THE title of the book is differently given in the manuscripts and ancient versions, and the differences are so considerable that they cannot be referred to the original text. The simplest form of the title is found in à, B, D, and is nothing more than "according to John," ΚΑΤΑΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ (B gives only one N in John’s name, but à two); and this is followed by the vulgate and Syriac as a running title. The immense proportion of the uncials—A, C, E, F, G, L, and eight or nine others—read "Gospel according to John" (ΕὐαγγέλιονκατὰΙωάννην). This is followed by Tregelles, Lachmann, Alford. The T.R., with a large number of manuscripts, reads, "The Gospel according to John;" and in Stephen’s third edition the word "holy" occurs before "Gospel." The cursives 69, 178, 259, read ΕὐαγγέλιονἐκτοῦκατὰἸωὰνην. Some cursives read, "Of the (holy) Gospel according to John." The printed texts of the Peschito Syriac have Evangelium sanctum praedicationis Johannis praeconis. The Revisers, with T.R., have placed ΤὸκαταἸωάννηνΕὐαγγέλιον as their title. The phrase, "according to," has been thought by some to suggest a type of doctrine or teaching with which the document might be supposed to harmonize, and therefore to set aside the idea of personal authenticity by its very form. This interpretation, seeing it applies to Mark and Luke as well as to John and Matthew, would lose its meaning; for Mark and Luke, by numerous traditionary notices, have been continuously credited, not with having personally set any special type of doctrine before the Church, but as having been respectively the interpreter of Peter or Paul. Consequently the meaning of the phrase compels us to ask whether the word "Gospel" or "Holy Gospel" did in the first instance refer to the book at all. It is not "John’s Gospel" that is intended, but the good news or glad tidings of God related by John, of which this and similar titles speak, Moreover, numerous instances occur where the κατὰ is similarly used to denote authorship. Thus "The Pentateuch according to Moses," "The History according to Herodotus," "The Gospel according to Peter," are titles which in every case are meant to suggest the idea of authorship (Godet). We cannot imagine that any other implication was intended by this ancient superscription. Each of the evangelists starts with a grand "presupposition," or main thesis, of his own, expressed with more or less of explicitness, which it becomes his obvious purpose to sustain. This main thesis is set forth in the first sentences of each of the synoptists. Thus MARK opened with the memorable words, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God."£ From the first he refers to the prophetic anticipations and historic realization of glad tidings uttered by the Lord, and he based all his teaching on the fact that Jesus Christ was SON OF GOD. MATTHEW, who wished to establish the Lord’s special claim to Messiahship, and his official right to the throne of David, began with a genealogical proof of the Lord’s descent from David and Abraham. LUKE, who aimed throughout to illustrate the Divine humanity, and to build his narrative on historic facts and chronological data, took up his story with the birth of the Baptist, and, in conjunction with his baptizing of Jesus, presents a lineal genealogy of the supposed father (and probably of the mother) of Jesus, through the line of Nathan to David, thence from David to Abraham, and finally to Adam, the first son of God. In his prologue Luke indicated the biographical use he had made of the material in his hands, and of the personal knowledge he had acquired, and that he aimed to set forth the grounds of security that existed for the things most fully believed by the Church (Luke 1:1-4). The fourth evangelist was as earnestly set upon giving proof of the Messiahship of Jesus as Matthew was (see John 20:31), and as resolved to emphasize the complete humanity of the Son of God as even Luke himself was (see verse 14, and all the many signs of the Saviour’s resemblance to his brethren, and sympathy with their sufferings and joys—John 2:1; John 4:6; John 5:13, John 5:14; John 11:5, John 11:35, etc.). But John had felt more deeply than many of the apostles the effulgence of the Father’s glory which gleamed in the face of Jesus Christ. John had heard in the words of Jesus the veritable voice of the living God; "The Word of the Lord (ὁΛόγοςΚυρίου) came to him" in the speech (λαλιά) of Jesus. There was a Divineness about the mission of the Lord which deeply impressed this evangelist—that Jesus had come in a special sense from God, that he was the Giver of eternal life and the Author of eternal salvation, and that he had the "form of God," though in the likeness of men. John’s mind revolved all the truth which, long before this prologue or introduction was written, had been proclaimed by Paul and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in every varying phrase. It was in harmony with the whole purpose of his Gospel that he should begin it before the baptism, before the birth, before the conception, of the Lord Jesus; that he should press back in thought to the Divine activity itself—to those ideas of the older revelation which, though not in conflict with the pure monotheism of the Hebrew Scriptures, involved the veritable preparation for the stupendous reality, for the supreme tragedy, for the Divine kingdom which had evolved itself under his very eyes. He looked back into the past, nay, he gazed out of time into eternity; he looked up from the miraculous conception to that holy thing which was conceived in the womb of humanity; he endeavoured to set forth that form of God which could alone become "flesh" and tabernacle among men; and which, though it did this, did not destroy the unity of Deity, but confirmed and established it. He was not slow to reflect on all the methods in which God had ever come near to men, nor could he believe that God Incarnate had never foreshadowed his presence with men, or his manifestation to them, before his own day and hour. When the old man was at Ephesus, many dangerous speculations were rife. Some denied that Christ had ever come in the flesh at all, and said that so Divine a presence as his was no objective reality—was allied to the Docetic "seeming" manifestations made to the patriarchs of the Old Testament. Jesus was to them a theophany, not a living Man. Now, we learn from the First Epistle that such a thesis was, in the opinion of John, the quintessence of antichrist. Others, again, had speculated about the emanations of Deity, until a new mythology was beginning to hover on the borderland between Christendom and heathendom. Essenic and Ebionitic errors had grieved him. At length the moment arrived when the "Son of Thunder," who saw all the glory of the risen Lord, all the majesty of his triumphant reign, uttered these opening words, replying, in every sentence, to one or other of these misconceptions of his Lord’s Person. And he proceeded to lay a simple basis deep and strong enough to support the facts upon which the faith of the Church was resting. Men had come veritably to believe that they were children of God, and had been generated as such by the will of God, and, if children, that they were heirs of God through Jesus Christ (Romans 8:16, Romans 8:17; Galatians 3:26). "Grace and truth" were lighting up broken and bewildered hearts when they accepted the reality of the Divine manhood of Jesus, and something better than the mere speculations of the schools of Palestine, Alexandria, or Ephesus was needed in order to explain (as he, the beloved disciple saw it) the mystery of the life of Christ. That which he laid down as the solution of the problem of "the beginning of the Gospel" is called the prologue of this Gospel. Even apart from the inspiration which breathes through it, no passage in literature can be cited which has exercised a more powerful influence upon the thought of the last eighteen hundred years than that which sets forth John’s fundamental ideas concerning the essence and character, the idiosyncrasy and the energy, of the Divine fulness which dwelt in Jesus. The question has been asked—Where does the prologue end? M. Reuss strongly presses the view that tile proem terminated with the fifth verse, and that with the sixth the apostle commenced his historical recital. He urges that there is no break from the sixth to the eighteenth verse; that in this paragraph the author sets forth the general effect of the testimony of the historical Baptist to Jesus; and that, in consequence of it, a limited number of individuals were led to recognize (1) the Divine nature of the Word manifested in the flesh, (2) the truth of the assertions of the Baptist, (3) the radical distinction between Moses and Christ, (4) the fact that the true knowledge of God can only be obtained by the mediation of the latter. Some preliminary advantage is thus secured by the critic who seeks to ally this paragraph with the rest of the history, and to impute to the whole Gospel, as well as to the passage in question, the character of a theological or didactic romance. The enormous majority of all scholars, while recognizing new points of departure at verse 6, and again at verses 14-18, do not admit that the evangelist’s preliminary representations or presuppositions have come to a pause until he reached the sublime utterance which points so obviously back to verse 1, "No one hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." From the first verse to the eighteenth the evangelist revolves around the fundamental idea of "the Word which was with God and was God." but his aim is to show how the Word came into relations with man, and how man may come into relations with the Godhead through him who was manifested in the flesh in all the fulness of grace and truth. An obvious method of this author in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse shows that he was wont to return upon thoughts which he had previously uttered, yet at the same time doing so in fresh cycles and with added meanings (see Introduction). The large spiral of his meditations sweeps at first round the entire region of "all things" which have their centre in the "Word of God:" "All things came into being through him." Then he formally discriminates between "things" and "forces," and especially indicates the relation of "the Word" to the energies and blessedness of the entire universe of sentient and responsible beings which derive all their "life" from the "life that is in him," and their "light" from that "life," indicating, as he proceeds, the presence of the antagonism to the light and life displayed by our imperfect and damaged humanity (verses 1-5). Here the entire testimony of prophecy—gathered up in the person of an historic man, John Baptist,—is broadly characterized, and some conception of the aid which revelation and inspiration have given to men to recognize the light when they see it, and to hear the voice of the Lord God while it speaks. The entire function of prophecy is discriminated from the light force at work in every living man. The special aid given to the holy, prepared, and selected race, by the manner of his self-revelations brings the spiral thought round into the region of the intensified darkness of those who refuse the brightest light (verses 9-11), so that verse 11 corresponds with verse 5. Verses 12, 13 pause in the region of light. Some souls are at least transformed into the light, become conscious of a Divine generation, are born (through faith), independently of all earthly, national, or sacramental means, into the same kind of relation to God that has from eternity been enjoyed by the Word. At this point a novel revolution of thought is commenced, characterized by more intense brilliancy and efficacity, because revealed in a narrower range of fact. He touches the very focus and centre of Divine manifestation, when he says, "And the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us." "The Word" did not become "all things," nor was he identified with life, still less with light. The wide radiance and glorious glancing of the light was not identified with the objects on which through prophetic agencies it alighted. The τὰἴδια, the special race of light bearers, were not, even in their highest form of recipiency, incarnations of the Word. Neither conscience, nor prophecy, nor Shechinah glory was of the substance or essence of "the Word," although all the energy of each of these was and is and ever will be the shining of the primal light on humanity. This is the theory of the writer of this prologue, but his chief contribution to the sum of human thought is that "this Word became flesh." Having announced this stupendous fact, the author relates the evidence of his own personal, living experience; and he records his invincible assent to this unique and central glory of Divine manifestation. This at once leads to a few comprehensive antitheses drawn between the Incarnation and all the most illustrious and luminous of previous revelations. Just as verses 6, 7 revealed the difference between prophecy and the "light of men," so, having come to this focal point of splendour, prophecy again speaks in the person of the Baptist; and verse 15 cites the highest testimony to the supreme rank of the incarnate God above the greatest of the teachers of men. In verse 16 the apostle refers to the Incarnate Word as the Source of all apostolic emotions and life. Through him, and not from the mere teachings of prophecy or conscience, have we all received grace and truth. Then, sweeping back to the grandest epoch-making man and moment of all past history, Moses himself appears to shine only like the light of a waning moon in the advent of the dawn. More than that; neither Adam in Paradise, nor Noah gazing on the averted bow, nor Abraham at Moriah, nor Jacob at Peniel, nor Moses in the cleft of the rock, nor Elijah at Horeb, nor Isaiah in the temple, nor Ezekiel at the river of Chebar, have ever seen, in the sense in which Jesus saw, the face of the Father. The only begotten Son who was with God and was God, and in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him. The entire proem does not cease till it reaches this triumphant peroration. Detailed exegesis of the passage can alone justify this estimate of the significance of the prologue. Different commentators have divided it somewhat differently, and many have drawn too sharp a distinction between the preincarnation life of the Logos, and the historical, theocratic, or ecclesiastical manifestation. Surely that which the eternal Logos was before his manifestation and before the humiliation of the infinite love, he was and must have been during the human life of Jesus, he must be now, and he must ever be. In other words: The Word, who was in the beginning with God, is still "with God." All life is continually the effluence of one of his infinite energies; all light is the effulgence of that bright essence uncreate. He is still coming "to his own," and "they receive him not." The processes described in verses 6-13 have never ceased; nay, they are indeed more conspicuous than they ever were before in the ministry of the Word, but they have not exhausted nor diminished one iota of the stupendous activity of the eternal, creative, revealing Logos. The first part of the Gospel, consisting of ch. 1-4, we have already described as I. THE OF THE LOGOS TO THE WORLD. John 1:1-18 1. The hypothesis framed by the evangelist to account for the series of facts which he is about to narrate is seen especially in John 1:14; but before asserting this great fact that the Word was made flesh, he proceeds to show (1) The pre-existence, personality, and Divinity of the Logos. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word. From early times expositors have perceived that the evangelist essayed here a comparison with the ἐνἀρχῇ ("in the beginning") of the first verse of the Book of Genesis. This can hardly be doubted; but the resemblance immediately ceases or is transformed into an antithesis; for whereas the Mosaic narrative proceeds to indicate the beginning of the creation and of time by saying, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," this passage asserts that the Word then was. He was neither created, nor did he then begin to be. Consequently, there is no reason to gather from this passage the temporal origin of "the Word," or from the first verse of Genesis to argue the eternity of matter. The writer here shows that he was profoundly impressed by the Lord’s own self-consciousness which permitted his disciples to believe in a personal Being and glory "before the world was," and "before the foundation of the world" (John 17:5, John 17:24). The idea of existence before the world was is attributed to the Divine (Sophia or) wisdom (Proverbs 8:23 and elsewhere; 1 John 1:1). The same apostle speaks moreover of "that which was (ἀπἀρχῆς) from the beginning," but has been manifested to us. The interpretations which made the ἀρχή mean, with Cyril, the Divine "Father;" the valentinian notion that ἀρχή was a distinct hypothesis, distinct from the Father or from the Logos; Origen’s notion that it meant the "Divine Wisdom;" the Socinian view that it referred to "the beginning of the preaching of the gospel;"—are not now seriously maintained. "The beginning of time" launches the mind into the abyss of the eternal now. At that starting point of all creation and all Divine manifestation, "the Word was." It would be difficult to express in human speech more explicitly the idea of eternal existence. In Greek usage and philosophy the term ΛΟΓΟΣ sustained the double sense of reason or thought immanent in the supreme Godhead (λόγοςἐνδιάθετος), and also of "speech" or "word" (λόγοςπροφορικός). Attempts have often been made to identify the λόγος of John with the former phase of its meaning common to Plato or Philo, and to find in the prologue the metaphysical speculations of the Alexandrine school—to identify the λόγος with the Philonic conception of the κόσμοςνοητικός, with the Divine "idea of all ideas," the archetype of the universe, the personality of God personified, or the Divine self-consciousness. But Philo’s entire system of philosophy by which he tried to explain the creation of the world, his theory of the Logos which was abhorrent to and entirely incapable of incarnation, which was based on a thorough going dualism, which was significantly reticent as to the Messianic idea, and knew nothing of the hopes or national anticipations of Israel, was not the source either of John’s revelation or nomenclature (see Introduction). The disciple of the Baptist and of Jesus found in Holy Scripture itself both the phraseology and the idea which he here unfolds and applies. The New Testament writers never use the term Logos to denote "reason," or "thought," or "self-consciousness," but always, denote by it "speech," "utterance," or "word"—the forthcoming, the clothing of thought, the manifestation of reason or purpose, but neither the "thought," nor the "reason," nor the "purpose" itself. The term is used here without explanation, as though it would be well understood by its readers. Numerous explanations have been offered in later times, which are far from satisfactory. Thus Beza regarded the term as identical with ὁλεγόμενος, "the Promised One"—the Personage spoken of by the prophets. This, even with Hofmann’s modification of it, viz. "the Word of God, or Gospel, the great theme of which is the personal Christ," breaks to pieces as soon as it is referred to the various predicates which follow, and especially to the statement of verse 14, that "the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled amongst us." Readers of the Old Testament would not forget that, in the record of the creation in Genesis 1:1-31., the epochs of creation are defined eight times by the expression, "And God said." The omnific Word uttered itself in time, and thus called into being "light" and "life" and "all things," and gave birth to man. The record thus preserved is confirmed by the corresponding teaching of the Psalms: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" (cf. 1 Samuel 3:21; Psalms 33:6; Psalms 107:20; Psalms 148:5; Isaiah 55:10, Isaiah 55:11). Moreover, the Scripture in the Book of Proverbs (8, 9.), Job (Job 28:12), as well as the apocryphal Books of Wisdom, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, had set forth the Divine "wisdom," המָכְחָ, σοφία, with more or less of personification and even personal dignity, answering to the creative energy and resources here attributed to the Logos. From eternity was it brought forth, in the beginning of all God’s ways. "The Lord possessed me," Wisdom says, "before his works." In the controversy of the third and fourth centuries the LXX. translation in Proverbs 8:22 of הנָקָ by ἔκτισέ led Arius and others to the idea of the creation of the Logos before all worlds. The vulgate translation, "possessed me," is a far closer approach to the original. The whole of the passage, Proverbs 8:22-27, is in correspondence with the functions and dignity of him who is here described as "in the beginning with God." The Jewish translators and commentators had so thoroughly grasped the idea, that they were accustomed, in their Chaldee paraphrases of the Old Testament, to substitute for the name of the Most High, the phrase Memra-Jah, "The Word of the Lord," as though the Lord, in his activities and energies, and in his relations with the universe and man, could be better understood under the form of this periphrasis than in that which connoted his eternal and absolute Being. The Targum of Onkelos—the oldest, most accurate, and precious of these documents—in numerous places substitutes "the Word of the Lord" for Jehovah, "the Word of Elohim" for Elohim and "the Word of the Lord" for the angel or messenger of Jehovah. Thus in Genesis 7:16 it is said, "The Lord protected Noah by his Word;" John 21:20, "The Word of the Lord was with Ishmael in the wilderness." In Genesis 28:21 Jacob made a covenant that "the Word of the Lord should be his God;" Exodus 19:17, "Moses brought forth the people to meet the Word of God." The term Deburah, which is analogous in meaning to Memra, is also used in the Jerusalem Targum of Num 7:89 in a similar sense. The substitution was adopted in the same way by Jonathan ben Uziel, in his paraphrase of Isa 63:7 and Malachi 3:1, so that the Jewish mind was thoroughly imbued with this method of portraying the instrument and agent of the Divine revelations, as one savouring of the smallest amount of anthropomorphism, which they were willing to attribute to the Holy One of Israel. Another group of highly important biblical representations of the activity and self-revelation of God consists of the personal "Angel (or Messenger) of Jehovah," who not infrequently appears, even in human form, conversing with the patriarchs, and making covenant with man (see Genesis 32:24, etc.; Exodus 33:12, etc.; Hosea 12:4; Isaiah 63:9; Malachi 3:1 and other places). In some of these passages the Name of Jehovah himself is attributed to his Angel, and the form of Divine manifestation becomes more and more clearly personal. Nevertheless, this Angel appears to stand within, rather than without, the very bosom of the Eternal One. Jehovah does not lose his Name of unapproachable dignity and absolute existence while yet he clothes himself with angelic powers, or even human form, and enters into living and intimate relations with his own people. Kurtz has urged that the numerous references in Old Testament to the "Angel Jehovah," are compatible with the idea of a created spirit, endowed with plenipotentiary functions and titles, and perfectly distinct from the "Logos." The strength of his position is that during the Incarnation and afterwards the New Testament writers still speak of the activity and might of "the Angel of the Lord." But this position is greatly modified by the obvious fact that the Logos did not become depotentiated and limited to the life of Jesus during the thirty years of his earthly manifestation. During the whole of that period, and ever since, the Logos has not ceased to exercise the functions which belong to his eternal glory. It cannot be said that Philo was ignorant of these modes of expression, though in the main he allows the idea of "Word" to pass away from the terra λόγος, and he charged it with a meaning which he found in Platonic and stoical philosophy, and used it, not in the historic or theocratic sense, which was current in the Palestinian schools, but in the metaphysic and speculative sense which enabled him to make the Hebrew Scriptures the vehicle of his ethical system. Word, in the Old Testament and in the Chaldee Paraphrases, represented the nearest possible approach to a definition of the activity and revelations of God; and. that activity is regarded, not as a mere attribute, but as an essential and personal aspect of the Eternal One. In the hands of the Apostle John (unlike Philo’s), the Logos was a distinct hypostasis, identifiable with God, and yet in union and relation with him. He was "in the beginning," and therefore before all creation. He did not become. He was not made. He was. As speech answers to the immanent realities of which it is expression, the idea of John in this first verse suggests, though the suggestion does not come into further expression, the "thought" or "reason" which evermore was shaping itself into "word." It would seem as though the apostle had been led to gather together into one teaching the various suggestions of the Old Testament. He realized the significance of the omnific Word. He embodied and improved upon the sapiential philosophy in its conception of Divine Wisdom, of the Brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express Image of his substance; he felt the force and justice of the Hebrew periphrases for God, the only God, in his gracious relations with man; and he was not ignorant of the speculations of the Hellenists who found in this term the phasis of all Divine self-consciousness, and the symbol of pure being in its relation with the universe. In the beginning the Logos was. And the Word (Logos) was with God (πρὸςτόνΘεόν). The preposition is difficult to translate; it is equivalent to "was in relation with God,… stood over against," not in space or time, but eternally and constitutionally. It is more, even, than the παρὰσοί (John 17:5); for, in addition to the idea of proximity, there is that of "motion towards" involved in πρός. A verb of rest is here combined with a preposition of motion, exactly as in ὤνεἰςτὸνκόλπον of verse 15. In Mark 6:3; Mark 9:19; Matthew 13:36; Matthew 26:55; 1 Corinthians 16:6, 1 Corinthians 16:7; Galatians 1:18 the similar use of πρὸς shows that the idea of intercourse is suggested, and mutual acquaintance, so that the personality of the Logos is therefore strongly forced upon us. The strength and peculiarity of the expression precludes the interpretation of some who see here simply some "intuition in the Divine mind," or that "the Word was eternally in the Divine plan." There is relation between these two, laying the foundations of all ethic in the nature and subsistence of Deity. Righteousness and love are inconceivable perfections of an Eternal Monad. But if within the bosom of God there are affirmations, hypostases in relation with each other, the moral nature of the Eternal is assured. Philo’s conception of Logos as "the sum total of all Divine energies made it possible for him to urge that God, so far as he reveals himself, is called Logos, and Logos, so far as he reveals God, is called God" (Meyer). But this falls short of the Johannine thought. The Logos was with the God (τὸνΘεόν)—was in relation with the Supreme and Absolute One, was in eternal communion with him. The notion of "Logos" limited to the mere revelation of the Divine to the universe, or the Mediator or Archangel of the Divine counsels to men, is seen to be insufficient. The πρὸςτὸνΘεόν. implies communion as anterior to revelation. And the (Logos) Word was God. Though Θεός precedes the verb, yet the disposition of the article shows that it is the predicate, and not the subject, of the sentence. The absence of the article is important. If Θεός had been written with the article, then the sentence would have identified the Λόγος and Θεός, and reduced the distinction expressed in the previous clause to one that is purely modal or subjective. Again, he does not say Θεῖος, Divine, which, seeing the lofty dignity of the Logos, would have been a violation of the eternal unity, and have corresponded with the δεύτεροςΘεός which Philo attributed to the Logos; but he says Θεός simply (not Θεοῦ, according to Crellius, for which there is no justification)—God in his nature, essence, and kind; God, i.e., as distinct from man, from angel, or from the kosmos itself. Thus the Son is not confounded with the Father, but declared to be of the same οὐσία, the same φύσις. Though with God when God is regarded in all the fulness of his eternal being, he is nevertheless of the same order and kind and substance. Luther translates the passage, "Gott war das Wort," but this translation jars on the sublime symmetry of the whole passage, which is not concerned with definitions of God, but with revelations concerning the Logos. John 1:2 The same Logos whom the writer has just affirmed to have been God himself, was, though it might seem at first reading to be incompatible with the first or third clause of the first verse, nevertheless in the beginning with God—"in the beginning," and therefore, as we have seen, eternally in relation with God. The previous statements are thus stringently enforced, and, notwithstanding their tendency to diverge, are once more bound into a new, unified, and emphatic utterance. Thus the αὐτός of the following sentences is charged with the sublime fulness of meaning which is involved in the three utterances of Joh 1:1. The first clause (1) declared that the Logos preceded the origination of all things, was the eternal ground of the world; the second (2) asserted his unique personality, so that he stands over against the eternal God, in mutual communion with the Absolute and Eternal One; the third clause (3) maintains further that the Logos was not a second God, nor merely Divine (Θεῖος) or God-like, nor is he described as proceeding out of or from God (ἐκΘεοῦ or ἀπὸΘεοῦ), nor is he to be called ὁΘεός, "the God absolute," as opposed to all his manifestations; but the Logos is said to be Θεός, i.e. "God"—God in his nature and being. This second verse reasserts the eternal relation of such a personality "with God," and prepares the way for the statements of the following verses. The unity of the Logos and Theos might easily be supposed to reduce the distinction between them to subjective relations. The second verse emphasizes the objective validity of the relation. John 1:3, John 1:4 (2) The creation of all things through the Logos, as the instrument of the eternal counsel and activity of God. John 1:3 All things (Πάντα, not τὰπάντα) taken one by one, rather than all things regarded in their totality—"all things," i.e. all beings and elements of things visible or invisible, in heaven, earth, and under the earth (see Colossians 1:16, etc.), came into being through him, through the Logos, who was in the beginning with God, and was God. The Logos is the organ or instrument by which everything, one by one, was made. Two other words are used in the New Testament to denote "creation"—κτίζειν, used in Revelation 4:11 and Colossians 1:16, a word indicating the mind and act of the Creator; and ποιεῖν, which, as in Mark 10:6, points generally to the thing made. The parts of the verb γίγνεσθαι indicate the progress of the work, the process of some creative order, the occurrence of some event in the evolution of Divine providence. This word does not by one solitary expression dogmatically convey the creative act, but the fact of the "becoming," from, it may be, the region of pure thought to that of existence, or from non-observation into prominence, or from an inchoate to a perfect development, or from nothing to something. The context must determine the fulness of its meaning. Occasionally, as in John 8:58, it is powerfully contrasted with existence: "Before Abraham was [had come into being] I am." The context here does not allow us to affirm that St. John repudiated the prior existence of the ὒλη, stuff, of which πάντα were made. He does not affirm nor deny such a prior existency or condition, but by referring the universe in all its parts and items to the Logos, he absolutely ignores the Platonic notion of eternal matter. He could scarcely be ignorant of the speculation as it entered into the Philonic interpretation and formed the basis of the Gnostic speculations which were beginning to infest the early Church. By giving, however, a Divine origin and instrument to the "becoming" of πάντα, and strengthening his statement by the negative coassurance, he absolutely excludes the dualism of Philo and of Gnostic tendency. In asserting that the Logos is he or that through whom all things were made, the writer does not lower the dignity of the Logos by regarding him merely as the ὄργανον of the Father, because the same preposition is used of the relation of the Father to the world or to his servants (Romans 11:36; Galatians 1:1; Hebrews 2:10). Elsewhere St. Paul powerfully affirms the same application of διά (1 Corinthians 8:6) to Christ’s part in the Creation, reserving for the One God, the Father, the preposition ἐκ. From God and by or through God are all things, still "all things" derive their existence "through" the activity, the will, the thought, of the Logos. "The sphere contracts as the blessing enlarges [query, ’intensifies’]: existence for everything; life for vegetable and animal world; light for men" (Plummer). The same idea is made more explicit by the negative form in which it is restated: and without him—that is, independently of his cooperation and volition (cf. John 15:5)—not even£ one thing came into being. The ὕλη could hardly be spoken of as "one thing," seeing, according to the theory, it was not a unit as opposed to a multiplicity, but the condition of all things. The ἐγένετο would drive harder against any recognition of the ὕλη than would the ἕν. There is not the faintest approach to any supposition on John’s part of the existence of such a primeval entity or eternal reality. The γέγονεν gives the student of the text and of the meaning grave difficulty. From very early times the Alexandrine Fathers and numerous uncial manuscripts, and an immense group of quotations and versions, unquestionably close the sentence we have just considered with ἐγένετοοὐδὲἕν, and consider the ὅγέγονεν as the subject of the following clause, translating it either, That which has come into being in him was life; or, that which has come into being was (or is) life in him—for one manuscript, à, has rendered the text more grammatical by reading ἔστι instead of ἦν.£ This, adopting the supposed early punctuation, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort have introduced into the text; but R.T. has coincided with T.R. Dr. Westcott has an elaborate note affirming the deep thought involved in the "ancient punctuation," to the effect that the ὅγέγονεν refers, not merely to the original creation, ἐγένετο, but to the continued existence of that which has come into being. Of this, it is said, it derives its life, has its life in the Logos, and that this idea is expressed in a profounder way than by saying ἔχειζωὴν; that it was life (before it was called into being, or became) in him. This profound and mysterious statement is affirmed by Dr. Moulton and Dr. Westcott to find different but clear expression in Revelation 4:11, "Thou art worthy, our Lord and our God, to receive glory, etc.; for thou didst create all things, and for thy pleasure they were [ἦσαν, the reading preferred by Tisehendorf (8th edit.) and Westcott and Herr, instead of εἶσι, ’they are’] and were created." Dr. Westcott thinks that "life" here represents "the Divine element in creation, that in virtue of which things ’are’ each according to the fulness of its being." What has been created represents the eternal thought, the life that it had in the Logos before the world was. Unless one were compelled to take this thought by the exigencies of the textual criticism, we should hesitate to affirm that this can be the author’s intention. To us the common punctuation is far more satisfactory m meaning: Apart from him there came into existence not one thing which has come into existence. This, in its grand comprehensiveness and individualizing of every molecule and every force, brings the mind of the reader down from eternity to time, from the creation to the preservation and providence of the world, and it prepares the way for the great assertion of the following verse. John 1:4 (a) The Life, and therefore inclusive of the fact that the Logos always has been and now is (b) the Light of men. In him was£ life. "Life" in all its fulness of meaning—that grand addition to things which confers upon them all their significance for men. There is one impassable chasm which neither history, nor science, nor philosophy can span, viz. that between nothing and something. The evangelist has found the only possible method of facing it—by the conception of One who from eternity has within himself the potency of the transition. There is another impassable chasm in thought—that between non-living atoms and living energies and individualities. The assertion now is that life, ζωή, with all its manifestations and in all its regions; that the life of plant, tree, and animal, the life of man, of society, and of worlds as such; that the life of the body, soul, and spirit, the life transitory and the life eternal (ζωὴαἰώνιος), was in the Logos, "who was God and in the beginning with God." Elsewhere in the Gospel Jesus said that "as the Father had life in himself, so he gave to the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26); i.e. he communicated to the Son his own Divine self-dependence. The Gospel, however, lays the greatest emphasis on the life-giving powers of the Christ as incarnate Logos. The healing of the impotent man (John 5:1-47.), the raising of the dead Lazarus (John 11:1-57.), are chosen proofs of his life-giving energy. His claim (John 10:1-42.) to retake the life that he would voluntarily relinquish, and the august majesty with which, in his resurrection life (John 20:1-31., 21.), he proclaimed his absolute and final victory over death, constitute the reasons which induced the evangelist to lay down at the very outset that in the Logos was life. Life, in all its energies, past, present, and future, is an outcome, an effluence, of the Eternal Word. And the life was (and is) the light of men. Observe, it is not said here that physical life is a consequence or issue of the solar beam, or of the Word which in the beginning called light out of darkness. All the religious systems of the East and all modern sciences agree to extol and all but worship the light force, with all that seems so inseparably associated with it. The evangelist was reaching after something far more momentous even than that dogma of ancient faith and modern science. He is not speaking of "the light of the sun," but of "the light of men." Whatever this illumination may include, John does not refer it directly to the Logos, but to the life which is "in him." "The light of men" has been differently conceived by expositors. Calvin supposed that the "understanding" was intended—"that the life of men was not of an ordinary description, but was united to the light of understanding," and is that by which man is differentiated from animals. Hengstenberg regards it, in consequence of numerous associations of "light" with "salvation" in Holy Scripture, as equivalent to salvation; Luthardt with "holiness;" and many with the "eternal life," which would introduce great tautology. The context is our best guide. This light is said to be the veritable light which lighteth every man, and to be shining into darkness. Consequently, to make it the complex of all the gracious processes which beautify the renewed soul is to hurry on faster than the apostle, and to anticipate the evolution of his thought. "The light of men" seems to be the faculty or condition, the inward and outward means, by which men know God. "The light of men" is the conscience and reason, the eye of the soul by which the human race comes into contact with truth and right and beauty. The perfections of God answering to these functions of the soul are not, and were never, manifested in mere matter or force. Until we survey the operations of God in life we have no hint of either. The lower forms of life in plant or animal may reveal the wisdom and beneficence and ’beauty of the Logos, and so far some light shines upon man; but even these have never been adequately appreciated until the life of man himself comes into view, then the Divine perfections of righteousness and moral loveliness break upon the eye of the soul. In the life of conscience and reason a higher and more revealing light is made to shine upon man, upon his origin, upon his Divine image, upon his destiny. In the spiritual life which has been superinduced upon the life of the conscience and of the flesh, there is the highest light, the brightest and warmest and most potent rays of the whole spectrum of Divine illumination. "The life" which was in the Logos "was," has always been, is now, will ever be, "the light of men." The plural, "of men" (τῶνἀνθρώπων), justifies this larger and sweeping generalization. The two "imperfects" (ἦν) placing the process in the past do not compel us to limit the operation to the past or ideal sphere. They assert what was "in the beginning," and which can never cease to be; but they partly imply further consequences, which the actual condition of man has introduced. John 1:5 (3) The antagonism between light and darkness. The highest manifestation and proof of the following statement will be found in that great entrance of the Eternal Logos into human life which will shed the most complete ray of Divine light upon men; but before that great event, during its occurrence, and ever since, i.e. throughout all times and nations, the light shineth in the darkness. Many expositors, like Godet, after long wavering and pondering, resolve this expression into a distinct epitome of the effect of the Incarnation, the highest manifestation of the light in the theanthropic life, and hesitate to see any reference to the shining of the light upon the darkness of humanity or of the heathen world. They do this on the ground that there is no confirmation or illustration of this idea in John’s Gospel. However, let the following parallels and expositions of this thought be considered. Our Lord discriminates between those who "hate the light" and "those who do the truth and come to the light" (John 3:21). He delights in those whom the Father has given to him, and who come to him (John 6:37). He speaks of "other sheep which are not of this fold, who hear his voice" (John 10:16). He tells Pilate that "every one who is of the truth heareth my voice "(John 18:37). In solitary address to the Father (John 17:6), he says, "Thine they were, and thou gavest them me." In all these passages abundant hint is given of a direct treatment of souls antecedent to, or rather irrespective of, the special grace of Christ’s earthly mani festation. This passage, so far, in the wide embrace of its meaning, asserts that the light here taken as the effluence of the life itself, perpetually, forever, shineth (φαίνει, not; φωτίζει)—pours forth its radiance by its own essential necessity into the "darkness." "Darkness" and "light" are metaphors for moral conditions. Though there is a "light of men" which is the result of the meeting of man’s capacity with Divine revelation, yet, for the most part, there is a terrible antagonism, a fearful negative, a veritable opposition to the light, a blinding of the eye of the soul to the clearest beam of heavenly wisdom, righteousness, and truth. Light has a battle to fight, both with the circumstances and the faculties of men. The ancient light which broke over the childhood of humanity, the brighter beams which fell on consciences irradiated and educated by a thousand ministries, the light which was focused in the incarnate Logos and diffused in all the "entrance of the Divine Word" into the heart of men, have all and always this solemn contingency to encounter—"The light shineth in the darkness." And the darkness apprehended it not. This word translated "apprehended" (κατέλαβε) has, in New Testament Greek, undoubtedly the sense of "laying hold with evil intent," "overtaking", "suppressing" (Lunge), "overcoming" (Westcott and Moulton); and a fine sense would arise from this passage if it means that, while the light shone into the darkness, it did not scatter it, but, on the other hand, neither did the darkness suppress or absorb and neutralize the light. Certainly the darkness was disastrous, tragical, prolonged, but not triumphant, even m the gloomiest moments of the pre-Incarnation period, even in the darkest hour and place of savage persecution, even in the time of outrage, superstitious impenetrability, or moral collapse. There are, however, two classes of difficulty in this interpretation. (1) Καταλαμβάνω is in LXX. used for בישִתִ, רכַלָ, and אצָםָ, and in many places in the New Testament has its ordinary classical sense, "lay hold of," "apprehend," "comprehend," "understand," "come to know," intelligo, and cognosco (Ephesians 3:18), though in this latter sense it is mostly used in the middle voice. (2) When the apostle, in greater detail and more immediate reference to the individual illustrations he gives of the relation of the darkness to the light, says in verses 10, 11, Ὁκόσμοςαὐτὸνοὐκἔγνω, and Οἱἴδιοιαὐτὸνοὐπαρέλαβον; though slightly different words are used, yet the return upon the thought in these parallel sentences is too obvious to be overlooked. The nonsusceptibility of the darkness, the positive resistance it makes to the action of light, finds its strongest illustration in the more defined regions and narrower sphere of the coming of the Logos to the world, and in his special mission to his own people. In this view Alford, Bengel, Schaff, Godet, Luthardt, Tholuck, Meyer, Ewald, coincide, though the suggestion of Origen and Chrysostom, and in later years of Schulthess, Westcott, etc., has been powerfully urged. The broad, general fact is stated, not excluding the exceptions on which the evangelist himself afterwards enlarges. If the darkness had "apprehended" the light, it would no more be darkness. The melancholy fact is that the corruption in the world has been, for the most part, impervious to the light alike of nature, of life, of conscience, and even of revelation. Hence, says Bengel, "the occasion for the Incarnation." This is exaggeration, because the whole record of the incarnate Word is a continuous story of the resistance of the darkness to the light. John 1:6-13 (4) The general manifestation of the revealing Logos. John 1:6-8 (a) The prophetic dispensation. John 1:6 There was a man, sent from (παράΘεοῦ) God, whose name was John. Observe the contrast between the ἐγένετο of John’s appearance and the ἦν of the Logos, between the "man" John sent from God and the (ΛΟΓΟΣΣΑΡΞΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ) "Word became flesh" of verse 14. At this point the evangelist touches on the temporal mission and effulgence of the true Light in the Incarnation; yet this paragraph deals with far more general characteristics and wider ranges of thought than the earthly ministry of Christ on which he is about to enlarge. First of all, he deals with the testimony of John in its widest sense; afterwards he enlarges upon it in its striking detail. Consequently, we think that "the man," "John," is, when first introduced, referred to in his representative character rather than his historical position. The teaching of the prophets and synoptists shows that "John" was rather the exponent of the old covenant than the harbinger of the new. He was the embodiment of the idea of prophet, priest, and ascetic of the patriarchal, Mosaic, and latest Hebraic revelation. He was "more than a prophet." No one greater than he had ever been born of woman, and his functions in these several particulars are strongly impressed upon that disciple who here loses his own individuality in the strength of his Master’s teaching. Through this very "man sent from God" the apostle had been prepared to see and personally receive the Logos incarnate. His personality gathered up for our author all that there was in the past of definite revelation, while Jesus filled up all the present and the future. First of all, he treats the mission of the Baptist as representative of all that wonderful past. John 1:7 This man came (historic, ἦλθε) for witness, that he might bear witness concerning the Light. The entire prophetic dispensation is thus characterized. That which the Baptist did, Malachi, Isaiah, Elijah, Hosea, Moses, had done in their day. He came, and by penetrating insight and burning word, by flashes of moral revelation and intense earnestness, "bare witness concerning the Light" which was ever shining into the darkness. His aim and theirs was to prevent the forces of darkness from suppressing or absorbing the light. He came to sting the apathy and disturb the self-complacency of the darkness. He came to interpret the fact of the Light which was shining but not apprehended; and so did all the prophetic ministry of which he was the latest and most illustrious exponent. He came to assert the meaning for man of all God’s perfections; to call conscience from its death sleep; to draw distinctions of tremendous significance between moral and ceremonial obedience; to exalt obedience above sacrifice, and works meet for repentance above Abrahamic privilege; to warn by lurid threatenings of a fiery wrath and a terrible curse which would fall on the disobedient, though consecrated, people. In this he was but the last of a goodly fellowship of prophets who bore witness to the Light of life which had its being in the Eternal Logos of God. He came, as they all had come, with a view of producing results far greater than, as a matter of fact, they have actually achieved. He came to bear such testimony that all through him, i.e. by the force of his appeal or by the fierce glow thus cast upon the perils and follies of the hour, might believe—might realize the full significance of the Light which they had hitherto refused to accept. The greatness of this expectation corresponds with the hope which the ministry of Jesus failed also to realize (Matthew 11:9-14). The splendid ministry of this "burning and shining lamp" might, it would seem, have brought all Israel to acknowledge Christ as the Light of the world; but "the darkness apprehended it not." The entire prophetic dispensation, the testimony which the priestly services and sacrifices bore to the evil of sin and to the awfulness of righteousness, as well as the condemnation of the follies and pleasures of the world, involved in John the Baptist’s ascetic profession, might have roused all Israel to believe in the Light. He gathered together all the forces of the Mosaic, prophetic, Levitical, Essenic ministries to bear on the people. Everything that Law could do was done to reveal the Light; but "all" did not believe, for "the darkness apprehended it not." John 1:8 A solemn warning is given, which forever discriminates the ministry of man from the eternal ministry of the Logos. He (John, and with him all the prophetic, Levitical, ascetic teachers in all ages) was not the Light, but [he was or came] that he might bear witness of the Light. The ἵνα depends upon some unexpressed verbal thought; for even in the passages where it stands alone (John 9:3; John 13:18; John 14:31; John 15:25) the reference is not obscure to some pre-existing or involved verb. The distinction here drawn between John and the Light is thought by some expositors to point to the condition of the Ephesian Church, in the neighbourhood of which there still lingered some who placed John in even a higher position than that accorded to Jesus (Acts 19:3, Acts 19:4); but the teaching of the evangelist is far more comprehensive than this. The Light of men has higher source and wider range of operation than that of any prophetic man. All that he, that any seer whatsoever can do, is to bear witness to it. The prophets, from Moses to John, derived all their power, their sanction, and the corroboration of their message, from the Logos light shining through conscience and blazing through providential events and burning up the stubble of human action with unquenchable fire. The prophets are not the light of God; they are sent to bear witness to it. John 1:9 (b) The illumination of the archetypal Light before incarnation. There are at least three grammatical translations of this verse. Either (1) with Meyer, we may give to ἦν the complete sense of existence, presence, and include in it the full predicate of the sentence; thus: "Existing, present (when John commenced his ministry), was the veritable Light which enlighteneth every man coming into the world." But the clause, "coming into the world," would here not only be superfluous, but moreover, while used elsewhere and often of Christ’s incarnation, is never used of ordinary birth in the Scriptures, though it is a rabbinical expression. (2) Lange, Moulton, Westcott, Godet, applying the ἐρχόμενονεἰςτὸνκόσμον to the light rather than to man, translate it, "That was the true Light which lighteth every man, by coming into the world, or that cometh into the world." The difficulty of this is that it makes the coming into the world, in some new sense, the occasion of the illumination of every man, although the evangelist has already spoken (John 1:4) of the Life which is the Light of men. A third method is to make the ἐρχόμενονεἰςτὸνκόσμον the true predicate of the sentence, and translate thus: The veritable Light which illumines every man was coming (ever coming) into the world;£ and there is a sense and manner of his coming which transcends all others, about which he is to speak at length. This might receive another meaning if ἦνἐρχόμενον were equivalent to ἦλθε; then a positive reference would here he made to the historic fact of the Incarnation. But it seems to me the evangelist is drawing a contrast between the continuous coming into the world of the veritable Light and the specific Incarnation of Joh 1:14. Consequently, the author here travels over and connotes a wider theme, namely, the operation of that archetypal Light, that veritable Light which differs from all mere reflections of it, or imitations of it, or luminous testimonies to it. The difference between ἀληθής and ἀληθινός is important. Ἀληθής is used in John 3:33 and John 5:31, and very often to denote the true in opposition to the false, the veracious as distinct from the deceptive. Ἀληθινός is used in the Gospel (John 4:23, John 4:37; John 6:32; John 7:28; John 15:1; John 17:3), First Epistle (1 John 5:20), and Apocalypse (Revelation 3:7), and hardly anywhere else (see Introduction), for the real as opposed to the phenomenal, the archetypal as opposed to the various embodiments of it, the veritable as distinct from that which does not answer to its own ideal. Now, about this veritable light, in addition to all that has been said already, two things are declared. (1) It illumines every man, giveth light to every individual man, in all time. Though the darkness apprehendeth it not, yet man is illumined by it. Various interpretations have been given of the method or conditions of this illumination. (a) The light of the reason and conscience—the higher reason, which is the real eye for heavenly light, and the sphere for the operation of grace. This would make the highest intellectual faculty of man a direct effulgence of the archetypal Light, and confirm the poet Wordsworth’s definition of conscience as "God’s most intimate presence in the world." (b) The inner light of the mystical writers, and the "common grace" of the Remonstrant theology. Or (c) the Divine instruction bestowed on every man from the universal manifestation of the Logos life. No man is left without some direct communication of light from the Father of lights. That light may be quenched, the eye of the soul may be blinded, the folly of the world may obscure it as a cloud disperses the direct rays of the sun; but a fundamental fact remains—the veritable Light illumines every man. Then (2) it is further declared that this Light was ever coming into the world. Bengel and Hengstenberg, as Lange and Baumgarten-Crusius, regard it as in the purely historic sense, declaratory of the great fact of the Incarnation. But Ewald, Keim, Westcott, and others decide that it refers to his continual coming into the world. Up to the time of the Incarnation, the great theme of the prophets is (ὁἐρχόμενος) the Coming One. Nor can we conceal the numberless assurances of the old covenant that the Lord of men was always "coming," and did come, to them. At one time he came in judgment, and at another time in mercy; now by worldwide convulsions, then by the fall of empires; again by the sense of need, of guilt and peril, by the bow of promise which often broke in beauty on the retreating storm cloud, by the mighty working of conscience, by the sense given to men of their Divine relationships and their dearness to God,—by all these experiences he has ever been coming, and he cometh still. Ever since the coming in the flesh and the subsequent cessation of that manifestation, he has ever been coming in the grace of the Holy Spirit, in all the mission of the Comforter, in the fall of the theocratic system and city, in the great persecutions and deliverances, the chastisements and reformations, the judgments and revivals of his Church. The eternal, veritable Light which does, by its universal shining, illumine every man, is still coming. The cry, "He is coming," was the language of the noblest of heathen philosophies; "He is coming," is the burden of the Old Testament; "He is coming again," is the great undersong of the Church to the end of time: "Even so, come, Lord Jesus." John 1:10, John 1:11 (c) The twofold effect of the pre-Incarnation activity in the elected nation and individuals. The highest expression of this truth was seen in the unique "coming" of which the evangelist had been the spectator and witness; but the words cannot be limited to it—they stretch back to the beginning of the creation of the world and on to the final consummation. They explain or divide the solemn theme of the previous announcement into two related proofs of the fact that the Light which illumines every man shineth in darkness, and that the darkness apprehendeth it not. John 1:10 Of him who was evermore coming into the world, it is said, In the world he was, and the world was made (came into being) through him, and the world recognized him not. The κόσμος is a term specially used by St. John to denote the ordered whole of the universe, viewed apart from God (see Introduction). Sometimes this is emphasized by the pronoun, "This world," when it is contrasted with the higher and heavenly "order" to which the Lord’s personality belonged, both before and after this manifestation in the flesh. From being thus the scene of ordered existence apart from God, it rapidly moves into the organized resistance to the will of God, and therefore it often denotes humanity taken as a whole apart from God and grace. It may be the object of the Divine love and compassion (John 3:16), while the redemption and deliverance of the world from sin is the great end of the ministry and work of Jesus (verse 29); but throughout this gospel "the world" is the synonym of the adverse power and order of humanity, until it is illumined, regenerated, by the Spirit of God. The world here signifies humanity and its dwelling place, considered apart from the changes wrought in any part of it by grace. The three assertions concerning the world drop the imagery of light and life, and by their emphatic concatenation, without the assistance of a Greek particle, tell the tragic story of human departure from God. Thus only can the mystery of the previous verses be explained. At the very forefront of the argument of the Gospel is put a statement which concedes the strange perplexity of the rejection of the incarnate Logos. Not only does the entire narrative illustrate the awful fact, strange and inconceivable as such an idea appears when baldly stated, but the author generalizes the antipathy between the Logos and the world into a more comprehensive, damning, and yet undeniable, proposition. From the beginning, though the world came into being through the Logos, though he was in the world, in every atom of matter, in every vibration of force, in every energy of life, yet the world, notwithstanding all its power of recognizing the fact, yet the world, as concentrated in an antagonistic humanity, did not come to know him fully (ἔγνω). This is the lesson we learn from all the melancholy and tragic perversions of his glorious perfections which every heathenism and every cultus, and even every philosophy, has perpetrated. St. Paul says precisely the same thing: "The world by wisdom knew not God" (see also Romans 1:19-22, which might be taken as an inspired commentary on the whole passage). And the awful statement is still, with reference to the majority of men, true, that "the world knoweth not God, neither the Father, nor the Word, nor the Holy Ghost." John 1:11 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Verses 2:1-3:4 The testimony of signs to the glory of the Word made flesh. John 2:1-12 (1) The first sign, the beginning of signs, Mastery over the old creation. Sign of love and power. The description of the preceding narrative, given in John 2:11, is the true key to it. It is impressive on several accounts. Christ had not yet given any "sign" of the invisible and eternal glory which the evangelist in his prologue had claimed for him. He had not in his own person "manifested" the unique majesty of his will, nor revealed the direction in which the power he wielded would most freely move. John, by this statement, (1) puts down a positive disclaimer of the whole cycle of portents which, when he wrote, had begun to hover in romantic and exaggerated fashion around the infancy and minority of Jesus. (2) He shows that his purpose is to bring back from forgetfulness the primary and most impressive events which did in reality characterize the earliest ministry of Christ. (3) He emphasizes the scene of some of these manifestations as restricted to a spot which, however difficult actually to identify, was nevertheless in Galilee, in which prophecy had foretold a great manifestation of Divine light. (4) He lays stress on the fact that the prime object of it was to convey to his disciples, to men who knew that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lamb of God, something of the power which he had for meeting any emergency that might arise. He did not seek to promote, nor did he succeed in exciting, the village wonder at a magical entertainment; nor did the bridegroom, nor the governor of the feast, nor so far as we know even Mary herself, fully apprehend in the event what "the disciples" saw. These disciples were probably acting the part of the διακονοί. They were admitted to a great sign of superhuman power. They believed on him. This is all we are told of the effect of the "sign." (5) The entire originality of the sign, one for which the previous narrative and prologue do not in the least prepare us, is one of the continual surprises of this Gospel. The introductory notes of this great symphony are such that we might be disposed to conjecture beforehand that One who is the Logos made flesh, whose glory is that of an only begotten Son of God, who is the predestined Baptizer with the Holy Ghost, who is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, and the Link and Ladder between heaven and earth, the predicted Messiah and Son of Man, will with Divine aloofness scarce touch with his feet this common earth. Human homes and love and festal rejoicings are so immeasurably beneath him that he can neither augment their earthly exhilaration nor take part in such carnal and mundane considerations. Such ideas may have crowded the imagination of the sons of Zebedee, of Philip too and of Nathanael. Already they may have been losing in a maze of mystery the Divine humanity, the intense and tender sympathy of Jesus with our everyday life, the profound interest felt in our earthly career. They may have needed to be taught some great lesson of the blending of the sacred with the secular, of the water of purification with the true, strong, fragrant wine of the kingdom. They may have needed, at this moment, the prosaic return to ordinary life over which their new Lord would preside, and from which he would never stand aloof. (6) All this is, moreover, highly accentuated by the peculiar character of this sign. It was a creative act. The idea that it was merely a hastening by his will of the natural processes by which water is always being transformed into wine by the vine, seems contradicted by the fact that the vine does not transform water into wine, but combines with the water other substances, cunningly and wondrously mixing with it the organic compounds which it subtracts from the air and soil, and which are necessary for the purpose. Water which has become wine is not transubstantiated into wine. The water is still there; but there are added to it other elements and compounds. The lesson is undoubtedly taught that he who performed this prodigy called certain elements and forces into being by the simple flat of his will. Evolutionary hastening of natural processes do not in the least apply. If that took place which the disciples (John among them) saw and handled and tasted, then we have an undeniable act of creation. There was then no other antecedent to this new category of existence except the will of Christ. This is the obvious intention of the historian. Other explanations are offered. The rationalistic hypothesis of a quiet and pious fraud on the part of Mary is too gross for belief. The mere magic, or sleight of hand, is so utterly foreign to the narrative that, though Renan seems to favour it, the entire place assigned to the "miracle" renders it utterly inconceivable. Some have gone so far as to say that the interesting discourse of Jesus during the repast inclined the guests to believe that, though their thirst had been quenched with pure water, it was veritable and precious wine. This Reuss call un surcroit d’absurdite. To suppose, with Ewald and Lange, that it was a miracle upon the minds of the guests, who believed they had drunk wine, when in reality they had only tasted water, is, as Weiss admits, another form of the natural explanation. Why, moreover, should the didactic energy of Jesus not more frequently have produced a like impression? The hypothesis of Strauss is far more rational, viz. that we have here the mythopmic tendency at full work. Seeing that Moses sweetened the bitter waters, and transformed the Nile into blood, and that Elijah multiplied the oil in the widow’s cruse, so Strauss contended that the Messiah must have done the like, and that this "miracle of luxury" is one of the glorifying myths by which Jesus is supposed to have transformed the water of Jewish ceremonial into the wine of the kingdom of grace. This theory is refuted by the enormous difficulty of finding any party in the Church, or of discovering any tendency in the Christian community or outside in the Hellenic schools, which could have evolved such an event—so capable of being misinterpreted—and that too out of a moral consciousness diametrically opposed to such an idea of Messiah. Certainly a vastly preponderating element of the gospel is clean contrary to such an idea of the Christ. Apart from there being some historic fact underlying the story, it seems incredible that it should have been invented by Christian, or Gnostic, or Hebrew tradition. The same may be said of Baur’s hypothesis and of Keim’s, (1) that the pseudo-John invented the miracle to embody the idea of contrast between the disciples of John the Baptist and of Christ; or (2) that the saying of Jesus, "Shall the children of the bridechamber fast while the Bridegroom is with them?" needed embodiment in some concrete fact; or that of Reuss, who supposes that the author, having invented a series of imaginary interviews, and testimonies, must need cap them with a miracle. Thoma sees in the representation the evangelist’s sublimation of the banquet in the house of Levi, under the form of the Wisdom or Logos festival of Pro 9:1-18. and Ecclus. 1:16-18 and 24:1-25. The Logos is here the symposiarch, and the feast corresponds with the bridal festival of the Apocalypse. Several hypotheses have been fashioned, in order to explain the forgery of the narrative, and they are quite as numerous as the attempted solutions by orthodox expositors of the purpose or significance of the miracle. It is perfectly gratuitous and arbitrary on the part of Baur to condemn the narrative because he could not find support for it in the synoptic Gospels. We have seen (see Introduction) that each evangelist, and especially Matthew and Luke, had separate access to a group of facts and sayings peculiar to himself, and nearly as numerous and memorable as those which characterize the Fourth Gospel. Baumgarten-Crusius is wrong in placing this event at the lowest point of the series of miracles of this Gospel. It is necessary to complete the view which the evangelist formed of the miraculous power of Christ, for him to demonstrate authority over the matter (ὕλη) of the created universe. In Luke 6:1-49. he illustrates Christ’s relation to the forces of nature, when the Lord hushed the storm and walked on the sea; in Luke 21:1-38., by narrating a miraculous draught of fishes, he exhibits the Lord’s control over the animate creation; and in other instances, the like mastery over the human body, over its diseases, necessities, and death (see Luke 4:1-44. 5., 6., 11.). If the other evangelists have passed it by, we must remember that they ignore the entire period of our Lord’s activity which intervened between the temptation and the imprisonment of John the Baptist. The disciple to whom Jesus on the cross entrusted the care of his mother might have special reasons for recording almost the only scene in which that mother played any part. The most impressive circumstance is that the disciples of John, who had learned his stern denunciation of sin and his call to repentance, were to be taught that the highest life was not to be secured by abjuring marriage, and throwing a tragic gloom over human life, but by hallowing and consecrating the home, the source and nurse of the natural life. Christ first purifies the home, then the temple, then the individual. John 2:1 On the third day there was a marriage in Cana £ of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Should the supposed discovery of Bethabara or Bethany beyond Jordan, at a spot a short distance south of the Lake of Gennesareth, be verified, then there is no difficulty in accepting the view of Baur as to the identity of the "third day," reckoning it as the morrow of the day on which Nathanael was called to be a disciple. The first day mentioned would be John 1:29; the second day, John 1:35; and the third identical with the day mentioned in John 1:43, John 1:45. There would be time for the rapid journey from the Jordan to Cana. But if the third day be interpreted more naturally, as the third after the day mentioned in John 1:44-51, time is given for the journey from the traditional site near Jericho to either of the sites which claim to be the scene of this earliest miracle. It is a march of twenty hours, which would occupy two or three days. Moreover, as wedding feasts often occupied in Palestine seven or even fourteen days (Genesis 29:27; Judges 14:15; Tobit 8:19; 9:4; 10:1), the festivities may have been advanced, and some explanation be thus given of the exhaustion of the supply of wine. Consequently, there are several justifications and explanations of that which is condemned by Baur and others as an unhistorical element. It’ the first day was that on which John bore his testimony before the Sanhedrin; the second, John 1:29; the third, John 1:35; the fourth, John 1:43, John 1:45;—the day of the wedding at Cana would be the seventh, and thus a sacred week, corresponding with the solemn week that terminated with Easter Day, would be seen to have found place in the earliest periods of the ministry. The mother of Jesus was there. Since Nathanael of Cana was summoned as a friend, and since the first group of the disciples were familiar with each other and him, the inference is that the bride or bridegroom was an intimate friend of the entire party. Weiss claims the reference to the little town of Cana "as another of those recollections, which testify indubitably to the historical character of the Gospel". The presence of the mother of the Lord at Cana makes it also probable that she had, after the death of Joseph, removed from Nazareth to Cana. This is confirmed by the casual remark in Mark 6:3 that his sisters only were still resident in their former home. Moreover, it would explain the return of Jesus from the scene of his baptism to his temporary home. The traditional Kefr Kenneh is situated on rising ground four miles and a half northeast of Nazareth, and the remains of a Greek church are still to be seen there. The site is not inconsistent with the conditions. We may suppose it to be called "of Galilee" to distinguish it from a Cana in Peraea mentioned by Josephus; but more probably from the Kanah in the tribe of Asher, mentioned in Joshua 19:28. The situation of this town in Phoenicia may have been so far from Galilee proper as to have rendered the expression desirable. Dr. Robinson believed that he had hit more certainly upon the site by finding a small village bearing the name Cana el Djelil, or Khurbet Kana, which lies some seven miles northeast from Nazareth beyond Sepphoris. The adjunct, el Djelil, suggested the preservation of the old designation drawn from this very narrative. This identification was accepted by Ritter and Meyer; Stanley considered it very doubtful, and so do Westcott (’Comm.,’ in loc.) and Dr. Selah Merrill, in ’Pict. Palestine,’ 2, pp. 59-63. The more recent investigations of the Palest. Expl. Society have led once more to the recognition of the traditional site, independently maintained by Hengstenberg, Godet, Moulton, and others. Its site is picturesque, and resembles the position of many Italian towns perched on the slope of a low hill at the head of valleys forming roadways to the coast and to the lake. Its Greek name, Cana, meaning "a reed," was probably derived from the reeds which grow in the marshy plain below it (compare Cannae, Canossa, Cannes. So Hugh Macmillan). John 2:2 And both Jesus was called (ἐκλήθη, aorist, not pluperfect, and contrasted with the ἦν of John 2:1)—after his return from Bethany—and his disciples to the marriage. Jesus had no disciples before the events recorded in the previous chapter. These men may have been friends of each other and of the bridal party, and received such an invitation before their visit to the banks of the Jordan; but it is far more probable that these individuals already mentioned, or that some of them, and that most certainly John his near relative (see Introduction), were invited, because they were in the society of Jesus. John 2:3 A large accession of guests in such a humble home might easily be supposed to make a famine in the provisions, and so we read, And when the wine failed £—either from this cause, or from the poverty of the hosts, whose willingness and welcome were larger than their means, or by reason of an advanced stage in the festival—the mother of Jesus saith to him, They have no wine.£ The simple presence of the Lord and of his mother, of such guests as these. at a wedding feast, is a Divine rebuke of all that morbid asceticism which crept from Essenism and Orientalism into the Christian Church, of all that false pietism and fancied purity which made marriage a contamination, and exalted virginity to an unnatural elevation. The tender hearted interest felt by the blessed mother of the Lord in the condition of the hosts, and her tone of authority towards the διάκονι, are eminently natural; her tacit request for help, though she does not specify the way in which the help should be given, implies on her part something of presumption in indicating to our Lord the course he should adopt. A question of great interest arises—What did she mean by her appeal? Bengel suggested that Mary simply intended: "Let us depart before the poverty of our hosts reveals itself." This makes Christ’s reply an acceptance of her hint; but along other lines the rabbis were accustomed to say that wine and life were in the mouth of a rabbi (see Geikie’s ’Life of Christ,’ 1:475; Wunsche, in loc.). We are expressly told that this is the beginning of signs, and therefore we have no right to conclude that, previous to this, in the home at Nazareth, Jesus had been accustomed to conquer fate and master poverty and compel circumstances by miraculous powers for his own or for his mother’s support. We know that it was a temptation of the devil that he should perform some such miracle for his own sustenance, and that he had sternly suppressed the suggestion of the evil one. The mother must have known his powers, and must have known his mind on this very matter. What did she suggest? Was she thinking mainly of the need of wine, or firstly and chiefly of the honour and glory of her Son? She supposed that a moment had arrived when he should by some royal act assert his imperial rights, and give an order which would be obeyed as that of Sovereign Prince. Precisely the same spirit prevailed always in his home and among his disciples—an eager desire that he should manifest himself to the world (cf. John 7:4-6). The disciples did not lose it on the night of the Passion, or the eve of the Ascension (John 14:22; Acts 1:6). If this was the real meaning of the remark, "They have no wine," it becomes singularly interesting to observe the method of our Lord. The request for a supply of additional solace and refreshment was complied with. The suggestion to show himself to the world was as resolutely withheld. There was no pomp, no claim, no self-assertion; there was quiet, boundless, affluent love. The glory of Divine love was manifested, the need was satisfied; but the impression was not intended to go beyond the hearts of those beings who would partially understand it, at the right time. John 2:4 With this thought, the reply of Jesus to the premature suggestion of the mother becomes perfectly comprehensible. What is there to me and thee, O woman? Mine hour has not yet come. The appellation "woman" was used by him upon the cross, when he was concerned most humanly and tenderly with her great grief and desolation, and therefore had no breath of unfilial harshness in it. But the proverbial Τίἐμοὶκαὶσοί; wheresoever the words occur, imply, if net personal estrangement, yet as to the matter in hand some divergence of feeling. Almost all commentators seem to suggest that our Lord refused to be guided by a mother’s direction; that he wished her to understand that he was breaking off from her control and from that silent submission which he had hitherto willingly yielded (so Meyer, Hengstenberg, Godet, Westcott, Tholuck, Ebrard, and Lange). Schaff has quoted from the Fathers before the Nestorian controversy dear proof that they admitted censure, and therefore blame, in the blessed virgin Mary. Still, it seems to me that the cause of the censure, coupled with an immediate response to her special request about the wine, has not been sufficiently appreciated, he said, "Mine hour is not yet come." It would have come if the provision of wine was the ground of divergence of sentiment; if the moment for the supply of these temporal wants were the point of difference between them. The "hour" for Christ to tell the world all that Mary knew had not come. The hour of the full revelation of his Messianic claims had not come, nor did it come in the temple, or by the lake, or in the feast day; not till the awful moment of rejection, when death was hovering over him, and the blow was about to fall, did he say, "The hour has come" (see John 12:23; John 17:1)—the hour of his greatest glory. "The hour had not yet come." The hour would come when rivers of living water would be supplied to all those who come to him; when the blood he would shed would be a Divine stream, clear as crystal, for the refreshment of all nations; when at another marriage supper of a saved humanity the precious blood should be an ample supply of costly wine for all the world. Moreover, the link at the present moment between our Lord and his mother must begin to shade into something more spiritual. It was not possible that he should be holden by it. A sword would pierce through her maternal heart when she became gradually alive to the fact that they that do the will of his Father, the same were his "brothers, sisters, and mother." John 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants (διάκονοι, not ὑπηρέται, not δοῦλοι). The habits of Oriental life at the present day make it extremely probable that the disciples of Jesus were themselves taking the place of those who graciously waited upon the guests. If so, the language of Mary to them, and the special effect of the whole scene upon their minds, become marked and suggestive. Be that as it may, the mother of Jesus clearly understood by the gentle rebuke she received, that Christ, her Son, had read her heart, and was going in some way, not to gratify her darling wish, but at least to take her hint for the consolation of her young friends, and to attend to her suggestion. Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. Though in some sense slighted or reproved, she exhibits the most entire confidence in her Son and Lord. She encourages the servants to do whatever he might command. More may have passed between them than is reported. The evangelist often suggests omitted details (as in John 11:28; John 3:1, John 3:2; and elsewhere). The faith of Mary was not depressed by the discovery that there were depths of character in her Son which she could not fathom. Obedience to Christ will always be our duty, even though we cannot penetrate the reasons of his command. An interesting illustration of Mary’s words may be seen in Genesis 41:55, where Pharaoh gives the like injunction to his servants concerning Joseph. Archdeacon Watkins records a curious tradition, mentioned by Jerome in his Prologue to the Gospel, that John was himself the bridegroom, but that, guided by the miracle, he left all and followed Christ. John 2:6 Now there were (set, or) placed there six water pots of stone, after the Jews’ manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece. Stone was often used for these receptacles, as more calculated to preserve the purity of the water (Wunsche refers to ’Beza,’ John 2:2; Westcott quotes ’Sofa,’ 4; Barclay, in his translation of ’Mishna,’ § 17, enumerates earthenware and other material as lawful). It is interesting that these stone jars are still used in this very neighbourhood for like purposes (’Pict. Palestine’). This large number of jars of considerable magnitude was doubtless due in part to the number of the guests, and to the scrupulous attention to ceremonial purity that was enjoined by the oral law (see ’Mishna,’ § 17; and Lightfoot, in loc.). They were accustomed to wash, not only the hands, but "cups, brazen vessels, and tables" (see Matthew 15:2 and parallel passages). (For this use of κατά, see 2 Timothy 1:1, in which "according to" easily passes into the sense of "for the sake of, after the manner of.") The Attic measure metretes was equal to the Hebrew bath (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 8.2. 9), and stands for it in the LXX. of 2 Chronicles 4:5, and this equalled 1.5 Roman amphorae, 8 gallons + 7.5 pints. So that six jars containing 2 or 3 metretes, say 2.5 = 6 x 2.5 x 8 gallons + 7.5 pints = 6 x 2.5 × 71.5 pints = 134 gallons and a fraction. The jars may have differed in shape, according as they were adapted for different purposes; but ἀνά must be translated distributively, and we cannot evade the enormous capacity of the jars, and therefore the abundance of the gift thus provided. Various efforts have been made to reduce the extent of the provision; but the obvious implication of the narrative is that the six jars were the locale of the miracle. Dr. Moulton and Dr. Westcott suggest that these water pots were filled with pure water, but that the wine was "drawn" from the water supply to which the servants had access, and that no more wine was provided than that which was borne to the governor of the feast. Others have supposed that simply the water drawn from the jars was transformed in the process. These suppositions make the entire reference to the water pots extremely obscure and unnecessary. The large quantity of wine thus offered to these humble folks corresponds with the affluence of Nature in all her moods—the munificence of spring blossoms, the harvest of the sea, the exuberance of sunlight, the superfluity of rain that falls on the oceans, the copiousness of all God’s ways. When, on other occasions, the Lord added to the supplies of food in fishes and bread, his lavish abundance corresponds with the riches of his loving kindness on this occasion. There was provided, not the material for a meal, but an ample dowry for such a bride. No mere magical change, momentarily confounding perception and leaving no trace behind, but a supply which would be a standing proof of the reality of what had been done. John 2:7 Jesus saith to them, Fill the water pets with water. And they filled them to the brim. They had, therefore, been emptied already for the purifying purposes and processes of the large party, probably suggesting that the friends of the bridegroom were solicitous to obey the religious discipline which was believed to be in harmony with the Divine will. The expression, ἕωςἄνω, seems added to emphasize the quantity of wine thus provided. The miracle took place between the filling of the jars and their being drawn upon. We are not permitted to look more closely into this mystery. The finger of God, the will of the Creator, determines the result. The servants knew that they had filled the jars with water. The next thing, and all that we know, is that the Lord said— John 2:8 Draw forth (the object of the verb is not in the sentence. He did not say the "water" which you placed there, nor the "wine" into which it has been transformed, but simply, "Draw forth"), and bear to the governor of the feast. The traditional interpretation, that the water jars were the source of the unwonted supply, and the measure of it, strongly commends itself in preference to the suggestions of Westcott, Moulton, as well as Barnes, Olshausen, and others. The ἀρχιτρίκλινος, the "master of the table," is the chief servant presiding over the arrangements of the feast. This was an Attic official, referred to by Athenaeus as τραπεζοποιός (cf. Heliodor., 7.27). The "symposiarch," arbiter bibendi, is not to be confounded with him. The latter was one of the guests chosen to taste the wine, etc. (see Ecclus. 32:1, where he is called ἡγούμενος). The "governor" is one who occupies a still higher position of importance in Greek feasts. There is no other trace of the Attic usage among the Jews. As the passage in Ecclesiasticus indicates a different custom, and the references to something similar describe the officer by different names, no very sure conclusion can be drawn. Wunsche says that, ordinarily, the master of the house was bound to serve his guests, and preside over the distribution of food and presents. Thus, at the marriage of his son, Rabbi Gamaliel served all his invited guests. Trench, Alford, and Wordsworth think that the governor here was one of the invited guests, from the freedom with which he addressed the bridegroom. Meyer, Godet, take the view that he was not. And they hear it, £ conscious of a wondrous fact, which must have filled them with consternation. At first the order must have seemed like felly, as when Moses called on Israel to "go forward" into the Red Sea, or as when Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take up thy bed, and walk." "They bear it." John 2:9 When the governor of the feast tasted the water which had become wine. Luther translated, "Den Wein der Wasser gewesen war"—"The wine which had been water." No other explanation is possible than one that asserts an astounding contravention of the ordinary evolutions and sequences of nature. If wine has taken the place of water, there has been added to the water that which was not there before. The vine, with all its wondrous processes—the vineyard, the wine press, and other appliances—have all been dispensed with, and the same power which said, "Let there be light," called these additional elements together, originated them by his will. The new properties presented themselves to the percipient senses. In this respect the transformation is profoundly different from the supposed change which occurs in the Holy Eucharist. There the accidents and elements all remain; the substantia underlying them is supposed to be replaced by another substantia; but neither the one nor the other substance has ever been present to the senses. Here a new substance, with previously undiscovered attributes, presents itself. The uncompromising opponents of the supernatural will accept almost any interpretation but that which lies on the surface. The rationalistic, mythical, poetic mystic explanations all alike are encumbered with special difficulties. The evangelist who held Christ to be the Logos incarnate saw nothing inconceivable in the event. It was one of many phenomena which accompanied his life as the "Son of man," which helped to create the underlying presupposition on which the Gospel was written. Like the testimony of the last of the prophets and the earliest of the disciples, it is part of the evidence that the Logos dwelt among us. When the governor tasted wine drawn from these water pots, and knew not whence it was. He had known all the resources of the feast, but this puzzled him by its novelty. "Whence has it come? Where has it been stored? Whose is it?" An interesting parenthesis is here introduced, to contrast the ignorance of the ruler of the feast with the overwhelming mystery of knowledge given to the servants (the disciples of Jesus himself), [But the servants (διάκονοι) who drew the water knew]; knew, i.e., whence it was and, it seems to me, what it was. Meyer and others say they did not know that they had brought wine. It is impossible to assert as much as this. They knew the plain feel that it was not a wine vat or wine cask, but a water jar, from which they had drawn in order to fill the chalices in their hands. They became, therefore, guarantors of the mysterious sign. How much more than "whence" it was bad dawned on their mind we cannot say. The governor of the feast calleth the bridegroom. We may judge from this that this responsible person was not in the room where the six water jars were placed, and that he either approached the bridegroom in his seat of honour, or called to him from his own, and expressed, by a convivial boast and equivocal compliment, his sense of the excellence of the wine which had thus, at the end of the feast, been lavished on the guests, who had been hitherto kept strangely ignorant of the resources of the host. It is unnecessary to put into the words any meaning deeper than the epigrammatic humour in which he revealed his sense of the reality of the objective fact which had been brought to his knowledge. John 2:10 And saith, Every man at the first setteth on the good wine, and when men have drunk deeply, then that which is worse (literally, smaller): thou hast kept (guarded) the good wine until now. The classical passages supposed to illustrate this jovial saying throw little light upon it. The meaning is obvious enough, and there is no need to search in ancient wit for the original of a speech which is not too recondite to have been originated on this occasion. The best wine is appropriately given when the seneca are keenest, but when the climax of the festival has come, when they have drunk too deeply, or are intoxicated, then the weaker, poorer, and less fragrant wine is acceptable. There need be no reference whatever to the present company. Tholuck and the Revised version modify the force of μεθυσθῶσι; Meyer, Godet, and others see no difficulty in assigning to the word its proper meaning (cf. Luke 12:45; 1 Thessalonians 5:7; Ephesians 5:18; Revelation 17:2). The whole saying simply asserts, by an outsider, the concrete reality of a wonderful change that had occurred. He knew nothing of a miracle. He merely guaranteed unwittingly the phenomena that came within the range of his senses. This becomes more impressive because he knew nothing of the cause, and was profoundly ignorant of the claims of his strange and wonderful Guest. No further remark is offered. We are not told how the fact was referred to the will or authority of Jesus, to the kindness or generosity of the mother; or whether the company generally learned the mysterious powers of their fellow Guest. The bridegroom thus honoured made no reply that is recorded; and, by emphatic silence, the impression is conveyed that this manifestation of the power of the Lord was not, in his opinion, the coming of his "hour." Strange reticence is observed, but this is added— John 2:11 Jesus made this beginning of signs in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory. The beginning, the earliest of the tokens which he gave of his higher nature and lofty claims and faculties. The word σημεῖα, corresponding with the Hebrew תוֹ), is generally, in the Acts as well as in the LXX., associated with τέρατα, or "portents;" when it occurs in the synoptists it is translated "signs." The word by itself does not connote miraculous energies, but any event, natural or human, which becomes a token or witness to unseen or Divine energies. When Christ’s wonderful actions (often called δυνάμεις by the synoptists) are referred to by John, he calls them simply ἔργα; so that operations which, if wrought by other persons, might have been portents, miracles, or marvels, are to him perfectly normal, and are called simply "works." Weiss leaves the question of the manner in which this supply of wine was provided entirely unsettled, but declares that, whether by some fortunate providential opportunity, by the forecast of the mother, or by concealed methods of meeting the exigency, this great gift was brought about by the Son of Mary, the effect was the same as if it had been wrought by the Creator’s hand. The glory of his power and love and sympathy was manifested. This appears to us utterly inconsistent with the intention or idea of tim evangelist. The impression previously made upon John the Baptist was of his supreme submission to the Divine will, his sacrificial yielding to that will for the taking away of sin; further, that in some sense he was Son of God, and Minister and Organ for the dispensation of the Spirit of God. The few disciples admitted that, by his penetration of their character and hidden inner life, his wisdom was of a different kind from that of men. Now, however, they see a manifestation of his glory as power. He has unlimited resources at his disposal, and his disciples believed on him to that extent. This expression asserts the truth of the selective and discriminating force of the mission of Christ, and the negative fact that the company assembled received no religious impression beyond the most superficial one. "The disciples" who came with him "believed" more than they had done before. It may be that they, especially John and Nathanael of Cana, were among the honorary διάκονοι who were alone fully conscious of what happened on the occasion. They apprehend the "glory," and entirely trust themselves εἰςαὐτόν, to him, and follow him with an added momentum. There are new and wonderful suggestions made in this passage which unveil the glory of the Divine love and power now wrought in man. A point of connection with the synoptic Gospels is that they too record Christ’s own description of the contrast between the austere prophet and the Son of man (Matthew 11:18, Matthew 11:19) in terms almost taken from this very scene. Compare also the mode in which Christ vindicated his own social freedom from Pharisaic exclusiveness, and the conduct of his own disciples from that of John the Baptist’s disciples in the matter of ceremonial purifications, by his parable of the old wine skins bursting with the new and potent fluid put into them (Matthew 9:14-17 and parallel passages). John gives here a deeper apprehension of the mystery, a keynote to a whole cycle of instructions, on the "glory" of his love. By manifesting his Divine sympathy with marriage, with human life and fellowship, with innocent gladness, he proves himself to be the same Christ of whom the synoptic tradition speaks, the same Jesus who took the children to his arms, and constituted a "marriage supper" the great type of the eternal union between God and man in the gospel of his love (cf. Matthew 22:2, etc.). But this same evangelist is filled with the same imagery dating back to experiences of Caua, when he describes the final victory of the "Lamb of God" (Revelation 19:7; Revelation 21:2). John 2:12 After this he went down—from the high lands of Galilee to the borders of the Sea of Galilee, depressed as we now know it to be below the level of the Mediterranean—to Capernaum.£ Three competing sites for this small town have been advocated by Eastern travellers; all of them on the shore of the lake, all near to Bethsaida and Chorazin, in "the way of the sea," combining more or less the characteristics required by the New Testament narrative and the references in Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ John 3:10, John 3:8). Keim is in favour of Khan, Minyeh; but there is no abundant spring such as Josephus describes, nor are there any ruins which indicate an extensive town. Caspari has argued in favour of Ain Mudawarah, a mile and a half to the west of Khan Minyeh, in which, though water is abundant, there are no remains of buildings. The old travellers, and the most recent explorations, have coincided in fixing on Tell-Hum as the site; and Dr. Farrar, Dr. Westcott, Major Wilson, incline to this conclusion. Abundant ruins are found there, and, what is more than probable, the remains of the very synagogue built by the Roman centurion, and one certainly dating back to the Herodian age. Tell-Hum, or "the Mound of Hum," is an easy corruption of the Caphar, or village of Nahum. He, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples. They may have returned home to Nazareth, though some recent commentators suggest that Cana had become the home of his family in late years. This is contradicted by the express statement of Nah 1:1-15:45, and the utter obliteration of the name of Cana from the synoptic narrative. We cannot identify this possible return to Nazareth with the account in Luke 4:16-20, because it assumes a previous period of activity in Capernaum, and further, because the commencement of Christ’s public ministry is expressly made synchronous with the imprisonment of the Baptist (Matthew 4:12-15), which did not take place till weeks or months afterwards (John 3:24). Consequently, this journey to Capernaum preceded the journey to Jerusalem and the return to Nazareth, of which Matthew speaks. The fact that "the mother and brethren "of Jesus accompanied him, but not "the sisters," suggests what is implied in Mark 6:3 that the sisters were married in Nazareth and in Mark 3:21-23 that they did not accompany the non-believing brothers in their endeavour "to lay hold of him." The fact that Joseph is not mentioned induces the common assumption that he was already dead. Volumes have been written on "the brethren of Jesus." The determination of their parentage is one of the most perplexing points in the evangelic history.£ There are three hypotheses, which are alike beset with difficulties. (1) The view propounded by Helvidius in Rome, in the fourth century, and to which Jerome replied, that the "brothers" are brothers in the ordinary sense, children of Joseph and Mary. This supposition is sustained by the statement of Mat 1:25 and Luke 2:7, each of which implies that the mother of our Lord had other children. The sentiment of the Church in favour of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and in favour of the uniqueness of her maternity, has powerfully contested this supposition. Further, apart from any sentiment, it has been said that the Lord would not have commended the mother to the beloved disciple, if he had living brothers who had a previous claim. To this, however, it is replied that John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, may have been his near relative, if Salome were the sister of the virgin; and also that, up to the time of the Ascension, there is no proof that the brethren believed in him, but the contrary. The effect of a special manifestation to James (1 Corinthians 15:1-58.) may have led to a general admission of the brethren, who are distinguished from, but yet with, the eleven apostles and the mother on the eve of the Ascension (Acts 1:14). (2) To obviate the difficulties of a sentimental kind, it was suggested by Jerome, and it has been often assumed since, that these brothers were in reality first cousins, not the children of Salome the sister of the virgin, but of Mary the wife of Cleophas, who is supposed to be the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (see ch. 20:25, note), and further that this Cleophas = Clopas = יפִלְחַ = Alphaeus = Chalphai for the Aramaic guttural might be omitted as in Alphseus, or turned into κ or χ in Clopas, found in John’s text. Jerome, however (Lightfoot), never referred to this confirmation of his theory; but it has been hence conjectured that James the son of Alphaeus was identical with the celebrated "James the brother of our Lord," mentioned in Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18; in Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9, Galatians 2:12; and in ecclesiastical history. If, however, this James were the "son of Alphaeus," then Judas (John 14:22) (not Iscariot)—"Judas of James" (Jude 1:1; Acts 1:13)—was also one of the "brethren;" also Joses and Simon, sons of Cleophas, were of their number; and some have gone further, and made Simon the Canaanite the other brother. This might possibly be the solution of the puzzle, if the entire theory did not break down under the clear distinction drawn in evangelic narrative between the twelve apostles and the brethren. E.g. in this passage they are discriminated from "disciples." In John 7:5 the "brethren" are said not to believe on the Lord. In Acts 1:14 they are mentioned in addition to the apostles. Though in Galatians 1:1-24 and Galatians 2:1-21, James might seem from his great eminence to be classed with apostles in some wider sense, yet in Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18; Galatians 2:12 he seems to take precedence of all the apostles, at the Council of Jerusalem, and in presidency of the Church there. Moreover, the identification of Cleophas with Alphaeus is very doubtful. Clopas is Aramaic, Cleophas a Greek name; and the identification of his wife Mary with the sister of the virgin is also very doubtful; while to have two sisters of the same name in the same family is highly improbable. We cannot believe, further, that so distinguished a man as James the brother of our Lord could have been designated as "James the Less" in the evangelic narrative (Mark 15:40). If the "cousin theory" holds, this must have been the case. Finally, "cousins" would hardly so persistently have been spoken of as brothers, and this would be still less likely if their mother was living. (3) The third hypothesis, which is the suggestion of Epiphanius, is that these brothers were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage, to whom the blessed virgin had acted the part of mother. This is based on a legend of the apocryphal ’Protevang. of James’ (ch. 9. and 17.), where Joseph speaks of his "sons." The theory saves the virginity of Mary, but sacrifices that of Joseph. Such a conclusion, in some ecclesiastic circles, is almost as unwelcome as the former. Against Jerome’s hypothesis the greatest number of difficulties present themselves, and it must be abandoned. Therefore the choice really lies between that of Helvidius (1) and that of Epiphauius (3). These are alike encumbered by the perplexity that among the twelve apostles there were two Jameses, two Judases, and two Simons; and among the "brethren" there must have been also a James, Judas, Joses, and Simon, with sisters. Moreover, there was a Joses or Joseph, who was son of Alphseus, and therefore a brother of James. This is not an insuperable difficulty, because of the frequency with which personal names recur in Oriental families. Whether this multiplicity be true or not, there are, at least, ten other Simons in the New Testament, and nearly as many Josephs or Joses; and Judas Barsabas (Acts 15:22) must be discriminated from the two Judases here supposed. We must, however, choose between suppositions (1) and (3). On the one side, it is said, if the brethren of Jesus were not the own sons of Mary, the language of Jesus on the cross would be entirely explicable. This is true; but, on the other side, if John were indeed a blood relation and beloved disciple (even if James was so also, but did not believe on him), the difficulty of the language is reduced to a minimum. There is no scriptural authority for the Epiphanian theory, but it is made plausible by the ’Gospel according to St. Peter’ and the ’ Protevang. Jacobi,’ which refer to Joseph’s sons. The whole history of its reception in the Church may be seen in the masterly essay of Bishop Lightfoot. The view of Alford, Mill, Farrar, Coder, and many others is in favour of a plain common sense interpretation of the letter of Scripture. Christ, who honoured marriage by his first display of miraculous power, and this at the suggestion of his own mother, and in the society of those who passed undoubtedly as his brothers, would not feel that the faintest shadow of a shade fell on the lofty purity of his mother by this hypothesis. Certainly the Evangelist Matthew had not a vestige in him of that adoration of virginity, or Mariolatry, which has led ecclesiastical historians and commentators to reject the Helvidian hypothesis. Godet and some other harmonists endeavour to find, during the residence in Capernaum, the occasion for the first miraculous draught of fishes, and the final call of the two pairs of brothers; but it is. excluded by the notes of time subsequently given. John 2:12-22 (2) The second sign Supremacy over the theocratic house. Illustrations of righteousness, reverence, power, and sacrificial ministry. John 2:12, John 2:13 They abode there not many days. And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. The narrative at John 2:22; John 3:22; John 4:1, John 4:27, etc., shows, that some disciples were with him; but there is no reason for believing that the whole group were there. The fact is important that Jesus personally is said (ἀνέβη) to have gone up to Jerusalem, and that no reference is made to his disciples, mother, or brethren doing so. This undoubtedly assumes that he was not attended by any compact group of followers. It is more than probable that Simon and James, if not Nathanael and Philip, remained in Galilee to receive their final call in due season. One cannot doubt that John and Andrew were his auditors and witnesses. He went up to utter his prophetic summons to the metropolis of the nation, to take his place in the palace temple of his Father, in the centre of the old theocracy. After showing his perfect human sympathy, his power over physical nature, his abounding resources, and the glory of his love, he resolved that there should be no misunderstanding of his moral mission, and proceeded to institute a public demonstration of his loyalty to the theocracy, to the temple, and to its worship. Just at the moment when the One who, greater than the temple, was about to display his unique claims to a service which would outlive all the pomp of temple worship, it was profoundly significant that he should demand from it a right presentation, and not a corrupt defilement, of its true significance. Modern criticism refuses to accept the statements of the synoptists and of John as alike true, and endeavours to explain away one or the ether account. We are content to say here that a repetition of the Christ’s claim to sanctify the temple was again made on the eve of that awful day when that blood should be shed which would exhaust all the significance of the hecatombs of victims slain in its precincts, and when the veil of the temple should be rent in twain. Weiss here shows that Baur and Hilgenfeld are inconsistent in repudiating the historical character of an early conflict of Jesus with the authorities at Jerusalem, and that they forget, in their eagerness to demonstrate the anti-Jewish character of the Johannine Christ, that he here is represented as a pious Jew, attending the national festivals and jealous for the honour of the temple. The chronological difficulties that arise if the two cleansings are identified amount to the grossest inaccuracy on the part either of the synoptists or John. Lucke, De Wette, Ewald, treat the synoptists as inaccurate, and John’s account, being that of an eyewitness, as the reduction of the event to its proper place in the history. It is obvious that the synoptists knew that words which John recounts had, at an earlier period, made a deep impression upon the multitude. The thief on the cross (Matthew 27:38-44), and the insulting crowds Mark 15:27-29), and Stephen afterwards (Acts 6:14), reveal familiarity with an utterance which John alone recounts, but which had been misunderstood. An ingenious writer in the National Review, 1857 (Mr. R.H. Hutton, "Theological Essays"), believes, not only that the entire scene in the temple, but that Christ’s claim to be the Head of the kingdom, the parables of "wicked husbandmen" and "two sons," and the reference to the "baptism of John," should all be transferred, together with the triumphal entry, to the period in which John has placed the first temple cleansing. He thinks that the reference to the "baptism of John" was more reasonable at that period than two years after the death of John, and that (Matthew 21:11) the reference to "Jesus of Nazareth" was more appropriate at the beginning than at the close of the ministry. But, on the other hand, the inscription on the cross, "Jesus of Nazareth," and the numerous references to the "baptism of John" at a much later date, quite refute this argument. There are those who strenuously assail the historicity of St. John’s account, and plead for the greater accuracy of the synoptists (Strauss, Baur, Hilgenfeld, etc.). But, seeing that the synoptic tradition takes no notice of this preliminary ministry, in which our Lord gives specimens of all his powers and glory, no reason presents itself why they should have singled out one narrative and misplaced it. So long as John’s Gospel is held to have a genuine historicity, his narrative cannot be suffered to be a romantic transposition to meet a preconceived idea of chronological development. The early foreshadowing of the Lord’s death and resurrection, coupled with the reference to Ms being "lifted up" like the serpent of brass, and the cruel treatment received from the people at Nazareth and from scribes and Pharisees at Capernaum, are in living harmony with one another, and combine to refute the idyllic reproduction of the public ministry, which Renan and many others have attempted to fashion, by which the early life is represented as enacted in one blaze of sunshine, and that its close alone was shrouded in clouds and darkened by the Lord’s reckless and suicidal rushing on his fate. We therefore conclude, with numerous critics, that there is (1) no reason to believe that John misplaced the temple cleansing; and (2) that he does not preclude the second act of the like kind recorded in the synoptists; (3) while the synoptists imply occurrences which are detailed in John, but omitted in their narrative, yet the character of the proceeding differs on both occasions. John 2:14 He found in the temple (ἱερόν); the vast enclosure, surrounded by colonnades, where the courts of the Gentiles were situated beyond and outside the courts of "the women" and "the priests." Within the latter was the sanctuary (ναός), or sacred adytum, where the altars of sacrifice and incense faced the veil of the holiest of all. In the court of the temple had been allowed a secular market for sacrificial beasts. An exchange for money was also set up,where Jews were ready to furnish, on usurious terms, the proper coin, the sacred half shekel (value, one shilling and threepence), in which form alone was the temple tax received from the provincial visitors or pilgrims from distant lands. No coin bearing the image of Caesar, or any foreign prince, or any idolatrous symbol then so common, would be allowed in the sacred treasury. So the Lord found those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the exchangers of money sitting; a busy bazaar, deteriorating the idea of the temple with adverse associations. The three sacrificial animals mentioned were those most frequently required. The strangers, doubtless, needed some market where these could be obtained, and where the sufficient guarantee of their freedom from blemish could be secured. It was also indispensable that exchange of coins should have been made feasible for the host of strangers. The profanation effected by transacting these measures in the temple courts was symptomatic of widespread secularism, an outward indication of the corruption of the entire idea of worship, and of the selfishness and pride which had vitiated the solemnity and spirituality of the sacrificial ritual. Geikie has given a very brilliant description of this scene; so also Edersheim, ’Life of Jesus the Messiah.’ The money (κέρμα) was probably derived from a word (κείρω) meaning "to cut," and referred to the minute coins which were required for convenient exchange. The κόλλυβος, which gives its name to κολλυβιστής of the following verse, is also the name of a small (κολοβός, equivalent to "mutilated") coin used for purposes of exchange. The smaller the coin the better, as the minute differences of weight of the foreign coins would thus be more easily measured. John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords (σχοινία of twisted rushes from the scattered fodder or litter of the cattle). This feature of the Lord’s action was not repeated at the close of the ministry. Observe that John singles out this punitive element in the first public appearance of the Lord for especial notice, and adds it to the otherwise resistless force which he was accustomed to wield by the glance of his eye or the tones of his voice. The "scourge," as Godet says, is a symbol, not an instrument. It was in Christ’s hands a conspicuous method of expressing his indignation, and augmenting the force of his command, by an indication that he meant to be obeyed there and then. He drove them all out of the temple court (ἱερόν); that is, the intrusive sellers of the sacrificial beasts, the herdsmen, and traffickers. Also (τὰτε) the sheep and the oxen, which moved at once in a vast group, turning, fleeing to the great exits; and he poured out on the ground, and with his own hand, the coins£ of the exchangers (κολλυβιστῶν), and overthrew the tables. "Christ had," as Hengstenberg says, "a powerful confederate in the consciences of the offenders." The presentiment of coming revolution and overthrow aided the impression produced by that majestic countenance and commanding glance, manner, and voice, that so often made men feel that they were utterly and absolutely in his power (cf. John 18:6, note). John 2:16 And he said to those that sold the doves. The vendors of tethered or caged birds were as guilty of profanation as the rest. Some sentimental comments have gathered round this verse, as though the Lord were more tender in his treatment of the turtle doves than in that of the oxen or sheep. But there would be no meaning in such a distinction. No other way of scattering the doves was so simple as to command their removal. At "the Ammergan Passion play," the doves are let loose, fly away over the heads of the audience, and disappear. The lifting of the scourge, accompanied, doubtless, with words of solemn warning and command, said in effect what he now put into words. Take these things hence. Make not the house of my Father a house of merchandise. In this act our Lord simply assumed the role of any and every Hebrew prophet. The Talmud enjoins the sanctity for which the Saviour pleads. He called the temple "my Father’s house" (cf. Luke 2:49), and therefore claims especially to be the Son of God Most High. The Eternal, the Holy One of Israel, stands in this mysterious relationship to him. He does not say, "our Father’s house." When, however, alter the second cleansing of the temple, he spake of the temple, from which he finally withdrew (Matthew 23:38), he called it by no other name than "your house," "left unto you desolate." Moreover, on that subsequent occasion, he used, in place of "house of merchandise," the bitter description, "den of robbers" (Matthew 21:13). This first act was reformatory of a gross abuse; the latter was judicial and condemnatory (see Hengstenberg, ’Christology’ and ’Comm.,’ Zechariah 14:21; Zephaniah 1:11; Malachi 3:1). Archdeacon Watkins has wisely called attention to the contrast between this scene and sign and that given at Cana. Here we see how true it was that his hour had not yet come. John 2:17 His disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thy house will consume £ me. The future tense, affirmed by the best manuscripts, never (Meyer) bears the present meaning. The disciples, familiar with the Old Testament, remembered at the time the words of Psa 69:9. In that psalm the theocratic Sufferer approached the climax of his sorrows, and admitted that a holy zeal for God’s house will ultimately consume him—eat him up. Tile word is used for consuming emotions, and there is a foreshadowing of the reproach and agony which will befall the righteous Servant of God in his passion for God’s honour. The parallelism of the second clause of the verse, "The reproaches of them that reproached thee have fallen upon me," confirm the application, though the words are not cited. Several other citations are made in the New Testament from this psalm, which, whether it be Messianic in the oracular sense or not, is dearly one that furnished the mind of the early Church with abundant illustration of the suffering of the Christ (Romans 15:3; Romans 11:9, Romans 11:10; Acts 1:20; cf. also Psalms 69:21 with the narrative of the Crucifixion). Thoma labours to find in the Old Testament prophecies generally the true source of the Johannine narrative. He points to Hosea 6:5; Malachi 3:11; Jeremiah 25:29. John 2:18,John 2:19 The Jews therefore answered and said to him. That which the disciples thought at the very time is here recorded by one who affects at least to know their inmost minds and most confidential meditations and talk with one another. John, at least, saw the rising storm of enmity already hurtling, but says nothing. Nevertheless, as if in reply to the imperial prophetic act (which corresponded with John the Baptist’s prediction of One who would come axe in hand), the Jews approached with answer. The "answer" here is in the form of a question, which shows that they had not recognized the sign he had already given, that this temple was his "Father’s house," and that he had solemnly claimed the authority of "Son" over the house. What sign showest thou, because (or, seeing that) thou doest these things? (cf. Matthew 12:38, etc.; John 6:30). Thou art bound to give us some "sign" that thou hast a right to deal thus with established customs and to assume the position of a public reformer. Upon what does thine (ἐξουσία) authority rest? Give us some miraculous proof of these high assumptions, "seeing that (quatenus) thou art doing these things," whose consequences are now so conspicuous. It might be supposed that the extraordinary effect just produced upon the crowd of traffickers was sufficient proof of power, if not of authority. The Jews were within their right in asking for these authentications; but their continuous demand for outward signs is one of the conspicuous features of their character (Matthew 12:38; 1 Corinthians 1:22). In the fundamental nature of a "sign" there is a hint of the true solution of the enigmatical saying which is the first public utterance of our Lord. He gave to the act which he was about to perform the characteristic of a "sign." It would be an outward and visible manifestation of a stupendous spiritual event. This, among other reasons, refutes the modern speculation of Herder, Ewald, Lucke, Renan, and even of Neander, Geikie, and others, that the evangelist was wrong in the explanation of this remarkable saying which he offered in the twenty-first verse. John, who, better than modern commentators can do, ought to have known what the Lord meant, declares that Jesus was speaking of "the temple of his body" when, as the context shows, he was vindicating his right to cleanse the existing temple; and by τὸνναὸντοῦτον, "this sanctuary," he was also pointing to and referring in some sense to the temple structure in the midst of which he and the Jews were standing. The commentators have said, "John was wrong, and was led astray by his own fancies. There was no reference to the death or resurrection of Christ. The Lord meant," say they, "as follows: ’Persist in your lawless, irreverent, unbelieving treatment of the temple, and so destroy it. Let it cease by this handling of yours from being a temple, and I will prove my right to cleanse it, and to reform, rebuke, or condemn your immoral practices in it, by building it again, or rather erecting a spiritual temple, a temple without hands, and in three days, i.e. in a short time after you have consummated your impiety, I will complete my restorative work—I will build a new temple and fill it with my glory.’" If John had not appended the twenty-first verse, "Howbeit he spake concerning the temple of his body," the above interpretation would deserve very close attention and perhaps acceptance. But there are sundry difficulties in it, even if the evangelist had not supplied the true key:—e.g. Christ does not say, "I will raise up ’another’ temple or a ’spiritual’ temple on the ruins of the old;" but "I will raise it up," viz. the temple which I challenge you to "destroy." Though ἐντρισὶνἡμέραις, "in three days," is used in this indefinite sense, in Hosea (Hosea 6:2, LXX.), yet it is the accepted term for the period of three days, which counted from the death to the resurrection of the Lord, and which in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew 12:40) is distinctly foretold to be the great "sign" given to that generation. Moreover, from the Jewish misunderstanding of the words which appear in the synoptic narrative, viz. δια, τρίωνἡμέρων, "during three days," the literal character of the time specified had laid hold, not only of the disciples, but of the multitude. Again, the erection of the spiritual temple would not be an outward and visible sign of the grace and authority of the Lord; but rather the great spiritual reality itself—invisible indeed, and requiring signs to manliest and demonstrate its own occurrence and existence. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ This is the first of the eleven discourses recorded by this evangelist, and for the most part addressed to the cultivated, hierarcical party in Jerusalem, who questioned him in an unfriendly spirit. On the sources of these records, and the degree to which John’s subjectivity coloured his record of them, see Introduction. John 3:1 But there was a man of the Pharisees. Is this narrative introduced, as Baur thinks, to give a specimen of wrongly directed faith, to which Christ did not entrust himself? and was the evangelist busy at once on his great mission of undervaluing the Jewish parties and nation? Certainly not. We have a clear proof that, in the case of the genuine inquirer, Christ did open His very heart; and to a "ruler of Jews," to a "Pharisee," to a "teacher of Israel," he deigned (because he knew what was in the man, and required nobody’s help) to unveil the deepest realities of the kingdom of God and of the salvation of man. Baur is not correct in making Nicodemus out to be a specimen of unbelieving Judaism and unsusceptible Pharisaism, seeing that the later notices of this Sanhedrist show that he became a disciple of Jesus, if secretly, Nicodemus was attracted, as others had been, by the "signs" which Jesus had wrought; but he had gone further and deeper than they, and Jesus "knew it." A controversy has arisen on the point—Did our Lord, by these penetrative glances, manifest his Divine nature, assume a Divine prerogative, or exercise a lofty, penetrative human gift? Westcott, on the philological ground of the contrast in meaning between γινώσκειν and εἰδέναι, urges that the former word, used here, represents knowledge acquired by processes of inquiry and perception, as distinct from the latter, which is reserved for absolute and settled knowledge. Godet, on theological grounds, urges that the phrase refers to the human faculty of observation rather than to the Divine prerogative of heart-searching. There are, however, many other indications of this same thought-mastery, which the evangelists appear to regard as proofs of Divine power; so that I think the real significance of the passage is an ascription to Jesus of Divine power. The supernatural in mind, the superhuman mental processes of Jesus, are part of the proof we have that, though he was Man, he created the irresistible impression that he was more than man. Thus Nathanael and Thomas found these to be the most irresistible proofs of the supreme Divine perfections of their Master (cf. John 1:49; John 4:17; John 6:61; John 11:4, John 11:14; John 13:11; John 21:17; and also Revelation 2:2, Revelation 2:9, Revelation 2:13, etc.). "The man of the Pharisees" furnishes (Godet) a test for determining the authenticity of the narrative. If the lines of the following discourse, which move from the first fundamental conditions of admission into the kingdom of God to the deepest principles of Divine character, and the grounds and consequences of reconciliation with God, are such as meet the standpoint and correct the deductions of the Pharisee, we have, then, all but demonstrative evidence that this conversation did not evolve itself out of the consciousness of the second century. The Pharisaic party was excited by the ministry of John implies a certain timidity, and perhaps unworthy reticence. These are relative terms. Much moral courage must have been required for a ruler of the Jews (a phrase only applicable to a man of high ecclesiastical rank) to have dreamed of doing what he is reported to have done here and elsewhere. The Talmud mentions a Nicodemus ben Gotten, who was also called Bonai, a disciple of Jesus, of great wealth and piety, who survived the destruction of Jerusalem, and therein lost nil his fortune. The hint that he was an old man in this year renders his survival till A.D. 70 improbable, but not impossible by any means. The identification is not complete. The Talmud does not speak of him as a Sanhedrist, though it gives curious details, which imply that he must have been a priest in the temple, and had the charge of providing the water supply for the pilgrims (Geikie, 1:584; Winer, ’Real.,’ 2:152). John 3:2 This man came to him£ by night, and said unto him. To suppose, with many commentators, that the night is here symbolic of the mental condition of the man, is far-fetched. Thoma, here intent on his principle of the fabricated character of the Gospel, compares this to King Saul (Paul’s ancestor!) going by night to Samuel—a type of Christ! There is more probability that the night of the Last Supper was in the mind of John, and that these two nights, the one at the beginning, the other at the close of the ministry of Jesus—nights of extraordinary significance—were impressed ineffaceably on his memory, and, to some extent, contrasted with each other. Nicodemus did not fear the Lord or his disciples, but his own colleagues, whose excitement had already betrayed their sentiments. Without "believing on his Name," they had come to some conclusions, and Nicodemus with them. Rabbi, said he, we know. He does not conceal a common sentiment at that moment agitating his own class in society, and he bestows the honorific title of Rabbi, "my Master," which, as coming from a learned doctor to a humble peasant, was a remarkable testimony to the effect Jesus had indirectly exerted beyond the circle of his immediate hearers: that thou art a Teacher come from God. The phrase, ἀπὸΘεοῦ, precedes "the Teacher come." Certainly it yields to Jesus great dignity. He is God-sent, like the prophets of old. He has a right to teach. His doctorate is a heavenly diploma; and Nicodemus draws a wiser conclusion than the many did who, in some sense, believed on his Name. They were rushing heedlessly forward to further conclusions. Nicodemus saw a grand authority as a Teacher of men, a Heaven-sent Messenger, in the Lord Jesus, and he came to this conclusion from the settled persuasion that no man can tie the signs which thou art performing, if God be not with him. This confession was true, indicating candid and honest inquiry and a teachable mind. It was the very truth which Peter in subsequent times gave to Cornelius as explanation of the healing and beneficent powers of Jesus. Christ knew the whole man, understood at once the honesty of the inquiry, and did entrust himself to Nicodemus. There was more faith in this modest inquiry, in this honest scepticism of his own position, than in the clamours and hosannas of the fickle crowd. John 3:3-21 5. The revelation of earthly and heavenly things to one who knew that God was with him. John 3:3-12 (1) The conditions of admission into the kingdom of God. New birth of the Spirit. John 3:3 Many explanations have been offered of the link of connection between the suggestion of Nicodemus and the reply of Jesus. Many expansions or additions have been conjectured, such as the following, suggested by Christ’s own language elsewhere: "You, by the finger of God, are casting out devils; then the kingdom of God has come nigh unto us. How may we enter upon its further proofs?"—a view which would demand a deeper knowledge of the mind of Christ than we have any reason to suppose diffused at this period. Others (Baumlein) have supposed Nicodemus to have said, "Does the baptism of John suffice for admission into the kingdom?"—a suggestion which would be most strange for a Pharisaic Sanhedrist to have extemporized. At the same time, it may be proved that the rabbis regarded proselytism as a "new birth," and one produced or brought about by circumcision and baptism. Others, again, have put further words into the reply of Jesus, such as, "The kingdom of God is not in the miracles which I am working; it is in a state of things which can only be appreciated by a radical spiritual change" (Lucke). Similarly Luthardt. Nicodemus was thinking of the kingdom of God evinced by miraculous signs; and Jesus points him to the inner reality rather than to the outer manifestation. Godet sees the Pharisaic position in the question of Nicodemus, "Art thou the Messiah? is the kingdom of God near, as thy miracles seem to indicate?" He was assuming that, as a Pharisee, he had nothing to do but walk in the light, the dawn of which was revealed to him in the signs of a divinely sent Teacher. All these views embrace a large amount of possible conjectural truth; but they ignore the play upon the words of Nicodemus, which the answer of Jesus involves, showing that a sharp, clean retort followed the speech of the former. "We know that NO MAN IS ABLE to do these signs which thou art working EXCEPT GOD, BE WITH HIM. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT ONE be born anew, HE IS NOT ABLE to see the kingdom of God." The form of both protasis and apodosis in each sentence closely corresponds, and this correspondence suggests the fact of an immediate repartee. adopting even the form of the question or assertion of the ruler of the Jews. To the "we know" of Nicodemus, comes the "I say unto thee" of Jesus. To the general sentiment of Nicodemus Christ gives a personal application. In place of speculation concerning his own relation to God and to the kingdom, Christ searches in the heart of his questioner for spiritual susceptibility. Over against the general proposition about God being with the Worker of these signs Christ sets the practical truth and Divine possibility of any man seeing the kingdom of God. To the suspicion of Jesus being the Messenger and Minister of God, he opposes the supposition of being born from heaven, or anew. From ancient times commentators have been divided as to the meaning of the word ἄνωθεν—whether it should be rendered "from above" or "anew," "again." The first was favoured by Origen and many others down to Bengel, Lucke, Meyer, Baur, Wordsworth, Lange, based on the local meaning of the word in numerous places; e.g. "from the top" (Matthew 27:51), "from heaven above" (James 3:15, James 3:17; John 3:31; John 19:11). Moreover, John uses the idea of birth from God, or by his will supervening on the life of man, and the consequent conference upon it of a new beginning (John 1:13; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:18). The great point on which our Lord insists is the Divine spiritual origin of the life of which he has so much to say. Several of the English versions, Coverdale’s—and second edition of the Bishops’ Bible—have adopted this rendering, with the Armenian and Gothic versions. The Revised version has placed it in the margin. Against it is to be brought the use of the verb ἀναγεννᾶσθαι (1 Peter 1:3, 33, and in Justin, ’Apol.,’ 1 Peter 1:6)—a word which corresponds with this clause, ἄνωθενγεννηθῆναι, and yet could scarcely be translated "to be born from above," but, "to be born again." The second rendering, giving a temporal value to ἄνωθεν, was adopted by Augustine, Chrysostom (who uses both views), the vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Tholuck, Godet, Westcott, Moulton, Weiss, and Luthardt, and is sustained by the fact that Nicodemus was led by it to an inquiry about (δεύτερονγεννηθῆναι) a second birth. If the expression had had no ambiguity about it, and merely conveyed the idea of a heavenly birth, his mistake would have been greater than it was. There are, moreover, numerous passages confirming the temporal sense of ἄνωθεν (Wettstein and Grimm both quote from Josephus, ’Ant.,’ John 1:18. 3; and Artemidorus, ’Oneiroc.,’ John 1:13); and the παλιγγενεσία of Titus 3:5 points in the same direction. The Jewish rabbi ought to have been familiar with the idea of the "new heart" and "right spirit," and the marvellous and mighty change wrought in men by the Holy Spirit; but the spiritual idea had been overlaid by rabbinic ritualism, and all the hopeless entanglements of ceremonial purity which had been reacts to do duty for spiritual conformity with the Divine will. Archdeacon Watkins reminds us that the Syriac version here gives the rendering "from the beginning," or "anew," and lays great stress on this solution of the ambiguity in the Greek word. The statement of Christ is very remarkable. A man must be born anew, must undergo a radical change, even to see the kingdom of God (cf. Matthew 18:3). The true kingdom is not a Divine government of outward, visible magnificence, sustained by miraculous aid—a physical sovereignty which shall rival and eclipse the majesty of Caesar. When the kingdom shall come in its genuine power, the carnal eye will not discover its presence. The man born anew will alone be able to appreciate it. The Jews boasted that they were born of God (John 8:41), but could not understand that they needed vital, fundamental, moral renewal—a second birth, a new beginning. Let the opening of Christ’s Galilaean ministry be compared with this bold utterance. There in public discourse he called upon all men everywhere to "repent," to undergo a radical change of mind, and that because the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Μετάνοια portrays the same change as παλιγγενεσία; but one term denotes thai; change as a human experience and effort, the other as a Divine operation. Neither repentance nor regeneration commended itself to the rabbinic mind as a necessity for one who was exalted by privilege and ennobled by obedience. The phrase, "kingdom of God," is not a mode of representing truth to which this Gospel calls frequent attention. Still our Lord to Pilate (John 18:36) admits that be is himself the Head of kingdom which is "not from hence"—not resting on this world as its foundation or source. In Matthew the whole of the mission of Christ among men is repeatedly portrayed as "the kingdom of heaven." And from the time when the Lord ascended until now, various efforts have been made to realize, to discover, to embody, to emblazon, to crush, to ignore, that kingdom and its King. This great utterance is a key to much of the history of the Church, and an explanation of its numberless mistakes. Moreover, it supplies an invaluable hint of the true nature of the kingdom of God. Thoma insists on the other rendering of ἄνωθεν, and compares it with the Philonic doctrine, "that the substance of the νοῦς is not attributed to that which is created, but is breathed into the flesh from above (ἄνωθεν) by God …Aim, O soul, at the bodiless essence of the spirit world as thy inheritance." These ideas, he thinks, John has placed into the lips of Jesus. The two classes of ideas are fundamentally distinct. Philo contrasts the sensuous and the intellectual; Christ is contrasting nature and grace. John 3:4 Nicodemus saith to him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? The numerous endeavours to interpret the motive or mind of Nicodemus show almost as much misunderstanding of the naiveté of his amazement, as Nicodemus did of the deepest significance of this solemn utterance of the Lord. Two things are perfectly clear: (1) Nicodemus saw a grave and amazing difficulty in the idea of a second birth of a man old, like himself, in years, prepossessions, habits of thought, ways of acting, social ties, ancestral and traditional customs, and in venerable ideas consecrated by long usage. He might have known the language of the prophets concerning circumcision of heart (Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4) and concerning a new heart and right spirit (Ezekiel 36:26, Ezekiel 36:27; Psalms 51:10; Psalms 86:4); but the full bearing of these prophetic ideas were beyond and different to the almost drastic form of Christ’s call for spiritual change and "birth from the beginning." There is no necessity for us to accuse him either of "narrowness" (Meyer) or of imbecility (Reuss, Lucke), or to make such a charge react upon the spirit or temper of the evangelist in delineating him. It is enough that Nicodemus should have seen a grave difficulty; and Thoma here is justified in referring to the language of the apostles, when the narrow entrance into the kingdom was set forth under the image of the camel and the needle’s eye; and to Mary, when she cried, "How can this thing be?" Moreover, the same perplexity, after eighteen hundred years of Christian experience, still encumbers this utterance of the Master. (2) Nicodemus did not, by the form of his question, put such query to the Lord in any literal baldness or insolent worldliness. Surely such a view ignores all the tropical methods of speech current in the rabbinical schools. He virtually said," Birth such as you speak of is as impossible as the second physical birth of an old man, as preposterous as would be re-entrance into the womb of his mother for the purpose of a second birth." Christ had spoken of a fundamental change—one going right down to the very sources and beginnings of life. The Lord had used this difficult image, and propounded his view in a term capable of various interpretation. Nicodemus simply expresses his alarm and incredulity in terms of the image itself. It is little more than the language of the prophet, "Can an Ethiopian change his skin, or a leopard his spots?" Are you not proposing a natural impessibility? Must not the kingdom of God, which we thought we saw in thy advent and mighty deeds, be on this understanding hopelessly veiled from human vision? The "being old" shows that Nicodemus had gone through the metaphor to the condition of mind of which it was the subject. There was no greater physical difficulty in an old man re-entering his mother’s womb than for a boy of twelve to do so; but being probably, not necessarily, an old man, and belonging to a society of grave, reverend elders, with the inveterate habits, practices, traditions, of long lives behind them, how impracticable and impossible does the notion of so complete a change appear to him! Hence his question. Westcott says admirably, "The great mystery of religion is not the punishment, but the forgiveness of sins; not the natural permanence of character, but spiritual regeneration." John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man (any one) have been born (out) of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This memorable utterance has been the occasion of much controversy, arising from the contested sanction thus supposed to be given to the opus operatura of baptism, and to the identification of water baptism with Spirit baptism. Expositors have asserted that the rite of water baptism is not merely regarded as the expressive symbol and prophecy of the spiritual change which is declared to be indispensable to admission into the kingdom, but the veritable means by which that baptism of the Spirit is effected. Now, in the first place, we observe that the sentence is a reply to Nicodemus, who had just expressed his blank astonishment at the idea that a fundamental change must pass over a man, in any sense equivalent to a second birth, before he can see the kingdom of God. Our Lord modifies the last clause, and speaks of entering into the kingdom of God rather than perceiving or discerning the features of the kingdom. Some have urged that ἰδεῖν of John 3:3 is equivalent to εἰσελθεῖνεἰς of John 3:5. The vision, say they, is only possible to those who partake of the privileges of the kingdom. But the latter phrase does certainly express a further idea—a richer and fuller appreciation of the authority and glory of the King; just as the "birth of water and of the Spirit" conveys deeper and further thought to Nicodemus, than did the previously used expression, γεννηθῇἄνωθεν. The first expression was dark in the extreme; the latter pours light upon it. "Birth of water" points at once to the method so frequently adopted in Jewish ceremonial, by which a complete change of state and right before God was instituted by water. Thus, a man who had not gone through the appropriate and commanded lustrations was unfit to present his offering, to receive the benediction sought by his sacrificial presentment; the priest was not in a fit state to carry the blood of the covenant into the holy place without frequent washings, which indicated the extent and defilement of his birth stain. Nicodemus for probably thirty years had seen priests and men thus qualifying themselves for solemn functions. So great was the urgency of these ideas that, as he must have known, the Essenes had formed separate communities, with the view of carrying out to the full consummation the idea of ritual purity. More than this, it is not improbable that proselytes from heathen nations, when brought into covenant relation with the theocratic people, were, at the very time of this conversation, admitted by baptismal rites into this privilege. To the entire confusion of Pharisee and Sadducee, John the Baptist had demanded of every class of the holy people "repentance unto remission of sins," a demand which was accepted on the part of the multitudes by submitting to the rite of baptism. The vastly important question then arises’—Did John by this baptism, or by any power he wielded, give to the people repentance or remission of sins? Certainly not, if we may conclude from the repeated judgment pronounced by him self and by the apostles after him. Nothing but the blood and Spirit of Christ could convey either remission or repentance to the souls of men. John preached the baptism of repentance unto remission, but could confer neither. He taught the people to look to One who should come after him. He sharply discriminated the baptism with water from the baptism of the Spirit and fire. This discrimination has been repeatedly referred to already in this Gospel. Thus the Fathers of the Church saw distinctly that there was no regenerating efficacy in the water baptism of John, and the Council of Trent elevated this position into a canonical dogma. It is most melancholy that they did not also perceive that this judgment of theirs about the baptism of John applied to water baptism altogether. Christ’s disciples baptized (not Christ himself, John 4:2) with water unto repentance and remission; but even up to the day of Pentecost there is no hint of this process being more than stimulus to that repentance which is the gift of God, and to the consequent pardon which was the condition of still further communication of the Holy Spirit. The great baptism which Christ would administer was the baptism of Spirit and fire. The references to the baptism of the early Church are not numerous in the New Testament, but they are given as if for the very purpose of showing that the water baptism was not a necessary or indispensable condition to the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius and his friends received the sacred bestowment before baptism. The language of the Ethiopian ennuch shows that he had received the holy and best gift of Divine illumination and faith before baptism. Simon Magus was baptized with water by Philip, but was in the gall of bitterness and un-spirituality. There is no proof at all that the apostles of Christ (with the exception of Paul) wore ever baptized with water, unless it were at the hands of John. Consequently, we cannot believe, with this entire group of facts before us, that our Lord was making any ceremonial rite whatsoever indispensable to entrance into the kingdom. His own reception and forgiveness of the woman that was a sinner, of the paralytic, and of the dying brigand, his breathing over his disciples as symbolic of the great spiritual gift they were afterwards to receive, is the startling and impressive repudiation of the idea that Christian baptism in his own name, or, still less, that that ordinance treated as a supernaturally endowed and divinely enriched sacrament, was even so much as referred to in this great utterance. But the entire system of Jewish, proselyte, and Johannine baptisms was in the mind of both Nicodemus and Christ. These were all symbolic of the confession and repentance, which are the universal human conditions of pardon, and, as a ritual, were allowed to his disciples before and after Pentecost, as anticipatory of the great gift of the Holy Spirit. No baptism, no "birth out of water," can give repentance or enforce confession; but the familiar process may indicate the imperative necessity for both, and prove still more a prophecy of the vital, spiritual transformation which, in the following verse, is dissociated from the water altogether. Calvin, while admitting the general necessity for baptism, repudiates the idea that the rite is indispensable to salvation, and maintains that "water" here means nothing different or other than "the Spirit," as descriptive of one of its great methods of operation, just as "Holy Spirit and fire" are elsewhere conjoined. John 3:6 That which hath been born of the flesh, is flesh. Σάρξ is not the physical as opposed to the spiritual or immaterial. nor is σάρξ necessarily sinful, as we see from John 1:14, but as it often appears in John’s writing and Paul’s, σάρξ is the constituent element of humanity as apart from grace—humanity (body, intellect, heart, conscience, soul, spirit) viewed on its own side and merits and capacity, without the Divine life, or the Divine supernatural inbreathing. The being born of the flesh is the being born into this world, with all the privations and depravations, evil tendencies and passions of a fallen humanity. Birth into the theocracy, birth into national or ecclesiastical privilege, birth that has no higher quality than flesh, no better germ or graft upon it. simply produces flesh, humanity over again. When the Logos "became flesh," something more than and different from ordinary traduction of humanity took place.£ Destitute of any higher birth than the birth of flesh, man is fleshly, psychical, earthly, σαρκικόςψυχικόςχοΐκός (Romans 7:14-25), and, more than that, positively opposed to the will and grace of God, lashed with passions, defiled with debasing ideas, in enmity against God. Hence the birth "from the Spirit" is entirely antithetic to the birth from the flesh. That which hath been born of the Spirit, is spirit. There is a birth which supervenes on the flesh-be-gotten man, and it is supernaturally wrought by the Spirit of God. As in the first instance, at man’s creation, God breathed into man the breath of life, and by that operation man became a living soul; so now the new birth of man is wrought in him by the Spirit, and there is a new life, a new mode of being, a new bias and predomimating impulse. "A spiritual mind which is life and peace" has taken the place of the old carnal mind. He is "spiritual," no longer "psychical," or "carnal," but able to discern the things that are freely given to him. The eye of the spirit is opened, unsealed, the τὰτοῦπνεύματος are revealed to him (1 Corinthians 2:12-16; 1 Corinthians 3:1-5). The reference to "birth of water" is not repeated, because the birth from water is relatively unimportant, and of no value apart from the Spirit-change of which it may be a picture, or even a synonym. More than that, the Spirit-birth, the Divine operation, is the efficient cause of that which, under the form of a human experience, is called μετάνοια. The human metanoia, rather than the new birth, is the great burden of our Lord’s public address, as recorded in the synoptic Gospels. In both representations the same fact, the same condition and state of the human consciousness, is referred to. In "repentance," however, and in the moral characters which are the several preliminaries to the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, a change is declared necessary for the constitution and inauguration of the kingdom of heaven. This change is there viewed from the standpoint of human experience, and urged in the form of a direct appeal to conscience. In this discourse to Nicodcmus the same change is exhibited on its Divine side, and as one produced by the Spirit of God. In the Sermon on the Mount "meekness," "poverty of spirit," "mourning," "hunger after righteousness," "purity of heart," the spirit of forgiveness and long suffering, are the moral conditions of those minds and hearts which would become the city of God and the light of the world (Matthew 5:1-12). On this occasion, when addressing the learned rabbi, Christ sums all up in the demand for a birth from the Spirit—a new and spiritual recommencement of life from the Spirit of God. The clause found in the vetus Itala and the Syriac, quia Deus spiritus est, et de Deo natus est, is a gloss sustained by no Greek manuscript authority. Thorns here quotes two interesting passages from Philo, 1:533, 599, where the νοῦς is spoken of as given to man from above, and where the supremacy of the spiritual over the fleshly is made the only guarantee of admission into the world of spirit. But Philo obviously meant the intellectual rather than the moral element in human nature, and prized the ascetic process rather than the supernatural regeneration. John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew. Nicodemus had revealed, by his expressions of countenance or unrecorded words, his surprise. This further explanation deepened the solemnity of the first assertion by a bold antithesis between the birth of flesh producing nothing but flesh, however high its culture, and the birth of spirit from the Spirit himself, the heavenly and Divine Originator of all genuine repentance, and the sole Cause of the new life. Nicodemus was clinging more and more eagerly to the old ideas of national privilege, of sacramental purification, of soundly taught principles and habits. He marvelled at such representation which took the heart out of all his previous training. The Messianic kingdom for which he had been looking and longing seemed to fade away in the clouds of an utter mysticism, and to vanish out of his power of recognition. Our Lord gently reproved the expression of his surprise, and reminded him of the previous utterance, "I said to thee, Ye," etc. Nicodemus had come in the name of others. Jesus replies, and reasserts the principles for the entire group of persons which Nicodemus might be supposed to represent. We must not fail to notice that, whereas in other parts of the discourse our Lord speaks in the plural first person, yet be discriminates himself from. others in this statement. He does not say, "We must," etc., but "Ye must," etc. He had no consciousness of personal need of regeneration, nor was he in the first case born as flesh from flesh. His flesh was itself the work of the Spirit. John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it willeth, and thou hearest (his voice) the sound thereof, but thou knowest not whence it cometh and whither it goeth. Vulgate (followed by Wickliffe and the Rheims versions) is, Spiritus ubi vult spirat et vocem ejus audis, sed nescis unde veniat, aut quo vadat: sic est omnis qui natus est ex Spiritu. Augustine, though acquainted with the other rendering, approves of this; so Origen, Bengel. The great majority of commentators and versions have held that the former of the two translations is correct; that the first time the word Πνεῦμα is used, it refers to the wind, "the unseen similitude of God the Spirit—his most meet and mightiest sign;" and that, since the same word is used for the two things, Spirit and wind, the Lord, after the parabolic manner which he adopted (in the synoptic Gospels), took advantage of some gusts of roaring wind then audible, to call attention to the mystery and incomprehensibility of its origin or end, and to see a parallel between the unknown ways of the wind and the unknown points of application to the human spirit of the mighty energy of the living God. The passage, Ecclesiastes 11:5, may have been in his mind (though there "Spirit" is as likely to be the reference as is the motion of the "wind," and our ignorance of the way of the Spirit is akin to our ignorance of the formation of bones in the womb of her who is with child), and the adoption of the unusual word πνεῖ (cf. John 6:18; Revelation 7:1; Matthew 7:25; Acts 27:40) is in support of the comparison between "wind" and the "Spirit;" while the φωνή, the "voice" or sound of the wind in trees or against any barriers, and the other effects that the rapid motion of the air produces, gives a lively illustration of the method in which the Spirit of God works in human minds, revealing, not itself, but its effects. The parallel is not peculiar to Scripture. It is further urged that the following clause, So is every one that hath been born£ of the Spirit—meaning, So doth it happen to every one who is born of the Spirit—suggests the analogy between πνεῦμα in its material sense, and πνεῦμα in its customary and deeper sense. Now, on the other hand, it appears to me that this latter clause is compatible with the older translation and application. There is a comparison, but it may be between the mysterious working, breathing of the Divine Spirit, whose "voice" or "word" may be heard, whose effects are present to our senses and consciousness, but the beginnings and endings of which are always lost in God,—and the special operations of Divine grace in the birth of the Spirit. There are numberless operations of the Spirit referred to in the Old Testament, from the first brooding of the Spirit on the formless abyss, to all the special and mighty effects wrought in creation, all the heightening and quickening of human faculty, all the conference of special strength upon men—their intellectual energies and Divine inspirations. Over and above all these, there is all the supernatural change wrought in souls by the Holy Spirit. Christ calls this a "birth of the Spirit," and declares that, according to all the mysterious comings and departings of the Spirit, leaving only manifold effects, so is the special Divine work which morally and spiritually recreates humanity. Pneuma is used three hundred and fifty times in the New Testament, and twenty times in this Gospel for "the Spirit;" and if the usage is reversed here, this is the solitary occasion. The word θέλει, is, moreover, more appropriate to a living Being than to the wind. There is another way which suggests itself by which the word Πνεῦμα may mean the same in both clauses: The breath of God bloweth where it listeth, etc., so is every one born of the breath of God. If this be possible, the form of the expression supplies a cooperating similitude drawn from the unknown origin and mighty effects of the unseen breath of heaven; and on this translation the comparison is drawn between all the ways of the Spirit and the special work of the Spirit in regeneration. An inference is deducible from either interpretation of this verse, incompatible with the theory that "birth from water" is equivalent to "regeneration in baptism." If the rite of baptism provided the moment and occasion of the spiritual result, we should know whence it came and whither it went. We might not know "how," but we should know "when" and "whence" the spiritual change took place. But this knowledge is distinctly negatived by Christ, who herein declares the moment of the spiritual birth to be lost or hidden in God. Physical birth is a deep mystery, both whence the "spirit" comes and whither it goes; the signs of the presence of life are abundant, but there is an infinite difference between the stillborn or dead child and the living one. Similarly, the commencement of the Spirit’s creation within our nature is lost in mystery. We discern its presence by its effects, by consciousness of a new life and sense of a new world all around the newly born, but the Spirit-birth, like all the other operations of the Spirit, is hidden in God. John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, How can these things come to pass? He takes the position now of a learner, and does not by his query repudiate regeneration as absolutely impossible, but he asks the questions "why" and "how." He may reveal his continued ignorance of the subject matter, but he is willing to be taught. The idea we form of our Lord’s reply is regulated by the strict meaning we assign to the question—(πῶς;) "how?" (cf. Romans 2:19, Romans 2:29, and note on Romans 2:12). John 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, Art thou the teacher of Israel, and perceivest thou not these things? The term "Israel" is used four times by John (John 1:31, John 1:49; John 12:13; and here). In each place the high dignity, calling, and glory of the nation chosen for the loftiest privilege and destiny are involved. Notice the article, "the Israel" of God. The article before διδάσκαλος gives a high distinction to Nicodemus. Schottgen and Lucke suppose some special office to be here referred to, either the president of the Sanhedrin, or the hakim, or chakam, "the wise man," who sat on his left in the public sessions, or the "father of the house of judgment," who sat on his right; but it may simply mean the teacher of Israel, who has come to me in representative fashion, and who is reminded that he should have been more intimately acquainted with the teaching of his own sacred books. Without doubt, the fact of human corruption, and the power of the Spirit of God to renovate, to change utterly down to the very core and heart of human nature, is a great dogma of the Old Testament (cf. Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; 1 Samuel 10:9, where God gave Saul another heart; 1 Samuel 16:13, the effect upon David; David’s own prayer, Psalms 51:10; and the great promises of God by Ezekiel, Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 18:31; Ezekiel 36:26; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 31:33). Nicodemus, an illustrious man, a teacher of ethers, presumably acquainted with the teaching of the Scriptures, need not have been in such doubt and amazement at the searching words of Jesus. John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say to thee, We speak that which we know, and testify that which we have seen. Lucke and Meyer think that our Lord here merely uses the pluralis majestaticus—uses it as St. Paul does, when clearly he was referring to himself alone. It is difficult to believe this in the curious and impressive change of person here adopted, and the return to the first person singular in John 3:12. There was some reason why Jesus, in making this particular saying, uses the plural. (1) Luthardt says, "Christ and the Baptist." (2) Luther and Tholuck, "Christ and the whole prophetic company." (3) Stier, "The Three Persons of the blessed Trinity" (see Chrysostom, etc.). (4) Hengstenberg, Godet, Westcott, Moulton, have in various ways recognized the fact that the company of the disciples already called into the spiritual kingdom, and alive to the mighty power of the Spirit in recreating humanity, were present at this interview. They stood there to affirm the reality of the truth of which their Lord was speaking. Nothing in this sentence is incongruous with the experience and practice of those who had appreciated and were already speaking of the necessity of radical change or spiritual regeneration and of genuine repentance. John in his First Epistle (John 1:1-4) uses some of the very phraseology of this solemn verse, ὃἑωράκαμεν … μαρτυροῦμεν. Our Lord, on this occasion, gave him permission to do so. The knowledge which he spake of, the vision to which he testified, was in its way and to a degree within the compass of any disciple who had been waked up by the Lord’s words to crave an entirely new beginning of his life, a birth of the Spirit. And ye receive not our testimony. This melancholy assertion proves that from the very first (as John said in his "prologue" concerning all the ministry of the Logos, and all the testimony of the prophetic Spirit to the reality of the light) "the darkness reeeiveth it not." The first demand which the Divine Lord made was rejected, the first "testimony" was disbelieved. From the beginning the dark shadow of death fell on his path. Nicodemus, or those whom he represented, may have had their curiosity excited, but their entire attitude was non-admission of the fundamental principle, viz. the inward illumination and life he came to supply. John 3:12 If I told you earthly things and ye believe not, how will ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things? Our Lord here drops the plural form of address, and returns to the singular. He is about to refer to matters in which the testimony of disciples was not available. It has sometimes been said that the "earthly" and "heavenly" things refer to the wind parable and its interpretation. But, on the supposition that there is a parable or metaphor in John 3:8, which we have seen reason to doubt, there would be no perplexity about the reception of the earthly illustration; none could in that day have made a moment’s question touching the invisibility and incomprehensibility of the motion of the wind. The birth from water has been supposed by others to be the (ἐπίγειον) "earthly" thing of which he had spoken, as contrasted with the heavenly thing, the birth anew from the Spirit. But this also is improbable, for of all the things of which Jesus spoke, that was the least likely to have been rejected by the Pharisaic party. The "earthly things" are the subject matter of the discourse as a whole, in apprehending which Nicodemus manifested such obtuseness. The change, renovation of human nature, the new beginning "from the Spirit" of each human life, was indeed operated on the ground of an earthly experience, and came fairly within the compass of common appreciation. Though produced by the Spirit, these things were enacted on earth. When Nicodemus asks the question "how?" he launches the inquiry into another region. There is wide difference between the question "what?" and the question "how?" The one in physical science refers to the whole range of phenomena, and the answer states the facts as they present themselves to the senses; the other question inquires into what Bacon called the latens processus—into verae causae, into the movements and method of the creative hand. So the answer to the question "what?" may be an "earthly thing," the answer to the question "how?" a "heavenly thing." If Christ answer the "how" of his listener, he raises his mind to the "heavenly" and transcendental realities which Nicodemus and we too will have to receive on an authority which entirely outsoars that of daily experience or temporal phenomena. Truly he does proceed to do so, but the difficulty of acceptance is indefinitely augmented. The answer of Christ to the matters of personal experience, verifiable by conscience and affirmed by Scripture, was difficult to the master of Israel. The answer of Jesus to the question "how?" may prove far more formidable. It involves the revelation of "the Son of man," and the redemption by the cross, and the ascension of the Son of man into heaven, and the love of God to the world, and the gift of eternal life to faith. John 3:13-15 (2) The truth concerning the Son of man and his sacrifice. John 3:13 And. The simple copula is here fuller significance. Olshausen regards it as "adversative," equivalent to "yet." Meyer, as a simple continuation of the previous statement. The καὶ has more than a mere conjunctive force. Lance puts it thus: "And yet you must be told heavenly things by him who, being the Heavenly One, is himself the first subject of this revelation." No one hath ascended into heaven. The past tense must be honestly considered. The word cannot refer to the future ascension of Jesus the Lord of glory to where he was before—to the glory which he had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5); nor can it refer, as the Socinian interpreters supposed, to a rapture into heaven of the Divine Man between his baptism and temptation, of which we have not the faintest trace either in Scripture or tradition; nor is it sufficient, with Hengstenberg and others, to regard it as a mere Hebraism for high and exalted intercourse with God and heavenly things. True, there have been many who have sought to climb the steep ascent (Genesis 11:4; Isaiah 14:13); true also that rabbis spoke of Moses having "ascended into the heavens," by which (says Whitby) they meant "admission to the Divine counsels." The authority on which he depends is the late ’Targum on Son 1:5, Son 1:11, Son 1:12,’ by which, however, all that is clear is that the Targnmist was referring to the ascent of Moses to the top of Sinai, i.e. above the multitude in the deserts, to the place whither Jehovah came to speak with him. But Exodus 20:22, the canonical Scripture, makes it clear that it was "from the heavens" that Jehovah spoke with his servant. There are, however, other passages quoted by Schottgen from Jerusalem Targum on Deuteronomy 30:12, and from the ’Mishna,’ in which Moses is said to have "ascended into heaven, and heard the voice of God;" but further inquiry leads us to judge that the Hebrew commentators were thinking of the going up to Sinai for his lofty revelations, and their followers have supposed that this process was a synonym of the revelations themselves. Many have thought to rise above the world to the beatific vision, but Jesus says none have done it in the only sense in which they would have been thereby fitted to discourse on the heavenly things. Two things are needed for this in the main—to be in heaven, and come thence charged with its Divine communications. Enoch, Elijah, may have been translated that they should not see death, but they are not so lifted into the abode of God that they might come thence charged with heavenly truth, and able to explain the "how" of Divine grace. No one hath ascended into heaven except he who has by living there as in his eternal home come down from heaven. Meyer, Luthardt, Westcott, etc., all call attention to other and analogous usage of εἰμὴ, which fastens upon a part of the previous negative, not the whole assertion, and therefore here upon the idea of living in heaven and coming thence (Matthew 12:4; Luke 4:26, Luke 4:27; Galatians 1:7). Man, if he should presume to come with a full revelation of Divine and heavenly things, must come down from a height to which he had previously ascended; but no man has thus and for this purpose ascended, except he who has descended from heaven, having been there before his manifestation in the flesh, having been "in God." "with God," "in the bosom of the Father," and having come thence, not losing his essential ego, his Divine personality, even though calling himself the Son of man. For any other to have come down from heaven, it was necessary that he should first have ascended thither; but the Son of man has descended without having ascended. He calls himself "Son of man," and he claims to have come down from heaven without ceasing to be what he was before. Godet urges that, by the "ascended into heaven," he meant such lofty communion with God and immediate knowledge of Divine things as to differentiate him from all others, but that the phrase, "come down from heaven," implies previous existence in his native place, and that the Lord’s filial intimacy with God rests on his essential sonship. Still, he conceives that Jesus asserts his own ascension in the spiritual sense to the heart of God, and his descent with consequent resultant knowledge, and expounds both statements by the explanation that as Son of man he is living the twofold life in heaven and on earth at the same time. By using the term, "Son of man," Christ emphasized the exalted dignity that is involved in the extent of his self-humiliation,, and complete sympathy with us. He was the second Adam, the Lord from heaven."£ Who is (not was) in heaven. If this be only an early gloss, it throws light on the two previous clauses. It declares that, though he came down, and though his introduction to this world was an incarnation, yet that he is in the deepest sense still in heaven. Such language is a vindication of his claim to reveal heavenly things. Augustine says, "Ecce hic erat et in coelo erat, hic erat in carne, in coelo erat divinitate, natus de matre, non recedens a Patre." Again, "Si Paulus ambulabat in carne in terra et conversabatur in coelo, Deus coeli et terrae poterat esse et in coelo et in terra." Archdeacon Watkins says admirably, "If heaven is a state, a life, in which we are, which is in us, now in part, hereafter in its fulness, then we may understand, and with glad hearts hold to, the vital truth that the Son of man who came down from heaven was ever in heaven." John 3:14, John 3:15 And. Seeing that our Lord had claimed supreme right to speak of heavenly things, he proceeds at once to speak of them also. There may be many ways of taking the καὶ: supposing that it indicates a transition from the person of the Lord to his work. From his Divine and endowed humanity thus shown to be competent to explain and re veal heavenly things, he proceeds to his atoning sacrifice. These underlying links of connection are not mutually exclusive. Even as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must also the Son of man be lifted up. The narrative of Num 21:8, etc., is one of the rest curious in Scripture, and it was a great puzzle to the Jewish commentators, who felt that it was in apparent violation of the second command of the Decalogue. Moreover, in the days of Hezekiah the reverence paid to the serpent led to disastrous consequences and puritanic removal of the idolatrous snare. The Jewish divines consulted by Trypho were unable to explain it. Philo regarded it as a designed contrast to the serpent of the Book of Genesis, but he supposed the antithesis to be that between pleasure and righteousness or prudence (’De Leg. All.,’ Genesis 2:1.80). The Book of Wisdom (Genesis 16:6), "The murmuring people were troubled for a while for warning, having a symbol of salvation … he that turned to it was saved, not by reason of that which he beheld, but by reason of the Saviour of all." Ferguson, in his ’Tree and Serpent Worship,’ regards the narrative as an indication that within the bosom of Israel the worship of the serpent had been introduced and had left its traces. But the narrative itself shows that the serpent healing from the serpent bite was a Jehovistie symbol of Divine love and victory. The ’Test. XII. Patr. Benj.,’ 9, refers to it as the type of the cross (cf. Philippians 2:9; Acts 2:33). "Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived." The fiery flying serpent, with its poisonous bite and its deadly malice, was the vivid type of the evil of disobedience to the Divine command, infusing its malign venom into the whole nature of its victim. The serpent of brass was not venomous, though it bore the likeness of the deadly plague. It was not flying, gliding from tent to tent, but captured, still, hoisted triumphantly upon the pole, a sign of its conquest. The serpent in Hebrew and Christian literature throughout was emblematic of evil, not as in many Oriental religions, of healing or deliverance (see Genesis 3:1; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 12:9; and, properly translated, Job 26:13, Revised version); and it is possible to see in this type an anticipation of the "lifting up" of Jesus on the cross. There are several interpretations of the ὑψωθῆναι. Paulus urged that Jesus by it referred to the final glorification of himself; but if so, why was not the word δοξασθῆναι used? It may mean, with Bleek, Lechler, Godet, the exaltation upon the cross as the steppingstone to his glory, the way, not only to David’s throne, but to the very throne of God—a conception profoundly different from the current Pharisaic notions concerning the Messiah. The word is used in John 8:28 and John 12:32, John 12:34 for the passion of the cross, although Peter (Acts 2:33) and Paul (Philippians 2:9) used it for the glorification consequent upon the Passion. Surely the word does, if it is to correspond with Moses’ exaltation of the serpent of brass, point to the exaltation of the cross, but to that as to the very throne of his power and glory. Tholuck says, "A word must have been used in Aramaic which admitted both ideas, and the word כָקַזְ means in Chaldee and Syriac to ’lift up’ and ’crucify.’" Many striking relations thus present themselves. (1) The Lord was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, though without sin. (2) The evil of sin was seen in him conspicuously revealed, but conquered; not only conquered, but transformed into a remedy. The enemy of man, the world itself, was crucified on the cross of Christ. Sin was nailed to the cross when, in the likeness of sinful flesh, the eternal Son of God made flesh submitted to all the shame of the flesh. "The world is crucified unto me," says Paul ("in the cross of Christ"), "and I to the world." Jesus says, "Even so must the Son of man be lifted up." The Son of man here on earth, but having always a Divine life in heaven, when revealed in human nature, subject to the laws and destiny of the flesh, "must" be lifted up. This pathway to his glory must pass through the blood and agony of the Passion. There was a needs be in the Divine counsel, in the purposes of Divine love, in the fall measure of the grace which was welling from the heart of God. (3) The comparison, however, and relation between type and antitype is more conspicuous still in the fifteenth verse, where Jesus added: In order that whosoever believeth might have in him eternal life.£ Granting that the above is the true text, in our translation an instance occurs of the frequent absolute usage of πιστεύειν (πιστεύεινἐναὐτῷ is not a Johannine phrase, while we do find (John 5:39; John 16:33; John 20:31) that "life," "peace," are "in him"). On this ground, if we retain the ἐναὐτῷ, we translate it as above. The object of faith is not specified; but he who believes, who looks with God-taught longing to the Christ, to the Son of man uplifted to save, sees God at his greatest, his best, and discerns the fullest revelation of the redeeming love. "Believing" corresponds with "looking" in the narrative of Num 21:1-35. Whosoever "looked, lived." Such looking was an act of faith in the promise of Jehovah; the otherwise despairing, dying glance of poisoned men was a type of the possibility of a universal salvation for sin-envenomed, devil-bitten, perishing men. Let them believe, and there is life. Let them understand the meaning of the Son of man thus exhausting the curse, and enduring in love the burden and penalty of human transgression, and they have straightway a life that is spiritual, fundamentally and radically new, a life heavenly and eternal. Thus can this vast change of which he had spoken to Nicodemus supervene. "How," asks Nicodemus, "can this be?" "Thus may it be," answers the Son of man. It is not necessary that all the mystery of the cross should have been perceived by Nicodemus, yet the subsequent references to this man make it highly probable that, when he saw Jesus suspended on the cross, instead of giving way to unbelief and despair, he was stimulated to an act of lofty faith (John 19:39, and note). In this great utterance we have the answer which Paul addressed to the Philippian jailer, and we have the argument of Paul in Romans 1:1-32, Romans 2:1-29, and we infer that the sources of the Pauline doctrine were to be found in the known teaching of the Lord himself. Many commentators, beginning with Erasmus, and followed by Neander, Tholuck, Lucke, Westcott, and Moulton, have supposed that our Lord’s discourse with Nicodemus ended with Romans 2:15, and that thenceforward we have the reflections in after times made by the evangelist, in harmony with the teachings which he had received from the Lord. This is urged on the ground that in John 1:18, and at the close of the present chapter (John 1:31-36), when reciting the testimony of the Baptist, it appears to the commentators that John has blended his own reflections with the words of the Baptist, adding them without break to the sentences which he does record (see notes). I am not prepared to admit the analogy; there is nothing in these words, if attributed to the Baptist, incompatible with the purely Old Testament position and transition standpoint to which he adhered. The argument drawn from the past tenses, ἠγάπησεν and ἔδωκεν, is not incompatible with the large view of the whole transaction which the Son of God adopted, as though in the fulness of its infinite love it had already been consummated. We are told that there are certain phrases which nowhere else are ascribed to Jesus himself, such as "only begotten Son"—a term which is found in the prologue (John 1:14, John 1:18) and First Epist. (1 John 4:9), i.e. in John’s own composition. The reply is that John used this great word on the specified occasion because he had heard it on the lips of Jesus; that he would not have dared to use it if he had not had the justification of such use, the like to which he here recounts. The believing εἰςτὸὄνομά—"on the name of"—does not occur, it is said, in the recorded words of Jesus, though it is found in the discourse of the evangelist himself in John 1:12; John 2:23; and 1 John 5:13. The same criticism applies. John used it because he had heard our Lord thus deign to express himself. Moreover, the commencement of the paragraph, by the use of the particle γὰρ, shows that no break has occurred, that a richer and fuller and more triumphant reason is to be given for the obtaining of life eternal than that which had already been advanced. He passes from the Son of man (who is in heaven, and came from heaven and God) to the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. He speaks in more practical and explanatory form of the Object of faith, and the Divine source of the arrangement and its issues. A flood of new thoughts and some terms occur here for the first time; but they are no more startling than other words of Jesus, whose awful weight of meaning and rich originality gave to the evangelist all his power to teach. It is quite unnecessary to find fault with the abruptness of the close of this discourse, or the sudden cessation of the dialogue, or the disappearance of Nicodemus, or of any lack of affectionateness in the style of address. Christ is often abrupt, and in numerous replies which he gave to his interlocutors he prolongs the remarks as though they were addressed to the concealed mind of the speakers rather than to their uttered words. If there had been any hint or indication that these were John’s reflections, we can only say that he who by the Holy Spirit penned the prologue was not incapable of these splendid and heart-searching generalizations of love, faith, judgment, and eternal life. But there does not appear to be any sufficient reason for such an hypothesis. Still, it must be admitted that we have not the whole of the former or the latter part of this wondrous discourse. Much has, without any doubt, been omitted. John has seized upon the most salient points and the loftiest thoughts. These stand out like mountain peaks above the glittering seas, indicating where the inner and hidden connections of their bases lie, but not unveiling them. We do not doubt that John’s mind, by long pondering on the thoughts of Jesus and his words of profound significance, had acquired to some extent the method of his speech, and do not doubt that a certain subjective colouring affects his condensation of the discourses of Jesus. He was not a shorthand reporter, photographically or telephonically reproducing all that passed. He was a beloved disciple, who knew his Lord and lost himself in his Master. He seized with inspired and intuitive accuracy the root ideas of the Son of man, and reproduced them with the power of the true artist. It is incredible, even if we regard the entire paragraph (verses 16-21) as the language of our Lord, that we have the whole of the discourse, or conversation, of the memorable night. Still less satisfactory is it to suppose that we have in it nothing more than an imaginary scone, an idealization of the bearing of Christian truth on Jewish prejudice. So vast a thought, though it be the burden of the New Testament, and because it is so, issued from the heart of Jesus. John 3:16-21 (3) Divine love and judgment. John 3:16 For God so loved the world. The Divine love to the whole of humanity in its condition of supreme need, i.e. apart from himself and his grace, has been of such a commanding, exhaustless, immeasurable kind, that it was equal to any emergency, and able to secure for the worst and most degraded, for the outcast, the serpent-bitten and the dying, a means of unlimited deliverance and uplifting. The Divine love is the sublime source of the whole proceeding, and it has been lavished on "the world." This world cannot be the limited "world" of the Augustinian, Calvinian interpreters—the world of the elect; it is that "whole world" of which St. John speaks in 1 John 2:2. "God will have all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4). Calvin himself says, "Christ brought life, because the heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." Pharisaic interpretations of the Old Testament had left the outside world in judgment, to cursing and condign punishment, and had made Abrahamic descent and sacramental privilege the conditions of life and honour and royal freedom. Here the poor world is seen to be the object of such love, that he—the Father-God—gave, "delivered up," we do not know certainly to "what," but we may judge from the context that it was such a deliverance, or such giving up. as is involved in the uplifting of the Son of man upon his cross of humiliation and shame. But the Lord induces a more wonderful term to denote his own personality. This "Son of man" is none other than his only begotten Son (cf. notes, John 1:14, John 1:18). Just as Abraham had not kept back his only begotten son from God, so God has not withheld his perfect Image, his Well-beloved, his Eternal Logos, the perfect ideal of sonship. He gave him with the following view: that whosoever believeth in him (εἰςαὐτὸν) may not perish, but have eternal life. The previous saying is repeated as in a grand refrain for which a deeper reason and fuller explanation have been supplied. Perishing, ruin, the issues of poisonous corruption, might and would, by the force of natural law, work themselves out in the destinies of men. The awful curse was spreading, but it may be arrested. None need be excluded. Looking is living. Believing in this manifestation of Divine love is enough. This is the first, high, main condition. Appropriation of such a Divine gift unriddles the mysteries of the universe, emancipates from the agelong bondage, confers a life which is beyond the conditions or occasions of dissolution. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 4:1-42 7. The ministry and revelation of the Lord to those beyond the strict compass of the theocracy. This passage describes an incident of consummate interest, and records a specimen of our Lord’s intercourse with individuals, and the reaction of that instruction upon the disciples. The event is a solitary chink through which the light of historical fact falls upon an otherwise darkened and unknown period of the Saviour’s life. When we skirt a forest we see at intervals, where by some accident of growth the light falls upon a narrow space, a miniature world of life and loveliness of every kind, suggesting what might happen if every square yard of the forest could receive a similar illumination. Every day of that wondrous life of Christ may have been equally full of meaning to some souls. "These things are written, that we may believe that Jesus is the Son of God; and that believing we may have life." The relation of the Jews to the Samaritans gives a special character and both typical and symbolical meaning to the incident. The lifelike reality of the scene, the extreme unlikelihood of such an event having been fabricated with consummate art to establish any specific theological conclusion, the natural appropriateness of the transaction, all confer a high value and historicity upon this paragraph. Thoma, after the manner of Strauss, finds the origin of every detail in the story of Eliezer at the well; but there are no limits to what allegorists may dream, if the reins are thrown on the neck of imagination. The story of Philip’s ministry in Samaria and the successes of the gospel in the early days of Christianity are also supposed to have aided the composition of the story. In our opinion, Acts 8:1-40 is better explained from John 4:1-54 than the reverse process. Baur’s supposition, that the author sought to contrast the cautious hesitation of the Jewish doctor with the susceptible emotional disposition of the Samaritan woman as the representative of the Gentile world, is unreasonable. The woman is represented as a believer in Divine revelation and worship, in the early traditions of the Jews themselves, and even in their Messianic hopes, which, in this instance, were more spiritual than those of the Jews. There are numerous debates as to the origin of the Samaritan nation, and opinions waver as to whether they were the descendants of those remnants of the kingdom of Israel who were left in the district once occupied by the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, after the final deportation under Shalmaneser (or Sargon, as the Assyrian inscriptions make probable), together with the heathen settlers who had been mixed up with them, or were solely and purely of Assyrian origin, as they appear to maintain (Ezra 4:2). The narrative of 2 Kings 25:12 implies that all the inhabitants were carried away to cities of the Medes, but it is tolerably clear and eminently probable (2 Chronicles 34:9) that there were some of the people left behind; so that the extent to which Israelitish blood and ideas prevailed in the mongrel race is very difficult to determine. We know that heathen notions of Jehovah, and the worship of graven images, were curiously blended (2 Kings 17:28-41; 2 Chronicles 34:6, 2 Chronicles 34:7). But this is only what might be anticipated if their moral and religious degeneration corresponded with the charges brought against them by Hosea and Amos. In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, efforts on their part to share in the honours and independence of Judah were sternly interdicted, and the interdict avenged by angry recriminations which delayed the progress of reconstruction. The antagonism commenced then was deepened into a deadly rivalry by the erection of a temple to Jehovah on Mount Gerizim, and by Manasseh, brother of the high priest of Judah, being driven from Jerusalem by his refusal to renounce Sanballat’s daughter, and by his becoming high priest of the heretical temple. This temple on Gerizim, in close proximity with the site of Shechem, the abode of the first patriarchs, gave dignity and solidity to some of their traditions and claims; and the modifications they had introduced into the text of the Pentateuch in their celebrated version of it helped to aggravate the schism between the two peoples. The district of country was held during the quarrels of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae alternately by both. Samaritan hatred of the Jews led them to purchase peace during the cruel oppression of Judah under Antiochus Epiphanes, by dedicating their temple to Zeus (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 12:5, 5), and again by siding with the Syrians against the Maccabees. Their temple was destroyed by John Hyrcanus, B.C. 130, and its ruins only were visible in the time of Christ. The city of Sebaste was built by Herod, on the site of the city of Samaria, and Flavia Neapolis, now called Nablous, was erected on the site or close neighbourhood of the ancient Shechem. There were mutual recriminations between Jews and Samaritans, which led to strained relations and fierce condemnation, and yet, strange to say, the rabbis did not treat the land as "unclean", and consequently the disciples were not precluded from purchasing articles of food from the Samaritan village. They were the "foolish people," "abhorred" of devout Jews (Ecclus. 50, 25, 26); and Rabbi Chuda treated them as heathens, yet Simon ben Gamaliel regarded them as Israelites, and the ’Mishnah’ shows that in many of their customs they resembled the Jews. It is doubtful whether they denied the resurrection, and it is certain that their principal tenets and practices were derived from the old revelation. The opposition was felt so strongly by some Jews in the northern province of Galileo that they travelled to Jerusalem through Persea in order to avoid it. Our Lord’s treatment of Samaritans in this narrative seems at first sight inconsistent with Matthew 10:5, where the apostles are advised to avoid cities of the Samaritans on their first experimental journey. Still, there is a difference between Christ’s "passing through" Samaria, on his way to Galilee, and his limiting the early proclamation of the kingdom to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The disciples were not then to be entrusted with a commission which, not until after Pentecost, they would fulfil with so much joy (Acts 8:1-40.). The success of Philip, Peter, and John may have been due to the first sowing of the heavenly seed by the Lord himself. That Christ should have chosen a woman of doubtful reputation from a semi-alien and accursed race to have received some of his greatest teaching is akin to many of the mysteries of his life. Why, it is sometimes asked, did he not proclaim his sublimest thoughts in the schools or temple courts? Why did he confine them to Nicodemus and the Samaritaness? There is no reason to compel us to any such conclusion. The simple fact before us is full justification of the belief that on many another occasion as well as on this, he uttered like things. John 4:1-6 (1) The contrast between Jewish unsusceptibility and Samaritan pre-disposition to faith. John 4:1, John 4:2 When therefore the Lord £—a few occasions are found in the Gospels where this appellative, without any proper name, is used for Jesus (John 6:23; John 11:2; Luke 10:1; Luke 17:5; Luke 22:61), and on these occasions some special suggestion is made of the Divine rank and personality of Jesus—knew that the Pharisees heard; i.e. were taking notice, after their wont, with secret machination and with open hostility, of the course which he was pursuing. The treatment which John the Baptist received at their hands was pointedly referred to by our Lord on two occasions (Matthew 17:12, Matthew 17:13; Matthew 21:23-32). They did not believe in John’s baptism. The publicans and harlots had repented and pressed into the kingdom before them. This "generation" did whatever it listed to the Elias. Therefore we judge that Herod’s persecution, stimulated by his guilty passions, was assisted by "the offspring of vipers." They had probably broken up the baptismal enthusiasm of the multitudes, and aided Herod to shut up John in the castle of Machearus, and hence their present "hearing" meant immediate and hostile action. Jesus had left the temple, and retired to the courts and homes and neighbourhood of Jerusalem; and then was only visited at night by solitary men, who ought to have come in crowds. He left Jerusalem itself for some point in Judaean territory, and there continued for a season the preparatory call for repentance and conversion. The extraordinary success of Jesus at this period excited the special attention of the Pharisees. The matter that came to their ears was that Jesus makes and baptizes more disciples than John. In other words, they heard of an extraordinary wave of popular excitement, yet of nothing answering to the Baptist’s imagination of what ought to have taken place. John’s ideas corresponded more closely than the teaching of Jesus did with the tenets and methods of the Pharisees. We find that the disciples of John are coupled with Pharisees in the matter of fasting (Matthew 9:14 and parallel passages), yet that John’s preaching and baptism were distasteful to the Pharisees. A fortiori the baptism of Jesus would be still more offensive, for it was doubtless accompanied by more searching demands. It had invaded the temple precincts, it had advanced more conspicuous personal claims. John said, "I am come to prepare the way of the Lord;" Jesus said, "I am come down from heaven." (Although (and yet) Jesus himself (in person) baptized not, but his disciples performed the act.) This parenthetical clause, explanatory of the statement of Joh 3:22, as well as of the previous verse, is justified on the simple ground that Jesus baptized with the Spirit, and not with water. For him to baptize into his own name would have been to darken the mystery; for him to baptize into One who should come would in a way have hidden the fact that he had come. The administration of the rite by the few disciples who were with him would preserve all the symbolism of the new observance. We have no repetition of this statement, nor the faintest hint that the apostles continued this Johannine ceremonial. Moulton and some others lay emphasis on the present; tenses, "makes and baptizes," and therefrom argue that the ministry of John had not yet been brought to a termination, that John was not yet cast into prison, and that the journey into Galilee does not correspond with that described in Matthew 4:1-25, but thai; our Lord removed from Judaea simply to avoid the apparent rivalry between the two baptismal and evangelistic ministries. When Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard, etc., he resolved upon a new and startling course. John 4:3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. But it should be observed that ἀφῆκε is a very peculiar word for a simple departure. The verb ἀφίημι is used when καταλείπω might have been expected (Westcott). The word means "to leave a thing to itself," to its own ways, to treat it as no longer exercising an influence on the mind. (It is, with the noun ἄφφεσις, used for "forgive," "forgiveness," of sins.) Jesus left Judaea, which had so imperfectly accepted his claims. The word suggests that his departure was a consequence of the action of the Pharisees; And he departed again.£ This refers to the first departure after the early testimonies of John, when Jesus went to Cana and Capernaum (John 1:43). Whether this journey corresponded with that mentioned in Matthew and Mark, as following the baptism and temptation of Jesus, or not, it is not to be confounded with the journey which John had already recorded. John 4:4 And he must needs go through Samaria. There was no physical necessity about it. He might, as bigoted Jews were accustomed to do, have crossed the Jordan and passed through Peraea instead. There was no such animus in the heart of Jesus, and a Divine and providential monition was the occasion of his taking the direct road. Geikie has drawn a vivid picture of the difficulties to which Jewish travellers on the borders of Samaria were exposed (see Hosea 6:9; Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 20:6. 1; ’Bell. Jud.,’ Hosea 2:12. 4; ’Vit.,’ 52), and also of the physical features of the land. Samaria, as a name of the small district of central Palestine, arose from the name of the city "Samaria," built by Omri, and made the site of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 16:24), and that of the Baal- and of the calf-worship. Samaria suffered from the siege, and the city was depopulated by Shalmanezer (Sargon), and colonized with Assyrians under Esarhaddon. It was destroyed by Hyrcanus, and rebuilt in splendour by Herod the Great, and by him dedicated to Augustus, and called Sebaste after him. Though Shechem (equivalent to Sichem) was the more famous site, and overshadowed Herod’s city by its historical interest, yet "Samaria" was the name which has survived all others, and covered a larger space. Jesus was probably on the borders of Samaria, in the Judaean country, before he commenced his journey. Samaria was included in the tetrarchy of Archelaus, and formed part of the province under the pro-curatorship of Pontius Pilate; while Herod Antipas reigned over Galilee and Persia. The Lord was fulfilling the Divine will, in commencing his Galilaean ministry, in leaving Judaea proper for the present, and passing through Samaria. It is worthy of notice that John here attributes to "the Pharisees," rather than "the Jews," the opposition which indicated the wisdom or necessity of this course. John 4:5 He cometh therefore to a city of Samaria, called Sychar (Συχάρ, with all the principal uncials; not Σιχάρ, as read by the Elzevir edition of Stephens, with one cursive, 69); not "the city" Shechem—the Συχέμ of Acts 7:16, or Σίκιμα of Josephus (Genesis 33:18; Joshua 20:7; Judges 9:7)—not Sebaste (Samaria), but "a city," one of the cities requiring special designation beyond its mere name, which would hardly have been necessary, if so renowned a spot as the metropolis of the ancient kingdom, or the ancient patriarchal city of Shechem or Sychem, had been thought of. The similarity of the names Sychar and Sichem led many to suppose that John confounded either the names or the places. Those who were anxious to undervalue the accuracy of the author have attributed it to mistake. Schenkel still sees the error of a Gentile Christian. Others have supposed that the word meaning "town of drunkards" (Isaiah 28:1, רכָשֵׁ), or "town of liars" Habakkuk 2:18, רקֶשֶׁ), was intentionally applied by John to Shechem, or that some provincial pronunciation of the name of the old city had thus been commemorated. Hengstenberg suggested that Sychar was a suburb of Siehem or Shechem, and Robinson placed the latter much nearer to Jacob’s welt than the present Nablous. Tholuck gave a philosophical solution—that m and r in the two words, being liquids, were interchanged; and Meyer at one time held that John simply applied the vulgar name. Jerome (’Quaest. Web. in Genesis 48:1-22.’) said it was a corruption of the name Sichem. But Eusebius discriminated Shechem from Sychar in his ’Onomasticon,’ sub voce; and a place called Sochar or Sichra is mentioned, and also its "well," in the Talmud. Delitzsch has quoted seven passages which refer to the place as the birthplace of rabbis, and as having been alternately occupied by Jews and Samaritans. Moreover, in late years, Palestine explorers have found, within half a mile of Jacob’s well, a village, El ’Askar, preserving to the present day the old name.£ Nor has the name been in late years drawn from this narrative and given to this insignificant village, for a Samaritan chronicle, dating from the twelfth century, preserves the name as Iskar. A priori it is far more probable that a woman of Sychar, than one of Shechem, should have come to draw water, in consequence of the nearer proximity of the former "city" than of the latter to Jacob’s well. It is further characterized as near to the parcel of ground which Jacob gave to his son Joseph. In Genesis 33:19; Genesis 34:25; Genesis 48:22 (LXX.); Joshua 24:32, we see that Jacob’s treaty with the sons of Humor, and the summary violence of his sons in punishment of Dinah’s dishonour, were treated by him as giving him special possession in Shechem (the LXX., in Genesis 48:22, have translated the word for "portion," מכֶשְׁ as Σίκιμα, erroneously supposing that the word was a proper name, instead of an allusive play on the word "Shechem"), and he solemnly bequeathed it to Joseph. In Joshua 24:32 we find the bones of Joseph were deposited there. (Knobel translates Genesis 48:22 as the portion which he, Jacob, (by his sons) would win (not had won) with sword and bow.) Geiger, ’Urschrift.,’ p. 80 (referred to by Edersheim, i.e., 1:404), shows that St. John’s interpretation of Genesis is perfectly in harmony with rabbinic tradition. John 4:6 Now Jacob’s well was there; more literally, now there was a spring there, Jacob’s. The word generally translated "well" is φρέαρ, the representative of ראֵבְּ, puteus; but πηγή, the word here used, corresponds with ניִעַ, fons. In John 4:11, John 4:12 the word φρέαρ is used of the same place. To the present day this indubitable site goes by both names. This district abounds in springs (Deuteronomy 8:7), and the digging of this deep well was a work of supererogation, such as might be performed by a stranger in the land. The well is indeed fed by fountains of water in the neighbourhood. It has been known as Jacob’s well by a continuous tradition, and is situated in the plain of Mukhhan, under the rough sides of Gerizim, just beyond the spot where the plain is entered almost at right angles by the eastern end of the vale of Shechem. The latter vale is constituted by the two mountain ridges of Gerizim on the south and Ebal on the north. Nablous, or Shechem, is not visible from the well of Sychar, being hidden by the spur of Gerizim from view, and higher up the valley of Shechem are the present ruins of Sebastich or Samaria proper. Dean Stanley said it was one of the most beautiful spots in Palestine. Sychar lies half a mile to the north of the traditional well. The well, two hundred years ago, was declared by Maundrell to be a hundred and five feet deep, and built of solid masonry. In 1866 Lieutenant Anderson found it seventy-five feet deep, and quite dry. It is nine or ten feet in diameter; and it is one of the most indubitable spots where we may feel certain that the feet of the blessed Lord have trod. Efforts are now being made by the Palestine Exploration Society to protect and restore the well. Jesus therefore, being wearied (κοπιάω is "to labour unto weariness," from κόπος, exhausting toil) with his journey. A long, exhausting march told upon him, and he felt the weakness of our humanity. Thoma suggests that, because the woman that Jacob found at the well was Rachel, the mother of Joseph, the Samaritans’ special patriarch, and because Leah was the mother of Levi and Judah, and her name means "wearied," so Jesus is represented as weary with his journey unto the home of Rachel! It is far more important to notice that the author of this Gospel, whose main idea was that Jesus is "the only begotten Son of the Father," "the Word made flesh," yet impresses upon us continually his realization of the full humanity, the definite, concrete human existence of Jesus. His life was no phantasm of the imagination, no mere docetic manifestation, as the Tubingen school attribute to the Johannine Christ, but veritable man. This Gospel alone records his presence and miracle at Cana, his travel-worn sympathy with our weakness, his making clay with spittle, his weeping over the grave of a friend, his thirst upon the cross, the blood that issued from his wounded side, and the obvious physical reality of his risen body, and thus furnishes the Church with the grounds on which the apostle maintained his Divine humanity. Jesus was seated thus—or, sat thus; i.e. wearied, exhausted—on the well; or on the low parapet of the well, which protected its mouth, he sat there comparatively, if not quite, alone. The position of the word "thus" after "sat" would, in classic Greek, make the οὕτως mean "simply, without other preoccupation;" but there is no logical reason to deprive the οὕτως of its full meaning (Hengstenberg). The Lord, taking his seat by this memorable spot, rich in varied associations, becomes at once a type of the richer and diviner supply of life which he is able and ready to dispense to mankind. The weariness and waiting of the Lord at the well was a sublime hint of the exhaustless supply of grace which was ever flowing from the broken heart of the Son of God. It was about the sixth hour. The author is remarkable for his repeated mention of the hours at which some of the most memorable crises of his life took place, and thus gives a vivid impression of reality and of the presence of the eyewitness. He must himself have waited by the side of the Lord, and overheard the conversation which followed, just as he did the conversation with Nicodemus. Great difference of opinion prevails as to his method of computing time; i.e. whether he adopted the Jewish computation, from sunrise to sunset into twelve variable hours, or the Roman method of computation, from midnight to midday, from noon to midnight, into twelve hours of equal length. Some difficulties are reduced by the latter hypothesis. The hour referred to would then be about six o’clock in the evening, the very time when purchases would be made, and when women are in the habit of drawing water. The difficulty that presents itself is the brevity of the time remaining for all that happens as described in John 4:27-38, broad daylight being almost presupposed in John 4:35. Still, if "about the sixth hour" was five o’clock, even in January there would be possible time for the conversation, for the return of the disciples, and also for the approach of the Samaritans; though it must be remembered that twilight in Palestine is very brief, and that the whole narrative suggests the idea of leisure rather than hurried converse. If the Roman method of interpretation were adopted, the sixth hour might mean six o’clock in the morning, which was the hour intended, if the Roman computation must be supposed in John 19:14. This suggestion has further difficulties. The weariness of the Lord at that early hour would imply a long journey before daybreak, which is extremely improbable (see John 11:9). Besides, though Townson and M’Clellan lay emphasis on this Roman computation of time in Asia Minor, and advance some proof of it, yet some of their authorities are far from proving it. Luthardt says we have no right to suppose that John would deviate from the current Jewish computation. "About the sixth hour" would therefore mean "about noon," the very time when it is so common to rest after a morning journey. Lucke, Meyer, Hengstenberg, Godet, Lange, Schaff, Geikie, Watkins, all press the same interpretation of the words. Lucke justly says that there is no hint of the Lord and his disciples intending to remain by the well, but to pursue their journey after rest and food. This is inconsistent with the idea of an evening halt. John 4:7-26 (2) The revelations and misunderstandings comprised in the interview with the Samaritaness. John 4:7-9 (a) The Giver of all asks alms, submitting to conditions of humanity. John 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water. The ἐκτῆςΣαμαρείας undoubtedly qualifies the word γυνή, and not ἔρχεται; therefore the country, not the city, of Samaria is referred to. Besides, that city was at much too great a distance to be the home of this Samaritaness. There were other springs still nearer to the city of Sychar, which the women of the place would frequent. We need not, with Hengstenberg, suppose that, from a religious motive, one of reverence for the well of Jacob, this woman had chosen the longer walk and greater exertion, in the heat of the day. No hint of the kind occurs. The simple supposition that her home was hard by the well is sufficient to explain the somewhat unusual circumstance that she should have come alone and at midday. No longer, as in ancient times, did women of social position perform this duty (Genesis 24:15; Exodus 2:16). She by her action proclaimed her humble station in life. Hard work is performed by women at the present day in the East and South. Jesus saith to her, Give me to drink. This form of expression is not uncommon. The Lord was not only weary, but veritably thirsty. He had taken upon himself all our innocent desires and cravings. "He would know all, that he might succour all," and was intent upon conferring a blessing by asking a favour. He put it into her power to do him a kindness, just as when God evermore says, "Give me thy heart," when he is yearning to give himself to us. "It is more blessed to give than to receive." He will at once confer on this poor "waif and stray" the unspeakable privilege of bestowing the cup of cold water on the Lord of all. It is not that in the first instant he implied that he was thirsting for her salvation; that interpretation would almost lift the narrative into the purely symbolic region, greatly to its injury, and to the damage of the entire Gospel. John 4:8 For his disciples had departed into the city to buy food. This is stated as a reason why he asked water from the chance wayfarer, who had obviously with her the "water pot" and the ἄντλημα (John 4:11), a word used for the rope with which the bucket or water jar was let down into the well. There are very discordant statements as to the degree of separation which the Jews insisted upon between themselves and Samaritans. The later rabbis greatly aggravated the feeling. They refused to eat the bread of Samaritans, as though it were more defiling than swine’s flesh; objected to drink their wine or vinegar; and, if this animosity at the time of Christ had been equally pronounced, would have limited the disciples in their choice of food to uncooked eggs, fruits, and vegetables, and possibly to meal and wine. But it seems, from the earlier rabbinical books (Edersheim quotes several, which modify Lightfoot’s authorities), that the meat of a Samaritan was lawful food if an Israelite had witnessed its killing, and that their bread, wine, etc., were not forbidden. We see no reason for thinking that Jesus was left absolutely alone on this occasion, and, from John’s habitual method of avoiding direct mention of himself, it becomes perfectly possible that he was there listening silently to all these gracious words. Moulton cannot doubt that the beloved disciple subsequently received the whole from the Lord’s own lips; but there is no reason to conclude that he must have been absent, and very much to suggest his quiet presence (Weiss, ’Life of Christ,’ 2:34). John 4:9 The Samaritan woman therefore saith to him, How is it (compare this "how" with that of Nicodemus. Jesus had at once provoked inquiry, which he was not unwilling to gratify)—How is it that thou, being a Jew? She would have known that he was a Jew by his speech, for the Samaritans were accustomed to turn the sound of sh into that of s; and so, when Jesus said in Jewish Aramaic, Teni lishekoth, "Give me to drink," while she would herself have said, Teni lisekoth, his speech would betray him. Again, the contour of the Jewish face differs greatly from that of the Samaritan, and the customary fringes on their robes were of different national colours. Moreover, his appearance, travel stained, weary, and thirsty, on the great highway between Galilee and Judaea, would have suggested at once that he was no Samaritan. Askest drink from me, who am a Samaritan, and a woman, too? Already this was a startling puzzle, for her experience so far had only shown her that Jews have no dealings (a word only once and here used in the New Testament) with Samaritans.£ Most commentators suppose that this is an explanatory remark of the evangelist, pointing to the absence, in a hostile and haughty spirit, of all pleasant relations between the peoples (see note at commencement of chapter). We are not compelled to this conclusion. The words may just as likely have been the pert, half-ironical tone of the woman, who was drawing a contrast between the current profession of Israelites and the request which the need of Jesus had extorted (Moulton). The eighth verse had just said that the disciples had clearly some dealings with Samaritans, and had gone to purchase food at Sychar, taking with them the apparatus used for drawing water. This last fact is the evangelist’s reason for introducing the remark of the woman. He would hardly have made it himself. John 4:10-15 (b) The living water offered and misunderstood. John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou hadst known the gift of God (but thou dost not;—this conclusion is involved in the form of the conditional sentence), and who it is that saith unto thee, Give me to drink. Many suggestions are offered as to the meaning here of the "gift of God." Elsewhere (John 3:16) Christ is himself God’s Gift, and St. Paul speaks of Christ as God’s unspeakable Gift (Hengstenberg). Paul also declares that "the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ." The living water, the refreshing, life-giving stream of blessedness which Christ is opening in this wilderness, is the meaning put back by some into these memorable words as they first fell from the lips of Jesus. So Lampe and Godet. But Augustine and others point to John 7:39, where John tells us that the living water of which Jesus speaks as welling up like a river in the heart of a believer, in the bosom of one who has come to him to slake his otherwise quenchless thirst, is "the Spirit," which those who believe on him should receive when Jesus would be glorified. This sublime renewal of the greatest gift of God by the Spirit is set forth under similar imagery in Isaiah 44:3 and Joe 2:28. However, words are functions of two minds; what they must or might have meant to her must have been Christ’s meaning when he uttered them. The explanatory clause, Who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, solves the perplexity. That the Son of God, that the Loges in flesh, should have so emptied himself of his eternal glory as to ask for water from a Samaritan, and a woman, is in itself a gift, the supreme gift, of God. She did not know the fulness of his nature. So Lange, Grotius, and others. A remark by Dr. Yeomans is singularly suggestive: "The context shows that ’the gift of God’ is a gift which God had already given, rather than one yet held in reserve—the actual gift of his condescension, rather than the offered gift of living water, or the Holy Ghost." Had she known it and put the two thoughts together in the rudest fashion, she would have known the gift of God, and she would have become the suppliant at once and he the Giver. Thou wouldest have asked (prayed, taken the position of the inferior) of him, and he would have given to thee living water. (For the phrase, "living water," see Genesis 26:19; and for its application, Zechariah 14:8; Jeremiah 2:13; Revelation 7:17; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:1.) The Divine supply of heaven-sent life, which will slake all thirst for lesser gifts, and which will constitute the perennial blessedness of saved and glorified spirits. The gift of God is the full discovery of personal relations with the veritable Source of all life. This becomes life eternal as it leads to knowledge of the only God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent; and assists a full realization of the life, the Source and End of which are God. It is interesting to notice that Philo, in many places, declares these wells of water (Genesis 29:2) to mean "true philosophy or wisdom, deep and only with difficulty drawn upon." "Flowing water is the Loges himself, ’cisterns’ represent memories of past knowledge;" but the Old Testament usage quoted above is a far more rational justification of the language used by our Lord. John 4:11 The answer of the woman shows that, though startled as Jesus meant her to be by his self-assertion, she had not moved out of the limited region of her own thoughts—her physical thirst, her daily needs, and common appliances for meeting them. There is a touch of humour for this light-hearted creature in the contrast between the large offer and the apparent helplessness of the Offerer. God’s folly is compared with man’s wisdom; God’s weakness is set over against man’s strength. Sir (my master—a phrase here of simple courtesy, yet showing some advance on what had gone before, "Thou being a Jew"), neither hast thou the vessel to draw with, and, moreover, the well is deep (see above on John 4:6). The water of this well cannot be lifted without an ἄντλημα, and, when the water is reached, it is still open to question whether it be living, flowing water or not. Whence then hast thou the living water of which thou hast spoken? John 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle? We observe here the Samaritaness’s claim to be a descendant of Ephraim, of Joseph, of Jacob himself who dug the well. By rising up behind the family of Ephraim to the father of Judah as well as of Joseph, the woman claims a kind of kinship with Jesus. The "our" in this case is not a monopoly of the honours of Jacob for herself and her people. Her national pride is softening under the glance of the great Son of David, and she has a growing sense of the claims and dignity of the Person she is addressing, though her thought is couched in words that may be ironical. This was the kind of challenge which our Lord never refused to honour. Just as on other occasions he claimed to be "greater than the temple," and "Lord of the sabbath," and "before Abraham," and "greater than Moses, Solomon," or "Jonas," so here he quietly admits that he is indeed greater than "our father Jacob." The lifelike reality of the scene is evidenced in the alertness and feminine loquacity of the final clause (θρέμματα are "cattle," not "servants," as seen in passages quoted by Meyer from Xenophon, Plato, Josephus, etc.). The nomadic condition of the first fathers of this race is brilliantly touched off by the sentence. John 4:13 Jesus answered and said to her—leaving the question of his superiority to "our father Jacob" to be settled when she should understand him better—Every one who drinketh (is in the habit of drinking) from this water, or any similar fountain, will thirst again. Earthly desires obtain temporary satisfaction, and then resume their sway. Our whole life is made up of intermittent desires and partial satisfaction, of passion and satiation, of ennui and then of some new longing. This flow and ebb, ebb and flow, of desire belong to the very nature of human appetite. More than that, human desire is never really satiated. Our souls can never be at rest till they find rest in God. This water, even from the well of Jacob, is no exception to the rule. John 4:14 But whosoever shall have drunk of the water which I will give him (of which I am speaking) shall not (by any means, οὐμὴ) thirst again forever. How different from the words of the son of Sirach (Ecclus. 