary_, Vol.\nIII, pp. 362, 363. The verses are found in all the manuscripts, except\nthat Tischendorf believes that ver. 25 was originally wanting in the\nSinaitic MS.; he thinks that the color of the ink and a slight\ndifference in the handwriting show that it did not proceed from the\noriginal scribe, but was added by a contemporary reviser. But though\nthere is no external evidence for setting either verse aside, the\ninternal evidence seems to me decisive against verse 25. \u201cThis\ninharmonious and unspiritual exaggeration\u201d (_Meyer_) is entirely\ninconsistent with John\u2019s scrupulously simple and truthful narrative.\nThe authorship of ver. 24 is more uncertain. Whether written by John,\nor added almost immediately after by some companion, it affords a very\nstrong attestation of the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel.\nOn a careful examination of the different authorities, it seems to me\nthat Godet\u2019s conclusion, though hypothetical, is in accordance with\nprobabilities, and his deduction respecting the authenticity of the\nGospel as a whole is irresistible: \u201c1st. That the narrative (verses\n1-23) is from the hand of the Evangelist. 2d. That ver. 24 is a\ndeclaration emanating from the friends of John, who had called forth\nthe composition of his Gospel, and to whom he had committed it after\nits completion. 3d. That ver. 25 is written by one of them, with whom\nthe work was deposited, and who thought himself bound to close it\nthus, to the glory, not of the author, but of the subject of history.\nBy these last words the entire work becomes a whole. Accordingly we\nare shut up to hold either that John is the author of our Gospel, or\nthat the author is a forger, who, 1st, palmed himself off on the world\nwith all the characteristics of the apostle; who, 2d, carried his\nshamefulness so far that he got made out for him, by an accomplice of\nhis fraud, a certificate of identity with the person of John; or who,\nmore simply still, to save himself the trouble of finding a companion\nin falsehood, made out this certificate for himself in the name of\nanother, or of several others. And he who had recourse to such ways\nwas the author of a writing in which lying is blasted as the work of\nthe devil (ch. 8:44), and truth glorified as one of the two essential\nfeatures of the divine character! If any one will believe such a\nstory, * * * let him believe it\u201d (1 Cor. 14:38).\n\n * * * * *\n\nTwo years have elapsed since the publication of the preceding volume\nin this series of Commentaries on the books of the New Testament. A\nconsiderable part of the Commentary on John was then already written;\nall that part of it which was common to the Four Gospels was\nsubstantially ready for the printer; little else remained to be\nwritten except that portion which dealt with the larger discourses of\nour Lord, and not all of that; and a life-long study of the Four\nGospels, part of the results of which had been given to the public in\na Life of Christ, and others of which were in manuscript notes, had\nmade me measurably familiar with the ground that lay before me. But\nthe discourses of Jesus, as recorded by John, can be studied only\nmeditatively. A certain quiet restfulness of mind is essential to any\nspiritual apprehension of their meaning. And I have believed that\nthose to whom this volume had been earlier promised, and whose\nimpatience at the delay has reached me in letters that have always\nbeen kindly and courteous and full of encouragement, would easier\npardon delay than despoiling haste in preparation. I can ask no\nleniency of any critic on the ground that time was wanting to do\nadequately the needful work.