24:21), "They who drink of me," says Wisdom, "shall thirst again"! They will experience neither continuity nor completeness of enjoyment, but periods of incessant and recurrent desire. Jesus speaks of a Divine and complete satisfaction. The spiritual thirst once slaked, the heavenly desire once realized by appropriating the gift of God, is fundamentally satisfied. The nature itself is changed. How closely this corresponds with the idea of birth into a new world! and how nearly akin to the promise of living water in John 7:37, etc. (see also the language of Joh 6:35)! But the water that I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of water leaping up (welling, bubbling up and forth) into eternal life. This is the explanation of the full satisfaction of desire. I do not give a simple "drink of water," but I cause a spring, a perennial fountain, a river of Divine pleasure to issue and flow from that inward satisfaction which follows a reception of my gifts; and it is so abundant that it is enough foreverlasting needs. The water that I give becomes a fountain, and the fountain swells into a river, and the river expands into and loses itself in the great ocean of eternity. The beauty of the image is lost if, with Luthardt and Moulton, we attach the εἰςζωὴναἰώνιον to πηγή rather than ἁλλομένου (ἁλλέσθαι is not elsewhere applied to water, and this use of it gives the metaphor all the more force). The imagery is not without its difficulty. We are tempted to conclude from it that the Divine life, once given, becomes consciously a self-dependent force within the soul; but this would not be justified by all the analogy of the Divine working in humanity, which, though abundant, efficacious, and satisfying, never repudiates its Divine source, but continually proclaims it. If the desire for what God alone can supply is eager and quenchless, and if God meet the craving, then the desire is absolutely satisfied. There is a superfluous fulness in the girt of God which will transcend all the needs of this life, and be enough for eternity. John 4:15 The woman has not yet emerged out of the region of her physical desires and her daily requirements, and needs a deeper apprehension of her real necessities. By reason of the subsequent narrative she ought not to be credited now with impertinence or irony (Lightfoot, Tholuck). She could not understand the miraculous water of which the Stranger spake, but had some dim notion that he might be able to deliver her from her toilsome and exhausting life. She replies to him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come all the way hither to draw. The Lord had spoken of eternal life, and she is content to have temporal satisfaction to the extent of thirsting no more. Some commentators, with Lange and Hengstenberg, suppose that the journey to Jacob’s well was in her mind a quasi-religious act, the insufficiency of which to meet her case is at length becoming apparent. This view seems to us inconsistent with the sudden change of metaphor and alteration of his method of approach to this woman’s consciousness and need. He resolved rather to search her heart and reveal her to herself—to bring forth from its hiding place the torpid conscience, and reveal to her the grievous need in which she stood of that Divine cleansing, healing, nutrition, refreshment, which he had been sent into the world to supply. This reflection renders the reply of Jesus less obscure than its abrupt transition seems to imply. John 4:16-20 (c) The heart-searching issuing in perception of the prophetic rank of Jesus. John 4:16 [Jesus]£ saith unto her, fie, call thy husband, and come hither. Our Lord, by that Divine penetration and thought reading which the evangelist attributes to him (John 2:1-25), knew exactly what manner of woman this was, and wished to bring her secret sins to the light of her own conscience. The demand touched her heart at its most tender place, and was indeed a partial answer to her prayer, "Give me this water." Conviction of sin is the beginning of the great work of the Paraclete; it will end in full assurance of faith (so Neander, Stier, Tholuck, Luthardt, Weiss, and Edersheim). Numerous have been the explanations of the Saviour’s demand, but none of them so congruous as this: e.g. (1) Lucke supposes that Christ would have the husband share in the bounty. (2) Meyer suggests that the Lord, by proving to her his prophetic glance in a region she could verify, was preparing her for similar confidence in himself in a higher and more momentous region. (3) Hengstenberg makes it part of his curious, mystical interpretation of the entire narrative, and by "husband" thinks that Jesus meant the true Lord and Husband of the kingdom of God, in contrast to the heathen lordships and polluting idolatries which Samaritans had blended with their Jehovism (of which more in the next verse). (4) Lange has supposed that Jesus here conforms to law and custom with reference to the superior claim of the husband, and declares that the wife must submit to it in receiving the gift of the kingdom of God; and Godet says, "Jesus did not wish to influence a dependent person without the participation of the man with whom she was united." Jesus surely never waits upon conventionalisms, sabbatic rules, current fashions of any kind; and some deeper reason than this is more than apparent from the startling response. John 4:17, John 4:18 The woman answered, and said to him, I have no husband. Jesus saith unto her, Thou said correctly, Husband have I none: for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband. This true thing hast thou spoken. The woman resists the description which Jesus assumes that she bears to the man with whom she stands in illegal relations. Convinced, brought to bay, she cannot lie to Jesus. She says, in penitence and shame, "I have no husband." There is no concealment of the fact; she must need the cleansing of the life-giving stream. Jesus, not without a tone of solemn remonstrance, accuses her of a life of loose morals. It is implied that the first five husbands were conventionally allowable; but the suggestion is that, either by divorce or wanton rushing to further nuptials if the former had been ruptured by death, her character had been ever deteriorating until, under present circumstances, she was committing an overt act of illegality and impurity. "In saying thou hast no husband, thou hast spoken to the point, and for the reasons I recite thou hast made a true statement." As the woman in John 4:27 tells her friends "He told me all things that ever I did," we may easily believe that she felt, under his searching glance, that no folly, no weakness, no rebellious deed, no damning compromise, was hidden from him. How much more he said we can only conjecture. The revelation thus recorded is akin to other events in our Lord’s life, which we cannot account for by the supposition that information concerning her had been conveyed by some rumour which thus he flashed upon her. This would suffer from the intolerable supposition that his claim to have prophetic light was a self-conscious fraud, and that by such a subterfuge the entire Samaritan mission had been characterized and controlled. Lunge thought that the definite traces of the five marriages were in some mysterious fashion hieroglyphed upon her face. This is a great extravagance of the working of natural law, to avoid the supernatural perception which our Lord exercised whenever he chose to draw upon the inexhaustible resources and powers at his disposal. Hengstenberg (’Contributions to Genuineness of the Pentateuch,’ and in his ’Commentary’), while he recognizes the historical fact here mentioned and penetrated by our Lord, considered that there was a twofold meaning in our Lord’s reply. Thou hast had five husbands; i.e. there were five gods—those of Cuthah, Babylon, Ava, Hamath, and Sepharvaim (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ John 9:14, John 9:3; 2 Kings 17:24), whose worship by spiritual adultery the Samaritan people (of which you are a representative) have tolerated, and HE, Jehovah, whom thou now hast by surreptitious claim, is not thy covenanted Lord. Unfortunately, this too ingenious interpretation fails, first of all in this, that to the five nations seven gods are reckoned (2 Kings 17:30, 2 Kings 17:31). Again, it is inconceivable that the worship of Jehovah should be represented as on a par with these idolatries, and that Jehovah himself should be set forth as the sixth and worst of the theocratic husbands of the Samaritan state. Nor can we suppose that Christ, who said such wondrous things about the spirituality and the love of God to man, and was in the same breath about to utter one of the grandest of them, should thus have poured contumely on the Samaritan worship of Jehovah. Thoma practically adopts Hengstenberg’s speculative interpretation. Strauss (1st and 2nd edit. ’Leb. Jes.’) made use of Hengstenberg’s admission to find in the whole narrative a mythical fiction; and Keim has only made matters worse by ascribing the entire narrative to the unknown author of the Fourth Gospel. Christ’s own Divine penetration revealed the woman to herself, and she knew how hateful her life must have been in his sight. She made no attempt at denial, or concealment, or self-justification. The events referred to had burnt themselves on her memory, and her only refuge is in a bold admission of the right of the unknown Stranger to teach. She concedes his claim to solve perplexities, and penetrate other mysteries as well as the depths of her own heart. John 4:19 Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. This meant more from a Samaritaness than from a Jewess. The Samaritans accepted the books of Moses, and did not adopt the teaching of the historical or prophetical books, on which the Jews had built up their exaggerated and carnal views of the Messiah and his kingdom. They were not anticipating a King, but a "Prophet like unto Moses." They placed the great Prophet above the King, as a peer of their legislature, and as superior to their rabbis and priests. The sense of standing in the presence of One who looked down into human hearts, justified her in putting the great case of her people and her own sins before him. Let him speak further. Peradventure he will set the relative claims of Zion and Gerizim at rest, so far as approach to the Holy One is concerned. More than ordinary candour was required to make the admission that a Jew might decide the agelong controversy. John 4:20 Our fathers. The "our" refers here to the Samaritans, just as the "ye" does to the Jews. She may be going back once more to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who worshipped and laboured at Shechem—but the mountain itself was not the site of a temple until the days of Nehemiah, and the temple in which the apostate Manasseh, son of Jaddua, offered sacrifices had been destroyed for nearly a hundred and fifty years. A chronological, if not more serious, difference is apparent between Nehemiah and Josephus (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ Nehemiah 11:8. 2; Nehemiah 13:28). According to the former, the Samaritan schism which led to the erection of the temple was a hundred years before the period assigned by Josephus. For whereas Nehemiah says that the apostate priest whom he chased away was son-in-law of Sanballat, the Persian satrap in Samaria, Josephus makes Sanballat contemporary with Alexander, and represents the establishment of the Samaritan temple as originating with his approval. Josephus further (’Ant.,’ Nehemiah 13:9, Nehemiah 13:1) says that the temple was destroyed by Hyrcanus, about B.C. 129, and adds that it had stood two hundred years. The temple was destroyed, but "the mountain of blessing" remained for the Samaritans as a place of prayer (’Ant.,’ 18:4. 1; ’Bell. Jud.,’ Nehemiah 1:2, Nehemiah 1:6). This was conserved, on the ground that Abraham and Jacob had here built altars (Deuteronomy 11:26; Deuteronomy 27:4-13). In Deuteronomy 27:4, however, Mount Ebal in mentioned as the place where an altar had been first built to Jehovah. In the Samaritan Pentateuch the word "Gerizim" had in this place been substituted for "Ebal;" and so it came to pass that Gerizim had been a place of prayer throughout the long interval When Jesus was at Jacob’s well, he could see the ruins of the edifice where sacrifice and praises were being offered. Indeed, these have continued to the present day. The oldest shrine in the world for local worship still holds its own, hard by the very spot where the most complete overthrow of the principle of sacred places fell in divinest words from the lips of the Holy One. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain—Gerizim, where the ruins of the temple still abide—and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men must worship. Jerusalem is not mentioned in their sacred books—Jerusalem, whose unity of sanctuary was recognized at length as the τόπος where the Lord would put his Name, and where alone the sacrifices could possess their historic and symbolic validity. Whensoever the Pentateuch may have been finally edited, all critics will allow that, at the time of the Lord, and in the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, the idea of such unity of sanctuary was a fixed principle. The Samaritans claimed Gerizim, and the Jews Moriah, as the place where Abraham offered his typical sacrifice, and both regarded the worship celebrated in their favourite shrine—the daily offering, the annual feasts (the Passover especially)—as giving worthiness to all the prayers and praises which they might be induced to offer in all places where they might sojourn. The woman does not submit to our Lord that he may settle this great question for her, but she makes it clear enough that she would like to know his verdict. The worship was the sacrificial worship where sin such as hers could alone be cleansed, and where her conscience could be set free for calm and continuous communion with God. John 4:21-24 (d) The spiritual nature of God and his worship. John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, £ believe me—a unique expression of Jesus, answering to the Ἀμὴνἀμὴν, of many other passages, where the acknowledgment of his Divine commission had been virtually ceded; this expression is peculiarly suitable to the occasion—that an hour is coming. He does not add, as in John 4:23, "and now is." The Divine order which links the events of God’s providence together, has not made it possible as yet in its fulness, as it will do when the revelation is complete, but the hour is drawing near, when neither in this mountain,£ nor in Jerusalem, will ye worship the Father. Christ did not say that either Samaritans or Jews were exclusively right in their preference for one local shrine or place of sacrificial worship; but he declared the sublime truth that the worship of the Father would soon prove itself to be independent of both alike and of all the limitations of place and ceremony. Every place would be as sacred and as hallowed as these notable shrines, when the full character and real nature of the object of worship became fully known. The Father was a name for God not unknown to Jew or Gentile; but so overlaid, suspected, defamed, forgotten, that the emphasis which Jesus laid upon it came with the force of a new revelation of God’s relation to man. Man is born in the image of God, and partakes of the nature and essence of the Supreme Being, and it is in God’s true nature and veritable relations with men that he will be eventually adored. When Christ speaks of "my Father" he refers to the specialty of revelation of the fatherhood in his own incarnation. The Father was only partially known in and by all the dispensations of nature and grace, but he was especially revealed in the whole of the prolonged series of facts and symbols and prophetic teachings which constituted the religion of Israel; and Christ will not allow this great revelation of the Father to pass unaccredited or to be ignored by one whom he essays to teach. John 4:22 Ye worship that which (not "him whom") ye know not. "That which" points to the essence and inner character of the object of their worship. They gave him a name, but they were comparatively ignorant of, and confessedly hostile as a people to, the revelation that the Father had made. They fell back on a past of rigid orthodoxy but of limited range. They rejected every portion of the Old Testament with the exception of the Pentateuch, i.e. the entire historical treatment of the primeval faith; even that very essence of it which involved the progressive and expanding conception of the character of God—the perpetuity and continuous renovation of relations, the prophetic insight into providence, the sublime liturgy of a ceaseless worship, the prediction of a Messianic glory which, in the fulness of the times, should complete and complement all that preceded. They were, by their prejudices and hostility, kept ignorant of and unacquainted with the Name that was above every name. In contradistinction from this, we Jews, to whom as a nation you rightly conclude I belong, and as a representative of whom I speak—We worship that which we know. Christ in this place, more distinctly perhaps than in any portion of the four Gospels, places himself as a worshipper side by side with his hearers. Here, moreover, he identifies himself with the Jews—becomes their interpreter and mouthpiece and representative. When a question arises, which of the two has the larger amount of truth, Jew or Gentile, Jew or Samaritan, he pronounced in stringent terms in favour of the Jew. The revelation advancing beyond the narrow limitations of Samaritan nationality as to place, and time, and historic fact, with its pregnant ritual, has revealed the Father to us Jews, in this respect and because the salvation of which Moses partly dreamed, but which has been the burden of every prophecy and psalm—the "salvation" which gives meaning to all our knowledge, is from (ἐκ, not "belonging to," but "proceeding from," John 1:46; John 7:22, John 7:52) the Jews. The Jews have been the school where the highest lessons have been taught, the richest experiences felt, the noblest lives lived, the types and shadows of good things to come most conspicuous. We cannot avoid reading between the lines the sublime enthusiasm which Paul gathered from this class of teaching ("To whom pertaineth the adoption,…and covenant,…whose are the fathers, and to whom were committed the oracles of God,… and from whom as concerning the flesh Christ came"). The utterance is profoundly significant, as it is a powerful repudiation of the theory which makes the author of this Fourth Gospel a Gentile of the second century, with a Gnostic antipathy to Judaism and Jews. The contradiction to this theory indubitably involved in this verse has led to the wildest conjectures—even the suggestion of a Jewish gloss on some ancient manuscripts of the Gospel has been one desperate device to save the theory. Taut pis pour les fairs. John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is—already the day has dawned, the new conception is breaking like "awful rose of dawn" upon the minds of some—when the veritable £ worshippers—those who answer to the idea of worshippers, those who actually draw near to the Father in living fellowship and affectionate appreciation of his eternal Name—shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. An old misreading of this text, accepted by some Fathers, and based upon the idea expressed in John 16:13, has found expression in the Sinaitic Codex, "in the spirit of the truth."£ But "spirit" here does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but to the spirit of man—that part of man’s constitution through which he most especially bears the image of God, and with which the Divine Spirit deals, and in which he dwells (Romans 8:26). The worship in spirit is worship contrasted with all mere carnal concomitants, all mere shadows of the good things to come, all mere ritual, all specialties of place, or time, or sacrament, or order. It need not be in despite of a genuine reverence for days, or seasons, or postures, or washings, but in absolute independence of them, and they, without this, will be actually valueless. And in truth; i.e. as dealing with reality, the adequate and veracious expression of genuine desires and veritable emotions; καὶγὰρ, nam et (John 16:9). For indeed also the Father seeketh such to be his worshippers. Luthardt and Meyer differ as to the emphasis. Meyer insists that the καὶγάρ lays stress on the word which immediately follows, and he refers to 1 Corinthians 14:8 as not contradicting the rule. He would render, "For the Father also on his part seeketh," etc. Luthardt says that the new thought is to be found in ζητεῖ, and therefore upon this the emphasis is laid. Westcott, by many passages, such as Matthew 8:9; Matthew 26:73; Mark 10:45; Luke 6:32, etc., urges that καὶγὰρ "alleges a reason which is assumed to be conclusive from the nature of the case." The whole sentence is therefore covered by the expression, "For the Father also on his part seeketh those as worshippers of him who worship him in spirit and in truth." A slight contrast is felt between the regimen of προσκυνεῖν with accusative, here again introduced, following upon that with dative in the first clause. Moulton would render the first clause, "offer worship to the Father," and the second by "worship him." The Father is now seeking, by the ministry of his Son, by the gift of his Spirit, for those who approach him with deeply felt need and true affection, in spirit, not in ceremony, in truth, not in hypocritical or heartless profession. This is another indication of the high truth taught in the prologue (John 1:4, John 1:9; John 3:21; John 18:38, see notes) that there are vast differences among men, even anterior to their reception of the perfect revelation of the Father’s heart in Christ Jesus. "The life is the light of men." There are those who "do the truth" and are "of the truth," who "worship God in spirit and in truth." The whole gospel dispensation is a search for these. John 4:24 A still more explicit and comprehensive reason is given for the previous assertion, based on the essential nature of God himself in the fulness of his eternal Being. God is Spirit (ΠνεῦμαὁΘεός; cf. John 1:1, ΘεὸςἦνὁΛόγος,—the article indicates the subject, and the predicate is here generic, and not an indefinite; therefore we do not render it, "God is a Spirit"). The most comprehensive and far-reaching metaphor or method by which Jesus endeavoured to portray the fundamental essence of the Divine Being is "Spirit," not body, not ὕλη, not κόσμος, but that deep inner verity presented in self-conscious ego; the substantia of which mind may be predicated, and all its states and faculties. The Father is Spirit, the Son is Spirit, and Spirit is the unity of the Father and the Son. St. John has recorded elsewhere that "God is Light," and "God is Love." These three Divine utterances are the sublimest ever formed to express the metaphysical, intellectual, and moral essence of the Deity. They are unfathomably deep, and quite inexhaustible in their suggestions, and yet they are not too profound for even a little child or a poor Samaritaness to grasp for practical purposes. If God be Spirit, then they who worship him, the Spirit, must by the nature of the case, must by the force of a Divine arrangement, worship him, if they worship him at all, in spirit and in truth. The truth which our Lord uttered was not unknown in the Old Testament. From Genesis to Malachi, in the Psalms, in the historical books, in Judges, Samuel, and Kings, the Spirit and the spirituality of God are presupposed; but the Lord has generalized these teachings, cited them from darkness and neglect, combined them in one eternal oracle of Divine truth. The Galilaean Peasant has thus uttered the profoundest truth of ethic and religion—one which no sage in East or West had ever surpassed, and towards which the highest minds in all the ages of Christendom have been slowly making approach. Forms, postures, ceremonial, sacraments, liturgies, holy days, and places are not condemned, but they all are inefficacious if this prime condition be not present, and they can all be dispensed with if it be. Only the spirit of man can really touch or commune with the Spirit of spirits, and the history of the new dispensation is the history of a progress from forms to realities, from the sensuous to the spiritual, from the outward to the inward, from the earthly to the heavenly. John 4:25, John 4:26 (e) The Christ as conceived by Samaria. John 4:25 We probably do not possess here the whole of the conversation. It is clear, however, that strange presentiments of something more precious than any sanctuary, or any ritual, dawned upon the Samaritan woman. "A prophet" might tell her and her people where men ought to worship. The Prophet she discovered answered a desire for the "where" by revealing the "how" they are to worship. But there are many other lessons they need, and she gives expression to an idea of the Messiah, and of his coming, which startles us by its boldness. The woman saith unto him, I know (οἶδα, I know as a matter of current opinion and with intuitive certainty) that Messias cometh (which is called Christ). [This parenthetical clause by the evangelist is the explanatory translation into Greek of the Aramaic word. This must be so, unless we could be certain, with Hug, Diodati, and Roberts, that Jesus and the woman were speaking Greek to each other.] The woman turns from a theme which she has partially understood. How should a woman have been able at a moment to discharge and dispense with the traditions of a life, and the prejudices hoary with age? We know that the Samaritans anticipated One who should be a "converter," or "restorer"; Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Meyer, by restitutor), and cherished a hope of his appearance, upon the faith of the great promise (Deuteronomy 18:15) that One would arise who would make known to them the Divine will. It is remarkable, but not unreasonable, that she should have adopted the Hebrew word in common use among all the Jewish people. In John 4:29 it is given in Greek without any reference to the original speech. Samaritans and Jews alike anticipated a Christ an Anointed One, a Plenipotentiary, a Guide. The more spiritual apprehension which follows becomes some explanation of the fact that our blessed Lord should have admitted to her what he afterwards, in Galilee, kept reticently in reserve. The Galilaeans would have come, on his slightest encouragement, and against his will have made him a king. This would have forced on him a position and dignity which, from their standpoint, would have wrecked his spiritual mission and frustrated his design. This woman, here and later on, made it obvious that her notion of the "Restitutor" or "Messiah" was One who, when he is come, will declare to us all things; in John 4:29 One who can read the secrets of the heart, and knows her and others altogether; while from John 4:42 we learn that she and her friends were anticipating there and then "the Saviour of the world." Luthardt here points back to Genesis 5:29 as part of the origin of the Samaritan idea. John 4:26 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Here commences the second division of the Gospel (John 5:1) II. THE WITH THE CHOSEN PEOPLE IN , GALILEE, AND , TO THE DEATH BY THE . John 5:1-47 1. Christ proved, by signs and wonders and testimonies, to be Source of life. John 5:1-9 (1) A sign on a paralyzed body and an unsusceptible soul. John 5:1 The journey to Jerusalem is said to have taken place at the time of "a feast," or "the feast of the Jews."£ After these things (μεταταῦτα). Suggesting a number of events, not necessarily connected with each other. (For the latter idea of a period expressed by μετατοῦτο see John 2:12 and John 11:7, John 11:11; for μεταταῦτα, see John 6:1 and John 21:1. etc.) There was the feast of the Jews. Now, "the feast" of the Jews could hardly be any other than the second Passover, while John 6:4 would indicate a third. "The feast" referred to in John 4:45 undoubtedly means the first Passover. "A feast" would leave the question open, though by no means excluding positively the second Passover, as the anarthrousness of the word might be chosen with a view to call special attention to it. However, the indefinite ἑορτη has been identified by commentators with every feast in the calendar, so there can be no final settlement of the problem. If the feast be the Passover, then our Lord’s ministry lasted a little more than three years. If not, it must be one or other of the feasts that elapsed between the Passovers of Joh 2:1-25 and John 6:1-71 Edersheim, with many others, refuses to accept any chronological hint in John 4:35, and therefore throws the journey from Jerusalem to Galilee a few weeks after the first Passover, in the early summer, and supposes that Jesus returned to the unnamed feast in the autumn. Several critics say of Joh 4:35, one part of the sentence must be parabolical and the other literal, and that the disciples might be anticipating a spiritual harvest after four months, and Jesus drew from the physically ripening corn fields his comparison. This seems to me entirely contrary to our Lord’s ordinary method; and that the disciples were in too carnal a mood to be credited with an anticipation of spiritual results in Samaria at all. Those who think that John 4:35 does give a hint of four months preceding harvest, place the journey between the middle of December and the middle of January. To my mind there is consequently no difficulty in imagining that when those four months should have been spent, and before the regular calling and appointment of the twelve apostles, our Lord should have gone up to the feast—one of the feasts which did summon the adult men to the metropolis. This is the view of Irenaeus, Luther, Cretins, Lampe, Neander, Hengstenberg, Conder, and many others. Wieseler, Hug, Meyer Lance, Godet, Weiss, Farrar, Watkins, think that the Feast of Purim, celebrated on the 15th of Adar (2 Macc. 15:36), in commemoration of the deliverance of the people from the evil intention of Haman (Esther 9:21, etc.), was that national fast and feast which Jesus thus honoured. Purim was not one of the divinely appointed festivals, but it is also stated that the Lord undoubtedly attended one of the national and recently appointed festivals, that of Dedication (John 10:22). The more serious objection is that it could, if desired, have been celebrated quite as well in Galilee as in Jerusalem, and that the method of celebration seemed contrary to the whole spirit of the Master, and the whole tone of the discourse which followed. It is said that part of the ritual of the feast was the free and frequent gifts made spontaneously by one to another. Westcott prefers the autumn Feast of Trumpets as more suitable on several grounds than the Passover, (1) because of the absence of the article,—this, however, is very problematical (see Tischendorf, 8th edit.); (2) because when at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2) the incident described in John 5:1-47 is still in lively recollection; (3) because the great events of the Feast of Trumpets, the commemoration of the Creation and the Law giving, correspond with the theme of the Lord’s great discourse. The fact that this particular miracle on the sabbath should be referred to a few mouths later in Jerusalem, on Christ’s third appearance there, is not improbable, if we bear in mind that Judaean emissaries in Galilee had been bitterly assailing Jesus, on the ground of his persistent determination to heal sickness and hopeless maladies on the sabbath day. This Jerusalem "sign," and the claim he made on the ground of it, had roused the cry, and was still the matter of contention. The claims of the Purim feast turn principally on the fact that, since it occurred, about a month before the Passover, on the 14th or 15th of Adar, this visit might have taken place in the course of the four months referred to in John 4:35, and therefore between the sojourn in Samaria and the Passover of Joh 6:4, which Jesus diet not attend. Dr. Moulton (assuming the anarthrous form of the ἑορτη) thinks that the feast is left undetermined because there was nothing in it typical of our Lord’s work, and fulfilled in his Person. Such a position renders the visit itself strange and apparently unealled for. These long gaps, silences, during which there is no record of event or discourse, constitute a leading feature of the gospel history, and indeed of most of the history of both Old and New Testaments. To my mind there is advantage rather than otherwise in supposing more time than a few months to have been consumed in the Galilaean ministry described in Mark 2:1-28 and Mark 3:1-35 Tregelles and the Revisers, with Westcott and Hort, have relegated the δευτεροπρωτω of Luke 6:1 to the margin, but; Tischendorf (8th edit.) and Canon Cooke, etc., retain the remarkable expression, on the overwhelming evidence of a host of authorities. If it stand, which we believe it must, then during the Galilaean ministry, and in the interval which preceded the Passover mentioned in Luke 6:4, there is a reference to the proximity of a previous Passover and a previous harvest; the Galilaean opposition to Christ on this question of ritual being at its very height. If so, the feast must have been the Passover. The question cannot be finally settled, and commentators are in hopeless conflict with one another. It must be admitted that the majority of modern critics assume the Feast of Purim to be that intended, and thereby reduce the length of our Lord’s ministry from Cana to Calvary to two short years. And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. This was before the formal call of the twelve apostles, and there is no proof that he was accompanied by his disciples. Many of the commentators (and see Weiss, ’Life of Christ,’ vol. 2:321) urge that not even John himself was present on the occasion, from the absence of lifelike touches and particularity of incident. There is, however, much detail in the first fifteen verses. The great discourse that follows is not broken into dramatic dialogue, and does certainly present more of the biographer’s subjective treatment than other portions of the narrative. It is more conceivable, however, that John did, on grounds mentioned by Caspari (see Introduction), accompany his Lord, and learned, by what he heard of these great words, and by subsequent converse with Jesus, the burden of the mighty revelation. Thoma sets to work in the most dogmatic way, and Weiss with a perfectly different spirit, to demonstrate the identity of the narrative which follows, with the famous story of the cure of the paralytic "borne of four" which occurs in the synoptic narrative. Thoma goes further, and imagines that the supposed healing of the paralytics by both Peter and Paul are also here idealized. John 5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem. A phrase denoting intimate acquaintance with the topography of the city, and the present tense suggests either a hint of a ruin yet existing after the fall of Jerusalem, or it may betray the fact that the evangelist wrote down at the very time some details of the incident which formed the occasion of the following discourse, and never, in his later editing of the document, omitted or altered the form of his sentence. At the sheep (market) or (gate) a pool, surnamed in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes or porches. The adjective προβατικῇ requires some substantive to be introduced, and since there is no reference to any sheep market in the Old Testament, little justification can be found for the gloss contained in the Authorized version. There was a "sheep gate" mentioned in Nehemiah 3:1, Nehemiah 3:32 and Nehemiah 12:39. There is no reason against this method of supplying the sense, except this, that there is no other instance of the word πύλη, or "gate," being omitted after this fashion. The "sheep gate" stood next. in Nehemiah’s recital, to the "fish gate," and it was built by the priests. The old "sheep gate" is now known by the name of St. Stephen’s Gate, to the north of the Haram es-Sherif, or temple area from which the path leads down into the valley of the Kedron, and if "gate" be the proper term to add to προβατικη and we have its site fixed by the modern St. Stephen’s Gate, then we must look for the pool surnamed Bethesda in that vicinity. Eusebius and Jerome speak of a piscina probatica as visible in their day, but do not determine its site. Robinson did not accept the identification of the sheep gate with St. Stephen’s Gate, and places the former more to the south, and nearer to what is now called the Fountain of the virgin. This fountain, on Robinson’s visit, displayed some curious phenomena of periodical and intermittent ebullition, receiving a supply of water from another source. It was found by Robinson to be connected by a tunnel with the fountain of Siloam, and the relations of these wells have been quite recently submitted to fresh examination. Robinson identified this pool with "Solomon’s Pool" of Josephus and "King’s Pool" of Nehemiah, and thought it might be the original pool of Bethesda. Neander and Tholuck incline to agree with him. The observations of Robinson have been confirmed by Tobler, and at least show that what certainly happens now in some of these fountains may have been phenomena constantly expected at some other fountain bearing the name now before us, on the northeastern side of the Haram area. Within the (sheep gate) St. Stephen’s Gate the traditional site of Bethesda is pointed out. The modern name is Birket lsrael, and this tank, from the accumulation of rubbish, does not now show its original extent; neither does it now hold water, but receives the drainage of neighbouring houses. A church, near that of St. Anne, was built by the Crusaders over a well, in this immediate vicinity—a spot which was supposed to be the site of the angelic disturbance. Colonel Wilson prefers this traditional site to that fixed upon by Robinson. So also Sir G. Grove, in Smith’s ’Bible Dict.’ The five porches, or porticoes, may have been a columnar structure of pentagonal form, which sheltered the sick and the impotent folk. At present no indubitable relic of this building has been discovered. Alford (7th edit.) quotes a letter which makes it probable that Siloam was Bethesda, and the remains of four columns in the east wall of that pool, with four others in the centre, show that a structure with five openings or porches might easily have been erected there. Bethesda, which is said to be the Hebrew (that is, Aramaic) surname of the pool, is very doubtful. Probably this is the correct form of the text, though there are many variants, such as Bethzatha, in à, 33, Tischendorf (8th edit.); Bethsaida, in some versions and Tertullian. It seems generally allowed that its significance (אדָּסְחֶ תיבֵּ) is "house of grace or mercy," and that it derived its reference from the dispensation there of God’s providential gifts. The healing virtue of waters charged with iron and carbonic acid and other gas is too well known to need reference, and the remarkable cures derived from their use may account forevery part of the statement which was here written by John. Eusebius speaks of these waters as "reddened," so he thought, with the blood of sacrifices, but tar more probably by chatybeate earth. John 5:3, John 5:4 In these (porches) lay a multitude of sick folk, blind, lame, withered, [waiting for the moving of the water; for an angel went down season by season into the pool, and troubled the waters: he then that first stepped in after the troubling of the water became whole of whatsoever disease he had].£ The interesting gloss discussed below conveys the idea of magical cure, without moral significance, and attributes such cure to angelic ministry. This is the natural and popular explanation of the Bethesda healings, and would easily occur to a copyist who has not taken pains to use New Testament diction. Wunsche quotes from ’Chullin,’ fol. 105, b, a testimony that "deadly qualities of water were attributed to demons, and healing ones to the angels." The crowds which gather in all countries round medicinal and intermittent springs are still unable to explain their curative quality by scientific analogies; and there is nothing more likely to have suggested itself to the mind of a copyist than the intervention of an angel. The absence from Scripture elsewhere of non-moral miracles is powerful internal reason for the lack of authenticity for the poetic gloss. The text. when deprived of this dubious gloss, loses all character that is inconsistent with the authenticity of the narrative. The close of Joh 5:3, "waiting for the moving of the waters," is far better attested than John 5:4, and, moreover, is consistent with John’s manner, and with well ascertained matters of fact; and the clause would give authentic ground for the gloss that fellows. Hoffmann and Hengstenberg defend the passage, and believe that the angel at "the waters" in the Apocalypse betrays the same hand. But there can be no fair comparison between an historical fact and a symbolical figure. John 5:5 And a certain man was there, who had been thirty and eight years in his infirmity. He had not lost all his powers—he crawled probably from some near home to the healing well; but for thirty-eight years be had been dragging out his impotent existence. The length implies the inveteracy of the disease. Hengstenberg, Wordsworth, Westcott (in part), imply a marked correspondence between these thirty-eight years and the similar period of time during which Israel was compelled to wander in the wilderness. It is not said how long the man had lain in the five porches waiting listlessly for healing, but that the malady was of old standing, and to all human appearance incurable. Thoma finds allegorical meaning in "Bethesda"—a synonym of the metropolls, and keeps up a series of comparisons with Acts 3:1-26. John 5:6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and perceived (came to know by his searching glance and intuitive knowledge of the history of others) that he had during a long time already been (in that condition, or in sickness,) said unto him—spontaneously, in the royalty of his benefactions, not demanding from the man even the faith to be healed, and dealing with him almost as he did with the dead—Wilt thou be made whole? The leper came beseeching him, "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." The leper was quite sure of his own intense desire for cleansing, and all he questioned was the will, not the power, of Jesus. The admission of the power was a tacit cry for healing. The questioning of Jesus on this occasion involved an offer of mercy. "Dost thou veritably wish for health and strength?" The question implies a doubt. The man may have got so accustomed to his life of indolence and mendicancy as to regard deliverance from his apparent wretchedness, with all consequent responsibilities of work and energy and self-dependence, as a doubtful blessing. He whined out, with professional drawl, his oft-told story, reflecting very much upon his lovelessness and quarrelsomeness, and ugly temper. There are many who are not anxious for salvation, with all the demands it makes upon the life, with its summons to self-sacrifice and the repression of self-indulgence. There are many religious impostors who prefer tearing open their spiritual wounds to the first passerby, and hugging their grievance, to being made into robust men upon whom the burden of responsibility will immediately fall. In this case the sign of his palsied nature was written upon his face, and was probably known to every passerby. John 5:7 The sick (impotent) man answered him: Sir,£ I have no man, when the water has been troubled, to put me £ into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. This implies that some special advantage accompanied the troubling of the water. The sudden escape of the medicinal gas may have soon subsided, and, with it, the special virtue of the well. The difficulty which the sick man found in reaching the point of disturbance may be accounted for in many ways. The steps which led into the water; the weakness of the sufferer, which made it an impossible task without help; the eagerness at many other impotent folk to take advantage of the supposed cure, jostling one another with selfish haste; or the absence of any personal friend to fight his battle for him, and cast him (βάλῃ) with the required plunge into water. The last point may be explained on the supposition that he was a comparative stranger in Jerusalem, and had made no friends; or by another, which several other allusions justify, viz. that he was a man who, from some reason or other, could neither make nor retain friendship. The melancholy recital of his frequent disappointment is given with an air of mendicant resignation—a kind of morbid satisfaction with his lot. The phrase, "while I am coming, another," etc., implies that he could move, if slowly, without help. The moroseness of self-dependence characterizes some sufferers, who rather glory in isolation than lament it. Still, the words express the hopelessness of thousands who, for lack of human help, are jostled out of life, peace, and salvation. John 5:8 Jesus smith to him, Rise, take up thy bed (κράββατόνσου)—thy mattress or pallet; the word is said to be of Macedonian origin, it is Latinized in the vulgate into grabbatus, and is not unfrequently found in the New Testament; the ordinary Greek word σκίμπουςσκιμπόδον—and walk. These are in part the identical words which Jesus addressed to the paralytic (Mark 2:9). He did not touch him or use any other means than his own life-giving word to confer the cure. He put forth, in royal might and spontaneous unsolicited exertion, the miraculous force. The energy of the Lord’s will mastered the palsied will of the sick man, and infused into him the lacking energy. Archdeacon Watkins supposes that the man did possess incipient and recipient faith, moved by the generous tenderness and sympathetic interest of the Stranger in his ease. The very striking fact mentioned in the synoptic cure of the paralytic, viz. that he was borne into the presence of Jesus by four friends, ought to have prevented Thoma’s caricature of criticism, which makes this narrative a mere idealization of that. John 5:9 And immediately £ the man became whole (well, sound in health), and took up his bed, and walked. This act of obedience was an act of faith, as in every other miracle upon paralyzed nerves and frames. The imagery of the sign explains the rationale of faith. The impotent man, the paralytic, and the man with withered hand, were severally called by Christ to do that which without Divine aid seemed and was impossible. The spiritual quickening of the mind was communicated to the ordinary physical volition, and the bare act was a method by which the palsied sufferer took hold of God’s strength. Faith always lays hold thus of power to do the impossible. The words and the result are similar to those adopted on the cure of the paralytic. This is another instance of the identity of the Christ of John and of the synoptists. The various efforts of Strauss, Baur, and Weiss to identify this miracle with that wrought on the paralytic is, however, in defiance of every condition of time, place, character, and consequences. The energy of faith and love which led the Galilaean sufferer to secure the services of four stalwart friends, not only to carry him, but to make strenuous efforts to bring him into the presence of Jesus, contrasts powerfully with the loneliness and friendlessness of the impotent man; and the method adopted by the Lord to convey his grace, and the discussion that followed on that occasion touching the power of the Son of man to forgive sins, all suggest profoundly different circumstances. Nothing but the claim of the critic to be entirely superior to the document he is interpreting can account for so wild a conjecture. John 5:9-16 (2) The outbreak of hostility due to the breach of the sabbatic law. Now it was the sabbath on that day. The form of the expression implies that it was one of the festival sabbaths rather than the weekly sabbath. These days, however, received the same reverence, and were observed with nearly the same rites and restrictions, as the ordinary sabbaths. This statement is the keynote of the great discourse which fellows, and it is made to prepare the way for the subsequent incidents. The Jews; i.e. the authorities, either the rabbis or Sanhedrists who were present in the crowd which gathered round the pool of Bethesda, or filled the neighbouring courts, are to be distinguished from "the multitude," or from the people generally. The designation evidently means the leading folk, the social censors, the hierarchy, who very soon displayed in marked fashion their jealousy and hatred of Jesus. The Jews therefore said to the man who had been healed, It is sabbath, and £ it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. Judging by the letter of the Law (Exodus 20:10 and Exodus 35:3), and by the precedents of Scripture (Numbers 15:32-35), and by the special injunctions of the prophets (Jeremiah 17:21-23; Nehemiah 13:15, etc.), the man was infringing a positive command. Rabbinism had indeed declared that, in cases affecting life and health, the law of the sabbath was legitimately held in abeyance; but this relaxation was so hedged about with restrictions that the poor man and the layman were unable to apply the rules. The rabbinic interpretations of the sabbatic law concerning burden bearing were so intricate and sophistical that the entire majesty of the law, and the merciful intent of the prohibition, were concealed and vitiated. Apart from these complications, the man was prima facie disobeying the letter of the law. ’Shabbath,’ fol. 6, a, declares that if unwittingly a burden was carried on the sabbath, the transgressor was bound to bring a sin offering; if with knowledge, he must be stoned. John 5:11 And he answered them, He £ that made me whole, that very same man (ἐκεῖνος,, "even he;" cf. for this use of the pronoun, John 1:18, John 1:33; John 14:21, John 14:26, etc.) said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. This was justification for him. The Prophet-like Healer must know what was right, and upon his shoulders the responsibility must rest. There was a rabbinic saying, which the cured man may or may not have heard, that conferred a dispensing power upon a prophet; but the marl could not have known with any certainty that such was Christ’s official character. It is, moreover, clear that he did not know at this moment either the face, the voice, or the name. Meyer hears a ring of defiance in these words. The other hints we obtain touching the man’s character do not sustain such an idea. John 5:12 [Then] £ they asked him, Who is the man (contemptuous use of ἄνθρωπος, as distinct from God’s great messengers, or the legislators and prophets of the olden time, who have laid down the eternal Law of God) that said unto thee, Take up [thy bed], £ and walk? "The Jews" here ignore the work of healing and mercy, and seek to fasten a charge of overt criminality against some person unknown. A technical offence has been clone against the honour of their sacred place. The work of healing is an insignificant compensation for such a disgrace. They would be even with the heretical healer. Saving men by questionable methods is not to be endured. "Who is the man?" "Men and women lying in moral helplessness, not helped by God’s priests and rulers, are now standing and moving in the strength their new Teacher has given. They cannot deny it; but can they prevent it? The rabbinic precept which he has crossed shall be applied to stamp out his work and kill him" (Watkins). John 5:13 Now he that was healed—in this place ὁἰαθεὶς takes the place of τεθεραπευμένος of John 5:10. £ The fundamental idea in the verb θεραπεύω to render kindly and useful, even noble, service to another—to do the work and act the part of a θεράπων. The ministry rendered may be that of a δοῦλος or ὑπηρέτης, a θάλπων or ἰατρὸς. The "service" successfully rendered by a physician is more often expressed by ἰάομαι, which has no other meaning than restoration to health, and its use here may imply this positive fact (see the use of both words in Matthew 8:7, Matthew 8:8)—knew not who it was (was at that time and for a while ignorant of the person of his Healer): for Jesus withdrew—after the healing. Ἐκνεύω is "to nod or bend the head and avoid a blow," but comes to mean "withdraw" or "retire." Some have supposed that, like ἐκνέω,, to "escape by swimming from a danger," ἐξένευσε means here "stealthily escaped"—a sense that it has in Eur., ’Hipp.,’ 470, and elsewhere; but (as Grimm says) Jesus did not withdraw to avoid a danger which had not yet proclaimed itself, but to evade the acclamation of the multitude (see also Lange)—a crowd being in the place where the miracle had been wrought. John 5:14 After these things (see John 5:1). Westcott thinks that a looser connection between the foregoing and subsequent events is denoted by μετὰταῦτα than by the expression μετὰτοῦτο.. Consequently, the persecution referred to in the remainder of the chapter may have occurred several days after the foregoing conversation. Jesus found him £ in the temple. Some have inferred from this, the recognition by the healed man of the hand of God in his cure, and his desire to express his gratitude in the house of God by some appropriate conduct or service; and, granting this explanation, much charm is observable in the tact that Jesus found him. and found him there. The Lord’s habit of visiting the temple, and the penetrating glance which he casts over all the frequenters of his Father’s house might then fairly be deduced from the passage; but the motive of the man is quite conjectural. From the words of Jesus one might as reasonably suppose that the man was treading at the time on dangerous moral ground, making some kind of gain from his notoriety. The healing was, at least, imperfect until the man had learned its spiritual significance. Every gift of God is doubled in value when its source is recognized. God’s signature on his own mercies gives them their true meaning. Christ found the healed man in the precincts of the temple, whether his motive was pure or mixed in going thither. And he said unto him, Beheld, thou art made whole (hast become sound and healthy throughout thy physical system; cf. for the form of this description of his case, the query, John 5:6): no longer continue to sin. The form of the sentence points to something special and persistent in this man’s habits, rather than to the general corruption of human nature. Christ’s penetrating glance discovered all the hidden misery and bleeding wound and putrefying sore of the man’s soul. Apart from the obliteration of the consequences of his bad life, and without a clean and free condition of things, the future would have proved hopeless, and deliverance from the yoke of fear and concupiscence impossible; but now this new chance is given. He was made whole, born again physically. As Naaman’s flesh became like that of a little child, so this man—once bent, crippled, distorted by his self-indulgence, and now made whole—is to "sin no longer." It would not be reasonable to conclude from this that Christ’s doctrine, like that of Job’s friends, involved the indissoluble connection of sin with sickness, or made the amount of pain in any case the criterion of individual sin. Our Lord repudiates this position in John 9:3 and in Luke 13:1-5; but special calamities have unquestionably followed wrong doing, and can, in many instances, be referred to obvious transgressions, to specific acts, or inveterate habits. The man’s own conscience would respond to the charge. Jesus added: Lest a worse thing befall thee. There is, then, something worse than thirty-eight years of apparently hopeless wretchedness! Jesus said, even as reported by the apostle of love, the most terrible things that ever fell from human lips. The "sin no longer" makes it seem as though man’s will could accomplish much (cf. Isaiah 1:16, "Cease," etc.), and as though all the future of our life were, so far as human responsibility goes, dependent upon ourselves. We are to act as if it were. Let it be noticed that he who said, "Sin no more," said, "Rise up, take thy bed, and walk." Three things, which appeared utterly beyond the power of the impotent man, were, nevertheless, done by him through the grace of Christ, which he then and there appropriated. John 5:15, John 5:16 The man departed, and told £ the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him whole. Therefore the Jews persecuted Jesus, (and sought to slay him £), because he was doing these things on the sabbath. The motive of the man may have been one of gratitude, or may have arisen from a sense of duty, seeing that he had not answered the question of the Jews, and had been himself charged with doing the unlawful thing (Weiss). He may have sought to win from his interlocutors some reverence for his Healer; but everything points the other way. He was a loveless being; he seems to have been nettled by the charge and warning he had just received, and went with the name of his Benefactor on his lips to those who in his hearing had already condemned the Saviour’s conduct. The connection is close between the two facts, viz. the man’s eager implication of his Healer in the responsibility of his own act, which was said by "the Jews" to be unlawful; and the course of cruel persecution and deadly hate which was there and then inaugurated against the Saviour of the world. The sixteenth verse represents a course of conduct on the part of the Jews which led to open conflict with the dominant party. Christ’s view of the sabbath lay, indeed, in the heart of the old Law, and was even recognized by some of the wisest and noblest spirits of Judaism; but it ran counter to the current traditionary interpretation, and cut as with a sharp sabre through the knots and entanglement of the schools. It was the unpardonable sin that ideas and rules which sustained and fed the authority of the hierarchical party should be swept away as valueless and perilous accumulations, and as fungoid encrustations upon the Law of Moses. Weiss justly remarks that there is no colour for the charge that the fourth evangelist antedated the sabbath controversy, for Mark (Mark 3:6) shows that it had already commenced in Galilee. In John 4:1-3 we see that the Pharisaic party distrusted Jesus; here we see that the authorities are in arms against him. John 5:17-47 (3) The reply of Jesus to the hostile Jews. The discourse of the Lord Jesus, in reply to the persecuting spirit and deadly purpose of the Jewish authorities, is now given at length. There is a fulness and order and progress observable throughout of immense importance as establishing the sacred origin of the words. The simplicity of the style, quite Hebraic in its freedom from conjunctive forms, discriminates it from the Philonic presentation of certain analogous but different ideas. If, as Godet has remarked, we venture on the hazardous speculation that the prologue to the Gospel merely places before us the Philonic conception of ΘΕΟΣ and ΛΟΓΟΣ, making God to be the inconceivable, unapproachable, impersonal Essence, coming into activity in the ΛΟΓΟ who is self-dependent, but who exhausts all the vitality and activity of the supreme Θεος, we may, with Reuss, find hero what is contrary to both the prologue and to the views of the Divine Being, which repudiate the correlative subordination of the Son of God. But the prologue is based on the identity of nature between ΘΕΟΣ and ΛΟΓΟΣ, and the subordinate and yet eternal relation of the latter to the former. There is an infinite fulness of being and activity in the Father, who yet is and loves and energizes in all things through the ΛΟΓΟΣ, the ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ. It appears to us that precisely the same truth is taught here, but it is taught in terms derived from the consciousness of the Logos incarnate, and with reference to a part only of the operations of the Logos, viz. in the providential, redeeming, and quickening work of the Son. This narrative shows how actual revelations of the Logos were made through the human consciousness of him who was lifted up into the being of the Son of God, and who became the Interpreter of the Son to men. The prologue is built upon the discourse—is an inspired and transcendental generalization of the truths here and elsewhere announced. The discourse is the basis of the prologue in the thought of the evangelist. The originality of the discourse is conspicuous. Its theme shows it to be closely allied with the discussions which shortly after this created such fierce animosities in the synagogues of Galilee, whither his Jerusalem enemies pursued him. We shall find that there Jesus declared that "the Son of man was Lord of the sabbath," and was competent in that capacity to assert what was contained and involved in the sabbath. On another occasion he vindicated for his disciples the right to food on the sabbath (Mark 2:23-28), (1) on the historic ground that the royal hero of the Old Testament was at liberty, in dire emergency, to eat the priest’s shewbread, which narrow ritualism would have refused to starving laymen; (2) that his Person was a temple, and his service a temple service, which would be a further justification of the conduct of the disciples, as priests in the temple, in their submission to the higher law of duties, "profane the sabbath and are blameless." The cures he persistently wrought on the sabbath were justified by the principle that it is lawful to do acts of kindness, to save life, to release the sin- and Satan-bound daughter of Abraham on the sabbath; and that such sabbath keeping was part of the original significance of the day. Here the Lord takes the higher ground that he and the Father, in works of providence, healing, and life giving, are one. John 5:17, John 5:18 (a) The claim of special relation with the Father. John 5:17 But Jesus answered them "that God never ceases to create, nor takes a holiday from his works;" and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (4) had grasped, as an echo of Christ’s own teaching, the perpetuity of Divine rest through all the ages of work; but the naked thought here soars far above them both. The dawning of every clay, the opening of the flowers, the flowing of the rivers, the sustenance of vegetable, animal, and human life, reveal through every moment of the agelong sabbath rest, and on every sabbath day, his intense and constant activity. John 5:18 On this account (the διὰτοῦτο is still further defined by the ὅτι) therefore the Jews were seeking the more (μᾶλλον, i.e. more than they had sought before he made use of this sublime expression) to slay him, because not only in their opinion, though very falsely, he was violating (i.e. dissolving the authority of) the sabbath. Jesus was actually placing the sabbatic law where it has remained ever since, giving it sanctions, beauty, and hold on conscience it had never known before. He was abrogating the petty restrictions and abolishing the unspiritual somnolence by which it had been characterized and misunderstood. But there was another and more staggering charge which they were not at that moment able to condone. They sought the more to slay him because he was calling God his own (ἴδον) Father, making himself equal to, on a level with, God. He did use the phrase, "my Father," with a marked emphasis. He did not say, "our Father, or your Father;" he assumed a unique relation to the Father. The inmost centre of the Divine consciousness in him thrilled through the human. Though he did not wear now the "form of God," but the "form of the Servant," yet the Servant knew that he was Son and Lord of all. The Divine Personality which had always wrought out the eternal counsels of the Father’s will was working now on identical and parallel lines in the human sphere. There were senses in which the Lord Jesus was the own and only begotten Son of God. This was a hard saying. This placing of himself on a level with God was the blasphemy which the Jews resented. Jesus knew what he said, and saw the impression his words produced, and took no steps to correct it. Two classes of result naturally followed. Some said, "He blasphemeth," "He hath a devil," and the high priest subsequently, in reply to a similar utterance of the Lord, rent his clothes; but other some felt concerning him that the relation between him and the Father was, so far as they knew, absolutely unique. The author of this Gospel exclaimed, "He who ’was with God and was God’ has been manifested in the flesh, and we saw his glory, the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father." John 5:19-29 (b) Christ vindicated his equality with the Father. John 5:19, John 5:20 (a) He declares himself to be "the Sore" John 5:19 Jesus therefore answered and said to them; i.e. replied to their secret thoughts, and to the sentiments of animosity and hostility which they did not conceal. He spake in language of extraordinary solemnity and august claim. The verily, verily, with which he prefaced the opening sentence, and which he repeated (cf. John 5:24, John 5:25, as in John 3:3 and elsewhere) on subsequent occasions, denoted the high ground of authoritative revelation on which he took his stand. He proceeded, without a break or interruption, to assert, on the authority of his own consciousness, the true relation subsisting between the Son and the Father—the deep, eternal, sacred link between them; in essence and in affection, in work and function; and gave several illustrations of these matters, the verification of which was not beyond the capacity of his hearers. These he made the basis of the argument of Joh 5:23, "that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." What did he wish "the Jews" to understand by "the Son"? Did he identify himself with the Son of whom he here speaks? Surely this is unquestionably the case, for the "answer" here given is one addressed to those who were seeking to slay him because he claimed for himself that God was "his own Father." He had said," My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." He justified the true reverence he felt for the Father when using this language, by describing in various ways the functions, privileges, and work of "the Son." Is "the Son," however, here the Eternal Son, the Logos, before and independently of his incarnation? and are the doctrines here announced an appeal to a pre-existing belief in such a sonship on the part of his enemies, so that he is dealing, at least from John 5:19-23, with the internal relations of the Godhead? The references to the recent ἔργον, and the moral effects which are to be produced upon his hearers by further activity, make this view doubtful. Does he here speak simply of "the Son of man" in his purely dependent, servile capacity, and earthly manifestation? (Watkins). We think not; for the deeds and functions of "the Son" are here so lofty and far reaching that this interpretation is inadmissible. Therefore we conclude, with Meyer and others, that by "the Son" he did mean "the whole subject, the God-Man, the incarnate Logos, in whom the self-determination of action independently of the Father cannot find place." This view of "the Son" involves the continuity of the Logos-consciousness, and not its obliteration; nor is this (as Reuss urges, and even Godet appears in part to concede) incompatible with the Logos-doctrine of the prologue. The Son is not able to do anything from himself, in the great work of healing, life giving, and redemption, except that which he seeth the Father doing. The Logos made flesh, the Son who has taken humanity up into his own eternal being, is ever in full contemplation of the Father’s activity. He is in intimate and continuous and affectionate relations with the Father, who in this capacity has sent his Son to be the world’s Saviour. He sees the Father’s healing grace and omnipresent energy and ceaseless activity in regions where "the Jews" fail to discern them. The incarnate Son does not set up a rival throne or authority. He moves, lives, has his being, from the Father and not from himself. John 5:20 For—the Lord introduces a reason, states a fact, which is calculated to make this vision of the Father’s activity apprehensible to his hearers—the Father loveth (φιλεῖ expresses strong personal, natural affection, amat rather than the ἀγαπα or diligit of many other passages. See notes, John 21:15 and John 3:35) £ the Son, and he loveth him to such an extent that he showeth him, making it therefore possible for him "to see"—all things that himself doeth. The Son has been from eternity and is now, notwithstanding his incarnate lowliness, the continuous Spectator of all the Father’s doing in all hearts and lives, in all places of his dominion. "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee." So stupendous a claim was never exceeded or transcended. "All things that himself doeth," shown and visible to One walking this world. The mind either rebels against or succumbs before such sublime and all-embracing knowledge. No neutrality is possible. If these were his words, then there is justification for the generalizations of the prologue. John 5:20-29 (b) The greater works. And greater works than these works of healing will he show him. Here the term ἔργα is used for the first time in this Gospel. It becomes the recognized phrase by which Christ describes what the world regards as "signs and wonders," "miracles" of power or grace; but it actually connotes the simple activity of God, the normal operation of his hand. Greater manifestations than physical quickening or revival namely, the mighty changes of thought and life, the gifts of grace and peace, eternal life itself, are evermore proceeding. The Father will so show them that the Son will see and do them, and so bring them by revelation to your consciousness that ye may marvel. Christ will not say here that ye may believe, but that ye may look on confounded and astonished. This was the first effect of Christ’s work—Christ’s revelation of the Father’s heart, Christ’s demonstration of the Father’s nearness and character. Westcott quotes the apocryphal saying of our Lord preserved by Clement of Alexandria, ’Str.,’ John 2:9. 45, "He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns shall rest." The wonders of grace will never be exhausted. New combinations, new transformations, new discoveries, new insight into the eternal love, will be effected by him whom God hath sent, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world (but see verse 28). John 5:21-26 Greater works: (1) the resurrection of the dead. John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. This is the most exhaustive expression of the Father’s love and revelation to the Son. This thing the Son sees, and this same thing he will do, whether these Jews attempt to put any arrest upon his will or not. The majority of commentators regard John 5:21-27 as descriptive of the moral and spiritual resurrection of dead souls, and hold that a transition is made in John 5:28, John 5:29 to the resurrection of dead bodies and the final consummation. There are some, however, who regard the whole passage—even John 5:28, John 5:29—as referring, with the previous verses, to moral resurrection, although the words, "in their tombs" (μνημείοις) are there added to give distinctness and explicitness to that future resurrection; and though "now is" of John 5:25 is not there predicated or repeated. Others (with many of the older expositors) refer the entire passage to the final resurrection, which, however, is incompatible with John 5:20 and with the "now is" of John 5:25. Others, again, see in John 5:21, in ἐγείρει and ζωοποιεῖ,, the whole process of resurrection and renewal, both physical and moral, bodily and spiritual. They suppose that in John 5:25 Christ refers first to the spiritual renovation, to be affirmed and consummated in the universal resurrection and judgment of the last day. The generality of the terms ἐγείρει and ζωοποιει, attributed to the Father, makes it possible that the Lord was referring to the numerous events of uplifting from the pit, from the lowest sheol, which formed the staple religious nutrition of the Jewish race. The history of Divine revelation is one lengthened series of interpositions and deliverances, of resurrections of the people of Israel, and of the theocracy from bondage, exile, and spiritual and civil death, and of references to the wonderful transformations of saints and prophets and kings from the depths of despair to the light of life and Divine favour. Ezekiel (37) had likened the most memorable of these resurrections to the uprising of a huge army from a valley of vision, strown with the dry bones of both houses of Israel. "So also," says Jesus, "the Son quiekeneth." including under this term, it may be, the physical healing which is often the precursor and condition of spiritual awakening and moral health and vigour. The Son, the incarnate Logos, revealing himself on earth, both as Logos and Son of man, is now quickening after the same fashion whom he will. The will of Christ is in such entire harmony with the Father’s will that there is no rivalry here. The will of the Son is in spontaneous accord with the Divine purpose of resurrection and quickening. He is already doing thus here on earth, as the great organ of the Father, that which makes his will the revelation of the Father. There is no arbitrary decree, such as Calvin found here, nor such as Roues insists upon. The emphasis is simply upon the subject of the verb θέλει; and we have in the expression a vindication of the nineteenth verse, "The Son doeth that which he sees the Father doing." His own θέλημα being the origin and revealed centre on earth of Divine manifestations. John 5:22 That οὕςθέλει is the point of connection with what follows, and that the Son quickeneth whom he willeth, is more clear, seeing that (γὰρ) the Father even judges no man; judges no man apart from the Son. "Pater non judicat solus nec sine filio, judicat tamen (John 5:45; Acts 17:31; Romans 3:6)" (Bengel). The word κρίνει does not mean exclusively either "condemn" or "acquit," but the exercise of judicial functions which will either acquit or condemn. As in John 3:17, the "condemnation" is rather inferred than asserted. Moreover, we are there told that the Son was not sent into the world for the purpose of judgment, but for the larger purposes of salvation, and "to give eternal life." Nevertheless, "life" to some is judgment to others, and judgment even unto death is the obverse of the gift of life when the conditions of life are not found, in John 1:39 Christ declares that one solemn consequence of his coming was εἰςκρίμα, "unto judgment"—to reveal the final decisions of the Judge. How, then, shall we reconcile these apparently incongruous statements? Judgment unquestionably results from the rejection of the proffer of mercy. The judgment rests on those who say, "We see." Their sin remaineth. Those who are not willing to be made whole remain unhealed. Those who love darkness rather than light abide in the darkness. This is the judgment, but this judicial process was (not the end, but) the consequence of his mission. The Father’s ordinary providence, which is always passing judgment upon the lives of men, is now placed in the hands of "the Son." Howbeit he hath given the whole judgment—i.e. the judgment in all its parts—to the Son. He has made the entire juridical process which brings to light the essential tendencies of human hearts, issue from the reception given by man to the Son. The whole question of right against wrong, of life versus death, acquittal against condemnation, is determined by the attitude of men towards the Son. In many passages this plenipotentiary endowment of "the Son" with functions, powers, authorities, is expressed by this same word (δέδωκε), "he hath given" (John 1:36; John 3:35; John 6:37, John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:2, John 17:4). Meyer limits the meaning of κρίνει to "condemnation," and Slier includes in it the separation of sin from the life of believers; but surely the judgment of the world is effected by the light that shines upon it, and the essence of the judgment (κρίσις) is the discrimination which infailibly follows the revelation of the Father through the Son. John 5:23 The purpose of the entire commission of judgment to the Son, a bestowment which illustrates the quickening results that he (who does the will of the Father) wills to effect, is now gathered to a lofty climax, abundantly vindicating the right he had claimed to call God his own Father. It is as follows, in order that all may honour the Son. Τιμῶσιν, not προσκυνῶσιν ("honour," not "worship"), is the word used; but seeing that the identical sentiment of reverence due to the Supreme Being, to the Father, is that which is here said to be due to the Son, and is here declared to be the reason why all judgment is entrusted to the issues of his will,—we are at a loss to know how loftier attributes could be ascribed to the Son. It is surprising that Weiss should declare it "impossible to find any statements here as to the metaphysical unity and equality of the Son and the Father, although current apologetics believe it has succeeded in doing so" (’Life of Christ,’ vol. 2:326, note). Luthardt asks, "What other form of τιμη than that which calls him ’Lord and God’ shall belief now assume, than that which the Christian Church cherishes toward Jesus?" Thoma points to Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:11-13, and other great parallels in the New Testament. We gladly accept them, not as proof that the Johannist framed Christ’s discourse from them, but as proof that the ideas of St. Paul were not originated by him. but came from the direct assertions of Christ, of which we have the historic trace. John 5:24 In this verse the discourse turns from the relations between the Father and the Son, to deal with the relations of the living Christ (the "I," who is speaking throughout) with men. In John 5:21-23, indeed John 5:19-23, the Lord had been speaking prominently of the ideal sonship, of "the Son" on the Divine side of his consciousness. The use of the first person, which is here resumed, calls more express attention to the consciousness of his human manifestation, which again reaches its climax in John 5:27. Verily, verily, I say unto you—I, whose voice you now hear, whom you are misunderstanding, rejecting, and seeking to slay. I say with most solemn emphasis—He that heareth my word—this term, ἀκούειν, suggests moral as well as physical hearing, and means whosoever allows my thought to penetrate his nature, hears and understands, hears and acts accordingly (cf. Matthew 11:1 πιστεύειν 5; Matthew 13:9, Matthew 13:18; Revelation 2:7, Revelation 2:17; Revelation 3:22)—and further believeth him that sent me; believeth i.e. that he has borne and is continually bearing true witness concerning me. There is a different meaning conveyed by πιστεύειν, with the simple dative, and πιστεύεινεἰςτινα, or ἐπὶτινι, or ἐπὶτινα, and again ἐντινι; these prepositions convey a gradually deepening sense of intercommnnion and dependence; the simple accusative is found in 1 Corinthians 9:17; Ellicott on 1 Timothy 1:16). To believe on a person, or in one, conveys a different idea from believing that person with regard to any special assertion he may make. Here the belief of God has emphatic reference to the testimony the Father is bearing to the claims of Jesus. Such a hearer, such a believer, hath eternal life; even here he has entered into the "eternal now;" on earth he is in possession of the blessed consummation. Such belief in words authenticated by the Father’s commission is eternal life (cf. John 17:3). It lifts a man out of the reach of corruption and condemnation, it ushers him into eternity, it is an eternal blessedness in itself; and he cometh not to judgment, but has passed from the death, into the life. He is already translated from the death state to the renewed, quickened state. The decision and discrimination between him and the world have taken place. The judgment is over, the books are closed, the condemnation is no longer possible. He will not perish, he has eternal life. "The believer is tree from the judgment which executes itself in the exclusion inflicted on the unbeliever, by the revelation of Jesus as the Light, because he is already in possession of the saving blessing" (Luthardt). Judgment, being completed, does not require repetition" (Godet). "When that confidence in Christ has illumined the heart wherein we recognize that we have been verily accepted, listened to, ruled, and defended by God, peace follows, and high joyfulness, which is the realization of eternal life, and which covers the sins that erewhile had clung to our weakness" (Melancthon). In this life of faith "we taste the powers of the world to come," "our citizenship is in heaven." "This eternal life is a veritable resurrection of the dead". John 5:25 Once more the solemn asseveration, Verily, verily, I say unto you, is repeated, when our Lord still further emphasized the authority of his own word, the Father’s confirmation of its accuracy, and the Divine signature and testimony to its power. The hour is coming, and now is. There will be more wonderful attestations to the truth than any which as yet have broken the silence of the grave. Not only will the physically dead rise from their bier or their grave in the fulness and strength of resume, life, but the spiritually dead in vast multitudes will pass from death into eternal life, will know that the bitterness of death is over, and that there shall be no more condemnation for them. The Holy Spirit was, when Jesus spake, about to convict the world of sin, and to unveil the glory of Christ to the eye of faith. Pentecost would confirm the word of Jesus, for the Spirit will bear witness to the reality of the risen Lord. But whereas that hour was only "coming," that marvellous day had yet to dawn upon the world, Jesus added it now is—while I am speaking the reality of this vast spiritual change is taking place. There are proofs enough already. "Now," already, at this very moment, the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God. The spiritually dead shall be disturbed in their slumber and roused from their indifference, be made to know that the summons of supreme power and authority is addressed to them. Emphasis is laid upon the Divine force which is at work upon heart and conscience. "The Son of God," not "a son of man" merely, is uttering his voice. And they that have heard—accepted the summons, "heard the word," and believed, not merely him that sent me (the teaching of Joh 5:24), but that he who has been sent is none other than the "Son of God"—these, said Christ, shah live. The form of the expression ἀκούσαντες can only designate those who give ear, and by this the literal resurrection of all the dead is excluded. £ The teaching of this verse reasserts the teaching of Joh 5:24, and adds to it, and clothes the truth in the imagery of the general resurrection. The awful suggestion is involved that many of these dead ones will hear the voice of the Son of God, and not give heed to it. Hengstenberg endeavours to overthrow this general interpretation of the verse, making it equivalent to John 5:27, John 5:28 rather than an expansion of Joh 5:24. The "now is," according to him, covers the whole period to the second advent, and the future ἀκούσονται points to a future epoch in the ὥρα. But the emphatic omission of the νῦνἔστι in the later and more explicit statement is against such a view, and the ἀκούσονται is best explained by its adaptation to the whole clause. "The hour is coming" as well as "now is." The ζήσονται "shall live," rather than shall be "made alive," is far more applicable to the resurrection of dead souls than of defunct bodies. It is equivalent to "have eternal life" of the previous verses. John 5:26 This verse, introduced by γὰρ, shows that the statement about to follow will sustain some portion of the previous one. Which portion? As it seems to me, the coming clause justifies the alteration of the term "the Son" into "the Son of God;" and declares, more fully than any other passage in the New Testament, the lofty and unique character of the Sonship which he claimed. For even as the Father hath life in himself—the sublime assumption of the self-existence and eternal being of the Father, the absolute Possessor of life per se, the Source ultimate and efficient of all that is connoted by life, the eternal Fountain of life—in like manner also he gave to the Son to have Life in himself. "He generated," as Augustine has it, "such a Son who should have life in himself, not as a participator in life, but one who should be as he himself is—Life itself." It is the bona fide expression of community of nature, attribute, quality, and possession of Godhead. In virtue of this utterance, the evangelist, learning from the consciousness of Christ through long years of meditation, under the power of the Spirit, eventually formulated the doctrine of the prologue, "In him was life." "The Son," or the God-Man, is, so far as this Sonship is concerned, the veritable Son of God with such a fulness of life power and such a fountain of life flowing from him, that his voice is the voice of the Eternal Son. This is the primary meaning, though since the Lord returned to his use of the word "the Son," and since the word "gave" is also employed to denote the stupendous conception, there is also involved in it the declaration that the God-Man, seeing he is both Son of God and Son of man, is endowed with all the functions of both. In his incarnation he has not lost the infinite fulness of life giving power. "He quickeneth whom he will," having life in himself. His voice is the voice of the Son of God. The glory of the Word who became flesh was the glory of the Only Begotten. The part which this great passage took in the Arian controversy is well known (see Athanasius, ’Discourses against Arians,’ John 3:3, translated by J.H. Newman). Archdeacon Watkins emphasizes the position that the Lord here speaks of "life in himself," which was given to the Son (God-Man) in virtue of, and as the reward of his sacrificial work. He points to Philippians 2:6, etc. But Jesus here speaks of a gift already made. John 5:27-29 (2) Second "greater work"—judgment of the world. John 5:27 And he gave him (i.e. the Son, the God-Man) authority to execute judgment, £ because he is Son of man. He has vindicated his power to confer life upon the dead by asserting the possession by "the Son" of the Divine Sonship. He now adds, so far as the relation to man is concerned, his fitness and authority to administer justice, to preside over the entire juridical process, to lift the scales, to determine the destiny of the human race. The fitness is seen in this, that he, "the Son," is "the Son of man." The one term, "THE SON," entirely covers the twofold Sonship. The proof of his humanity is assumed to be complete. The fact of it is the ground that he who knows what is in man should be the Judge of men. By personal experience of man’s temptations and frailties; by knowing every palliation of our sins, every extenuation of our failures, every aggravation of our weakness; by gazing through human eyes with human consciousness upon our mysterious destiny, he is competent to judge; whereas by being Son of God as well as Son of man, he is entrusted with power to execute the judgment of the Eternal. The principle involved is based upon perfect justice. The honour thus conferred on the God-Man is infinite, the consolation thus held out to man unspeakable. We are being judged by Christ, not by impersonal law. The entire incidence upon every individual of the Law is in the hands of the Redeemer. The Saviour, the Life-giver, the voice which quickens the dead, assigns the judgment. We must be careful, in any inference we draw from this grand utterance, to avoid all suspicion of schism or rivalry between the Father and the Son. The Son is not more merciful than the Father. For the Father of the Old Testament pitieth his children, and knoweth their frame (Psalms 103:13, Psalms 103:14), and the Father of Jesus Christ loves the world, and counts the very hairs of our heads. The Son will not exercise this judgment with less regard to the claims of eternal justice than the Father; but his knowledge of humanity is, by the nature of the case, a guarantee of such application of the justice of God to the case of every individual, that man’s knowledge of himself will be able personally to justify and verify it. The Divine judgment will go forth from the heart of man himself. John 5:28, John 5:29 It is impossible not to draw a distinction between the theme of these verses and that of Joh 5:24, John 5:25. The Lord announces an event which is in the future altogether. The "and now is," which characterized the first resurrection of which he spoke, is here omitted. The description of the subjects of the resurrection as those "in their graves," contradistinguishes them from "the dead" of John 5:25—a phrase which will suffer several interpretations. The universality of the summons, and the impossibility of neglecting it or ignoring it, form another marked contrast to the resurrection already referred to. Marvel not at this! This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 6:1-71 2. Christ declares himself to be the Sustainer and Protector of the life of which he is the Source. John 6:1-15 (1) The supply of human wants illustrated by a well known "sign" of power. Chronological difficulties beset our treatment of this miraculous narrative with its varied consequences and results. Many curious and even violent measures have been resorted to with a view to solve them. Some have supposed that John 5:1-47. and 6. have been inverted in order, and that thus the presence of our Lord in Galilee, mentioned in John 4:1-54., would account for the statement of Joh 6:1 and the journey to Jerusalem of Joh 5:1, be brought into closer relation with John 7:1-53. We cannot see the faintest indication or evidence whatever of any such treatment of the Gospel by the authors of the manuscripts or the quotations or versions. The evangelist has just completed his record of the conflict between Jesus and the recognized leaders of the people in Jerusalem. He had introduced our Lord’s own vindication (based on the highest grounds) of his own right to deal with the rabbinical restrictions upon sabbath duty. These grounds were the eternal relations of his own inner nature and consciousness with the Father’s. On no occasion had Christ made the uniqueness of his personal claims and powers more explicit. He called for entire obedience to his word as the condition of eternal life, and as the key to the Scriptures of God. If we had no synoptic tradition to give a closer historical setting of the narrative which here follows, we might take Meyer’s view, and say that the "after these things" (μετὰταῦτα) of John 7:1 referred to the discourse of the previous chapter, and that the "departed" (ἀπῆλθε) referred to Jerusalem as its starting point; and, notwithstanding the extreme awkwardness of the expression, we might have supposed that "the other side" of the sea was the other side of it from Jerusalem (cf. John 10:40; John 18:1). Some commentators appear to have a morbid fear of reducing a difficulty, or seeing a harmony, between these four narratives. One thing is dear, that they are independent of one another, are not derived from each other, do each involve side views of the event distinct from the rest, and yet concur in the same general representation. The synoptists, however, place the "feeding of the multitudes" in the midst of a group of most remarkable and varied events. It is for them one page out of many descriptive of the Galilaean ministry, and which ultimately led to grievous departure from and diminution of the temporary popularity of the great Prophet. It would seem that bitter hostility, as well as excited enthusiasm, was checkering his early ministry. The synoptics take pains to show the combined effect of his self-revelations (1) on his own fellow townsmen; (2) upon his own family; (3) upon the populace (Matthew 15:31); (4) upon Herod Antipas (Mark 6:14-16); (5) upon the twelve disciples (Matthew 16:13-28); (6) upon John the Baptist (Matthew 11:3); and (7) upon the Father in heaven (Matthew 17:1-13 and parallel passages). The canvas is crowded with scenes, the signs and wonders of healing and teaching are abundant. The blind see, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the daemons are exorcised. The twelve apostles are chosen the sermon on the mount is delivered, the twelve are sent forth in every direction with the proclamation of the coming of the kingdom and with the call to repentance, and an excitement produced by the mission of the twelve had proved to be extensive. The crowds throng him; they have no time even to eat bread. And we judge from Luke 9:10 that this very excitement, amounting to feverish self-glorification on their part, appears to have been one at least of our Lord’s motives for the temporary withdrawal of his disciples from the multitudes. Another event of singular significance contributed to the same result. Matthew (Matthew 14:12) takes the opportunity of describing the tragic close of John’s imprisonment, and relates how John’s "disciples came to tell Jesus" of the bloody deed. A sudden panic was felt by the multitude. A crisis had arrived. The great Prophet must avenge his forerunner’s death or lose his hold upon the affections of the fickle mass. The people appeared to the eyes of Jesus (Mark 6:34) "as sheep without a shepherd." He had compassion on them, but he must make them understand the nature of the royalty as well as of the realm of the Messianic King. The true grounds for Christ’s retirement are not incompatible, but mutually explanatory. The death of the renowned forerunner, of the idol of the multitude brought vividly to the mind of the Lord his own death—the foreseen sacrifice of himself. The conviction that he must give himself to a violent death—give his flesh to the hungry and starving multitude, made the decadence of his popularity in Galilee a certain consequence of any right apprehension of his mission or claims. This mastery over the powers of nature which his compassion for others prevailed on him to manifest would be misunderstood. The moral and mystic meaning of it was far more important than the superficial inferences drawn by the Galilaeans. The real lesson of the miracle would grievously offend them. But it sank deeply into the apostolic mind, and hence the various aspects which it presents in the fourfold narrative. John selects this one specimen of the Galilaean ministry on account of its typical character, and records the high and wonderful results which the Lord educed from this high and striking manifestation of his power. There is, moreover, remarkable correspondence between the fifth and sixth chapters in this respect, that Galilee, like Jerusalem, recoils from the highest claims of Jesus, and developed an antagonism or an indifference as deadly if not as malignant as that which has displayed itself in the metropolis. "He came to his own, and his own received him not." John 6:1 After these things (see note on John 5:1; not μετὰτοῦτο, which would mean after this particular scene in Jerusalem)—i.e. after a group of events, one of which may have been this visit to the metropolis, but which included also the early Galilaean ministry as presented in the synoptic narrative, and with which John and his readers were familiar—Jesus departed from the side of the sea on which he was, and as we may judge (verse 24) from Capernaum, now known to be his chief resting place, most probably the home of his mother, brothers, and nearest friends, to the other side of the sea of Galilee, of Tiberias; or, of the Galilaean sea of Tiberias. It does not follow that the evangelist had the southernmost portion of the lake in his mind (as Meyer suggests). Tiberius was the showy city built by Herod Antipas on the western shore of the lake. Herod called the place after the name of Tiberius Caesar, and conferred upon it many Gentile characteristics. From the time of Antipas to that of Agrippa it was the chief town of the tetrarchy. After the destruction of Jerusalem it became for centuries the site era celebrated school of Hebrew learning, and one of the sacred cities of the Jews. Jewish tradition makes it the scene of the last judgment and the resurrection of the dead. It was a modern city, which may account for the omission of its name in the synoptic narrative. Christ never visited it that we know of. He preferred the fishing village of Bethsaida, or the more thoroughly Hebrew aspect of Capernaum. Nevertheless, "Tiberias" gave to Gentile cars the best and least dubious designation of the lake. So Pausanias (5, 7, 3) calls it the λίμνηΤιβερίς ("the lake Tiber"). Luke (Luke 5:1) calls it the "Lake Gennesaret," and Matthew and Mark "the Sea of Galilee" without any other epithet. John (John 21:1) calls it "the Sea of Tiberias." This multiplicity of lake names, due in the first instance to some peculiarity of the including shores, finds easy parallels in Derwentwater and Keswick Lake, and in the "Lake of the Four Cantons," called also" Lake of Luzern," etc. Christ sought retirement from the surging crowd, and for himself and his excited disciples a time of rest and communion with the Father, who had accepted, as part of his Divine plan, the awful sacrifice of the life of John the Baptist. He went "by ship," says Matthew (Matthew 14:13) to a desert place. In Luke’s account this solitary place was towards or near (εἰς) a city called "Bethsaida." It is difficult to believe that this is the familiar Bethsaida or "fishing town," situated a little south of Capernaum, because we are met in the account of Mark (Mark 6:45) with the statement that, after the miracle, the disciples were urged to go to the other side of the lake (πρὸςΒηθσαΐδάν) towards Bethsaida. This, compared with verse 17, is obviously in the same direction as Capernaum. Indeed, the term, "Bethsaida of Galilee," referred to in Mark 12:21 (as the Apostle Philip’s residence), seems used with the view of distinguishing it from some other place of the same name. Now, Josephus (’Ant.,’ 18:2, 1) mentions a Bethsaida Julias situated on the northeastern extremity of the lake. The "ruins of this city may be still seen on the rising hilly ground which here retires somewhat from the river and the lake. It was situated in Gaulonitis, in the tetrarchy of Philip, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of Herod, yet not far from the road into Peraea by which the Galilaean pilgrims to the metropolis might be expected to travel. The silence of these hills provided the opportunity of retirement. But it was frustrated by the eager excitement of the multitude. John 6:2 There was following him a vast crowd, because they were spectators of £ the signs he was working on those that were sick. The imperfect tenses here reveal a period of time that had elapsed; a group and series of healings which had touched the heart of the people. Their "following" had not been by ship, but round the head of the lake, and across the ford of the Jordan, which is still situated about two miles from the point where the river flows into the Sea of Galilee. The multitudes would easily learn the direction of the well known boat with its solitary sail, and would be, some of them, ready at the landing place, to greet the Lord on his arrival. Many hours might elapse before the crowd had reached such vast proportions as we subsequently find. It may easily have been swollen by curious and inquisitive pilgrims, or by the inhabitants of the neighbouring villages, intent on a sight of the Prophet who had preached the sermon, who had spoken in wondrous parables, who had given such striking proof that "God was with him." John 6:3 And Jesus went up into the mountain; i.e. the high ground which everywhere surrounded the lake. The same expression, εἰςτὸὄρος, occurs very frequently in the synoptist Gospels (Mark 3:13; Matthew 5:1; Matthew 14:23). This last passage is an interesting confirmation of our text. The usage implies on the part of the four evangelists familiar acquaintance with the scenery. And there he sat down £ with his disciples. From this elevation they would see the gathering multitudes streaming from different points and meeting on the pebbly beach, asking each ether where was the Master? and whither had the Prophet, the Healer, fled? Women and little children are in the crowd (Matthew 14:21). Weiss, who argues that the main features of the narrative are deeply imbedded in all the traditions, summarily disposes of the later accounts of the similar event recited by Mark (Mark 8:1-11) and Matthew (Matthew 15:32-38). John 6:4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. The ordinary meaning of ἐγγύς need not be departed from (cf. John 2:13; John 7:2; John 11:55). This valuable note of time is confirmed by another hint incidentally dropped. A month later than the Passover it could not be said that "much grass" was in the place. In the late spring such a phrase would most inadequately represent the scene that was indelibly impressed on the fourfold tradition. Whatever the unnamed feast was (John 5:1), whether Trumpets, Purim, or Passover, we have reached the month Abib, when the crowds of pilgrims were gathering for their southern journey. If the Purim were the unnamed feast, then the suggestion arises that Christ’s reception at Jerusalem had prevented his remaining until the Passover of that year. If the Passover be meant (John 5:1), then a year has passed between John 5:1-47. and 6. Nor is this a day too long for the crowd of events and teachings recorded by the synoptists as having taken place before the death of John. The note of time may be recorded as implying the dominant sentiment in the minds of the people. The great deliverance from Egyptian bondage was burned into the national conscience, and the fanatic desire for a second Moses to lead them out of Roman servitude was at such seasons fanned into a flame. The Lord had his own thought about the Paschal lamb, and knew that God was preparing a Lamb for sacrifice. In mystic, parabolic sense he foreknew that men would and must consume the flesh of this sacrifice. He was ready, moreover, to show them that he could supply all their need. The great Prophet who had said of himself, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!" had just fallen beneath the executioner’s axe. The people were bereft of a great prophet and leader, and to Christ’s eye they were "as sheep without a shepherd." Verily he was preparing to lay down his life as a good Shepherd for these sheep—to provide for them in the future a feast of living bread. All this may rationally be admitted, without for a moment conceding that second-century ideas like these were the formative causes of the narrative. The miracle that follows stands on an entirely distinct basis, and is more powerfully attested than any ether miracle, except the resurrection of Christ. If it stood in John’s record alone, there might be some colour for the supposition that we have merely a parable of great beauty. But the threefold tradition long anterior to John’s Gospel deprives even the pseudo-John of the possibility of inventing it. On the other hand, the appearance of the narrative in John’s Gospel deprives it of the mythical character which some have attributed to the authors of the synoptic Gospels. Thoma, in the spirit of Strauss, here imagines that the synoptists were busy in fashioning a miracle of sustenance and a portent upon the waters—a sign on land and sea—to correspond with the manna and Red Sea marvels of the Book of Exodus. "The mountain" (τὸὄρος) is, as he thinks, a similitude of the Mount Sinai, and, as the latter represented the giving of the Law, this was associated with the mountain of Beatitudes. He goes further, and sees in the Johannine narrative the Christian (agapē) feasts, and the deliverance of the Apostle Paul from shipwreck! He is even more ingenious still, and suggests that the "five thousand" fed at the first miraculous meal, with twelve baskets of fragments, correspond with the results of the first preaching of the twelve apostles, and that the seven loaves among the four thousand reflect "the many hundreds"" who were benefited by the seven evangelists. He endeavours by a most elaborate process to make it appear that John has here combined into one tableau minute traces derived from the five several accounts of the two miracles. The old rationalistic theory was that the miracle was only an exaggerated poetical statement of the fact; that a good example of charity on the part of the apostles was followed by others, and so food was found for the entire multitude. This hypothesis breaks on the rock that the authors of these Gospels intended to convey a perfectly different idea. The effect of such cheap philanthropy and pragmatic travesty of a royal act would not have been that the multitudes would have rushed to the conclusion that he had done a kingly deed, or one in the least way calculated to suggest the notion that he could feed armies at his will. All efforts to extirpate by such theories the supernatural character of the occurrence fail, and force the reader back upon the plain statements of the fourfold narrative. John 6:5 Jesus therefore, seated with his disciples on the rising ground in full view of the lake with its shipping and its fringe of villages, and of the gathering crowds of pilgrims to the Passover, having lifted up his eyes, and having beheld that a great multitude cometh (was coming) unto him, saith. Matthew 14:14, Mark 6:34, and Luke 9:11 show that the miracle which they all, with John, prepare to describe was preceded by a day in which the Lord instructed the multitudes, "had compassion upon them," "taught them many things," "spake to them concerning the kingdom of God," "healed their sick." The first approach of the multitude was the occasion of a suggestion which Jesus made to Philip. The other evangelists record the reopening of the conversation on the same theme, stimulated by the question already put to Philip in the forenoon, and on this occasion originated by the disciples. The company arrived by the head of the lake; and the first compassionate thought is attributed by John to the Lord himself: Whence are we to buy £ (bread) loaves, that these multitudes may eat? This very question shows the intimate relations between our Lord and his disciples—the touch of nature. The identification of his interests with theirs is in the "we." Why should Philip be selected for the questioning or suggestion? Luthardt argues that it was a part of the needed education of that apostle that he should have been submitted to the searching anxiety. It is indeed added— John 6:6 This he said to test him; but it is doubtful whether more is involved than an endeavour to entice from Philip the answer of faith, such e.g. as "Lord, all things are possible to thee." Philip of Bethsaida was, moreover, in all probability, present at the wedding feast at Cans, and might have anticipated some such sign of the resources of his Lord. The other hints of Philip’s character are severally consistent with this. Philip had said in the first instance to Nathanael, "Come and see." "Seeing is believing;" and Philip, on the night of the Passion, after much hearing and seeing of Jesus, said, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us;" for he had even then not risen to the loftiness of the perception that the Father had been and was being revealed in Christ’s own life (John 14:1-31.). Philip’s personal acquaintance with the immediate vicinity is more likely to be the reason of his being put to this proof; while the tact of the inquiry as addressed to him is an undesigned note of the identity of the Johannine Christ with that portrayed by the synoptists. Bengel’s suggestion, that Philip was entrusted with the commissariat of the twelve, is hardly consistent with the fact that Judas kept the common purse. We are expressly told that Jesus did not put the question in consequence of any deficiency of knowledge or resources on his own part, but to test the character and tone of Philip’s mind. He himself knew what he was about to do. Thus, by a slight touch, we see the blending of the distinctly human with the consciously Divine elements of that unique personality of his. There were to his Divine consciousness no gaps of reality, but he so threw himself into human conditions that he could ask the question and pass through the experience of a man. The whole kenotic controversy is, of course, involved in the solution of the problem offered by this verse. Perhaps no greater difficulty is involved in imagining the union of the Divine and human in one personality, in which at times the Ego is the Son of God and at other times purely the Son of man, than there is in the blending of the flesh and spirit in the Divine life of our own experience. John saw this, felt this, when the question was addressed to Philip. He saw by intuitive glance, as on so many other occasions, what Christ "knew" absolutely (ἤδει) or came to know by experience and observation (John 4:1; John 16:19). The "trial," not the "temptation," of Philip was obvious in the form and tone of the question. The use of the word πειράζων shows that it frequently means "test," "prove," as well as "tempt." If God tempts, it is with the beneficent intention of encouraging the tempted one to succeed, to resist the allurement, to show and prove his power to bear a more serious assault. If the devil tempts (πειράζει), it is with the hope of inducing the sufferer to yield and fail. John 6:7 Philip took a calculating method of meeting the difficulty, and looked at the question as one which their entire resources were unable to solve. He did not so much as think of the "whence," or from what quarter the loaves could be procured, as how much money would be required to meet the ease. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of loaves are not sufficient for them, that each one £ may take a little. The denarius was equal to about eightpence halfpenny of our money; so that the sum spoken of, probably representing the entire contents of their common purse, was only six pounds fifteen shillings, and was utterly insufficient for the purpose. The conversation preserved by Mark (Mark 6:35-37) cannot well be made part of this language of Philip, but rather follows when the short afternoon was coming on, and the long shadows indicated the near approach of darkness. Philip had told the other disciples of the Lord’s question, and they had discussed the possible perils of the case and the intentions of the Lord. It is interesting to see, in Mark, that the same sum was mentioned as being insufficient for the needs of the great multitudes. John has not only abridged the narrative of the synoptists, but added a feature which is of interest, and shows how for some hours the disciples had meditated on what they fancied would be necessary, and had come to the somewhat unwelcome conclusion that they must sacrifice their entire stock of funds. The Lord had first of all made the suggestion. They now go to him, to beseech his influence to send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves something to eat. When the enigmatic words burst from his lips, "Give ye them to eat," the two hundred pennyworth of bread is once more referred to by the disciples as insufficient (Luke 9:12, Luke 9:13; Matthew 14:15-17). John 6:8, John 6:9 Then saith one of his disciples to him, viz. Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. The spokesman is here specially indicated. On other occasions Andrew is singled out as the brother of Simon and friend of Philip (John 1:44; John 12:22). This repeated reference to the illustrious brother of Simon is a refutation of the ill-natured charge against the author of the Gospel, that he aimed at the depreciation of the character of the great apostle. Moreover, it is interesting to remember that in the Muratorian fragment on the Canon, "Andrew" is specially mentioned as being one of those present with John in Ephesus, who urged him to write his Gospel (see Introduction, IV. 2 (3)). There is a £ lad here (possibly a lad who was brought with themselves, or who had attached himself to the twelve) who has five barley loaves, the bread of the poorest classes. Of this there is ample proof (’Sotah,’ John 2:1, quoted by Edersheim, vol. 1:681): "While all other meat offerings were of wheat, that brought by the woman accused of adultery was to be of barley, because, as her deed is that of the animals, so her offering is of the food of animals." If this lad was conveying the food stock of the Lord and his apostles, it is an impressive but accidental hint that "for our sakes he became poor," and classed himself socially with the humblest. And two fishes. The use of this word is peculiar to our Gospel. This opsarion mostly consisted of small fishes caught in the lake, which were dried, salted as "sardines" or "anchovies" are with ourselves for a similar purpose. This habit belonged locally to the neighbourhood of the lake, and reveals the Galilman origin or associations of the writer. The Aramaic word, ophsonim, is derived from the Greek opson, and that of aphjain, or aphiz, is the name for a small fish caught in the lake, the drying of which was a lucrative source of industry. Edersheim reminds us that the fish laid on the charcoal fire (John 21:9, John 21:10, John 21:13) was "opsarion," and that of this the risen Lord, on the shore of this very lake, gave to his disciples to eat, though he guided them at that time to a shoal of great fishes, ἰχθύωνμεγάλων, and bade them add some of these to the ὀψάρια, which he was content to use still. The use of this word on these two occasions shows that, at the last, our Lord reminds his disciples of the miraculous feeding by the shore of the lake; and both narratives breathe the air of the northern parts of Galilee. But what are these among so many? The same lesson of the insufficiency of human resources to meet great human needs is suggested by Numbers 11:21-23. Our resources at the very best are quite exhausted. Our best, our all, avails little—an expression which would apply to the numberless offers of our poor humanity and of our limited faculties to meet the moral starvation of the world. Take the Old Testament: how can the dispensation of all its provision satisfy per se the need of mankind as a whole? Greek philosophy, even if it satisfy the few, the leisurely, the cynical, the learned, the wise men of the West, what will it do for the poor, the broken hearted, the consciously guilty? The good things of this life are equally powerless, and the proposals of even truth itself, apart from the gracious operations of the Spirit, would fail to meet the wants or necessities of the unbelieving. John 6:10 £ Jesus said, Make the people (ἀνθρώπους here. contrasted with the ἄνδρες of the next clause) recline. Now there was much grass in the place. As already said, this is in harmony with the note of time conveyed in John 6:4. The other evangelist (Mark 6:39) speaks of the people sitting down "upon the green grass"—a vivid touch this of an eyewitness; Matthew (Matthew 14:19) also speaks of the grass; and Mark and Luke add another rememberable feature which John omits. The men, who in no great numbers probably formed, according to Eastern custom, a company by themselves). The men sat down (reclined), in number—the matter of the "number" is here put into the "accusative of closer definition" (Meyer)—about five thousand.£Luke says, "in groups of fifty." Mark first declares that Jesus ordered them to sit down (συμπόσιασυμπόσια) in parties, and describes the result as having the appearance of garden beds (πρασιαίπρασιαί), of fifty or of a hundred each. The πρασιά is area, forus (Gartenbett; Homer, "Od.," 7.127; 24.247). "Πρασιαί," says Theophylact, "are the different divisions in gardens, in which different herbs are often planted." The image of the garden plots, with different divisions between them, forced itself on the eyewitness. John 6:11 Jesus then took the loaves; and having given thanks he distributed £ to them who were set down. This is not incompatible with the language of the synoptists, that he gave to the disciples, they to the multitude, an undoubted allegory of the method in which all his greatest gifts have been diffused over the world; but John calls special attention to the part, the supreme part, taken in this proceeding by the Lord himself. Advantage has been taken of this to show that the narrative is a glorification of the Eucharistial meal, at which Jesus gave to his disciples the bread which he brake. Likewise also of the fishes (ὀψαρίων) as much as they wished. This is, doubtless, the place or moment when the mighty miracle occurred. "’Twas seed-time when he blessed the bread, ’Twas harvest when he brake." This pretty couplet, with Augmstine’s and Olshausen’s remarks that the processes of nature were hastened by the great organ of the Divine Creator, does not throw any light upon the phenomenon.£ It makes it more inexplicable, for ground corn and baked barley loaves afford no parallel with living seeds, and dead and salted fish create even greater difficulties. "Frugality exaggerated into a miracle" (Renan) is far more thinkable, though it leaves the sequel unexplained. We must either reject the narrative, notwithstanding its wonderful confirmation by two or three separate eyewitnesses, or we must accept it. If we do the latter, we see in this (and the following) miracle an assertion that the creative will of Christ is the sole cause of the additional food that was provided for the sustenance of this multitude. The Son of God added to the sum of things, to the quantity of matter, or called together from surrounding air the elements needed for the purpose, just as in hushing the storm he met force by that will of his which is the ultimate source and ground of all force. He spake in the power of Heaven, and it was done. He gave thanks, and he distributed. John 6:12 Then when they were filled, he said to his disciples. Gather together the broken pieces—not the crumbs left on the ground by the satisfied thousands, but the pieces broken from the original loaves (see each of the synoptists, who refer to the breaking, by Jesus, of the loaves)—that remain over—not eaten by the multitudes; the superabundance of the provision is a witness to the affluence of the Giver and the reality of the gift—that nothing be lost. This sacred economy of Jesus is in harmony with and illustrative of the ways of the Creator with his universe, and of the wisdom recommended to his disciples. The other evangelists describe the facts, but do not attribute the order to the wise words of the Lord himself. Paulus, in the endeavour to make this statement confirm his rationalistic interpretation, makes sad havoc of the grammar, and, instead of translating— John 6:13 Therefore they gathered together, and filled twelve baskets with the broken pieces of the five barley loaves which remained over to them that had eaten, says, "For (οὖν) they gathered together, and had filled [ἐγέμισαν, first aorist, not pluperfect] twelve baskets with the fragments [the more than enough food that had been gathered and prepared for eating] of the five loaves;" and he makes John here speak, not of remnants left after the meal, but of bread broken before the meal. Such a treatment of the text cannot be justified on any pretext. The twelve baskets full (δώδεκακοφίνους) are interesting in two ways. The number "twelve" naturally suggests that each one of the twelve apostles had been employed in the collection of the fragments. There is no need, with Luthardt, to imagine an unconscious reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, further than that the twelve apostles themselves were at first chosen with that reference. The number twelve points to the fact that the apostles had already been selected, though this Gospel is silent about that fact. Again, the word used for "basket" is that which is used in the three synoptic narratives, and contrasts with the σπύριδες, the word used in the later account of the feeding of the four thousand. It means the ordinary wallet, or corbis, in which Jews, on the march, were accustomed to carry their food. In Matthew 16:8-12, where the two miracles are compared with each other, the two words are again used. The "fragments," the superabundance of provision of love for all mankind, was an idea specially conveyed by our Lord as antithetic to the monopolizing doctrine of the scribes and Pharisees. It is unsatisfactory to suppose that the author of this Gospel manipulated the story as given in Mark, adapting it to his own purpose. John’s narrative is full of fresh life, though not so pictorial as that of the Second Gospel. The incident of Philip and Andrew is calculated to throw much light upon the event without conflicting with the synoptists. The mythical hypothesis suggests that we have here a Messianic reproduction of the story of Elijah and the cruse of oil (1 Kings 17:16), or the augmentation of the oil by Elisha (2 Kings 4:1-7), and still more the feeding by Elisha of a hundred men with twenty loaves of bread and fresh ears of corn (2 Kings 4:42-44). The suggestion simply shows that there were anticipations in the prophetic career of the great prophets of the northern kingdom of that which the greater than Elijah. accomplished in vindication of his own mission. John 6:14 The people (ἄνθρωποι) therefore, when they saw the sign which he £ wrought—when they witnessed the marvel, admitted that it was a testimony to what was special and authoritative in the great Healer and Life-giver, a "sign" of his higher nature—said, This is verily the Prophet that is coming into the world. This was probably in reference to the great prediction (Deuteronomy 18:18) to which such frequent and solemn reference was made. From John 1:21, John 1:25, we learn that the Sanhedrists distinguished between "the Christ," "the Elijah," and "that Prophet;" but these verses show how the two ideas were blended in the minds of the people. As Jesus fulfilled one or more of the predictions of the Old Testament, and embodied the foreshadowings of his entire career which were given in the temple and the sabbath, in the ritual and the priest, in the prophet and the king, it was gradually revealed to the world that in him all fulness dwelt. At all events, just as in the ease of Nathanael, the prophetic gifts of Jesus suggested to the guileless man that he was King of Israel, so here we find a similar connection of ideas. John 6:15 Jesus therefore knowing (having found, perceived (γνούς), by ominous movements in the crowd, or in any other way still more explicit) that they were about to come and by violence, or force, seize him in order that they might make him King. This movement was not an unnatural one. They were on the way to Jerusalem, and they were thirsting to throw off the yoke of Rome and of Herod, and probably indignant to the extreme with the "deep damnation" of John the Baptist’s death. In such a frame, the display of power and resources which they had just witnessed pointed Jesus out as their popular idol, and encouraged the belief, which did not die out till it was quenched in blood. The bald suggestion would clash absolutely with the Lord’s own plan, with the Father’s design concerning him. It would seem that the disciples manifested great reluctance to leave Christ or the crowd; for both Matthew (Matthew 14:22) and Mark (Mark 6:45) imply that Jesus had to use special means to induce them to depart (ἠνὰγκασεν). He compelled them to do so. If we had nothing but the synoptic narrative to guide us, we might suppose that Jesus had difficulty in resisting the desire of the disciples to remain always at his side; or that the intensity of their affection was interfering too much with the need in which he felt of retirement and solitude. John’s statement here illumines the language of the other Gospels. The disciples themselves were strongly moved by the passions of the thousands; they were sharing in the general enthusiasm. To quench such an unholy or unspiritual view of the true Prophet and King, the disciples must be separated from the crowd, and Christ had to overcome by some special utterance of his authority the reluctance of the twelve to embark in their ship. Having done this, and without their help, he sent the multitudes away. He withdrew,£ for the second time, to the mountain (cf. verse 3), and this time himself alone. These occasional separations from the apostles were undoubtedly part of the discipline to which they were subjected. They were taught that, when he was no longer visible to them, he might still be spiritually present and able to succour them. John 6:16-21 (2) The mastery of the forces of nature—a "sign" of love. John 6:16, John 6:17 Now when it became evening. This must have been the "second evening;" for the miracle itself was said to he wrought when the day began to decline (Matthew 14:15; Luke 9:12). The first evening (ὀψία) lasted from three to six p.m., the "second evening" stretched from sundown to darkness (σκοτία). The night was drawing on. His disciples went down from the higher ground or grassy slopes to the sea (ἐπὶτὴνθάλασσαν), and having embarked in a ship, they were making for the other side of the sea to Capernaum; or as Mark (Mark 6:45) says, "towards Bethsaida." This occasions no difficulty to those who remember that there were two Bethsaidas—one, "Bethsaida Julias," on the northeastern end of the lake; and the other near to Capernaum, called "Bethsaida of Galilee."" The two towns were so near that the latter Bethsaida might reasonably he regarded as the port of Capernaum. John 6:17, John 6:18 And darkness had already come on,£ and Jesus had not yet come to them. This thrilling touch in John’s narrative makes it more than evident that the beloved disciple was on board. He had been expecting the Master to make his appearance in some form. He had looked long and eagerly to that point on the mountainside whither he knew that Jesus had retired. The dreary and disappointed expectation, the long and weary waiting, left an indelible impression. Their natural course towards Capernaum would have been almost parallel with the shore of the lake; but it was dark and tempestuous, they could not steer. And the sea was being roused from its slumber by reason of a high wind which was blowing. If the wind came from the north, it would drift them out into the darkness and the middle of the lake, which is there, at its widest, about five miles broad, i.e. forty stadia, or furlongs. The statement of the next verse comes then into undesigned coincidence with Mark 6:47, which shows that they were "in the midst of the sea," i.e. halfway from shore to shore. This would exactly correspond with the following statement. John 6:19 When they had rowed £ about twenty-five or thirty stadia; or, furlongs. When they had rowed with a northwest wind, one "contrary to them," about three miles and a half, they would be in the midst of the broadest portion of the lake, and exposed to the force of those gales which often sweep down with astonishing fury upon lakes similarly guarded on all sides by high hills. While the wind was tossing the little lake into angry waves, it was not silent on the mountain side or summit, and Jesus "saw them toiling in rowing." He loved them to the uttermost. Now, Jesus never went out of his way to work a miracle, but he never went out of his way to avoid one. It seems as natural to him to make his will the cause of events as to submit to the arbitrament of circumstances. The miracle, however, was always for the benefit of others, not for his own advantage and comfort. They beheld Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing near to the ship. Paulus, Gfrorer, and Baumgarten-Crusius suppose that Jesus was walking "along the shore", and that they had miscalculated their distance, and that there was no manifestation of special power on the occasion, nothing less than one of the most ordinary of all coincidences. The three narrators, each in his own manner, convey a profoundly different impression. The discovery of their Lord thus in near proximity would not have made them "cry out for fear," and say, "It is a phantasm," an apparition, a herald of immediate destruction. The loud cry (ἀνέκραξαν) is the especial note of Mark. John simply says, They were affrighted (ἐφοβήθησαν). They might have eagerly longed for his presence, remembering his recent display of power when "the winds and sea obeyed him." But when the deliverance came, the manner of it was unexpected, and the symbolism ineffably sublime. They could not have been ignorant of the Psalms which spoke of Jehovah walking on the sea, and mightier than its waves (see also Job 9:8, "He alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth on the heights of the sea"). This visible nearness to them of the mighty power of God is enough to have startled them into cries of fear; but it is quite incompatible with the rationalistic interpretation of the event. Matthew and Mark both relate that the Lord came to them at or about the fourth watch (i.e. between three and six a.m.), when the first gleams of light were breaking over the eastern hills. Consequently, their peril had been prolonged and perplexing. The whole of the narrative lends itself to symbol, and suggests the impressive analogy of the calamities to which the ship of God’s Church has been exposed in its long history. Often has the Church been chastised for its secular tastes and worldly passions, buffeted with the storms of the world and tormented by the waves; but in the direst extremity it has seen the deliverer approach, and at first cried out for fear, trembling at his nearness. Individual believers have often seen, in this picture of the storm and the Saviour, an image of the sore travail and victory of their faith. The disposition on the part of numerous expositors to press these analogies has strengthened the hands of the critical and rationalistic expositors. We can grant that the idea which is so fertile is more important than the narrative per se, but apart from the historic fact itself, who can say that the idea would ever have dawned on human minds? We make no further attempt to think out the modus operandi of the miracle, nor can we with that view accept the docetic conception of the body of Christ, which some have attributed most unfairly to John’s Gospel. It is enough that the will of Christ thus faced the forces of nature, and prophesied the ultimate victory which the will of glorified humanity will likewise win. The great ἔργα of Christ include his power over nature, in its physical elements and forces, in the regions of both animal and vegetable life, over human nature, diseased, crippled, devil ridden, and dead. The highest realm over which he reigned was his own Divine-human Person, as recorded (1) in this event, (2) in his transfiguration, (3) in his resurrection and ascension. John 6:20 But he saith to them, It is I (literally, I am); be not afraid. These Divine words, in a voice which reminded them of his entire personality, of all his previous beneficence, of all his knowledge of their weakness and fear, are sacredly symbolic. The Church has ever since regarded them as veritably sacramental. In the darkest hour of men and Churches, in the throes of persecution in the furnace of temptation, on a million death-beds, the same voice has been heard. tits Divine Personality, his infinite power and perfect sympathy, the conviction of his specialized regard and veritable nearness (as we count nearness), have scattered doubt and fear. John 6:21 Then they were willing to receive him into the ship: and straightway the ship was at the land whither they were going. Some expositors, who find discrepancy between this statement and that of the synoptists, say, "they were willing, but did not do it," because the vessel is said by some remarkable process to have been miraculously propelled to the shore (so Lucke, Meyer). There are many passages, however, where a similar expression is used, and where no doubt arises that that which the actors were willing to do they actually did. Chrysostom felt this difficulty, and actually proposed to read ἦλθον instead of ἤθελον, which would remove the difficulty; and à veritably contains this reading, but it has every appearance of an unauthorized correction. The imperfect tense implies a lengthened willingness supervening on fear and outcry—a willingness or wish increased by the sound of his voice, following his first action, his apparent resolve to pass by them; and, still more, by the incident described in Matthew’s Gospel, of Peter’s desire to display the strength of his faith and the eminence of his position among the twelve. This occupied time, during which the wind may have been bearing them briskly in their true direction. They willed, wished, to take him into the ship, and did so, and the calm supervened as described in Matthew and Mark. Their wish is not frustrated by the fact now mentioned, but accompanied by it. "Straightway," etc. Most expositors confess this to be an additional miracle, that the twenty furlongs or thereabouts (two miles and a half) were suddenly traversed and miraculously abolished. There would be a greater miracle in this than in the two events which preceded. The annihilation of space and time is the obliteration of the very categories of thought, and would, if conveyed by the statement, suggest a stupendous and, so far as we can see, a useless portent. It would strongly tempt us to accept the rationalistic interpretation. Εὐθέως does not always mean "instantaneously," but simply that the next thing to notice or observe was the fact described. Take Mark 1:21, Mark 1:29. It does not mean that any miraculous rapidity characterized the movement of Christ to the house of Simon and Andrew (Mark 4:17; Galatians 1:16; 3 John 1:14; John 13:32; and many other passages). The author of the "Christian Year" has consecrated in sweet lines the supposed addition to the miracle— "Thou Framer of the light and dark, Steer through the tempest thine own ark; Amid the howling wintry sea, We are in port, if we have thee." But there are so many ways in which this "straightway" may be reconciled with an ordinary disembarkation, that there is no necessity to regard it as implied in John’s narrative. John so often leaves gaps unfilled in his chronology and horology that no peat emphasis need be laid upon the annihilation (save in his adoring thought) of the hour before the dawn. John 6:22-59 (3) The sequel of the signs. The discussion which follows is closely linked with these two great miracles of power and love. It naturally arises out of them, and refers with great explicitness to the former of them and to its true meaning. The discussion does unquestionably alter its scope as it proceeds, and at John 6:41 and John 6:52 "the Jews" take up a controversy which had previously been conducted by a portion of the crowd who witnessed his mighty works. Jesus declared (1) that he is himself the Bread of God—the Bread of life for a starving world; then (2) that his "flesh," i.e. his wondrous humanity—the veritable abode of the Word of God—will constitute the food of man; (3) that the death of the Divine humanity, the separation of his blood and flesh, must be appropriated by men; (4) that only by this acceptance and entire assimilation—not only of his mission, but of his incarnation; not only of his incarnation, but of his sacrificial death—will men receive him, or live because he lives. Before the evangelist proceeds to relate this great discourse, he portrays the historical platform, the audience to which it is addressed, and this in a sentence which is unusually involved and perplexed in its construction. The first clause with its verb, εἶδον,, is not completed until two or three parenthetical ideas are introduced; and then in John 6:24 the sentence is taken up or recom-menced, after which the main affirmation follows, viz. ἐνέβησαν, etc. The whole sentence is intended to explain the regathering of the crowd on the seashore at Capernaum, and that excited state of baulked curiosity with which they encountered the Lord. John 6:22-24 The next day, the crowd which stood on the other side of the sea, near the site of the great miracle, amazed at the departure of the disciples and the separation between them and Jesus, and saw that there was only one little boat there £—or "none other little boat there save one," and this was too small for it to be the boat which brought Jesus and his disciples thither or took the latter away—and saw that Jesus did not enter with his disciples into the boat in which they were accustomed to move about the lake, but that his disciples departed alone. He does not say that Tiberias was near to the place where, etc., but that the boats from Tiberias came near to the place, etc. This parenthesis makes it clear that this one little boat was the only one belonging to the desert place, and could not have conveyed Jesus away. When then the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples—the latter had gone and not returned, and Jesus could not be found on the mountain side or summit or hollows (not until we reach this statement does the writer give the principal verb of the sentence)—they themselves embarked in the little boats, and came to Capernaum seeking for Jesus. This does not mean that the entire multitude took shipping. Such an exaggeration, contrary to the nature of even the most extravagant legend, some (Strauss) have tried to foist into the story for the sake of discrediting it. The geographical relation of the two places shows that there were other ways of passing from one spot to the other than by ship. That some should return by the head of the lake, and others should cross its northern are by boat to Capernaum, reveals a simple and interesting fact, which is incidentally conveyed by the synoptists, viz. that Capernaum was the customary dwelling place of our Lord during his Galilaean ministry (cf. John 2:12; Matthew 4:13; Matthew 8:5; and see also Matthew 9:1; Luke 4:24). John 6:25 When they had found him on the other side of the sea (other side than that on which the miracle took place, and yet near Capernaum. This contradicts the exposition which would make the site of the feeding to be on the Western side), they said unto him, Rabbi, when earnest thou? and how happens it that thou art here? The πότεὦδεγέγονας; is difficult to translate. The when? practically includes the how? also. The difficulty lay in the time. They were sure that Jesus had not started before the disciples, and they knew that there was no method by which the lake itself would have been available, and they want explanation. The news of his crossing the water after some fashion that would ally him to Moses, Joshua, Elijah, may easily have got disseminated, one report or another being rapidly circulated. John 6:26-36 (a) An offer of himself as veritable bread. John 6:26 Jesus answered them; i.e. he met by response their question, but not after the fashion their curiosity might dictate, omitting any reply to their unnecessary inquiry, and even refusing to answer it. The method and time were of no real moment to his questioners. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs—in the sense I am desirous you should see those miracles of healing (John 6:2) or other wonders of yesterday, viz. as "signs," "symbols," of my higher nature or of my Divine commission. The first group of healings drew some of you to my side, not for my word, but for more healing; and though some others of you who ate off the bread said (John 6:14), "This is the promised Prophet that is coming into the world," you did not get beyond the outward seeming, the superficial phenomenon, you revealed by thus rushing to the couclusion that I was your Prophet and King, that you did not really discern the sign I gave, and ye are seeking me now, not because you have really seen "signs"—but because ye ate of the (those) loaves, and were filled up by this temporary supply of your daily want, expecting today some new, some more impressive, characteristic of the Messianic kingdom than yesterday. You are fastening on the outward, acting on the mere physical resources which you suppose me to possess. These are not the claims I make on your loyalty or obedience. John 6:27 Labour not for the food that is perishable, which soon loses its effect and must be renewed, which is corruptible and worthless if not partaken of at once, which, like manna, may breed worms, or vanish in the sun; labour not for the merely outward and vanishing and perishable elements in my work. Christ did not mean that these multitudes were not to toil for their daily bread, which could only be secured for them by labour and the sweat of the brow; but to labour for the food which endureth (or, abideth) unto eternal life. The bread that abideth unto eternal life, however, corresponds very closely with the water of life (John 4:14), which, when once appropriated, flows and springs up with perennial energy within the soul, conferring the consciousness and the beginning of eternal life. There is a food which is imperishable and incorruptible, feeding the heavenly life within the soul, and which, if once assimilated, becomes Divine life itself. Labour for that life which the Son of man will give to you. This grand idea, viz. the gift of eternal life in and by Christ himself, was one of the main themes of the Gospel of John. Christ knew himself to be the Giver of eternal life—a life of perfect blessedness, irrespective of time, and sense, and flesh, and the world, and death. The Lord here calls himself "Son of man," rather than "Son of God." The whole of the subsequent discourse expands and rests upon this gift of the perfect and blessed life in and by his humanity. In the previous chapter attention was called to the Divine Sonship and the Divine activity. Here equal emphasis was laid upon the human sonship and on the acceptance and assimilation by man of this supreme gift. The power or function of the Son of man to bestow this life is sustained by the assertion, For him (this very one) the Father, even God, hath sealed. Σφραγίζειν £ (see John 3:33)means here to ratify and accredit as worthy and competent to discharge such duties, to render indubitable, to confirm by outward visible sign. or seal, as one empowered to do so Divine a thing. The Father has made "the Son of man" the steward of his bounty. The Son of man has the key to this boundless treasure, this eternal blessing. Men, however, must labour to receive so great a gift. It will prove to be a gift, even if they put forth the most strenuous energy to receive it. This first dialogue contrasts the carnal and spiritual reasons for seeking Jesus, and brings into sharp relief the Galilaean conception of the Christ, as Miracle worker, temporal Potentate, prophetic Leader of some vast host of triumphant enthusiasts, and contrasts with it the Lord’s own conception. of himself as the Giver, the Medium, the divinely appointed Almoner of a spiritual blessing, for which, while the Father-God freely and lavishly gives it, the sons of men must eagerly toil. The next question and answer bring out the moral condition on which alone the gift can be dispensed. John 6:28 They say unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? The works of God might be, either works like those which are wrought by God the Father, but this would be a very improbable demand; or "the works of God" may be those which God has assigned to man as the conditions of his favour. There is a breadth about the question that may cover the ground involved in Christ’s declaration, but it reveals, at the same time, the self-complacency, the carnal conception on the part of these Galilaeans of their being able, competent, to fulfil along certain lines to be specified, all the required conditions. But we must not be too hard on these Galilaeans, brought up as they were to believe in the efficacy of certain rounds of specific and arbitrary duties, methods of purification, forms of service and of abstinence, pilgrimages and fastings and feastings, as well as obedience to a specific moral code. They ask quite rationally, "What must we do?" and in various forms the same question bursts from the heart of all who have, starting from utter indifference, made any progress towards, or in the direction of, holy living or of Divine pleasing.£ John 6:29 Christ’s reply really solves the great problem which had long perplexed the schools of Palestine, and often, and even to the present hour, is dividing into two hostile camps the Christian Church. Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God. Observe, not "works," but "work"—the one work which is the germ and the consummation of all the partial workings which are often made substitutes for it. There is "one work" which God would have man do. Jesus admits that there is something to do (ποιεῖν)—there is a labour, an effort of the will needed to do what God requires; and this is evident enough as soon as this great work is described, viz. That ye believe on him whom he (the Father) sent; or, hath sent. Ἵναπιστεύητε,£ here preferred by the R.T. to πιστεύσητε (see John 13:19), marks the simple fact and continuous act of believing with the effort tending to such result; while the aorist would have pointed to one definite act of faith (see Westcott).. To "believe on him," to habitually entrust one’s self to the power and grace of Christ, to make a full moral surrender of the soul to the Lord, includes in itself all other work, and is in itself the great work of God. "It is the Christian answer to the Jewish question" (Thoma). "Faith is the life of works, works the necessity of faith" (Westcott). "Faith is the highest kind of work, for by it man gives himself to God, and a free being can do nothing greater than give himself: St. James opposes work to a faith which would be nothing but intellectual belief. St. Paul opposes faith, active faith, to works of mere observance. The ’faith’ of St. Paul is really the ’work’ of St. James, according to this sovereign formula of Jesus, ’This is the work of God, that ye believe’" (Godet). Luther says, "To depend on God’s Word, so that the heart is not terrified by sin and death, but trusts and believes in God, is a much severer and more difficult thing than the Carthusians or all orders of monks demand." Schleiermachcr says, "This is the most significant declaration, that all eternal life proceeds from nothing else than faith in Christ." John 6:30 They said therefore to him, What then doest thou as a sign that we may see and believe thee? There is a kind of irony in the inquiry, "What doest thou?" There is at least some ironical mystification of the words of Jesus, "If we have not seen, as thou sayest, the sign, which we thought sufficient to induce us to hail thee as our Prophet-King, what sign wilt thou give us now? If we are to believe on thee, what sign art thou ready to show now that we may see it, and believe thee, i.e. take thy word as trustworthy, and so begin to consider whether it will be safe to believe in, to entrust ourselves to, thee?" It has been the peculiarity of the Jewish mind in all ages to seek after a sign, to desire some irresistible reason for invincible faith. In certain stages of immaturity and states of unrest we passionately ask for signs even now—for something more than silent words, for more than past memories, for some voice out of heaven, some gleams of glory, that "we may see and believe." These frames of mind are no whit more reprehensible than the Greek demand for unanswerable argument, for logical harmony, or for sure demonstration. They said to him, What dost thou work? How wilt thou vindicate thy demand for such implicit trust? This very question has been made into a reason for breaking all historic connection between the miracle of the feeding and the dialogue and discourse before us (Grotius, Kuinoel, B. Bauer, Weisse, and Schenkel). It is, however, clear that they were still revolving the work of the past day, which Jesus had depreciated per se, and which, apart from the higher lesson it might have conveyed to them, and apart from the wrong conclusion they had been drawing from it, grievously perplexed them, and seemed insufficient to establish the new claim of Jesus. They, too, begin to depreciate it in comparison with a corresponding sign which Moses had wrought for their fathers. Verily if Moses had been the mediator of the portentous sign of the manna, if Moses had been its real anther, it was a much greater sign than what they witnessed at Bethsaida. For forty years the miraculous bread had been lavished upon them. Daily and weekly it proved its supernatural character. In quantity, quality, prolongation, and renewal day by day, and in its cessation when they ate the fresh corn of Canaan, they not unnaturally saw something immeasurably more vast and imposing than the offer of a single meal to a little company of five thousand men. Christ had wrought a τέρας, an ἔργον, but they had not seen the real σημεῖον involved in it. He himself suggested that something entirely different from that meal, and different from their conclusions concerning it was the true "sign." Let him work the same adequate sign. They are not repudiating all knowledge of the feeding of the five thousand, nor revealing their ignorance of it. They are thrown back on their ingrained passion for supernatural proof, not as yet satisfied by what Christ had done. John 6:31 Our fathers, they continued, ate the manna in the wilderness; even as it has been written, He gave them bread out of heaven to eat. If Moses did this, the Christ should do more, seeing he makes this exhaustive claim upon our faith. The manna (see Exodus 16:1-36.; Numbers 11:1-35.) appeared like the hoar frost out of heaven. It was gifted with numerous qualities—perishable if not immediately used, respecting in mysterious way the sabbath sanctity, attending the Israelites through their forty years" wandering, terminating when no longer wanted, utterly unlike, in quantity and quality, to what is the Oriental manna of commerce (Smith’s ’Dictionary of the Bible,’ art. "Manna"). The psalmists spoke of it (Psalms 78:24; Psalms 105:40) as virtually coming down out of heaven, as "corn of heaven," as "angels’ food." The Targum of Jonathan, Deuteronomy 34:6, says, "God caused bread to descend from heaven upon the sons of Israel," and a rabbinical commentary on Ecclesiastes, quoted by Lightfoot and Wettestein: "Redemptor prior descendere fecit pro iis manna; sic et Redemptor posterior descendere faciet manna." Consequently, they make the challenge, not as though Jesus had done no sign, but as though he had not done enough to put himself on an equality with Moses. John 6:32 Jesus therefore said to them, with the tones of special emphasis, Verily, verily, I say unto you, It was not Moses, of whom you are reasonably thinking with due reverence, who gave £ you the bread out of heaven. There are two assertions here. There is also an implication, which the hearers of Jesus were called on to make. (1) It was not Moses who gave to your fathers the bread out of heaven, such as the historians, psalmists, and expositors speak of; for such as it was,—a needed food for the body rained on you out of heaven,—it was the gift of God, not of Moses. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Ch. 7-10. contain the record of the conflict between faith and unbelief in the metropolis. At first the narrative indicates a vast amount of critical inquiry, of unsettled opinion, of angry disappointment and a certain readiness to be convinced on the part of one section or another. The secrecy of the Galilean village is contrasted with the broad arena of the temple courts. "The Jews," or leaders of opinion and authority in Judaea and Jerusalem, who were hostile, are seen in contrast with "the Jews who believed on him" (John 8:31). There are multitudes and multitudes (John 10:12, John 10:30, John 10:31), priests and Pharisees (John 10:32), the synagogue, and the blind beggar with his fearful and temporizing parents (John 9:1-41.). There are those who are deeply plotting Christ’s destruction, and those who are indignant that any suck plot is being hatched (John 7:20). The discourses treat the deepest questions of ethics and theology, national prejudices and the Divine correction of them. The conversations are fragmentary, broken in thread, and yet closely interwoven, while a life like circumstantiality pervades the entire narrative, which argues strongly in favour of its historicity and authentic character. It is the record of definite acts and genuine questions, veritable rebukes and repartees, which have a permanent value as an insight into the character, mind, and Person of the Lord. John 7:1-53. consists of three distinct parts: (1) the conditions of the journey to Jerusalem (John 7:1-13); (2) the discussions during the feast (John 7:14-36); (3) the last day of the feast (John 7:37-52). Topically considered, we regard this section as exhibiting ― Verses 7:1-8:11 3. Christ as the Source of truth. John 7:1-10 (1). Treatment of the unbelieving brethren; the hour of his full manifestation not yet come. John 7:1, John 7:2 And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he was not willing to walk in Judaea, £ because the Jews were seeking to kill him. Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Tabernacles, was at hand. The last clause supplies a valuable chronological datum. This great climacteric feast of ingathering and joyful memories of all the goodness of Jehovah was held on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Leviticus 23:1-44. 34-36). Consequently, according to John’s own statement, six months had elapsed between the transactions at Bethsaida and Capernaum, and those which he now proceeds to describe. During these six months some of the most thrilling events in the synoptic narrative must have been enacted. The Lord "walked in Galilee." He had discussed the whole question of Pharisaic and ceremonial cleansing and food, and the entire principle of revelation and tradition. He had given express illustration of his own teaching by venturing even into heathen cities, and there healing the Syro-Phoenician’s child. He had journeyed towards the north of Palestine, into the Greek cities of Decapolis (Mark 7:31), and had made a great demonstration of his healing powers on the mountain heights above the Sea of Galilee. There too (Mark 7:1-9) he had once more fed multitudes by his word, on the second miraculous meal. It is probable that the multitudes were Gentiles, whose stock of food would have been exhausted by a three days’ sojourn; that at least they were not excitable Galilaeans, who might come by force and make him a King. The Pharisees assailed him, asking for a sign. The disciples, by the mouth of Peter, had confessed their faith (Matthew 16:13-28) in more explicit form and force than before (John 6:68, John 6:69), and Christ had explained in yet more definite terms than in the synagogue in Capernaum the needs be for his Passion, death, and resurrection. The Transfiguration on the mountain, with its ineffaceable impressions, had followed, with numerous miracles, parables, and connected instructions (Matthew 16:1-28., 17., 18.). Jesus walked for six months in Galilee, knowing, as we learn from these verses, that the authorities in Jerusalem were utterly hostile to him, and had neither forgotten nor forgiven the assertion of his special claims when he was on the last occasion in Jerusalem at the unnamed feast (be it the Feast of Passover or Tabernacles, the Feast of Purim or Trumpets). The outburst of hostility which kept him so long from Jerusalem was circulating in angry vibrations to the very borders of Galilee. The hour for the final conflict was in abeyance until he had preached more explicitly the Divine gospel of love and redemption, and had left the indestructible seed in human hearts. There was malice in Galileo as well as in Judaea, but it took a different form. Thoma regards the sixth chapter as the ideal treatment by the fourth evangelist of the events recorded in the synoptic narrative, and, strangely enough, treats the wonders on the sea and on the land as parallels to the synoptic account of the temptation! The objection to this is not so much the underlying dissimilarity of idea as the chronological position assigned by Matthew and Luke to the temptation before John was imprisoned, whereas these events occur after his execution. Further, the synoptists record these two miracles in their proper place in the biography as well as describe the temptation. That the deep inner meaning and teaching of Joh 6:1-71. corresponds with that of the last Supper, no reader can miss; nor that this confession of Peter is the highest point of the earlier and later narratives we do not question; but their striking resemblance to each other, instead of transforming this Gospel into a philosophical allegory, appears to us to prove that we have the same historic Christ in Both narratives. The Feast of Tabernacles,£ the σκηνοπηγία, or tent pitching, called by Philo σκηναί, was the last great feast of the sacred year. It had its relation to the natural and providential goodness of God. Just as the Passover commemorated the opening of the harvest and the first fruits of the grain, and as Pentecost celebrated the completion of the harvest, so the "Tabernacles" implied the ingathering of the fruit of the vine and of the olive, and summed up the joyful acknowledgments for the whole year. Again, as the "Passover" recorded the deliverance from Egyptian bondage by the destroying angel who spared the blood sprinkled home, and the "Pentecost" probably (Maimonides) commemorated the giving of the Law, so the "Tabernacles" recalled in a festive form the time of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness, when they dwelt in tabernacles. Joyfulness and astonishing ceremonial characterized the festival. The city of palaces broke out into booths of trees and leaves in every possible space, on walls and housetops in courtyards, and even in waggons and on the backs of camels. The people carried their palm branches and citrons in their hands, and great merriment, almost suggestive of heathen rites, prevailed. It probably gathered up about it, as some Christian festivals have done, other ancient or surrounding customs. The number of bullocks sacrificed during the seven days—one fewer on each day, beginning with thirteen—amounted in all to seventy (13+12+11+10+9+8+7= 70). This the rabbis regarded as referring to the seventy nations of heathendom. Additional peculiarities were conspicuous in the immense number of priests who were required to take part in the sacrifices. The blasts of priests’ trumpets which regulated the ceremonial, the great musical procession employed in brining water from the Pool of Siloam, then within the city wall, added another noticeable feature. The water was brought in a golden goblet, and poured into a silver funnel, which conveyed it by pipes to the Kedron, and was thus supposed to bless the thirsty land. This act was accompanied by singing the great Hallel, and the shouts and songs of Zion were heard far over hill and valley. At night time universal illumination prevailed, and huge candelabra in the temple court shed a radiance over the whole city. These peculiarities of the feast rendered it the most popular, if not the most sacred, of all the feasts (’Ant.,’ John 8:4, John 8:1, Ἐορτὴἁγιωτάτηκαὶμεγίστη). It was a time when the national sentiment often burst into fierce flame. Various historic glories of the past were called to remembrance, and spiritual privileges were symbolized in the ritual. The fact that the feast held this important place in the affections and enthusiasm of the people explains the anxiety of the family of Jesus that, whatever his claims really were, they should be canvassed in the metropolis and decided by the only authorities adequate to the task. John 7:3 His brethren therefore (pointing to the high significance of this national and triumphant feast) said unto him. These brethren were (Matthew 13:55) James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and, without entering once more on the much-debated question of their actual relation to Jesus (see John 2:12, and notes), it may be said that this passage in a very marked manner discriminates them from the apostles or disciples, and practically negatives the "cousin" theory derived from the supposed identification of Alphaeus with Cleophas, and consequently of the sons of Alphaeus (James, Judas, and Simon) with the apostles of the same names. The lack of sympathy shown by these men, and the positive assertion of their non-belief in Jesus, is incompatible with the great confession so recently made (ch. 6:68, 69), and cannot (with Hengstenberg and Lange) be diluted into imperfect appreciation of claims which they wished in a secular sense to press forward to full assertion. They appeared here to criticize their Brother’s prolonged absence from Jerusalem, and his abstention from the Passover and other national festivals. They would, perhaps sincerely, hurry forward his public demonstration, and compel him to say to the great world what he had been saying in Galilaean villages, in the borders of Tyre, and in the cities of Decapolis. Depart hence, and go into Judaea. "This is the time and place." Thoma sees in this advice the same idea which, on the mount of Transfiguration, was suggested by Moses and Elijah "concerning the departure which the Lord was to accomplish in Jerusalem." The Johannist has clothed the same material insinuation in a dialogue (dialogische verhandlung). It has been said that this kind of advice is rather in favour of the hypothesis that these brethren were elder than Jesus, and possibly the children of Joseph by an earlier marriage, who thus took upon themselves the function of advisers. Such a hint, however (given by Westcott), seems very shadowy confirmation of the theory. Younger brothers would be just as likely to err in the same direction. In order that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest. The words "thy disciples" may (Godet, Luthardt formerly) have had special reference to the fact that our Lord had made in Judaea "more disciples than had John" (John 4:1), that there were even members of the Sanhedrin who had to some extent looked favourably upon him (John 3:1), and needed confirmation of their faith. There may also have been tacit reference to the circumstance recorded in John 6:1-71. that his Galilaean disciples had deserted him; but it is more likely (Meyer) that the brethren took it for granted that those who in numerous places had received his word would be gathered together in Jerusalem, and would have an opportunity of seeing with their own eyes and in consociation with each other the works of healing and might which were being variously reported, canvassed, and disputed in the schools of Galilee. "Thy disciples" is a wide word, and may easily refer to all who, whether in Jerusalem or Galilee, went by his name. It is a designation which, however, does not include the speakers. "The works which thou art doing" is sufficiently illustrated from the group of remarkable events which had eternalized the previous twelve months of the Galilaean ministry (see on John 6:1). John 7:4 For no man doeth anything in secret, and himself £ seeketh to be known openly. Vulgate, in palam esse. Lucke translates in Latin, "idemque cupit celeber ease." The αὐτός answers to the subject of the verb "doeth," who yet is denied to exist by the οὐδείς. The ἐνπαῤῥησίᾳεἶναι says Meyer, is "to be the opposite of a shy and timid nature," which is very unmeaning. Grimm says of the phrase ἐνπαῤῥησίᾳ, "Is se gerendi modus quo aliquis omnibus conspicuus est," and justifies it by this passage and by John 11:54; Coss. John 2:15 (cf. Wis. 5:1, Τότεστήσεταιἐνπαῤῥησίᾳπολλῇὁδίκαιος). So Luthardt: "It denotes that which is open, in contrast to that which is concealed." Westcott settles the meaning of the word by the remark that "the phrase (איסהרפב) is commonly used by the rabbinical writers for ’in public,’ as opposed to ’in secret.’" The man who persists in quiet, secret ways of acting, and strenuously avoids publicity, is not the man who seeketh to be illustrious and conspicuous. The brethren see a palpable contradiction between the claims which Jesus is making and the comparative retirement to which he is confining himself. The crowds of the Galilaean lake are blank retirement when compared with the metropolis in the great climacteric festival of the year. The brethren call on Christ to solve the contradiction. It cannot be concealed that Jesus had (Luke 8:16; Luke 11:33; Luke 12:2) repeatedly said, "No man lighteth a lamp and putteth it under a bushel, but on a candlestick," etc.; and so the brothers use Christ’s words against himself. But the Lord’s idea of needful manifestation, both as to degree, time, and place, was accurately realized and represented in both narratives. If thou doest these things. The αι) is simply the logical premise, without necessarily throwing doubt on the facts. It is not equal, however, to the particle ἐπει, "since." Admitting these works to be real, and these mighty deeds to be correctly reported, there, is from the standpoint of the brethren no other course than that which they suggest: Manifest thyself to the world; i.e. "proceed to the widest arena at once;" "thou art compromising thyself by thy retirement;" "what thou art doing with one hand thou art undoing with the other." "All the Israel world from all lands is crowding to the great feast, thy disciples amongst them; make thyself known; claim the place that belongs to thee." It must be remembered that the disciples (Judas, not Iscariot, especially) said on the very night of the Passion, "How is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not unto the world?" This slight note of resemblance with the form of the present admonition of the brothers, is more coincident in the letter than the spirit, and received from the Lord a profoundly different reply (see John 14:22, John 14:23, notes). John 7:5 For not even did his brethren believe in him. The evangelist, writing a generation later, and keenly remembering the attitude the brothel’s had assumed before the Resurrection, adds, "not even his brothers," who ought to have been the most prominent of his disciples, "did up to this time believe on him," i.e. entrust themselves to him, dispose of their prejudices, change their conceptions, accept his spiritual lead, acknowledge his Divine mission, or know him to be the Holy One of God. They had not come into the position of the twelve. What ideas soever they grasped fell immeasurably short of "eating his flesh and drinking his blood," of coming to him, being given to him and drawn to him by the Father. It was a world Messiah, a theocratic King, a Prophet-Captain, a royal Christ, that they sought and would have been glad to find in him. This treatment of the Lord was another striking parallel to the temptation of Jesus as described by the synoptists, "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me" (see note on John 4:1-54., and Introduction, VIII. 5). The non-belief of the brothers is in remarkable unison with the widespread unbelief of the people, who were anxious to discern the Christ of their own traditional expectations, and ready to press almost any possible claimant to premature demonstrations. The Pharisees and the people sought some sign from heaven. But while the people demanded it, they expected that he would and might gratify them if he chose. The Pharisees cynically tempted him to proclaim what they believed would prove his irremediable failure. John 7:6 Jesus then saith to them (to his brothers), My time (the "season" for my full manifestation to the nation of what I am, or the time to disclose my own idea of my own commission) is not £ yet present. The season or opportunity for my final self-revelation pauses, and I pause for an intimation of the Father’s will. This language corresponds with the reply to his mother, "My hour is not yet come" to do what you blindly desire. The kind of manifestation he subsequently made on that occasion was one of love to the needy, not one of power to dazzle the world (see notes, John 2:11). The underlying thought which the postponement suggested was that the approach of Jesus to Jerusalem with the pilgrim throng would be the signal for the final outburst of bitter hostility which he knew was smouldering in the hearts of the Sanhedrists, and would also be the torch applied to the magazine of combustible passion in which he would sacrifice his life. But your time (the season which is yours) is always ready. The brothers were at liberty at any time to show themselves and their works to the world. They had plans akin to those of the world. They shared the fashion of religious thought, the ideal of the Israelitish world, completely. James, for instance, Nazarite though he may have been, punctilious in traditionary ritual, and honouring the conservative passions of his order, might at any time secure the acclamations or approval of the chief powers of the world—their little world. "I" (Christ implied) "wait for the predetermined hour, for the kind of appearance in Jerusalem which will be the giving of my flesh for the life of the world. You are so much in harmony with the world that at any time you may say all that is in your heart. If I go as ,you suggest, it must be as Messiah; you go as pious pilgrims to share in this national celebration." John 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but it hateth me, because I bear witness concerning it, that its works are evil. The "world" is here used in the current Johannine sense of "humanity unregenerate, humanity without grace, or apart from God." The hatred of the world to Christ was pressing down upon his spirit like an intolerable load. He admitted that, from its own standpoint, there was some justification for the feeling. The world hates its censor; it repels the judgment passed upon it. It is satisfied with itself and its own idea of righteousness. It is satisfied with its own standards and cries and professions, so that to be accused of wrongful notions, of a depravity under the clothing of Pharisaic propriety, of a hidden leprosy which is eating into its vitals, rouses all its animosity. If Christ were to go, he must deliver his soul. Already the thunder peal of Matthew 22-25., to be shortly delivered after full assertion of the nature of his work, and in the metropolis of the theocracy, was hurtling in his soul, and he foresaw the outburst of maddened rage which would follow; but with melancholy and some gentle irony he said, "The world against which I have to deliver my prophetic burden cannot (οὐδύναται, moral impossibility) hate you! Your aim is to fall in with its demands, to realize its corrupt and unspiritual dreams. You are violating none of its cherished fancies; you are abasing none of its idols; your time is always ready; my time is not yet come." John 7:8 Go ye up to the £ feast. "Join the pilgrim bands. Take part in the ceremonial of sacrifice and lustration. Be there in good time for the booth building. You have no testimony to deliver against the corruption of the holiest service, the hollowness of the ritual thanksgiving." I go not yet £ unto this feast. The text as it here stands frees the language of our Lord from the charge of Porphyry, or proves that it was founded on false premisses; though the fact that the apparent refusal was so soon followed by a compliance makes it probable that the real point of the sentence rests not so much on the οὔπω as on the ταύτηνἑορτήν. Not as a pilgrim, not in triumphal procession, would he go to the Feast of Tabernacles. He reserved that solemn sacrificial act for a later occasion, He would suffer as the Paschal Lamb, not go to Jerusalem to assert the completion of its acceptable year, and to foment the self-satisfaction of its religious guides. This is not satisfactory, because there is no feast the special features of which seemed to furnish our Lord with more obvious illustrations of his own work and Person. Moreover, he did make his appearance in the midst of the feast. So Godet and Meyer accepted the οὐκ, and urge therefrom the fact that Jesus deliberately altered his intention, so soon as a new motive sufficiently strong presented itself. With the assistance of οὔπω, or with such an emphasis upon the present tense (ἀναβαίνω) as to make it equivalent to the introduction of a νῦν, the passage means. "I am not going up now." Chrysostom, Lucke, De Wette, see in this suggestion the solution of the problem and a preparation for what follows. The word ἐγγύς, "nigh" (John 7:2), may reasonably be interpreted with more latitude than is generally done. It might easily mean a date sufficiently near to be the topic of conversation in the family circle, even were it still a month before the celebration. The preparations may have been made, the pilgrims were beginning to assemble for their long journey, and the "not yet" and the emphasis on the present tense of ἀναβαίνω may easily have been conditioned by some of the special work which had still to be completed in Galilee on the way to Judaea and Persea. Because my season—my special opportunity—has not been yet fulfilled; or, fully come. Probably this clause points to the completion of the predestined hour of his consummation, of the baptism with which he should be baptized, the fire that he would kindle, the work which he would finish. John 7:9 Having said these things to them, he abode in Galilee. Such a respite cannot mean a few days only. Not until after this period, and possibly after the brethren]rod started on the pilgrimage, did "he steadfastly set his face to go up to Jerusalem." A great question arises as to the possibility of harmonizing this journey with the great intercalated portion of Luke’s Gospel (Lu 9:51-18:31). This is not the place to consider the numerous and complicated problems involved. One thing is certain—that the synoptists all describe the final departure from Galilee, which followed a period of partial retirement from the multitude, and of instructions, miracles, and advice rendered in the inner circle of his immediate followers. They also indicate that, on our Lord’s journey to Jerusalem after closing his Galilaean ministry, he went into Judaea, and thence to the land of Peraea on the other side of the Jordan. This latter statement is perfectly in harmony with John’s representation (John 10:40), where, after an extended journey in Judaea and the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, we hear that he spent three months beyond Jordan Numerous critics, whose views are well entitled to consideration, urge that on this occasion our Lord did resume his Galilaean ministry and effect his final departure as described in Matthew 19:1. Now, the circumstantial way in which Luke describes incidents upon the last journey to Jerusalem leads many to look for the full chronological detail of this last transaction. It contains, however, many incidents between John 9:1-41:51 and John 18:31, where the final events of the last approach to Jerusalem are brought into chronological relations with the other three Gospels, which could not all have been connected with the journey to the Feast of Tabernacles. Edersheim and Weiss alike infer that, since Luke says nothing of the Feast of Tabernacles, he has reckoned in this period the events appertaining to the Peraean ministry and the return to the Feast of Dedication, as well as the final determination to challenge the authorities at Jerusalem, with his assertion of true Messiahship, and the last approach to Jerusalem. Luke does not describe the route taken, but implies on several occasions Christ’s growing determination to confront Jerusalem; and also implies that he had visited it "often" (Luke 13:31-34), with the purpose of gathering it under his gracious sway and protection. There are, moreover, a few incidents mentioned which synchronize with the journey to the Feast of Tabernacles. He went through Samaria instead of by the frequented Peraean route on the other side of Jordan (Luke 9:52). There the Samaritans refuse to receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem, and the Boanerges are rebuked for their Elijah-like desire. The incident of the cure of ten lepers, one of them a Samaritan, probably belongs to the same journey; and, above all, the interesting fragment of the visit to Martha and Mary at a certain village. This village may, as Edersheim suggests, have been the retirement from which our Lord emerged in the midst of the Feast of Tabernacles. Many other of the narratives belong to the closing period of our Lord’s life. The most difficult event to harmonize with the suggestions of this passage of John and with the subsequent hints of chronological arrangement, is the choice of the seventy disciples, which Weiss regards as a kind of misapprehension, but which Edersheim (loc cit.,vol. 2:135) believes to have been one of the great events of this journey to the Feast of Tabernacles. It must be admitted that it is strangely inconsistent with the journey which was conducted as it were "in secret." It would be more natural to believe that it was one of the incidents of the ministry in Peraea, of which Mark gives traces, and for which John provides the true place (John 10:40). Lunge and Godet argue that between the departure from the capital (John 9:1-41.) and the Feast of Dedication, our Lord resumed his work in Galilee, and there pursued the abundant ministry recorded between Luke 10:1-42. and 18. (see notes of Godet and Lunge, Luke 10:22; Luke 10:40); and that the final departure from Galilee was with a great convoy. Ewald and Meyer regard this as a violent attempt at harmonistic arrangement of the details before us. To resume the narrative— John 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up to the feast, £ then went he also up, not manifestly, but as it were in secret. The emendation of the text is important, for it draws attention to the fact that, while the brethren went up to the feast, he simply went up, towards Jerusalem—not, however, in the pilgrim caravan, but as a quiet wayfarer, blessing lepers, comforting souls, pouring forth on a favoured few his truth, till he reached the certain village at the very gates of Jerusalem. What a contrast there was between the first visit (John 2:1-25.), when he appeared suddenly in the temple, and cast out the money changers, or that when (John 5:1-47.) he went to the "unnamed" feast as a pilgrim! The hostility has deepened; the "world" hates its Saviour, because he would save it from its sins, interpret it to itself, and offer spiritual rather than temporal benediction. The phrase, "in secret," has led some of the Tubingen school to suggest a docetic view of the Person of Christ; but the suggestion is reckless and absurd. Moulten, who conceives that the mission of the seventy disciples preceded this advent, says even this does not clash with the idea of a virtually secret and retired advance. John 7:11-19 (2) The controversy among "Jews" concerning Christ—his first discussion with them. John 7:11 The Jews therefore sought him at the feast. The ruling and hostile powers, the unbelieving hierarchy, Caiaphas and his party (John 6:41, John 6:52; John 6:13, John 6:15), because of his non-appearance in the Galilaean caravan, went hither and thither, saying, Where is he?—ἐκεῖνος, "that notorious Person," whose claims maddened us some months agone, and whose deeds are being talked of throughout the city, whom the Galilaeans would have constrained to take up arms and crown: where is he? Luther said that their malice was so great that they forbore to name him. But we can hardly press the ἐκεῖνος so far as that. John 7:12 And there was much murmuring among the multitudes concerning him. This vivid dramatic touch lifts a veil, and we see the eager excitement of those who fancied themselves duped, or who were at least disappointed by his non-appearance. Some said one thing, and some another. One group was loud in his praises, and another suspicious either of his orthodoxy or his patriotism, or both. Some said, He is a good man; i.e. one who was unselfish, kind, true, beneficent, and honest in his intentions, and one personally trustworthy. But others said—or, were saying; i.e. the murmur, the head shaking, of others was a flat denial of his ἀγάθοτης—Nay; but (on the other hand) he leadeth the multitude astray. The "multitude’’ in this clause is probably the vulgar crowd, and the contemptuous reference to them may be the language of the Jerusalem populace rather than the provincial caravans. The multitude would escape from the Pharisaic leading strings, should they embrace his views either concerning the sabbath or the expected Messiah. John 7:13 Howbeit no man—either those who murmured to each other a favourable or a calumnious judgment—spake out openly concerning him, by reason of (their) fear of the Jews. The hierarchy, the guardians of orthodoxy, the authorities, the rabbis by whose verdict the character and claims of Jesus must be decided, had not publicly delivered their opinion. Those who believed in the "goodness" of Jesus were silenced, or did not proceed beyond a feeble murmur of applause, however much some may have felt the truth of their own impression. Those who came to an adverse opinion were also so much cowed by the "Jews," by the ecclesiastical authorities, that even they did not venture to express themselves save "with bated breath and whispered humbleness," lest they might err in the form of their condemnation. The section John 7:14-36 contains three discourses: one of which (John 7:14-24) describes the nature and ground of his human ministry; John 7:25-29, while treating the insolence of the multitude, portray an animated scene of conflicting opinion, in the course of which the Lord renewed the assurance of his Divine origin, as well as of the Divine sources of his teaching; John 7:30-36 refer to his approaching death or departure, as part of a Divine plan concerning him. Throughout, with dramatic propriety, the varying opinions of different classes of the people are introduced. John 7:14 When it was already the midst of the feast; or, when already the festival had reached the middle stage. £ Since the feast lasted seven or eight days, this is reasonably supposed to be on the fourth day. We may presume that he had been spending a few days at Bethany (Luke 10:38), front retirement of which he issued rather as a Prophet and Teacher than as the Messiah of the popular expectation. He went up—he came suddenly—into the temple, into the midst of the crowds where his followers would be found, who would shield him, humanly speaking, from the covert designs of his angry assailants. "He was adorned with the wreath of popular veneration, till this wreath was torn and withered by the poisonous breath of their enmity" (Lange). He went up into the temple, and taught (ἐδίδασκε, continuously taught). We can only conjecture the theme of these instructions. They must have been sufficiently varied and peculiar to have excited much attention. Either parable, or apothegm, or stirring appeal, or quotation and interpretation from the Old Testament, or voice from the fathomless depths of his own consciousness, may have formed its staple. In his burning summons to conscience, and his gracious offers of mercy, the people who had listened to him on the mountainside or lakeside were accustomed to say, "He speaks with authority, not as the scribes." John 7:15 The Jews therefore marvelled, £ saying, etc. "The Jews," as elsewhere, mean the ruling and learned class, the men of power and weight in the metropolis, who must have heard his teaching. The immediate effect of the appearance and words was great astonishment. In spite of themselves, they are moved by the command he manifested over all the springs of thought and feeling. The point of their astonishment is, not that he is wise and true, but that he could teach without having been taught in their schools. How doth this man know letters? (not the "Holy Scriptures," ἱεραγράμματα, nor πάσαςγραφάς, but simply γράμματα, literature, such as we teach it; cf. Acts 26:24). He can interpret our oracles; he is acquainted with the methods of teaching, though he has not learned—has never sat in any of our schools. Saul of Tarsus was brought up at the feet of Gomaliel. And ordinarily a man was compelled to undergo a lengthened noviciate in the schools before he was allowed to assume the office of a teacher. The inherited wisdom of the past is in the great majority of cases the basis of the most conspicuous teaching of the most original and unique of the great sages. The "Jews" were sufficiently acquainted with the origin and training of Jesus to be astonished at his knowledge of the interpretations of Scripture and other wisdom. "This tells powerfully against all attempts, ancient and modern, to trace back the wisdom of Jesus to some school of human culture" (Meyer). The attempts to establish a connection between the teaching of Christ and the hidden wisdom of the Zendavesta, or esoteric utterances of Buddha, or even the traditionary teaching of the Essenes, or the Platonizing schools of Alexandria or Ephesus, have failed. The mystery of his training as a man in the village of Nazareth is one of the evidences given to the world that there was an unknown element in his consciousness. He had not even the advantage of the schools of Hillel or Gamaliel. His own wondrous soul, by much pondering on the genuine significance of the Scriptures, is the only explanation to which even his enemies can appeal. Jesus knew the meaning, heard the murmuring of their surprise on this head, and so we read— John 7:16 Jesus therefore £ answered them and said, etc. He met this particular allegation as follows: My teaching is not mine. The "my" refers to the teaching itself, the "mine" to the ultimate authority on which it rests. I am not a self-taught Man, as though out of the depths of my own independent human consciousness I span it. I do not mean you to suppose that my mere human experience is the sole source of my instructions (John 5:31). If you have sat at the feet of those who taught you, I, too, am a Representative of another; but (the ἀλλά after οὐκ is not equivalent to tam … quam. It introduces here the absolute source of all his teaching) it is the teaching of him who sent me. I have not learned in your schools, but am uttering the thoughts that come from an infinitely deeper source. "He who sent me" gave them to me. I have been in intimate communion with HIM. All that I say is Divine thought. I have drawn it all from the Lord of all. I came from him, and represent to you the will of God. This is a lofty prophetic claim, more urgent, more complete, than that made by Moses or Isaiah. Special messages, oracles, and burdens were delivered by the prophets with a "Thus saith the Lord." But Jesus says his thoughts are God’s thoughts, his ways God’s ways, his teachings not his own, but altogether those of him who sent him. John 7:17 The moral test is then applied to the great dictum which he had just uttered. If any man willeth—not merely desires, but performs the distinct act of willing—to do his will—as his will—he shall know; i.e. his intellectual faculty will be quickened into high activity by this moral and practical effort. If the Divine will concerning conduct meets the spontaneous act of the human will, if a man’s will is set to fulfil the Divine will, to will and do what is revealed to him by God, the eye of the soul will be opened to see other things as well, and especially will have power to discern the all-pervading Divine element in this teaching of mine. He shall know concerning (περί) the teaching, whether it be of (ἐκ) God, or whether I speak from myself—from the simple ground of my own independent, self-taught humanity. The first and natural application of this mighty dictum and condition was a test by which the Jews might come at once to the understanding of his more than prophetic claim to teach—he having never learned in their rabbinical schools. It amounted to this: Your moral harmony with the will of God as already revealed to you will be the sure index and confirmation of the great fact I have just referred to. You will discern the Divine in my words, the absolutely true in my teaching. Here the Lord again refers to the great principle, "He that hath heard of the Father, and learned, cometh unto me;" "He that is of the truth heareth my voice." This moral submission to God will quicken all your powers to discern and come to an invincible assent as to my claims. This is not the deep subjective testimony of the inner intuition of those that already believe, by which a verbal assent becomes a fall consent, an unchangeable conviction, or "the full assurance of faith;" but it is addressed to unbelievers, and assures those who are bewildered by the novelty and sweep of his own words that, if they are set on doing the will of God, they will become perfectly satisfied that his own teaching, such as it is, is a stream of heavenly truth bursting from the very heart of God. The text has been cited by certain writers as the sum toted of the Christian revelation, almost as though it substituted practical obedience for true thinking, as though people might well be content with holy living, and might; safely leave the decision of all difficult problems of thought and revelation to shift for themselves. Nothing could be further from its real meaning, either at the time or in any of its subsequent or universal applications. The solemn utterance has a wide outlook, and is constantly establishing its own verity. A profound and voluntary desire to do the will of God is the best preparation for intuitively perceiving the Divine authority of Christ and of his religion. The desire for holiness of principle and life sees in Christ not only the loftiest ideal of perfection, but the surest satisfaction to its conscious weakness, and casts itself upon his promises of saving power. The faith which is satisfied with Christ is not merely a conclusion drawn by logical processes from satisfactory premisses, it is the consequence of a new nature or a moral regeneration. In other words, it is the more practical and expanded form of the truth first of all addressed to Nicodemus, and also lying at the heart of the Beatitudes: "Except a man be born anew [from above], he cannot see the kingdom of God." If he is born again he will see it. "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." "No man can come unto me except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him." The sentence presents the truth in a hopeful and positive form, and puts the criterion of the Divine informant within the reach of practical ethics. It is an appeal to the conscience as well as to the understanding. Apart from the subjective moral element, all other evidences of the presence of the Divine in nature, in history, in Christ, will be unimpressive and unimportant. A willingness to do the will of God is not a substitute for, but a condition of, true knowledge. John 7:18 The following sentence is perfectly general and applicable to all teachers of Divine truth, though it only reaches its highest expression in Christ himself. But while it has numerous applications, its first use is to ratify the previous statements, and prepare the way for what is to follow. He that speaketh from himself. This was an act which he, in his own case, disclaimed. The "himself" was here the personality which then was in question as a human Teacher. He that speaketh from himself as the Source of all his instructions. He who would take the credit of being the primal Cause and Orion of the message which he delivers is a man who seeketh his own glory, his own reputation, at the expense of those who instructed him. The Jewish schoolmen were most anxious at all times to found their instructions on Rabbi "This," or "That," who had himself quoted from some more ancient father of their erudition. A man who should presume to teach in his own name would be one who was manifestly not seeking any higher end than his own glory. Ambition of personal glory and renown is the very thing the absence of which the multitude condemned in Christ’s case. The brethren of Jesus had tauuted him with the lack of bold self assertion. Our Lord’s own position just taken was that his teaching was not self-originated, but was the teaching or message "of him that sent him." But whoso (he added) seeketh the glory of him that sent him, whether the sender be a mortal man and earthly teacher, or be the Lord God of the whole world, i.e. "whoso loses his own individual purpose in the will of God, and is content to be nothing so that God may be glorified," this person (οὗτος) is true, trustworthy; his message is not perverted by any of the contaminating influences of the self-hood, or flesh, and there is no unrighteousness (ἀδικία is a stronger antithesis to ἀληθής than ψεῦδος is. It is the moral basis out of which falsehood springs)—no unrighteousness in him. The sentence is general, but has its prime application to Christ’s own ease. It is a reply to the charge that "he deceiveth the people." It is a further challenge to those who are willing to do the will of God. It is a summons to proceed a step further, and recognize the fact that the glory of God, and not his own glory, was the sole end of his teaching, and that the direct command from him that sent him formed the substance of his doctrine, however much it might clash with their preconceived ideas or dominant prejudices. John 7:19 Jesus was not unaware that serious charges were brought against his interpretation of the sabbatic law; that the Jews sought to kill him for his identification of his own mind and working with the Father’s mind and working. On this account for a considerable time he had confined his ministry to Galilee. The old story of the sabbath healing was now rife once more, doubtless augmented with the rumors of the healing of the man with the withered hand, and other actions profoundly in harmony with the deep meaning of the sabbath rest. To the mind of the fourth evangelist; the explanation given by Christ to the authorities in Jerusalem was of prime significance in the whole sabbatic controversy; and he has recorded the defence Jesus made of his doctrine which placed him at once on the platform of the men with whom he was now beginning a life-and-death conflict. He used their methods, and, so far as the adequate grounds of connection were concerned, he was triumphant, Did £ not Moses give you the Law?—the whole revealed Law of God concerning moral conduct and daily ritual, a violation of the real spirit of which would be ἀδικία, and of which you accuse me—and (yet) none of you doeth the Law? Does he here call attention to the universal disobedience of mankind? Is he forestalling the declaration that "all have sinned, and come short;" that "in many things all offend"? Certainly not. He is about to show at greater length that the charge of ἀδικία stands equally against the justifiable transposition of the letter of the lower law by the incidence of a higher law. They must all know the innumerable occasions in which the letter of the law of the sabbath gave way to the law of mercy, to the law of hunger, to the exigencies of the temple services. "None of you doeth the Law," i.e. in the sense in which you are (from other motives) expecting me to do it. He said enough to strike their consciences and charge home their cherished if secret purpose. Why do ye seek to kill me? With what right, since this is the case, do ye vent your malice against me? Meyer and Godet hero differ as to the emphasis laid upon the "me." The position of the enclitic με before ζητεῖτε gives it a prominence not to be overlooked. The interpretation of many—that the intention or desire to kill Jesus is the inward proof that the conscience of the Jews would admit that they were not keeping the Law which said, "Thou shalt not kill"—is very far-fetched, and weak in its force, although, according to the entire old covenant, there was much killing which was not murder. Such a reference would not correspond with the profoundly Hebrew response made by our Lord. Calvin here makes this reply of Christ a text on which to denounce, in his own day, the corruption of the papal court. John 7:20-24 (3) Treatment of the ignorance and insolence of the multitude. John 7:20 The multitude, who broke out in angry and ignorant remonstrance, answered (and said). £ Thou hast a daemon. Who is seeking to kill thee? Thou must have some evil spirit tormenting thee with such cruel and melancholy foreboding (cf. John 8:48; John 10:20). This was an outburst of insolent and ignorant amazement on their part, that One who taught so wonderfully "should imagine what they deem a moral impossibility and dark delusion" (Meyer). The design rankling in the hearts of the authorities was too well known to our Lord, and, not deigning to notice the interruption and the insult, he continued— John 7:21 Jesus answered and said to them; i.e. to the multitude wire had so coarsely treated him, and to the "Jews" who were present, who were all marvelling together at the line he was taking. The very interruption was a proof both of the extent and consequence of their wonderment. One work I did, and ye are all marvelling. This one work was a very small fraction of his mighty signs, but it was one which, from its manner of operation, and from the fact that it was immediately brought before the religious authorities as an unlawful act (John 5:1-47.), and which, moreover, became the occasion for one of the greatest of his discourses, and for his solemn claim to be the Son of God and the Arbiter of life and death, of resurrection and judgment, made the profoundest impression on the Sanhedrin, compelled them to think that he was a Man who must be sooner or later arrested, and who deserved condign punishment. He must be either submitted to, confined as a madman, or killed as a blasphemer. John 7:22 Moses on this account (for this cause) £ hath given (assigned) you the circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers). If we accept the text as above, the question arises—Does it refer to the parenthetical clause or to the principal verb? Meyer renders as follows: "Therefore Moses gave you circumcision, not because it originated with Moses, but (because it originated) with the fathers, and so ye circumcise," etc., making the precedence of the law of circumcision to the sabbatic law part of the very purport of his appointment. But many others, "For this cause"—to teach this lesson—Moses, who gave the ten commandments, one of which involved the sabbatic rest, took up into the Law which he gave you the still older law of the Abrahamic covenant, and laid down the stringent rule that the rite must be performed on the eighth day (Le John 12:3)—a principle which was seen to involve the infringement of the sabbath law. This is, in substance, the view of Moulton, Lange, Westcott, and others. To expound the διὰτούτο by the οὐχὅτι is (Westcott) contrary to the usage of 2 Corinthians 1:24; 2 Corinthians 3:5; Philippians 4:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:9; but it is still more against the argument. Moses did not give circumcision because it was of the fathers,—at least that is not the point; but Jesus argues that he gave circumcision as a mode of legislation which will involve a modification of his own sabbatic regimen. Stringent as was the law of the sabbath, it would have, on occasion, to yield to the more searching and stringent rule of admission into the covenant of grace. "If the sabbath could give way to a mere ceremonial law, how much more to a work of mercy, which is older and higher than any ritual!" ’Mish. Sabb.,’ 19:1, fol. 128, b, "Everything required for circumcision may be completed on the sabbath;" and so 19:2. The reason is given: ’Midrash Tanchuma,’ fol. 9, b, "The healing of a sick man dangerously ill, and circumcision, break through the sabbath sanctity." John 7:23 If a man on (a) sabbath receive circumcision, which was the removal by surgical means of what was regarded as a cause and sign of physical impurity, as well as the seal of the covenant made with the family of Abraham, that his seed should be heir of the world, and that in that seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, in order that the law of Moses might not be broken. It is not without difficulty that, in the previous verse, the law of circumcision on the eighth day is declared to be older than Moses, to have come down from the fathers of the consecrated race: how, then, does he call it the law of Moses? Clearly he refers to the fact that this particular law was embodied by Moses and made part of his own code, even though in one respect it was obviously older than the particular form of the fourth commandment, and must frequently clash with the letter of that commandment. The law of Moses, then, as much as the law of the Abrahamic covenant, would have been broken by any infraction of the rule which made circumcision incumbent on the eighth day. The common custom of the people was to adminster this rite on that day, even if it fell on a sabbath. "None of you keepeth the Law" in its Strict integrity, said Jesus. Nay, it is certain that the older laws, which Moses endorsed and embodied in his own code, do themselves demand such violation from you. This appeal to the spirit of the Law—the closest approach that a Jew could make to the will of God—is reproduced in Paul’s Epistles (Colossians 2:11; Ephesians 2:11). Are ye then wroth with me (χολᾶτε, χολᾶν (from χολῆ, bile, gall)—to be bitter with wrath, and even mad with rage, is found in 3 Macc. 3:1, but not elsewhere in the New Testament)—because I made an entire man—i.e. the whole frame of the paralyzed man (not his spirit or mind in contrast with his body)—sound—or, healthy—on a sabbath day? The antithesis is not between healing the wound of circumcision and healing the paralytic. Of the former there does not seem the faintest trace, notwithstanding the conjecture of Lampe. Circumcision was the removal of an offending portion of the human body, the sanitary purpose of which rite was strenuously believed in, but it was a partial cleansing and actual excision of one member of the body. To accomplish this purpose Moses, by his enactment, regarded even the sabbatic law as subsidiary. Why, then are the Jews wrathful with Jesus for making an entire man—a whole physical frame—healthful on the sabbath? The stress laid on the Authorized version and R.T. translations, "every whit whole," by some commentaries is unfortunate; for it would throw discredit on circumcision altogether, which was far from our Lord’s contention here, and would reduce the force of his argument. Christ does not in this argument take up the great line of defence pursued in ch. 5. Nor does he call the healing of the paralytic more than an ἔργον, a "work;" but it must be remembered that he had spoken on the previous occasion of his great miracles as "works," the like to which he saw the Father ever doing. John 7:24 Judge not according to appearance ― the superficial aspect of things, the merely formal side, the unexplained letter of the Law. Οψις id quod sub visum cadit res in conspicuo posita. According to that, the healing and the bed carrying consequent upon it would be a positive infraction of a certain enactment. But judge £ righteous judgment. Consider the case, and see that I have done, in this act of healing, less than you are doing yourselves, notwithstanding all your punctilio, and with a higher justification. The aorist κρίνατε involves probably "the one true and complete decision which the case admits" (Westcott). John 7:25-29 (4) Special perplexity of some Jerusalemites, and Christ’s reply. A second scene is here described, not necessarily on the day of his first appearance in the temple, though it took place in the temple (John 7:28). We see, however, a new wave of feeling. The multitude, or part of it, that gathered round him was maddened with his intimation of the murderous animosity of the authorities; but the dwellers in Jerusalem were better informed of the malignant spirit he had excited. John 7:25 Therefore—by reason of his bold self-vindication—some of the Jerusalemites were saying, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? If the multitudes of the provincials were ignorant of the design of the hierarchy, the plot was not a complete secret. John 7:26 And behold he speaketh openly (see John 7:4 and John 7:13), and they say nothing to him. They neither tackle him in argument nor refute his self-vindication, neither do they arrest him or carry out their known project. Have they altered their minds? Are they convinced of his claims? Has he successfully rebutted the charge of sabbath breaking? Does it all vanish on close approach? Then they go a step further, which, if it were the true explanation, would entirely account for their obvious indecision. They even say to one another, with sufficient frequency for the reporter to have heard it, Can it be that the rulers £ indeed know (μήποτεἔγνωσαν, did they at any time come to perceive? The particle expects a dubious though negative response, "we don’t think so; but is it probable? surely not!") that this (person) isf15 the Christ? The rulers must decide this weighty matter, for us at least who dwell in Jerusalem. The question shows how widespread, how detailed, was the idea of the coming Christ. This supposition with reference to their rulers was momentary, and conflicted with another standing objection to the claims of Jesus. John 7:27 Howbeit we know this Man whence he is; that is, they knew his parentage, the place of his early life, the father, mother, brothers, and sisters (Matthew 13:55, Matthew 13:58). There was none of the mystery about him which they anticipated for their Messiah. It is even intimated that it was known where he was born (John 7:41, John 7:42), and that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem, so that the mere fact of birthplace is not the difficulty that occurred to them. A tradition had gathered, which was perhaps originated by Daniel 7:13 or Malachi 3:1, that he would make a sudden descent on the temple—a dazzling appearance at his Messianic enthronization, coming in the clouds of heaven, and that none would "declare his generation." So, according to ’Sanh.,’ 97, a, "three things are wholly unexpected—Messiah, a god-send, and a scorpion" (cf. ’Mid. on Son 2:9’). Justin Martyr puts into the lips of Trypho, ’Dial.,’ 8, "But Christ—if he has indeed been born, and exists anywhere—is unknown, and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint him and make him manifest to all." So these Jerusalemites said, When the Christ cometh (ἔρχηται makes his Christwise manifestation—is in act of coming), no one knoweth whence he is. This Messianic manifestation has been tardy and gradual, if it be one at all We know the home, the daily upbringing of Jesus—we know whence he is, or think we do; and so the whole affair clashes with a current expectation. We know enough, too much, of this Jesus for it to be possible for him to fill up this portion of the Messianic programme. This may have been the outcome of the general criticism. Other defects, according to their idea, may have been urged. The many-sidedness of the hope, the vagueness of the dream, as it shaped itself in current Jewish thought, suffered almost any amount of doubt as to the exact form of the approaching manifestation. That to which our Lord especially replied revealed the practical and ethical claim he advanced to their acceptance from himself of the word of the Lord. John 7:28 Jesus therefore cried—lifted up his voice in such a way as to cause wide astonishment. (The word is found in John 1:15 of John the Baptist, and John 1:37 and John 12:44; but frequently in the synoptists and Acts, and very frequently in the LXX.) The trumpet peal sounded through the courts of the temple, and the crowds rushed in the direction from which it proceeded. He cried in the temple. This clause is added, notwithstanding the statement of Joh 7:14, and it intimates a break in the discourse, a sudden and trenchant response to certain loudly uttered murmurs of the Jerusalem multitude. Ye both know me, and know whence I am. Surely (with De Wette, Meyer, Westcott, Moulton) the Lord distinctly concedes to the men of Jerusalem a certain amount of superficial knowledge. It is lamentably defective in respect of that for which they imagine it all-sufficient; and yet this knowledge was highly significant and important as far as it went. Such knowledge of his birthplace and his family, his provincial training, his Galilaean ministry, were all proofs to them of his humanity—that he belonged to their race, was bone of their bone, and sympathizing in their deepest sorrows, understood their noblest aspirations. Such a concession, moreover, repudiates the supposed docetic character of the Christ of the Fourth Gospel. Many commentators regard the exclamation its ironical and interrogatory (Grotius, Lampe, Calvin, Lucke, and even Godet), without sufficient warrant. Our Lord, however, soon shows that, though they are rightly informed about certain obvious facts, there were others of stupendous importance which could go a long way towards rcconciling their many-sided and conflicting ideas of Messiah, of which they were yet in ignorance. And yet I am not come from myself (see John 5:30). I have not risen upon the wings of my own ambition. It is not my mere human whim and purpose, or my desire for self-glorification, which brings me before you. You may know the home of my childhood; and watched as I have been by your eager spies, as you had full right to do, you may know all my public proceedings, and yet you have not fathomed the fact that I have not come on my own errand, nor does my humanity as you have grasped it cover the whole of the facts about me. There is a peculiarity, a uniqueness, about my coming that you have yet to learn. I have been sent to you; but he that sent me is real—a reality to me, which makes it an absolute reality in itself. The use of ἀληθινός is somewhat peculiar, and, unless with some commentators and Revisers we make it equal to ἀλήθης, and thus disturb the uniform usage of St. John, we must either imagine under the word a real "Sender," or one really answering to the idea already announced as of One competent to send. "He that sent me, the Father," of whom I spoke (John 5:37) when last we conversed together, is the overwhelming Reality in this case. Whom ye know not. The Jerusalem multitudes were suffering grievously from the superstitious limitations of their own faith, from the traditions, the symbolism, the letter, the form, which had well nigh strangled, suffocated, the underlying truths. They had in many ways lost the God whose great Name they honoured. They failed to apprehend his awful nearness to them, his love to every man, his compassion to the world, the demand of his righteousness, the condition of seeing him, the way to his rest—"Him ye know not." This was a serious rebuke of the entire system which prevailed at Jerusalem. Not understanding nor knowing the Father, they were unable to see the possibility of his having sent to them, through the life and lips of a Man whom they knew, his last and greatest message. John 7:29 (But) £ I know him; because I am from him—my inmost nature, the centre of my ego, proceeds, is derived, from him. I have come forth from him. There is that about me and my origin which has brought me into such intimate relations with the Father that I know him as ye do not know him (cf. John 8:55)—and he (whom I thus know, and to whom I refer, ἐκεῖνος) sent me. This sending is a further condition of the knowledge which you fail to appreciate, but which would make all things plain to you. If this knowledge should break as the daystar on their darkness, would they not at once see that, up to that point at least, in their experience they did not know, or had not known, whence he was, in the grandest sense. The charge of ignorance and the claim of supernatural knowledge, Divine origin, Divine commission, was too much for these Jerusalemites. They thought it blasphemy. John 7:30-36 (5) The divided opinions and conduct of the different groups around him; the attempt on his life, and its failure. John 7:30 They sought therefore to seize him: and (equivalent to "but;" see John 7:28) no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come. It was in their heart to combine with "the Jews," but none dared to touch him. There were political considerations, there were lingering and coruscating fires of enthusiasm burning in the hearts of those who had seen his great works; and probably an awe, a superstitious fear, of some stroke of his reputed power held them back. The evangelist once more notices the true cause of this arrest of their malignity: "The hour" for the termination of his self-revelation, for the completion of his self-surrender, the hour which to the beloved disciple’s eye was the very consummation of the ages, had not struck. John 7:31 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Verses 7:53-8:11 (8) The pericope adulterae. (a) Excursus on the genuineness of Jn 7:53-8:11. It is our duty to examine the various grounds on which this passage has been almost universally concluded to have formed no portion of the original Fourth Gospel; and then the internal grounds on which it has been rejected, and some of the speculations as to its origin and value. Doubts have beset the authenticity of the passage from the fourth and fifth centuries in the Eastern Church, both on external and internal grounds. The authority and practice of Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome gave it a secure resting place till the criticism of Erasmus re-awakened doubt. Calvin expressed a more favourable opinion concerning it. Jansenius rejected it. Grotius considered it as an addition to John’s Gospel from the hand of Papias or one of his friends and fellow disciples of John. Wettstein, Semler, Griesbach, and Wegscheider seemed to leave for it no place in Scripture. Lachmann omitted it from his text. It has been condemned as spurious by the great bulk of modern critics, even of different schools and on somewhat different grounds. Some have rejected it as a spurious forgery (see Hengstenberg, in loc.); Keim derives much the same conclusion from its supposed teaching; others have admitted that, though it is not without a powerful apostolic ring about it, yet its proper place was probably at the close of Luk 21:1-38., where it is found in cursive 69 and three other cursives. Others (Scrivener) that, from its interruption of the narrative, it has no place here, but may be possibly regarded as an appendix to John’s Gospel, or a part of the later edition of that Gospel which contained John 21:1-25. There is no sufficient ground on which to build this hypothesis of two editions (cf. notes on John 21:1). There are, however, manuscripts which preserve the paragraph in this position, viz. the cursive 1, and the majority of the Armenian manuscripts. A very damaging note accompanies it in 1 (see Tregelles, who gives it at length). The following critical editors have either displaced it or entirely rejected it from this place in John’s Gospel, though many among them admit its virtual authenticity as a record of a genuine occurrence in the life of our Lord: Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Lucke, Meyer, Godet, Milligan, Scrivener, Moulton, Westcott and Hort, the Revised Text, and even Weiss and Wordsworth. On the other hand, it has been defended by Mill, Lampe, Michaelis, by Bengel, Scholz, Wieseler, Ebrard, Lange, Stier, M’Clellan, and by some of the Tubingen school like Hilgenfeld, who, attaching it to the Gospel, have made use of it to destroy the historic character of the Gospel itself. Griesbach retains it with double marks of doubt. Farrar, summarizing Lucke’s discussion of the evidence, inclines rather in its favour, and thinks it may have been early admitted into the Fourth Gospel from that according to the Hebrews, or from some Ur-marcus (Holtzmann). M’Clellan and Stier vehemently maintain it on both internal and external grounds. Edersheim says that it presents "insuperable difficulties in the ’un-Jewish’ account given of the accusers, the witnesses, the public examination, the bringing of the woman to Jesus, and the punishment claimed." Renan, ’Ecce Homo,’ and Farrar have made very powerful biographic use of the narrative. The evidence against it is: 1. That à, (A), B, (C), (L), X, (Δ), 33, 131, and 157 omit it. A and C are here defective, but they leave no sufficient space for its insertion; L and Δ leave gaps, to notify some omission, which the copyist for some reason did not or dared not fill. Though found in D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, V, T, Δ, Λ, Π, and numerous cursives, it is nevertheless obelized in some of the former as doubtful. The first Greek writer in the twelfth century (Euthymius Zygadenus) who in this portion of the Gospel refers to the passage distinctly says that from John 7:53 to John 8:11 the passage was not found, or it was obelized in the most accurate copies; wherefore, he adds, it was first a gloss, and then an appendix (παρέγραπτα, "written alongside of," καὶπροσθήκη, "added to"), and "a token of this is seen in the fact that Chrysostom had made no mention of it." 2. It was found in different places, even in several of the manuscripts which contain it (see above). 3. Ancient versions, such as some of the Italic, AEgyptian, Old Syriac, Gothic, early manuscripts of the Peschito and Armenian versions, omit it. 4. It was not read by Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuesfia, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theophylact, where it might have been expected. 5. Though found in D (Codex Bezae), yet this testimony, without confirmation, throws doubt over it, by its adoption of the paragraph. D has given us several other additions (such as Matthew 20:28; Luke 6:5), which have never passed into authentic Scripture. Moreover, the text of D here differs from that of the later uncials in which it occurs, as well as from the body of cursives which contain it. Lucke powerfully argues, from the silence of Chrysostom and Origen, that they were in positive ignorance of the existence of the passage. The defenders of its authenticity allege that Origen’s commentary and homilies are lacking or mutilated over the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters. While this is true, Origen (’Tom.,’ 19.) points out the connection between John 7:40 and John 8:12 without making the faintest reference to this pericope. "No catenae as yet examined contain notes on any of these verses" (Westcott and Hort). 6. The nature of the text differs from that with which it is supposed to be imbedded, as, for instance, in the use of the particle δὲ in place of οὖν (John’s favourite particle), and of other words which are peculiar to itself, and certain expressions, such as "Mount of Olives," "sat and taught," etc., which are current in Luke and elsewhere (but see further for the value of this evidence). 7. The Constant. lection for Whit Sunday consists of Joh 7:37-52, followed immediately by John 8:12. Such an omission from John’s Gospel is only noticeable elsewhere where special reason can be assigned for it. 8. With the exception of the ’Apostolic Constitutions,’ the Greek writers and commentators are ignorant of it, and there is no proof of its existence in any extant manuscript earlier than the sixth century. The sum of this is that the most ancient known authorities are, from one cause or other (whether necessary, accidental, or prudential), silent concerning the passage; that mutilations of Scripture cannot be common offences, even though a strong ascetic spirit might be tempted to refuse a public reading of this paragraph, and to abstain from public comment on so difficult a passage. The evidence for the paragraph is: 1. First and foremost, the Codex D and the later uncials (E), (F), G, H, K, M, Γ, (S), T, U, Λ (but in E, F, and S great doubts are expressed; F has a space to verse 10; Γ ends at verse 3). D probably belongs to the fifth or sixth century, K to the eighth or ninth, and the remaining uncials belong to the tenth, eleventh, or twelfth century. The whole group is, with the exception of T, representative of the Syrian Recension. Some of the best manuscripts of the vulgate contain it, and the AEthiopic and Memphitic versions. Griesbach enumerates a hundred cursives—Alford says three hundred—and especially in Latin manuscripts referred to by Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome. 2. The supposed presence of it in the ’Gospel according to the Hebrews’ turns on the statement preserved by Eusebius in his account of Papias (of which we have other reasons for doubting the accuracy), ’Hist. Eccl.,’ 3.40, "He exhibits also another history concerning a woman (διαβληθείσης) calumniously accused before the Lord of many sins, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." On the credit of this statement, that apocryphal Gospel has been supposed to contain the famous passage. The idea is thrown out that John or his earliest editors may have sought to find a place for it, and imagined that the event preceded the solemn assertion of Joh 8:15, "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no one." This ingenious supposition tells both ways. If the passage is an importation from the ’Gospel according to the Hebrews,’ Eusebius becomes a witness that, in his day, and by him, it was not regarded as an integral portion of John’s Gospel. The very early existence of the narrative is, however, avouched, and the possible method suggested by which either John or the Ephesian presbyters adopted it. But there is no proof that this narrative is identical with a story no details of which are preserved. The slanderous or secret accusation of a woman is not parallel with the antoptic, uncontradicted assertion of Joh 8:4, that she was "taken in the very act." Nor is the accusation of "many sins" identical with the charge of one revolting crime. It is significant that Ruffinus, in his version of Eusebius, substitutes "a woman, an adulteress," for "a woman accused of many sins." This may have been due to his acquaintance with Jerome’s translation of the ’Gospel according to the Hebrews.’ Moreover, on the supposition of identity, the story would more probably have been found in the cognate Gospel of Matthew than in the numerous manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel. 3. The testimony of ancient writers can be set over against the silence of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc. Thus, ’Apost. Const.,’ 2.24, refers to the narrative, in vindication of the true reception of penitents. After referring to Luke 7:1-50., the writers say, "Another woman who had sinned, the elders placed before him, and left the judgment in his hands, and went out; but the Lord, who knoweth the hearts, having inquired of her whether the elders had condemned her, and she having said ’No,’ said, ’Go, then; neither do I condemn thee.’" This testimony cannot be positively made to show that the passage was in any Greek text earlier than the third century, and no reference occurs in it to the Gospel of John. The reference is valuable for the antiquity of the Gospel, if other reasons establish this passage as an integral portion of that Gospel. 4. The passage was undoubtedly admitted as part of the Gospel by both Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose, and many later Fathers of the Western Church. Jerome did not discard it from the vulgate version, and distinctly says that it was found "in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus," and that it was read on the Feast of St. Pelagia. Ambrose quoted from it (’De Spir. Sancto’ 3.2, 15), and reproached those who made a bad use of it. Augustine (’Adv. Pelag.,’ 2.17) admits that some were afraid of the passage, lest it should lead to laxity of morals, and so had erased it (auferrent) from their codices. Augustine comments on it verse by verse, and preached from several texts found in it. 5. The internal evidence in favour is the weakness of the objections which are said to arise: (1) From the use of words and phrases foreign to John, and of proper names without explanations. Thus, "Mount of Olives" is referred to for the only time. But it must be admitted that "Kedron" thus occurs (John 18:1). Πᾶςὁλάος is said to be discrepant from the Johannine phrase ὄχλος, used so frequently in John 7:1-53. and elsewhere, and is scarcely answered by M’Clellan when he says it is antithetic to "the doctors of the Law," itself an un-Johannine phrase. The statement that Jesus "sat down to teach" may not elsewhere be found in the Fourth Gospel. It is implied, however, that he was seated during the discourse of Joh 13:1-38; John 14:1-31. The use of such words as καταγράφειν, ἀναμάρτητοςἐπιμένεινκαταλείπεσθαι cannot prove anything whatever, as we may find in every chapter of John, and still more of the Apocalypse, ἅπαξλεγόμενα. Much is made of the absence of οὖν, John’s favourite particle, and the frequent use of δὲ. But John uses οὖν two hundred and six times in his Gospel, and δὲ two hundred and four times. Moreover, οὖν does not occur in John 1:1-20; John 3:1-24; John 4:12-27; John 11:22-30; nor in John 14:1-31., 15., 17. (M’Clellan). Very little argument ought to rest on this peculiarity. (2) It is stated that the paragraph breaks the continuity of the narrative, which properly follows on verse 45 or 52. This is not so clear. The Sanhedrin and the people disperse at the conclusion of Christ’s discourse; that last day of the feast is ended. John 8:1 introduces a new day, the dawn of the morning when the event occurred providing Christ with his illustration, "I am the Light of the world;" and the recent occurrence, with the potent illustration of the declaration, "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no one." (3) The judgment of stoning is said to be the punishment adjudged to the man and woman, if the woman be the betrothed spouse of another man. In Deuteronomy 22:22 and Le Deuteronomy 20:10 death, without specifying the manner of it, is the punishment of adultery; in Deuteronomy 22:24 the ease of fornication with a betrothed virgin is punished with stoning. It has been argued by some that the specification of stoning in this one ease excludes it in the other ease, and by others that the one crime resembles the other so much that it is sufficiently near to justify the legal question put to Christ. In ’Sanhedrin,’ § Deuteronomy 7:4, adultery is not mentioned as a crime punishable with stoning, and in § Deuteronomy 10:4 it is made punishable with impalement. That scribes and Pharisees should make use, without perfect accuracy, of Moses to tempt Christ does not appear to be a reason sufficient in itself to doubt the authenticity of the passage. Our conclusion is that the passage, whether written as it stands by John or not, was introduced, in very early times, into the Western text as a gloss on John 8:15); that the external evidence is extremely unsatisfactory and conflicting; yet it must be admitted that the silence of the great Greek Fathers concerning it is accountable without disbelieving in its existence. While Chrysostom ignores it, Ambrose insists upon its teaching, and Jerome does not see sufficient reason to expunge it. The profound originality of the lessons it conveys, and the difficulty involved in a careless reading, may account for the non-appearance of it in the curliest manuscripts, and make the motive which could have maliciously devised or imagined such a scene inconceivable. Lucke, in his elaborate treatment, Tregelles, and Alford, Godet, in loco, Lightfoot (Contemporary Review, vol. 26.), Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, declare against it in the most positive way. Meyer urges that it is not to be for a moment referred to an oral Johannine source, while it is in keeping, he says, with the tone of the synoptic Gospels. This is open to criticism. Scathing denunciations of every kind of corruption are far more frequent in the synoptic Gospels (cf. Matthew 5-7, Matthew 23:1-39, etc.) than in the Fourth Gospel. The most formidable objection is the state of the text, which, in addition to its deficiency of first-class testimony, is unusually discrepant in the authorities which preserve it. Thus there is the abridged form of the narrative in Codex Bezae (D) and the text of T.R., which rests on a large number of later uncials and cursives; and a third text, which seems like a mixture or conflation of the two texts. Lucke and Godet have suggested that the passage contains an extra-scriptural fact preserved by oral tradition that was first placed at the end of the Gospels, and therefore at the end of John’s Gospel, and was by some editors and copyists inserted in this particular connection, and by others in Luke 21:8, in the midst of the testing to which the Sanhedrin and the sectional parties submitted our Lord during the last week of his life. Bishop Lightfoot (Contemporary Review, vol. 26:847) thinks it may have been one of the illustrative anecdotes in the Collectanea of Papias. The only other illustration to which he refers is the supposed saying of our Lord preserved in Eusebius’s account of Papias, with reference to the extraordinary fertility of the vine in the latter days—a passage which Lightfoot thinks may have been originally attached to Matthew 26:29. That such an event did happen, and that we have here an authentic record of what occurred, is accepted by the great bulk of critics, who, nevertheless, expunge it from the text of John, on the combined ground of its internal difficulty and deficiency of external attestation. The difficulty, however, is one indication of the surpassing originality of the narrative. It is hard to imagine the motive which should induce any of the followers of Christ or of John to have invented it, while there are reasons, drawn from the ascetic tendencies mightily at work in certain sections of the Church, for its omission or the silence of homilists. Though the spirit, atmosphere, and phrase suggest the synoptic tradition rather than the Johannine, yet it must not be forgotten that there are many synoptic passages in John’s Gospel, and Johannine phrases in the synoptists. The criticism proceeding from moral timidity has failed to recognize the grandeur of the entire proceeding. It contains no palliation of incontinence, but; a simple refusal of Jesus to assume the position of a civil Judge or Executor of the law in face of the established political supremacy of Rome; while the Lord made a demand for personal holiness, and an appeal to conscience so pungent that, in lieu of condemning to death a sinful woman, he judged a whole crowd of men, convincing them of sin, while he gave the overt transgressor time for repentance and holier living. (b) The plot against the honour or loyalty of the Lord Jesus foiled. John 7:53 And everyone went £ to his own house. If the plural be here taken, it more obviously refers to the breaking up of the assembly, of the divided groups, as well as of the angry Sanhedrin for the day now drawing to its close. The strong opponents of the passage see in the clause the mark of an interpolator who makes use of a phrase strictly applicable from its presumed place to the Sanhedrin, but intended clumsily to refer to the crowds who had been taking part in the dramatic scene. There would, however, be no impropriety in the reference to the cessation of an extraordinary session or committee of the Sanhedrin, when the officers had returned without their prize. John 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. This resort of our Lord is not elsewhere referred to in John’s Gospel, although it was mentioned by St. Luke (Luke 21:37; Luke 22:39) as the scene of the Lord’s retirement during the nights of the last week of his life. John’s mention of such a habit as this at an earlier period would in almost any other literature be regarded as mutual confirmation of the two documents, while the fact that "Bethany" lay on the opposite side of the hill, and the "garden" was, as a matter of fact, hidden on its slopes, and that both of these facts are known to the writer (John 11:1-57. and 19.) deprive the bare mention of the name of any inauthentic character. John 8:2 Now at daybreak. The word ὄρθρου does not occur in John; πρωί and πρωία are our evangelist’s words for "early morning," though ὑπὸτὸνὄρθρον is found in Luke 24:1 and Acts 5:21. He came again to the temple (the temple courts—ἱερόν, not ναός, is here used); and all the people came to him. The form πᾶςὁλαός is a deviation from John’s usual phrase, although λαός is found in John 11:50 and John 18:14. There is some ground for the deviation. The scenes of the previous day had been broken up into various groups. The favouring crowd from the provinces sympathized with a portion of the Jerusalem populace; then the hostile crowd at the beck of the authorities had been checked by the "officers" who had been themselves baffled and thunderstruck with the dignity and claims of Jesus. Great excitement had prevailed, and before the stormy scenes and recriminations of the previous day recommenced, the whole temple throng came unto him. If the eighth day of the feast was referred to—i.e. if the great day of the feast were the eighth day—the difficulty of the whole people having gathered about him is diminished, because there were special gatherings for the eighth day (see notes, John 7:37). It might have seemed that they had composed their differences, and were now waiting some symptom and signal of the great Leader’s will. [And he sat down, and was teaching them.