\n\nI have stated in the introduction the reasons which have led me, after\na careful, and I believe a measurably impartial, study of the\nquestion, to believe that the Fourth Gospel is the work of the apostle\nJohn, and that he is the one designated in that Gospel as \u201cthe\ndisciple whom Jesus loved.\u201d I wish to add here, emphatically, that the\nmeditative study of the discourses which John has reported has\nstrengthened that conviction. Either we have here the truths which\nChrist taught, reported by one who lived after the spiritual and\ncatholic character of Christianity had begun to show itself by its\nactual development, and who therefore comprehended his profounder\ninstructions as they were not comprehended during his lifetime; or\nelse we must believe that the centuries immediately succeeding the\nfirst of the Christian era produced a spiritual genius whose insight\ninto the profoundest truths of human experience, when inflamed into\nmore than merely human life by the inbreathing of God, makes him the\nequal if not the superior of the Jesus portrayed in the three synoptic\nGospels, and yet one who has been utterly unknown to fame, and who has\nleft no other monument to his memory than a document that is a fraud\nif not a forgery. The skepticism that asserts this lays too heavy a\ntax on human credulity. It asks us to believe not only in a Socrates\nwho had no Plato to reveal his teachings and his influence, but in one\nwho did not hesitate to employ a petty and useless fraud as a\nsetting for the most transcendent spiritual truth.\n\nThis truth may be expressed in two words as that of the Divine\nImmanence. Around this the whole Gospel of John centres; to illustrate\nthis the whole Gospel was written. That there is in man the\npossibility of a more than merely earthly life; that in him has been\nplanted the germ of a divine life; that this life, when divinely\ndeveloped, brings with it a new light and power; that God is in the\nsoul and the soul may live in perpetual consciousness of its God; that\nChrist is not merely a Memory and a Hope, but a Presence; that the\nSupernatural is not a past phenomenon, but a present and a perpetual\nexperience; that miracles--that is, signs of the divine, All-mighty\nlove--are forever going on in human experience, on a transcendently\ngrander scale in the nineteenth century than they did in the first;\nthat the evidence of Christianity is not to be sought in dingy and\ndoubtful records of past events, but in the personal observation and\nwitness of present occurrences; that revelation was not completed with\nthe Apocalypse, but every devout soul has the promise of an inner\nlight, and the invisible and Catholic brotherhood and household of\nfaith, which is the true church of Christ, has in it an everlasting\nShechinah, which reveals with perpetually increasing clearness the\ntruth of God both to it and through it; and that fidelity to the\nsacred and sweet duties of love is at once the condition and the\nresult of this living experience of an ever-living God, in the\nspiritual realm as in nature, every fruit being the seed vessel of new\ngrowths for the future:--this I believe to be the Gospel of our Lord\nJesus Christ according to John. And I believe there is no better\nprotection against that skepticism of the present age, whose vice is\nnot that it demands a reason for every faith, but that it denies the\nwitness of the spiritual sight to spiritual things, than the patient,\nmeditative study of this Gospel, except the patient, persistent\npursuit of the life to which it invites. To those that have no faith\nin such a life and such a light, to whom Christ is only a mist-covered\nmountain seen across the intervening eighteen centuries, and God only\nan hypothesis made probable by the Paleyrian argument from design,\nthis Commentary will probably give no aid, and this Gospel will even\nappear to be uninterpretable in its mysticism. To those that have this\nfaith in a perpetually present Immanuel, a Christ who is ever a God\nwith us, however dim the faith may be, these pages are commended in\nthe prayer and hope that they may help to make the Gospel clearer, the\nfaith stronger, and the Christ nearer and dearer.\n\n\n\n\n INDEX.\n\n\n NOTE.--The abbreviations M., Mk., L., and J. refer respectively to\n the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the figures refer\n to the pages.\n\n A.\n\n Adultery, Laws against, M., 55.\n\n Anise, M., 250.\n\n Almsgiving, M., 98.\n\n Andrew, M., 148.\n\n Angels:\n Bible doctrine of, M., 215, 323; L., 7.\n Message to the Shepherds of, L., 19, 20, 21.\n\n Anointing at Bethany, Mk., 58.\n\n Annunciation, The, L., 11, 12.\n\n Antonia, tower of, J., 216.\n\n Apostles:\n Call of the, Mk., 14.\n Commission of the, Mk., 27.\n Office of the, Mk., 14.\n\n\n B.\n\n Baptism:\n Ceremony of, M., 72.\n Doctrine of, M., 327, 328; J., 47.\n\n Barabbas, M., 310.\n\n Bartholomew, M., 149.\n\n Baskets, M., 198; J., 80.\n\n Beatitudes, The, M., 85-87; L., 41, 42.\n\n Bed, Old Jewish, Mk., 10.\n\n Beelzebub, M., 166.\n\n Bethabara, J., 23.\n\n Bethany, M., 51, 280; L., 122; J., 136, 151.\n\n Bethesda, Pool of, J., 64.\n\n Bethlehem, M., 52, 58.\n\n Bethphage, M., 53; L., 122.\n\n Bethsaida, M., 51, 157; Mk., 30.\n\n Betrayal, Prophecy of the, J., 167.\n\n Blindness, M., 131.\n\n Book, Old Jewish, L., 32.\n\n Book-making, Ancient, M., 25.\n\n Bread, Eastern, Mk., 36; J., 236.\n\n Broker, Eastern, L., 121.\n\n Burial customs, J., 227.\n\n\n C.\n\n C\u00e6sar, Concerning tribute of, M., 241, 242.\n\n C\u00e6sarea Philippi, M., 51, 199.\n\n Caiaphas, M., 280.\n\n Camel\u2019s-hair, M., 66.\n\n Cana, M., 51; J., 29.\n\n Candle-stick, An Eastern, Mk., 16.\n\n Canon, M., 17-25.\n\n Capernaum, M., 51, 80; L., 62; J., 34.\n\n Care, Christ\u2019s teaching concerning, M., 108.\n\n Centurion, M., 117.\n\n Children, Christ\u2019s blessing of, M., 46, 225; L., 115.\n\n Chorazin, M., 51, 157.\n\n Christ:\n Activity of, Mk., 6.\n Agony in Gethsemane, M., 290-295; L., 135.\n Anointed by Mary, M., 280; J., 150.\n Anointed by the penitent woman, L., 48, 49.\n Atonement by, J., 24.\n Authority questioned, M., 53.\n Baptism of, M., 71-74; L., 31.\n Betrayal of, M., 59, 295-297; L., 136; J., 211-213.\n Birth of, M., 55, 56, 64; L., 7; J., 114.\n Bloody sweat of, L., 135.\n Burial of, M., 171, 321; Mk., 61; J., 221-226.\n Childhood of, L., 21-25.\n Church of, J., 185-190.\n Consecration of, L., 22, 23.\n Conversation of, J., 58.\n Crucifixion of, M., 279-281, 312-320; Mk., 60; L., 139-144.\n Death, Cause of, J., 225-6.\n Denial by Peter, M., 301-304; Mk., 59; L., 136.\n Discourses of, J., 11.\n Discourse on the end of the world, L., 126-130.\n Divine nature of, M., 13, 226, 327; J., 19, 39, 44, 68, 90, 111,\n 117, 134, 183, 184.\n Education of, M., 65.\n Enemies of, L., 131.\n Fame of, L., 117.\n First attack on, M., 234.\n Galilean ministry of, Mk., 5; M., 79-83.\n Genealogy of, M., 53; L., 31.\n Glory of, J., 203-4, 209-10.\n Growth of, L., 25.\n Herod\u2019s interview with, L., 138.\n Home of, L., 59, 130.\n Human nature of, M., 118, 317; L., 18, 71.\n Incarnation of, J., 22.\n Intercessory prayer of, J., 201-2, 210.\n Interpreter of God\u2019s law, J., 189-90.\n King, J., 218-220.\n Life of, M., 40-43.\n Light of the world, The, J., 17, 109.\n Limitations of his nature, Mk., 56, 57.\n Living One, The, L., 145.\n Lord of Nature, The, Mk., 20.\n Manifestation of the Father, J., 174-5, 205.\n Mission of, M., 128, 146, 160, 194, 216; Mk., 35, 49; L., 92; J.,\n 66, 124.