£] This expression is synoptic rather than Johanninc; i.e. it belongs to the methods of the Galilaean ministry rather than to the hostile encounters of the metropolis (but see Matthew 23:2). He was prepared for long discourse and various instruction. Here, as in John 7:14, the word ἐδίδασκε is used without specifying the topic or theme on which he dwelt. The calm morning was soon overclouded, and the people violently excited, by a very ominous disturbance, planned with subtle care and malicious intention on the part of the authorities, who were ready at all costs and by any device to break the spell which Jesus was exerting over some of the people. John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees are bringing—dragging by main force—(to him £) a woman taken in adultery; £ and, having caused her—forced her, notwithstanding the hideous shame of her discovery—to stand in the midst, they say unto him, Master. £ The "scribes" are not elsewhere referred to in John’s Gospel, although the phrase, "scribes and Pharisees," is very frequently used in the synoptic Gospels for the opponents of our Lord and the subjects of his invective. They come together in the final scenes as combining to thwart and tempt him. John refers to "Pharisees" twenty times, and four times in connection with the "priests;" but never with the "scribes." The scribes are elsewhere in the New Testament spoken of as νομικοί or νομοδιδάσκαλοι, and also as "rabbis" in the Mishna. The scribes and Pharisees are no deputation from the Sanhedrin, nor are they representatives of the party of Zealots, as some have pretended. There is no indication of any mere sectional animosity or of any genuine desire to receive an authoritative or prophetic response to their inquiry. The Sanhedrin itself would certainly not have condescended at this epoch to have submitted any question of its own action to the arbitrament of Jesus. Numerous witnesses of the act of adultery are inconceivable, though in the excitement and confusion of the Feast of Tabernacles in a crowded city and suburbs, this may have been more feasible than might otherwise be supposed. The probability is that the act was undeniably committed in such a way as to bring this woman under the cognizance of these reformers or defenders of the theocracy who cropped up on all sides, and that a group of bigots scow at once that capital might be made for their antagonism to Jesus by proposing to him a query which would, however it might be answered, lower his prestige. According to verse 10 (omitted in Codex B), these scribes and Pharisees were, if not the "witnesses" of adultery, the "accusers" ready to take the case before the highest court. Considering the long desuetude of the Law, and the impossibility of even the Sanhedrin legally inflicting the penalty of stoning, even if it were so disposed, the whole question looks like a subtle but ill-considered plot to entangle the Lord in his judgments, and to induce him to sacrifice his influence with the people. The absence of the guilty man is noteworthy (Le John 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). John 8:4 Master—Teacher—this woman has been taken committing adultery, in the very act. Ἐπαυτοφώρω originally meant in ipso furto, "in the very theft;" afterwards more generally in the commission of this particular sin. The burning shame and bestial bluntness of the charge make no excuse or palliation possible. John 8:5 Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned (or, to stone such); but what sayest thou? £ The Law (Deuteronomy 22:23, etc.) prescribed stoning for both parties when the woman is the betrothed bride of another man, and if she make no sufficient attempt to foil the purpose of her seducer. For ordinary adultery the death penalty is left indefinite (Le John 20:10). It is no proof that strangulation was the method of punishment in the days of our Lord because the Talmud and Maimonides thus express it. £ Meyer concludes that the woman was a betrothed bride. This offence is, broadly speaking. "adultery" of an aggravated kind. The reference to the method of the punishment is not demonstrable proof of this, because it would be easily feasible to transfer the method of the death from the extreme case to the ordinary ease of nuptial infidelity (cf. Exodus 31:14 for the punishment of unspecified death for sabbath violation (repeated Exodus 35:2), interpreted of "stoning" in the special illustrative case, Numbers 15:32-36). This is Moses’ Law—"what sayest thou?" This query involves an ascription to Jesus of the right of authoritatively interpreting the Law. thus attributing to him the functions of a new legislator. Some have objected to the bare possibility of such an appeal being made to Jesus by any species of Jewish authority. The whole context shows that the process was malicious, ironical, crafty. The entire audience knew that this law had never been accepted or applied literally; that the Sanhedrin had not enforced it; and that, if they had endeavoured to do so, the Roman power had taken from the nation the jus gladii. The question, therefore, became one of casuistry inflamed by a concrete case, and having as its ally a secret sympathy with the offenders. It was not uncommon for the rabbis to discuss the incidence of obsolete laws. Many of the glosses upon the ancient law, and laborious trifling with specific regulations of the so called oral law, turn upon customs that were absolutely impracticable under the new conditions of the Jewish life. This, however, was no mere quibble of words about possible duties. The query was put with dramatic force and in concrete form. The shame and life of a fellow creature were the materials which this eager and bloodthirsty group were utilizing for their vile purpose. John 8:6 But this they said tempting him, that they might have (whereof) to accuse him. They sought a ground of formal accusation against Jesus. This implies some court before which the charge they desired to formulate it might be brought. The precise accusation is difficult to determine, and sundry distinguished scholars, Lucke, De Wette, and Alford, declare the problem or question insoluble. Augustine has been followed by a great body of expositors, who have supposed that an affirmative reply would have been inconsistent with the gentleness and mildness of our Lord’s treatment of sinners, while a negative reply would at once have given them a charge to bring before the Sanhedrin of such a relaxation of the Law as would endanger his position as a Rabbi, still more as the Prophet like unto Moses. Almost all critics agree as to the use to which Christ’s enemies were ready to put a negative reply, and therefore they coincide with Augustine in this part of his explanation. But the interpretation put upon the affirmative reply would not furnish the ground of any accusation before any court. An apparent inconsistency would be no civil charge, and would have no weight before any legal tribunal. The condemnation of adulterers to death by stoning would have been Christ’s allowance of the letter of the Law to stand. The Romans could take no umbrage at this until the act had been carried into execution. It may probably have been known that, let the Sanhedrin record what verdict and punishment they pleased, the Roman magistrates would not have carried it into capital execution. How, then, could the scribes and Pharisees have carried an accusation or information before a Roman tribunal? The solution was suggested by Baumgarten-Crusius and Luthardt, and adopted by Moulton, that Christ was asked to say "Aye" or "No" to an instant, tumultuous act of vengeance upon the adulteress. Let him say "No," they would accuse him of deliberately ignoring and repudiating the authority of the Law of Moses; let him say "Yes," they were ready to stone the woman there and then, and subsequently to throw the responsibility of such violation of Roman jurisdiction upon the Lord Jesus as its instigator. Meyer’s objection, that no question at all had been put to Christ on this supposition, is not clear. It was this. Clearly apprehending that adultery is a capital offence, and that there was a case before them upon which no doubt could be thrown, they ask him, with the stones in their hands, "Shall we kill this damsel or not?" If he says "No," then they were prepared to denounce the Prophet for his dogmatic trifling with the Law; if "Yes," they are ready to do the deed, and fasten upon Jesus all the shame and guilt of the proceeding before the Roman governor. It was a very analogous problem to that concerning the tribute money recorded in Matthew 22:1-46. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger was writing on the ground (εἰςτὴνγὴν, into the earth). Some manuscripts, E, G, and about ninety cursives, add, μὴπροσποιούμενος, "not troubling himself with them"—"as though he beard them not" (Authorized version). £ This act is unparalleled in Scripture, even if the custom is still occasionally practised in the East. Mr. O’Neil, in his instructive volume, ’Palestine Explored,’ records a curious instance of a youth, who, after playing some practical joke upon an old man, feigned utter ignorance of the surprise and cry of the old man by instantaneously assuming the position of one entirely abstracted from all sublunary thought, in fact, by sitting on the ground and scribbling with his finger in the dust, "as though he heard and saw nothing of what had happened." Such an intention can only be attributed to our Lord on the understanding that it was a current method of indicating an indisposition to have anything to say to the intruders. He was seated; he turned aside from the excited crowd, and by a significant symbol expressed his displeasure at their proceedings, and his perception of their craftiness. Conjecture has been busy, but vainly, with the inquiry as to what our Lord wrote on the ground, and some have urged (Godet) that he wrote the memorable sentence which follows, as a judge might write the verdict upon the case submitted to him. This is not probable, and it would detract from the symbolism of the act. John 8:7, John 8:8 But when they continued asking him; he lifted up himself, £ and said unto them, He that is without sin, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and with his finger £ was writing on the ground. The imperfect tense of ἔγραφεν, twice repeated, seems more in harmony with the symbolic meaning of the act than with the record on his part of any special sentence of his supreme wisdom. Christ refused to act the part of the civil magistrate, or to countenance stormy outbreak of murderous passion against this flagrant sinner, to save himself from their bitter malice. He rose, when the appearance of indifference could not be maintained, and at once arrested the outbreak of their unscrupulous fury without presuming to repudiate the letter of the Law. He lifted the discussion from the judicial to the moral sphere. He does not mean that none but the sinless can condemn, or pronounce verdict upon the guilty; but he calls for special freedom from similar offence on the part of any man who should wish or dare to display his own purity by taking part in the execution. The narrative would not suggest that every one of these accusers had been in his time guilty of like offence, but ἀναμάρτητος must at least mean that he was free from the desires which might lead to the commission of such sin, and Christ calls for inward saintliness and freedom from all irregular propension. He calls for personal chastity as the only possible moral condition for precipitately executing this ancient and severe law. The question before the crowd (asked so craftily) was, not whether Moses’ Law was to stand or not, but whether these particular men, with their foul hearts and spurious zeal, were or were not at that particular moment to encounter the displeasure of Roman power by dashing the stones at the head of this poor trembling creature of sin and shame; whether they were morally competent to condemn to immediate death, and carry the verdict into execution. Before this tremendous summons from the Holy One, conscience could sleep no longer. The hypocrisy of the entire manoeuvre stared them in the face. John 8:9 And they when they heard it (being convicted by their £ own conscience), they went out one by one. Their conscience convinced them that the spirit of the Law is greater than its letter. The phrase expressing the action of conscience was probably an explanatory and true gloss, which accounted for the sudden change of front. It was a proof of the ally which Divine law has within the human breast. The whole crowd, rather than the humbled woman, is condemned, but self-condemned and silent. This event speaks for the moral sense which had been paralyzed rather than obliterated in this people. (The expression, "one by one," εἱςκὰθεἱς, in which εἱς is treated as indeclinable, is occasionally found in later Greek, but only once in the New Testament (Mark 14:19), is not in D, but in several of the codices and cursives, and it is retained in R.T.) The slow rather than simultaneous disappearance of the gang of accusers is a highly dramatic touch, and the remaining clause, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last, heightens the impression. The phrase πρεσβυτέρων need not refer to office, but to age, and the "last" need not necessarily mean the youngest, but those that were left when the most responsible men found that they had carried their question too far, and had retired. And Jesus was left alone; i.e. so far as these accusers were concerned. The multitudes who had gathered round him were still waiting for his words (see John 8:2). This fact is involved in the substance of the narrative, whether the pericope belongs to the Gospel of John or not. And the woman where she was, £ in the midst of the assembly that remained, more likely cowering in shame and mortal fear than standing brazen-faced or daring before that awful Presence. These two, "Misery and Pity," face one another, and in the presence of a multitude of disciples and other listeners, Misery waits for Pity to speak—for perfect holiness and perfect mercy to do its will. There is One seated there who is without sin. He is at liberty, on his own showing, to condemn, and even to execute his fierce displeasure against a sin which he had, in his great inaugural discourse, charged upon the ill-regulated desires and evil glances of men. John 8:10, John 8:11 And Jesus lifted up himself, £ and said to her, Where are they? (these thy accusers). £ The question (with or without the additions) implied that our Lord had not seen the obvious effect of his words upon the accusing party. There was no triumph in his eye, no flush of victory over his enemies. Hath no one condemned thee? pronounced upon thee the sentence of condemnation? Has no one declared that thine is a case of stoning?—No one? Then the judgment has yet to be uttered, if it be left with him. Shall he cast the first stone; and leave the multitude, having tasted blood, to complete the terrible work? She said, No one, Lord. And he said (to her), Neither do I condemn thee. He had not come to condemn, but to save. A time is coming when the Father would commit all judgment into his hands—when his awful word, "I know you not," or "Depart from me," will be the signal of doom. But now his mission is to heal, not to wound; to comfort, not to punish; to reveal the heart of God, not to execute the crude judgments of men; to soothe, not to stone. He does not say, "Be of good courage; thy sins are forgiven." he does not say, "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; Her faith hath saved her;" but, Go, and henceforth sin no more. £ He justifies the position that he will not quench the smoking flax nor break the bruised reed. He condemns the sin, but for a while spares the sinner. He refuses to set up his judgment against Moses, or take into his human hands the administration of civil or political law. He does not say, "Go in peace," or "Go to peace;" but from this moment, this awful "now" (ἀπὸτοῦνῦν), "sin no more." The reticence and abruptness of the narrator are not like the style of apocryphal writers. Such a narrative could not have been invented by the second-century disciples, by docetic Ebionites, by the ordinary fabricators of apocryphal literature. If the text is so varied, conflicting, and ill-sustained as to envelop it in doubt; if the place in the gospel narrative be uncertain; if the use of a few words suggests a non-Johannine source; and if the position between John 7:52 and John 8:12 be difficult to accept;—there is yet nothing inconsistent with the Johannine teaching, or the sublime and unapproachable originality of the character of the Johannine Christ. The narrative will remain for all time an illustration of the blending of judgment with mercy, which has received its highest expression in the life work and Person of the Christ. Verses 8:12-9:41 Christ the Light of the world, with consequent discussions. John 8:12 (1) The solemn and formal assertion. If the passage we have just reviewed were an integral portion of the Gospel, and in its right place, the reference to the breaking of the morning, the first eye of the sun over the purple hills suddenly transforming their dark outline into the aspect of semitransparent jewellery, and their misty hollows into luminous folds of light, would be the obvious meaning or reason of the new imagery which he adopted: "I am the Light of the world." If, however, the entire pericope is not in its correct place, we must link John 8:12-20 with the discourses of the previous chapter. On the great day of the feast, in obvious allusion to the mystic drawing of water in Siloam, and transference of it to the temple court, Jesus had said, "If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink." Many critics imagine that now he refers to the habit, on the first evening of the Feast of Tabernacles, and probably, though not surely, on the other evenings, of kindling the golden candelabra in the court of the women, giving the signal for a brilliant illumination which was visible over the city and surrounding hills. As the water was a symbolic memorial of the smiting of the rock, so the sudden blaze in the temple court was a similar reminder of the fiery pillar in the wilderness, and commentators have found in such ceremonial and memories an occasion for our Lord’s words. Surely they go much deeper, and have a wider signification. The creation of light by the Word of the Lord, and St. John’s own statement in the prologue that in the Logos was life, and the Life was the light, and the Light shone into the darkness before the Incarnation, is a more adequate interpretation. "The Word was made flesh," and this was the grand occasion for the revelation of the glory of God. "We beheld his glory," says the apostle, "that of an only begotten Son of the Father." The gospel narrative supplies the material which induced the evangelist to preface it with imposing words. The life of men produced by him who is Life lightens the world with its glory. He is the Light of the world, because he is the Source of its life. This inversion of the sequences belonging to modern science and even to Mosaic cosmogony, partly shows what is meant by "Light," and the Light of life. Life in the Johannine thought is Divine blessedness, the very essence of Divine activity and essential being. The Father hath it in himself, and he has given to the Son to be similarly self-complete. He can confer this life on others, communicating his own perfection to some of the creatures of his hand, even bestowing upon them some of the essential elements of his own being. There are varied emanations and forth-puttings of this life—vegetable, animal, psychical, spiritual—and in each ease the life becomes a luminous source of direction, a self-revelatory force, a light. The highest Life of all is the brightest Light—the true Lamp of all our seeing (see John 1:9 and John 11:9, John 11:10). Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world," illuminating its darkness far more impressively than temple fireworks, or even pillars of radiant cloud, nay, more than the sunbeams themselves; and that because he was the Holder and Giver of life. Again therefore Jesus spake to them, saying, I am the Light of the world. The "again" may point back to the discourses of the previous chapter, or to the disturbance of the audience and the teaching of that early morning. If it were the morning of the departure of thousands from the holy city, peculiar appropriateness is felt in the continuation: He that followeth me shall not (by any means) walk in the darkness—shall not start off along the defiles of his pilgrimage in the murk of the night and the heavy hiding mists, but he shall, in my companionship, have the light of life. My follower will see his way. Those who have entered into living fellowship with the living One awake from all death slumber and darkness, "walk in the light, as he is in the light;" "become light in the Lord;" "being made manifest are light;" being with the Lord become φωστήρες, torch bearers to the rest; and, more than all (Matthew 5:14), are themselves "the light of the world." The Messiah had been anticipated as "Light," as the Light of Gentiles as well as Jews (Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6; Malachi 4:2; cf. Luke 2:32, where Simeon had caught the spirit of the ancient prophets). Edersheim (quoting ’Bemidb. R.,’ 3 and 15, and ’Yalkut on Isaiah 60:1-22’): "The rabbis speak of the original light in which God had wrapped himself as in a garment, which was so brilliant that it could not shine by day because it would have dimmed the light of the sun. From this light that of sun, moon, and stars had been kindled. It was now reserved under the throne of God for the Messiah, in whose days it would shine once more." (The Logos was, in the language of Philo, the Archetype and the Outflow of the light.) But the entire meaning of the manifestation of the Divine life in the Messiah is the diffusion of it in others. All Christ’s teaching about himself has this practical and ethical bearing. The ἕξει—"will have," "will be in possession of," light—harmonizes with all the wonderful teaching which blends the Christ and his followers in one entity, "I in them, they in me," of John 15:1-27., 17.; and Paul’s "Christ formed in you," "Christ liveth in me" (Colossians 1:27; Galatians 1:20). "Light," says Augustine, "reveals other things and its own very self, opens healthy eyes, and is its own witness." John 8:13-19 (2) The refusal of the Pharisees to accept this claim on his unsupported testimony, and Christ’s reply. John 8:13 The fact that the Pharisees respond shows that the circumstances of the previous day are changed. They have been the secret and organized opponents of Jesus throughout. The synoptic Gospels show with what perverse ingenuity and doggedness they followed him from place to place, venturing to assail him through his disciples, through his omissions of ritual, and by reason of his Divine freedom in interpreting the sacred Scripture; nor did they refrain from attributing his miracles to the power of the evil one (Matthew 9:1-38.). They were the nucleus of the bitter opposition to him current among the rulers in Jerusalem, and they reveal here a reminiscence of the discussion which had taken place in the temple or its neighbourhood after the healing of the impotent man (John 5:31, etc.). There the Lord had said that if he bore witness of himself, without any corroboration, his witness, thus isolated and deprived of evidence, would, on the ordinary grounds of a prima facie testimony, not be true; but be went on to say, further, that his testimony was variously corroborated by the manifest presence and cooperation of the Father. Forgetting thus his own vindication of himself—which many months of varied proof of his personality had confirmed for candid minds—they assail his comparison of himself to the Light of the world, with: Thou bearest witness of thyself; thy witness—according to the canon he had himself admitted and supplemented; but they forgetting the supplement, add—(thy witness) is not true. "If thou art simply making such exalted claims as this, in forgetfulness of the well known maxim about self-witness, we take the liberty to dispute and reject it." John 8:14 Jesus answered and said to them, Even if I bear witness concerning myself—in case I bear testimony, I, being who and what I am, and surrounded by Divine attestations, charged with a consciousness of a whole army and legion of approving witnesses, and, above all, with the Father’s own testimony to me—my witness is true—I satisfy in superlative fashion your own demand and also my own conceded test—because I know—οἶδα, with clear undisturbed self-consciousness I know, absolutely, invincibly, with perfect possession of the past and future—whence I came, and whither I am going. The whole of our Christian verities turn upon the consciousness by Jesus of that which lay before and after that human life of his. He embraced the two eternities in his inward self-consciousness. That "whence" and that "whither," with all their infinite sublimity and solemnity, give adequate evidence and sufficient weight to his personal claim to be the Light of the world, because he is the temporary Embodiment of the eternal life which was with the Father, but is manifest to men (cf. 1 John 1:4). But ye know not whence I come—am ever coming forth to you with Divine judgment and calls of mercy—nor £ whither I am going. "Neither the one nor the other;" not that Christ had not repeatedly told them in various and most expressive form. They could neither grasp the origin of his Personality, nor the method in which, as Messiah, through suffering, through an equation of his lot with man’s (through the form of a slave and the death of a cross), he was doing the Father’s will (cf. notes, John 7:27, John 7:28; John 9:29). John 8:15 You judge—i.e. you condemn me, you repudiate my claim to be the "Living Water" and the "Light of the world"—after the flesh (κατὰτὴνσάρκα), according to the outward appearance; you look at my mere humanity. Our Lord did not accuse them of the fleshly, blinded, unjust judgments of unregenerate men. The article τὴν, and not the well known formula κατὰσάρκα, prevents such an interpretation. He rather reasons and pleads with them. He suggests that they might, if they would, look below the surface of his flesh. Tim evangelist, who reports the substance of this discussion, has written. "The Word was made flesh." So if the incarnate Word had always been judged "after the flesh," we should never have seen his glory, nor recognized the nobler part of his Personality. I judge no man. Numerous efforts have been made to find the underlying modification of this assertion. Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, and many moderns add, "after the flesh," or "as you do" (the latter is the suggestion of Lucke, which, as Meyer says, comes to the same thing), or "now," pointing on to the actual assumption of his judiciary powers at the consummation of all things, and contrasting his earthly ministry of mercy with the ultimate majesty of his judgment throne (Westcott). Storr, Moulton, Godet. suggest "I by myself"—I alone, independently of the Father, judge no man. Meyer rejects all these attempts to add to the text, and maintains that our Lord is claiming the lofty position of Saviour rather than Judge. He came with that as his primary aim, purpose, intent; to heal, not to wound; to save, not to destroy; to give time for repentance, not to hurry sinners to their doom; to illumine, not to cover with darkness. Yet even Meyer admits a practical exception of great importance to be involved in the next clause, which does not differ from Westcott’s interpretation. John 8:16 And yet (the καὶδέ, equivalent to atque etiam—so Meyer, Luthardt, etc.—"This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light;" "The light shineth, and the darkness comprehendeth it not." The prince of this world is judged by the simple uplifting of the Son of God; and so, though he did not come to judge or condemn, yet judgments did, by the very necessity of his nature, proceed from him) even if I judge—if by the mere contact of his purity and love and healing power with those who will not come to him for life, judgment is pronounced—my judgment is true; £ i.e. trustworthy. The reading of Tischendorf, ἀληθινή, would mean that it "answers to the fundamental conception of a judgment." This thought would make the apparent paradox of the sentence more difficult to resolve. Because I am net alone, but (or, because, on the other hand) I and the Father who sent me, together deliver this judgment; i.e. it does not rest on my mere human consciousness, on what you who judge after the flesh might suppose it would rest, but on the eternal decisions of him who gave me my commission. The Father is in me and with me. I think the Father’s thoughts and do the Father’s will. Christ’s testimony concerning himself, his implicit judgments on human nature, his indirect condemnation of the whole crowd, by his gracious refusal to condemn the sinful woman to immediate doom, all issue forth with the sign manual of Almighty God, with whom and in whom he dwells as the only begotten Son. John 8:17 Having laid down the principle on which he was justified in maintaining the truthfulness of the assumption which the Pharisees impugned, he proceeded to vindicate, for these Jewish legalists, its agreement with the very letter of the Law. He adopted here the identical ground which was taken by him when first of all he claimed this fellowship with the Father. Yea, and in your Law it has been written, that the witness of two men is true. Many have said that here Jesus puts himself on one side as in hostility to the Law; Baur and some others plead, from the very phrase "your Law," that Jesus could not have used such an expression, and that John could not have recorded it; and Reuss urges that this expression agrees with the "standpoint of the gospel,which aims at lowering and degrading the old dispensation." Nothing could be less in harmony with the facts (see Introduction, § VII. 2). Even Meyer says, "The words are anti-Judaic … though not antinomian." Surely our Lord was simply appealing to his bitter enemies to recognize the application of the principle found in their own Law, of which they were continually making a proud boast. He simply goes to common ground of argument, and is ready to show that even the letter of the Law sustains his claim for the sufficient reason that he is not alone, but the Father is manifestly with him. Just as he never said "our Father" when addressing his disciples, but either "my Father" or "your Father" (John 20:17), because God is not the Father of men in the full sense in which he was Father to the only begotten Son; so he could not say "our Law" or "Moses gave us the Law" without derogating from the unique relation he sustained to the Law (compare Paul’s language, Romans 2:17, Romans 2:21, Romans 2:23). The quotation from Deuteronomy £ is not verbally exact; it even carries the statement of Scripture to a broader generalization, and is so worded that it applies to the case in point, by carrying the position to a legitimate consequence—"the witness of two men is true." By using the word "men," Christ suggests the contrast between two men on one side and the God-Man and the Father on the other. Lightfoot (’Horae Hebraicae’) quotes ’Rosh-Shanah,’ 1.2, 3, "that two persons well known must testify to the supreme court that they had seen the new moon! If these were unknown persons, they must bring proof that they were credible witnesses." Upon these common principles of jurisprudence the Lord was willing, in purely Jewish fashion, to rest his claim. John 8:18 I am the (one) that bears witness concerning myself—I have said it, and abide by it, and I know what I say and how fully I am fulfilling these words—and the Father that sent me heareth witness concerning me. His words reflected his own Divine self-consciousness. They bore one witness to his unique position. They brought out the inner thoughts of Christ, and revealed the life that was light. The word, the speech, of Christ was a fire kindled which would never be extinguished—it was the formal utterance of the eternal reality but it did not stand alone. The Father that sent him, by a long chain of events and revelations, by miracles and mighty energies, by the conference of the spirit of conviction upon the minds that gave candid attention to his verbal testimony, by the providential concurrence of facts with prophetic anticipation, was bearing witness concerning him. The argument is sufficient, so soon as we admit the terms used by Jesus, so soon as we recognize the ideas of the Son of God and of the Father, both alike revealed in the Person of Christ. We can understand, and to some extent sympathize with, the perplexity of the Pharisees. Later experiences have made it easier for us to understand the testimony of the Father, the presence and witness of God over and above the testimony of men and coincident with it (cf. John 15:27; Hebrews 2:4). All great spiritual revivals have given ample proof of the twofold testimony (see 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Romans 8:17, where Paul, the writer of the Epistle, shows himself familiar with this "Johannine" thought; cf. Hebrews 2:4). John 8:19 They said to him, in angry, wilful irony, Where is thy Father?—that he may bear to thee the witness which thou art appropriating. "Thou hast freed thyself from the charge of bearing unsupported testimony to thyself, by assuming the coordinate testimony of thy Father? Let thy Father manifest himself!" There is no need to explain this of the absence or insignificance of the earthly father of Jesus, or to suppose that they looked for some human attestation of such a kind. They rather scoffed at his claim of unique relation to the Father, and asked with mockery," Where is he?" not "Who or what is he?" What proof has he given of any special relation to thee? Jesus answered this taunt with sublime patience and pity, with distress at the resolute and judicial blindness they were fastening upon themselves: Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also. Another stupendous utterance, implying the most intimate relation between his own personality and the Father’s. Any fair or adequate knowledge of himself must reveal to them that he is in the Father and the Father in him; must bring forth to their consciences the overshadowing presence, the Divine glory. "You are wrapping yourself in impenetrable mists; you are refusing the light of life, and all the evidence given to you that I am the Light of the world. You do not see less recondite truths, nor perceive ideas far more elementary still; you cannot, in your spiritual blindness, apprehend the outline of my human character. If you had done this, you would have known my Father at least enough to prevent the utterance of so crude and disheartening a query. You know me not: why should I talk to you? All this ministry of mine has left me, so far as you Pharisees are concerned, perfectly unknown." There is awful severity and unutterable pathos in these closing words of the discourse. John 8:20-30 (3) Further controversy with different groups, ending in partial admission of his claims by some. John 8:20 These words—an expression which emphasized the foregoing interview, and shut it off from the following context—spake he (Jesus £) in the treasury, as he taught in the temple courts. The γαζοφυλακίον (Mark 12:41; Luke 20:1) may be the chamber in which the thirteen chests, with trumpet like orifices for the reception of alms, were erected. If so, it was in the "court of the women," or the place of public assembly most abundantly frequented by the multitude, and beyond which the women could not penetrate into the "court of the priests." Edersheim disputes Westcott’s suggestion, that the gazith, or session house of the Sanhedrin, was close by, and that the language of Jesus was within earshot of them. This chamber, gazith, was in the southeast corner of the "court of the priests," and therefore far away from the treasure chamber. Supposing that the word γαζοφυλακίον was the treasury itself. the ἐντῷ may point to the neighbourhood of the sacred enclosure. The reference shows that the locality even of the discourse had made profound impression on one of the disciples, and implies great publicity and imminent peril from these bold avowals. The clause added by the evangelist, And no man seized him; because his hour was not yet come, is a phrase repeated frequently, and one which delays, by a strange refrain, the tragic consummation (see Introduction, § VII. 5 (4)). Here it shows that some further attempt was made to lay violent hands on him, which for the moment failed. Seeing that avowals of his Divine nature wrought to a frenzy the passions of soma of his hearers, and finally led to his condemnation for a capital offence, the evangelist again and again shows that the Lord—who made these claims on his trial, as given in the synoptists—had frequently reiterated them at peril of his life. The language of the high priest shows how bitterly the ecclesiastical authorities resented this assumption. The Fourth Gospel makes the synoptic account of this matter more intelligible by showing us that it was not an isolated occurrence. John 8:21 This verse introduces a new scene and place, and perhaps a new day. The audience may have greatly changed, even if it had within it some of the same bewildered and exasperated enemies. Again he said, therefore. The οὖν refers to the fact that his liberty had not been infringed. The providence of God, the fear of the people, the inadequacy or confusing nature of the reports of his speech which had been taken to the authorities, had for a while arrested the tragedy. "No one laid hands on him." In consequence of this circumstance he said unto them again (i.e. on a subsequent occasion), I go away, and ye shall seek me. So much he had said before to "the Jews," adding, "Ye shall not find me" (John 7:34). Thus also he spake, later on, to the disciples, adding, "Thither ye cannot come" (John 13:33). On all three occasions he was misunderstood. His departure was a mystery to the Jews, who thought, or at least said, that he, a pseudo-Messiah, might be contemplating a mission to the Greeks and to the Dispersion. His departure to the Father by a bloodstained pathway, by violent death, was unspeakably perplexing to his most intimate friends. The bare idea utterly conflicted with the current notion of the Christ; but it was in the last case (John 14:1-31.) modified by the promise that, though he was about to leave them and to return to his Father, yet he would come again—they should once more beheld him, and he would provide a place for them. Still, they would not be able for a while to follow him, even though willing to lay down their life for his sake (John 13:33, etc.). But in the face of a more bitter misunderstanding and an utter inability to perceive and know either him or the Father, Christ said not only, "Ye shall seek me," but ye shall die in your sin. The ἐν here indicates rather the condition in which they should die than the cause of their death. "In," not "of" (so Hengstenberg, Meyer, and Luthardt). He did not say, "perish by reason of this sin," but "die in this sin." They will die looking vaguely, hopelessly, for the Saviour whom they have, in such an hyperbole of spiritual dulness and of bitter malice alike, misunderstood and rejected. They will pass through the gate of death with no deliverance from sin secured. Knowing neither the Father nor the eternal life and light manifested in himself, they will seek and not find, they will die unsanctified, unatoned, unreconciled No gleam of light will play over the dark ness of the grave. Whither I go, ye cannot come. The eternal home of the Father’s love will not open to such angry search. Such utter misunderstanding as they had evinced, such point blank refusal to walk in his light, will impede and block the way to the heart of the Father, whose perfect revelation and sufficient pleading they steadily resist. The language of this verse is probably the condensation and conclusion of s much longer debate. John 8:22 The Jews therefore said (were saying one to the other), Will he kill himself, that (because) he saith, Whither I go, thither ye cannot come? This query was one of harsh mockery, and can hardly be exaggerated in malign intent. The suicide was supposed to have his place in Gehenna, According to Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ John 3:8. 5), "the darkest regions of Hades would receive the souls of such." The Jews then scoff at his departure as a spontaneous resort to a fate towards which they did rot care or mean to follow him. Edersheim declares this passage of Josephus not to be sustained by rabbinical authority, and he doubts this aspect of their scorn. He limits it to the Jewish guess that Jesus must be contemplating self. murder, and as putting deliberately such a distance between them and him that they could not traverse it. The very fact that they had it in their hearts to destroy him makes it probable that they were looking beyond the act of suicide, either to the hell of popular belief or the hatred of contemporaries. They obviously thought that none but a suicide can determine the time of his departure. Christ proceeded to show them that the reason why his death would separate them from him was a fundamental difference of nature. John 8:23 Yet this essential divergence is not based on fatalistic grounds, but on moral ones. The argument of the twenty-fourth verse explains the description of vers 23. The ground of this utter alienation is the lack of belief, which will leave them in their sins to die. He said to them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above. You spring from the lower as opposed to the higher world; you are influenced by considerations drawn from the earthly, sensual, superficial, and transitory. It is not necessary to suppose that our Lord is clenching the Jews’ harsh speech about the underworld with a tu-quoque, as though they verily belonged to the Gehenna to which they were consigning him; for the next pair of clauses are in parallel apposition with the former. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ These chapters (9. and 10.) bring the conflict with the Jews to a climax before the commencement of the Peraean ministry. They are doubtless closely connected with what has preceded; but the note of time (John 10:22) implies an interval of some months of intense activity elsewhere—to have carried on the ministry of Christ from the Feast of Tabernacles to the winter. If John 10:22 points back, as Westcott argues by alteration of the Received Text and by special translation, to the preceding discourse, we are compelled to dissociate the cure of the blind man from the teaching of Joh 8:1-59., and to regard the opening verse of Joh 9:1-41. as entirely distinct from, and discontinuous with, the stormy scene in the temple. Dr. Eustace Conder, ’Outlines of the Life of Christ,’ considers the connection so close between the eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters, as to bring the entire series of instructions into one group, and to intercalate a considerable portion of the later Galilaean ministry and also that in Persea between the seventh and eighth chapters. On that hypothesis, after the break-up of the Sanhedrin on the last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:52), an absence of some months intervened before Jesus (John 8:12) again spoke to them, and said, "I am the Light of the world," deriving his illustration from "the Feast of Lights," which accompanied the enkaiaia of Joh 10:22. The removal of the closing words of Joh 8:59 from the text as a gloss, favors a pause between the attempt to stone Jesus and the miracle. Lange has the inconsistent remark that the παράγων is "the participle of the preceding though doubtful παρῆγεν." If it were a gloss, the παρῆγεν had been introduced by some copyist from the παράγων, and therefore the latter can derive no meaning from the former. Admitting the spuriousness of the gloss, the connection between the chapters is not close enough to allow the supposition that, on the passing out of the temple with his disciples, the conversation and miracle took place. Godet thinks that the most probable time was the evening of the memorable day when our Lord and his disciples had returned to the temple. True, in Acts 3:2 a congenital cripple sat at the gate of the temple, asking alms; but in this place there is no mention of the temple. Our Lord may have "seen" this beggar on any one of his peregrinations over the slopes of Olivet or on the road to Bethany, and now he seems to be in the company of the disciples, and with them alone. They are not apparently suffering from the recent excitement of the angry contest in the temple-court. They have had time to recover themselves, and to draw from Christ, not as the eternal I AM, but as their "Rabbi," a solution of a most pressing psychological and theological puzzle which has agitated all schools of thought. Yet the reply of Jesus, involving a fresh illustration of his being the "Light of the world," shows that the great utterances of the preceding discourse were still the theme uppermost in his own mind. We know that the discourse, etc., took place on a sabbath, and the result of the healing relates itself most closely to the discussion which followed the healing of the impotent man in John 5:1-47. and 7. John 9:1-7 (8) The Lord confirms by a sign the declaration that he is the Light of the world, by giving eyesight as well as light. That which had been proclaimed as a great truth of his Being and mission, viz. that he was the Light of the world, was now to be established and confirmed to the disciples by a signal miracle. The "higher criticism" finds explanation of this and other similar miracles at Bethsaida and Jericho, in the prophecy of Isa 42:19; Isaiah 43:8; Isaiah 35:5; Isaiah 29:18. Volkmar holds that the story of Zacchaeus is thus rewritten! Thoma thinks that we have a spiritualization of the "miracle" on Saul of Tarsus. It would be waste time to point out the differences which are patent to the simplest criticism. John 9:1 And—the καί suggests relation both in subject-matter, in time, place, occasion, and theme, with that which had preceded—as Jesus was passing by, going along his way, he saw a man blind from birth (cf. ἐκκοιλίαςμητρὸςαὐτοῦ, Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8). He was obviously a well-known beggar, who had often proclaimed the fact that he was blind from birth (see John 9:8). Such a condition and history rendered the cure more difficult and hopeless in the view of ordinary professors of the healing art, and the juxtaposition of such a symbolic fact with the near activity of those who were boasting of their Abrahamic privilege and their national and mere hereditary advantages, is one of the instances of the unconscious poesy of the gospel history. There he sits, the very type of the race which says, "We see," but which to Christ’s eye was proclaiming its utter helplessness and blindness, not asking even to be illumined, and revealing the fundamental injury done to the very race and nature of man, and calling for all the healing power that he had been sent into the world to dispense. The man who had been struck blind, or whose eyesight had been slowly dosed by disease, became the type of the effect of special sins upon the character and life; thus e.g. vanity conceals radical defects and weaknesses; pride hides from the sinner’s own view his own transgressions; temporary blindness to great faults is one of the symptoms of gross sin like David’s, and prejudice is proverbially blind and deaf; but here is a man who is nothing less than the type of a congenital bias to evil, of hereditary damage done to human nature. Unless Christ can pour light upon those who are born blind, he is not the Savior the world needs. John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi. This honorific appellation is found in John 1:38, John 1:49; John 3:2; John 4:31; John 6:25; John 11:8; but very rarely in the other Gospels. It is applied to John the Baptist (John 3:26). The question seems to denote a very different frame of mind from that with which the previous chapter terminated. Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? It was the current idea and popular doctrine, not only that all suffering in this life had its origin in sin, and was a witness to the damage done to our nature by sin, by the disruption of our normal relations with the living God, but furthermore that every peculiar disaster pointed to some special or particular sin. Doubtless the Book of Job was a formal discussion of the question. The writer of that work repudiates the right of any onlooker to infer special sins from peculiar punishments. Jesus, moreover (Luke 13:1-3); had repeatedly discouraged the tendency to judge, but he did this by the still more solemn assurance that all men deserved the special fate of some. Still, the calamity of congenital blindness, with all its hopelessness, provided a very apt occasion for raising the question, "Who did sin, this man, or his parents?" It is and always will be difficult to say whether the disciples thought that they had exhausted the alternatives, or believed that they had plausible reasons for thinking either alternative possible. Some have argued that they had Scripture ground for the second of the suppositions, that the sin of the parents of the blind man was the real cause of the blindness of their son. Thus (Exodus 20:5) the idea is embedded in the Decalogue, and it is repeated in Exodus 34:7 and Numbers 14:18, that the iniquities of fathers are visited upon their children. The forty years in the wilderness was a ease in point (Numbers 14:33, Numbers 14:34; Jeremiah 32:18), and numerous examples may be given of the punishment descending from parent to child; e.g. upon the house of Ahab, and on the sufferers from exile in Babylon. Compare the continuous threatening of vengeance for unfaithfulness upon the generation to come. The argument may have been strengthened by observation of the lot of men who have brought poverty, disease, and disgrace upon their unborn children. Ezekiel had deliberately repudiated the inference that Israel had drawn from their Scriptures, in the dictum or proverb (Ezekiel 18:2) that "the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge," and maintained with great and passionate earnestness, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." This may have led the disciples to put the conjectural solution. Did this man sin? Is there any way or sense in which the man’s own sin could be the cause of so great a calamity? It seems entirely gratuitous to derive from this passage any final conclusion as to the method in which they supposed it possible that the man’s personality preceded his birth, or any certain conviction that they meant more by their question than this—if sin is the cause of such fearful privation, it must either be the man’s parents’ or his own. It could not have been his own; was it then his parents’? There was sufficient discussion of the problem among the Jews for one or more vague and unsettled opinions to be floating in their minds. (1) It cannot be proved that the doctrine of metempsychosis was ever held by the Jews. The language in which Josephus refers to the views of the Pharisees is ambiguous (cf. ’Bell. Jud.,’ Ezekiel 2:8. 14; ’Ant.,’ Ezekiel 18:1. 3). The view held by them was simply that "the immortal souls of the good (only) pass into another body," are raised into a new life; "but that the souls of the sinful αἰδίῳτιμωρίᾳκολαζέσθαι, are afflicted with eternal punish-meat." This differs profoundly from the Oriental, or Pythagorean, or Platonic doctrine of transmigration. (2) The Jewish speculation of the pre-existence of souls has some countenance from Wis. 8:19, 20, where the pseudo-Solomon says, "I was a witty child, and … being good, I came into a body undefiled," modifying somewhat the Platonic idea of a harmony between the pre-existing soul and the body; but beyond this there is no sound indication that the Jewish mind had accepted the doctrine which played so great a part in the later discussions as to the views of Origen. (3) Lightfoot (’Horae Hebraicae,’ in, loc.) thinks "the dogma held by R. Akiba, commenting on Ecclesiastes 12:1, to the effect that "in the days of Messiah there will be neither merit nor demerit"—i.e. that neither merit nor demerit of parents will be imputed to posterity—may account for the query of the apostles. (4) The idea of the possible sinfulness of the child while in the womb of its mother—a theory based upon the supposed moral activity of Jacob and Esau in the womb of Rebecca, and the statement that John the Baptist leaped in the womb of his mother Elisabeth (Luke 1:41)—may have co-operated with other vague views floating in their minds with sufficient intensity to explain the first part of their question. (5) The supposition of some (Tholuck), that the disciples may have thought that the man’s sins were foreknown, and that the blindness was punishment beforehand, is so abhorrent to any notion of the justice of God, that we cannot suppose that it ever entered into their inquiry. The fact that no fewer than five distinct hypotheses as to the possibility of culpability before birth having had some place in Hebrew and contemporary thought, is an adequate explanation of the fact that they should have put this ever-recurring problem of evil in the particular form in which we find it. John 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents (that he should be born blind). There was no immediate connection between the special sin of the parents and this particular calamity. Our Lord does not assert in those words the sinlessness of those people, but severs the supposed link between their conduct and the specific affliction before them. But (he was born blind) that the works of God should be made manifest in him. The disciples will soon see in the history of this man the meaning of his lifelong blindness. In the man himself’ the grace of God will work mightily, both a bodily and spiritual illumination. Evil in this case is to redound to greater good. This provides no opportunity for any to fasten on one or another some charge of special transgression, but, as all evil ought to do, it provides opportunity for the redeeming work which Christ came to accomplish, and which he permitted his disciples to share. John 9:4 We £ must work the works of him that sent me,f1 while it is day. The emendation of the text certainly throws much beauty into the statement. Christ identifies himself with his disciples. They are pledged by accepting his call, and he has been himself charged by his own sublime mission to work while it is called day. The sun was going down over the holy city on that sabbath day, and Jesus will not wait, nor lose the opportunity of doing the merciful will of the Father. He did not say, "Him that sent us" (as Tischendorff1 reads), for "As the Father had sent him, so he sent them." But he adds, The night cometh, when no man can work. The materialistic interpretation of Paulus, "Christ must have daylight for a delicate operation," is too puerile to deserve refutation. The suggestion of the Greek Fathers (Chrysostom, Theophylact, etc.), who here drew a distinction between the work of this world and the work of the future world, between work done before and after his Passion, representing the work of his earthly ministry as done in the day, and that of the Spirit as work done in the night, is singularly unfortunate. Our Lord is merely adopting the phrase as a customary image for life and death. Death puts an end to all human activity on earth, even to Christ’s own, as a human Friend and Teacher. Numerous attempts have been made to suppose some emphatic contrast between the lifetime of Christ and the period that should follow his Passion. They all fail, because Christ’s own activity resumes another form by his resurrection and the gift of his Spirit. The night of death, accompanied by the cessation of active labor, is the general idea. The day’s work must be done in the day. The probation involved in the bare fact of its limitation, and in this case its rapidly approaching consummation, is the main thought, without pressing the imagery too far. By saying, "We must work," etc., he gave a lesson and an example for all time. The ’Pirke Aboth,’ "The Sayings of the Fathers," record the words of R. Tryphon, "The day is short, and the task is great, and the workmen are sluggish, and the reward is much, and the Master of the house is urgent." John 9:5 While—or, whensoever—I am in the world, I am the Light of the world. He had said (John 8:12), "I am the Light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness." He was sublimely conscious of his power to do for the moral world what the sun was doing for the physical world. He was the Occasion of its life, the Condition of its activity, the means of its instruction, the Source of all its beauty, its joy, and its progress. The ὅταν, which is translated quamdiu in the vulgate, and "so long as" in the Authorized version, means strictly "whensoever," and refers to the entire period of his activity (see John 1:5). But while the sun of this world cannot open the eyes of the blind, and wastes his radiance on their sightless sockets, so, unless Christ were more than the sun, and could give the power as well as the opportunity of seeing, he would never have done the work of him that sent him. The fact that he is the Light leads him to remind the disciples that he is the true Source of eyesight as well as of the conditions of vision. Light enough for all the world shines into the darkness, but the darkness comprehendeth it not. This Jewish people are surrounded by floods of light. The spiritual world stands revealed fully to Christ’s own gaze. But mankind hates the light, loves darkness on these matters rather than the light. There is a radical fundamental change that must come over men, or they will never see. This evil, this terrible calamity that has befallen man, will vitiate all the provision of mercy. There must be a new beginning, a new birth, a work of God wrought in men, as well as a sublime revelation made to men, or the whole mission of the Christ would be incomplete. John 9:6 When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and with the £ clay thereof anointed his (the) eyes (of the blind man). The precise meaning and motive of the process here described has been a source of great perplexity to the commentators. We see that, on other occasions, our Lord used his own saliva as a means of cure. Theme finds in the spittle the symbol of the impurity of the man thus dealt with (Isaiah 1:5, Isaiah 1:6), but somewhat inconsistently compares the "clay" with the "collyrium" of Revelation 3:17-19, and the "ausfiuss des Logos." On some occasions Jesus touched the diseased or deficient organ, put his hand on the leper, and his fingers in the ears of the deaf mute. On other occasions, again, he healed with his word only, and even from a distance, those who. in the freeness and royalty of his love, he elected to relieve from their sufferings. He was moved, doubtless, in every case by the ’special condition and temperament of the objects of his compassion. The use of these means was probably intended to evoke the nascent faith that predisposed him to receive healing, to stir the mind of the sufferer into some conscious relation will himself through those other powers of tactile sensitiveness which were in all similar cases singularly acute. Moreover, the virtue of saliva in cases of blindness was well understood. Lightfoot gives some curious proof of this, and Tacitus (’Hist.,’ 4:81) and Suetonius (’Vesp.,’ John 7:1-53.) both record the healing of a blind man by the Emperor vespasian by the use of jejuna saliva. Pliny (’ Hist. Nat.,’ 28:7) speaks of the same remedy for the diseases of the eye. "Clay" also is spoken of as being sanative by a physician by name Serenus Samonicus (see Tholuck, Wetistein, Lange, in loc.). These ideas may have had some truth in them, and for the blind man to find the process described, applied to himself by One who spoke of the Divine operations being wrought in him, would work some powerful effect on his moral, physical, and spiritual nature. Such result our Lord intended to produce. But this was only part of the healing process. John 9:7 And, having done this, he said to him, Go—depart, haste, there is something for thee to do—wash into the pool of Siloam. Σιλωάμ: this is the Greek form of the Hebrew word חַוֹלישִׁ, (חַלֹשִׁ with the article הַלשִּׁהַ, the shortened Pihel form חַלֹשָׁ, to send forth, with the omission of the dagesh) adopted in Isaiah 8:6 by the LXX., and also by Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ 5.4.1). The only other place in the Old Testament where the pool of Siloam is referred to is Nehemiah 3:15. There the Hebrew word is תלַשֶּׁהַ, and rendered by the LXX. τῶνκωδίων—i.e. of sheep-skins; that is, the pool that was used to wash sheep before shearing them, or even the tan-pit (so Schleusner and Hesych.)—but it is rendered by Siloe in the vulgate. Isaiah is contrasting the waters of the Shiloah, which flow softly, with the turbulent streams of the Tigris, which represented the pomp and power of this world. The sweet waters from the pool of Siloam still flow from their apparent source through what once were the king’s gardens, into the Kedron near the junction of the valley of Jehoshaphat with that which used to be called the valley of the Son of Hinnom. Silwan is the Arabic name of the fountain and pool of Siloam, and also of the village on the opposite side of the valley. Nehemiah is referring, in all probability, to the same pool, the walls of which were in part the walls of the city itself on the lower spur of Mount Ophel, which is now finally determined to be the Zion of Scripture and the city of David. A "tower of Siloam" is also spoken of (Luke 13:4). It is not necessary here to review the arguments in favor of this position, with its accompanying conclusion that the Tyropaeon, the valley of the cheesemongers, which separated Ophel and the temple-mount from the upper city, was the valley of the Son of Hinnom, pp. 215; and ’Fresh Light from Ancient Monuments,’ p. 98, etc.). The position of the fountain and pool of Siloam is one of the best-authenticated sites in Palestine (see Robinson’s ’Biblical Researches,’ 1:493-507). Sayce gives strong reasons for believing that it was made in the days of Solomon, and that the proceeding of Hezekiah, referred to in 2 Chronicles 32:30, when he diverted the water from Gihon, and brought it to the west side of the city of David, was not on account (as Edersheim, Canon Birch, and others) of the formation of the zigzag tunnel from the Fountain of the virgin, but referred to the formation of Colonel Warren’s tunnel, by which the waters of the same fountain were made available within the city by drawing them further to the north-west, and reaching them by a flight of stairs that go down from the city of David (2 Kings 20:20). He thinks that 2 Chronicles 32:30 is interpreted of the lower pool of Siloam. The contemporary references of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:3; Isaiah 8:6; Isaiah 22:9) apply only to the Siloam tunnel, the Siloam pool, and that lower pool, which was repaired by Hezekiah. The upper pool, and therefore the tunnel which supplied it, were known in the time of Ahaz. Josephus makes frequent reference to the fountain of Siloam, and expressly says that it was situated at the mouth of the Tyro-paeon. The ’Itin. Hier.’ and Jerome both say that it was at the foot of Mount Zion (see especially Jerome’s ’Comm. in Esa. Isaiah 8:6’). Antoninus Martyr (in the seventh century), William of Tyre, Benjamin of Tudela, and Phoeas, all refer to it. This remarkable connection with the Fountain of Mary was known to Quaresmius in the seventeenth century, but not fairly discovered till Robinson entered it at both ends, and found that there was a direct subterranean communication between the so-called Fountain of the virgin and the Fountain of Siloam. In 1881 the accidental discovery of an inscription in pure Hebrew, of uncertain date, describes the process of the excavation, and accounts for the false starts made by the two parties of excavators, who eventually met and discovered the different levels at which they had been working. Whenever made, whether by Solomon, Uzziah, Ahaz, or Hezekiah, it was obviously intended to bring fresh water within the walls of the city. The intermittent character of the flow of water in the Fountain of the virgin, by which sometimes twice or thrice a day, and at other seasons twice or thrice a week, the water suddenly rises and disappears with gurgling sounds into the conduits made for its removal, was referred to by Jerome, as an eye and ear witness of the occurrence. We leave the question of the identification of the Fountain of the virgin with any of the fountains mentioned in the Old Testament. The point of singular interest is that the waters of Siloam were in direct communication with the upper spring, which itself may be yet proved to be in relation to some more abundant supply of water in the temple-rock. Into the further intricacies of this problem it is unnecessary to enter. The pools of Siloam are still to be seen near the mouth of the Tyropaeon valley. The print of connection with the Fountain of the virgin cannot be doubted, nor can the fact be disputed that from Siloam, during the Feast of Tabernacles, the sacred waters were brought in solemn procession and with sacred rite (see John 7:1-53.). Our Lord sent the blind man, thus startled into some receptivity of grace, to that which was the symbolic source of the water of life. He did this on the sabbath day, claiming cooperation with Jehovah in his truly sabbatic deed: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Siloam had been already the type of that which Jesus was in reality, when he had cried and said, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." Consequently, there is striking appositeness in the language of St. John here parenthetically introduced (which is, being interpreted, Sent); חַוֹלשִׁ equivalent to missio, from חלַשָׁ, equivalent to mittit or missus, which may be synonymous with חַוּלשָׁ, viz. the strengthened participle Kal with passive signification. John is correct in his etymology. Siloam probably derived its name from the fact that its waters were sent from the higher sources, through known channels, with special significance as God’s gift for the preservation of the life of the people, and the age-long memorial of his goodness. The old poet Nonnus, Euthymius, and Meyer see here a reference to the man who was "sent" thus to wash and be healed; but a host of commentators, from Theophylact, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, down to Luthardt, Godet, and Westcott, rightly urge that "Siloam," as meaning "Sent," was in John’s thought emblematic of him who had so often spoken of himself as the Sent of God. The point of the parenthesis is that the very name of this healing and symbolic fountain is a type of Messiah, who thus identifies himself with the Heaven-sent gifts of the Divine hand. He then (therefore) departed, and washed. The blind man needed no guide to Siloam, and if he had clone so there would have been a score of helpers or curious on-lookers anxious to test the meaning of the Lord’s command. And he came away from Siloam, seeing; in all the strange and wonderful excitement of a man who, with his first possession of this imperial sense, was moving indeed in a new world. The miracle, of course, provokes the critical school either into repudiating the supernatural element, or doubting the historical fact. Theme dreams through a world of parallels with the healing and apostleship of St. Paul. John 9:8-34 (9) The proof of the reality of the miracle, the antagonism of the Pharisees, and the persecution of the heated mad. John 9:8 The neighbors therefore, and they who beheld him aforetime that (or, because) he was a beggar. £ This is the first time that his well-known position is mentioned, and (if we translate ὅτι "because") the very fact of his begging (probably with loud voice) had made him a well-known individual. Said, Is not this he that sat and begged? John 9:9 Some said, It is he: others, No £ but he is like him. So great a change might well have provoked inquiry as to his identity, and the two classes of speakers add amazing vivacity to the picture. He (ἐκείνος)—the man who now stood forth as the central object of the excited group (see Westcott for the use of ἐκεῖνος elsewhere in St. John: John 2:21; John 5:11; John 10:6; John 13:30; John 19:21)—rather than "he himself"—he said, I am (he) that sat and begged. The man settles the doubt offhand, I am he. The evidence of identity, if the question be raised, is at once settled. The vivacity and verisimilitude of the scene reduce the labored parallel with St. Paul to literary trifling. John 9:10 They said therefore to him, How then were thine eyes opened? If you are the very man, how has this come about? John 9:11 He—the man there singled out—answered (and said), The Man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me, Go to the £ Siloam, and wash. So I went, and when I washed I received my sight. Nothing more as yet than the name of his Benefactor has broken upon him. The name is full of significance to him—the "Savior,’: the "Healer;" but he knows nothing of his Messianic claims, nor of his Divine authority. He began, where all disciples must, with the Man. The manner of man soon wakes within him loftier questionings and a better explanation. At present the process seems magical, altogether inexplicable. Clay and Siloam water do not cure birth-blindness, tie is in a maze, as well he might be. The ἀνέβλεψα should be rendered, according to Meyer, "I looked up". It cannot be so translated in John 9:15 and John 9:18. Doubtless it strictly means, "I received sight again;" but there is something in Grotius’s explanation, "No one is incorrectly said to receive that which, though he be deprived of it, belongs to human nature as a whole" (see Westcott). The eyes were there, but unused. Meyer quotes from Pausanias the similar use of ἀναβλέπειν, in reference to the recovery or obtaining of sight by a man born blind. John 9:12 They say unto him, Where is that Man (Jesus)? He saith, I know not. John 9:13 They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. The "Pharisees" is not a conclusive definition of the Sanhedrin itself, which is generally denoted by the addition of the phrase, "the chief priests" (John 7:32 or 45). The Pharisees were a highly organized society, and some well-known gathering of them may have been easily accessible. They were the generally accredited religious guides of the people. One thing militates against such a casual gathering. In John 9:18 the term, "the Jews," the synonym of the ruling ecclesiastical powers in the city, is once more introduced. Moreover, the authorities before whom the discussion and examination were taken appear to possess the power of excommunication from the synagogue. It appears that, in Jerusalem, there existed two minor councils or synagogue-courts, of twenty-three assessors each, corresponding with the similar courts in the Jewish cities, standing in relation to the Sanhedrim and possessing the faculty of delivering the minor degrees of excommunication from the congregation of Israel. It cannot be said that this presentation of the case to an ecclesiastical court of more or less authority necessarily took place on the day of the healing. It is an open question whether the courts sat on the sabbath. There is nothing to prove immediate trial of the matter. John 9:14 Now it was sabbath on the day £ that Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. The phrase is peculiar, and implies that the day may have been a festival sabbath. The introduction here shows that the difficulty of the neighbors and other friends had already been raised, and something more than a desire on their part for religious guidance actuated their appeal to the Pharisees. Why should the healed man be taken to the Pharisees, or the synagogue-court at all, unless some question of casuistry had been raised? The movement was one unquestionably adverse to Jesus. It could have had no other motive. Nor can any doubt arise that Jesus had violated the rabbinical rules of the sabbath, though his act had been in perfect harmony with the spirit and even letter of the Mosaic Law. The making of clay with the spittle and the sand was an infringement of the rule (’Shabbath,’ 24:3). It was curiously laid down in one of the vexatious interpretations (preserved in Jerusalem Gemara on ’Shabbath,’ 14) that while "wine could by way of remedy be applied to the eyelid, on the ground that this might be treated as washing, it was sinful to apply it to the inside of the eye" (Edersheim). And it was positively forbidden (in the same Gemara) to apply saliva to the eyelid, because this would be the application of a remedy. All medicinal appliances, unless in cases of danger to life or limb, were likewise forbidden. Consequently, the Lord had broken with the traditional glosses on the Law in more ways than one (see Winer, ’Bibl. Realw.,’ 2:346; Lightfoot, ’ Ad Joan. 9.; ’Wetstein on Matthew 12:9; Wunsche, in loc.). John 9:15 Again therefore the Pharisees, before whom the blind man had been brought, unwilling to rest with mere hearsay evidence of such grievous transgression of the Law, themselves also—or, in their turn—asked him (ἠρώτων, imperfect, were interrogating) how he received (recovered) his sight (see note on John 9:11). Not the miracle itself, but the manner of it interested and excited them. And he said to them, (He) put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and I see. This is a shorter and significant abridgment of the process already described. The healed man seems to guess, by their manner, that some charge was being meditated against his Benefactor, and he shrewdly omits the saliva and the making of the clay, and the order of the Savior, and the place whither he had been sent to wash. John 9:16 indicates, as the evangelist so often does elsewhere (John 7:43; John 10:19), that the words and works of Christ produce opposite effects on different classes. Certain individuals of the Pharisees therefore said among themselves, This Man—referring to Christ, then uppermost in their minds and in their machinations—This Man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath. The form of the sentence is peculiarly contemptuous, the word "man" being thrown very emphatically to the end of the sentence. This, in their opinion, is another offence against the Law, after serious warning. The previous controversy (John 5:1-47.) had produced no effect upon Jesus. He continued, in their opinion, to invalidate all his claims by violating the sabbath laws, which they had brought to the highest point of perfection. Renan and others insist on Christ’s repeated violation of the sabbath; but the fact is that the Lord sustained the highest meaning of the sabbath, though he resolutely repudiated the inhuman glosses and manifest absurdities of the traditionary customs and rabbinical rules. Jesus could not be, they thought (or argued), "from God," invested with his authority, or doing his works, so tong as he would not take their view of the sabbath. This Jesus is making obstinate assault upon their prejudices. On seven distinct occasions the Lord chose to heal on the sabbath, and thus to set the restrictions of august rabbis at defiance. But even in the great Sanhedrin, in the highest council of the nation, sat men of the character of Joseph, Nicodemus, and Gamaliel, who would get some idea of the Divine commission of Jesus from the simple fact of the miracles. In this smaller court the opponents of Christ ignore and doubt the miracle itself, on account of the unsabbatic heresy, while a few are convinced that signs of this kind (and probably they had many in their minds) were in themselves proof of Divine co-operation and approval. But others said, How can a man that is a sinner (on your hypothesis) do such signs? "As far as they go, these miracles are demonstrative proof that at least God must be with him, as he has said, and they make it extremely doubtful whether he can be a bad man after all—can have verily broken the Divine Law." Such a speech as this from Pharisees is an emphatic proof of the profound effect produced by Jesus upon the life of the nation. It stands in close association with the remarkable statement of Nicodemus (John 3:2), "We know that no man can do these miracles (signs) which thou art doing, except God be with him." Jesus and rabbinism are here face to face. Either he is from God and they are actually making the Law of God void and vapid by their traditions, or they and their code are from God and he, having broken with them, has broken with God, and the miracle will turn out to he magic or falsehood, collusion or worse. Thus a solemn crisis of profound importance occurs. And there was a division (σχίσμα, cutting into two parties) amongst them. These opposite effects and conclusions are the confirmation of the words of the prologue (John 1:4, John 1:5, John 1:11, John 1:12), and they further triumphantly refute the charge that the author of the Gospel was actuated by an untiring hostility to the kingdom and polity of the ancient Israel. John 9:17 They; i.e. the Pharisees, divided in opinion, though probably united in their interrogation. Those, on the one hand, who believed in the miracle, and held that it carried Divine approbation of the conduct of Jesus, and, on the other hand, those who were so satisfied of the moral fault involved in the transaction, that they held that the miracle itself, if not a piece of deception or collusion, might even indicate some demonic source, rather than a Divine one, say therefore unto the blind man again—the πάλιν points to the virtual repetition of inquiries already made (John 9:15)—What dost thou say concerning him, seeing that he opened thine eyes? "What explanation hast thou to offer? What view dost thou entertain of the Man himself? Some of us think that his trifling with the sabbatic law puts out of court the idea of any Divine aid having enabled him to work this marvel. Other some, as you see, declare that the fact which has occurred is proof that Jesus must have had God’s approval, and be sustained by Divine grace. But what dost thou, the healed man, say? What conclusion hast thou adopted? Seeing that he has opened thine eyes, what sayest thou of Jesus?" There is a bare chance that the man might give a vague answer, or one which would minimize the miracle. It is obvious that, while the Pharisees were contradicting each other and in danger of open collision, the faith of the blind man who had received his sight became stronger. The light was dawning on him. The answer, so far as it went, boldly took the side of Jesus, and perhaps its cue from the language of those who had said, "How can a bad man do such signs as these?" And he said, He is a Prophet (cf. John 4:19; John 6:14). Prophets, as divinely sent men, are even more authoritative than learned rabbis. If Jesus has broken through some of these restrictions by which they have "placed a hedge about the Law," surely he had a prophetic right to do it. The healing marks a Divine commission, and the healed man owned and freely confessed to so much as this: "He is a Prophet." Maimonides (quoted by Dr. Farrar) shows that the idea was current that a prophet might, on his own ipse dixit, alter or relax even the sabbath law, and that then the people were at liberty to obey him. John 9:18, John 9:19 The narrative once more brings "the Jews" into prominence—the hierarchical party, adverse to Jesus. The angry magistrates who were in the court allowed it to be seen at once that they will not be tampered with, nor lose the chance, if possible, of pursuing their malicious plans already formed against Jesus. They take the ground that no miracle had occurred. At all events, they must have further evidence of the fact. The Jews then did not believe, or refused to believe, concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight, and asked them, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? How then doth he now see? There were three questions proposed after the delay involved in fetching the parents of the blind beggar. The first was identification of the blind man. The second was the fact of his congenital blindness. The third was the means of his cure. John 9:20 To the first and second questions the parents give affirmative answers. The identification is complete, and the astounding quality of the cure is demonstrated. His parents (then) £ answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind. In none of the Gospels, and in no narrative of this Gospel, is more certain proof given of the reality of a perfectly inexplicable phenomenon. John 9:21 The third question is prudently remitted back to the consciousness and testimony of the man himself. The parents had some justification for their cowardice. They had no information beyond that which their son had given them. He had stumbled forth as usual on the morning of that sabbath, and bad returned home in transports of joy. Their son had doubtless told them the story (the use of οἴδαμεν instead of γινώσκομεν is significant). They knew by incontestable intuitive knowledge the personality and lifelong affliction of their son; but, say they, We do not know (absolutely) how he now sees; or who opened his eyes, we know not. Ask him (if you want to know); he is of full age, and therefore his testimony is valid in your court. He will speak (concerning) for himself. "We can only come to know from his testimony what he tells us, and he can himself speak for himself, and tell you all he has told us." John 9:22 The evangelist accounts for the reticence of the parents by their fear of consequences. These things said his parents, because they feared the Jews. This passage provides strong evidence of the technical use of the term "the Jews." Doubtless these parents were Israelites, but they were not "Jews" in the Johannine sense. The "Jews" were the hierarchical and ecclesiastico-political authorities. For they had already come to the agreement (Luke 22:5; Acts 23:20; 1 Macc. 9:70); had mutually determined—it does not follow that the Sanhedrin had issued a public order, but that a formidable party of "Jews" had made a συνθήκη, had pledged each other and made it sufficiently known even to such persons as the poverty-stricken parents of the blind beggar, that it would be carried out by the adequate authority in such a matter—that if any man should confess that he was Christ ("he" (αὐτὸν) is remarkable—it shows how full the thoughts of the evangelist were of the Personality of Jesus), he should be put out of the synagogue; or, become unsynagoqued. The Talmud speaks of three kinds of excommunication (of. also Matthew 5:22), of which the first two were disciplinary; the third answers to complete and final expulsion (in ’Jeremiah Moed. K.,’ 81, d, להקם לדבי אוה, Edersheim). The general designation was shammata, from דמַשֱ, to destroy. The first form of it was called nesephah, and did not amount to more than severe rebuke. It would exclude from religious privileges for seven or thirty days, according to the dignity of the authority by whom it was pronounced (cf. 1 Timothy 5:1). The second form of shammata was called niddui, which lasted for thirty days at the least, and might be repeated at the end of them. If these admonitions failed to produce their right effect, it might lead to the third and final excommunication, called cherem, or ban, whose duration was indefinite. The second of these forms was accompanied by blast of trumpet and terrible curses, which deprived the sufferer of all kinds of social intercourse. He was avoided as a leper; if he died, he was buried without funeral or mourning. The cherem was even a more terrible anathema, and might last for life. The parents of the blind man might easily fear such a curse. The ban to which this blind man was eventually exposed did not prevent him from moving about the city. The ban pronounced on Jesus led doubtless to the condemnation, issuing in his ignominy and trial for a capital offence. It was probably the second of the three forms of anathema to which he was ultimately condemned. It was quite sufficient temptation for these poor parents to have preserved an obstinate reticence. John 9:23 Therefore said his parents, He is of full age; ask him. They would not incur responsibility for the opinions of their son about his Healer. They knew perfectly well that it was the Jesus who was said to be the Christ of the nation, and they would not implicate themselves in giving any judgment on his claims. John 9:24 So they ("the Jews") called a second time the man that was (had been) blind, and said unto him; no longer asking for any details of the process of the cure, they sought with ingenuity to blunt the edge of the powerful testimony which this man had borne to the prophetic rank and even Messianic claims of Jesus, by inducing him to recant. Give glory to God, said they. Many have urged (see Calvin, De Wette, Lange, Lucke, and Meyer) that this is only a solemn form of adjuration, which corresponds with Joshua 7:19; Ezra 10:11; 3 Esdras 9:8, and was a hypocritical appeal to the man to eat his own words on oath; and Godet urges, "They demanded that this guilty assertion, ’He is a Prophet,’ should be blotted out by the contrary one,’ He is a sinner.’" Moulton says, "A formula used when a criminal who was thought to be concealing the truth was being urged to make a full confession." Luthardt, Lampe, and others rightly observe that this adjuration theory, though it suits Joshua 7:19, does not fit 1 Samuel 6:5 or Jeremiah 12:16, and that the Pharisees rather wished the man to give glory direct to God, and not to Jesus. They implied that their action was dictated by zeal for the honor of God, and tempted the man to disclaim the mediation of Divine grace through the lips and at the will of Jesus. They add, We know (οἴδαμεν) absolutely, on theologic grounds beyond the comprehension of the poor man, and we can sustain it with all the weight of our tradition and custom—we know that this Man is a sinner. They give no reference, and do not condescend to particulars. They would overawe the man with their assumption of superior knowledge. John 9:25 He therefore answered (and said £), Whether he be a sinner—using the words of "the Jews" ironically—I know not. You assert it, but the facts of my experience are altogether of a different kind. I do not know, as you say that you do. The Jews reason from foregone prejudices; the healed man has no such evidence, no such grounds—he adds in immortal words, One thing I know with invincible conviction, that whereas I was blind (De Wette says there is no need to regard the ὤν as an imperfect participle, and the present suggests the whole career of the man from birth till that memorable morning), now I see. The plain consistent testimony of the man triumphs over their logic, which sought to bewilder his judgment. The language which a deeply felt experience can always bring against the a priori demonstrations of the insufficiency of the evidence of Divine revelation. I was blind; now I see the face of God in nature, the kingdom of God all around me, the fact of my own forgiveness, the dawning of a brighter day. John 9:26 They said therefore to him, £What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? They sought to draw from him the explicit proof that Jesus had broken the sabbath, or possibly to entangle him in some different statement. The fact of the supernatural change is practically conceded to the obstinacy of the man’s reiterated declaration, and the identification of his person by others. Westcott here differs from the majority of recent expositors, and supposes that the "questions suggest that they were willing to believe if the facts were not decisive against belief." But the answer of the man proves that he saw the cunning of his antagonists, and was irritated by their conspicuous design to twist the infinite benefit that he had received into the material of a charge against his Benefactor. John 9:27 He answered them, I told you already, and ye did not hear (the Italic versions and the vulgate here omit the negation, which De Wette says would be caster of comprehension; but as it stands, the sentence is equivalent to "you had no ears, you took no heed, if you had already listened to the simple facts"): wherefore would ye hear it again? You will pay no more heed now than then; or do ye want to transform it into a charge? There is another alternative, stated in either humble pleading or ironical retort, according as we interpret the καί. The next question is either, (1) (Lutbardt) Would you also be his disciples, like the many multitudes who are shouting his praise? is that your bent? surely not! or (2) it may mean, Is it possible that it is in your mind, not only to find out all about the how of this great miracle, but also to become his disciples? Neither of these interpretations is perfectly consistent with his taunt, "ye did not hear." Therefore (3) (Bengel) the most natural meaning is, Would ye also, as well as myself, the poor beggar, become his disciples? (so Westcott, Moulton, and Lange). The poor man was roused, ironical, and ready, notwithstanding the threat of the great excommunication hanging over him, to announce his own discipleship to any extent and at any risk. John 9:28 They reviled him, and said, £ Thou art the disciple of that Man (ἐκείνου)—between whom and us there is an impassable chasm. Here is one of the strongest indications of the irreversible breach between the Jews and Jesus—but we, instead of being his disciples, are disciples of Moses. This speech shows that, whatever the blind man meant to convey by the reproachful entreaty of Joh 9:27, the Jews took it as proof of his virtual confession of discipleship to Jesus, and this they assumed was tantamount to breaking with Moses. They assume that their traditionary interpretation of the Mastic Law has all the authority of the great Lawgiver himself. John 9:29 They pursue the antithesis between Jesus and Moses, and thus make an involuntary admission of his abnormal and astounding claims. We know—it is the fundamental fact of our religions history, and of the Divine revelation entrusted to us. We know, by supreme conviction, as something almost equivalent to a fundamental law of thought, that God hath spoken to Moses. (Observe the perfect λελάληκεν, "hath spoken" in such fashion that his words abide fur ever and are still sounding in their ears.) Moses was made a little lower than the angels. God spake to him on Sinai, and from the mercy-scat, and face to face as a man speaketh with his friend (Exodus 33:11; Deuteronomy 34:10; Numbers 12:8). The most august ideas and associations clustered round his venerable name. Jesus was supposed to have challenged the supreme authority of Moses, and no sort of comparison could be drawn, in their opinion, between the two. But as for this Man, we know not whence he is. It is remarkable that, in John 7:27, they had been equally explicit in declaring, "We know whence he is." Then they thought to discredit iris Messianic claim by drawing a distinction between the well-known parentage and home of Jesus, and the coming of Messiah from some undiscoverable source, some hidden place, where God retained him before his revelation to Israel (see notes, John 7:27, John 7:28). While, however, Christ (John 8:14) allowed the validity of their superficial knowledge on that occasion, he declared that he alone knew whence he came and whither he was going (see notes, John 8:14). It is, perhaps, in reference to this last expression that they echo his own words. The supernatural source of his being and teaching seemed to their minds, throughout that discourse and controversy, to vacillate between the Divine and the demonic. The contrast between Moses and Jesus in this bitter speech runs along the same low level. "We know not whence" he derives his prophetic character, or his right to legislate for the people of God. John 9:30 The man answered and said to them, Why £ herein is the marvelous thing. Lange translates, "With respect to this man, this is marvelous, to wit." The R.T. has accurately given the force of the γὰρ, the combination of γε and ἄρα, by the rendering "why?" The "herein" is the ignorance which the Jews now profess of the Divine call and mission of the Healer. Their confusion, their obscurity, their vacillation, on such a patent fact is the marvel of marvels, almost more wonderful than the cure of his blindness. That ye know not whence he is, and (yet) he opened my eyes (καί not infrequently has the three of "and yet"—simple juxtaposition conveying a strong contrast; see John 8:55; John 6:70; John 7:4). The man rises into holy and eloquent wrath. Their entire history, their principles of judging of a prophetic call, the whole modus of Divine revelation, ought to have shown that one whose simple will stood in such vivid juxtaposition with work which none but Almighty God could do, ought to have enlightened them. "The blind man, finding he was argued with, grew bolder, and began to argue in turn; if he had not studied theology (say rabbinical casuistry and Mishnaic accretions to the Divine Law), he at least knew his catechism" (Godet). John 9:31 We know—the new-born disputant takes up the language of these proud casuists, and adopts the technical phrase which they had used (John 9:24, John 9:29)—we know, you and I, that God heareth not sinners in any special sense of miraculous approval (Job 27:9; Job 35:13; Psalms 109:7; and especially Psalms 66:18, Psalms 66:19; Proverbs 15:29; Isaiah 1:15). One aspect of Old Testament teaching shows that a man must delight himself in the Lord in order to receive the desires of his heart. If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us; but the prayer of the sinner, the desire of the wicked, is contrary to the will of’ God. When the sinner turns from his sins to the Lord, the cry for mercy is in harmony with the will of God. In one sense every prayer is the prayer of sinful men; but it is the Divine life working within them that offers acceptable prayer. The prayer of the sinner as such is not heard. We know God does not listen to the cry of sinners, when, as sinners, they ask from the ground of their sin, to secure their own sinful purpose; but if any man be a worshipper of God (the word Θεοσεβής is an ἅπαξλεγόμενον, and occurs nowhere else in the New Testament), and doeth his (God’s) will, this man he heareth. The blind beggar has learned the deepest truth of the Divine revelation about the conditions of acceptable prayer. The immediate application was the miraculous unwonted event as answer to the effectual fervent prayer of the righteous man (see James 5:16-18). So much for the general relation of this Healer to God. The rabbis were never tired of urging that the "answers to prayer depended on a man being devout and doing the will of God" (Edersheim, who quotes ’Ber.,’ 6, b; ’Taanith,’ John 3:8; ’Succah,’ 14, a; ’Yoma,’ 28, a). So that the man was here fighting with drawn sword. John 9:32, John 9:33 The man, having once begun, will not be stopped in his argument. Since the world began (ἐκτοῦαἰῶνος does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament; we have ἀπαἰῶνος three times, and ἀπὸτῶναἰῶνων) it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of one born blind. There is no record of any cure of blindness in the Old Testament. The miracle stands forth with grand distinctness on the page of history. If such stories had been told, neither he nor the author of this narrative knew of them. The Pharisees and Jews have no reply to this burst of grateful but indignant testimony to the uniqueness of his Deliverer, and then, with a home-thrust which cut through their weak objections and repudiated their cruel inferences, he added, Unless this Man were from God, he could do nothing; he could neither have wrought this marvel, nor any of the deep impressions wrought upon you. "From God;" that is the man’s final answer to the query, "What sayest thou of him, seeing that he hath opened thine eyes?" God has the glory, while I repudiate what you give as a judgment against him. Verily God has heard him as One who in this thing has simply done his will. Thus the Jews are compelled for a few moments to hear, from one known as a street-beggar, words of teaching along the finest lines of a deep experience. John 9:34 Vanquished by this logic of simple fact and plain inference, the authorities have no other weapon to use but invective and persecution. They answered and said to him, Thou wast altogether born in sins; through and through a born reprobate. They take up the superstitious idea which seems (John 9:2) to have been floating in the mind of the disciples. From sins of parents or from thine own sins in thy mother’s womb, thou earnest into the world with the brand of thy infamy upon thee. Thus they admit the change that has come over him by reverting to the peculiar depravity which had been stamped upon his brow, according to their narrow interpretation of Divine providence. And dost thou presume to teach us?—the chosen, the learned, the approved ministers of God? Dost thou, with all this heritage and mark of separation from God, dare to instruct the chief pastors and teachers of Israel? They did not stop with cruel words, but in their bitterness of spirit they thrust him forth; they violently expelled him from the synagogue where they were then seated (so Meyer, Maldonatus, Bengel, and many others). We are not told that there and then they excommunicated, or unsynagogued, him. It is probable that this ban followed, with the usual terrible formalities. He had practically confessed that the highest claims which Jesus had ever made about himself were true, and he made himself liable to the curse already pronounced (John 9:22). This marvelous narrative, with its lifelike detail, is not made the text of a discourse. It remains forever the startling vindication of our Lord’s own word, that he was Light to the world and Eyesight too, and was able to supply both the objective condition and subjective change by which the nature of man could alone receive the light of life. From John 9:8 to John 9:34 is almost the only passage in the Gospel, with the exception of the passage, John 3:22-36, in which we are not standing in the actual presence of the Lord, or are not listening to his judgments on men and things, and to his revelations of the mystery of his own Person. The narrative so far stands by itself, and gives us an insight into the life which was being enacted in Jerusalem contemporaneously with the Divine self-revelation of Jesus. John 9:35-41 (10) The issues of the ministry of light. John 9:35-38 (a) The vision of those who see not. These verses narrate the sequel so far as the man was concerned. Westcott and others rather exaggerate the bearing of it when they say here was "the beginning of the new society." "The universal society is based on the confession of a new truth" (Westcott). Even in this Gospel the first chapter shows that Jesus gathered disciples about him who from that time onward were to "see angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man." In the second and fourth chapters he "made and baptized disciples." The twelve (John 6:1-71.) would not leave him in the midst of widespread disaffection, because they confessed that he was "the Holy One of God," who had "the words of eternal life." Consequently, it is enough to say that, when the authorities of the Jewish ecclesia excluded the disciple of Christ, the Lord admitted him to a nobler fellowship; but the fellowship, the society, had been already formed. John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had east him out; or, thrust him forth. Jesus is represented as "hearing," not from the man’s own lips, but from the current report. He is not said to have become acquainted with the circumstance by intuition, but to have heard by the ordinary processes of knowledge. This simple touch shows how consistent the writer is throughout with the main thesis of his Gospel touching the perfect humanity of the Son of God, that he "was made flesh." and had "come in the flesh," though he was "from God." The excommunication noisily and widely bruited was further proof of the war to the knife between "the Jews" and Jesus. The man has fallen under the ban for practically avowing in the most public way that Jesus was "the Prophet," if not the Christ. And having found him. So, then, the Lord, as the good Shepherd, sought out the lost sheep in the wilderness, and did not rest until he found him. The daylight that had made an altogether new world for one who had aforetime never looked on human face, had been strangely checkered and shadowed. He only saw angry faces and averted glances, and even his cowardly parents would have hesitated to receive him into their poor abode; but Jesus found him, and said, Dost thou believe on the £ Son of God? Not "Dost thou wish to believe?" but "Dost thou put thy trust in the Son of God?" Dost thou recognize the fact that the Messiah of the nation’s hope has come? Art thou believing in him? It would be more natural that the more current appellation Son of God, rather than the more recondite idea of Son of man, should have been held out before the healed man. The "thou" is emphatic, and contrasts the state of the mind of this man with that of "the Jews." He had declared that his Healer was "from God," that he was "a Prophet," One who "did God’s will," and whom "God heareth," even when he asked for apparently impossible things. Christ tests the quality and caliber of his faith. John 9:36 He answered and said, £ And who is he, that (ἵνα) I may believe on him? The conjunction adds much to the eagerness of the reply. His faith was ready for full expression. He half suspected, as the Samaritan woman (John 4:25) did, that Jesus was pointing to himself. The τίς; rather than τί; ("who?" rather than "what?") shows the intensity of the man’s desire to find and hail and trust "the Son of God." The disposition, the posture, of his mind is that of faith. The adequate object for that faith has not been revealed to him. Apt symbol of many in their passage from darkness to light. When receptive, susceptible, conscious of need, with some notion, though an obscure one, of whom and of what they most of all need, many are disposed even now to utter the same importunate request. John 9:37 [And £] Jesus said, Thou hast both seen him, with the eyes so recently opened. Hast thou not found out that I am thy Healer, thy Prophet, thy Messiah? The ἑώρακας refers to the present interview, not to any previous one; for we are not told that he had already sought or found his Benefactor (Lucke, Meyer, Luthardt). Thou hast seen him with the eyes of thy spirit as well as the eyes of flesh, and, in addition, he that talketh with thee, familiarly as man with man, is he—"that sublime Person who seems to stand far off from thought and experience" (Westcott). The ἐκεῖνος of this passage and John 19:35 also is a fairly classical usage for expressing, in the lips of the speaker, a reference to himself pointed at and presented objectively as a third person (see Meyer, and our note on John 19:35, and its bearing on the authorship of the Gospel). Nowhere does our Lord more openly admit that he as the Christ, the Son of God. The disciples scarcely rise beyond the climax of this revelation even on the night of the Passion. The man’s faith was waiting for its Object, and the vision comes to his unscaled spiritual vision. John 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe—the Kyrie means more than in John 9:36—and he worshipped him. The verb προσκυνεῖν is used by John for homage paid to God (John 4:20; John 12:20; and twenty-three times in the Revelation, always in the sense of "worship"). This prostration, when no prayer was offered, no forgiveness asked, but a simple act of faith exercised, was nothing less than the highest homage the man could pay. The adoration of this man is a fitting climax to the scene (John 8:59), and anticipates that of Thomas (John 20:28). The higher significance of the Sonship dawned upon him in the unearthly tone and manner of the Lord. These scenes, and the offer of Divine homage unrebuked by Jesus and uncommented upon by the evangelist, are among the most potent arguments for the belief of the Church in the Divine nature of the Lord. John 9:39-41 (b) The blindness of those who are satisfied with their twilight. John 9:39 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 10:1-21 5. Christ the Shepherd of the flock of God. The discourse which now follows was the Lord’s parabolic or allegoric reply to the conduct of the Pharisaic malignants. These men, claiming to be infallible guides of the ignorant, to be veritable shepherds of the flock of God, had ignored the advent of the true and good Shepherd, had opposed the Divine call and supreme claim of the Messiah, had set themselves to disturb and dislocate the relations between him and those who saw his glory and found in him the Consolation of Israel. They had excommunicated the adoring disciple who had passed out of lifelong darkness into marvelous light. They had exaggerated the faint glimmer of light which had broken upon their own blindness into true vision. They had said, "We see," and thus shown themselves to be willfully in the wrong. Their sin abode upon them. The fold of God’s sheep was something different from their own expectations and definitions. Their way into it proved that they did not know its true nature. To meet this crisis our Lord delivers a triad of related and parallel pictures, which differ from the ordinary parable (παραβολή). The parable is a picture which is complete in its elf, and invites the reader to discover some answering spiritual truth. It consists of a careful setting forth of some physical fact, some fragment of biography, some personal or domestic detail. It is true to life and experience, and embodies some ethical principle or religious emotion; and while it does not explicitly teach either, yet it suggests them to the inquiring mind. The parables of the synoptic Gospels are not exclusive or rigid in their form. The so-called parable of "the Pharisee and the publican" and that of "the good Samaritan" are at once transformable into patterns or principles of action. The element of its own interpretation is also conspicuous in that of "the rich man and Lazarus" and "the rich fool." With these latter specimens of our Lord’s teaching may be compared the allegoric illustrations of the present discourse. These pictures are "transparencies" (Godet), through which the Savior’s spiritual teaching pours its own illumination. They both alike differ from the "fable," a form of address in which personal characters and activities are attributed (as in the apologue of Jotham, etc.) to the irrational or even to the inanimate creation. The first of the similitudes before us has more of the character of the parable proper, because it does not at once carry its own interpretation with it. John 10:1-6 represent in parabolic form the claims of those who aspired to provide a "door," i.e. a sure and safe entrance to the theocratic fold. In John 10:7-10 our Lord interprets and expands the first representation by giving special significance to the words he had already used, adding something to their meaning, and contrasting his own position with that of all others. From the eleventh to the eighteenth verse he once more reverts to the original picture, and claims to occupy a relation to the sheep of God’s band of far more intimate and suggestive kind than what was connoted by the door into the fold. He is "the good Shepherd." In that capacity he adds other and marvelous features. The parabolic or allegorical language passes away into vivid description of the leading features of his work. The parable at last glows into burning metaphor. In the first paragraph our Lord gives a parabolic picture of flock and fold, door and porter, robber and shepherd. In the second paragraph he emphasizes the relation between the door and the fold, claiming to be "the Door." In the third he illustrates the function and the responsibility of the true "Shepherd," and the relation of the shepherd to the flock, and he claims to be the Shepherd of Israel. John 10:1-6 (1) The parable of the fold and flock, the door and the porter, the robber and the shepherd. John 10:1 Verily, verily, betokens the deep solemnity and importance of the matter in hand, but not a complete break in the circumstances—neither a new audience nor a new theme. The adoption by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 23:1-4), by Ezekiel (34.), and by Zechariah (Zechariah 11:4-17) of similar imagery to denote the contrast between the true and false shepherds, and the anticipation by the prophets of a time when the true and good Shepherd would fulfill all Jehovah’s pleasure, throws vivid light on these words of our Lord. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. Several commentators of eminence have maintained that by "the door," in this first verse, our Lord (as in verse 7) meant at once to designate himself. This is not necessary. He rather summons the Pharisees to recognize the fact that there is a door, a way of sure and divinely appointed admission to the "fold of the sheep," through which the veritable Shepherd passes, bringing his flock with him by well-known voice and manner. Later on, our Lord claims to be the one Way’ by which all under-shepherds can gain true access to the flock, and all the sheep of God’s pasture can find protection and freedom; but here he suggests the principle of discrimination between a true shepherd and a thief or robber. The κλέπτης is one who is selfishly seeking his own ends, and would avoid detection; the λῃστής is one who would use violent means to secure his purpose (Judas was a "thief," Barabbas was a "robber"). The false shepherd disdains the door, and climbs up some other way along his own selfish lines of action (ἀλλαχόθεν is used in this place only, equivalent to "from some other quarter than the ordinary home of the shepherd"). His purpose is not to benefit the sheep, but to seize them, or slaughter them for his own purposes (Ezekiel 34:8). The Lord suggests that many have assumed to sustain the relation of shepherd to the flock and fold of God, with no inward call either of commission or profession. They have been eager to insist on their own rights, have mistaken their own narrow traditions for the commandments of God, have imposed upon starved and worried souls their own selfish interpretations of that commandment, and have shown that they had no legitimate access to the hearts of men. John 10:2 But he that enters in by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. Let him be who he may, Pharisee or priest, prophet or king, pastor or evangelist, unless he approach the sheep by the right "way" he demeans and condemns himself. If he come by the door into the fold, he may be so far presumably a shepherd. One fold might contain several flocks, and a shepherd might lead these flocks into different enclosures according to his wisdom and care for his sheep. Neander, Godet, and Watkins think it possible that the whole imagery may have been borrowed from the eye. The shepherds towards evening were probably gathering their scattered flocks, according to Oriental custom, into their well-known enclosures, and Jesus with his audience might have seen them doing it if they gazed out from the courts of the temple over the neighboring hills (see also Thomson, ’The Land and the Book,’ 1:301, a passage which provides an admirable commentary on this parable). There is no absolute need that the customary and well-known habit of the country-side should have been visible at the moment. The abundantly attested practice furnished to his hearers all needful corroboration. The deeper significance of the passage lies in the prophetic symbolism of Jer 23:1-4; Isaiah 40:11; Psalms 23:1-3; Psalms 78:52; Numbers 27:17; Ezekiel 34:23, Ezekiel 34:31; Ezekiel 37:24. Jehovah was the Shepherd of Israel (Psalms 80:1), and he would appoint once more in their Messiah-King a David, who should be his gracious Representative and Agent. All these representations were gathered up in Christ’s wonderful parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7). Thoma endeavors to credit the author of the Gospel with this ideal picture of the contrast between the true and false shepherd. John 10:3 To him the porter openeth. The doorkeeper of the fold has been variously interpreted. Bengel and Hengstenberg say, "God himself" is meant; Stier, Alford, and Lange, "the Holy Spirit;" against which interpretations may be urged the subordinate position assigned to the "porter," as compared with the shepherds themselves. Lampe and Godet think that "John the Baptist" was intended; while Meyer and De Wette say that it is one of those elements of the parable which is dropped out of our Lord’s own exposition for which we need not seek any special application. Westcott thinks it must vary with the special sense attributed to "sheep" and "shepherd," and float we must think of it as "the Spirit working through his appointed ministers in each case." The "doorkeeper," if Christ be himself the "Door," is the keeper of that door—the agency, the ministry, the ordinances by which the excellences and power of Christ were or are manifested. We are reminded of subsequent use of the imagery in Paul’s Epistles (1 Corinthians 16:9; 2 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 4:3; cf. Acts 14:27); but the full meaning of the phrase is only suggested, and we had better wait for Christ’s interpretation of some parts of this allegory. The context provides a specific filling out, first of one part of the imagery, and secondly of another part of it. The two interpretations are not to be forced at one and the same time upon the parable. Our Lord continues: And the sheep hear his voice. When a shepherd approaches the door to fetch the folded sheep which belong to him, the porter opens that door for him i.e. a true shepherd who has at heart the interests of the sheep and of their supreme Owner, finds the way made ready for him. In the fold are many flocks. All the sheep give heed to his voice. He calleth £ his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. They know a shepherd calls, and then that shepherd addresses his own sheep by name, and he leads these forth into the pasture. Even in our own pastures the shepherds know each sheep by name. Aristotle (’Hist. Anim.,’ John 6:19) tells us the bell-wether knew his name, and obeyed his shepherd. Archdeacon Watkins gives a quotation from Theocritus’ ’Idylls,’ charmingly illustrating the habit. The shepherd, by the mere call to his own sheep, would separate them from these which did not belong to him, and lead them forth to their pasture in the wilderness. This method of Oriental life illustrates the function of all true shepherds of men. It has had many partial fulfillments in the history of the Church and of the world. Daring the period of the old theocratic dispensation, many "thieves and robbers" made havoc of the flock; still there were prophetic and kingly men who, sent by God, found their way to the heart of Israel; many came to know that a prophet had been among them, and they followed him. It is equally true now, though all the external conditions are changed. The full application of this part of the allegory is only seen when "the good Shepherd" seeketh his sheep; but the meaning of the first picture is obscured by hurrying on to the enlarged and double exposition which Christ gave of the two parts of his own parable, and much is lost by endeavoring to force into a primary exposition of Joh 10:1-6 the features borrowed from a twofold interpretation of the separate ideas suggested by the composite image. John 10:4 In like manner, our Lord continues to describe what every true shepherd of men has done and ever will do: When he hath put forth all £ his own, and not another’s, drawn them by the music of his voice, or constrained them by the sweet violence of his love, or even compelled them to go forth from a fold in which they may find security, but not pasture; and when he has marshaled them into obedience and into thankful trust by the strength of his sympathy and knowledge of their need, he goeth before them. He is their leader and example; he shows them in his own life the kind of provision made for them; he shares with them the perils of the wilderness, and first of all is prepared to grapple with their fierce foes, "He drinks of the brook in the way." The highest meaning, the only complete interpretation, of this passage is found when Christ himself is the Shepherd, who does summon from the old enclosure "all his own," all who have entered into living harmony with himself. And the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. Nothing is here said of "lost sheep" or of "goats;" these are all the "ideal sheep" of the flock, individuals who recognize the voice of the true Leader, and discriminate their own shepherd from all others, whether pretenders to their affections or destroyers of their lives—wolves or butchers, thieves or robbers. Should we persist in interpreting the apologue as it stands, a question arises about the πρόβατα that are not the shepherd’s" own." Some have answered it by supposing that the latter are the chief of his own flock, who will bring the rest after them. The truth is not obscurely hinted of that election to highest privileges and duties, which does not declare that the rest are not sheep at all. John 10:5 But a stranger will they by no means follow, for they know not the voice of strangers. The negative is strongly expressed. The sheep, who know their shepherd’s voice, will not take the lead of a stranger or an alien; i.e. of a "thief or robber." If these secure the sheep at all, it is by violence or stealth, by unfair means, by illegitimate methods. John 10:6 This parable spake Jesus unto them. The word παροιμία occurs only in this place and in John 16:25-29; 2 Peter 2:22. It is the LXX. rendering of לשָׁםָ proverb, in Proverbs 1:1, a similitude or didactic saying. The Greek word means any speech (ethos) deviating (παρὰ) from the common way (Lange). It may deviate by its sententious or parabolical form, which conceals under a closed metaphor a variety of meanings. But they, the Pharisees, who were confident of their own position, and gloried in their influence over men, and whose moral nature was steeled and armed to resist even a possible reference to themselves as "thieves," or "robbers," or "aliens," and who would not admit any of Christ’s claims to their own disparagement, understood not what things they were which he was saying to them. The blind man had heard Ms voice, obeyed, found healing, advanced step by step from a bare knowledge of "a man Jesus" to a confession of him as one empowered by God; to a belief that he was a "Prophet," able to relax Mosaic Law; and finally to a ready acknowledgment that he was the Son of God. The Pharisees were conscious of neither need, nor blindness, nor desire of salvation, nor of the Shepherd’s care or grace. They will not go to him for life. They can make nothing of his enigmatic words. They take counsel against him. Their misconception contrasts strongly with the susceptibility of the broken-hearted penitents. So far the parable or proverb corresponds with the parables of the kingdom in the synoptic Gospels, and is open to many interpretations. John 10:7-10 (2) Allegory of the door and the fold, in which Christ claims to be "the Door of the sheep." John 10:7 Jesus therefore (οὖν, with its resumptive force, introduces the effect upon Christ of the unsusceptible character of the Pharisees). Some pause may have occurred, during which these men displayed their bitter feeling and utter lack of appreciation, and he proceeds first to give them an explanation of the words, which should leave them in no doubt as to one emphatic meaning which they contained; Saidf2 again unto them, I am the Door of the sheep, This exposition of the allegory is introduced by the solemn Amen, amen. Christ first calls attention to the "door" into the sacred fellowship of men with God. On a subsequent occasion (John 14:6), he said, "I am the Way" to the Father; "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." The parable as it stands refers to true and false teachers of the people, and to just and unjust claims to confer upon the sheep of God’s pasture safe and sure access to God, and all privileges of Divine life. In interpreting it, he declares first that he is the one Door, not of "the fold" so much as of the sheep, in their individual capacity. This corresponds with every claim made by him and made in his Name, that he, in all the fullness of his Personality, had always been the one Medium by which, in the theocracy or beyond it, men have drawn near to the Father. The Loges is the Angel of the covenant, the Rock in the wilderness, the great High Priest, the Yell over the holy place, the propitiatory Sacrifice, the Prophet, the King. He it is who ever and always has given consolation and peace to his people. He is the one method, agency, reality, by which not only the shepherds, but the sheep, enter into the fold, and go forth thence to pasture. John 10:8 All that came before me £ are thieves and robbers. Great difficulty has been felt by commentators in understanding "before me." The words clearly gave the early Gnostic heretics a text on which they established their dualistic rejection of the old dispensation. Their absence from certain texts led Augustine and others to emphasize the word "came." "All who came," i.e. in their own strength or wisdom, when not "sent" or authorized by God. Other endeavors have been made (see Meyer and Lunge) to give it a non-temporal meaning, such as χωρίς, "independently of me." Wolf and Olshausen make πρὸ equivalent to ὐπὲρ, "in the place" or "in the stead of me" (so Lunge, Lampe, Schleusner). De Wette and others accept the temporal meaning, "before," i.e. in point of time, and include under it the entire corpus of Old Testament saints and teachers, and therefore regard the saying as inconsistent with the gentleness of Christ. But with John 5:39, John 5:45-47, and many other passages in this Gospel, it is certain the words could not mean to denounce all who came as teachers or shepherds before him in mere point of time as "thieves and robbers," whom the sheep did not hear. Therefore the πρὸ must be to some extent modified in meaning. We agree with Westcott and Godet in limiting πρὸἐμού, by throwing the emphasis on the "came," and by adding, moreover, to it the essential point, "came making themselves doors of the sheep"—claiming to have the "key of knowledge," professing vainly to open or shut the door of heaven. That is, no other has ever had the right or claim to be such "a door." The Baptist, the prophets, one by one, Abraham and Moses, in their day made no such profession. The dignity belongs to Christ alone. The language may receive accentuation from the pressing urgency of false Christs, as well as the hopeless system of Pharisaic pride. Theme sees here the mere dressing out of St. Paul’s language, condemnatory of false prophets and ravening wolves who would not spare the flock of Christ (Acts 20:29), and Christ’s own words in the synoptists (Matthew 7:15; Matthew 23:1-39. 13, etc.). Special reference is made to the ceremonial superstitions, to "the hedge about the Law," to the cruel slavery of modern Pharisaism, which had done what neither prophets nor priests of old had attempted. Archdeacon Watkins emphasizes the present tense, "are thieves," etc., making Christ’s reference obvious to the lawyers and scribes of his own day, who were closing the door, and plundering those whom they kept out of the kingdom. But the sheep did not hear them. The true sheep have not been seduced by them. The teaching of these Pharisees has not prevailed over susceptible souls. John 10:9 I am the Door: by me—by living relation to me—if any man; i.e. either shepherd or sheep, for in this part of the interpretation they are not distinguished, and they alike need "salvation" and "pasture." By me if any man enter, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. "Salvation" here spoken of refers primarily to deliverance from dangers, protection from the ravenous wolves without the fold, and from false shepherds within. "Go in and out" is a phrase frequently used "to denote the free use of an abode by one who is at home in the honey" (Deuteronomy 28:6; Deuteronomy 31:2; Acts 1:21). The believer who enters into fellowship with God, and is "saved," does not "go in and out" of that state, but can as a child share by turns the Divine repose of the home, and the high privilege of his sonship in the world. "He claims his share in the inheritance of the world, secure of his home" (Westcott). John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy. Christ, elaborating, evolving, what is contained in the image of "thief," regards his rival as the thief of souls; he whose pretension to be a way to God is based on no inward and eternal reality, who comes for no other purpose than to make the sheep his own, not to give them pasture; to sacrifice them to his selfish ends, to use them for his own purposes, not to deal with them graciously for theirs; but to destroy, since in the pursuit of his selfish ends he wastes both life and pasture. A terrible impeachment, this of all who have not recognized the true Door into the sheepfold, who would shut up the way of life that they may exalt their own order, would diminish the chances of souls in order to secure their own position. This forms the transition to the second interpretation of the parabolic words; for he adds, I came that they might have life, and that they might have it abundantly; more even than they can possibly use. This is one of the grandest of our Lord’s claims. He gives like God from overflowing stores (Titus 3:6). Those who receive life from him have within them perennial sources of life for others—fullness of being (see notes, John 7:38; John 4:14). One of the differentiae of "life" is "abundance" of supply beyond immediate possibility of use. Life has the future in its arms. Life propagates new life. Life has untold capacities about it—beauty, fragrance, strength, growth, variety, reproduction, resistance to death, continuity, eternity. In the Loges is life—and Christ came to give it, to communicate "life to the non-living, to the dead in trespasses, and to those in their graves" (John 5:26). John 10:11-21 (3) The functions and responsibilities of the veritable Shepherd, and the relation of the Shepherd to the flock. John 10:11 I am the good Shepherd. The word here rendered "good" means more than the "true" (ἀληθής) or the" veritable" (ἀληθινός); more than ἀγαθός, good, in the sense of being morally excellent and inwardly fulfilling God’s purpose that the sheep should be shepherded. The word καλός suggests a "goodness" that is conspicuous, that shows and approves itself to the experience and observation of all. Thus the Lord fills up the meaning of the first parable by emphasizing another element in it. There may be many shepherds worthy of the name, but he alone justifies the designation. This imagery has inwrought itself into Christian literature and art. The earliest representations of Christ in the catacombs depict him as "the good Shepherd" (Tertullian, ’De Fuga.,’ c. 11; Hermas, ’Sire.,’ John 6:2); the earliest hymns and latest minstrelsy of the Church dwell fondly on the image which portrays his individual watchfulness, his tender care, his self-sacrificing love. The good Shepherd layeth £down his life for the sheep; not only does his work with his life in his hand, but he deliberately lays down his life and consciously divests himself of his life, and is doing it now. The Shepherd dies that the sheep may live (cf. 1 John 3:16; John 15:13). Elsewhere Jesus says, "The Son of man gives his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). The thought is very grand, and is a strange addition to the claim to be the Shepherd of Israel, and gives intense pathos to the language of our Lord to Simon Peter (John 21:6), "Shepherd my sheep." The further development of the parable shows that in the metaphor he regards his death as no disastrous termination of the Shepherd’s function, but as an event in his career. Hence it is not just of Reuse (’Theol. Chretien,’ 2.) to contend that our Lord does not here suggest a vicarious or propitiatory death on his part. This is a veritable death, which secures the life of the sheep, and does not arrest the Shepherd’s care (see John 10:17, John 10:18). John 10:12 He £ that is a hireling, and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth. The hireling is contrasted with the shepherd. The protector of a flock, who, though, not a thief, or robber, or alien, yet has no unselfish regard for the sheep, is guilty of cowardice, and his shameless flight from danger may do as much harm to the flock as the thief or robber. Godet would, at all events at first, limit the reference to the priestly party, who ought to have had more courage and real care for the sheep, but were utterly unable to bear the brunt of assault from Sanhedrin and Pharisees. The latter represent, as he thinks, the ravening "wolf." But surely all who have merely mercenary or selfish motives in their treatment of souls, and who flee at the approach of danger or death, are here held up to grievous condemnation. All who proclaim themselves to be "the door of the sheep," who, independently of Christ, and without the animating breath of the Divine Spirit, are considering themselves rather than the flock which they profess to instruct and protect, are the hirelings here denounced. In the hour of real peril they turn and flee. "Whose own the sheep are not." They do not seek the destruction of the flock which is not theirs, but they neglect and forsake when they should be faithful unto death. They have not identified themselves with the object of their professed care. The wolf is the deadly power over seeking the destruction of the soul, and even compassing it; it is the metaphor for every sort of power opposed to Christ (cf. Matthew 10:16; Luke 10:3; Acts 20:29). And the wolf snatcheth them, and scattereth (them £). "The seizing and scattering" shows how these hostile powers not only devastate, but destroy; not only crush individuals, but ruin Churches. The sheep do not belong to a hireling, as they do to a shepherd. No living bond of common interest links them to each other. John 10:13 (The hireling £ fleeth) because he is a hireling, and careth not for the sheep. He only cares for himself. He is no match for the wolf of temptation, or disease, or death, lie wants to reap the personal advantage of his temporary office, and, if his own interests are imperiled, he can leave them to any other hireling, or to the wolf. Melancholy picture this of much deserted duty. John 10:14, John 10:15 The Lord resumes: I am the good Shepherd. He now makes his discourse more explicit. He almost drops the allegory, and merely adopts the sacred metaphor. His self-revelation becomes more full of promise and suggestion for all time. He takes up one of the characteristics of the shepherd which discriminated him from "hireling," "thief," or "robber." And I know mine own, and my £ own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father. This more accurate text, translation, and punctuation of the Revised version brings into living comparison the mutual knowledge of Christ and his own sheep, with the mutual knowledge of Christ and the Father. Christ’s personal knowledge of his people is that which comes into their religious consciousness. They know his knowledge of them. They know him to be what he is—to be their Lord God, as they realize his personal recognition and care. The one involves the other (see Galatians 4:9; 1 Corinthians 8:3). The particle of transition is more than a mere illustration (καθώς is more than ὥσπερ; κἀθώς introduces not infrequently an explanation, sometimes a causal consideration, or an illustration which accounts for the previous statement; see John 15:12; John 17:21, John 17:23). The knowledge which the sheep have of the Shepherd corresponds with the Son’s knowledge of the Father, and the Shepherd’s knowledge of the sheep answers to the Father’s knowledge of the Son; but more than this, the relation of the Son to the Father, thus expressed, is the real ground of the Divine intimacies between the sheep and the Shepherd (cf. John 15:10; John 17:8). Then the Lord repeats and renews the solemn statement made at the commencement of the sentence, And I lay down my life for the sheep. Such knowledge of the peril of "his own" involves him in sacrifice. Whereas in John 10:11 this is attributed to the "good Shepherd," now he drops the first part of the figure, and says, "I am laying down my life." John 10:16-18 (a) The continuity of the Shepherd-activity, notwithstanding the laying down of his life. John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice. "The other sheep," not of this fold, not sheltered by the theocracy, not needing the pasturage of such privileges—Gentiles they may be, earnest souls of many a name, denomination, and profession, are, while he speaks, and went before the formation of his Church, ’ his own." "Other sheep I have." Though they have never as yet heard his voice, they are his. His relation with them is personal and direct and spiritual, not dictated or conditioned by "the fold." They will hear his voice. We in vain ask the question, "When?" He alone can answer it. Many a Cornelius in every nation is accepted by him (cf. Acts 10:35; Acts 14:17; Acts 17:27; Acts 28:28). But the passage contemplates a wider application: "Them also I must bring, or lead, among my own." They are scattered abroad now, but eternal Love, by assuming Shepherd-wise relations with them, determines not to bring them to one place or enclosure—to express such a thought we should have had, not ἀγαγεῖν, but συναγαγεῖν (John 11:52) or προσαγαγεῖν (Westcott)—but to bring them into personal relations with himself. They shall become one flock, one Shepherd. The false English translation of ποίμνη, viz. "fold," should be specially noticed. If our Lord had meant to convey the idea of the rigid enclosure into which all the scattered sheep should be gathered, he would have used the word αὐλή. The word ποίμνη is, however, studiously chosen. The error has done grievous injury. There is no variation of the Greek text, or in the earliest versions. It came through the vulgate ovile into Wickliffe’s version, and into many other European versions. The Old Latin versions were correct, but Jerome led the way into the inaccurate translation. Tyndale perceived its true meaning, and Luther beautifully preserved the play upon the words. Coverdale, in his own Bible, followed Tyndale; but in 1539, "the Great Bible" followed the vulgate (Westcott). When naturalized, it sustained the false and growing pretension that outside the one "fold" of the visible Church the good Shepherd was not ready with his care and love (see for the only adequate translation of ποίμνη, Matthew 26:31; Luke 2:8; 1 Corinthians 9:7, where the Authorized version has correctly rendered it "flock"). Christ, on other occasions, carefully warned his disciples against such narrowness, and here he declares that the sheep, independently of the fold or folds, may yet form one great flock, under one Shepherd. When he described himself as the Door, he was, as we have seen, careful to speak of himself as "Door of the sheep," and not as the Door into the fold. He laid down his life in order to break down the partition between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:13), between God and man, and between man and man. "In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, bond nor free." There may be many folds. Different nations, ages, times, and seasons may cause variations in these; but there is but one flock under the watchful guardianship of one Shepherd. John 10:17 Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. The διὰτοῦτο points to the whole of the previous statement, and ὅτι to a more complete exposition of the precise point in it on which the Divine Father’s love (ἀγαπή) rests. The "I" and "me" refer to the incarnate Son, i.e. to the Divine-human Personality of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Father loveth me, because, not merely that I lay down my life, for such might be the consequence of helplessness in the presence of victorious and desperate foes. The love which merely "laid down life" would be a Buddha-like self-sacrifice, producing certain moral effects upon the minds of the onlookers, and revealing a large and loving sense of the need of others. Yet in such expression of his sacrificial love he would have relinquished his undertaking. There would have been no more that he could do for his flock, this Shepherd-functions would, in the consummating act, cease, he would be a beautiful Memory, not a living Energy; a glorious Example, not the Author of eternal salvation. He would cease to be the great Shepherd of the sheep. Now the Father’s love contemplated more than this, viz. the Lord’s own purpose to take up again that life which he was prepared voluntarily to lay down for the sheep. Thus he would indeed die, that he might be more of a Shepherd to them than he had ever been before. How otherwise would he personally bring the other sheep into his flock, or be known of them, as the Father was known by him? Christ declares that after his death he would still exercise royal rights, be as much a Divine-human Personality as ever. Christ, as a sinless Man, the sinless One, might indeed, after the victory over the tempter in the wilderness, or from the Mount of Transfiguration, have returned to the spiritual world without accomplishing an exodus on Golgotha, but he chose, he willed, to lay down his life. Having done this much, he might have joined the great majority, and been their Head and Chief, and left his work to be commented on by others. But such a consummation would have fallen far short of the true and sufficing object of the Father’s love. Christ declares that the very end of his death was his resurrection from death. In retaking his life, he is able to continue, on perfectly different terms, the shepherding of his people he becomes in the highest sense, the great Shepherd, the good Shepherd, the archetypal, and the veritable Shepherd of the flock of God. John 10:18 No one taketh £ it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. Should the aorist be the true reading, then the whole of the Incarnation must have been regarded by the Lord as already accomplished, as a completed fact. The οὐδεὶς, "no one" neither God, nor man, nor evil spirit—taketh it, i.e. my life, away from me, from myself, in the exercise of my sovereign will, in the full consciousness of spontaneity. I am laying it down, not in consequence of my impotence before the powers of darkness, but "from myself." This proceeding is in perfect harmony with the will of God the Father; but it is Christ’s free act notwithstanding, and of all things the most worthy of the Father’s love (cf. here John 5:30, which appears at first to be in contradiction with the statement of this verse; but the closing words of the verse rectify the impression; see also John 7:28; John 8:28). Christ justifies his extraordinary claim to lay down and after his death (retaining then the full possession of his Personality), to reassume the life which for a while, in submission to the doom on human nature, he had resolved to sacrifice, tie says, I have (ἐξουσίαν) right—or, power and authority combined—to lay it down, and right to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father. I have power to do both these things. No other has ever put forth such a claim, and the discharge of it "from himself," i.e. spontaneously, is stated to be in consequence of an ἐντολή, an appoint-merit, an ordinance, he had received from the Father. The Divine purpose was realized in his perfect freedom and his perfect and absolute fulfillment of the Father’s will. The narrative of the agony in the garden, given by the synoptists, confirms the blending of his own freedom with the Divine order; but the language of this Gospel (John 18:6 (cf. Matthew 26:53), and John 19:11), and the best researches into what is called "the physical cause of the death of Christ" (see Dr. Stroud’s valuable work on that subject), all confirm the voluntary nature of our Lord’s suffering and death. "To cover this incomparable privilege with a veil of humility, he thought good to call it a command. The Father’s mandate was, Thou shalt die or not die, thou shalt rise again or not rise again, according to the free promptings of thy love" (Godet). It was, however, the Father’s appointment that Christ should freely exercise this stupendous consequence of his perfect obedience. So that all the assurances that God raised him from the dead are confirmed by the mode in which he speaks of his Divine right. John 10:19-21 (b) The twofold effect of this declaration. John 10:19, John 10:20 There arose £ a division again among the Jews because of these words. And many of them were saying, He hath a daemon, and is mad; why hear ye him? The division among the Jews had repeatedly taken place. In John 7:12, John 7:30, John 7:31, John 7:40, John 7:41, and John 9:8, John 9:9, John 9:16, we see different stages of the hostility and different aspects of opinion. They reached a similar point of expression in John 7:20; John 8:48. With bitter madness the Pharisees charged the Lord with being under the power of a "daemon," and with consequent raving, i.e. with irrationality and even evil motive. By this means "the Jews" sought to dissuade the people from any attention to such λόγους (sermones, Vulgate), discourses. They would not have done this if the impression on some had not been conspicuous and overpowering. "Why hear ye him?" This was not the first time such division had occurred, and hence the πάλιν, again (see notes, John 8:48). Some were listening with eager, bewildering excitement. They knew not what to think. Their nascent faith is rebuked by the authorities. John 10:21 There was a twofold reply: one drawn from their own experience. Others said, These (ῥήματα; verba, Vulgate) sayings—"things said"—are not those of one who is possessed by a daemon. Their majestic calm, their conscious strength, the strange thrill they sent through human hearts, and which we feel to this hour, discriminate them from the scream of the maniac, with which some of the more astounding statements taken by themselves might have suggested comparison. They give another argument drawn from the miracle which had just taken place, which proves that his friends on this occasion were very far from the mad wickedness of those whose moral sense had been so perverted as to say that "he casts out daemons by the prince of daemons" (see Matthew 12:24, etc., and parallel passages). Can a daemon open the eyes of the blind? It is not in the nature of a damon to heal disease, and pour light on sightless eyes. The goodness of the Lord triumphs over the vile insinuation. We must have better explanation than this of his mysterious claims. The contest was sharp. The conflict for a while silenced opposition, only to break out again with greater malice and fury. John 10:22-42 6. The oneness of Christ with the Father. The discourse at the Feast of Dedication, with its results. John 10:22-26 (1) The Feast of Dedication, and the excitement of the people. The paragraph is pregnant with meaning, arising from the place, the time, and the action of the Jews. It contains the discrimination between the Jews and those who were in spiritual union with himself, viz. his sheep. Then follow the characteristics and privileges of his sheep, which lead up to the climax in which he risks the deadly animosity of his hearers, by claiming identity of saving power with the Father. tic accounts for this by asserting what is expressive of positive consubstantiality with the Father. On any exegesis, this solemn announcement is a stupendous assumption of personal dignity, and was regarded by his hearers as blasphemous madness. John 10:22 Now, £ the Feast of Dedication (the enkainia) was (celebrated) in Jerusalem. This feast is not elsewhere noticed in the New Testament. The account of its origin is found in 1Ma John 4:36, etc.; 2Ma —John 10:1-8; Josephus, ’Ant.,’ John 12:7. 7. And it was winter. It was held on the 25th of Chisleu, which, in A.D. 29, would correspond with the 19th of December, in commemoration of the "renewal," reconsecration, of the temple by Judas Maccabaeus after the gross profanation of it by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Ma John 1:20 -60; John 4:36 -57). It occupied eight days, was distinguished by illumination of the city and temple and of other places throughout the land, and hence was called the "Feast of Lights." Many interesting peculiarities of this feast are detailed in Edersheim’s ’Life of Jesus,’ 2:228, etc. One feature was the increase night by night of the number of lights which commemorated the restoration of the temple. All fasting and public mourning were prohibited (see ’Moed. K.,’ John 3:9). The high enthusiasm of the people made them long for deliverance from the Roman yoke. The Jews would probably have eagerly accepted Jesus as Messiah if he had been ready to take up the role of a political leader. Doubtless he was the Christ of the Hebrew prophecies, and in his own human consciousness his high position swelled his loftiest thought; but he was not the Christ of their Jewish expectation. John 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. He walked in Solomon’s portico—that part of the temple of Herod which the apostles afterwards adopted as the scene of some of their most explicit assertions of the gospel (Acts 3:11; Acts 5:12). It was associated with the grandest events in their national history; for it was reared on the substructions of Solomon’s temple, which even to the present day are intact. The Lord walked there because it was winter, and wintry weather. This reveals a little touch of the hand of an eye-witness. We need not ask for any more transcendental explanation. The note of time, moreover, implies that two months had elapsed since the Feast of Tabernacles. Wieseler calculates that the Feast of Tabernacles closed on October 19, and the Feast of Dedication began on December 20, and, if so, time is left for a portion of the Galilaean ministry cited in Luke 10:1-42.—13. Ezra 10:9-13 shows that the time referred to was after a period of heavy rain, and may account for Jesus walking in the shelter of the portico. John 10:24 Then the Jews came round about him. Not necessarily (with Godet) separating him from his disciples, but in a threatening and imperative fashion, demanding an immediate answer. It is probable that he had absented himself for two months in the neighborhood, had even been in Peraea (cf. Luke 9:1-62.), and met the multitudes coming up to the feasts. The πάλινπέραντοῦἸορδάνου of John 10:40, is best understood by his having been there before. The difficulty of his making retrospective reference to the similitude and allegory of the first part of this chapter is removed by the simple supposition that he saw in this group of his interrogators many of those who had heard his former discourse. And said unto him, How long dost thou hold our soul in suspense?—αἴρειντὴνψυχὴνἡμῶν; used in the sense of "lift up the soul," and so used in similar connection in the classics—If thou art the Christ (simple supposition), tell us plainly. Observe in John 16:25 our Lord’s own contrast between speaking ἐνπαροιμίαις and speaking παῤῥησίᾳ, with open, clear utterance. They had heard his parables, and say, "Let him drop all reserve, and deliver himself in categoric form." Archdeacon Watkins has well recalled the various utterances which fell on the more susceptible of the Jerusalemites. This was the Feast of Lights, and has he not called himself the Light of the world? This was a feast commemorative of freedom from the Syrian yoke, and had he not said, "If the Son set you free, ye shall be free indeed"? ’ This was the Feast of the Purification of the Temple; had not his first act been a cleansing of the courts of the temple? We cannot wonder at the summons and challenge of the people. John 10:25 Jesus answered them. The reply of Jesus is full of wisdom. If he had at once given an affirmative answer, they would have misunderstood him, because he was not the Christ of their expectations. If he had denied that he was the Messiah, he would have been untrue to his deepest consciousness of reality. The answer was: I spake with you—told you what I am—and ye believe not. To the woman in Samaria, to the Capernaites, to the blind man, to Peter and the other apostles, and in several emphatic forms, he had admitted his Messiahship. In John 8:1-59. he had claimed the highest honors and announced his [Divine commission, and appealed to his great Messianic works, but his endeavor to rectify their Messianic ideal had, through their obtuseness, failed of its purpose. So now once more he referred them to works done in his Father’s name, which hitherto had failed to convince them: The works that I do in my Father’s name (John 5:19, John 5:36), they bear witness concerning me. John 10:26 He gives the reason of their insensibility or lack of appreciation and faith: But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep (for similar construction, ἐστὲἐκ, see Matthew 26:73; John 6:65). The clause (καθὼςεἶπονὑμιν), £ [as I said unto you], is rejected by powerful arguments, and commentators cease to discuss whether it belongs to the previous or following clause. In neither case does it appear entirely relevant, although the difficulties felt in either application may be reduced by supposing either one saying or the other to have been virtually embodied in the statements of the parables of Joh 10:1-18. John 10:27-30 (2) Christ’s claim to equality of power and essence, and similarity of gracious operation with the Father. John 10:27, John 10:28 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out of my hand. Commentators have differed as to the arrangement of these two verses—whether the six assertions should be regarded as two triplets, in the first of which the sheep of Christ are made prominent, and in the latter of which the Shepherd; thus— (l) The sheep— "My sheep hear my voice" (their receptivity). "And I know them" (the Lord’s response to their faith). "And they follow me" (their active obedience). (2) The Shepherd— "I give them eternal life" (involving freedom from peril and death). "They shall not perish foreverse" "No one (not man or devil, wolf or hireling) shall pluck them out of my hand." This is not so satisfactory as the arrangement which puts this weighty saying into three couplets instead of two triplets; in which the sheep are the prominent theme of each proposition. The three couplets display the climacteric character of the wondrous rhythm and interchange of emotion between the Divine Shepherd and the sheep- "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them"= mutual recognition. "They follow me, and I give them eternal life" = reciprocal activity. "They shall not perish forever, and no one shall pluck them out of my hand" = an authoritative assurance, and its pledge or justification. Christ’s knowledge of the sheep corresponds with their recognition of his supreme claims; theft active trust is rewarded by his greatest gift; their indefeasible birthright is guaranteed by his limitless authority and power to protect them. It would be gross perversion of the passage to urge this indefeasible birthright on the ground of a few occasional flashes of conscious assurance and without any recognition of all the terms of the relation. John 10:29 The last statement is sustained by a still loftier assumption. Before translating, it is necessary to notice the three readings of the text. (1) That of the T.R. and the Revisers’ Text: £ My Father who gave (them) to me is greater than all the powers that can possibly be arrayed against them. (2) The reading of à, D, With reference to that which my Father, One greater than all, gave me, and no one is able to pluck from the hand of the Father. Meyer, however, translates this differently; he supposes the μεῖζον to refer to the Father "a something greater, a greater potence." Westcott and Hort prefer the reading with ὅ and μείζον; and Westcott translates, That which my Father has given me is greater than all, and regards it as a reference to the sheep as a collective unity. The internal reasons compel Luthardt, Godet, and Lange to fall back on T.R., and surely the extraordinary strain of the meaning justifies them. Our Lord would sustain with even stronger assurance the safety of his sheep. The Father’s gift to himself, the Father’s own eternal love and power, the Divine omnipotence of the Lord God himself, is pledged to their security. "My hand" becomes "my Father’s hand." He seems to say, "If you question my capacity, you need not question his power. Sacrilegious violence may apparently nail my hands to the cross; the sword may awake against Jehovah’s Shepherd. But none can outwit, surprise, crucify, conquer, my Father, none can invalidate his care." John 10:30 Then follows the sublime minor premise of the syllogism, I and the Father (we) are one. As Augustine and Bengel have said, the first clause is incompatible with Sabelliauism, and the second clause with Arianism. The Lord is conscious of his own Personality as distinct from that of the Father, and yet he asserts a fundamental unity. But what kind of unity is it? Is it a unity of wish, emotion, sentiment, only? On the contrary, it is a oneness of redemptive power. The Divine activity of the Father’s eternal love did not come to any arrest or pause when he gave the sheep to the Son, but with its irresistible might is present in the "hand" of Jesus (no one "can," not no one "shall"). Therefore the ἕν, the one reality, if it does not express actual unity of essence, involves it. Some have endeavored to minimize the force of this remarkable statement by comparing it with John 17:21-23, where Jesus said believers are "to be in us," and "to be one, even as we are one," i.e. to have the same kind of relation with one another (being a collective unity) as the Father and Son sustain towards each other, "I in them, thou in me, that they may be perfected [reach their τέλος, by being blended] into one;" i.e. into one Divine personality by my indwelling. Now, it is nowhere there said that believers and the Father are one, but such a statement is scrupulously avoided. Numerous attempts have been made to escape from the stupendous assumption of this unity of power and essence with the Father. The whole gist of the assertion reveals the most overwhelming self-consciousness. The Lord declares that he can bestow eternal life and blessedness upon those who stand in close living relation with himself, and between whom and himself there is mutual recognition and the interchanges of love and trust. He bases the claim on the fact that the Father’s hands are behind his, and that the Father’s eternal power and Godhead sustain his mediatorial functions and, more than all, that the Father’s Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity. If be merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should the utterance have provoked such fierce resentment? John 10:31-39 (3) Resented and challenged, but vindicated by word and sign. John 10:31 That the Jews supposed him to speak of an essential unity is obvious from what follows. The Jews (then £) took up—should rather be carried or bore in their hands—stones again, huge pieces of marble lying around in the public works then proceeding. There is an increase of malice over and above what was involved in simply lifting stones from the pavement (cf. John 8:59), and the alteration of the word is another hint of the eye-witness. The word "again" reminds the reader that this was a second and more desperate attack upon the life of Jesus. John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good (καλά) works have I shown you from the (my £) Father. The works of Christ were lovely and radiant with Divine beneficence; they were revelations of the Father. "I showed you many of them," says he; "I gave you signs thus of the intimate relation between the whole of the self-revelation I am making and the Father" (cf. John 6:65; John 7:17; John 8:42). For which work of these (works) are ye stoning me? i.e. preparing by your gesture to carry this into effect. By these words, uttered with smiting irony and terrific though quiet indignation, Jesus answered their threat. John 10:33 The Jews answered him (saying £), For a good (excellent, obviously, radiantly so) work we do not stone thee; but for blasphemy; and because thou, being man, makest thyself God. (Περὶκαλοῦἔργου and περὶβλασφημίας contrast with the causal διὰποῖον of the previous verse. This preposition was used for formal indictments of offence before the tribunals.) The Jews felt the force of this indignant reproach, and would not admit that his Divine and goodly work was without meaning to them. It was, however, a melancholy reality that his beneficent work had roused their malice into fiercer activity, but they credit themselves with a higher and a doctrinal motive and with a jealousy for the honor of God. They charge him with blasphemy, and the charge is reiterated before Pilate (John 19:7). The Jews were in one sense right. He had de-dared his essential unity with the Father; he had "made himself, represented himself (cf. John 8:53; John 19:7), as equal with God." In the opinion of his hearers, he conveyed the idea that he possessed and was wielding Divine powers. He was making himself to be God. "Good works" by the score were no vindication of one who dishonored the Name of God by claiming equality with him. John 10:34 The justification of Jesus which follows is often supposed to be a retraction of the claim—a repudiation of the inference which the Jews drew from the words recorded in John 10:30. On the contrary, our Lord took up one illustration from among many in Holy Scripture, that the union between man and God lay at the heart of their (νόμος) Law. True, he quoted from Psalms 82:6 with reference to the high official title given by the Holy Spirit to the false and tyrannical judges of the old covenant. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law? The Psalms are here spoken of as "the Law," showing that they did form part of the revelation and law of the Divine kingdom (John 7:49; John 12:34; John 15:25). Jesus does not imply that the Law was theirs and not his. There is not a shadow of disrespect cast on the Law by the pronoun, but such an identification of it with his hearers that they ought, by its aid, to have been saved from utterly misconceiving his words I said, Ye are gods (elohim, θεοί). To stand in close relation with the theocracy was to be covered with its glory. He seems to force upon them thus a host of similar blendings of the Divine and human in the age-long preparation for himself, and to free all these from the suspicion of blasphemy. The Hebrew thought was really calculated to prepare the world for this high intercommunion, not to abolish it. Judaism, rabbinism, had widened the chasm between God and man. Christ came to fill up the chasm; nay more, to show the Divine and human in living, indissoluble union. John 10:35 If he (the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Lawgiver, the subject is left indefinite) called them gods (elohim), to whom the Word of God came—the personal "Word" need not be excluded here; the "Word of God" was the Divine agency by which prophets spoke and psalmists sang—and the Scripture (γραφή is singular, and has reference, not to all the γραφαί, but to this one word) cannot he broken; loosed, destroyed. A fine testimony to the confidence which our Lord exercised in the Holy Scripture. He was accustomed to educe principles of life from its inward structure, from its concealed framework, from its underlying verities. The very method adopted by Jesus on this occasion revealed the fact that both he and his biographer were born Jews. These tyrannical judges were "to die like men," yet, since "the Word of God came to them," there was a sense in which even they, without blasphemous assumptions, might receive the title of elohim. John 10:36 If it be so, Say ye of him whom the Father sanctified (or, consecrated), and sent into the world. The order of these words requires us to conceive of this consecration as occurring previously to the incarnation of the eternal Son. Before his birth into the world he entered into relations with the Father to undertake a work of indescribable importance. He was destined, or designated, or appointed, and then sent to do this sublime deed of redemption. Unlike those to whom the eternal Loges came, conferring thereby honorific titles, and calling them to occasional and alas! His discharged duties, he was the eternal Word himself, and he was moreover (as those old judges (lid) "to die like men," to lay down that life in order that he might take it again; consequently, he asks, with sublime self-consciousness, "Say ye of him, thus consecrated, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am Son of God?" It is remarkable that Christ should, instead of repeating the phrase, "I and the Father are one"—one as we have seen, in power and purpose and attribute—imply that in that former saying he had but told them he was "Son of God," in a sense to which the old Hebrew kings, notwithstanding their theocratic symbolism and mysterious names of honor, could not aspire. This is clearly a bold utterance of the Messianic dignity (cf. John 1:49; John 5:19, John 5:20). The fact that he continually treated the two ideas of Father and Son as correlative (John 8:19; of. John 9:35-37; John 14:7-13, etc.) makes the one assertion an equivalent of the other. This is a much greater claim than that yielded to the judges of old, and it is a new revelation of the Father and of the Son. Moreover, he showed them that there were many anticipations, foreshadowings of the incarnation of God in their own Scripture. We have an argument from the less to the greater, but one which, while it technically freed him from the charges of blasphemy, revealed the age-long preparation that had been made for the union between the Infinite and finite, between the Creator and creature, between the Father and his child, which was effected in himself. Some may have supposed that in the leveling up of the theocratic adumbrations of the Incarnation, he was virtually relinquishing the uniqueness of his own; but the following words, and the interpretation put on them by his hearers, answer such a charge. John 10:37 "I and the Father are one," and "I am the Son of God." These two mighty utterances are equivalent to the following: "I do the works of my Father." My works are his works, his works are mine. "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." The recognition of the Divine is a sign of the regenerated mind, and a test of fitness for a place in Christ’s flock (cf. "I know my sheep, and my sheep know me"). The Jews had not recognized the true reciprocal relation between the Father and Son. He had come out from God, and been sent from the Father to produce this impression, to make known the Father by his Sonship; and he had taken steps to convince even unbelieving men of the identity of his nature and Spirit with that of the Father. He is content to rest his claims upon their belief, on the character of his works. He is content to leave the question as to whether he be a blasphemer or one with the Father, a sinner of sinners or Son of God, on the evidence of his works—on the God-like, Father-like character of his entire ministry (cf. John 10:32; John 5:17, John 5:36; John 9:3). If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. "If the evidence be insufficient, I acquit you of blame in not taking me at my word. My own words and Person and life might be enough for you; but if my works are not in perfect harmony with the best you know of the Father, believe me not." Christ’s appeal to the reason of his hearers, to the sufficiency of the evidence he had given, would justify unbelief in case of a proved failure. John 10:38 But if I do—if I am performing the works of my Father, if these acts of healing and helping, of mighty consolation and symbolic grace, are obviously such as you can recognize as the Father’s, believe them; learn that much,—it is for your life—and if you make that acquisition, though ye believe not me—though you do not credit my assertion on my own authority, though you do not take me at once on my own word—believe the works; you may then take the further step, and both know and understand, £ or know broadly and completely, and then learn in details, that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. £ Between the assertion of Joh 10:30, "I and my Father are one," and that of this verse, "the works" are introduced—works that are recognized as Divine, "the Father’s," but seen and known also to be Christ’s own works. Why should they stone him for blasphemy if they have evidence so resistless as this, even if it comes short of proof, that he is absolutely one with the Father? The intuitive perception of the Divine in Christ is the highest and noblest spiritual experience. His word should be, might be, enough; but, suppose it should fail, miracles, "works," come in to link the Divine Personality of the Speaker with the supreme Father. The works may teach them that he is in the Father, and the Father in him. Not by a flash of light, but by growing intellectual conviction, they must come to a conclusion which the great assertion," I and the Father are one," finally confirms. John 10:39 (Therefore £) they sought (again £) to seize him, and he escaped out of their hands. This appeal roused their animosity, and, though they dropped their stones, they were preparing to lay violent hands on him. The πάλιν points back to John 7:30, John 7:32, John 7:44. His escape was facilitated by the strange moral power he could exert to render their assaults upon him vain. They stretched out hands which dropped harmlessly at their side—another confirmation of the solemn statement of Joh 7:18. There is no need to suppose a miracle, still less to justify the preposterous notion that the body of Jesus was, in John’s Gospel, docetic merely. John 10:40-42 (4) Beyond Jordan. The susceptibility of those who had been prepared for his Word by the early ministry of John. John 10:40 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 11:1-57 7. Christ the Antagonist of death—a victory of love and power. The narrative of this chapter is a further advance in the proof that the unbelief of the Jews was aggravated by the greatness of the revelation. The issue of his sublime and culminating act of power, of his supreme and self-revealing work of transcendent tenderness and beauty, was a deeper and wilder passion of hatred. The evangelist completes his series of seven great miracles with one that in true and believing minds, evokes a new sense of the glory of God. This great last sign corresponds with the first (John it.) by being enacted amid the domestic and family life of a small and insignificant town, and also by express reference to the veritable manifestation involved in it of the δόξαΘεοῦ, on which we have frequently commented. Baur treated the narrative as an ideal composition, illustrating the great metaphysical utterance, "I am the Resurrection and the Life." Keim endeavored to reduce the whole narrative to a fiction, not so well contrived as some of the evangelist’s tours de force. This is almost as arbitrary and offensive as M. Renan’s endeavor (which held its place in numerous editions of his ’Vie de Jesus’) to represent the miracle as a got-up scene, into which Christ, by a kind of Divine mensonge, allowed himself to be drawn. Subsequently, Renan has suggested that Mary and Martha told Jesus their persuasion that such a miracle would convince his enemies, and that he replied that his bitter foes would not believe him even if Lazarus were to rise from the grave; and that this speech was expanded by tradition into an actual event. This corresponds with what Weisse had suggested, that the story is an expansion of the Lord’s conversation with the sisters at Bethany. Gfrorer thought that it is the story of Nain over again in a developed form, and that Nain is equivalent to Bethany; and Schenkel has fancied that the parable of Luk 16:1-31. has been expanded into a narrative of genuine resurrection. Thorns has, in like manner, regarded it as the poetic expansion of the idea of the Christ as the Prince of life and Conqueror of death, and as based on the synoptic account of two resurrections, and on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. These hypotheses are all incompatible with the simplicity of the account and with the apostolicity of the Gospel. Many attempts have been made to account for the silence of the synoptists concerning this narrative. Some writers, with Epiphanius, have said they feared, when their narratives were made public, to call such marked attention to the family of Bethany, lest they might have endangered their lives; but this is exceedingly improbable. Others have argued that this crowning miracle would not take such a conspicuous place in their less-carefully arranged records. It was only one of "many signs" wrought by our Lord with which they were familiar. Matthew (Matthew 9:18) and Mark (Mark 5:22) had already described the raising of Jairus’s daughter from the bed of death, from what was believed by the onlookers to have been veritable dissolution; and Luke (Luke 7:11) had shown the Lord at the gates of Nain to have royally withstood the power of death, even when the corpse of a young man was being carried out to the burial. The narrative before us is not different in kind from these, though the prelude and the accompaniments of the miracle and its consequences are all wrought out with much dramatic force, while numerous touches, by-scenes, and references are introduced which give consummate interest to the whole. Another suggestion of moment is that it was not the purpose of the synoptists to detail the incidents of our Lord’s ministry in Jerusalem. Let it not be forgotten that each of the evangelists records incident and discourse to which neither of the others had access. The peculiarities of Matthew and Luke are nearly as numerous as those of the Fourth Gospel. Why should not John bring forth facts from his memory which they had left untouched?. John 11:1-16 (1) The mystery and might of sacrificial love seen in the prelude of the miracle. John 11:1 Now a certain (man) was sick, (named) Lazarus, of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha. The certain man who was sick, Lazarus (or Eleazar) by name, £ was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. The two prepositions ἀπὸ and ἐκ generally denote procession from, but the latter implies closer and more intimate original association; they here are put in apposition, though there are passages where they are discriminated (Luke 2:4; Acts 23:1-35. 34; R.T. of Revelation 9:18). The contention of Gresswell that ἀπὸ referred to present residence, and ἐκ to nativity, and that the κώμη was to be found in Galilee, is not sound (see John 12:21; John 19:38). Bethany is mentioned to distinguish it from "Bethany beyond Jordan," referred to in John 1:28 (see note). The town is now known as El Azirieh, and is about a mile and a half from Jerusalem, on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. Simonis interpreted the name to mean "house of depression," "valley-town" היָּנִעֲ־תיבֵּ (Lightfoot); Reland derives its name from ינֵיהִ־תיבֵּ, "house of dates" (see Matthew 21:17). It seems that palm branches could be then torn from the trees in the neighborhood. Arnold (Herzog., ’Enc.’) derives its name from איָּנְעֲ־תיבֵּ (Aramaic), "house of the afflicted." The village has become well known in the circle of evangelic narrative from St. Luke’s reference to Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38, etc.). Mary’s name is probably mentioned first from the further record of her ecstatic love, which the other Gospels were diffusing through the world, and to which John makes an anticipatory reference. Her name had not been given before. In Matthew 26:13 and Mark 14:3 she was "a certain woman." Jn throws light on the ground of her gratitude. The efforts made by Bunyan, in his ’Jerusalem Sinner Saved,’ and by Hengstenberg, to defend the pre-Reformation identification of "Mary" with the "Magdalene," and the Magdalene with the woman that was a sinner (cf. Luke 7:37 with Luke 8:2), rest on insufficient grounds. The identification of the two anointings with each other is without justification. All the circumstances are different—the time, the place, the obvious reason, the motive assigned by our Lord, the conversations which followed. If a woman who was a sinner had taken such a step, and this expression of her gratitude had been accepted by Jesus, Mary of Bethany found more ample reason for following her example (see Dr. Schaff’s admirable and extended reply to Hengstenberg). B. Weiss acutely observes that this reference shows that in the circle for which the evangelist wrote Bethany was known as the home of the sisters, and Mary as the heroine of the anointing incident. Numerous other identifications, i.e. of Simon the Leper with Simon the Pharisee, Martha with Simon’s wife, are precarious. Dean Plumptre’s identification £ of Lazarus with the "rich young man" who is supposed to have given his all away to the poor, and who possessed nothing but a solitary garment; and his subsequent identification with the young man who fled away naked on the night of Christ’s arrest, are specimens of ingenuity, but carry no conviction. The contrast between the ideas involved in the parable of Luk 16:1-31. and this narrative is so profound that we dismiss the hypothesis of the identity of the two Lazaruses. Strauss, Keim, and others deal with it as an expansion of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, who is supposed actually to have been sent unto the people from the dead, but, in agreement with our Lord’s prediction, winning no obedience. Vehement efforts are made in this and other ways to undo the commanding significance of the miracle. Bishop Wordsworth and Archdeacon Watkins are disposed to identify the Lazarus of the parable and the Lazarus of Bethany; the latter supposes the parable to have been delivered at the very time mentioned in Persea. Our Lord’s statement, that the brothers of the rich man would not believe though one rose from the dead, was in some sense paralleled by the desire of the Jews to put Lazarus to death; but the reason given is that by reason of Lazarus "many of the Jews went away from them, and believed on Jesus" (John 12:11; cf. also John 11:45, "Many of the Jews, when they beheld what he did, believed on him"). John 11:2 Now it was that Mary who anointed the Lord with perfume, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. The word μύρον is used of any aromatic balsam which is distilled from trees and herbs by itself. In classical Greek μύρον was used of costly ointments used by women. Ἐλαίον was the common oil used by men for purposes of health, which might be perfumed. Our Lord clearly draws a distinction between the ἐλαίον and μύρον in Luke 7:46. Ἀλείφω has been said to be used for the more superfluous anointings and χρίω for the sanitary anointing with oil. No trace of such distinction is found in the New Testament. One great distinction in biblical Greek is that χρίειν is used of religious anointings, from its association with Χριστός, but ἀλείφειν in the LXX. is only twice used in this sense, while χρίειν is used times without number (Archbishop Trench, ’New Test. Syn.,’ § 38.). The use of the term Κύριον, "Lord," shows that the story was widely known, and that when the Gospel was written it had passed into a commonplace of Christian experience and illustration. The anointing has not yet been referred to by John, but he is looking back upon the events and anticipates his own subsequent record. John 11:3 Therefore the sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick (ὃνφιλεῖς nominative to ἀσθενεῖ). The sisters knew well what peril Jesus and his disciples would encounter by coming to Bethany, and they must have known that he could have healed him by a word; so they simply state the case. (On the difference between φιλεῖν and ἀγάπαν, see notes on John 5:20; John 21:15, John 21:17. Trench, ’New Test. Syn.,’ § 12. The former word is that of personal affection and fondness, though occasion ally having grander associations and equivalent to amo, while ἀγαπάω is equivalent to diligo, and means the love of choice, of sentiment, of confidence and esteem.) There is delicate tact and beauty in the use of the two words, one by the sisters, the other by the evangelist. The statement of needs, the simple voice of our weakness, the infant’s cry, goes up to heaven. The bleat of the lost lamb is enough for the good Shepherd. John 11:4 When Jesus heard (it), he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby. What message Jesus gave to these who brought him these tidings we know not; the evangelist records what he said to the bystanders. Our Lord did not mean to say that the sickness would not terminate in what men ordinarily call "death," nor that it was not a deadly disease, but that it was not πρὸςθάνατον. "He shall not fall a prey to death" (Meyer), The sickness is so timed that it shall conduce to the (δόξαΘεοῦ) glory of God, i.e. to the majestic appreciation of the sublime perfections of God, and that by or in it the Son of God may be glorified. Υπὲρ elsewhere in the Gospel means "sacrifice on behalf of;" so here the very suffering of Lazarus and of the sisters, and the tears of Jesus over the grave, are part of the sacrificial ministry by which the glory of God or of the Sun of God may be advanced. John 11:5 Now Jesus loved (ἠγάπα) Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. "Felix familia!" (Bengel). Martha is here mentioned first, because in all probability the head of the household. The love of selection, friendship, or esteem is the result of long acquaintance, and reveals "the fragmentariness of the evangelic records" (Westcott); see note on John 11:3. John 11:6, John 11:7 The τότεμὲν of John 11:6 implies an understood δὲ in John 11:7, and the whole passage will be as follows: Now Jesus loved deeply Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus; when therefore he heard that he (Lazarus) was sick, he remained, it is true, τότεμὲν two days in the place where he was, but then ἔπειτα (δὲ) after this (and because he loved) he saith to his disciples, Let us go again into Judaea. He did not remain because he loved, but, though he remained, and because he loved, he said, "Let us," etc. So that we do not see here any intention on his part, by remaining, to test their love (Olshausen), nor to exaggerate the effect of the miracle by raising a dead man from his grave rather than from his death-bed or his bier. It is not difficult to gather from the sequel that when the message reached Jesus Lazarus was dead and buried. We find that when our Lord returned to Bethany four days had elapsed since the death of Lazarus, and the four days must be calculated thus: First one long day’s journey from Peraea to Bethany, a distance of eight or nine leagues. If the messenger of the sisters had taken equal time to reach Jesus in Perked, or even a longer period, as time might easily be consumed in the effort to find our Lord in the mountains of Moab; then the two days of his waiting after receiving the message would, with those occupied by the double journey, make up the four that had passed when Jesus reached the grave. Lucke, Neander, Godet, and Westcott think that our Lord remained in Peraea because there was work in which he was engaged and could not relinquish. Meyer, Moulton, and Weiss, that he waited for some especial communication from his Father, for some revelation of moral necessity and heavenly inspiration, like those which dictated all his other movements. B. Weiss: "It was a sacrifice to his calling, of his heart’s most ardent desires, that he remained quietly two days in the same place." "We see," says Edersheim, "Christ once more asleep while the disciples are despairing, swamped in the storm! Christ never in haste, because always sure." The silences of Scripture and the waitings of God are often without explanation. The event proves that deep purpose presided over them. The "let us go," etc., implies a lofty courage, a sense of coming crisis. Love conquers fear and peril for himself and his followers. "Judaea" is mentioned rather than Bethany for the same reason. The "again" points forcibly back to the last visit, when he told both friends and foes that the good Shepherd would snatch his sheep from the jaws of death, even though he lay down his own life in the doing of it. John 11:8 The Aramaic word "Rabbi" is frequently used by John, as the term of respect applied to both the Baptist and our Lord. The extraordinary dignity which the Jews accorded to their rabbis may throw some light upon the honorific title when yielded or conceded to Christ. The disciples say unto him, Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone thee; and goest thou thither again? The νῦνἐξήτουν imply the continuous process of their antagonism only just now arrested by a timely flight. Here in Peraea Jesus found appreciative listeners. The disciples are more in fear for their Master than for themselves. The residence beyond Jordan had been brief, and they are amazed that the Lord will so soon put himself in the power of that seething and hostile crowd. How different this language from that of his own brothers (John 7:3-5)! John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If a man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. The answer of Jesus is a further deliverance concerning the human law and season (καιρός) of work—a parable drawn from earthly and human analogies, which will unquestionably have a direct bearing on the conditions of Divine service at all time, and is therefore applicable to the disciples with himself. It receives also special significance from some aspects of Christ’s own ministry, and from the step he had just now declared that he intended to take. Of course, the parable is based upon the conditions of human work; one of these conditions is light, another of them is time. Light is necessary for all the wise efforts of men—the light of day, the light of this world or the sun; we must see whither we are going, in order to avoid the occasions of stumbling. We must submit to this comprehensive condition, or we fail (cf. here John 9:4, "I must work the works of him that sent me while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work"). There are two kinds of night of which he speaks. One is the night which arrests all labor, the night of death; and the other is the night of ignorance and unbelief, when the light that is in a man becomes darkness, when, if a man does attempt to work or walk, he will stumble. Meyer and some others, from the reference to another condition, viz. that of time, persist in limiting the notion of the day to that of the period of service, about which the Lord says also some very solemn things; and Meyer objects to Luthardt and others, who give to the sun, to the light of this world, any moral or spiritual meaning. We need not limit the application. Light may mean knowledge of duty supplied by God’s providence and the revelation of his will, and so far as "day" is made by light, it is important to notice it here. But time is an equally important condition, and whereas in John 9:4, John 9:5 the Lord laid emphasis upon the limited amount of opportunity during which the light lasts and the work can be done; so here there is an appointed period during which stumbling is unnecessary: "twelve hours in the day." This (I take to be Christ’s meaning) is one of these hours, and before the night comes "I must work." Godet suggests that the disciples, by this question, recommended him not to shorten his career by courting danger, and so to create for himself "a thirteenth hour" to the day, in which he would secure no blessing; that the Lord condemned the proposal, knowing that he was immortal till his hour had come; and that if we shrink from a call of duty, and thus save ourselves, adding an unhallowed increment to our day of useless work, we incur the like condemnation, we shall stumble. Let it be observed that the reason for working in the night is not because we have twelve hours for duty and no more, but because, though we have a time of service and an opportunity, we have let both slip past us, and then the work is difficult and perilous if we do attempt it. Some have said that Judas, Peter, Thomas, etc., walked in the night, and that they stumbled and fell. John 11:10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him. He shuts himself off from the light of God-given opportunity, and carries no lamp in his soul. There is no necessity to suppose, in John 9:4, that the day was drawing to a close, or that in this place a natural day was dawning; but there is some probability from this phraseology that John adopted the Babylonian rather than the Roman method of computing the hours of the day. This has decided bearing on several important questions (notes, John 1:39; John 4:6, John 4:52; John 19:14). The "twelve hours" shows, at all events, that the Jews at this time generally reckoned from sunrise to sunset. It must be remembered that the day differed considerably in length at different parts of the year, from fourteen hours to nine; but perhaps the emphatic use of the expression derives special interest from the fact that the equinox was approaching. John 11:11 These things spake he, and probably many more words expository of the vast principle of service which he here propounded; and after this (for μετὰτοῦτο implies a break, during which the disciples pondered his words) he saith, Our friend Lazarus; implying that Lazarus was well known to the disciples, and that the Lord classes himself here, in wondrous condescension, with them. He elsewhere speaks of the twelve as his "friends" (John 15:14, John 15:15, where he made it a higher designation than δοῦλοι; see also Luke 12:4). John the Baptist also calls himself "the Bridegroom’s friend" (John 3:29). Though Lazarus had passed into the region of the unknown and unseen, he was still" our friend." Hath fallen asleep. Meyer says that Jesus knew this by "spiritual far-seeing;" and Godet thinks that he knew it by supernatural process, and had known it all along. It does not require much beyond what we know to have occurred in thousands of instances, for our Lord to have perceived that his friend had died—had, as he said, "fallen asleep," in that new sense in which Jesus was teaching men to look on death. But I go, that I may awake him out of sleep (ἐξυπνίσω is a late Greek word; of. Acts 16:27). Wunsche says the Talmud often speaks of a rabbi’s death under the form of" sleep" (’Moed. K.,’ fol. 28, a; cf. Matthew 9:24; 1 Thessalonians 4:14). Homer spoke of death and sleep as "twin sisters," Christ’s power and consciousness of power to awake Lazarus from sleep gives, however, to his use of the image a new meaning. It is not the eternal sleep of the Greek and Roman poets. John 11:12 The disciples£ therefore say unto him, Lord, if he have fallen asleep, he will recover. Wunsche quotes ’Berach,’ fol. 57, b, "Sleep is a good sign for the sick." The language of the disciples is somewhat remarkable; at least their misunderstanding is puzzling (Reuss and Strauss think it is a sign of the unhistorical); but it probably arose out of the statement, made two days before, that "the sickness was not unto death," and from their eager and affectionate desire to prevent their Lord’s retraining to Judaea. If he have fallen asleep, he well recover (be saved). The whole narrative is throbbing with deeper meanings than lie on the surface of it. The theory of the sanitary effects of sleep in fever are well known, and the rousing from such sleep might seem hazardous; but the disciples were catching at straws to save their Master. John 11:13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death: but they thought that he spake of taking rest in sleep. Λέγει, though in the present tense, represents a time anterior to the time of ἔδοξαν. Κοίμησις is found in Ecclus. 46:19. This is an explanation of the misunderstanding, occasioned, perhaps, by the statement of verse 4, and further elucidated by what follows. A difference prevails between κοίμησις and ὕπνος as both words are used for sleep; but the former has rather the idea of the repose accompanying sleep, the latter the phenomenon itself. With one or two exceptions, κοιμᾶσθαι is always used in the New Testament of the sleep of death, ὑπνός never. John 11:14 Then Jesus therefore said to them plainly. Jesus spake at length (παῤῥησίᾳ) without metaphor (cf. John 11:11, note). Lazarus died; died, i.e. when he told them two days ago that this sickness would not have death as its end—died in the sense in which they ordinarily used the word. When Jesus described the condition of Lazarus in figurative language, he made use of a metaphor which would have peculiar application in his ease. The grace of Christ will turn the death of his beloved throughout all time into restful sleep. Lazarus was part of the method by which this transformation would be effected. The Christian idea soon found far richer expression than classical poetry or rabbinism could supply (Acts 7:60; Matthew 27:52; 1 Corinthians 15:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; Revelation 14:13). John 11:15 And I rejoice that I was not there. Death could not have occurred in his presence; at least, as Bengel says, we never read of any one dying in the presence of the Prince of life. Whenever he came into contact with death, he conquered the great enemy. Still, this was not the absolute reason for his gladness. The gladness was conditioned by the need of the disciples, not merely for the comfort of the sisters, or for his own greater glory, but for your sakes, to the end that ye might believe. The word πιστεύω is often used absolutely (John 1:7, John 1:50; John 4:41, John 4:42; John 5:44; John 6:36; and many other places). The disciples had believed something of Christ’s power before (see John 2:11, etc.); but every act of faith prepares the way for another. Every fresh exercise of faith makes all previous efforts in the same direction appear elementary (cf. 1 John 5:13, T.R.). The joy of Jesus in the augmenting faith of his disciples is one of the most pathetic and instructive features of this Gospel (see John 16:31, and notes). The kingdom of God among men was, so far as we can see, dependent on the amount of faith that the apostles could be induced to cherish in the fact of the Incarnation during the brief period of this ministry. The Church has not yet come to a full understanding of all that he was. But if the disciples had not known his power over death, they would have been destitute of the alphabet of this new language, of the foundations of the spiritual city they had to build. Jesus rejoiced when disciples believed. So he does still. Nevertheless, let us go to him—to Lazarus, who still lives with God (cf. Matthew 22:32, and parallel passages). This is very remarkable. Even the dead body is in this case still (cf. John 14:31). John 11:16 Thomas, in Aramaic, is equivalent in meaning to the Greek name Didymus, or "twin." This apostle is mentioned in the synoptic Gospels with Matthew, and in Acts (Acts 1:13) with Philip. He is classed with the fishermen (John 21:2), and may therefore have been a Galilaean. Ecclesiastical tradition has associated him with Judas (not Iscariot) (Eusebius, ’Hist. Eccl.,’ Ecclesiastes 1:13), and with Judas the brother of Jesus. He is reputed to have preached ultimately in Parthia and India, there to have suffered martyrdom. The various references to him in this Gospel give, by a few vivid touches, a biography and characterization of singular congruity. He said to his fellow-disciples (the word συμμαθητής is only used in this place, and shows that the body of the disciples were being more and more blended into a unity), Let us go, that we may die with him. Here he manifests a fervent love to his Master, tinged with a sorrowful, melancholy temperament. He saw the danger to his Lord, but at once, with the spirit of self-surrender, was ready to share his fate. Moulton says these words reveal love, but they are "the language of despair and vanished hope. This is the end of all—death, not Messianic kingdom." Surely Thomas may have pondered much the Lord’s words about his approaching death, and may have felt ready, along the same line, willingly to yield up his own life for his Master’s or with his Master. Too much has been made of Thomas’s skepticism and criticism. He was one who wanted visible, tangible evidence; but he was prepared to act impulsively, and to give powerful expression to his faith, whenever the evidence was granted. In John 14:5 he was still in the dark, but it was not an evil darkness. How could he know, with the clearness which his mind naturally desiderated, whither our Lord was going? No brainless or heartless unbelief led him to ask, "How can we know the way?" At last (John 20:24, etc.), when he wanted ocular, personal, tangible evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, and absented himself in deep melancholy from the company of the eleven, it is clear that his soul was ready for the full manifestation. Before he could have put his finger into the print of the nails, he exclaimed, with adoring gratitude, "MY LORD AND MY GOD!" His hesitation and his conviction, with his superlative ecstatic cry, form the culminating point of the Gospel. John 11:17-32 (2) Human affection drawing from Christ the assertion and promise, "I AM THE AND THE LIFE." John 11:17 So; or, thereupon; for οὖν not infrequently indicates the relation between two narratives, as well as between two state-meats or arguments. When Jesus came into the neighborhood of the village (see John 11:30), he found, on inquiry, that he (Lazarus) already £ during four days had been £ in the grave; or literally, had had four days. These four days are differently counted. Alford, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Lange, Gorier, Westcott, and Moulton believe that this mention proves that Lazarus died and was buried on the day on which the message was sent, which, if it took one day to deliver, and if one day had been consumed in the return of Jesus, would leave the other two days as those of the delay in Peraea. Meyer and Ewald, with Bengel and Watkins, think that he died at the conclusion of the delay, that Jesus became aware of it, and told his disciples of it, and spent the two days, or parts of them, in the journey; that on the fourth day he reached Bethany. The former and usual view is the more obvious one, although it must turn ultimately on the position of Bethany beyond Jordan. If the recent speculations of the Palestine Exploration Society and Caspari be correct, the distance between the two Bethanys may have required at least two days for the journey, and therefore favors the latter interpretation. If Bethany (Bethabara) be near Jericho, the distance between them would be much less, and the former and usual reckoning must prevail. John 11:18, John 11:19 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem. This geographical observation is introduced to explain the following verse. Meyer and Alford think that the use of the past tense, ἢν, may be perfectly justified in making reference to past events; yet, since John is the only New Testament writer who uses it, the usage may have been adopted by him because, at the time when he wrote his Gospel, Bethany had been for the time destroyed with Jerusalem itself. The construction is peculiar: ὡςἀπὸ. Many think that it is to be understood—about fifteen stadia from it—a kind of trajection of the preposition; but Winer thinks that it points to the spot where the fifteen stadia might be supposed to terminate, i.e. "lying off at the end of the fifteen stadia," and so giving an adverbial force to the preposition: and he adds a long list of similar constructions in later Greek writers. The stadium was 606.75 feet—less than the eighth of an English mile; the distance was therefore between a mile and a half and a mile and three quarters. And many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary. "The Jews" is a phrase generally, not uniformly, used by John to denote those permanently hostile to our Lord, and often of the upper and ruling classes. These, therefore, had one more trial of faith, one further opportunity of recognizing his glory. Many of them came £ to Martha and Mary. They came to comfort them, according to ordinary usage among the Jews after bereavement. This ceremony often lasted seven days. Concerning (their £) brother. We cling to earthly love. The gush of strong affection that mourners lavish on the dead deepens their love to one another, and the praises of the departed often gild and almost pierce the veil itself. The fact that many Jews should have taken the trouble to journey nearly two miles to comfort the bereaved sisters shows that the family at Bethany was one of some wealth, position, and importance (cf. Matthew 26:6-13). If so, it is exceedingly unlikely that the narrative stands in any relation to the parable of the rich man and the beggar. John 11:20 The οὖν points back probably to John 11:1. The type of character so beautifully contrasted in the previous reference to the family at Bethany appears again, and confirms the historical character of Luk 10:38, etc., as well as of the narrative before us. Thoma says that this picture is "simply painted with synoptic color." Martha is the mistress of the house. Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house. Martha was a woman of impulse, energy, practical duty; like Peter, she was ready even to give advice to her Lord, and eager to put everybody in his rightful place. On the first opportunity she hastened at once to "meet" Jesus, even without at first warning her sister of his approach. Mary, contemplative, pensive, undemonstrative under ordinary circumstances, but with a great fund of love, was sitting in the house receiving the condolences of the Jews (cf. Luke 10:19). Weiss suggests that Jesus was well aware, from the station of the family, and from the fact that hitherto his own friendship for the sisters had not submitted them to the ban, that "many Jews" would have congregated in the house of mourning. Consequently, Jesus does not come straight to the house, but allows it to be known that he is there. John 11:21 Martha therefore (having met her Lord) said unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here—the εἰἦςὦδε expresses no complaint: "If thou hadst been here," a simple condition of what is now an impossible event—my brother had not died. Meyer says, "If thou weft making thy residence in Bethany rather than in Peraea." This is somewhat unnatural, and would have been a complaint. Her faith had at least ground enough for this assurance, but she mounts above it. The two sisters, with their contrasted natures, had grasped the life-giving, joy-diffusing, heaven-revealing powers of Jesus. They had believed in him, with a gracious abandonment of all prejudice and in the sweeping force of a great illuminating love. They had said often this same thing to one another, and now Martha pours her high persuasion into the ears of her Lord; but she proceeds further. John 11:22 And even now I know, that whatsoever thing thou shalt ask of God, God will give it thee. Νῦνοἶδα may be contrasted with John 11:27. In his presence she knows intuitively that nothing is impossible. The αἰτήση is a word of more human quality than that which our Lord customarily used for his own appeals to God. He spoke of ἐρωτᾶν, to seek as an equal; παρακαλεῖν, to intercede for another; προσεύχεσθαι, to pray; δεῖσθαι, to supplicate. It was appropriate enough that Martha should use the verb αἰτήση. Her word was a burst of excited feeling, and does not dictate to the Master what he should do. Her twofold mention of the name of God with "thou" and "thee," shows that she had not risen to highest light on the Lord’s mysterious relation to the Father. She speaks of him and to him as of a strangely gifted human Friend. But she had doubtless heard of the widow of Nain, and of Jairus’s daughter, and she made no irrational suggestion. The ὅσα covers much. Jesus loved Lazarus. He was Friend to the whole group, and known to them all. John 11:23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Hengstenberg thinks that the reply of Jesus is a grand dogmatic assertion of the resurrection of the dead, in special application to Lazarus, and it covers the kind of ἀνάστασις which takes place at death, as well as the resurrection at the last day. If so, surely our Lord would have said, "Lazarus is risen again." The Lord does elsewhere speak of the dead as risen, and of their angelic state, and of all the dead living unto God; but he is here speaking of the immediate resurrection of Lazarus from what is called death to that which is called life, and which would be a pledge and type of the final resurrection of all. John 11:24 Martha saith to him, I know that he will rise again at the resurrection in the last day. Some disappointment is revealed in this speech, such as we have all felt with the promise of an ultimate resurrection, when the grave has closed over some dear friend. We find small relief in the assurance. The old ties are snapped, the old ways are at an end. We shall go to the dead: he will not return to us. The last day is too far off to comfort us concerning our brother. That the answer of Martha is important as revealing belief in the resurrection at the last day; of which, however, it must be remembered those who had heard our Lord’s own assertions about it could no longer have doubted (John 6:39, John 6:40, John 6:44, John 6:54; John 12:48). The teachings of Jesus in this Gospel with reference to eternal life made the promise of resurrection, the transfiguration of the physical life of man, a necessity, not a contradiction. The reply of Martha shows that she does not as yet grasp the whole truth. "The last day" may be far nearer in her thought than we now know it to have been, or them it is to us; still, however near, it would imply a complete transformation of all these sweet human relationships. She longed to have the home as it was before Lazarus died. It is, however, of very great interest that we have, on the part of a Jew, this profound expectation of resurrection and immortality. Jews, or at least Pharisees, had derived from Old Testament thought—from Genesis, and from Job, and from the Psalter, from the Books of Daniel and Ezekiel, and from the progress of human thought as evinced in ’Wisdom of Solomon’—a great belief in both. Martha reveals incidentally the new light which had been cast on the mystery of the grave by the words and acts of Jesus. John 11:25, John 11:26 Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection. Not merely that God will give me what I ask, but that I am in some sense already his gift to man of resurrection, inasmuch as I am that of Life. (So Luthardt and Godet, but not Meyer, who makes ζωή the positive result of ἀνάστασις.) By taking humanity into his Person, Christ reveals the permanence of human individuality, that is, of such individuality as is in union with himself. He associates (John 14:6) "the Life" which he gives with" the Way" and "the Truth," i.e. with the whole sum of human experience and of human meditation and speculation, i.e. with all the conduct of the will and the mind. He that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live. In these words he identifies the "life" with the transfiguration of the bodily life. The grand method of this blessed life is faith. The life which is the condition and ground of resurrection is the natural consequence of a faith which accepts Christ, and identifies itself with him. But "there are some who have believed, and have what you call died"—though they die, they shall live. In such cases, so-called "death" is veritable "life." The life of faith will survive the shock of death, and whosoever liveth, and believeth on me, shall never die—shall never taste of death (cf. John 6:51, John 8:51). This is no new teaching for the more thoughtful of his hearers. There are multitudes now believing (and therefore living) in him. They shall never die in the sense in which death has been hitherto regarded; they shall by no means die forever. Faith is eternal life: death is only a momentary shadow upon a life which is far better. Whether the corruption of the grave passes over the believer or not, he lives an eternal life, which has no element of death nor proclivity to death in it. So far the Lord is lifting Martha to a higher experience of life and a comparative in difference to death. Before he offers any further consolation, he probes to the quick her faith in him and in the eternal life. Believest thou this? Τοῦτο; "Is this thy belief?" not τουτῷ; "Dost thou believe in my statement?" "Believest thou that the Resurrection which I am and which I give can thus transform for thee the whole meaning of death?" The fullness of life after death is assured in virtue of the resurrection which Christ could effect at any moment, and will eventually effect for all. This life of which Christ speaks may be the life which is the consequence of the resurrection (ἀνὰστασις) of man effected in the Incarnation, or it may be the condition of "resurrection" and sufficient proof that, if a man receive it by faith, he is free’ from all the curse of physical death, and assured of a perfect victory over it. So also the οὐμὴεἰςτὸναἰῶνα may either mean "not forever," and thus the words may be taken to refer to the resurrection. "He will not forever die," i.e. death may supervene, but will be conquered; or οὐμὴ may mean "never," "in no wise," and the "never die" may refer to spiritual death, overlooking physical death altogether. The whole narrative is a great parable of life through death. John 11:27 She saith unto him: Yea, Lord. The reply admits the τοῦτο; Many seem to think that Martha falls back on theocratic technicality after a high flight of faith, and leaves the solution of her deepest anxieties to the Lord. I have believed, not now for the first time, that thou art the Christ of all our highest hopes and of our prophetic Scriptures—the Son of God in the sense in which Nathanael, and the healed blind man, and the heroic Peter, and John the Baptist have regarded thee, not now dawning on the world as an unexpected apparition, but long since awaited—even he that cometh into the world, the Hope of all, in fact, the Resurrection and the Life because the Christ, and the Christ because the Son of God. In her great faith these deeper truths, just announced, are implicitly involved. John 11:28 When she had said this, £ she departed, and called Mary her sister secretly. Observe the important emendation of text from ταῦτα to τοῦτο. When she had made this great utterance, her heart is big with hope. The grim shadow of death is now transparent to a heavenly light. She must share her hope with her sister. Jesus gave the commission to fetch Mary, as is obvious from the words of Martha which follow. The term "secretly" (λάθρα), when elsewhere used, precedes the verb with which it is associated, and therefore here it is joined with εἰποῦσα, whispering to her, lest the hostile Jews should hear and intercept the interview. The Master (the Teacher) used absolutely (cf. John 13:13)—is here, and calleth for thee. Sacred summons! Martha expected (as Euthymius suggested) that some blessing might come from his words. John 11:29 And she, as soon as she heard, arose (aorist) quickly, and went forth to (meet) him (imperfect); or, was £ on the way to come to him—a vivid touch conveyed by the change of tense which has been introduced into the text by the Revisers. The summons is met by prompt obedience, and we see it in immediate resolution and activity. John 11:30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the village, but was still £ in that place where Martha met him. At no great distance from the grave or from the village. The Lord probably sought to comfort the sisters apart from the crowd. Thus say most commentators. This is not in the text. If it were his purpose, it was frustrated. Hengstenberg thinks our Lord did not object to the crowds witnessing the miracle, but if so, it would be without any arrangement on his part. John 11:31 The Jews therefore who were with her in the house, and were comforting her. If the "Jews" (see note, John 11:19) were comforting Mary, and (John 11:37) recognized his love in its Divine depths, and if (see John 11:45) (πολλοὶ) "many believed on him," and only (τινές) some of them (John 11:46) made the stupendous miracle a new occasion for expressing their inveterate malignity, there is no reason to import the element of hostility into the word ἰδόντες. When they observed Mary, that she suddenly rose and (silently) went out (of the house), followed her, supposing that she goeth £ to the grave to wail there. This custom was followed widely in the East, £ and is still observed in Roman Catholic communities. The word κλαίω is to be carefully distinguished from δακρύω of John 11:35; it denotes the loud expressive wailing and manifestation of grief of which so many instances occur, while the latter word means the shedding of tears. "Wailing" is often the regulated expression of professional grief; "weeping" the irresistible burst of personal sorrow. The first may be violent and obtrusive, the other silent and pathetic. John 11:32 Mary therefore, when she came where Jesus was, and when she saw him, fell at his feet, and in other ways showed more intensity of feeling than did the energetic sister, who in many ways is the feminine type of what Peter was as a man. She is not altogether silent, but sobbed forth the very words which her sister had uttered before. Thus had they often said one to another while Lazarus was yet alive, "Oh that the Lord Jesus were here!" Lord, said she, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. The position of μου, which in some manuscripts was placed before ἀπέθανεν is here emphatic, as though Mary had in some way especially claimed Lazarus as her brother more than Martha’s. She does not add a word of remonstrance or suggestion. She moans forth the same confident expression of her sense of the love and power of Jesus. John 11:33-44 (3) The struggle with death. John 11:33 When Jesus therefore saw her walling, and the Jews wailing who came with her, he was moved with indignation in the spirit, and troubled himself. The sight of the wailing Mary and the wailing Jews, who took up her grief and, according to Oriental custom, adopted her expression of it with loud cries and emphatic gestures, praising the dead, and lamenting his loss, produced a most wonderful impression on the Lord Jesus. Meyer thinks that the contrast between their hypocritical or professional tears and her genuine emotion, the blending of these incongruous elements, the combination of a profound affliction of a dear friend and the simulated grief of his bitter enemies, led him to manifest the feeling here described. But we have no right to import such an element into the scene. The concerted wailing was, however, the occasion of what is described in very remarkable terms, ἐνεβριμήσατοτῷπνεύματικαὶἐτάραξενἑαυτόν. The first expression occurs again in John 11:38. Westcott says in the three places where it elsewhere occurs there is "the notion of coercion arising out of displeasure," a motion "towards another of anger rather than sorrow." The verb βριμάομαι and its compounds is used in the classics and the LXX. in the sense of hot anger, neither pain nor grief. Luther translated it ergrimmete, and Passow gives no other meaning. This seems generally accepted. But at what was Jesus angered? This can be answered only by deciding whether τῷπνεύματι is the dative of the object, or whether it is the instrument or sphere of his holy indignation. According to the old Greek expositors, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact—and they are followed by Alford and Hilgenfeld, the latter of whom finds in it a hint of the Gnostic Christology which, in his opinion, pervades the Gospel—the anger might have been directed against his own human spirit, at that moment tempted into an unfilial strain of sympathy with the mourners; yet, if this be its meaning, why was it that Jesus subsequently wept himself? and why, instead of exciting himself, instead of shuddering with his bitterness of feeling, did he not (as Hengstenberg says) compose and quiet himself? Beside, τῇψυχῇ would have been a far more appropriate term to use for the effective and sympathetic part of his nature than πνεύματι. It is possible, if "the spirit" expresses that part of his human nature in special fellowship with the Father, to suppose that he felt a certain antagonism with that within himself which had prompted to some immediate manifestation of Divine power, and to translate, "He sternly checked his spirit." But the miracle of Divine struggle with death followed so immediately that this cannot be the true explanation (Westcott suggests it as an alternative, but not the best interpretation). The τῷπνεύματι, must be the sphere of his holy wrath, for which we must find some explanation. Meyer’s seems (as already said) to be altogether insufficient. So also in our opinion is that of Godet, viz. that this act of victorious conflict with death, on which he was entering, involved his own death-warrant by being the occasion of the last outbreak of malice on the part of the Jews. Such a fact would be out of harmony, not only with the Fourth Gospel, but with the (synoptic) struggle in Gethsemane. Now, without enumerating various other interpretations of the passage, we think Augustine, Erasmus, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Moulton, meet our difficulty by the suggestion that death itself occasioned this indignation. Though, like the good Physician in the house of mourning, he knew the issue of his mighty act, yet he entered with vivid and intense human sympathy into all the primary and secondary sorrows of death. He saw the long procession of mourners from the first to the last, all the reckless agony, all the hopelessness of it, in thousands of millions of instances. There flashed upon his spirit all the terrible moral consequences of which death was the ghastly symbol. lie knew that within a short time he too, in taking upon himself the sins of men, would have taken upon himself their death, and there was enough to rouse in his spirit a Divine indignation, and he groaned and shuddered. He roused himself to a conflict which would be a prelibation of the cross and the burial. He took the diseases of men upon himself when he took them away. He took the death-agony of Lazarus and the humiliation of the grave and the tears of the sisters upon himself when he resolved to cry, "Lazarus, come forth!" and to snatch from the grasp of the grim conqueror for a little while one of his victims. Compare the toil of Hercules in wrestling with death for the wife of Admetus. Compare also John 13:21, where moral proximity to the treacherous heart and ghastly deed and approaching doom of Judas made him once more to shudder. John 11:34 And he said, Where have ye laid him? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. A strange echo of Joh 1:39 (cf. Revelation 6:1, Revelation 6:5, Revelation 6:7)—Christ asking for information. The Lord was answered out of his own words. His mind was made up. John 11:35 Jesus wept. The shortest verse, but one of the most suggestive in the entire Scripture. The great wrath against death is subdued now into tears of love, of sympathy, and of deep emotion. Jesus shed tears of sympathetic sorrow. This is in sacred and eternal refutation of the theory which deprives the incarnate Logos of St. John of human heart and spirit. These tears have been for all the ages a grand testimony to the fullness of his humanity, and also a Diving revelation of the very heart of God (see Isaiah 25:8). It was not a κλαυθμός, as the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), but profound and wondrous fellow-feeling with human misery in all its forms, then imaged before him in the grave of Lazarus. It is akin to the judicial blindness which has obscured for the Tübingen school so much of the glory of Divine revelation, that Baur should regard this weeping of Jesus as unhistorical. John 11:36, John 11:37 The Jews therefore said, Behold how he loved him! But some of them said, Could not this Man, who opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that this man also should not die? The effect upon the Ἰουδαῖοι differs here, as always; but if (πολλοὶ, John 11:45) many were favorably impressed, we may believe here that the πολλοὶ said one to another with genuine emotion, "Behold how he loved him!" (ἐφίλει, not ἠγάπα; amabat, not diligebat). Tears are often the expression of love as well as grief. Hengstenberg sees in the cry of the better class of these Jews, "How has he then let him die?" probably he could not have helped him if he would. In the language of the other Jews there was the suggestion of inability, and the ironical hint that the cure of the blind man, which had created so great a commotion, was only a delusion. Perhaps, too, a covert expectation of some further display of wonder-working power. Strauss regards it as unhistorical that the previous restorations from the dead should not be cited. But surely, when John wrote this Gospel, the story of the widow’s son and of Jairus’s daughter was known throughout the world. And if, in the middle of the second century, this Gospel had been written by a speculative theologian, who deliberately set himself to concoct such a narrative as this, with the view of completing the picture of the vanquisher of Hades, he would most certainly have cited the Galilaean miracles. John, however, is merely recording his own experiences. These Jews at that time may never have heard of either Nain or the daughter of Jairus, and spoke merely of that which was within their own recollection and experience. As they stand here, these words are striking testimony to their historical validity. The Gospel which most unequivocally establishes the claim of our Lord to a Divine Personality or subsistence, is more explicit than any of them in asserting his pure humanity, and giving proofs of it. John 11:38 Jesus therefore again moved with indignation within himself. The (ἐνἑαυτῷ) "in himself" is not so forcible an expression as "shuddering in his spirit (John 11:33), but it implies a continuity of grand, holy indignation against the anomaly of death, from which the human family and he as its Representative were suffering (cf. John 11:33). He cometh to the grave. The (μνημεῖον or) tomb is forthwith described as (σπήλαιον) a den, cavern, or cave, from σπέος, spelunca, of which, partly natural, partly artificial, abundant use was made in the East. A stone lay (ἐπαὐτῷ) against it; or, over it; i.e. either closing it up as a pit, or closing the mouth of it, by being rolled along a ledge horizontal with the base of the excavation. The former kind of cave is shown at Bethany, but no dependence can be placed on the tradition. The tomb of Joseph was that of a rich man, and all these circumstances show opulence, rather than the beggary and rags of the Lazarus of the parable. John 11:39 Jesus saith, Take ye away the stone. Ἄρατε has rather the idea of "lift" than "roll away;" it is used for "take," "take away," "carry as a burden." Martha, the sister of him that was dead, £ said unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been four days here. Martha’s language is another singular illustration of the desire on her part to give a certain kind of advice and direction to our Lord, as though he might be the wiser and bettor for her monitions. The characterization of her as "£the sister of the dead" man is not needed for identification, but rather to explain or justify her intrusion upon the solemn, stately direction of the Lord. She shrank from such an exposure of the body of her beloved brother, as an unnecessary act, since he was only to rise at the last day, or to be regarded by his faith in Christ before his death as having already passed from death and through death into a new life. She must have relinquished at that moment all hope of resurrection of the body of Lazarus there and then: ἤδηὄζει, "he already stinketh." This is explained by many of the Fathers as proof that our Lord not only raised from death-swoon Jairus’s daughter, and the young man on his way to burial, but also a putrefying corpse; thus giving three symbols of the effects of sin: (1) a young life blighted; (2) a man’s energies dissipated and his condition apparently hopeless; and (3) a type also of one dead in trespasses and sins (Trench on the Miracles) —one whose habits of trespass and bondage to evil seem to forbid all renewal. Godet thinks that Martha had special reasons for such a speech. Others, that all that we have here is the speculation or lanai of Martha, and that it must be so. She puts one more arrest, as it would seem, upon the free act and love of Jesus. This seems quite sufficient to account for the use of the word. It would seem that, for some reason, the body had not been fully embalmed, or she would not have used the expression. Still, all had been done with spices and perfumes that was intended. The Tübingen criticism eagerly lays hold on this point, as proof that the fourth evangelist intended by such a touch to exalt and exaggerate the wonder-working power of Christ. There is no need whatever to see in it more than Martha’s sisterly love getting the better of her submission to her Master’s order. Τετερταῖοςγάρἐστι, £ "For he is of the fourth day (dead) (buried)." On the fourth day the countenance changes, and, as the Jewish proverb urged, the spirit takes its flight from the sepulcher, and no longer hovers over the departed form. John 11:40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou believedst, thou shouldst see the glory of God? This was a probable reference to the language of Joh 11:4, and also to the teaching of Joh 11:25, John 11:26, where our Lord had encouraged her imperfect faith in himself to become a veritable vision of Divine glory. Out of the deepest humiliation comes the highest glory, The putrefaction of the grave is a stepping-stone to his throne. More is meant than the physical resurrection of Lazarus. She would or might by faith see the glory of Divine power and love which would, by what was about to happen, dawn upon her. Christ was going to prove to faith that he could and would destroy the power of death, rob him of sting, swallow up the grave in victory, and proclaim the everlasting curse of this mysterious flesh of ours to be a vanquished foe. John 11:41 Then they took away the stone [£ from the place where the dead was laid]. They lifted the stone, and Jesus lifted up his eyes to heaven. This is not to be taken as an ordinary prayer, but a thanksgiving for prayer already heard. "Jesus lifted up his eyes," i.e. to heaven—to that sublime symbol of the infinite activity of God, which surrounds us day and night, and which is in numerous religious systems made a type and image of the Divine Being himself; nor does our modern conception of the universe dethrone it from this high place. Christ’s language is thanksgiving that God has already heard him. Godet and Hengstenberg say that Jesus thanked God in anticipation of the miracle, as though it were already done. Meyer and Alford look back to some earlier prayers. But surely there is some reason for the thanksgiving. The stone is lifted, or removed; there lies the corpse, but no dank sepulchral vapor issues from it; rather some sign is given that prayer offered by Christ had been already heard, and that death has not made the havoc with the frame which would otherwise have occurred. Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me. When he uttered the prayer we cannot say; but we know that his mind was greatly exercised concerning his friend before he left Peraea. His words confess that his wishes have been in harmony with the Divine eternal will. So elsewhere the Lord tells his disciples, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you;" i.e. "your desires will be in harmony with the Divine purpose; you will not be able to pray for anything either temporal or spiritual which God will not bestow, has not indeed prepared himself to bestow and you to receive." This is the true mystery and meaning of prayer. The hypothesis of the twofold nature of Christ, instead of being shipwrecked on the fact of his prayers and intercessions, throws light on the very nature of prayer itself. John 11:42 And I knew that thou hearest me always, but because of the multitude which standeth around I said it, that they may believe that thou didst send me. This great utterance declares all the intimate relation which subsists between the Father of all and the Son in Jesus. A continuous absolute communion is ever going on between heaven and earth in the heart of Jesus. His consciousness of the Father is a door opened in heaven. Alas! these words have been a stumbling-block to many; have suggested to Baur the idea of a "show-prayer," and to Weisse a "deceptive prayer" (schaugebet), and to Strauss that they were introduced into a later but in-authentic narrative of the second century to establish the Divinity of Christ. The simple fact is that the words are not "petition" at all, but they are spoken thought and Divine communion, graciously unveiled for the advantage of the disciples. They are built upon the wonderful assurance which had been repeatedly given by our Lord of his union with and association in unique Personality with the Father. We see from John 16:29-31 that the profound desire occupying the heart of Jesus was that his disciples, first of all, should know that he came out from God, and almost with pathetic eagerness he asks them, "Do ye now believe?" But in John 17:21 he shows that his wishes were not limited to the faith of disciples, but extended to the production of a like conviction in the κόσμος. Here he says, after a pause, "I know that thou art hearing me always." There is no surprise in the discovery that Lazarus was as he really is. Christ’s own prayers are always heard, even those in Gethsemane and on the cross (cf. Hebrews 5:7, εἰσακουσθεὶςἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας). I said it for the multitude that standeth around. The use of ὄχλονπεριεστῶτα rather than Ἰουδαίους reveals the genuine language of our Lord rather than that of the evangelist. To what does he refer, what saying has he uttered for the sake of this miscellaneous group? Surely to the great declaration, "I thank thee that thou heardest me." His reason for the audible utterance of his gratitude is, "That they may believe that thou didst send me." If he had not uttered this thanksgiving, the multitude would have glorified him rather than his Father, nor would they have learned, as now they may, that he came forth from God. John 11:43 And when he had thus spoken, he cried with loud voice. Ἐκραύγασε is used of the shout of a multitude (John 12:13, R.T.; John 18:40; John 19:6, John 19:15), and implies the loud, imperative command to Death to give up his prey, and relinquish the grasp which had, in answer to his prayer, been already relaxed. The loud voice keeps up the image that death is a deep sleep. The critical moment in Christ’s own career has arrived, when, having pledged the rather to this manifestation of his own glory, he was prepared to take this final step, however perilous to himself; one which would finally demonstrate whether he was sent from God, or was merely boasting a power he did not possess (cf. Elijah and the priests of Baal, 1 Kings 18:1-46.). Observe the loud voice, Lazarus, come forth! or, (Hither, out!); or, Veni foras! (Origen, Chrysostom, Lampe, suggest that the awakening from death had already taken place. Meyer and Alford condemn this. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ The twelfth chapter neither belongs intrinsically to that which precedes nor to that which follows. It is a paragraph of high significance, as bearing on the construction of the Gospel. It is the transition between the public and the private ministry, the great pause between the two classes of manifestation forming the climax of the public ministry. III. OF THE PUBLIC . John 12:1-8 1. The feast of love and gratitude. John 12:1 Jesus therefore, six days before the Passover. Every preliminary of that solemn feast is memorable to our evangelist. The coincidence of the Passover feast and the killing of the Paschal lamb, with the sacrifice of "Christ our Passover," cannot be concealed. [For the grammatical construction with πρὸ, cf. note, John 11:18, where a similar use of ἀπό occurs; not, however, a Latinism, as some have supposed, as similar phrases are found in good Greek.] The date from which the calculation is made is complicated with the intricate controversy upon the day of our Lord’s death, i.e. whether he suffered on the 14th or 15th of Nisan, and whether a "harmony" is possible or not with the statements of the synoptists, who all three assert that our Lord ate the Passover with his disciples £. However this matter be finally settled, if the 14th of Nisan was the day on which the Passover was killed, "between the evenings," the 13th was reckoned as the first day before the Passover, and the sixth day would be the 8th of Nisan. If the weekly sabbath occurred on the 16th, then the 9th also was a sabbath. The Lord would then have reached Bethany on the eve of the sabbath, and have rested on the sabbath itself. The evening of the 9th would be the occasion of the feast, and the 10th would correspond with Palm Sunday. If the Lord were crucified on the 14th, and the weekly sabbath coincided with the Passover-day of convocation, the 15th, then the previous sabbath was on the 8th, and our Lord must have reached Bethany in "the end of the sabbath," and then the feast was on the following day. When Jesus halted at Bethany, the vast crowd of pilgrims advanced into the suburbs of Jerusalem, encamping on the Mount of Olives, and would be ready for the great demonstration of the next day. Westcott, after Bengel, observes that John’s Gospel begins and ends with a sacred week (cf. John 1:29-35, John 1:43; John 2:1). Jesus therefore, sis days before the Passover, came to Bethany. The quiet rest of that last sabbath with the family at Bethany is a thought full of suggestion. Thoma accounts for the triumphal feast and anointing, "six days before the Passover," as answering to the day on which the lamb was separated from other and secular animals, and consecrated for this holy service (Exodus 12:3-6; Hebrews 7:26). The segregation, however, was partial or premature, and the anointing (see below) took place five days before the Passover. It is not said that the day of his arrival at Bethany is the day of the festive welcome. Bethany is described as the place where Lazarus was. The explanatory clause, £ he who had been dead, is not necessary, as the evangelist limits and explains sufficiently the great motive for his pause and presence at Bethany by adding, whom he (Jesus) raised from the dead. It is extraordinary that some most able expositors should be so unwilling to accept the synchronous statements of the synoptists. Their narrative is not out of harmony with the hypothesis that our Lord passed the previous days with the pilgrim-band from Peraea, and that, taking the head of the procession as it was passing through Jericho., he should thus have distinctly challenged the authorities, and taken up the public position to which they were anxious he should lay claim. By his visit to the house of Zacchaeus he proclaimed the new feature and spirit of his kingdom; by healing the blind man he gave a typical illustration of the work of grace needed by all his disciples; by resting at the home where human love and Divine power had been so wonderfully blended he called the most solemn attention to his supreme claims; by pressing on with urgency up the steep mountain pathway at the head of his disciples he seemed to be ready, in his own words, "to lay down his life, that he might take it again." The οὖν, according to Meyer, is simply the resumption of the narrative, but surely those are right who regard it as a distinct reference to John 11:55. The Sanhedrists had given the ἐντολή that if any knew where he was, they should declare it. Christ was resolved, now that his hour was come, to lift the whole responsibility from his friends, and take it upon himself. The other evangelists do not mention the halt. Their purpose was not a chronological one. They give the narrative of the anointing apart from its deepest meanings and consequences, apart from any references to Lazarus. There are other subtle omissions from the synoptists, the difficulties of which must be settled as between themselves. Thus, according to Mark 11:12 and Mark 11:20, an interval of a whole day and night took place between the withering of the fig tree and the conversation about it, but Matthew makes the conversation follow immediately upon the miracle. In like manner, John abstains from any reference to the discussions in the temple, to the withering of the fig tree, to the cleansing of the temple, or to the parables which followed. John 12:2 There, therefore, they made him a supper, and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. John does not tell us in whose house "they made the dinner" or supper, and unless Simon the leper is a member of the family, we cannot suppose that it was in the quiet home of Bethany that this feast in honor of Jesus was held, but that it took place, as the synoptists positively declare, "in the house of Simon the leper." Simon may easily have been one of the many lepers whom our Lord had healed, and whose soul was filled with accordant gratitude. At that table there would be seated two transcendent; proofs of the power of Jesus to save, not only from the semblance but from the reality of death (see Meyer; Matthew 26:6). We wonder, with Godet, that Meyer should reject this simple supposition as "spurious harmony." All that is here stated is in agreement with it: (1) that Martha should have shown her reverence by serving her Lord, according to her wont, not necessarily as hostess (Hengstenberg and Lange), but as the expression of her devoted thankfulness; (2) that Lazarus should have been one of those who sat at meat, reclined at table, with him, i.e. took a position as a guest, like himself; and (3) that Mary should have poured forth her costly spikenard, in royal self-forgetting love. The conduct of all the three thus mentioned is compatible with the fact stated in the synoptic narrative, that the festival was celebrated in the house of Simon the leper. Our Lord had commented, in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:44, etc.), on the absence of the customary anointing with oil. Mary knew of this, and resolved that, whatever the woman who was a sinner had done, no similar act of neglect should occur on that memorable evening. A chronological discrepancy renders an identification of the synoptic narrative of Matthew with this story perplexing. In Matthew 26:2 we are brought to within two days of the Passover, whereas here we cannot well be less than five days before it. However, there is nothing in Matthew 26:6-13 which indubitably declares the date of the supper The "two days" may refer to the date of Judas’s treachery, after mentioning which he goes back to an event which furnished occasion and temptation to the avaricious mind of Judas. John 12:3 Mary therefore took a pound of ointment ("liquid perfume," sometimes added to the more ordinary oil), of pure (or possibly; pistie) nard. Mark uses this unusual word πιστικός, which belongs to later Greek. The derivation of πιστκτικός from πίνω, equivalent to "potable," is not appropriate in meaning, though this "nard" was used for perfuming wine. In Mark 14:3 also the Authorized version translates it "spikenard," as it does here (cf. also Son 1:12 and Son 4:13, Son 4:14, where Hebrew דְּרְןֵ corresponds with νάρδος). But the one place where the word was supposed to be found in Aristotle is now seen not to be πισττικός, but πειστικός, trustworthy, or unadulterated. It is possible that the word may have had a local geographical value, belonging to some proper name, and is untranslatable. Very precious. Mark (Mark 14:3) uses the word πολυτελοῦς, and Matthew (Matthew 26:7) βαρυτίμου. John appears to combine the idea of both words in his πολυτίμον. Each of the synoptists severally mentions a fact which John omits—that Mary broke the alabaster box, and poured the costly unguent on his head in rich abundance, as though hers had been the royal or high-priestly anointing (cf. Psalms 133:1-3.); but John shows that this at least was not all she did. She anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. Thoma thinks that, conformably with John’s idea, the anointing of the head of the true High Priest was the work of God alone, quoting Philo’s comment on Le John 21:10, etc., "The head of the Loges, as High Priest, is anointed with oil, i.e. his innermost essence gleams with dazzling light;" and adds, that as the feet of the high priest were washed with water from recent defilement of the world’s dust, so God’s anointed Lamb and Priest was anointed on his feet with the spikenard of faith, the best and costliest thing that man could offer. So profound an analogy seems to us contrary to the simplicity of the narrative, which is perfectly natural in its form. The perfumed nard ran down to the Savior’s feet and the skirts of his garments, and there accumulating, the significant act is further recounted how Mary wiped off the superfluous perfume from his feet with the tresses of her loosened hair. This simple act proclaimed the self-humiliation and adoration of her unbounded love, seeing that the loosening of a woman’s hair was a mark of unusual self-abandonment, Many most unnecessary inferences have been drawn from this. John adds an interesting feature, revealing the sensitive eye-witness of the scene, "and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment;" and the whole house of God ever since has been fragrant with her immortal and prophetic act. John 12:4 But Judas the Iscariot, one of his disciples £, who was about to betray him, said. The speaker here is singled out by name. Matthew refers the speech to the disciples generally, in whom the suggestion of Judas had stirred up (without guile or blame on their part) a not unnatural inquiry. Mark says "some" murmured to themselves, "Why this waste?" (loss, destruction). John (without the malice which Renan has attributed to the writer) mentions the source of the suggestion, "Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son." The word Σίμωνος, contained in T.R., is omitted here in the best texts. The fact that he was the traitor, being one of the well-known and awful events of the gospel history when John wrote some half a century later, might well be introduced by the evangelist, with no other than a purely historical motive. John 12:5, John 12:6 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? Sinful motive often hides itself under the mask of reverence for another virtue. In Mark’s Gospel the same price was put upon the pound of pure nard as that which is mentioned here—about f10 of our money. Christ had given emphatic advice about generosity to the poor, and even during this very week (John 13:29) it is clear that his words were not forgotten, and in his great discourse, probably also delivered during this same week, he identified himself with the poor (Matthew 25:35, etc.), and called for unreserved consideration of them; so that this language was not unnatural. The value of this ointment is another minute indication that there is no connection between the Lazarus of John and the Lazarus of the parable. But John adds that the utter lack of perception on Judas’s part of Mary’s self-devotion was prompted by the most unworthy motive. The suggestion of Judas is put down by the evangelist to the sheerest covetousness. During the interval that elapsed, Judas had revealed his character, and John did not hesitate to refer the suggestion to the traitor. Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor. He really cared nothing for the poor. He was ambitious, eager for the display of the Master’s power, anxious for the rewards which might follow the Master’s assumption of supreme authority, turning to his own account all that might happen. But because he was a thief, and having £ possession of the common purse (the word γλωσσόκομος, which occurs in the sense of a chest (2 Chronicles 24:8), has a curious etymology, which had passed out of recognition; from γλώσσα and κομέω comes γλωσσοκομεῖον, that in which month-pieces of flutes might be kept in safety, and subsequently a chest or box for the safe guardianship of other valuables), he was the bearer—perhaps, bore array (see John 20:15, and Josephus, ’ Ant.,’ John 7:15. 3, for this use of βαστάζω), at all events had at his disposal—of the things which were cast, in generous profusion, into it. Thoma makes the astounding suggestion that "John" here covertly refers to Simon Magus of Act 8:18, etc. The question is often asked—Why was Judas entrusted with the common purse? Was it not likely to aggravate a disposition to which he was prone? Did not Jesus know what was in man? and had he not discerned the propensity of Judas (see John 6:71)? In reply: (1) The appointment may have been made by the apostles themselves. (2) Our Lord may not have interfered with it, deeming confidence more likely to help him than distrust. (3) It may also show how, if men will yield themselves to sin, God will not and does not promise them immunity from temptation, but sometimes even brings them into it. (4) The purse might have been a preservative against the vile temptation to sell his Master, and a test and motive for self-con-quest. John 12:7 The two readings of the text must here be compared with one another and with the synoptic narrative. The T.R. reads, Let her alone: £ unto the day of the preparation for my burial she has carefully guarded this precious perfume. This is, in one sense, that very day, and she has found out the solemn fact in a way in which the disciples had as yet failed to do. With this agrees the language of the synoptists," Why trouble ye the woman? she hath wrought a good work on me;… she hath done that which was possible to her (ὃἐσχενἐποίησεν)" of Mark 14:8. In fact, Mark expressly conveys this thought—"she has anticipated the anointing of my body for the burial." If we have the direct testimony of Mark (i.e. Peter), Christ must have expressed himself thus. Matthew also in different words records the same pathetic and subtle thought: "For in that she poured [cast] this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial" (John 26:12) Hengstenberg, Godet, and Stier abide by the reading of the T.R.; but the principal manuscripts, in most powerful combination, have led Lachmann, Alford, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort to read here, Ἵναεἰςτὴνἡμέραντοῦἐνταφιασμοῦτηρήσηαὐτό, "In order that she may keep or guard this for the day of my burial." Westcott says that the synoptists imply rather, by the word κατέχεεν, that She had not already consumed the whole of the ointment. Meyer, with this text, translates, "Let her alone, that she may preserve it (this ointment, of which she has just poured some over my feet) for the day of my embalmment." This certainly seems inconsistent with the complaint of the disciples or of Judas, at the apparently superfluous expenditure, and would compel us to restrict the abed to the unused portion. The advocates of the T.R. reading say that it represents the original text, which has been altered by criticism arising from misunderstanding of the idea of the day of burial having ideally arrived; but why did they not alter on the same principle the language of the synoptists? The advocates of Lachmann’s text say that it has been altered by copyists, to bring it into accord with the text of the synoptists. Lange justifies the Revised version, "Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying," and puts it thus: "Permit her to keep it [i.e. to have kept the ointment which she might have used at the burial of Lazarus] for the day of my burial," now ideally present in the outbreak of Judas’s devilish malignity. So virtually Luthardt and Baumgarten-Crusius. Godet argues that this is forced and ungrammatical. But there is this advantage in it, that it brings the language into much closer relation with the synoptists. Westcott prefers the idea of Meyer. The older view is to me far mere satisfactory. Edersheim (2:35) adds to this, "Mary may have had that alabaster box from early days, before she had learned to serve Christ. When she understood that decease of which he constantly spake, she may have put it aside, "kept it," "against the day of his burying." And now the decisive hour is come. John 12:8 This verse is omitted in D, but abundantly attested here. It occurs almost verbatim in Matthew and Mark, and cannot be set aside on the authority of this one eccentric manuscript. For the poor ye have always with you (cf. Deuteronomy 15:11). You will always have opportunity of doing to them, as to representatives of me, what is in your heart of compassion (cf. Matthew 25:40-45). But me, as an object of personal, tangible regard and visible attention, deserving thus and ever the affluence and exuberance of your love, ye have not always; and, though I shall be with you always in my Divine power and Spirit, even unto the end of the world, and though I shall always be with you in the person of the poor and needy, yet in the sense in which this expression of love Can be made, I shall be absent. As though he had said, "After this very night, the opportunity to offer me affectionate attention or symbolic homage, to give expression to feelings in accordance with just presentiments as to my mission, will be over forever, and belong to the irrecoverable past—Now or never! She has done this thing, she will have everlasting remembrance thereby." The frankincense of the Wise Men, the ointment of Mary, the homage of the Greeks, were symbols, and can never be repeated. The greatest motive for generous and affectionate interest in the poor is that they represent the Lord; but they are not to be rivals of the Lord himself. Westcott remarks, "The promise of the future record of the act of love is omitted by the one evangelist who gives the name of the woman who showed this devotion to her Master." Moulton, "The very charity that cares for the poor whom we see has been kept alive by faith in and devotion to the crucified Redeemer whom we cannot see." John 12:9-11 2. The effects of the great sign. John 12:9 (1) On much people of the Jews. The article (ὁ), which the best texts introduce before ὄχλοςπολὺς, gives to these words an almost technical force. The huge multitude of the Jews—the surging crowd of ever-gathering pilgrims blended with the "common people," the bulk of the population of Jerusalem and its neighborhood (John 11:55, John 11:56)—therefore—because, i.e., of the rumors of the feast, the news of the royal consecration and sacred anointing, which had taken place in honor of Jesus and his last great miracle—learned that he was there—that he had left his unknown place of retirement at Ephraim. We gather from the synoptic narrative that he had joined the pilgrim-throng, advancing first into Jericho, and then, after a night spent there, had moved onwards to Bethany. The dispersion of hundreds of these excited followers into Jerusalem had again bruited abroad the fact of the resurrection of Lazarus, and, by reason of the Lord’s return to Bethany, the Jerusalem-party at length learned where he was. ὉὄχλοςἐκτῶνἸουδαίων shows an antithesis intended between the Judaean and the Galilean crowds. These the synoptists describe as "those that went before, and those that followed after." And they came, not for the sake of Jesus only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he raised from the dead. Jesus was not the only attraction; the risen man Lazarus was a rival in popularity, and by this ocular, tangible specimen of the supernatural resources of Jesus, they would deepen their interest and strengthen their convictions. Many of this Jerusalem populace, on account of him (Lazarus), and the fact of his resuscitation (ὑπῆγον), went away, perhaps, though not necessarily so, "apostatized," from the high-priestly party, from the hostile party in the capital, and separated themselves from the open but desperate plot against the Divine Master, and believed on Jesus—threw in their part and lot with the Lord and his disciples. This roused the malignity of the unspiritual and unscrupulous party of Caiaphas, of Annas, and of the Pharisees in the Sanhedrim John 12:10, John 12:11 (2) On the chief priests. The chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus. They deliberated to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus. It was not enough that one man should die; another and another must follow if their plan is to succeed. And now the hour had come (John 2:4; John 7:30), but not until our Lord once more warned the disciples with intense significance and explicitness of his approaching death and burial. Thus another striking illustration is given of the judgment, the crisis, the sifting process, which is always going on in the presence of Christ. His greatest signs, his wisest teachings, his most amazing love, bring out the twofold result. Some receive, some reject, some burst into louder acclaim, some try to slay. As with the history of this "Gospel," some hear in it the very voice of the Eternal, but there are others who would grind it to powder. Because Ignatius and Polycarp bear witness to the existence of the Gospel, these Lazaruses must be put to death, or banished to a later period out of harm’s way. Even the genuineness of the Apocalypse, so long a tower of defense for the Tübingen school, is too powerful a proof of St. John’s residence in Asia to be accepted with equanimity or left in possession, and some of the later critics have taken counsel to repudiate its Johannine authorship. John 12:12-19 3. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Christ’s challenge of the authorities, and its results. On the precise order of events it is difficult to speak with absolute decision. The main difference between the synoptists and John is in the break at Bethany of the journey from Jericho to Jerusalem, to introduce a feast, which is related afterwards by the synoptists, though not limited by them to any later chronological position. It should be observed, moreover, that the synoptic narrative contains numerous references to the residence in Bethany during several days of the week which followed. John adds important details, and while he omits the great discussions in the temple, the withering of the fig tree, the cleansing of the temple, the parables of the judgments on scribes and Pharisees, and the prophecy of the future, he portrays the inner life of the Lord, and records his most gracious esoteric teaching and sublime prayer. The current tradition of the Church, the distinct note of time for Christ’s arrival at Bethany (six days before the Passover), make the triumphal entry take place on Sunday afternoon (cf. verse 1) of Passion week. John 12:12, John 12:13 The next day (on the morrow) must be the day after the feast. We have seen that that feast probably took place on the evening of the sabbath. The events that happened are far more abundantly described in Matthew, Mark, and Luke—the excitement in Jerusalem, the method in which the triumph was carried through, the mode adopted to secure "the young ass," the weeping ever Jerusalem from the summit of the hill; none of these circumstances are inconsistent with this account. Brief, however, as our narrative is, it adds some features which are peculiar and highly historic. A £ vast crowd that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. These that had come from the country, and had already encamped near or in Jerusalem, came group after group to Bethany to escort him into the city. The synoptists, not mentioning the pause of the sabbath at Bethany, and not clearly indicating where and when the feast at Bethany took place, naturally connect the journey from Jericho with the entrance into Jerusalem. John explains, in addition, that there were of the Jerusalemites themselves certain who had been led to go to Bethany and throw in their lot with the Lord. The early pilgrims mentioned in John 11:55, John 11:56, also came forth from the city to hail and welcome his approach. Took branches of the palm trees, and went forth to meet him. The synoptists had mentioned that the triumphant host had cut "branches," κλάδους (Matthew 21:8), from the trees, and Mark (Mark 11:8) had said στιβάδας, fragments of trees, grass, small branches, that could be strewn in the way. Luke (Luke 19:35) simply mentions the garments thus strewn—a fact mentioned also by Mark and Matthew. Our narrative gives greater definiteness, and even adds a new feature, by speaking of τὰβαίατῶνφοινίκων, "the palm branches of the palm trees," which they waved probably in triumph, as they had been accustomed to do in token of the approach of a conqueror (cf. 1 Macc. 13:51, where Simon’s return to the city was celebrated with "thanksgiving and βαΐ́ων and with harps and cymbals," etc.). The use to which the branches of the well-known palm trees were put, differs from, but does not exclude, the use to which κλάδοι and στοιβάδες were also put. Bethany (see note, John 11:1) was "the house of dates," and the palm branches for the Feast of Tabernacles, on its first celebration after the Captivity (cf. Leviticus 23:40), Were fetched from the mount (Nehemiah 8:15). The palm tree was a sacred symbol for Israel "Tamar," a palm tree, was a favorite name for a woman. The Maccabaean coins were decorated with the palm and vine. The medal struck by Titus represented a captive sitting under a palm. Throughout their history, in their gorgeous temple ritual, it continually reappears, and at the last the Apocalypse represents the victorious songs of triumphant elders accompanied by the waving of the palm. If we compare the four accounts of the demonstration, we shall see again how in combination they vividly represent the whole scene. The multitude cry, according to— Matthew 21:9: "Hosanna £ to the Son of David: Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest." Mark 11:9, Mark 11:10: "Hosanna; Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord: Blessed be the coming kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest." Luke 19:38, remembering the angel’s song: "They praised God with a loud voice.… Blessed be the King that cometh in the Name of the Lord: in heaven peace, and glory in the highest." John says they went forth to meet him, palm branch in hand, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed be he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, and (blessed be) (even) the King of Israel. These differences show how various groups used with freedom the tones and sentiment of the hundred and eighteenth psalm, adopting the welcome with which the priests were accustomed to greet the pilgrims to the festival. But each account demonstrates that, on this occasion, there was a general ascription to our Lord of Messianic honor. He is hailed by the people as King of Israel, as the Head of the coming kingdom of their father David, and as giving glory to God. The Name of the Lord is the manifestation and compendium of all the perfections of the Lord. For centuries the gracious hope had rung forth in the sacred liturgy, and now the people see that the hope is on the point of realization. John 12:14 And Jesus, having found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written. The whole account of the process by which our Lord secured this ὀνάριον is described at great length by the synoptists. The foal implies that the animal had never borne another burden. The account of Matthew refers to the mother and the foal, as though they were inseparable, and together bore the sacred burden. Mr. Holman Hunt, in his picture of the ’Triumph of the Innocents,’ has represented the beast bearing Mary and her Child as accompanied by the colt. The entire process of securing both must have taken time, and augmented the excitement. Christ at length, on the eve of his Passion which he so distinctly foreshadowed, allowed the enthusiasm of the people to prevail, and accepted the homage. The Galilee pilgrims take up the demonstration, which was commenced, as we see from John’s Gospel, by "the Jews" and those Jerusalemites who had been profoundly moved by the significance of the resurrection of Lazarus. The circumstances thus elucidated from the four narratives, reveal undesigned coincidences. The entry into Jerusalem did not take place till the afternoon, and so we find that all that our Lord did on arrival was to "go to the temple, look round on all things, and, now that the even was come, to revisit Bethany with the twelve" (Mark 11:11). John 12:15 John, as well as Matthew, sees here a symbolical fulfillment of what had been declared by one of the latest of the prophets, as the peculiarity of the Messiah (Zechariah 9:9): Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt. £ This oracle is admitted by commentators of opposite schools to refer to the Messiah. There was no need, in order to fulfill the spirit of the whole passage, that the King should come to his own literally upon the back of a beast of burden. The prophecy does, however, suggest the modesty, the absence of all pomp or display of worldly wealth and power; nay, the humiliation on the part of the true King. Both Matthew and John omit the characteristics of "righteous and saved," £ i.e. "delivered" from the hands of his cruel enemies. The suffering Servant of God of the great oracle of Isa 53:1-12. was in the mind of the Prophet Zechariah, and he adds this feature to the triumphant coming of the true Prince of Peace, that he would "cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem," i.e. so act that even the national pride and power and military prowess should come to an end; "Speak peace to the nations; rule from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the earth." As John and Matthew both see the symbolical fulfillment of the prophecy, they doubtless would have us bear in mind the whole passage. John transforms the "Rejoice greatly, shout," etc., of the prophet into "Fear not." He seems to take it at one stage only of fulfillment, when anxiety might momentarily be put to rest. The "Fear not" is a lower form of "great rejoicing." It is something for men to dismiss their doubts and hush their unrest, even when they cannot burst into song. Hengstenberg and Godet urge that the "meekness and lowliness" to which the prophet referred, and which Matthew cited from him, was imaged in the lowly beast on which never man sat. But it must not be forgotten that the ass was used by distinguished personages (Judges 5:9, Judges 5:10; Judges 10:4; 2 Samuel 17:23; 2 Samuel 19:26). And all that was really meant by it was the choice of a creature associated rather with daily life than with military display. Meyer and Moulton urge that it was a chosen symbol of peace (καθήμενος is substituted for the ἐπιβεβηκὼςἐπὶ of the LXX. and Matthew 21:5). Contrary to Keim’s animadversion, our Lord and his disciples adopted here the idea of a Jewish Messiah, stripping it of its worldly characteristics. It should be observed that, while John’s narrative is in harmony with the synoptists, he greatly abbreviates it. John 12:16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him. This verse shows that the disciples (of whom John was one) took part in the celebration, though they did not see at the time, nor until after the Ascension—not until they saw by faith the δόξα into which the Lord had entered—that the honor which they had done to him had corresponded strangely with the marvelous words of the old prophecy. And that they had done—clearly the disciples, on grammatical grounds; οἱμαθηταὶ, is the subject of ἐποίησαν—these things unto him. Ἐδοξάσθη is used of the uplifting to the glory which he had before the world was; not until then was the Spirit given that explained so much of the mysterious life. (For other illustrations of τὸπρῶτον, in the rare sense of "at first," see John 10:40; John 19:39.) (1) Men often act and speak without perceiving the full meaning of deed or word, not grasping the link of connection thus instituted between a consecrated past and a predestined future. (2) Words and actions are freely done from personal motives and in entire spontaneity when they are nevertheless fulfilling the Divine purpose and working out the plan of God. (3) The revealing moment comes, and the whole significance flashes into view. John 12:17-19 These verses connect the enthusiasm of the multitudes with the great miracle of Joh 11:1-57., indicating a point concerning which the synoptic narrative is silent, and further they consociate the miracle and its effect upon the multitude with aggravation of the malignant feeling of the constituted authorities which leads to the capture and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. John 12:17 The multitude therefore which was with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from the dead, were bearing witness. The seventeenth verse goes back to the (ὄχλος) multitude who are mentioned in John 11:42; i.e. to the friends of Mary and Martha and to other inhabitants of Bethany, as well as visitors from Jerusalem (John 11:31). All these are involved in the explicit declaration, ὁὤνμεταὐτοῦ. Which was with him when £ he called Lazarus out of his grave, and (not only so, but) raised him from among the dead. Those who had actually beheld the miracle, and were as eye and ear witnesses of the event, who had hovered about Bethany since his return to it,—these were bearing witness. They spread themselves abroad in the crowd of Galilaean pilgrims and others, and were uttering their testimony on all sides. The word is used absolutely, as in John 19:35, and the imperfect tense should not be turned here into a mere preterit. John 12:18 For this cause also the (ὁὄχλος) multitude—which here seems to be the aggregate of the (ὄχλοςπολύς) crowds made up of the Judaean and Galilaean pilgrims and "the Jews" who had believed on him—met him (see especially John 12:12, John 12:13)—went forth, and cut down the branches of the palm trees, and came in high jubilance to meet him—because they heard that he had wrought this sign. The resurrection of Lazarus is the motive of the triumphal procession. The synoptists, who have omitted the whole episode of Bethany, are naturally silent concerning the impression produced by it on the Passover pilgrims and the Jerusalem crowd. John, more intimately acquainted with the currents of thought in the capital than the rest, drew here from his experience and memory, and has preserved historical features which they had ignored. John 12:19 The Pharisees therefore, at the sight of the popular enthusiasm, said to themselves; i.e. to their own inner circle. Hengstenberg thinks here is a hint of some medium of communication between John and the Pharisees, and imagines it to be found through Martha and Simon (her husband). Their language was, Perceive [ye]—or, ye perceive (either imperative or indicative)—that ye prevail nothing! The interrogative may also be a true translation. Do ye perceive that ye prevail nothing? On either hypothesis, it cannot be, as Chrysostom says, the language of the friends of Jesus among the Pharisees, but rather the cry of despair and rage. Behold, the (κόσμος) world has gone away after him. They are repenting that they had not followed out the coercive plans and murderous designs of Caiaphas, and had been content with half-measures. John 12:20-30 4. The desire of the "Greeks "—the representatives of the Western world—go see Jesus, and his reply. And now a scene is related of transcendent interest—the one solitary incident of the Passion week between the triumph and the night of the Last Supper. John assumes here a knowledge of all that, in current tradition and narrative, had taken place between these two events. The cleansing of the temple, the solemn parables by which Jesus repulsed the Sanhedrin, the conflict with Sadducees and scribes, and with the combined forces of Herodians and Pharisees, the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, and the prophetic parables, possibly the awful doom of Jerusalem, and the departure from the temple. This event may have occurred towards the close of this solemn and crowded week, and it made profound impression upon John. The Hellenes were probably "proselytes," like the Ethiopian chamberlain (Acts 8:27). Edersheim says they were "proselytes of righteousness," for no others would be allowed to worship at the feast. Whether they came from some Greek city in Ituraea, or from Cyrene or Edessa, Ephesus or Alexandria, we know not. As wise men came from the East to the cradle of the Lord, some can imagine these Hellenes to have been Judaized thoughtful men who were longing for the light and joy found in the Holy Scriptures, and the religious teachings or ceremonial of the temple, into the outer courts of which they would be admitted. When they saw the kind of reception which this mighty Sage was receiving from his own people and from the constituted authorities, they were ready to plead with him to go among them, and to offer his message to the Gentiles. For the most part he had confined his mission to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," but in his care for the Herodian nobleman, the Roman centurion, the Syro-Phoenician woman, and his references to the "other sheep he had," to the "world" which his Father loved, etc., he partially revealed his ultimate mission to the whole world, though he always implied that such a mission presupposed his cruel cutting off and awful mysterious hour. John 12:20 Now there were certain Greeks among those that went up to worship at the feast. Τινες implies a group, and a larger company of these ἀναβαινόντων, who were and are in the habit of going up (perhaps were still doing it even when John, before writing his Gospel, had first put the narrative into words). They went up with a view to worship in the feast, that is, there were burnt offerings and thank offerings which they were allowed to present. This shows that they were not heathen nor uncircumcised Hellenists, whichever view of that word be accepted. John 12:21 These therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. The first expression of that great yearning which, swollen by multitudes without number, is loud as the voice of many waters and mighty thunderings. It is the wail of every penitent; it is the birth-cry of every renewed soul; it is the raptured burst of joy as each son of God passes behind the veil The "therefore" implies some kind of previous relation with Philip, whose somewhat timid, cautious, speculative mind, as hinted in the earlier portions of the Gospel, made him accessible to them. Personal acquaintance is, of course, possible. Was Philip identical with the Aristion of Papias? The mention of Bethsaida of Galilee confirms the suggestion that they were inhabitants of one of the Greek cities of Decapolis, or of the slopes of the Lebanon. Many commentators refer to Philip’s Greek name as indicating proclivities or sympathies on his part which would make him peculiarly accessible. John 12:22 The slight modification of text preferred by the Revised version gives great vivacity to the picture (see below, note 1). Philip receives the respectful request of the Greeks, "Sir [my lord], we would see Jesus," i.e. "converse with." They probably sought to bring some proposal before him. Surely they must have had, if they wished it, many opportunities of merely seeing Jesus, when he crossed the Mount of Olivet during those three days, or tarried in the court of the Gentiles; now they pressed for an interview. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew. Andrew was the earliest of the disciples, who brought his own brother Simon to Jesus (John 1:40-42). He is mentioned as in close association with Simon, James, and John, as partners with them in the fishing-trade on the lake of Galilee. There is some hint that Andrew and John, after the first call to become followers of Christ, clung to him, and went with him to Jerusalem, and then returned with him through Samaria, after which occurred the second call of the brothers Simon and James. The frequent references to Andrew and Philip in this Gospel correspond with the tradition preserved in the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, touching Andrew’s part in the composition of this Gospel. These two disciples are represented as consulting with each other on previous occasions, as though peculiarly related in sympathy. Philip sees certain difficulties, and Andrew has a practical mind, and proposes a way out of them (see John 6:7, John 6:8). There was something now to be said on both sides. Their ancient prophecies anticipated a world-wide aspect of the Messianic kingdom (Isaiah 55:4, Isaiah 55:5; Isaiah 56:3, Isaiah 56:7; as well as Genesis 49:10). Now, if this incident occurred after Jesus had claimed the hundred and tenth psalm as an oracle which described his own Divine claims and his universal victory as the Lord and Son of David and royal Warrior-Prest (Matthew 22:41-46, and parallel passages), Philip may have felt this moment to be a most critical one in his history; for he may have been perfectly aware of the outbreak of peril which converse with Greek proselytes might at that moment have provoked in the minds of the turbulent populace. £ Andrew cometh and Philip, and they (together) tell Jesus. Jesus alone could solve the difficulty at that time, and Jesus himself is the just and reasonable Source of all enlightenment. Jesus is at this hour the highest Expression of man and his destiny, and he is also the perfect Manifestation of the Father, the only Mediator between God and man, absolutely one with both. We still go to him to know what God is and what God would have us to think and to be, and to learn what man may become. We take to him the puzzles of our logic, the accusations of our conscience, and the burdens of our heart. Additional interest is thrown round this narrative by a suggestion of Archdeacon Watkins, that, in the course of this week, our Lord had cleansed the temple and courts of its profane traffic, and declared it to be a house of prayer for all nations. Such grand revolutionary conceptions as those of our Lord must have deeply stirred the souls of the susceptible Greeks. Aliens were, as we know from Josephus (’Ant.,’ 15:11.5), forbidden to pass beyond the balustrade round the ἵερον,. M. Ganneau £ has found among the ruins of Jerusalem one of the slabs of stone which recorded this exclusion. John 12:23-26 (1) The glorification of the Son of man in and through death. John 12:23 And Jesus answereth £ them. Many commentators (Ewald, Godet, Hengstenberg) think that Jesus did not address the following words to the Greeks, that until he had gone through the agony of death, and entered in human nature on his Divine and mediatorial reign, the mission to the Gentiles could not commence. Tholuck supposed that the interview was over, and that the solemn words are addressed to the disciples in the presence both of Greeks and of others afterwards; but there is no such break suggested. It is more probable (with Luthardt, Edersheim, Lunge) that the Greeks were close behind Andrew and Philip, and that our Lord at once, for their advantage, as well as for that of the disciples, proceeded to explain the solemn impression made upon himself by this remarkable desire. Surely it is unnecessary to say that our Lord was anxious not to give umbrage to the priests, or to rouse the animosity of the people. Every word of the terrible address of Mat 23:1-39., all the controversies in the temple, even the triumphal entry itself, would and did give mortal umbrage to the priestly party and to the Sanhedrim He had boldly challenged their entire position, tie had smitten down their prejudices and assailed their notions of exclusive privilege, and therefore would not have shrunk, on that ground, from intercourse with devout Greeks worshipping at the feast. The words are surely said to them and about them, but in the main for the instruction of the disciples themselves. The hour is come for which he had been waiting (see John 2:4; John 13:1)-the mysterious "hour" on which his glory would depend, and the destiny of the world turn. God not only contemplates great periods, eons of time, but "acceptable years," "days of the Lord," "moments of time," as parts of the eternal plan. That the Son of man should be glorified. The "Son of man," rather than "Son of God," is the term he uses in reference to, and in the presence of, the Greeks. The highest Man is now about to assume his supreme glory, to go forth, as the mighty Man, to rule the world of men. The Son of man is about to ascend into his eternal throne, to clothe himself with all authority of judgment and mercy in heaven and earth. The glorification of the Son of man is one of the high main themes of the Gospel, and its justification is to be found in the fact that the Son of man is indeed the Loges made flesh, and the Lamb slain, and like the Serpent is being lifted up, and as the true Shepherd is laying down his life that he might take it again. The advent of the Greeks opens prophetic vistas which involve tremendous experiences of his own, and also great principles of service for all his followers. His Passion was so inextricably interwoven with his glory, that the former becomes verily the prelude of his victory and supreme exaltation. His death is but his glory. Moreover, the approach of the Gentiles suggested the universal belief in him which would follow upon his Passion and resurrection, and he" foretells that the hour of his glorification was already come". John 12:24 The oracle is introduced with a solemn Ἀμὴνἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except the corn (or, grain) of wheat, having fallen to the ground, die, it abideth by itself alone: but if it die, it beareth much fruit. The simple illustration of life through death, life triumphing over death. "Even nature protests against the Hellenic fear of death" (Lange). As long as the corn of wheat is scrupulously kept from decomposition and death in the granary, the hidden germ is dormant; let it be sown as "bare grain" (1 Corinthians 15:36, etc.), then the strange force within it puts forth its hidden faculty, the outer covering of this point of energy falls away, and the new thing appears. God gives it a body, and much fruit is brought forth. Thoma suggests that the Johannist here is putting into the lips of Jesus the thoughts of Paul. How much more probable is it that Paul grasped the thought of Jesus, and applied a part of it to the grand argument for the resurrection, both of Christ and Christians! Compare with this the teaching of Joh 6:1-71., where the Bread of life is given for the food of men. Even the "bread-making" for man involves, in another way, the temporary destruction of the living germ in the grain of which it is composed, that it may become the life of men. Christ is himself the "Son of God," the "Logos incarnate," the "Son of man." By becoming, in his death, the food of man’s soul, he created thus a new life in the hearts of men. Over and over again our Lord has declared himself to be "the Life," and "the Source of life," for men; but he here lays down the principle that this life-giving power of his is conditioned by his death. The great harvest will be reaped only when he shall have sacrificed his life and put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. It is, too, only as every believing man dies to himself, is crucified with Christ, is dead with him to the world, that he rises again in the newness of life. John 12:25, John 12:26 The Lord here introduces a solemn, almost oracular utterance, which proves how close and intimate is the relationship between the synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. On several great occasions our Lord has impressed this law of the Spirit of life upon his disciples. Thus in Matthew 10:37-39, in the lengthened commission given to the twelve, after calling on his followers to place his own claim on their affection as greater than that of father, mother, friend, and calling for self-sacrifice, and self-crucifixion, he said, "He that findeth his life (ψυχὴ) shall lose it: he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." Again (Matthew 16:25, etc.), after rebuking Peter for his unwillingness to recognize the necessity and significance of the killing of "the Son of the living God," he laid down the same law once more, calling for self-denial and daily cross-bearing, and adds, "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." So also Luke 9:23, etc. Luke (Luke 15:26) also introduces the same solemn aphorism in our Lord’s discourse concerning the close of the Jewish national life. Surely here he is applying to his own case the law of the Divine life which he had shown to be universal, and of which he was on the point of giving the crowning and climacteric expression. He does it with amplifications and a supply of motives. If life be regarded as an end in itself; if it be treated as complete when rounded with its own individuality; if life shrink from sacrifice, if it "love itself," and will at all hazards preserve itself; if the natural and instinctive fear of death, and instinct of self-preservation, become a self-idolatry;—that life will "abide alone." If it sacrifice itself for higher ends than self; if it regard the higher end as more valuable than itself; if it lose itself in the object to which it is consecrated; if it be content to "die;"—it abideth no longer "alone," but "bringeth forth much fruit." John 12:25 He that loves his own life (ψυχή); life used as equivalent to "self," in that totality of being which, like the life of the seed-corn, survives the accident of death—he that loves his own life (self) is losing £ it; or, perhaps, destroying it, ipso facto. There are ends and objects of love so much greater than" the self," that to keep it by some act of will and recreant fear is to make it utterly valueless, is really to destroy its true vitality. And he that hateth his (ψυχή) life (self) in this world, wherever the greater claim of Christ and of the Father would be compromised by loving it, shall veritably preserve it, viz. the self, unto eternal (ζωή) life; i.e. to the blessedness of eternal being. The ψυχή is a great possession; and "what advantageth a man if he should gain the whole world, and lose it?" But if a man persists in gaining the world, and forgets that this earthly existence is not capable of satisfying the demands or finding a sphere for the true self, and so makes the earthly reign or enjoyment of the ψυχή the end of all striving,—then he miserably fails. So far it is clear that our Lord is applying a great principle of the true life to the case of his own Messianic work and ministry. He draws, from a law of the superiority of the Divine life to the fear of death and to the fact of death, a justification of his own approaching doom. He can only by dying live his perfect life, win his greatest triumph; reap his world-wide harvest. John 12:26 In this verse the Lord brings the light of heaven down into this deep paradox. He speaks like an anointed King and great Captain of salvation, who has (διάκονοι) "servants" willing to do his bidding. If any man will be my servant, let him follow me along the line which I am prepared to take, in the way of sacrifice and death, which is the true glorification; and where I am, there shall also my servant be. This association of the servant with the Lord, as the sufficient and the transcendent motive, pervades the Gospels (cf. John 14:3 and John 17:24; comp. also Luke 23:43, "with me in Paradise;" and 2 Corinthians 12:2, 2 Corinthians 12:4; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23). It is remarkable that Christ chose the twelve that they should be "with him" (Mark 3:14). There is no greater blessedness. Still, the Lord adds, If any man serve me, him will the Father honor. For the Father to honor a poor child of the dust seems almost more than we can receive. The conception of the steps by means of which the Lord makes this possible to his followers and servants produced in his own self-consciousness one of those sudden and overwhelming crises and changes from joy to perturbation, as of agony to peace and to reconcilement with the eternal Father’s will, which prove how certainly St. John is always portraying the same Personage, the same transcendent character whom the synoptists describe (Luke 12:49, Luke 12:50; comp. Luke 19:38, Luke 19:41; Matthew 11:20, Matthew 11:25; Matthew 16:17, etc., and 21). More than this, the whole passage that follows is a solemn prelude to that agony of the garden which the synoptists alone record, while they omit this. John 12:27-30 (2) The anticipation of Gethsemane. John 12:27 Now, at this moment, has been and yet is my soul troubled ("concurrebat horror morris et ardor obedientisa," Bengel). In John 11:33 we hear that he troubled himself, and shuddered wrathfully in his "spirit" (πνεύμετι) at the contemplation of all the evils and curse of death; now his whole ψυχή, i.e. his life centered in its corporeal environment as a man, the self which the Son of God had taken up into the Divine essence, was in depth of agony, preluding the strong crying and tears to which Hebrews 5:7 refers. These perturbations of his soul and spirit can only be accounted for by the uniqueness of his Personality, the capacity for suffering, and the extent to which he was identifying himself with the sinful nature with which he had invested himself. Sin is the sting of death. He had by the nature of his incarnation become sin for us. Martyrs, freed from sin, delivered from its curse and shame and power through him, face it with calmness and hope; but there was infinite space in his breast for all the curse of it to rain its horrible tempest. He felt that the hour of his extremest travail had come upon him. And what shall I (must I) say? What is the regal passion of my heart? What is the right revelation for me to make to you? What is the prayer for me to offer to the Father? It remains a great question whether the next utterance is the primary answer of the question itself, or whether it continues the interrogation—whether, i.e., the Lord lifts up for a moment the cry of heart-rending grief, Father, save me from this hour! £ or whether he said, Shall I say, Father, save me from this hour? The first view supposes in the first place actual uncertainty and awful bewilderment, and then a most intense cry (Hebrews 5:7) to him who was able to save him from death. Save me either from the death itself, or from the fear and horror which accompanies it (Lucke, Meyer, Hengstenberg, and Moulton). It need not be a prayer to leave the world unsaved, to sacrifice all the work on which he had come. We are told by the apostle (Hebrews 5:7) that he was "heard" (ἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας) and delivered from human weakness which might have rebelled in the intolerable darkness of that hour. Father, save me from this hour; the equivalent to the prayer, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me," with its grand "nevertheless," etc. If this be its meaning, we have a scene nearly, if not closely, identifiable with the agony of the garden. The correction which immediately follows augments the comparison with the scene in Gethsemane recorded by the synoptists. The R.T. and Revised version have put their note of interrogation after ταύτης into the margin, and not into the text. Ewald, Lange, Kling, Tholuck, Lachmann, accept this punctuation, and Godet regards it as an hypothetical prayer, although he does not place the interrogation after ταύτης. The self-interrogation of the previous utterance at least reveals the presence of such a desire, but one which vanishes as the mysterious hour engulfs and wraps him round. If this be the true interpretation, then the clause that follows must be, Nay this I cannot say, for on account of this very conflict—for this cause—only to fight this great battle—I came steadily forward to this hour. I cannot pray to escape from it. If, however, we have the expression of an actual though momentary prayer, and if we give it the meaning, "bring me safely through and out of this hour," it corresponds with the Divine trust in the Father’s love which, in the extremity of the anguish and desertion, he yet reveals, and the ἀλλά becomes equivalent to "Pray, this I need not say; the end is known" (Westcott). I know that I shall be delivered, for this cause, viz. that I should encounter and pass through the hour I came into the world, and have reached the final crisis. This is, to my mind, more satisfactory; the interrogative prayer gives a sentimental character to the utterance out of harmony with the theme. Godet thinks that the fact that, according to the synoptists, our Lord in the garden did actually offer the prayer which he here hesitates to present, is evidence of the historic character of both accounts. I differ from him, because the sublime answer to the prayer here given would seem to preclude the necessity of the final conflict. The circumstance that he did offer the prayer as interpreted above, a prayer which was veritably heard, is in harmony with the narrative of the agony. John 12:28, John 12:29 A heavy thunder-cloud seems to hang over him; for a moment a break in the darkness, a rift in the clouds, presents itself, and, though he might have prayed for legions of angels, he did not. The second Adam knows the issue of the tremendous trial, and, in full apprehension of the answer to his deepest prayer, he cries, Father, glorify thy Name. The "thy" is emphatic. A contrast is implied between the eternal glory and the glory of the Christ. "I am thine; thou art mine;" "Thy will be done;" "Not as I will, but as thou wilt;" "If this cup cannot pass away from me except I drink it, thy will be done;" "Not my will, but thine be done." I bare my breast for the blow; I yield my ψυχή absolutely to thy control! God glorifies himself in many ways, and here we see the highest point to which the human can rise. Godet calls attention to the extraordinary mistake made by Colani, who founds a charge against the Gospel itself on the supposition that these solemn words were, "Father, glorify my Name." The synoptists tell us that at the baptism (Matthew 3:17) and at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5) a literal voice of words was heard from heaven conveying intelligible ideas to Jn the Baptist and subsequently to Peter, James, and John. And here the same John (son of Zebedee) records, not only that such a kind of voice was repeated on this occasion, but reports the very words themselves. There came therefore a voice out of heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. These words many of the crowd round about him, as well as Jesus himself, distinctly heard. The multitude that stood by said, It has thundered; hearing only a voice of thunder. It will not, however, on that account be fair to this evangelist to say (with Paulus, Lucke, and even Hengstenberg) that there was no objective audible voice which any ear beside that of Jesus could hear, and which none but the mind of Jesus could interpret. It is not sufficient to say "that the thunder and the voice were identical." Hengstenberg quotes numerous passages from the Old Testament where thunder was interpreted to mean the "voice of Jehovah" (1 Samuel 12:18; Psalms 29:1-11.; Job 37:4; Psalms 18:13), but there are numerous passages both in the Old Testament and in the Gospels and Acts where an objective voice was heard. Such voice was at times accompanied by thunder, but not in the majority of cases. In the promises made in the garden of Eden, in the call of Moses and Samuel, and in the communion that passed between the Lord and Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, Solomon, and Elijah, Jehovah spake in audible words without such auxiliary. When communications were made to Eli, to David, to Hezekiah, and others, they were given by the lips of prophetic men. When the Law was given to all the tribes of Israel, the thunder-trumpet was exceeding loud and long, and the people could not bear the awful experience, so that the Lord was pleased to speak to Moses only, and he was to communicate with the people. The case of Elijah is remarkable because the "still small voice" is distinguished from the thunder, etc., which had preceded it. Why should Hengstenberg have refrained from giving these Old Testament facts their proper weight? The rationalistic view would make the words spoken to have been the inference that either Jesus or John drew from a clap of thunder, and must conclude that the crowd, so far as the objective fact was concerned, were practically in the right. The narrative itself recounts a varied appreciation of a distinct and objective fact. Those who were not alive to any voice from heaven confounded it with thunder, lowered the Divine communication down to an ordinary natural fact. Others, i.e. "a few others," were much nearer to the reality when they said, An angel hath spoken to him (compare reference to the angelic aid that came to the Lord in Gethsemane). The voice of God’s plenipotentiary angel speaking in his Name, was recognized as a supernatural communication, though the meaning of it was not grasped (cf. the voice with which Jesus spoke to Paul on the way to Damascus). But we may reasonably suppose that these Greeks, that the disciples who surrounded Jesus, that the beloved John, found in the voice a direct answer to the previous sublime cry of the Lord. The prayer, "Father, glorify thy Name," received the answer, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again; i.e. In thy work and life hitherto, as Prophet, Master, Example, as my beloved Son, my Name has already been glorified in thee, and now in thy approaching sacrificial agony in which thou wilt become perfect as a Priest-King, and the Author of eternal salvation, "I will glorify it again." This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ IV. THE FINAL IN WORD AND ACTION OF THE LOGOS , ITSELF AND TO THE AS LOVE. (John 13-21.) In two divisions— A. The inner glorification of the Christ in the presence of those who received and believed on him. *** The Loges incarnate as life, light, love, and sacrifice, lavishing all his grace upon his own (John 13-17.). B. The outer glorification of the Christ in his Passion and resurrection. *** The fully manifested love laying down life that he might take it again, and lift these disciples into vital union with the risen life (John 18-21.). A. THE INNER OF PERFECT LOVE. John 13:1-17 1. Love in humiliation. John 13:1 Now before the Feast of the Passover; a phrase far more applicable to the 13-14th of Nisan than to the 14-15th, even though the Lord was desiring then to eat the Passover with a great desire before he suffered; therefore "before" the Passion, which would coincide with it. This supplies a chronological note, which is not exhausted by the mysterious and pathetic act which is described, but embraces the entire communion of soul with his disciples, and with the Father in their presence, detailed in John 13-17. Commentators have differed greatly as to the reference of this phrase—whether to the εἰδώς, as Kling and Luthardt, or to the ἀγαπήσας, as Wieseler and Tholuck; both these interpretations limit the meaning of the passage. Christ’s knowledge that his hour was come was not kept from him till that moment, nor was his love to his own disciples limited or qualified by the advent of the Passover. It is far better, with Westcott, Coder, Meyer, and Lange, to take the phrase, πρὸδὲτῆςἐορτῆς, with the principal verb, ἠγάπησεν. This becomes mere obvious if εἰςτέλος be taken, as it generally is taken, in Greek, to mean "unto the uttermost," "absolutely" "perfectly." Godet and Lucke add to the idea of ἀγαπάω here the manifestation, or proof, of the intensity and tenderness of the Divine love. Meyer doubts this signification of ἀγαπάω. The whole of the intervening sentence is in apposition with the subject of the sentence. The evangelist was eye-witness of the manner and look of his Lord, and ventured to say what was passing in his mind. He was justified by what followed, and threw back into the spirit of this strange and solemn action the account which the Lord afterwards gave of himself. Throughout the whole passage we detect; the extraordinary blending of Divine and human of which John was the witness. Jesus knowing (as he did know) that the hour was £ come—an hour for which he had been long waiting, and to which frequent reference has been made. The crisis has arrived, the breach with the authorities was final, the disciples themselves were trembling in doubt, the great law had been uttered, the glorification of the Son of man must now be accomplished by departure rather than by longer ministry, by death rather than by universal acclaim—that—ἵνα here notes the Divine purpose, or what is not infrequently introduced by ἵνα, "the contemplated result" (see Canon Evans on "the use of ἵνα in the New Testament," Expositor, vol. 3., 2nd series)—he, Jesus, the Son of man, should depart out of this world (this is one theme of the following discourse, one of its key-notes, John 14:12; John 16:28; John 17:11, and many other passages) unto the Father. If so, death was not an ending of life, but a departure to the Father—a coming into closer and more intimate relations and communion with the Father than was possible, even for him, in this sinful and evil world. Frequently the demonstrative pronoun is used to designate this transitory, perilous, sad state of being. Further, Jesus having loved his own, his very own, whom the Father had given him, who were and would continue in the world, and have tribulation there (see John 15:18-20; John 16:1-4, John 16:33; John 17:11, John 17:14, John 17:18), and all the more so because of his departure and the cessation of his earthly manifestation and ministry. Here the sentence ends with the climacteric expression, He loved them utterly; i.e. he manifested, and that before the Paschal Lamb should be slain for them, his absolute, extreme, unutterable love. Archdeacon Watkins has made an interesting suggestion, that εἰςτέλος represents, in Greek, the Hebrew idiom of the repetition of the action of the verb; whereas the LXX. often presents this Hebraism in literal Greek, as Genesis 20:17, yet in Amos 9:8 a similar reduplication is Grecized by the phrase εἰςτέλος; and that what St. John, a Hebrew writing in Greek, meant by the use of it was simply," He loved them with a fullness of love." This usage is confirmed by 1 Thessalonians 2:16, by later Greek and by classical usage. It probably means in Luke 18:5 "at last," but not necessarily so even there. Margin of Revised version gives "to the uttermost." John 13:2 A supper having commenced; or, being then in progress £—without doubt the meal in which our Lord terminated the Old Testament dispensation and introduced the New, and which John discriminates, therefore, from the Passover proper referred to in verse 1. The evangelist now reverts to the diabolic design which had been injected into the heart of Judas. The devil having already cast into the heart (of Judas) that he—Meyer’s suggestion that the devil put this design into his own heart, does not lighten the construction, and encumbers the passage with ideas which are foreign to the Bible—(even) Judas, (the son) of Simon, the Iscariot, should betray him. £ The idea came from the devil, but the purpose of the devil was not irrevocable. The evangelist looked through his tears of love to the traitor’s face as he sat at meat, and felt how the very excess and uttermost and hyperbole of love was reached and scaled by the contact between the treachery of the one and the Divine humiliation of the other. The contrast between these two mental states is one of the most striking antitheses in the Gospel. But how should John know that Judas had already plotted the betrayal of his Master? Hengstenberg makes the wise suggestion that the fourth evangelist was acquainted with the synoptic tradition of the priority of Judas’s bargain with the chief priests. John 13:3 £Knowing—a significant hint of the complex wonder of the Lord’s Person. John felt at this moment that the consciousness of Jesus was receding into the eternal self-consciousness of the Logos when he thus ventures to speak—that the Father—in the great act of his generation—gave £ all things into his hands, and that he came forth (ἀπὸ) from God, and was going back (or, away) to God, in the glory of his incarnation and the mystery of his death and resurrection. The whole of the incarnate ministry of Jesus was a separation, to some extent, from God, just as the close of it, in the death and resurrection, was a return to the glory which he had with the Father before all worlds. We must admit the extraordinary quality of the evangelist’s assertion. He here throws back into the majestic manner of the Christ the hints which the subsequent discourse of our Lord must have given him of the Divine greatness which flashed at times from his sacred Person, and conferred a boundless significance on the subsequent act of humiliation. Christ gave the highest proof of his Divine self-consciousness in this display of his condescending love, this voluntary abasement to the lowest place in the household of faith. The use of εἰδὼς twice ever (verses 1 and 3) is contrasted with the γνώσῃ of verse 7. The vast confessions here made are declared to be matters of absolute intuitive knowledge, not the results of long experience. Christ did not "come to know;" he "knew" all these facts about himself. It must not be supposed that this was a theological idea which came into the writer’s mind afterwards. St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Philippians (Philippians 2:6-8), had adequately grasped the same thought long before St. John penned this Gospel (el. 2 Corinthians 8:9). John 13:4, John 13:5 Commentators differ as to the motive which induced our Lord to perform this menial act, to adopt the gesture, girding, and duties of the δοῦλος, to divest himself of his ἱμάτια or upper garments, and to appear and veritably to act as a slave. Strauss regards it as a mythical representation of one of our Lord’s discourses on humility. Lange, with much pertinence, believes it to correspond to the pain, which he manifested, at the very last Supper, with the unseemly contest for pre-eminence among the apostles (cf. Luke 22:27, "Whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? I am among you as he that serveth"). Others, like Meyer, see no such reference, and require the presence of no such motive. It is remarkable that at such a season this dispute could have arisen at all. I-laving undoubtedly broken out on more than one occasion, our Lord chose the midst of this feast, when we learn from other sources there was such an outbreak, for this emphatic revelation of the royalty of service. Wunsche says that both "before" and "alter" the Passover festival it was customary, in order to demonstrate the equality and liberty of the guests, to practice mutual interchanges of the ordinary menial service of hand-washing. In this verse every sentence is a distinct picture. He riseth from the supper, and layeth down his upper garments, and when he had taken a towel, he girded himself (Edersheim and Wunsche both give proof that the Talmud repeatedly Grecizes the word here rendered "towel," λέντιον, "linen cloth," by the word lentith or alentith) after the fashion of the humblest slave; then he poureth water into the washing-basin (νιπτῆρα), the article of furniture in the room ("Nihil ministerii omittit," says Grotius. Thus he discharges every part of the duty, while the disciples wonder at the new revelation). And he began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Westcott refers to the rabbinic commentators on Ezekiel 16:9, "Among men, the slave washes his master, but with God it is not so." So then the inversion of all human social relations forced on John’s mind the deep truth that we are here face to face with the Divine—with the Divine-human. John here strains his words to give some conception of what passed in his own mind when he saw our Lord’s face, and witnessed this great revelation of his character. Though this evangelist did not record the "Transfiguration," there were moments in Christ’s history which produced a still pro-founder impression upon him, and in which he veritably saw the glory of the Only Begotten of God in his Master’s form. On this occasion the highest conception of his Divine Personality, origin, and destiny, was blended with the deepest descent of the Lord’s entire humanity to the level of weakness, pollution, and sin. The greatest manifestation of God was in the revelation of the exceeding limits, the infinite depth, which love could compass. We may see a little farther on what were the special steps our Lord took to give this sense of love "to the uttermost" on the part of him to whom all the universe had been entrusted, who had come from, and was going back to, the Father. John 13:6 It cannot be determined with whom our Lord commenced the feet-washing. Some of the older expositors have said it was with Judas. The οὖν might denote that several of the disciples, in awestruck wonder, had submitted without a word, and then (οὖν resumptive) he cometh to Simon Peter. But the great bulk of ancient and modern expositors suppose that Peter was the first to whom this great grace was offered. At all events, in his impulsive manner always rushing forwards, and ready to give his Master advice, and to be the mouthpiece of otherwise unuttered feelings, Peter was the first to exclaim, (and£) he£ saith unto him, and with strong emphasis on the Σύ and the μου, Dost thou wash my feet? The protest was natural. It corresponds with many another scene in Peter’s life; as when he said, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man," or cried, "That be far from thee," and later on in this chapter, "Why cannot I follow thee now?" or, "I have never eaten anything common or unclean." This trait in Peter’s character is wonderfully accurate, and corresponds with the portraiture of the same man in the synoptic narrative. There is here an analogous blending of reverence and self-will, of outwardness and forwardness—a new illustration of one who would distinguish himself by the greatness of his humility. John 13:7, John 13:8 Jesus answered and said to him, That which I am doing thou knowest not now—thou hast not absolute knowledge of, thou hast not seen through as yet; but after these things, afterwards when I shall have completed my present undertaking, thou (γνώσῃ) shalt come by clear proof and full discovery and intimate acquaintance to understand. This is sometimes referred to the subsequent illumination of the Holy Spirit, or even to the higher life of the future world (Luthardt), but the above interpretation is more consonant with the context. The μετὰταῦτα may (as Westcott suggests) point to the whole manifestation of love as it should complete itself on the cross, and become illumined by the Resurrection and by the gift of the Spirit, when the same mind should be put into Peter that was in Christ Jesus; consequently we may reasonably apply this great word to many of our earthly experiences. God’s ways, Christ’s government of his Church, and the mystery of our lot, are often so puzzling that we cannot be said to know them objectively or absolutely. We know (γινώσκομεν) but in part, and see (βλέπομεν) by means of a mirror (1 Corinthians 13:12); but eventually in the fulness of the Divine manifestation we shall know (ἐπιγνωσόμεθα) completely, subjectively, in the depths of our personal consciousness. Peter saith to him, with mere emphasis than before, with an intensity of double negative and εἰςτὸναἰῶνα, Thou shalt not ever wash my feet—"not while eternity lasts." "A praiseworthy modesty," says Calvin, "were it not that with God obedience is better than worship." This vehement, Peter-like burst showed that even yet he had not learned his profound dependence upon his Lord. Exuberant utterance of a love which in its superlative enthusiasm was in danger of severing the relation between his Lord and himself, elicited from Christ a reply which went far Beneath this purely symbolic washing, and gave even to it a moral significance which it had not possessed before. Jesus answered, If I wash thee (not thy feet) not, thou hast no part with me—no μέρος, £ no portion, no share, no communion, no common inheritance with me in the honors and blessings of the kingdom. This may be understood in two ways: either, "If I do not by my grace cleanse you from your defilement, wash you in a deeper sense, in a more abundant and effectual manner than by giving you this practical lesson, there is utter misunderstanding of my relation to you—you have no part nor share with me." And this John 13:11 seems to favor. Hengstenberg strongly defends this view as a reference by Christ to his power on earth to forgive sins, and confer the pure and new nature (cf. Psalms 51:4, Psalms 51:9-11); and this doubtless lies in the solemn tone of the Lord. A refusal to accept the Divine cleansing is the only ground of exclusion from the benefits of the bloodshedding. Still another more obvious meaning arises, "If you refuse this manifestation of humble love from me, if you put your own pride between yourself and me, if you disdain this act of self-surrender, claiming to understand me and our mutual relations better than I, you have no part with me. This is a symbol of my love to you, and of what is to be your love to one another (John 13:15); if you refuse to accept it from me, you will then have no part with me in the manifestation of the spirit of self-sacrificing love which I have come to inaugurate." Peter must learn the beauty and glory of service for the sake of others; and if he were unable to understand and accept this act of love, he must separate himself from all share in the Master’s work. This truth dawned upon him, but only in part, and it led to the extraordinary revulsion of feeling which followed. John 13:9 Simon Peter makes another impetuous and characteristic outburst, and another of his almost glorious mistakes. Once more he will go before and give advice to his Master. The very same Peter who drew the sword in Gethsemane and then fled, who went to the high priest’s palace and then denied his Lord; the very same Peter who rushed into the water anal then cried, "Lord, save me, I perish," who cried, even on the Mount of Transfiguration, "Let us build three tabernacles;" and when our Lord spoke of his cross said, "This shall not be done unto thee;"—the same Simon Peter now said to him, "If it comes to the primal experience of being washed by thee in thine unutterable love, if there be any question of part and share with thee in thy work, I will (cf. John 13:37) go with thee to prison and to death, then, blessed Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head; i.e. all my uncovered body; seeing that my power of thinking and all my capacity for service alike need cleansing." Peter not unreasonably felt the weakness and corruption of his nature, and cried out, as we all are often disposed to do, for renewal and sanctification of every faculty and energy of his being. In this he showed a lack of realization of the new world into which grace had brought him, and once more needed correction. Chrysostom says, "In his deprecation be was vehement, in his yielding more vehement, but both came from his love." But even here we see the same eagerness to go beyond the Lord, and dictate the course to be pursued. John 13:10 Jesus saith to him. Christ’s answer here undoubtedly shows that he is speaking of something far more important than the foot-washing. He goes back to the spiritual meaning which Peter attributed to his words. He that has been bathed (λελουμένος) is indeed washed from head to foot, hath no further need than to wash his feet, £ but is altogether clean. By personal communion with the Lord and belief in him, by the word which he had spoken to his disciples, they were (καθαροί) clean (John 15:3). They had been washed from the defilement of their old nature, they had undergone a thorough moral and spiritual change, by moral union with Christ. They were reconciled and cleansed; they therefore did not need a fundamental change to be wrought daily in head, hands, and life. Just as a man who had thoroughly bathed only requires the removal of the soil contracted in the daily walk; so a regenerated and forgiven man is clean, and, like Peter, should not need, being καθαρός, more than the foot-cleansing which Christ in Divine condescension had then granted. It was inevitable that some of the Fathers and many modern expositors (Hengstenberg, Godet, and Wordsworth) should see here a reference to baptism, and speak of Peter’s having overlooked the grace of his baptism. When it is remembered, however, that nothing but John’s "baptism unto repentance" had been administered to the disciples, and that this cleansing is, in John 15:3, distinctly referred to the word of Christ, it is a very unnecessary trifling with the text to find in this λελουμένος baptism or any sacramental or symbolic act. Lampe and Cocceius, in rendering λελουμένος, substitute for baptism, the regeneration of the Spirit, and treat the washing of the feet as equivalent to the daily forgiveness of sins of infirmity. Archdeacon Farrar, ’Early Days of Christianity,’ vol. 1. p. 126, suggests that this intensely interesting scene may account for Simon Peter’s picturesque expression (1 Peter 5:5, ἐκομβώσασθε), wherein he enjoins on Christians to "tie on humility like a dress fastened with knots;" and also for the apostle’s "insight into the true meaning of baptism, as being, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God." And ye are clean; and therefore these words and this principle apply to you. Dr. Westcott finds in this phrase a reference to the purity of the visible Church, notwithstanding, i.e., the presence of Judas in the group; but the exception itself which follows shows that the Lord did not regard Judas as λελουμένος or καθαρός. The suggestion of the passage is precisely contrary to that so often drawn. But not all. This reference to Judas may have been one more warning to the man who was plotting against his Master’s life. John 13:11 For he knew who was betraying him; therefore he said, Ye are not all clean. That Christ should have been ignorant of the devices of Judas, or of his true character, is repeatedly denied by all the evangelists. John certainly calls attention to the Lord’s knowledge of the secret of Judas, and justifies thus his Divine prerogative. That Strauss, Hilgenfeld, and others should see here an innuendo against Peter, and the charge against Peter of advocating a kind of Ebionitie daily ablution of the whole body, is willful and uncalled for. John 13:12-17 The Lord gives other practical instructions based on his own humble self-obliterating discharge of a duty which it was obvious that, in their desire to be great, they had one and all abstained from doing even for their Lord. Out of it he draws the great lesson of mutual love and brotherly regard. John 13:12 So when he had washed their feet—the interruption of Peter had brought forth the wonderful and weighty replies, and then, in awfulness and great amazement, the process went on. John and Judas as well as Peter submitted. Matthew and Thomas, Philip and Nathanael, and the rest yielded and received the deep, ineffaceable impression—and taken his garments he was no longer in the form of a slave, but of their Teacher and Lord—and again reclined £ at their head, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done unto you? They must consider the meaning of it all. There was no affectation of humility about it. The purpose of the Lord was distinctly practical and ethical. So when he ceased his manifestation in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was set down on the right hand of God, he sent his Spirit to teach them all things. Moulton calls attention to the trial arrangement. Three particulars precede the great utterance that follows (cf. verses 1-3; cf. also John 16:6; John 16:8, etc.; John 17:22, John 17:23), as well as the three topics of the intercessory prayer; also the three words from the cross (John 19:27-30) and three appearances to the disciples (John 21:14). This may be compared with the use of three throughout the Apocalypse. John 13:13 Ye name me the Teacher and the Lord. "Rabbi and Mara," the names of reverence which disciples of the Hebrew teachers were accustomed to offer to their masters. Φωνεῖν means to name, and the two nominatives are used appellatively, not as vocatives. Tholuck regards them as vocatives. Scholars dared not address their teachers without some marks of respect. Διδάσκαλος is John’s equivalent for יבר, my Master (see John 1:29; John 20:16). And ye say well; for so I am. At this supreme moment he does not repudiate this high function, nor abate any of his lofty claims. He was most obviously the highest in his condescending love. He had given no more amazing proof of the originality and supremacy of his nature than this inversion of all ordinary relations. So I AM—more, indeed, than "the Teacher," "the Savior," more than "the Master," as Peter said on a memorable occasion, "God was with him," and he was Immanuel—"God with us," and "Lord of all" (Acts 10:37, Acts 10:38). John 13:14, John 13:15 If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet; ye ought also to wash one another’s feet: for I have given £ you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Καθώς, "as," "like as," was used by our Lord rather than ὅ, "that which." The ὑπόδειγμα £ shows that he had set before his disciples a parallel, an example, a symbolic type of the service they were to render to one another, and was not establishing a custom or exact ordinance. The washing of the feet was an Oriental custom of great antiquity as a mark of hospitality (Genesis 18:4; Genesis 19:2; Abigail, 1 Samuel 25:41; see also Luke 7:38, Luke 7:44). In 1 Timothy 5:10 there is trace of such a custom of Christian hospitality. Considering the ease with which the Church has established a ceremonial from an isolated text, it is remarkable that no more literal use has been made of this injunction. However, Maundy Thursday, a name derived from Dies mandati, was celebrated as the day on which this great command, or that contained in verse 34, was given—Mandatum novum do vobis—and the feet of the newly baptized were washed. The endeavor to make Augustine the authority for this religious practice is doubtful; but the Council of Toledo mentions this particular day as that on which it was appropriate. In the early Gallican Church there was such a ritual, and the forms of pedilavium observed are to be read in early Gothic and Galliean missals. Bernard of Clairvaux tried to convert the ceremony into a sacrament, but without success. And it would seem that some effort was made to introduce it into Spain. "In 1530, Wolsey washed, wiped, and kissed the feet of fifty-nine poor men at Peterborough. The practice was continued by English sovereigns till the reign of James II." (Westcott). No traces of it are to be found in the Ambrosian ritual, but the preservation of the custom is found now in the Russian imperial palace, in the ceremonies of the holy week at Rome, and in the palaces of vienna, Madrid,Munich. The practice was for a time retained by the United Brethren and Mennonites, and the Tunkers of Philadelphia (see ’Dictionary of Christian Antiquities,’ vol. 1. arts. "Baptism," §§ 34, 67, and "Maundy Thursday;" Herzog., ’Encyc.,’ art. "Fusswaschung," by H. Merz; and Schaff’s ’Herzog.,’ art. "Tunkers"). The Church has for the most part looked below the mere form to the real substance of the Lord’s teaching, and only thus can we appreciate it adequately. The very injunction would be an inadequate, burdensome one where the feet are covered, and would become impossible and valueless in the Northern and Western world. The service demanded is the self-forgetting ministry of love, which places the interests of self behind and below those of others. Nothing is more theoretically easy and acceptable than this principle, but nothing more difficult of accomplishment. This sentence of our Lord is a noble illustration of the method in which a great principle is made by him the basis of a small duly (cf. Paul’s vindication of his own truthfulness and freedom from ἐλάφρια, 2 Corinthians 1:17-20; he based it on God’s own faithfulness to promise). John 13:16 The verily, verily reveals the solemnity with which our Lord touched the frequently quoted aphorism (Matthew 10:24; Luke 6:40; and again John 15:20). The servant—the slave—is not greater than his lord; you have already called me Lord, and so I am; neither is (one that is sent) an apostle greater than he that sent him on his great mission. Therefore if I, your Lord and Teacher, have set forth this principle of self-abnegating service, a fortiori should ye in love serve one another, the greatest should render even menial service to the humblest; he that would be first to him that is the last, and each to all. This is one of the essential marks, and ever will be, of the mind that was in Christ Jesus (comp. Matthew 10:23, Matthew 10:24, where an analogous phrase justifies the disciples in expecting and fleeing from persecution—a step in which they would simply be following their Lord’s example; cf. a very different use of the proverb in Luke 6:40, where it is used to warn a blind man from assuming the office of a guide, and the resemblance of the character, etc., between the Teacher and disciple). John 13:17 If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them. Knowing and doing are often perilously divorced (cf. Matthew 7:21, etc.; Luke 6:46; Luke 12:47; and James 1:25). The sublime principle by itself may be something, but if it be never put into practice, the last great beatitude is forfeited. Mere admiration of an ethical or a Christian principle degenerating into a heartless and fruitless ceremony is hardening to the heart and deadening to the conscience. The same truths had been taught independently of parable and symbol, in Matthew 23:8-12; Matthew 20:28. John 13:18-30 2. The exclusion of the faithless disciple. This paragraph draws the circle of his cleansed ones, of those who accept him as Master and Lord in the fullest sense, more closely (at) out him. But the proceeding is tragic in the extreme; one of the twelve chosen as apostles is a traitor in disguise. The foot-washing has been an awful insufficiency in his case. He must depart before the greatest depth of the Master’s love and truth can be revealed. John 13:18 I speak net concerning you all. There is one who, though he knows these things, will not do them, is now indisposed to see any Divineness in the act and spirit of love which I am laying down as a fundamental law of my kingdom. I know whom £ (or, the individuals whom) I chose for apostles—(in John 6:1-71. the same statement is made with less definiteness, "Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you," etc.?) Judas among them—but. It is difficult to follow this construction, and to decide on the antithesis to this disjunctive. (1) We may add, this has happened (τοῦτογέγονεν)—i.e. this choice has been overruled, and so in its issues corresponded with the Divine purpose (ἵνα)—so that the Scripture might be fulfilled, He that eateth my bread £ or, bread with me, hath lifted his heel against me; (2) we may take the ἵναπληρωθῇ as a parenthesis, and link the ἀλλ’ with the quotation, "He that eateth," etc.; or (3) we may, with Meyer, suppose that ἐξελεξάμηναὐτοῦς, "I chose them," is mentally involved here: "I chose them, and Judas among them (ἵνα), in order that the Scripture," etc. This connection would suggest a destiny and purpose which Christ knowingly corresponded with, harmonizing his plan with the Divine and prophetic program. Emphasis must be laid upon the ἐκλέγεσθαι. It refers to Christ’s choice of apostles, not to the eternal election to salvation. This interpretation corresponds more closely with the text, though it savors of a fatalism foreign to the Scripture. There is, however, a true sense in which the evil-disposed man is so placed that, if he will sin, he must sin along certain well-defined lines. The forty-first psalm, from which the quotation is made, is not strictly Messianic; it is descriptive of the ideal Sufferer, the holy but outraged man, whose melancholy condition is sure to be characterized by treachery among his familiar friends. Christ implies that, if he were to fulfill this portraiture, then this bitter dreg would be put into his cup; and so he humanly made this choice, i.e. he took steps which in their tenderness of love might have saved Judas from the worst, but which were really part of a Divine plan which would vindicate his own foresight and the method of Divine government. A full understanding of the formula in Matthew and John, ἵναἡγραφὴπληρωθῇ, will save us from putting into these words a hopeless fatalism. Notice that the LXX. reads this passage differently, and is not so closely allied to the Hebrew: "He that eateth my leaves hath magnified against me his surreptitious despite, his tricky antagonism." Great beauty is given to the passage by the R.T. you instead of μετἐμοῦ, for it suggests the idea that Christ was the real Host of the twelve, the Father and Provider of his family. Christ must be regarded as the Father and Host of the entire group of guests, and the treacherous treatment of a host throughout the East is regarded as a sign of peculiar obduracy. John 13:19 I tell you from henceforth—ἀπ’ ἄρτι of Matthew 26:64 corresponds with Luke 22:69, ἀπὸτοῦνῦν; the word also implies that our Lord would again recur to the subject. This is the true meaning of ἀπάρτι in the New Testament. It is more than the words will bear to make the ἐγώεἶμι, the equivalent of a Divine claim to equality with Jehovah; but "all that I have said of myself, and all you have admitted to be true." It is not a promise of continual prevision of events, but a startling proof that in this case our Lord had completely fathomed the mind of Judas, and was communicative of what he saw there to the rest of the disciples, so that when the tragedy should be consummated, this peculiarity, instead of shaking their faith in him, will prove that he was taken by no surprise, and throughout his great career was what he said he was. John 13:20 The connection of the solemn utterance that follows is not easy to seize. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He who receiveth whomsoever I shall send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. In the earlier utterance of an analogous saying (Matthew 10:40), δεχέσθαι is used instead of λαμβάνειν. The ἐάντίναπέμψω suggests that those who may receive his commission need not, and will not, be confined to the twelve apostles, although including them. The words reveal a claim to issue such commissions, and to confer upon his apostolic and other representatives something of his own dignity and glory, viz. the glory of sacrifice far others, the dignity of service. He may have intended: (1) To comfort those who are bewildered by the thought of the treachery within their enclosure, and to assure them that such conduct on the part of an apostle must not be allowed to lower their estimate of apostolic duty. Certain ecclesiastical interpreters find here that the unworthiness even of Judas did not destroy the Divine character of his testimony, and that the immoral character of the minister now does not annul the commission he has received. This dogma is essentially hostile to the teaching of the New Testament (Matthew 7:17-21). (2) The royal power of the dying Christ; and (3) the bold identification of his own claims with those of his Father. Few more wonderful sayings were uttered by Jesus, if we ponder the connection in which they stand; but let it be observed that we do not owe to the Fourth Gospel the matter of this saying. It must have been familiar to the readers of John from the solemn records of the Gospel of Matthew. John 13:21-30 correspond with the scene which Matthew describes (Matthew 26:21, etc.) as occurring during the Paschal meal, and preceding the departure of Judas before the Supper was instituted—"as they did eat." The ὁἐσθίωνμετἐμοῦ in Mark 14:18 corresponds and finds its explanation in the scene described by John, as also his quotation from Psalms 41:1-13. It does not follow, because the synoptics omit the "feet-washing," that they were ignorant of it; John’s purpose was to record that which they had omitted. On the other hand, John does give some very significant indications of the same general current of inner life in the mind of Jesus and of the twelve. Matthew (Matthew 26:14-16) shows that at this very moment Judas had so far given way to his avarice, impatience, disappointment, and innate pride and selfishness, as to be simply seeking his opportunity to betray his Master in the absence of the multitude. He had his price; he was meditating treachery. Granting the mixture of motive which may have agitated him, we condemn the pleading of numerous modern writers, who almost extenuate his malice and represent him as victim of the violent vulgar passion of the multitude for a triumphant secular Messiah. Every touch or stroke in the evangelic narrative shows how utterly Impervious to goodness the traitor really was; and John gives us a further hint, in addition to that supplied by the synoptists, as to the very commencement of the agony, the details of which they prolong into the night. Jesus was troubled in the spirit (cf. notes on John 11:33). This is one of the strongest expressions used of the sorrows of Christ; the ταράχη even was deeper down in his nature than what is expressed by ἀδημονεῖν, λυπεῖσθαι, of Matthew. The distress penetrated from "body" to "soul," and then to inmost "spirit." The Lord was terribly perturbed, not merely with approaching agony aggravated by treachery and desertion, but by the contrast between his love and the issue, between an apostle and his doom. And he testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you. A close specification of coming events takes the place of the more vague utterances of verses 17-19. One of you shall betray me. The synoptic account introduces the vivid scene of humble and heart-.rending inquiry, "Lord, is it I?" to which the reply was made, "The one that dippeth his hand in the dish with me shall betray me," followed by a still more awful warning, and imprecation calling the self-consciously guilty man to hesitate, to pause for his own sake (Matthew 26:24). And, further, we learn that Judas received the answer, unheard by his fellow-disciples that it was he who was in this imminent danger. This scene, however, was so impressive to the majority that the synoptic tradition failed to record a briefer side-scene, of which John was the principal witness, and which he here describes. The disciples (therefore) £ were gazing on one another, being in perplexity concerning whom he spake. They were looking on in mute or whispering amazement and tribulation upon one another, being in sore bewilderment (ἀπορούμενοι), but as yet they did not suspect Judas. There was lying, says our text, reclining at the table, in the bosom (ἐντῷκόλπῳ)—ἐπὶτοστῆθος, "against the breast"—one of his disciples whom Jesus loved. Observe, this sacred designation occurs in John 19:26; John 20:2; John 21:7,John 21:20. In John 20:2 it is "the other disciple whom Jesus ἐφίλει, amabat, implying that the love of Jesus was not confined to John, but embraced Peter also; whereas here we have ὃνἠγάπα, the higher love of respect and affection, diligebat. We can have no doubt, from the enumeration of the group in John 21:2, etc., that it is one of Zebedee’s sons. Now one of these, James, as we learn from the narrative of Act 12:1-25., soon passed away. The author of the Fourth Gospel does undoubtedly mean to refer to John, and to represent the disciple ἵνἠγάπαὁἸησοῦς as no other than himself. The attitude so carefully described had been adopted by the Jews at table. It shows that John was seated, or was reclining, next to Jesus on his right, and therefore could, more easily than his next companion on the left, have sought and received an answer from the Lord. Whether this was Peter or Judas does not appear certain. Edersheim has represented Peter’s place as on the opposite side of the horseshoe table. Words from that distance could have been overheard by all. At the celebration of the Passover, the guests were accustomed originally to stand; but after the Captivity the custom fell into desuetude. John 13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to this (disciple), and saith to him. Wherefore he must have been far enough off to beckon, and near enough to speak. Westcott imagines that Peter was on the left side, in the place of real honor (?), though not in such proximity as, unobserved, to ask the question. Edersheim also speaks of the left side as the place of honor, but assigns no adequate reason for such a violation of universal usage and metaphor. The natural impetuosity of Peter would have induced him, if he had been so near, to have asked the question himself. It is more probable that Judas himself was there, judging from the language of Mat 26:23, and from the act which follows. Either with T.R., He spake to him, to ask who it might be; £ or, saith, Tell (us) who it is concerning whom he speaks; as though Peter had rushed to the conclusion that John knew. This is singularly like Peter, and John may tacitly have been supposed to be better acquainted than the rest with the mind of Jesus. John 13:25 £He, leaning back as he was against the breast of Jesus, saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Meyer explains, "He, raising himself from the κόλπος of Jesus to his breast, nearer to his ear, draws close to him, and asks in a whisper." This turns on the special rendering given by Meyer and others to κόλπος, as meaning the fold of the garment above the girdle, as in Luke 6:38; but the fundamental meaning of κόλπος is bosom, womb, embrace, and this secondary meaning need not be pressed (cf. John 1:18; Luke 16:22, Luke 16:23). John 13:26 Jesus (then) answered—"then," οὖν, is introduced by the modern editors, as well as βάψω for βάψας—He it is for whom I shall dip the sop (or, morsel), and give it him; so (καὶἐμβάψας is exchanged, on very strong authority, into βάψαςοὖν, and ἐπιδώσω into δώσω) when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas the son of Simon, the Iscariot. The ψωμίον was the morsel of meat or bread dipped into the charoseth, a mead of wine and fruit used at the Paschal meal. The usage is illustrated by the LXX. version of Rth 2:14 and Job 31:17. In the New Testament ψωμίζω is used for distribution of food, Romans 12:20; 1 Corinthians 13:3. The act of Jesus was almost contemporaneous with the "Thou sayest it" of the synoptists It was twofold in meaning, explaining to John what he wished to know fur Peter’s sake, and giving Judas one more gracious chance to repent and believe in the Divinity of love rather than that of display, power, and pomp. Judas had been dipping his hand into the same dish with his Master, eating his bread. Instead of resenting such effrontery the blessed Lord gave him in pity the last opportunity to escape, he puts the morsel sopped in the acid wine, the bread of fellowship, into his very lips, and the miscreant received it. The name of Judas, and of his father, and of the place cursed by being his birthplace, are once more introduced at length (cf. John 6:71). John 13:27 And after the sop; not with it. By no magical or demoniacal rite was the man rendered the slave of Satan; post hoc is not propter hoc. After the sop, after this last final proof of the unutterable friendship and love of the Divine Lord—τὸτε, then, "at that moment," as though goodness was turned into wrath, and the conflict with evil closed, the incarnated fiend resolved that he would wait no longer. Then Satan (the only place in the Fourth Gospel where Satan is mentioned) entered into him. How could this be known? The evangelist clearly saw what he thus described—he saw the malign and unrelenting expression on Judas’s face; he suspected that some devilish plot was hatched, some hideous purpose finally formed. It is the evangelist’s way of saying what he personally saw and afterwards concluded. Up to that moment of supreme forbearance, the character was not irretrievably damned, but now he had sinned against knowledge and love, and even Jesus gives him up. "It were better for him that he had never been born." There is no more awful or tragic touch in the whole narrative, nor any more symbolic of the curse which the corrupt heart can make and bring down upon itself out of the greatest blessing. There is no advantage in trying to determine the amount of figurative sense conveyed by the expression, "Satan entered." The ethical state consequent either upon the sop or the devil is clear enough. The moment when it was induced is signalized in this tragedy. The vehement effort which the traitor must have made to resist all gracious influences opened the way for the powers of hell and darkness to take possession of him. He strengthened himself to do evil. Jesus therefore said to him, That thou doest, do quickly. Questions have been raised as to the sentence—whether it was a solemn command or a permission at once to carry out the purpose that was in his heart (as Grotius, Kuinoel, and others suppose); but Meyer here is more penetrative (so Moulton): "Jesus (as a man) actually wishes to surmount as soon as possible the last crisis of his fate now determined for him." Jameson (’Profound Problems in Theology and Philosophy’) urges that it was the prolongation of the struggle which was the bitterest element in Christ’s sufferings. The decision at which he had arrived brooked no longer delay. As if he had said, "If you have any manhood in you, and you are not altogether incarnate daemon, make haste, let me remain no longer in suspense; carry out the purpose now and at once." Ambrose, Lucke, Tholuck, suggest that he meant to separate Judas from the eleven, and be rid of his presence. His removal from the group is undoubtedly the condition of our Lord’s highest revelations of himself. John 13:28, John 13:29 Now not one (οὐδείς, not even John) of those reclining at table knew with reference to what matter or behoof he said this to him. The τοῦτο is very emphatic, and, on the supposition of the authenticity of the narrative, John expressly disclaims the knowledge. It is arbitrary for Keim to say that John must have known. The whole of this "aside" was the work of a moment. For certain of them were supposing, because Judas held the purse—or, box (see note, John 12:6)—Jesus said to him; Buy the things we have need of for the feast; or, (he spake) in order that he should give something to the poor. If the great feast of the Jews was to be held on the following day, and this was the 13-14th of Nisan, this advice would be perfectly comprehensible, whereas, if it was the 14-15th when Jesus and also all the Jews were celebrating the Passover, the purchase of any articles would have been contrary to law; and on both grounds the conclusion is drawn that this was the evening of the 13-14tb, and that the Paschal meal had certainly been anticipated by Jesus; but this is not absolutely conclusive, because, even though this were the Passover meal, it is certain that further sacrifices, called "Passovers," were consumed on the great day of unleavened bread that followed the Paschal meal, and it is not perfectly certain what was the custom of the Jews with reference to purchase. Talmudic authorities may be quoted both ways; and a large number of distinguished commentators ( Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Lange, M’Clellan) take the latter view, harmonizing John with the synoptists; but considering all the other difficulties that arise, Meyer, Godet, and Westcott take the former view. The supposition of a gift to the poor from the little stock is very suggestive of the almsgiving spirit that had pervaded all the habits of disciples taught by Christ (cf. John 12:5; Galatians 2:10). Hengstenberg urges that the night of the Passover was that above all others on which the poor needed help to rejoice before the Lord. John 13:30 He then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night. There is no advantage to be secured by omitting the οὖν, and connecting the ἦνδὲνύξ with the ὅτε (συν) ἐξῆλθε, nor is it preferred by the later editors. The immediate departure of Judas when he had taken the sop is compatible with all the context—a horror of the shadow of death falls on the tragic scene. He at least passes out into the outer darkness, apt symbol of his soul and of his deed. Hengstenberg imagines the Lord’s Supper to have followed the previous words, and that the εὐθύς must be interpreted with some laxity, leaving time for the sacred meal to have been instituted and the solemn song to have been sung. It is difficult to say where the Eucharistic service is to be introduced, and every possible suggestion has been made. The statement of Luk 22:21, Luke 22:22 makes it probable that the traitor was present at it. And all the synoptists make the indication of the traitor follow the institution of the Eucharist, and two of them place it on the very way to the garden of Gethsemane. Bengel, in harmony with his chronological scheme, supposes that the traitor went out and returned. According to Keim, the Eucharistic meal may be supposed to be introduced at the close of Joh 14:1-31. and before the discourse on the vine; but that discourse follows a summons of Jesus to his disciples to leave the upper chamber. And every attempt to find a place for it in the midst of the valedictory discourse is unsatisfactory (see these amply discussed in Godet, Lucke, Meyer). Thus Paulus, etc., place it after John 14:30. Lucke and Meyer, between verses 33 and 34; but Peter’s question looks back to verse 33, allowing no such break. Neander and Ebrard place after verse 32. Tholuck, after verse 34, Lange identifies it with the new commandment; and Bengel makes the discourse down to John 14:31 precede Christ’s journey to Jerusalem to keep the Passover, so that no clashing takes place. I think that the simplest solution of the difficulty is to put it at the commencement of the feast, and in the folds as it were of the sentence in John 13:2, which tells us that Jesus loved his disciples to the uttermost (εἰςτὸτέλος). The endeavor made by Strauss, to argue from the silence of the fourth evangelist that he knew nothing of the institution of the Eucharist, is a great exaggeration. The synoptic tradition must, ex hypothesi of the late authorship of the Gospel, be well known to the author, and 1 Corinthians 11:33, etc., was ample proof of its historic basis. There was, in the entire representation of this Gospel, an intense perception of the inner meaning of the Eucharist, and of the new covenant and commandment based on the assumption of the Passion and death of the incarnate God; so that instead of describing the ceremonial, he expounds its ideas. John 13:31 John 16:33.