\n Mission in Perea, M., 222; Mk., 46.\n Names of, The, M., 57.\n Personality of, J., 104.\n Popularity of, M., 14; L., 74, 91, 131.\n Power of, J., 203, 211-13.\n Prayer of, defined, J., 178.\n Prayer in Gethsemane, M., 292.\n Passion of, Mk., 47; L., 56, 115.\n Resurrection of, M., 323-336, 330-333; Mk., 43, 47, 62; L., 115,\n 144-147; J., 227-230.\n Rejection at Nazareth of, M., 187; Mk., 26.\n Royal nature of, L., 122.\n Sacrifice of, The, J., 129.\n Satire used by, L., 84.\n Second coming of, M., 265, 266; J., 28, 97, 173-4.\n Sepulchre of, M., 321, 322.\n Servant, A, L., 133.\n Simplicity of His life, J., 79, 106.\n Son of David, The, L., 117.\n Son of God, The, M., 159, 300, 320.\n Son of man, The, M., 142, 143, 162, 200.\n Spiritual presence of (See Holy Ghost), J., 179-181.\n Subject to the Father, J., 183-8.\n Supremacy of, J., 128.\n Sympathy of, M., 133, 155; J., 124, 143.\n Synagogue, Preaches in the, L., 31.\n Temple, Found in the, L., 24.\n Temptation of, M., 74-79; L., 31.\n Trial of, M., 297-301.\n Trial by Caiaphas, L., 136; J., 213-216.\n Trial before Pilate, M., 309-312; L., 136; J., 216-221.\n Tribute demanded of, M., 211, 212.\n Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, M., 232, 233; Mk., 50; L., 122; J.,\n 154.\n\n Christian charity, L., 67.\n\n Christian hate, L., 89.\n\n Christian life:\n Conditions for, J., 41, 42.\n Nature of, J., 153.\n Christ\u2019s sermon on, J., 84-93.\n Source of, J., 59.\n Suffering of, J., 119.\n\n Christian, Mission of, J., 189, 205, 208.\n\n Christian ministry, M., 138, 329.\n\n Christian religion:\n Evidences of, J., 74, 176-7.\n Nature of, J., 45.\n Not asceticism, J., 208.\n Power of, J., 177.\n\n Christian spirit, M., 140.\n\n Christian work, M., 136.\n\n Christology, J., 174.\n\n Church:\n Authority of the, M., 246.\n Christ\u2019s commission to, M., 326-329.\n Dangers of the, M., 259.\n Foundation of the, M., 201-203.\n Unity of, J., 209.\n\n Circumcision, L., 15.\n\n Cleophas, L., 145.\n\n Clothes, Jewish, M., 261.\n\n Coats, Jewish, L., 28.\n\n Comforter, Nature of the (See Holy Ghost), J., 178.\n\n Commandment, The great, Mk., 53, 54.\n\n Commerce, in the temple,\n\n Commission of the Seventy, L., 60-63.\n\n Commission of the Twelve, M., 133; L., 55.\n\n Corban, Rabbinical law of, Mk., 33.\n\n Courage, Christian, source of, J., 201.\n\n Courtyard, Oriental, M., 303.\n\n Creeds, Necessity of, J., 112.\n\n Crosses, Description of, M., 315.\n\n Cyrenius, governor of Syria, L., 18.\n\n\n D.\n\n Dalmanutha, M., 51; Mk., 37.\n\n Dead Sea, M., 51.\n\n Death, Jewish conception of, J., 173.\n\n Decapolis, M., 51.\n\n Dedication, Feast of the, J., 131.\n\n Demoniacal possession, M., 123-125; Mk., 6.\n\n Denarius, Value of, M., 221, 242; J., 79.\n\n Devil, The, M., 76.\n\n Dining customs in the East, L., 86.\n\n Disciples, Call of the four, L., 35, 36.\n\n Divine presence:\n Condition of enjoying, J., 180, 81, 86, 87, 89.\n Power of, J., 187-88.\n\n Divorce, Christ\u2019s law of, M., 222, 225; Mk., 46.\n\n\n E.\n\n Elders, M., 205.\n\n Election, Doctrine of, J., 89, 190, 203-4.\n\n Emmaus, M., 51; L., 145.\n\n End of the world, M., 258; L., 127-130.\n\n Enemies, Christian treatment of, M., 96-98.\n\n Enon, M., 51; J., 47.\n\n Ephraim. M., 51; J., 149.\n\n Epistles, Nature of, M., 11.\n\n Espousals, Jewish, M., 55.\n\n Essenes, M., 69.\n\n Eternal life, J., 44, 75, 83, 86, 203-4.\n\n Ewers, J., 31.\n\n Excommunication, Jewish, J., 122.\n\n\n F.\n\n Faith:\n Christ\u2019s exhortation to, Mk, 52.\n Nature of, J., 84, 145, 161.\n Contrasted with right, J., 234.\n\n Falling from grace, J., 188.\n\n Fasting, Laws for, M., 109, 129.\n\n Fasts, L., 114.\n\n Feeding of the five thousand (See under Miracles).\n\n Feet-washing, Ceremony of, J., 165.\n\n Feet-washing, Oriental, J., 163.\n\n Fire:\n Biblical mention of, M., 183.\n Utensils, J., 219.\n\n Fishing, Oriental, L., 37.\n\n Forgiveness, Nature of, L., 141.\n\n Frankincense, M., 62.\n\n Free-will, Doctrine of, L., 95; J., 94.\n\n Funerals of the East, L., 45.\n\n Future punishment, M., 145, 277; J., 188.\n\n\n G.\n\n Gabriel, L., 10.\n\n Gadara, M., 51.\n\n Galilee:\n Christ\u2019s circuit of, L., 35, 52.\n Sea of, M., 57; Mk., 8.\n\n Gambling at the cross, J., 223.\n\n Generation, Book of the, M., 53.\n\n Gennesaret:\n Lake of, Mk., 8.\n Land of, M., 192.\n\n Gerizim, Mount of, J., 55.\n\n Gethsemane:\n Christ\u2019s agony in, Mk., 58.\n Garden of, M., 291.\n\n Gnosticism, J., 13, 14.\n\n God:\n Kingdom of, M., 103, 225; L., 57, 110-112.\n Knowledge of, J., 175, 176.\n Nature of, J., 14, 15, 37, 74, 130.\n Trinity of (See Christ, Holy Ghost), J., 14-16.\n\n Golgotha, M., 314.\n\n Gospels:\n The four, M., 11.\n Harmony of the, M., 38-40, 44-66.\n Origin of the, M., 36-38.\n Relations of the, M., 34-36.\n\n Gospel of the Infancy, L., 6.\n\n Gospel of John:\n Authenticity of, J., 3, 6-8, 240.\n Object of, J., 12, 234.\n Supplemental chapter to, J., 235.\n\n Gospel of Luke, Authorship of, L., 3.\n\n Gospel of Mark:\n Authorship of, Mk., 3.\n Characteristics of, Mk., 4.\n\n Gospel of Matthew:\n Author of, M., 49.\n Characteristics of, M., 49.\n Language of, M., 49.\n Object of, M., 49.\n Origin of, M., 36-38.\n\n Grace, Meaning of, J., 21.\n\n Grain, Oriental sale of, L., 43.\n\n Grave, Jewish, J., 143.\n\n\n H.\n\n Hades, L., 105.\n\n Heathen and the Gospel, L., 33.\n\n Heaven:\n Christ\u2019s teaching concerning, J., 173.\n Discourse on, Mk., 43, 44.\n Kingdom of, M., 66, 85, 90, 137, 154, 110-114.\n Place of, M., 102.\n\n Hell, M., 91, 119.\n\n Herod the Great, L., 7.\n\n Herods, The, M., 58, 59.\n\n Herod, Death of, M., 63.\n\n Herod Archelaus, M., 64.\n\n High-priest, M., 280; L., 27.\n\n Holy Ghost:\n Bestowal of on disciples, J., 230.\n Blasphemy against, M., 169.\n Character and office of, J., 179-80, 195-197.\n Manifestation of, J., 182.\n Relation of to the Father, J., 192.\n\n Holy of Holies (See Temple).\n\n Housetop, Eastern, L., 74.\n\n Humility, Commendation of, M., 214, 241.\n\n Husks, L., 96.\n\n Hypocrisy, Rebuke of, M., 109; L., 73.\n\n\n I.\n\n Idumea, Mk., 14.\n\n Incarnation (See Christ).\n\n Incense, Service of, L., 5.\n\n Infancy, Gospel of the, L., 6.\n\n Inn, Jewish, L., 19.\n\n Issue of blood, L., 54\n\n\n J.\n\n Jacob, Well of, J., 52.\n\n Jairus\u2019 daughter, L., 54.\n\n James, M., 148.\n\n James the son of Alph\u00e6us, M., 149.\n\n Joanna, wife of Chuza, L., 53.\n\n Jericho, M., 51; L., 116.\n\n Jerusalem:\n Conquest of, L., 141.\n Desolation of, L., 123.\n Road from Jericho to, L., 65.\n Siege of, M., 261.\n Site of, M., 278.\n\n Jesus (See Christ).\n\n John:\n The Apostle, M., 148; J., 4.\n Character of, J., 5.\n Gospel of (See Gospel of John).\n\n John the Baptist:\n Character of, M., 65.\n Death of, M., 189; Mk., 29; L., 55.\n Embassy to Jesus, M., 152.\n Father of, L., 7.\n Imprisonment of, M., 150.\n Message of, L., 47.\n Ministry of, M., 69; L., 30; J., 50.\n\n Jordan, M., 52, 67.\n\n Joseph of Arimathea, J., 226.\n\n Joy, Christian, J., 189.\n\n Judas Iscariot:\n Character of, M., 150, 307.\n Destruction of, J., 207.\n Death of, M., 307.\n Repentance of, M., 306.\n Treachery of, M., 58.\n\n Judea, M., 52, 65.\n\n Judgment:\n Christ\u2019s description of the, M., 275-277.\n Nature of the, J., 161.\n\n Judgment seat, Roman, J., 221.\n\n\n K.\n\n Key, Description of ancient, M., 203.\n\n\n L.\n\n Lamps, ancient. M., 270.\n\n Lanterns, J., 212.\n\n Law and the Gospel, M., 80.\n\n Lazarus, J., 136.\n\n Lazarus, Resurrection of (See Miracles).\n\n Lebb\u00e6us, M., 149.\n\n Lepers, L., 109.\n\n Leprosy, M., 118.\n\n Levi (See Matthew).\n\n Levite, L., 66.\n\n Lilies, M., 107; L., 77.\n\n Locusts, M., 67.\n\n Lord\u2019s Prayer, M., 101-105.\n\n Lord\u2019s Supper, The:\n Ceremony of, The, L., 131; J., 92.\n Institution of the, M., 283-288; Mk., 58; J., 162.\n Time of the, M., 286; J., 169, 217, 221.\n\n Love:\n Commanded, M., 244.\n Test of, M., 146.\n\n Luke, Gospel of (See Gospel of Luke).\n\n\n M.\n\n Magdala, M., 52.\n\n Magi, The, M., 59, 60.\n\n Mammon, M., 106.\n\n Manger, Eastern, L., 19.\n\n Manuscripts, M., 27, 28.\n\n Mariolatry, L., 70.\n\n Mark, Gospel of (See Gospel of Mark).\n\n Marriage:\n Ancient form of, J., 118.\n Christ\u2019s law of, M., 222-225; Mk., 46.\n Eastern ceremony of, M., 269, 272; L., 77.\n Jewish ceremony of, M., 129.\n\n Martha and Mary, L., 67, 68.\n\n Mary Magdalene, M., 320; L., 53; J., 228.\n\n Mary\u2019s hymn of praise, L., 14.\n\n Matthew:\n Character of, M., 149.\n Call of, M., 125; L., 38; Mk., 125.\n Gospel of (See Gospel of Matthew).\n\n Meals, Jewish, J., 168.\n\n Medicine, Mk., 22.\n\n Meekness, Nature of, M., 85.\n\n Mercy, Nature of, M., 86, 251.\n\n Messiah, The Jewish, J., 100.\n\n Mill, Eastern, M., 266.\n\n Minister, Meaning of the term, L., 5.\n\n Mint, M., 280.\n\n Miracles:\n Barren fig-tree cursed, Mk., 50, 51.\n Christ stills the tempest, M., 121; L., 53.\n Cure of the infirm woman, L., 81, 82.\n Cure of the issue of blood, Mk., 21-23.\n Feeding of the five thousand, M., 191; Mk., 30; L., 55; J., 76-81.\n Feeding of the four thousand, M., 195; Mk., 35.\n Blind Bartimeus healed, Mk., 119.\n Draft of fishes--first, L., 35, 36.\n Draft of fishes--second, J., 237.\n Healing of the blind man, Mk., 38; L., 115.\n Healing of the centurion\u2019s servant, M., 117; L., 44.\n Healing of the centurion\u2019s son, J., 61, 62.\n Healing of deaf and dumb, Mk., 34.\n Healing of the demoniac, M., 121, 211; Mk., 20; L., 35, 53.\n Healing of the leper, L., 37.\n Healing of the lunatic boy, M., 40; L., 56.\n Healing of the man born blind, J., 118, 124.\n Healing of the paralytic, M., 125; Mk., 9-12; L., 37.\n Healing of Peter\u2019s mother-in-law, M., 119; L., 35.\n Healing of the ten lepers, L., 108.\n Healing of the withered hand, M., 163.\n Raising of Jairus\u2019 daughter, Mk., 22, 24, 25.\n Raising of the widow\u2019s son, L., 45.\n Resurrection of Lazarus, J., 135, 145-147.\n Water turned into wine, J., 30-33.\n Walking on the sea, M., 191; Mk., 30; J., 82.\n\n Miracles:\n Christ\u2019s use of, J., 62.\n Truth of the, M., 166.\n\n Money-changers, M., 274; J., 37.\n\n Mount of Olives, L., 123.\n\n Mourning:\n Christian rites of, M., 85.\n Eastern ceremony of, Mk., 24.\n Rabbinical rites of, J., 139.\n\n Murder, Laws against, M., 91-93.\n\n Myrrh, M., 62.\n\n\n N.\n\n Nain, M., 52; L., 45.\n\n Nathanael, J., 27.\n\n Nazareth, M., 52, 64; L., 11, 34; J., 27.\n\n New Testament:\n Authority of, M., 13.\n Canon of, M., 17-25.\n Composition of, M., 11.\n English version of, M., 28-31.\n Inspiration of, M., 14-17.\n Interpretation of, M., 31-34.\n Nature of, M., 11, 12.\n Origin of, M., 13.\n Text of, M., 25-28.\n\n Nicodemus, J., 40.\n\n\n O.\n\n Obedience, M., 112.\n\n Oven, An Eastern, L., 77.\n\n\n P.\n\n Palestine, Government of, L., 27.\n\n Palsy, Mk., 10.\n\n Parables, The:\n Barren fig-tree, The, L., 80, 81.\n Candle, The, L., 53.\n Drag-net, The, M., 185.\n Good Samaritan, The, L., 64-66.\n Great supper, The, L., 87.\n Hid treasures, The, M., 184, 185.\n Householder, The, L., 44.\n Laborers, The, M., 230, 231.\n Leaven, The, M., 181; L., 82.\n Lost coin, The, L., 94.\n Lost sheep, The, L., 92, 93.\n Mustard seed, The, M., 180; Mk., 18; L., 82.\n Pearl, The, M., 184, 185.\n Prodigal son, The, L., 95-99.\n Rich fool, The, L., 75, 76.\n Rich man and Lazarus, L., 103-106.\n Seed growing secretly, The, Mk., 17.\n Sheepfold and shepherd, J., 125-131.\n Sower, The, M., 175-179; Mk., 16; L., 53.\n Tares, The, M., 179.\n Ten pounds, The, L., 120.\n Ten talents, The, M., 272-275.\n Ten virgins, The, M., 268-272.\n Two debtors, The, L., 50, 51.\n Two sons, The, M., 235.\n Unclean spirit, The, M., 172.\n Unjust steward, The, L., 99-102.\n Unmerciful servant, The, M., 219.\n Vine and branches, The, J., 185-6.\n Wedding feast, The, M., 238-241.\n Wicked Husbandman, The, M., 236-238; M., 53; L., 125.\n\n Paradise, L., 142, 143.\n\n Passover:\n Day of, L., 131.\n Feast of, J., 63, 78.\n\n Patience, Christian, L., 58, 128.\n\n Peace, Christian, J., 182.\n\n Penitent thief, L., 142, 143.\n\n Penny, Value of Jewish, J., 79.\n\n Pentateuch, Authorship of, J., 76.\n\n Pentecost, Feast of, J., 63.\n\n Perea, M., 52; L., 60.\n\n Persecution:\n Foretold, J., 193.\n How to be borne, J., 191-194.\n\n Peter:\n Character of, M., 135, 148; Mk., 7; L., 133.\n Commission of, J., 238-9.\n Confession of Christ by, Mk., 39; L., 55.\n Denial of Christ by, M., 301-304; L., 133.\n Founder of the Church, M., 201-203.\n Name changed, J., 26.\n Walking on the sea, M., 30; J., 121.\n\n Pharisees, The:\n Sect of, M., 68.\n Baffled by Christ, M., 245.\n Discourse against, L., 71.\n\n Philip, M., 149.\n\n Phylacteries, M., 247.\n\n Pontius Pilate, M., 305; J., 221-2.\n\n Poor of the East, L., 88, 89.\n\n Porter of the East, L., 72.\n\n Pound, L., 121.\n\n Prayer:\n Bible doctrine of, L., 112-114; J., 177.\n In the name of Christ, J., 177.\n Necessity of, M., 111, 99-105; L., 130.\n Promises to, J., 177-8, 199-200.\n True spirit of (See Christ), L., 68.\n\n Preachers (See Christian Ministry).\n\n Priesthood, The, M., 61; L., 7.\n\n Prophecy:\n Office of, J., 184.\n Fulfillment of, in N. T., J., 225.\n\n Proselytes, M., 249.\n\n Publicans, M., 97, 126; L., 28, 91.\n\n Purification of the Jewish mother, L., 22.\n\n Purple and fine linen, L., 104.\n\n\n R.\n\n Rabbi, M., 247.\n\n Rama, M., 63.\n\n Religion:\n Fruits of, M., 113.\n Joyousness of, M., 239.\n Test of, M., 113.\n\n Repentance:\n Law of, L., 96.\n Nature of, M., 65.\n Necessity of, L., 80.\n\n Revelation, Book of, M., 11.\n\n Resurrection:\n Nature of, Mk., 47, 64; L., 144; J., 69.\n Prophecy of, Mk., 43, 47.\n\n Revenge, Laws against, M., 94-96.\n\n Riches, Christ\u2019s teachings concerning, M., 228; Mk., 47.\n\n Ritualism, Christ\u2019s teachings concerning, Mk., 31, 32.\n\n Roofs, Jewish, Mk., 10.\n\n Ruler, The rich young, M., 226; Mk., 46; L., 115.\n\n\n S.\n\n Sabbath:\n Christian use of the, L., 84.\n Laws of the Christian, M., 161-164; Mk., 13; L., 38.\n Pharisaic, The, M., 120; J., 66.\n\n Sacrifices, J., 37.\n\n Sadducees, M., 68, 69.\n\n Sadducees silenced, M., 243; Mk., 53.\n\n Salim, M., 52; J., 47.\n\n Salutations of the Jews, L., 61.\n\n Salvation, Conditions of, M., 276; L., 83.\n\n Samaria:\n History of, M., 52; J., 51.\n Woman of, The, J., 50.\n\n Samaritans:\n Character of, L., 66.\n Christ\u2019s visit to, L., 57.\n\n Sanctification, means of, J., 187.\n\n Satan:\n Fall of, L., 63.\n Nature of, J., 158.\n Personality of, J., 115.\n\n Scorpions, L., 69.\n\n Scourging, M., 331.\n\n Scribes, M., 61, 90.\n Denunciation of the, Mk., 54; L., 126.\n\n Self-righteousness, Christ\u2019s dealings with, L., 64.\n\n Self-sacrifice commanded, M., 206.\n\n Sepulchre, Jewish, J., 143.\n\n Sermon on the Mount, L., 40.\n\n Servants of the East, L., 107.\n\n Sheba, Queen of, M., 171.\n\n Sheep-fold, Eastern, J., 125.\n\n Shekel, Value of, M., 281.\n\n Shepherds of the East, L., 19, 93; J., 126.\n\n Shoes, Jewish, M., 70.\n\n Sidon, M., 52.\n\n Sieve, Ancient, L., 133.\n\n Siloam, Pool of, J., 120.\n\n Simon the Canaanite, M., 150.\n\n Simon Cyrene, M., 314.\n\n Simon the leper, M., 280.\n\n Sin:\n Christ\u2019s laws for the prevention of, Mk., 45.\n Of rejecting Christ, J., 191-92.\n Power to remit and retain, J., 231-32.\n\n Skepticism, L., 106.\n\n Skiff, Ancient, M., 19.\n\n Son of Man (See Christ).\n\n Sorrow, ministry of, J., 199.\n\n Soul:\n Distinction of the, J., 188.\n Nature of the, J., 157.\n\n Sparrows in Market, L., 75.\n\n Spikenard, J., 152.\n\n Star of the East, M., 61.\n\n Steward, L., 100.\n\n Swaddling-clothes, L., 18.\n\n Swearing, Laws against, M., 93.\n\n Swine, Flesh of, M., 122.\n\n Sycamore tree, L., 107, 118.\n\n Sychar, M., 52; J., 51.\n\n Synagogues, M., 81.\n\n Synagogue, Uppermost seat of the, L., 72.\n\n Syro-Ph\u0153nician woman, M., 34.\n\n\n T.\n\n Tabernacles, Feast of the, J., 63, 95, 102.\n\n Talent, Value of the, M., 220, 273.\n\n Tares, M., 179.\n\n Taxation, Roman, M., 126; L., 17.\n\n Temple:\n Description of, J., 34-37.\n Site of, L., 127.\n Pinnacle of the, M., 77.\n Veil of the, M., 319.\n\n Temple of Herod, M., 256.\n\n Thomas, M., 149; J., 133, 174, 233.\n\n Threshing in the East, M., 71.\n\n Tiberias:\n City of, J., 84.\n Sea of, J., 78.\n\n Tithes, L., 114.\n\n Title on the cross, J., 223.\n\n Tombs, Jewish, M., 122; Mk., 21. 62, 63.\n\n Traders cast from the temple, Mk., 51.\n\n Transfiguration, The, M., 207-210; Mk., 40; L., 55.\n\n Treasury, Jewish, J., 110.\n\n Tribute, M., 211.\n\n Triclinium, L., 85.\n\n Trinity, Doctrine of the, J., 14-16, 133, 183.\n\n Twelve Apostles:\n Commission of the, M., 134, 147-50.\n Inspiration of, M., 141.\n\n Tyre, M., 52, 157.\n\n\n U.\n\n Unleavened bread, Day of, M., 282.\n\n Upper chamber, L., 132.\n\n Usury, M., 274.\n\n\n V.\n\n Vineyards of the East, M., 236.\n\n\n W.\n\n Wailing place, Jewish, L., 140.\n\n Water-pot, J., 51.\n\n Well, Ancient, J., 52.\n\n Well, Jacob\u2019s, J., 52.\n\n Wine:\n Bible commands concerning, J., 32, 33.\n Christ\u2019s teachings concerning, J., 32, 33.\n\n Winnowing, Oriental, L., 23.\n\n Woman, a Jewish, L., 52.\n\n Word of God, J., 13, 14.\n\n World, End of the (See End of the World).\n\n Worship, True nature of, M., 116; J., 56.\n\n Writing materials, L., 15, 101.\n\n\n Z.\n\n Zaccheus, L., 118.\n\n Zacharias, M., 253; L., 7, 16.\n\n Zebedee, M., 81.\n\n Zebedee, Sons of, Mk., 47.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note:\n\nWords may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation\nin the text. These have been left unchanged, as were obsolete and\nalternative spellings. Misspelled words were corrected.\n\nWords and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like\nthis_. Those in bold are surrounded by equal signs, =like this=.\nFootnotes were renumbered sequentially; those in the Preface were\nmoved to the end of the chapter; footnotes in lines of scripture\nfollow immediately thereafter. Obvious printing errors, such as\nbackwards, upside down, or partially printed letters and punctuation,\nwere corrected. Final stops missing at the end of sentences and\nabbreviations were added.\n\nThe text was rearranged so that each line of scripture, its footnotes,\nand its commentary are together as a unit. The index includes\nreferences to the author\u2019s books on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and\nLuke, as well as those included in this book. In the index, \u201cCommerce,\nin the temple\u201d has no page reference.\n\nThe following items were changed:\n\n [103] \u201cJohn 3:11\u201d to \u201cJohn 3:21\u201d\n \u201cought\u201d to \u201c_aught_\u201d to eat ...","title":"An illustrated commentary on the Gospel according to St. John","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":222405}