— 3. THE OF THE LORD. John 13:31-33 (1) The glorification of the Son of man, and of the Father in the Son. With John 13:31 the solemn valedictory discourse of our Lord commences—a veritable evangelium in evangelio, and by the aid of which we come more closely to the heart of Jesus. "Here," as Olshausen says, "we are entering the holy of holies in the Passion-history." We have, indeed, come through the courts of the temple, we have left the courts of the Gentiles, of the women, of the priests behind us, and have been waiting in the holy place of sacrifice and incense and ablution; now we follow our great High Priest to the veil over the holiest of all, and he prepares us to listen to the intercession that he makes before the unveiled majesty of the Father’s love. The first section, extending from John 13:31-14:31, reports a series of questions by Peter, Thomas, Philip, Jude, which all turn more or less on the anticipated separation which he teaches them to regard as a veritable glorification of the Son of man, and also as a higher revelation to them of the nature of his own Person and of those relations between "the Son" and "the Father" which are imaged and shadowed forth in those between" the Son of man" and "God," which they could more readily understand. This prepares the way for the discourse and prayer which followed, in which the future spiritual union between the victorious Lord and his own disciples, between a sanctified humanity and the eternal Godhead, is exhibited, distinguished by wonderful blending of intuitive insight and supernatural revelation. The discourse is consistent with the stupendous conception which the evangelist had formed of the Person of Christ. Hilgenfeld and ethers regard this address as utterly incompatible with the valedictory discourses of Mat 24:1-51., 25., and Mark 13:1-37. We have already seen that they are but different aspects of the same mysterious and wonderful Personage; that the synoptists are not silent concerning the spiritual presence of Christ in and with his disciples till the end of the world; and, on the other hand, that the fourth evangelist is perfectly alive to the reality of his kingdom in the world and to the true nature of his second coming. John 13:31, John 13:32 (The οὖν is not omitted by T.R. or Westcott and Holt. It stands on great authority. The different punctuation of Stephens, νὺξὅτεἐξήλθε, dispensed with the οὖν; but this arrangement is not followed by modern editors.) When therefore he (Judas) was gone out, and the Lord was left with his trembling but faithful eleven, his heart yearned over them without reserve or exception, and he speaks as though his Passion had begun, and even ended too. Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. The aorist ἐδοξάσθη suggests more than "is glorified." Bengel says, "Jesus passionem ut breve iter spectatet metam potius prospicit." As Son of man, he has secured the highest glory of the most tender, humiliating self sacrifice, has cast out of the covenanted fellowship the hateful, baneful virus of a carnal triumph. To his eye as Son of man the end is secured, just as in John 17:10 he says, "I have been glorified in them." £ The thought is certainly complete without the clause appended in T.R., which simply reiterates the last clause, in order to make it the basis of a further thought: God will glorify him in (himself £), if his suffering and sacrificed humanity has been the scene and material of a glory given to God, because a new manifestation of the Divine fullness in humanity; that is the reason why his very humanity will be lifted up into the Divine glory, itself becoming one with it, exalted far above these heavens, that he might fill all things. Elsewhere we read that "Christ is hidden in God" (Colossians 3:3; Acts 3:21). All his earthly sufferings will now be seen to be a forth-streaming of Divine love, the fullest revelation of the innermost essence of God (of. Isaiah 42:1). Godet says, "When God has been glorified by a being, he draws him to his bosom and envelops him in his glory." This expression scarcely sustains the sublime uniqueness of the glory of God in the Son of man, and the glory of the Son of man in God. The words, and will straightway glorify him show how imminent was the glorification which is consummated by the new meaning put into death, and into all that leads to it and into the sacrifice involved in it. That "straightway glorify him" is a note of triumph, and this while Judas is completing his bargain (cf. the παρὰσοί with ἐνἑαυτῷ of this verse; of. John 17:5). John 13:33 This is the first and only time, in the Gospels that the tender word, little children, is used by the Lord. The adoption of the gentle love-word is appropriate as a link to the new commandment, and reveals the love of departure, the tender love that wells up in his heart, as he contemplates the orphan-like and bereft condition of his disciples. A little while am I still with you. Ye shall seek me in the way of sympathetic love and vivid realization of my spiritual and real presence; and as I said ante the Jews (a term that Christ used in this place only when speaking to his disciples, though he had made use of it to the Samaritans, and would use it to Caiaphas and Pilate), in John 7:33, John 7:34, and John 8:21; but there and then he added, "Ye will not find me," because they would only seek him in carnal ideas and angry disappointment. Observe, he does not here repeat this consequence of the search, because ultimately these disciples would not only seek, but follow and find; nevertheless, he adds: As I said to the Jews, Whither I go, you are not able to come; so at this time I say to you. There are two words used for "now"—νῦν denotes absolutely the present moment; ἄρτι (John 9:19, John 9:25, etc.) denotes here and there, a period distinct from past and future, and yet related to both. The time is not yet come for you to enter into my glory; you cannot yet come, you have to continue my earthly ministry, to prolong the testimony which I have given concerning God, and which God has given concerning me. The time will come when "I will receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also;" but now he prays, "though I am no more in this world, these are in the world holy Father, keep them" (John 17:11). John 13:34, John 13:35 (2) The demand which this glorification would ,make on the mutual fidelity and affection of the disciples. John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you (with the purpose and scope) that ye love one another; even as (or, seeing that) I loved you, that ye (also) love one another. The interpretation of this verse largely depends on the meaning given to the καθὼς, if, as many translate it, "even as I loved you;" or, "after the manner and type of my love to you;" then an amply sufficient explanation arises of the novelty of the ἐντολή. So new a type of love is given that, as the Greek expositors generally have urged, there is a deeper intensity in the love than can be found in the Mosaic principle, Love thy neighbor as thyself." In this commandment, which embraces the whole law, self-love is assumed, and is made the standard for the love of neighbor. This ἐντολή, on the other hand, would be based on a new principle, and measured by a higher standard, and even mean more than love of self altogether. Christ’s love to his disciples was self-abandoning, self-sacrificing love. This view of the passage is urged by Lucke, and really removes all necessity for the varied translations of the καινή, such as "illustrious" (Hammond); "last" (Heumann); "one that is always new" (Olshausen); "renewed commandment," a "renewing commandment"; "the institution of the Eucharist" (Lange). But it is doubtful whether the ideal image of a perfect love constitutes the novelty, and whether the double ἵνα and the transposition of the second ἵνα be found in the simple style of John. If, however, καθώςἠγάπησα be taken as "seeing that," or "since I loved you" (see John 17:2), Christ’s love becomes not so much the manner or type, as the motive, ground, and principle of love to one another. As if he had said, "I have loved each of you unto death; in loving one another you are loving me, you are loving an object of my tender love. The desire of mere imitation, however strong, is not equal to the demand I make, while the bestowment of the ’new’ principle of life arising from a response to my love is." For the first interpretation speaks John’s own use of the idea (1 John 3:16). There is a third interpretation, which makes καθὼςἠγάπησαὑμᾶς a sentence parallel with the δίδωμι. "Even as up to this moment, and up to my death, and to the uttermost, I have loved you, I give," etc., "in order that ye may love one another, and, inspired by me, may imitate my love one towards another" (Westcott). This is an endeavor to combine both interpretations. Alford suggests that the "newness" of the commandment consists in its "unicity," its being the prime injunction of the new covenant, and the first-fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22; 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.). Tholuck sees the expression of self-renouncing love—the love of the highest to the sinful, the love which is more blessed to give than to receive, the all-embracing love. John 13:35 By (or, in) this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one toward another. Not by works of majesty and power, but by love to one another. All commentators refer to the well-known saying of St. John at Ephesus, as recorded by Jerome, "This is the Lord’s commandment. If ye love one another it is enough" (Tholuck refers to Tertullian’s ’Apol.,’ 39; Minucius Felix, "They love before they know each other ;" and Lucian, "Their Master makes them believe they are brothers," ’De Mort. Pereg.’). Analogies to the great law of Christ may be found in the Law of Moses, in Talmudical writings, in the Confucian ’Analcets,’ and in Stoical maxims; but this ἐντολή in its fullness, and as sustained by this motive, or inspired by this pattern, and lifted to this standard, is new to the human race: and it is the power which has revolutionized thought, society, and life. So long as this great power prevailed, the Church made astounding progress; when the so-called disciples of Christ began to hale and kill one another the progress was arrested. But, thank God, the "new commandment" has always had marvelous power over the Church of Christ. John 13:36 John 14:4.—(3) The question of Simon Peter, with the terrible response and bitter grief of the entire group, followed by the consoling promise. Here follows another characteristic question of Simon Peter, who said to him, Lord, whither goest thou? This inquiry points backs to John 13:33, where Jesus warned his disciples that they could not now follow him. Jesus answered (him) (the "him" is omitted by B, C, L, Vulgate, and Coptic, by Westcott and Hort, and R.T.), Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now (νῦν), at this crisis; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter felt that the central teaching of the entire conversation turned upon the Lord’s departure and his separation, not only from the Jews who misunderstood him, but from the disciples themselves, lie wanted something more than the sacred power of love to his own brethren; he yearned after more utter identification with his Master, rather than closer interdependence of love and mutual ministries among the shattered group of half-taught disciples. Whither goest thou? If to the battle-field, to the condemned cell, to the martyr’s death, I will go with thee. "Not now," is the reply, but "afterwards," after thou hast strengthened thy brethren (see Luke 22:32), after thou hast shepherded my lambs and my sheep, and fed the sheep themselves with the finest pasture, then thou shalt come my way. It is very impressive that, in the beautiful legend that has been commemorated in the Church of "Domine, quo vadis?" in Rome, Peter should at the last have been supposed to put his personal feelings before his Master’s will. Fleeing from persecution at Rome, he is said to have met his Lord entering the city, and, after putting this question, received the reply, "Ibam ad urbem, iterum crucifigi." The disciple, after his wont, accepted the rebuke, immediately returned to the city, and "then another bound him, and led him whither he would not" (John 21:18, John 21:19). John 13:37 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 14:1 It is not necessary to follow Codex D and some of the versions, and here introduce into the text καὶεἶπεντοῖςμαθηταῖςαὐτοῦ. It is enough that the awful warning to Peter, which followed the announcement of the treachery of Judas and his departure, the solemnity of the Lord, and the clear announcement of his approaching death, had fallen like a thunderbolt into their company. Judas held the bag, and was their treasurer, their ἐπίσκοπος (see Hatch’s ’Bampt. Lect.’), and a referee on all practical subjects and details. He had turned against the Lord; and now their spokesman, their rock of strength, their most prominent and their boldest brother, the senior of the group, and with one exception the disciple most beloved and trusted by the Master, was actually warned against the most deadly sin—nay, more, a course of conduct is predicted of him enough to scatter them all to the four winds. Is it possible to exaggerate the consternation and distraction, the shrieks of fear, the bitter sobs of reckless grief that convulsed the upper chamber? In the agony of despair, and amid the awful pause that followed the outburst of their confusion and grief, words fell upon their ears which Luther described as "the best and most consoling sermons that the Lord Christ delivered on earth," "a treasure and jewel not to be purchased with the world’s goods." Hengstenberg has argued at length that the opening words of the chapter do not point to this scene of deep dejection, but to the conversation recorded in Luke 22:35-38, where our Lord warned his disciples of the career of anxiety and dependence and struggle through which they would have to pass. They must be ready even to part with their garment to procure a sword, i.e. they must be prepared to defend themselves against many enemies. With his characteristic impetuosity Peter says, "Here are two swords;" and Jesus said, "It is enough." He could not have meant that two swords were a match for the weapons of the high priests, or the power of the Roman empire, but that the disciple had once again misunderstood the figurative teaching of Christ, and, like a child (as he was), had, in the intensity of his present feeling, lost all apperception of the future. True, the language of Luk 22:35-38 suggests an answer to the question, "Why cannot I follow thee now?" But these words in John 14:1-31. more certainly contemplate that query, coupled with the other occasions that had arisen for bitter tribulation. To the faithful ones, to Peter’s own nobler nature, and to them all alike in view of their unparalleled grief and dismay at the immediate prospect of his departure, he says, Let not your heart be troubled—the one heart of you all; for, after all, it is one heart, and for the moment it was in uttermost exacerbation and distress, lie repeated the words at the close of the first part of the discourse (John 14:27), after he had uttered his words of consolation. The "trouble" from which that one heart of theirs is breaking is not the mere sentimental sorrow of parting with a friend, but the perplexity arising from distracting cares and conflicting passions. The work of love and sacrifice means trouble that nothing but supernatural aid and Divine strength can touch. The heartache of those who are wakened up to any due sense of the eternal is one that nothing but the hand that moves all things can soothe or remedy. Faith in the absolute goodness of God can alone sustain the mind in these deep places of fear, and under the shadow of death. But he gives a reason for their consolation. This is, Believe in God, i.e. the eternal God in all his revelations of himself in the past—in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who has most completely been unveiled to you now in the word and light and life that have been given to you in me. Your faith in God will be equal to your emergencies, and, if you live up to such fairly, you will bear all that befalls you. But, he adds, as I have been in the bosom of God and have declared him to you, believe also in me, as his highest and most complete Revelation. He claimed from them thus the same kind of sentiment, as by right of creation and infinite perfection God Almighty had demanded from them. There are three other ways in which this ambiguous sentence may be translated, according as both the πιστεύετε are taken either as indicatives or imperatives, but the above method is approved by the great majority of interpreters from the early Fathers to Meyer and Godet. The vulgate and Authorized version and Revised version make the second only of the πιστεύετε imperative, and consequently read, "Ye believe in God, believe also in me," which, in the revelation they had just given of their wretchedness and lack of adequate courage and faithfulness, was almost more than the Lord, in the deep and comprehensive sense in which he was using the word "God," would have attributed to them. The different order of the words in the Greek, bringing the two clauses, "in God" and "in me," together, gives potency to the argument of the verse, which is that of the entire Gospel. John 14:2 In my Father’s house are many mansions; or, abiding-places, homes of rest and peace and sojourn. "My Father" is the grandest name of all—the Divine fatherhood, as conceived in the consciousness of Jesus and revealed to them. Had not he who dwelt for ever in the bosom of the Father come forth, as he alone could, to reveal "the Father" and what the Father had been to him in the eternities? "My Father’s house" is the dwelling-place in which devout believing souls would abide forever (Psalms 23:6; Psalms 90:1). In the vast home filled by my Father’s glory and lighted by his smile of recognition and reconciliation, in the high and holy place (Isaiah 63:15; Deuteronomy 26:15), are "many mansions" prepared from the foundation of the world (Matthew 25:34). Heaven is a large place; its possibilities transcend your imagination and exceed your charity. Thoma quotes all the grand hopes which Paul’s Epistles and that to the Hebrews contain, that Jesus made heaven and home by his presence there (Philippians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:14, 1 Thessalonians 4:17), and he supposes that the Johannist put these words into the lips of Jesus. One conclusion forced upon the reader, so far as this passage is concerned, is that there is no reason why this Gospel may not have been written long before the close of the first century. If it were not so; i.e. if there were any doubt about it, if the revelations already made do not avail to prove as much as this, if you have been cherishing nothing better than vain illusions on this subject, I would have told you, for I came forth from God, and know these many mansions well. I would have told you, for all things that I have heard from the Father (up to this time possible for you to receive) I have made known to you. Here surely is a colon, if not a period. Many interpreters, by reason of the ὅτι £ which Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott, and Meyer believe to be the correct reading, link the following sentence in different ways to the preceding; e.g. some say ὅτι is equivalent to "that," and read, "I would have told you that I go, etc.; but against this is the simple statement of Joh 14:3, where Jesus proceeds to say that he is going to prepare, etc. Others, translating ὅτι "for," differ as to whether the departure of Jesus and his preparation of a place for his disciples refers to the first or second part of the sentence. Surely the ὅτι, "because" or "for," opens out a new thought based on the whole of that sentence: "Because, seeing if it were not so, I would have told you," because our relations are so close as to have involved on your part this claim on my frankness, for I am going to prepare a place—to make ready one of these many mansions—for you. Over and above the vague mystery of the Father’s house, my departure is that of your "Forerunner," and my presence will make a new resting-place—it will localize your home. As you have made ready this guest-chamber for me, I am going to make ready a presence-chamber for you in the heavenly Jerusalem. Lange objects to this view of Lucke, Calvin, and Tholuck, that it involves a diffusion of knowledge and revelation among the disciples, of which there is no proof. This does not seem bettered by another rendering preferred by him, viz. "If it were not so, would I have told you I go to prepare a place for you?" But then this mode of interpretation implies a previous definite instruction as to the part he himself was going to take in the furnishing of the heavenly mansion. Of that most certainly there is no proof. John 14:3 And if I go and if I prepare a place for you—a simple condition, soon to be realized by the event—I come again; I am ever coming, as I am now about to explain to you, (1) in my resurrection (John 16:16, John 16:17); (2) in the bestowment of the Comforter (John 14:17, John 14:25, John 14:26; John 16:7, etc.); (3) in the intimate relations which, through the power of the Spirit (John 14:18, John 14:23), shall prevail between us. I am coming to you, in my glory and power, and in my victory in you as well as for you over death and Hades, to receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. The full perspective of the Lord’s approach to faithful souls is given in the extraordinary pregnancy of the "I am coming." Not until he comes m all his glory will the words be perfectly fulfilled; but the early Church, on the basis of communion with Christ himself in the power of his Spirit, expected that Christ had come and taken to himself one by one those who died in the faith (1 Thessalonians 4:14). Thus Stephen expected the Lord to receive his spirit (Acts 7:59); and the dying thief was to be with him, in Paradise; and Paul knew that to be from home, so far as body is concerned, was to be "at home or present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). "To be with Christ" was "far better" than to labor on in the flesh (Philippians 1:23). The highest thought of peace and love was to the apostles union and presence with Christ. Our Lord asserts here that by his very nearness to them he will make their heaven for them. How soon this wonderful idea spread among men! Within twenty years, Thessalonians were comforted about their pious dead, with the thought that they slept in Jesus, and would together with them be "forever with the Lord." John 14:4 Instead of "Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know," R.T. reads, Ye know the way whither I am going. £ Some valuable manuscripts and versions, also the bulk of the cursives, Cyril and Chrysostom, sustain the T.R.; nor have Hengstenberg or Gorier departed from it. The construction of the amended reading is harsh and awkward, but considering the point-blank contradiction which Thomas gives to the words in John 14:5, the truncated reading is probably the true one. Great emphasis is laid upon the ἐγώ. They ought to have known, if they did not know, after his telling them so frequently of the way he was taking through suffering, self-sacrifice, and aloneness, by spiritual processes rather than secular triumphs, by giving his life a ransom for many, by laying it down that he might take it again. He assumes, he even assures them, that whithersoever he may be going, and however vague may be his goal their ideas, they at least must comprehend the way by which he intended to reach it. Peter in any case ought to have been clear about it; more than once had he been rebuked for such worldly conceptions as beclouded his surer judgment. John 14:5-7 (4) The question of Thomas, eliciting from Christ that he was going to the Father, and that his death was their "way" as well as his own way thither. John 14:5 Thomas—true to the character elsewhere attributed to him in this Gospel, of anxious, intellectual striving after truth and reality, with a certain despondency and morbid fear of issues which he could not grasp, and yet with a great love to his Master—saith to him, We know not whither thou goest; i.e. we are still in vague perplexity. "Whither? oh, whither?" Art thou going to the dispersed among the Gentiles? Art thou going to restore the kingdom to Israel? Thou art to be "lifted up;" but how and where art thou to be lifted up? Thou art going—that is all we know, and this ignorance of ours makes us doubt "the way." £ How do we knew the way? Is not a knowledge of the goal absolutely necessary to bring into proper light for us the way, the strange mysterious way, thou art taking? There often seems in the language of skepticism much common sense, and in the dry light of science a straightforward honesty; and in reading the memorable reply of our Lord many have felt a lack of directness and recognition of the difficulty of Thomas. But is it really so? John 14:6, John 14:7 Jesus saith to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had learned to know me, ye would have £ known (absolutely) my Father also: from henceforward ye know (by personal experience) him, and (or, perhaps, even) ye have seen him. The whole sentence must be taken together. The whither of Christ is obvious enough, and throws consequent illumination upon the way thither. "The Father’s house" is the whither no one cometh unto the Father (but) except through me. Christ explicitly says (1) that the entire goal of this wondrous way of his is the Father himself. From the Father he came, to the Father he was moving, not for his own sake only, but also as King Messiah for all his subjects. He suggests (2) that mankind generally, as well as his disciples, are anxious to find their way to the Father’s house, to the Father’s heart, i.e. to resting and rejoicing in God, and satisfaction in their entire conception of him and relation to him. (3) He declares post-lively that this idea of God as Father, this approach to God for every man, is through him—through what he is and what he is doing and has so often described, for them. True, lie had said, in John 6:37, John 6:44, that the Father gave to him and drew towards him those who came to him. A fatherly monition and inward working of grace opened men’s eyes in Christ to the mystery of true human son-ship of the eternal Father. The statement of this verse supplements the former utterance. They may best understand the way he is taking when they grasp the fact that he is going to the Father to prepare a place for them, and so he becomes "the Way, the Truth, the Life," for all who are coming after him, "following him afterwards" to the Father. Grotius sums up this great saying by regarding Christ as "the Exemplum, Doctor, et Dater vitro eternae;" Luther speaks of it as referring to the past, present, and future; Calvin, as "the Principium, Medium, et Finis;" and Augustine "vera vitae via;" but each term means more than this. The way of approach to God is constituted by his simply being the incarnate Loges, by his revealing the mind and nature of God, by his laying down his life for the sheep that he might take it again. In doing this he supplies the method-and motive of holy living. It is not easy to say why our Lord should have added "the Truth and the Life." Maldonatus exclaimed, "Si Christus minus fuisset in respondendo liberalis, minus nobis in hujus loci interpretatione laborandum esset." The two further terms used by himself are probably introduced to throw light upon the way to the Father. Thus there are numerous assurances that he is the Truth itself, that is, the adequate and sufficient expression of Divine thought. "All the promises of God are yea [i.e. are uttered] and Amen [i.e. confirmed] in him." He is the absolute Truth (1) about God’s nature; (2) the perfect Exponent of God’s idea of humanity; (3) the Light of the world; (4) the Expression of the reality touching the relations between moral beings and God —all the relations, not only those of saints and holy angels, but those of rebels and sinners, whose destiny he has taken upon himself. He is the Way because he is the whole Truth about God and man and concerning the way to the Father. More than this, and because of this, he adds, "I am the Life"—"the life eternal," the Possessor, Author, Captain, Giver, and Prince of life—the life in the heart of man that can never die; the occasion, germ, condition, and force of the new lath. It were impossible to imagine higher claim. But he leaves his hearers without any doubt as to his personal and conscious identification of himself with the Father. Hitherto he had not so clearly unveiled himself as in that which he has here said and is now doing. Hence his nearest and dearest only partially knew him. If they had seen all they might have seen, they would have seen the Father also. Then, as though he would close all aperture to doubt about the glory involved in his humiliation, and the way in which his human life had revealed the Father, he says ἀπάρτι—henceforward this must be a fact of your consciousness, that you do learn and come to know him by personal experience (γινώσκετε); and as a matter of fact ye have seen him (ἐωράκατε). Possibly in the ἀπάρτι, involving the notion of a period rather than a moment, the Lord was including the full revelation of the glory of self-sacrificial love given alike in his death and resurrection. And the important thought is suggested that neither the knowledge of God can ever be complete, nor the vision either. Is Thomas answered or no? He is silent, and perhaps is pondering the words, which will lead him, before long, notwithstanding his doubts, to make the grandest confession contained in the entire Gospel, the answer of convinced though once skeptical humanity to the question, "Whom say ye that I am?" The other apostles feel that Christ’s words have met the mystic vague fear of Thomas, and that "henceforward" they all belong with Christ to the Father’s house. They would go to the Father, and at the right time dwell in the place prepared for them; but how can they be said to know and have seen the Father already—to have passed into the light or received the beatific vision? John 14:8-21 (5) The question of Philip, with the reply. John 14:8-11 (a) Jesus the full Revelation of the Father. John 14:8 Philip has been introduced in John 1:44-46; John 6:7; John 12:21, etc. (see notes), as one early acquainted with the sons of Zebedee, with Andrew and Nathaniel. He is described as convinced of the Messianic character of Jesus, and able, by what he had seen and heard, to overcome all prejudices. Philip, with practical mind, took part in the conversations and preparations for our Lord’s great miracle on the loaves. Philip was thought of as a suitable person to introduce the Greeks to Jesus: and every hint we obtain about him is graphic and valuable. Philip saith to him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. This query is a very natural one. Though under ordinary circumstances men cannot with mortal eyes look on God, yet one of the high purports of the Christian revelation is to make it possible that men may look and live. Theophanies of Jehovah are not infrequent. The favored prophets, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel £ and others had been favored with visions of Divine majesty, and it was not unreasonable that the practical Philip, who believed in the invincible assent which personal experience would give, who not only had seen in Jesus the Messiah of their prophecies, but had said to Nathanael, "Come and see," and be as satisfied as I am, should now think that some gorgeous vision of the Father’s face was possibly within their reach and within Christ’s power to confer—a vision which would for ever scatter their doubts and enforce certitude with plausibility. B. Weiss suggests that some whisper of the Transfiguration-glory had escaped from the favored three, leading the other disciples to desire a corresponding theophany. As Luther says, "His faith flutters up into the clouds." A dazzling spectacle would satisfy and suffice for all needs. To see and know the Father, to have irresistible evidence that the Eternal Power is one who has begotten us from himself, and both knows and loves us, is the highest and most sacred yearning of the human heart. The desire is implanted by God himself. Philip, with his fellow-disciples, had not vet learned the sacred truth that they had already had the opportunity of seeing in the life of the God Man the most explicit manifestation of the Father. A dazzling phenomenon, outside of Christ, might have given to the disciples a new impression of awe and fear like that which fell on Moses and the elders of Israel, on Isaiah and Elijah; yet a far more comprehensive revelation of Divine perfection, inspiring the spirit of obedience, reverence, trust, and love, devotion, and self-sacrifice, had already been made to them, but their eyes were holden. They were not satisfied, or Philip would not have said καὶἀρκεῖἡμῖν. John 14:9 Christ’s reply is, Have I been so long a period (χρόνον) with you, and hast thou not come to know (ἔγνωκάς) me, Philip? (Compare the aorist δεῖξον, suggesting one great complete sufficing act, with the perfect forms, ἔγνωκάςμεἐωρακὼςἐόρακε, implying a process continuing from the past into the present,) The revelation of the Father, rather than an unveiling of the absolute God whom no man hath ever yet seen (see John 1:18), had been constantly going on before their eyes. Our Lord first of all appeals to that fact; and yet fact, reality as it was, the disciples had failed even to know him, inasmuch as they had not seen in him the Father. He thus confirms the statement of Joh 14:7. "There is an evident pathos in this personal appeal the only partial parallels in St. John are cf. John 20:16 (Mary); John 21:15 (Simon, etc.)" (Westcott). There is no right understanding of Jesus Christ until the Father is actually seen in him. He is not known in his humanity until the Divine Personality flashes through him on the eyes of faith. We do not know any man until we know the best of him. How far more true is it of God and of the Father-God revealed in the Christ? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. The "seeing" here must be adequate, comprehensive vision. How £ sayest thou—emphatic—Show us the Father? Philip, by the hints already given of him, might have discarded the Jewish and crude idea of a physical theophany. "How sayest thou?" reveals that sense of failure which Christ experienced when he sought to realize in the poor material of our human nature his own ideal. John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Philip had heard in an inverted order these very words (see John 10:38). He might have grasped their meaning; two aspects of the same Divine truth or reality—the reciprocal fellowship between the Father and the Son, between the Father and the Effulgence of the Father’s glory who is now the God-Man. I am in the Father, I the God-Man am in the Father, as the Loges has ever been in him and proceeding from him. I, who was forever in the bosom of the Father in heaven though on earth, am in the Father now, as the sun dwells in its own effluent light; and the Father is in me, seeing I am the Image of his substance, the Agent of his purpose, the Speaker of his words, the Doer of his works. The words (ῥήματα) which I speak (λέγω, R.T.) unto you—those words which are "spirit and life" (John 6:63), those "words of eternal life," according to Peter’s grand confession (John 6:68, John 6:69)—I do not utter (λαλῶ) from myself; i.e. they are the words of the Father, and also the proof that I am in the Father, but the Father worketh always and ever more in and through the Son, these works which may seem to be mine as the Son of man, but are the operation of the Father himself, he who abides in the Son. And the Father abiding in me, doeth £ his works. These works of mine (ἔργα) are all signs (σημεῖα) of my relation to the Father. They are indications to Philip of the nature, and quality, and character, and feeling towards him of the Father himself. John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, on the ground of my simple affirmation. My words are spirit and life, and carry their own evidence with them. Christ is not here antithetically contrasting (as Lange suggests) words and works, as though the words were his, and the works the Father’s; but he is appealing to their spiritual intuition of truth which is legible by its own light as eternal and Divine, and then reminding them that they may fail in transcendental vision and fall back on reason and its processes, which will come nearer to their understanding—Or else (εἰδὲμή), if it be after all that you cannot take my words as the Father’s words, as the utterance of the Divine thought, believe me—believe that I am in the Father, etc.—by reason of the very works which are the witness of the Father’s power, holiness, and love. In this last appeal he turns from Philip to the whole group of the apostles. Miracles are, if not primary evidence, secondary and convincing evidence, where the eye has been blinded by the mists of doubt, and the vision of the Father confused and withheld by lack of inward purity. Moreover, by Christ’s ἔργα are meant, not merely the supernatural portents, but all the work of his life, all the healing of souls, all the conversion of souls, all the indubitable issues of his approach to the heart of man. The great ἔργον is salvation from sin, the gift of righteousness, and the life where before there was moral death (see notes, John 14:19, John 14:20; John 10:37, John 10:38). John 14:12-15 (b) The greater works, and their conditions and issues, He offers a fresh ground of consolation, based on the double consideration, first of his departure from them and abiding presence with them, and then on the reflex effect on their own faith and on the world of their consciousness of union with him. He throws the arms of his love round about, not only the eleven disciples, but all believers on him, and in a sense draws them up into his own Divinity. With these words must be compared the closely parallel words addressed to them (as preserved by Matthew 21:22, Matthew 21:23) a few days before. This was a saying at once explaining the reference to the "greater works" and also to the power of prayer (see Hengstenberg’s masterly treatment of this passage). John 14:12 Verily, verily—with a fresh emphasis he turns now, not from Philip to the eleven, but from the eleven to all who will believe on him through their word—I say unto you, He that believeth on me—observe here a nominative absolute, which gives great emphasis to the universality of the reference; the form is slightly varied, εἰςἐμέ, in place of μοι, John 14:11,—believeth, trusteth on me, confides in me, by reason of believing me—he also shall do the works that I do (see for similar emphasis procured by the word κὰκεῖνος, John 6:57; John 9:37; John 12:48). The disciples might naturally have reasoned on this wise: "Our Master is the incarnate Word, the very Hand and Grace of the Father; but he is going to the invisible Father, and wilt be lost in light. His series of proofs will be at an end; we shall only have the memory of them. The glory of God is great, but, like a gorgeous sunset, its flames will die away into the night." To rectify such fear for all the ages of the Church, he adds, "The very works of healing and helping men, even of raising the dead, and preaching glad tidings to the poor and needy,—these will be proofs of the union of the believer in all time with me and with my Father." In the case of such believer, as well as in my case, the works may increase the faith of others. They are not indispensable, but comforting and reassuring, and they show that every believer is near to the heart of the Father and wields the power of God. But the full force of this somewhat perplexing sentence is heightened and to some extent explained by the addition: And greater works than these he shall do; because I am going to the £ Father. Greater works than any wrought by the Lord in the days of his humiliation are predicted of Messiah. He is to be the "Light of the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6; cf. Psalms 72:8, Psalms 72:11; Psalms 110:1-7.). He is to rule the world, to cover the earth with the glory of God. How he was to do this was hidden from the disciples, but it would soon appear that they were the instruments, in his loving hands, for world-victories. Nay, more than that, Jesus (John 4:36-38) had told these disciples that they might reap what he had sown. These rather than other and more surprising prodigies of supernatural energy (as even Bengel supposed was his meaning, pointing, to the healing energy of Peter’s shadow, etc.) were the greater works to which he probably (John 5:20) referred, though he gives a reason which would check all presumption: Because of going to the Father. The contrast, then, is between the humiliation and exaltation of Christ, between works wrought in his flesh and those that would be done by him when at the right hand of power. Without him, separated from him, independently of his continued and augmented energy working through them, they would do nothing (John 15:5; comp. here Matthew 21:21, Matthew 21:22). In the last passage, in answer to believing prayer, the disciples were told that they would do greater things than wither up the fig tree, or remove the mountain into the sea. Probably (see Hengstenberg) these terms, "fig tree," "mountain," "sea," were used in their prophetic-symbolic sense, and were not hyperbolic promises, but definite prophecies of the overthrow of the Jewish state, and the fall of the Roman power under the word of those who believed on him. These vast privileges and functions are here attributed to "believers," not merely to the apostles, or princes in his kingdom. This extraordinary pro-raise is no disparagement of his supreme authority, but will be proof that he sitteth on the right hand of the Majesty on high. John 14:13 The great word that follows may hang closely on the "because" of John 14:12. Whether that be so or not, the power of their hands to perform these greater works is in answer to prayer presented to himself, and their success is nothing less than his own activity. And whatsoever ye ask in my Name, that will I do (see Luther). Here for the first time our Lord uses these words. Frequently (John 5:43; John 10:25) he had spoken of the Father’s Name, and in Matthew 18:20 εἰςτὸἐμὸνὄνομα occurs; but now he suggests a new and vitalizing condition of prayer. Luthardt has suggested that the believer, being "in Christ," prays to the Father, who is also in Christ. But the ἐν is used here in two entirely distinct senses. Others have said, taking "Name" as the compendium of all his perfections, that asking "in his Name" meant in full recognition of his Person and his relation to them and to the Father. The Name of the Son reveals the Father, and by assuming this most excellent Name, and having its fullness of meaning avouched by the Resurrection and Ascension, the Father was truly manifested. Others, again, urge that Christ’s "Name" is equivalent to "himself;" and "in my Name" means "in the full consciousness that he is the element in which prayerful activity lives and moves" (Meyer). Surely this passage is the true justification of prayer to Christ himself, as identically one with the Father (see Revelation 7:17). "This thing I will do" is strongly in favor of this interpretation. That the Father may be glorified in the Son. The end of this prayer-offering and the Lord’s response is that the Father may be glorified; the Father who has such a Son is thereby glorified in the grateful love of his children, and in the Son himself, who is seen thus to be the link between him and his other children. John 14:14 If ye shall ask me £ anything in my Name, etc., is, omitting the ἵνα clause of the former utterance, a solemn repetition of the promise. The only condition being "in my Name." "Our Lord Christ foresaw that this article would go hard with human reason, and that it would be much assailed by the devil." "What ye ask," says he, "I will do. I am God, who may do and give all things." The peculiarity of the R.T. lays, indeed, special emphasis on Christ’s own power and willingness to receive and answer prayer. John 14:15 If ye love me, keep £ my commandments. This great saying is enlarged on in the subsequent section—the relation of love to obedience, obedience producing love, and love suggesting obedience and supplying it with motive. Τὰςἐντολὰςτὰςἐμάς, "the commandments which are peculiarly mine" (see Westcott on John 15:9), "as either adopted and reuttered by me, or as originating in my new relation to you." "Guard them as a sacred deposit, obey them as the only reasonable response you can make to authoritative command." It is somewhat startling to find the great promise that follows conditioned by loving obedience, seeing that love and obedience in any sinful man, love to Christ itself, are elsewhere made the work of the Holy Spirit. But we here come across that which often perplexes the student, viz. the contrast between the general idea of the constant and continuous work of grace in human hearts, and the special manifestation in personal glory and Divine activity of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost. John 14:16-21 (c) The greatest Gift—the other Advocate. John 14:16, John 14:17, Consequent on this obedient love, conditioned by it, is the Lord’s assurance: And I will ask the Father—ἐρωτᾷν is used of an asking which is based on close and intimate fellowship; it is the word which implies the presentation of wish or a desire from an equal to an equal, while αἰτεῖν represents the prayer or seeking which rises from an inferior to a superior (see note, John 16:26, and other usage of the same words, John 17:9, John 17:15, John 17:20)—and he will give—make a Divine and free manifestation of himself by his Spirit, give to you as your inalienable possession—another Paraclete, that he may be £ with you for evermore. Great deference is due to the Greek expositors, beginning with Chrysostom, who translate this word "Comforter," and who point back to the LXX. παρακαλεῖτε (Isaiah 40:1), and because παρακλήσις very often, if not always, means "consolation;" but the word is passive in form, and denotes "one called in," or "called to the side of another," for the purpose of helping him in any way, but especially in legal proceedings and criminal charges, so that the word "Advocate," Pleader for us and in us, is the translation that most generally is accepted by almost all modern expositors. "Another" implies that Christ had already stood in this position while present with them, helping with tender care their first efforts to stand or serve. John (1 John 2:1) distinctly says, "We have now a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous," etc. And in this place (verse 17) the coming of the Paraclete was his own true return to his disciples. The following is the substance of Westcott’s "additional note" on this word: "The two renderings of Paraclete as ’ Comforter’ in the Gospel, and ’Advocate’ in the Epistle, are found in the English versions, with exception of Rhenish, from Wickliffe to Authorized version and Revised version. In the ancient versions, with the exception of Thebaic, the original word Paracletus is preserved. Its passive form by all analogous words will not justify here an active or transitive sense, but means ’one called to the side of another’ with the secondary sense of helping, consoling, counseling, or aiding him. The classical use is ’advocate,’ so used in Demosthenes, not found in LXX. Philo uses it in the same sense, and the rabbinic writers adopt the Greek word טילקרף, in opposition to ’accuser.’ The apostolic Fathers use the word in this sense, but the patristic writers, Origen, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Use it for ’ Comforter.’ In 1 John it. I no other word is satisfactory but ’Advocate,’ and the suggestion is that the only meaning here that is adequate is that of one who pleads, convinces, convicts in a great controversy, who strengthens on the one hand, and defends on the other. Christ, as the Advocate, pleads the believer’s cause with the Father against the accuser (1 John 2:1; Romans 8:26; Revelation 12:10). The Holy Spirit, as the Advocate, pleads the cause of the believer against the world (John 16:8), and pleads Christ’s cause with the believer (John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:14)." Archdeacon Watkins has presented a large portion of the Talmudic evidence to the same effect. Thus from the ’Pirke Aboth,’ 4.11, "He that keepeth one commandment obtains for himself one paraklit, but he who committeth one sin obtains for himself one kattegor (κατήγορος)." The word was incorporated into the Syrian language, as seen in the Peshito Syriac translation, both of the Gospel and the First Epistle of John. The Advocate who is to be with the disciples forever, arguing down opposition and silencing cavil, is the Spirit of truth. The abundant proof of this great function of the Holy Spirit is not wanting. There is Christ’s promise. Then in Acts 4:8 and Acts 4:13, whatever Christ had been to the twelve, that would the other Advocate, Mediator of Divine grace, be to the whole Church when the Lord’s earthly manifestation should terminate. The genitive after "Spirit" sometimes denotes its great characteristic (cf. Romans 1:4, "the Spirit of holiness;" Romans 8:15, "Spirit of bondage" and "of adoption;" but in the same context we have "Spirit of God," "the Spirit;" Ephesians 1:17, "Spirit of wisdom and revelation; cf. also Romans 8:9, "Spirit of Christ;" 1 Peter 4:14, "the Spirit of glory"); and the idea is that this other Advocate, even the Spirit of truth, shall reveal truth to the disciples, convince them of truth, as Christ had done. Whom the world cannot receive. There are antipathies between "the world" (as conceived by St. John) and "truth," which will render the world strangely unsusceptible of Divine teaching. Still, since the whole process of conviction is the distinct effect of the Holy Spirit upon the world (see John 16:1-33.), the λάβειν must not mean that the world cannot accept its convincing power, but cannot exert its power of convincing. Through apostles, who are his organs and representatives, the world will be convinced, and not apart from them. Because it seeth him not (θεωρεῖ)—does not behold him in his external revelations—and knoweth him not by personal experience, "is not learning to know him" as these disciples even hitherto have been able to do in Christ. The world has proved by its rejection of Christ that it cannot behold the Divine energy in him, nor perceive by any inward experience his nature or the real nature of God; but ye, said Christ, are now learning to know him; for he abideth with you. He has begun his abiding presence with you, and shall be in you; and this state of things will continue to the end of time. "The future shows that the whole matter belongs to the domain of futurity" (Hengstenberg). The world cannot "receive," because it is dependent on visible things, and it cannot know because it cannot behold. You have no need to behold, and can and do know by another process. The passage is very difficult, because, if the world cannot receive the Spirit by reason of its own unspirituality and ignorance, how is the threefold conviction to be realized? May λάβειν be regarded in the sense of καταλάμβανειν, "to seize hold of"? Rost and Palm give the following instances of this use of λαμβανεῖν in Homer: ’ Od.,’ 6:81; 8:116; ’ II.,’ 5:273; Herod., 4:130, etc. (cf. John 19:1; Revelation 8:5). If so, the whole of this passage would read, "He will give you another Helper or Advocate, that he may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot seize (or take from you), because it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye are learning to know him, because he, according to the eternal laws of his being, dwelleth with you, and will be in you, and be altogether beyond the malice of the world." John 14:18 I will not leave you behind as orphans, bereft of my paternal guardianship. Though the disciples were his brethren, yet, as we have seen, he calls them (John 13:1-38:53) τεκνία his "little children;" and (Hebrews 2:11) the apostles reckoned him as Arthur (in ’Guinevere’) does when he speaks of "our fair Father Christ." His departure might be the signal for the most utter sense of desertion, exposure, and peril; and even the promise of another Advocatus would hardly console them before the time would arrive when he would receive them unto himself; but, says he, I am coming to you. Much unnecessary comment has here arisen as to whether this coming was the last triumphant παρουσία of which he speaks in part in John 14:3,—this would be incompatible with the assurances that then the world would and will see him: "Every eye shall" then be prophetic and "see him," and "before him shall be gathered all nations;" or whether this coming be simply his resurrection with his transitory appearances in the flesh; for both of these representations would fail of the full consolation which would terminate their orphanhood. Surely he speaks of his own spiritual coming in the bestowment of the other Advocate, who, by being with them and in them, would prove to them, notwithstanding his own apparent departure, that he had come again in his glorious fullness of love. In the thought of the early Church the Lord was the Spirit: the glorified Lord, the Christ, who had "all power in heaven and earth," was manifested, was veritably present, in all the work of the Spirit of God in his Church. The Spirit was not only the Unity of the Father and the Son, the one Self-consciousness of both, but the one Consciousness of the Son of God and Son of man, the uniting Energy which represents the one Personality of the Christ, the Spirit-power which blends all the members of the mystical body with the Head. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles we see that all the great operations of the Holy Spirit are but the energies of the living, reigning Lord. John 14:19 Yet a little while—a few hours only—and the world—which cannot take from you (or even appreciate or receive) the Holy Spirit—beholdeth me no more. Their power of beholding me will be gone by their own act, they will have cursed and driven me away with the hellish cry, "Crucify him!" they will have slain and buried me out of their sight; but, notwithstanding this, you, by my coming to you in the power of the Spirit, will veritably behold me. Even more than this, because I live though I die, ye shall live also, in your intense spiritual apperception of my continuity of life, of which you will have ocular and spiritual guarantee. Jesus here passed over the concrete fact of the Resurrection, to return to it afterwards. We know that the resurrection of his body and his victory over death became (1) the condition of his sending the Spirit, (2) the proof of his being the living One whom death could not hold, and (3) the ground of the higher appreciation of the relation they sustained to him. But he fixed their attention on his continuous life (in spite of death), and their consequent life under the shadow of his Divine protection, without specifically mentioning the Resurrection, of which he had (in synoptic narrative) given them explicit but misapprehended prophecies. This version seems to be preferable to making the last clause ὅτι, etc., a reason of the θεωρεῖτέμε—a view advocated as possible by Meyer and Luthardt; or than the view which limits the ὅτιζῶ to the θεωρεῖτέ: "Ye see me because I live, and as a consequence of this vision ye shall live also." John 14:20 In that day of glorious re-communion with you, begun in the Resurrection-surprises, which will aid your faith and triumphantly establish the mysteries and marvels of Pentecost, you shall know what you now most imperfectly apprehend by faith, that I am in my Father, as One lifted up into God, and that I act entirely with and for and as my Father, fulfilling all that I have told you of my personal relationship with him; and then, he adds, you shall know that as I am in my Father, you (are) in me, living in and by my power, and continuously drawing life from me; and what is still more, I in you; i.e. as the Father has acted in and through my will, and I have spoken his words and done his works, so I will energize in you. Your "greater works" will prove my "greater power." Your own consciousness of my presence, and of continuous communion with me, will reveal to you, as you never knew before, that I am in my Father, and also that I am in you. So the apparent paradox presents itself, that in order to know the Father, to see the Father, we must commune with the humanity of Jesus; but in order to realize and come into contact with that humanity, we have to grasp that it is lifted up into God. Because he is in the Father he is able to be with and in us. John 14:21 Then for a moment he turns from the eleven, and stretches out his searching gaze and far-sweeping love to every one who hath my commandments as a sure possession and lofty privilege and sufficient standard, and keepeth them, thus proving that he it is that loveth me; returning thus back to John 14:15, where he said that love would induce and ought to compel to obedience; and he adds another and wonderful benediction: He will be loved by my Father, in a sense more intense than that in which God is said to love the world (John 3:16). God the Father loves those who love the Son, i.e. love the object of his own superlative affection. But who can this wondrous Being be who adds, as a climax of privilege and honor, as though it were more even than the love of the Father, I will love him, and will manifest myself in him (not ἀποκαλύψω or φανερώσω), not merely "disclose an undiscovered presence" or make evident a hidden glory, but I will take special means to disclose my Person and nature and goodness to him? Christ will do this to those who have and keep his commandments of self-forgetting love and perfect consecration. This remarkable word, ἐμφανίσω, implies that the scene and place of the higher manifestation will be "in" (ἐν) the consciousness of the soul. "The kingdom of God is within men. John 14:22-31 (6) The question of Judas, and the conditions of our Lord’s self-manifestation, followed by appeals, promises, and the gift of PEACE. John 14:22 This reference to "manifestation" once more occasioned another anxious inquiry. Thomas bad not known whither the Lord was going, and was ignorant of the true meaning of that way of departure from them; and the Lord had told him that he was going to the Father, and that he himself was the Way for them to find their access to the Father’s heart. Philip had longed for some vision of the Father which would suffice for the "whither" and "way," and was surprised to find that he had had already, in the Savior’s own Person, a sufficient revelation of the Father; but that he and others had not known him nor his Father; and now Jesus promises a fuller manifestation of himself, and therefore of the Father. Here Judas, not Iscariot, saith to him, What has come to pass that thou art about to manifest thyself unto us, and not to manifest thyself to the world? Hast thou altered thy plan? Is the world to be left unvisited by thy glory? This question, in some form or other, is constantly pressed upon the Lord. This seeking for a sign, this eager desire for a great display of power, or judgment, or glory, this restoration of the kingdom to Israel, was the cry of the Jewish heart. Christ’s sublime reply to it is given in the restatement of the spiritual law of the kingdom and glory of God. Once more he goes back to the law of love, issuing in obedience. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, If a man, let him be whosoever he may, love me—there is the germ and root of all—he will keep my Word (λόγον £). In John 14:21 we see the complementary statement, "He that has and keeps my commandments loves me;" here, "He that loves me keeps my Word." In John 14:21 obedience proves inward love, and may indicate to the world the fact of the Father’s love and my own response. Here our Lord is laying down the principle of relation—the law of close intimacy, the conditions of higher knowledge. The keeping of the Word is a certain consequence of holy love. And my Father will love him. So far Christ has only reiterated the great statement of Joh 14:21, but instead of saying, "I will love him, and manifest myself," he added, We will come—the Father and I—to him, and take up our abode, £ make for ourselves a resting-place in his dwelling (πἀραὐτῳ); cf. the analogous and wonderful parallel in Revelation 3:20. There is a clear utterance of Divine self-consciousness. It is worthy of note that such an expression as this sounds a profounder depth of that consciousness than any phrase (λόγος) already delivered. Apart from the stupendous corroborative facts elsewhere on record, this seems, to mere human experience, either awfully true or infinitely blasphemous. The Father add I will come together in the power of the Spirit, and we will dwell within the loving and obedient soul. This phrase suggests the mystical union of the Divine Personality with that of those who have entered into spiritual relation with Christ through love and obedience. John 14:24 We have three statements about love and obedience: (1) Love involves obedience (John 14:15, John 14:23), or obedience naturally is included in love; (2) obedience (having and keeping commandments) is the great proof of love (John 14:21); and (3) (John 14:24) "he that loveth not," i.e. the absence or negation of love seems necessarily to forbid or discountenance obedience—the language differs slightly. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words—i.e. the various utterances into which my one Word may be subdivided in detail—and the λόγος, the one all-revealing Word, out of which all the λόγοι proceed, is not mine (as self-originated), but is the Father’s that sent me. Without love to Christ the world has none of the conditions on which the self-manifestation of Christ really depends. John 14:25, John 14:26 These things (in antithesis to the "all things" of which he is about to speak), namely, the great consolations and instructions just delivered not the whole course of his ministerial prophetic teaching—have I uttered, and these things I am stilt continuing to address to you, while remaining with you; but the Paraclete (Advocate), of whom I have spoken as the "Spirit of truth," and whom I now more fully define as the Holy Spirit (this is the only place in this Gospel where this full and elsewhere often-used designation occurs), whom the Father will send—in answer to my prayer (John 14:16), and as he has already sent me—m my Name. This shows that, while the disciples are to approach the Father "in the Name," in the fullness of perfection involved in the filial Name of Jesus, so the Father sends the Paraelete in the same Name, in the full recognition of Christ as the Sphere of all his gracious work. Meyer emphasizes by it the Name of Jesus; "in my Name," say Grotius, Lucke; "at my intercession" or "in my stead" (Tholuck, Ewald); "as my Representative" (Watkins). But the great Name of Jesus is "the Son" (Hebrews 1:1-5). In the Sonship which he realized and displayed, the Father himself was manifested. The Spirit is sent from the Father fully to reveal the Son, while the substance of the teaching and meaning of the life of our Lord, in his Divine training of souls revealed the Father. He (ἐκεῖνος, a masculine and emphatic pronoun, which gives personal quality and dignity to the Spirit, and points to all that is here predicated of his agency) shall teach you all things that you need to know over and above what I have said (λελάληκα), and he will assist you to know more than you do now. He shall remind you of the all things which I have said to you. The teaching of Christ, according to St. John’s own statement, was vastly more extensive than all that had been recorded, the impression produced far deeper than anything that could be measured; yet even this would have been evaporated into vague sentiment, if the veritable things, the marvelous and incomparable wisdom, uttered by the Lord had not, by the special teaching of the Spirit, been re-communicated to the apostles by extraordinary refreshment of memory. The supernatural energy of the memory of the apostles, and their profound insight, is the basis of the New Testament, and the fulfillment of this promise. This sacred training will not teach specifically new truths, because the germinant form of all spiritual truth had been communicated by Christ; nor would the instruction create a fundamental deposit of tradition as yet unrevealed; nor is it to be such an intensification or addition to things already said as to contradict the teaching of the Lord; but the Holy Spirit will bring to the remembrance of the apostles all that the living Logos had spoken. Hence the mystic, the traditionist, and the rationalist cannot find support for their theses in these great words. The πάντα, however, gives a bright hint of the completeness of the equipment of the apostles for their work. John 14:27 "Then follow the last words as of one who is about to go away, and says ’Good night,’ or gives his blessing" (Luther). Peace I leave with (or, to) you. Peace (dρήνη) answers to the (מוֹלשָׁ) shalom of ordinary converse and greeting, and signifies prosperity, health of soul, serenity, farewell. This is the sacred bestowment and Divine legacy of the Lord. "Peace" is always the result of equilibrated forces, the poise of antagonistic elements, held in check by one another. Of these the most placid lake, hidden in the hills and reflecting the sunshine and shadows, is a remarkable illustration. So the peace Christ leaves is power to hold the wildest fear in pause, to still a clamor or hush a cry—it is the coming of mercy to a sense of sin, of life to the fear of death. But when he added, The peace that is mine I give to you, we are reminded of the tremendous conflict going on in his own nature at that very moment, and of the sublime secret of Jesus, by which the will of man was brought, even in agony and death, into utter harmony with the will of God. The ἀφίημι, and δίδωμι of this verse show how the ordinary salutation may become invested with immense significance. There are moments when into one human word may be condensed the love of a lifetime. Christ does but pour through these common words the fire of his eternal and infinite love. Not as the world giveth, give I to you, both as to manner and matter and power. The mode of giving is real, sincere, neither formal nor hypocritical. "I say it, and I mean it." (Meyer, in opposition to Coder, thinks this unworthy of the Savior at this moment; but Godet is right.) The matter, substance, and value of the prosperity and peace I give stretches out into eternity; and I give it, I do not merely talk of it or wish it. "Christ’s farewell greeting is forerunner of the beatific salutation which shall accompany the eternal meeting" (Lange). Then, returning to the Divine words of Joh 14:1, he seems to say, "Have I not justified all that I have said?"—Let not your heart be troubled, harassed by these mysteries or by my departure, neither let it be terrified (δελιάτω). This is the only place in the New Testament where the word occurs, though it is found in the LXX.; δειλός and δειλία, in the sense of timidity from extrinsic fear, may frequently be found. He must have seen some rising symptoms of the carnal weakness which would prostrate them for a while. John 14:28 Now, however, he leads them a step further. The disciples are to dismiss their trouble and fear, because (1) of the many mansions that he is going to prepare; (2) because he was the "Way" to the Father; (3) because they have had a theophany in him; (4) because they shall carry on the work of Christ and fulfill all the prophecies, (5) and do all this under the power of another Advocate or Helper; (6) because he, the Holy Spirit, will indeed reveal him as he (Christ) had revealed the Father; and (7) because the Father and Son would come and take up their abode in the loving and obedient heart. But the Lord does more—he bids them not only to dismiss their fear and harassment, but even to "rejoice." Ye heard that I said, I am departing, and, in that very act, I am coming to you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced—a supposition involving uncertainty with a prospect of decision. Perfect love would cast out fear. But why? Because £ I go to the Father, the theme of the whole discourse. But why should this cause you to rejoice? Because the £ Father is greater than I! It is not easy adequately to explain this memorable saying. The Arians made use of it to prove, from bur Lord’s own lips, that his Person, even his pre-existent Divinity, was less than the Father’s; that his essence, admittedly generated by the Father, was created by him, and was not the same as that of the Father. The same view has been held by the rationalistic school. The Socinians and modern Unitarians have insisted on the entire dependence and purely human character of our Lord. The Son of man and Son of God are to many merely the self-chosen titles of the greatest of the sons of men, who thus is supposed to put himself on a level with ordinary men who may learn to call God their Father. But is it? Could any man, unconscious of a far closer relation with God than that of the greatest saint, dare to say, as if to relieve anxiety on that head, "My Father is greater than I"? Is there not in the very phrase a suggestion of Divine sufficiency and relation to the Father which altogether precludes the purely humanitarian position? (1) A theological view which has largely prevailed among those who have held the homoousia of the Father and the Son, is that the Lord was here speaking of his human nature only. The Athanasian symbol says," Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood." But the "I" is here used of his whole Personality, as in John 8:58; John 10:30, and throughout the discourse he is speaking of himself in the Divine-human Person in which the eternal and temporal, the infinite and finite, are indissolubly blended. (2) Others have supposed that he referred to himself as in a state of humiliation. Hengstenberg says the Lord was speaking of the pre-eminent greatness of the Father, which came to an end at his departure. Cyril, Luther, Melancthon, De Wette, Tholuck, Luthardt, and Alford think that Jesus spoke these words of the humiliated Christ in his condition of a servant—obedient unto death. The Son, the Loges of God, was that Mode or Personality of Deity by which "God" created the universe, governed mankind, and proceeded by special manifestation—incarnation, life, and death—to redeem the world. Calvin had said, while the Arians have abused this testimony, the orthodox solution of the Fathers was neither harmonious nor sound; the true signification of the passage, according to him, being found in the mediatorial office of the Christ, and in his status exinanitionis. But this would not exhaust the meaning, for in this very passage he does describe the Father as greater even than the exalted Christ; and in John 1:1-3 as greater even than the pre-existent Loges. And so (3) we are led to see that there is indeed a subordination of rank and order in the Son, involved in the very notion even of an eternal generation; and compatible with the equality of Being and of essence which he shared with the Father. This is undoubtedly confirmed by John 17:3, John 17:5; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:23; 1 Corinthians 11:3; and has been through the whole history of Christological speculation conceded (Bishop Bull, £ in his three chapters on the "Subordination of the Son," has shown, by abundant proof, that before and after the Council of Nicaea, the Fathers held "that the Son has indeed the same Divine nature in common with the Father, but communicated by the Father in such sense, i.e., that the Father alone hath the Divine nature from himself, but the Son from the Father; that the Father is the Fountain, Origin, and Principle of the Divinity which is in the Son"). This is abundantly, needful to avoid at once the errors of tritheism, and to maintain the real unity of the Divine Being. Christ’s going to the Father was a ground of rejoicing, because his exaltation through death and resurrection to the position of power and majesty unutterable, and the lifting up of his Divine-human Personality to the midst of the throne, gives to him, in his relations with his disciples, the efficacy of the greatness of that Divine nature which, by its own characteristics, could not have become incarnate. The unrevealed God is greater than the revealed. The lifting up of perfect humanity into the glory which the Son had with the Father before the world was, should have been the cause of joy to the disciples. It is the wellspring of joy to the Church (see Suicer, ’Thesaurus,’ art. Μειζονότης; Bull’s ’Defense of the Nicene Creed,’ bk. 4.; Westcott’s catena of passages in ’Additional Note to John 14:1-31.;’ Lange and P. Schaff, ’Comm. on John’). John 14:29 And now I have said it to you before it come to pass—I have told you of my departure and what is involved in it—that when it is come to pass, ye may believe. Christ often appeals to the effect which the fulfillment of his own predictions will produce in the minds of his disciples (John 1:51; John 13:19). They will, when the series of events will unroll themselves, believe that he has gone to the Father, to do all he said he would do, to be all he said he was. This means undoubtedly more than a spiritual consolation whereby they may endure his separation by death from their society. It is the announcement beforehand of the Resurrection and Ascension, by which their faith in his exaltation would be fanned into burning flame and made a revelation of Divine love to the universe. John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you. This seems strange when there follow John 15-17.; but it gives a hint of the abundance of instruction, of λαλία, of λόγοι, which John at least had heard, of which he has only given the specimens of a few short days of intercourse. For the prince of the world £ (see John 12:31); the lord and master, by base usurpation, of the world of men. This term is continually found in rabbinical writings for the great central power of evil in the world. The activity of evil was then at work. Satan entered into Judas; the spirit of evil was rampant in all the machination of the leaders of the people. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 15:1-10 (7) The parable of the vine and its branches. Incorporation of the disciples into one personality with himself. The image of the vine may have been suggested by some visible object. Either of the hypotheses of place would furnish a reminder of the nature and culture of the vine. Thus around the windows of the guest-chamber the vine may have thrown its tendrils, or on the slopes of Olivet the vineyards may have been prominent objects, or the burning heaps of vine-prunings may have suggested the idea. Again, if they were pausing in some apartments of the temple-court, the golden vine, the image of Israel, upon the gates may have supplied the point of departure. But our Lord needed no such help to his imagination, and it is by no means necessary to find an occasion for his imagery. The fact that he had the fruit of the vine before him, and had already made it symbolic of his sacrificial death, may have brought the thought nearer to the disciples. But the most simple explanation is that the vine was the image of Israel. The prophets and psalms abound with this reference (Isaiah 5:1, etc.; Ezekiel 19:10; Psalms 80:8-19), so that our Lord was giving a new meaning to a familiar figure. "The vine" was the beautiful image of that theocratic and sacramental community, which had its center in the altar and ark of testimony and the holy place; and the fruit of the vine was conspicuous in all the symbolic relations which, through priesthood and ritual enactments, brought individual Israelites into relation with the reconciled God. Here Christ says, "I;" but we see from John 15:5 that the branches, which by reason of relation to him have and draw their life from him (or, to use his own words, "I and the branches," and "the branches in me"), constitute the veritable "vine" of the covenant. John 15:1 The vine of the Lord of hosts (Psalms 80:1-19.) brought forth wild grapes (Isaiah 5:1-30., Ezekiel 19:10); Israel became "an empty vine" (Hosea 10:1). The failure of Israel to realize the ideal leads our Lord, as the true Israel of God, to say, I am the veritable (or, ideal) vine, including (as the context shows) in the idea of his complete Personality all the branches that derive their life from him. I with the branches, I involving my relation to the branches, and theirs to me—I as the Life-principle of humanity, together with those who are living in me—constitute and are the veritable vine of prophecy, the true Israel of God. So that this passage, from John 15:1-10, denotes and expounds with all detail the idea elsewhere expressed by the head and the members of a body. Sometimes the idea of the parts predominates over the idea of the unity, and sometimes the unity triumphs over the parts; but in the relation between Christ and the people of his love they are often lost sight of in him, and he becomes the only Personality. The "I" of this passage is not that of the eternal Loges, nor is it the mere humanity, nor is it simply the Divine-human Personality, but the new existence which, by union with him, formed one personage with him,—the believer being united to him as he to the Father. My Father is the Husbandman, not simply the ἀμπελουργός, or vinedresser, but also γεωργός, the owner of the land as well. It is a term applied in connection with the traditional significance of the vine to the head of the theocratic family. In Isaiah 5:1-30. it is the "Lord of hosts;" in 2 Chronicles 26:10 and in the parable of the vinedressers it is applied to the rulers of the people. The Arians were wrong in concluding from this a difference of essence between the Father and Son. The vine dearly includes the branches; and the owner of the vineyard, who is also the dresser of the vine, deals here with the whole reality. All, however, which the Husbandman is said in 2 Chronicles 26:2 to effect is the taking away of the fruitless though proud branch, and the cleansing and gentle pruning of the branch that beareth fruit. Now, Christ, as the Son, has all judgment committed to him, and, as the great Organ of Divine providence and rule in the Church, he is the Administrator of discipline. Christ is not disclaiming the operations which he in other places assumes, nor representing his own Personality as perfectly passive in the matter, but he is claiming for Jehovah of hosts the same relation to the true vine as he sustained to the degenerate vine of the old covenant; but he calls him "my Father." Alford says, "The material creations of God are only inferior examples of that finer spiritual life and organism in which the creature is raised up to partake of the Divine nature" (see Hugh Macmillan, D.D., ’The True vine’). John 15:2 Every branch in me; i.e. this unity of life between me and mine is graciously handled by the Father—my Father! The branches are of two kinds—unfruitful and fruitful. The indefinite statement, in nominative absolute, calls great attention to it. "Every branch in me that beareth no fruit." Then it is possible to come into this organic relation with the true vine, to be in it and to be a part of it, and to bring forth no fruit. If it were not for John 15:5 we might say that these branches were nations, customs, institutions, and the like; but the context forbids it. The relation to him must therefore be one that is insufficient to secure life, or fruit, or continuance. Baptized, communicating, professing, partially believing Christians there may be in abundance, who, though in him, yet cannot continue in him. (See stony ground, thorny ground, and unripe ears, of the parable of the sower; and the bad fish caught in the net (Matthew 13:1-58.; 1 John 2:19, etc.). He taketh away (cf. John the Baptist: "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down," Matthew 3:10; and Deuteronomy 32:32; Micah 7:1). What is done with the valueless prunings is said afterwards. Every branch that beareth fruit, he pruneth (or, cleanseth), that it may bring forth more fruit. Let the non-reappearance of ἐνἐμοὶ be observed. The suavis rhythmus of Bengel is a mere accidental touch. The words αἴρει and καθαίρει rhyme with each other; but the latter word is not connected with καθαίρεω, a compound of αἵρεω, nor is it equivalent to καταίρει, the true compound of κατὰ with αἴρω; but it is derived from καθαρός, clean, and means "to cleanse with libations," and perhaps "to prune with the knife." The Husbandman aims at more fruit, more of meekness, gentleness, love, and faithfulness, in fact, all those fruits of the Spirit enumerated in Galatians 5:22,Galatians 5:23. The word κλῆμα, used for "branch" in these verses, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The word κλαδὸς, elsewhere used, means the smaller "branches" of a tree. The term means here vine-branch, the essential constituent elements of the vine itself, and is so used in Aristophanes, AEschines, and Theophrastus (see LXX., Ezekiel 15:2). John 15:3 Now ye are clean—pruned, purged, cleansed, of the Divine Owner—by reason of the word (λόγον) which I have spoken to you. The Father has been operating this cleansing process upon you by the whole of the ῥήματά (see John 15:7), which are gathered together into one mighty, quick, and active Loges. As we find in Hebrews 4:12, the Word is sharper than a two-edged sword, and capable of dealing summarily with "thoughts and intents of the heart." Augustine, on this passage, admits that it is the Loges which gives all its value to the water of baptism. "This purifying, sanctifying process has been performed upon you," says Christ. Then since "he who sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one," this continuance remains as the gracious possibility. The vital sap proceeds from Christ alone, and not from our corrupted nature, which must be grafted into his life and become part of him. Many may seem to be a part of Christ, to be sacramentally or outwardly united to him, and even to be drawing some real advantages from the contact, and yet their end is fruitlessness, rottenness, removal, fire. The branches which bear fruit never bring forth all they might produce, never realize their ideal. The pruning, cleansing process must pass over every soul, that it may more adequately fulfill its destiny. The cleansing, searching power of the Word will be freely exercised by the Divine Husbandman. John 15:4 But there is a continuance of most intimate relations to be sustained between Christ and his disciples. If the two clauses are "imperative," or rather concessive, as many suppose, the finest meaning is evolved. Let these be the reciprocal conditions, let it be that you abide in me, and I in you. (Meyer and Lange add to the second clause μενῶ, "I will abide in you," making it into a promise following a command, and involving a very strong synergistic thought.) There is a mutual abiding or indwelling. The life-principle circulates through the branches, just as they perpetuate the living connection between the branch and the center of the life. The mutual relations show that human nature is in infinite need, and, apart from the new life-principle, will perish. The abiding of the branch in the vine suggests the continuance of vital connection’ with the living stem, and supposes that connection kept up by constant faith, so that the believer is in a position to draw life from the legitimate source. The abiding of the vine in the branch—"I in you"—is the perpetual inflow into the subordinate life, of the living grace which makes the believer’s life one with his Lord’s. As he said (John 14:19), "Because I live, and ye shall live;" so now, As the branch cannot bear fruit from itself—from its own inherent vitality—except it abide in the vine—except this connection is maintained—in like manner no more (or, so neither) can ye, except ye abide in me. The affirmation does not cover, as Augustine implies, the impotence of the natural man, but it asserts the unfruitfulness of the disciple in his own strength. Some have found here revindication of the place of the human will in the work of grace. Let it be seen, however, that it is the "good will," the new nature, which has been wakened into normal activity, and which wills the thing most pleasing to the Divine Source of the life. John 15:5 Christ returns to the main theme of the previous verse, but here discriminates more forcibly the vine from the branches, and yet holds and binds them into a unity. I am the vine, ye are the branches; which shows that he treated the disciples themselves as the organs of his earthly fruit-bearing; and then draws a larger circle and makes a complete and comprehensive statement on which the very existence of the "true vine," the "body of Christ, including the Head," depends, viz. He that abideth in me, and I in him—i.e. whenever the conditions of which I have spoken to you are fulfilled; wherever there are human souls deriving from their connection with me the full advantage of the life ever streaming forth from me—the same beareth much fruit; the entire end of their new life is secured. He beareth "much fruit." In other words, many of those blessed fruits of the supernatural life appear, which the great Husbandman desires to receive. And this strengthens the position of the previous verse, which threatened excision from the vine to such as bear no fruit. Such, though in one sense "in the vine," do not abide in him. Because apart from £—severed from—me ye can do nothing. The ὅτι suggests the question—Can the negative result justify the positive assertion? It does in this way. There are two premises: the first is," I am the vine, and ye are the branches," and the second is, "Severed front me a branch can effect nothing," having no independent fruitfulness or stability. All its powers are derived from this supernatural source, and depend on Christ’s faithfulness to his own nature and functions; therefore, "He that abideth in me, and I in him, bringeth forth much fruit." The language here does not repress the endeavor of the human will after righteousness, nor pronounce a judgment on the great controversy between Augustinians and Pelagians. These words are not addressed to unconverted men, but to disciples, who have to learn their constant need of spiritual contact with their invisible Lord. Let a believer, let an apostle, sever himself from Christ, and live on his own past reputation or his supposed strength, on the clearness of his intellect, the vigor of his body, the eminence of his position, he can and will do nothing. John 15:6 If any one abide net in me, he is cast forth as the branch—perhaps away from the vineyard, as well as from proximity to the vine—and is withered. The two aorists, ἐβλήθη and ἐξηράνθη, are simply cases of a common daily experience. These are the inevitable consequences of not abiding in the vine. We may imagine two ways in which this non-abiding in Christ, this severance from him, may be effected: (1) the pruning-knife may have lopped them off because of their lack of fruitfulness; or, (2) they may have withered on the stem, and, by their deficiency of strength and life, have suffered from some external assault which they have not had energy to resist. Lucke, Winer, Tholuck, and Hengstenberg regard the aorists as indicative of what will happen should branches in Christ cease to derive limb from him. Calvin is satisfied that the expression cannot refer to the elect, but to the hypocrite, while Alford is as confident of its repudiation of unconditional election. In my opinion it keeps clear of both suggestions. And they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. The vine is one of the noblest of all trees, and produces the most abundant fruit; but it is one of its peculiarities that all its strength is spent on the fruit, and that its branches are utterly valueless for all other purposes. Heaps of burning vine-prunings may have suggested the awful image which the embodied Love of God here adopts. Some have supposed (Meyer and Alford) that the fire is here the last judgment, which our Lord looks upon as come. But the present tense, following the two aorists, suggests the immediate consequence of such severance from Christ—the fiery trials, the fierce temptations, the terrible judgments, always overtaking the unfruitful and unfaithful servants, and preluding the awful consummation of Divine judgment, of which our Lord had often spoken (Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50; Matthew 25:41; Luke 16:24), and which the apostle of love described in Revelation 20:15; Revelation 21:8. John 15:7 In this verse he returns once more on the principle of union with himself, and of what will come out of it. The disciples may be sorely distressed at this possible doom, for whatever may be the lot of those who do not obey the gospel and are ignorant of the Law of God, the curse here uttered fails heavily upon those who have been once enlightened, etc., and have apostatized (Hebrews 6:4-6). The anxiety of the apostles ]s grievous, and they desire deliverance from this doom. And our Lord next unfolds the principle of prayer which laid such hold on the mind of the Apostle John: If ye abide in me (and then, instead of adding, "And I abide in you," he says); and my words abide in you; i.e. if my teaching so abide with you as to control your thoughts and ideas, remain in you as your guide and inspiration, then ask £ whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done to you. A timid interpretation of this promise limits the "whatsoever" to deeds of service in the kingdom of God, and fears, with Augustine, to trust the sanctified will of the believer. But in such harmony with Christ as these words supply, all the conditions of acceptable prayer are present. The believer in Christ, full of his words, evermore consciously realizing union with Christ, charged with the thoughts, burning with the purposes, filled with words of Jesus, will have no will that is not in harmony with the Divine will. Then faith is possible in the fulfillment of his own desire, and prayer becomes a prophecy and pledge of the answer. The apostle, after many years of pondering and of putting these principles into practice, confirms the truth of them (1 John 5:14-16). This is the true philosophy of prayer. The psalmist had gone a long way in the same direction (Psalms 37:4, "Delight thyself in the Lord; and he shall give thee thy heart’s desire"). John 15:8 Here the Lord shows what he knows will be and must be the dominant desire of the man who abides in himself, in whom his own word abides. Such a man will seek, yearn, ask, that he should bear much fruit. This prayer will be heard, and in this sublime synthesis between Christ and his disciples, says Christ, was my Father glorified. "In the fruitfulness of the vine is the glory of the husbandman," and in the answer of your prayers, and the regulation of all your desires, so ye shall become my disciples. £ "Discipleship" is a very large word, never altogether realized. Just as faith leads to faith, and love to love, and light to light, so does discipleship to discipleship. As Bengel says, discipleship is the fundamentum et fastigium of Christianity. On earth the vine reveals itself in the branches, and thus conceals itself behind them. "This explains why the diffusion of spiritual life makes such slow progress in the world—the vine effects nothing but by means of the branches, and these so often paralyze instead of promoting the action of the vine" (Godet). If the other text be maintained, Herein was my Father glorified, so that ye might bear much fruit, and that ye may become my disciples, the "herein" points back to the previous verse, and then the contemplated result of the arrangement, rather than the purpose of the glory, is the matter referred to. John 15:9 Two ways of explaining this verse: Even as—inasmuch as—the Father hath loved me, and as I have loved you, abide in my love; i.e., as Grotius has put it, the first clause suggesting accordance with the mystery of the Trinity, and the second the mystery of redemption: "So do ye continue, or so do ye abide, in the amplitude of this double love which is mine, dwell in it as in a holy atmosphere, breathe it and live by it." But there is another and more satisfactory way of translating the passage: Even as the Father loved me, I also loved you; a fact of stupendous interest and transcendent claim. Heaven had opened over the incarnate Word, and other ears as well as his own had heard the Father say, "Thou art my beloved Son," etc. The Lord was conscious of being the Object of this infinite love before the foundation of the world (John 17:24), and of reciprocating and responding to it; and this love of the Father to him on his assumption of his mediatorial functions was the well-spring of his obedience unto death and after it (see John 10:17, note). Now, if the κἀγὼ is to be translated as above, Christ declares that even as the Father has loved him, he has’ loved his disciples. Again and again he has emphasized this love to them (John 13:34), but here he asserts a loftier claim, viz. that his love to them corresponds with the eternal Father’s love to himself. The one great fact is the ground on which he commands them to abide in his love. This is obviously a more explicit and more intelligible form of the commandment to abide in him. With Olshausen and Westcott, "The love that is mine "is not the love to Christ, nor the love of Christ exclusively, but a blending of the active and passive idea in "the love that is mine"—in the "love" lavished upon me from eternity, and to which I have eternally responded, which I have made known to you and expended on you and received back again from you. Abide in that love that is mine. John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love. This is the method and secret, the stimulus and proof, of abiding in the love of Christ. This is not exactly the converse (Westcott) of "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Doubtless there is a love which dictates obedience to the loved One’s will. Our Lord here avers, however, something further, viz. that obedience issues in a higher love. The obedience here described is the outcome of love, but the power is thus gained to continue, dwell, in the Divine love, to abide, that is, in the full enjoyment and fullness of my Divine love to you. This is obvious from the confirmatory clause: Even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. The Lord kept the Father’s commandment always, doing those things which please him, offering up his precious life, laying it down that he might take it again; and the consequence is that he then and there knew that he was filled with all the fullness of the Divine love. The very impressive line of thought pervades this passage, that what the Father was to him, that he would prove to his disciples. What the love of God was to the Christ, the love of Christ was to his disciples. John 15:11 John 16:6.—(8) The results of the union between Christ and his disciples. John 15:11-16 (a) To themselves. The Lord moves into another and wider development of the union between himself and his disciples. He drops the metaphor of the vine and the branches, and comes to the essence of the relation between them; that is, he does much to explain the meaning and nature of his abiding in them, and the character of the fruit which they were expected by the great Husbandman and Father to bring forth and ripen. A connection between the second section and the first is revealed in the new beginning. These things I have spoken, and am still speaking, to you (perfect, not aorist) with this purpose, that the joy that is mine may be £ in you. This is variously explained. Augustine, "My joyfulness concerning you," which is scarcely the burden of the previous verses; Grotius, "Your delight in me," which would be somewhat tautologous; Calvin and De Wette, "The joyfulness capable of being produced in you by me, might be in you." But the words are more simply explained by Lange, Meyer, Lucke, Westcott, Alford, and Moulton, as the communication to his disciples of his own absolute and personal joy. "The joy that is mine," like "the peace which is mine," is graciously bestowed. A joy was set before him, the joy of perfect self-sacrifice, which gave to his present acts an intensity and fullness of bliss. It was this, in its motives and character and supernatural sweetness, which would be in them. If they receive his life into them, it will convey not only his peace, but that peace uprising and bursting into joy; and he adds, in order that your joy may be fulfilled, i.e. perfected, reach its highest expression, its fullness of contents and entire sufficiency for all needs. 1 John 1:1-4 is the best commentary on this last clause. The Old Testament prophets had often spoken of Jehovah’s joy in his people, comparing it to the bridegroom’s joy, and the bride’s (Isaiah 62:5; Zephaniah 3:17). This entire idea is linked with 1 John 1:10; where the keeping of his commandments, from motives of love, will enable the disciples to "abide in his love." He now passes the whole law of the second table into the light of his joy and the power of his example. John 15:12 This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I loved you. This (John 13:34) was given as a "new commandment;" now he gathers the many commandments into one, as though all were included in it (1 John 3:16). This thought is further vindicated by an endeavor to explain in what sense and way he was loving them. John 15:13 Greater love than this (love) no one hath, namely (ἵνα), that one should lay down his life for his friends. Meyer and Lange endeavor to maintain even here the telic force of ἵνα, "The love to you is of so consummate a character, that its object and purpose is seen in my laying down my life for my friends;" and Hengstenberg thinks so because probably a reference here is made to Isaiah 53:10, that our Lord was pointing to his atoning death—to a death needed alike by enemies and friends. Such an interpretation supposes the lofty purpose of the greatest love. To me, however, it seems more probable that the translation given above places the argument upon a surer; because more common, human, experience. The disposition to die for ungodly and for enemies is exalted by St. Paul (Romans 5:8) above the self-sacrifice involved in dying for the good. Still, which may be shown, and has often been shown in self-sacrificing death for those who are beloved, whatever other and wider ends may be discerned afterwards and spoken of in other connections, he is here asserting that the love of friendship is quite strong and intense enough to secure such a sacrifice. And he adds— John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you—just because I command you. So the natural conclusion will be, "I am showing you the highest possible fruit of my friendship—I am laying down my life for you. This is how I have loved you; therefore after this manner you are to love one another" (1 John 3:16; Ephesians 5:1, Ephesians 5:2). Our Lord then explains more and more to them how they can and do claim this glorious designation. (1) They will vindicate the position for themselves if they are absolutely trustful and obedient. (2) But they can have a new and nobler proof. John 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, bond-slaves. True, he had in this very discourse spoken of them as his δοῦλοι, (John 13:13, John 13:16). Again and again in his parabolic teaching he had spoken of his disciples as servants of a Lord (Matthew 13:27; Matthew 22:4; Luke 12:37; and John 12:26, where another word is used). And moreover, later on in this very chapter (John 15:20), the word and thought return, so that this relation to him, gloried in by St. Paul (Philippians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 7:22), St. James (James 1:1), Jude (Jud Jude 1:1), and even St. John (Revelation 1:1), could be sustained in its integrity, even after it had been transfigured, and penetrated through and through with the light of love. Because the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth. The slave is an instrument, doing by commandment, not from intimate knowledge, his Lord’s behests. But you I have called (εἴρηκα)—on previous occasions (see Luke 12:4; and cf. John 11:11, "Our friend Lazarus")—friends, for whom it is joy to die, and I have effected the transfiguration of your service into love. I have raised you by the intimacy of the relations into which 1 have drawn you from the position of slave to that of friend. You may be, you must be, my servants still; I am your Master and Lord; but you will be servants from a higher motive and a more enduring link and bond of union. For all things which I heard of my Father. Notice the source of the Savior’s teaching. He was sent from God, trained and taught, as a man; he chose thus, humanly, to learn step by step, thing by thing, what to reveal of his own nature, of his purpose and plan in redeeming men, concerning the essence of the Father himself, and the entire significance of his self-manifestation. That which I heard I made known unto you. This is only in apparent contradiction with John 16:12, where he implies that there will be more for them to learn in the future, when the mystery of his death, resurrection, and ascension shall have been accomplished. The limitation of the πάνταἂἤκουσα does not consist in doctrines as opposed to practical duties, nor in the plan of salvation for individuals as antithetic to principles of his kingdom, nor in principles as distinguished from what may ultimately be found in them, but in the capacities and circumstances of the disciples themselves (John 16:12 is a corollary of this solemn assurance). The reason of the present assertion is the proof that it thus supplies of their dearness to him. "Ye are my friends." He had told them all that they could bear. He had lifted the veil high enough for their truest joy and noblest discipline. He had bared his heart to them. He had kept back nothing that was profitable. He had proved his own friendship, and thus given a conclusive reason for his complete self-devotion on their account. John 15:16 From the thirteenth to the fifteenth verse, our Lord, in a brief digression, has justified a portion of the great commandment of mutual love. That love is to correspond with his love to the disciples, and to explain his self-sacrifice to them; tie proves to them that they are his "friends," and therefore the objects of his dying love. Then the appeal is still further clenched by showing the origin and purport of his friendship for them. Ye did not choose me (ἐξελέξασθε … ἐξελεξάμην are middle, "you chose … I chose … for yourselves or for myself"), but I chose you. I selected you as individuals, not excluding thereby a gracious choice of other souls; I destined you to accomplish work dear to me and essential to my kingdom. Christ has already told them that he must "go away" from’ them to the Father, and that they "cannot follow him now, but afterwards;" and he has also convinced them that, though he go away, he will "come again, and abide with them," and also that "severed" from him they can "do nothing." Consequently when he adds, I appointed you (see 1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 1:2; Acts 20:28, for similar use of τιθέναι) as my apostles and representatives, to do work in my Name, there is no contradiction in his adding, that ye should go forth, depart into the world with my message and in my Name, as I am "departing" to the Father, to rule over you from a higher and more august position. And bear fruit. A passing reference to the imagery of the first part of the chapter, showing that their "going forth or away" upon this mission would not separate them from his Spirit, or divide the link without which they could bear no fruit at all. The "fruit" may here, in its issues, suggest another class of ideas. In the first case the "fruit" was the "fruit of the Spirit," but here it would seem to be the abiding consequence of the "greater works" which they would be called upon to do. This rich fruit includes all the victories they were to win over souls, and all the effects of their ministry. "Fruit" in either case is only valuable when it is utilized by the Husbandman and according to his purpose. "Fruit" is a Divine self-exhaustion of the living organism; it does no good to the branch nor to the stem; it is the sacred property of the husbandman, whether for his own joy or for fresh seed. In this case your fruit will abide for ever, not in the branch, but in the Father’s hands, that (ἵνα) whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my Name, he may give it you. It now becomes a question whether the second ἵνα introduces a clause which is co-ordinate with the former or one logically depending on the preceding. Meyer concludes the first, viz. that the granting of prayer brings about the fruit and its continuance (so De Wette, Lucke, Stier, Godet); and Olshausen maintains the second, viz. that by going and bringing forth fruit we enter into that relation with God from which proceeds the prayer in the name of the Son which the Father will grant, thus bringing the passage into close relation with John 14:13 and John 16:23. Hengstenberg says, "By their fruit they would show themselves to be true disciples of Christ, and to such the Father can deny nothing." But Westcott and Lange endeavor to combine both ideas. The co-ordination of the two clauses requires the inversion of their order, or the introduction of καὶ before the second ἵνα. Moreover, the thought that Christ chose and appointed them in order that whatsoever they should ask God would give, is out of harmony with "the conditions of acceptable prayer" elsewhere insisted on; while the bearing of fruit—in both senses, (a) that of Christian grace and (b) Christian usefulness —completes the idea in a concrete form of abiding in Christ and having his words abiding in them. Surely the view that the second clause is conditioned by the first, is far from obscure, as Luthardt says, while he virtually accepts the same interpretation: "If they cause themselves to be found in the right service of Jesus, then will be granted to them what they ask in the name of Jesus." Moulton confirms the same interpretation. (On the clause, "in my Name," see John 16:24.) John 15:17-27 (b) The results of this union with Christ to the unbelieving world. John 15:17 These things do I command you—clearly pointing back to John 15:12—that ye may love one another. This entire meditation culminates where it began. The digression comes back to the main theme Westcott regards it as the starting-point of a new theme, but our Lord did not return upon the idea of mutual love, but discusses the effect upon the world of that love to each other and to him which blended their personalities into one mystic unity. This verse shows how the new topic links itself with the previous discussion. His dying for them, thus proving his friendship for them, and all the other signs of his interest and confidence, have been set before them to this great end; for while the world is full of outrage and mutual animosities, the motive of his own entire self-manifestation is to awaken a new and higher type and model of humanity. Well may the familiar legend of St. John in the churches of Ephesus confirm this sublime truth. From this point to the end of the chapter (verse 27) Christ unfolded the consequences, to the unbelieving world, of the sacred union between himself and his disciples, and he discussed the reciprocal relations between his own disciples and the world, seeing that they are united with him in such a close incorporation. John 15:18 You need net be surprised if the world hate you. "The world," κόσμος (five times used in strongly emphatic manner), is humanity apart from grace. This world will despise and hate your mutual love, will scorn your love to itself for my sake; will detest the higher and unworldly standard which you will set up. But here is some consolation. Know (γινώσκετε imperative, as μνημονεύετε in John 15:20) that it has hated me before (it hated) you. "Me first, me most" (Lange). "The superlative contains the comparative" (Tholuck). "This hatred is a community of destiny with me" (Meyer). You know how it has hated me, and hunted me from Bethlehem to Egypt, from Nazareth to Capernaum, from Gergesa to Jerusalem. Be not surprised if it hate you. John 15:19 If ye were of the world—i.e. still a part of it, deriving your life, maxims, and pleasures from it; if you could sympathize with its vulgar passion, and its temporary fleeting excitements, partisanships, and bigotries—the world would be loving (ἐφιλεὶ, notice the form of the conditional sentence, a supposition contrary to fact, therefore anticipating the negative clause that follows, "but ye are not of the world;" notice also that φίλεω, the love of affection, not ἀγαπάω, the love of reverence and profound regard, which you are to show to one another and to me)—would be loving its own. The world loves its priests and mouthpieces, its own organization ("Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, and Judas, and all devils," Luther); the world loves its own offspring. But because ye are not of the world, but I chose you, withdrawing you for my service, out of the world (the two meanings of ἐκ here differ; the first ἐκ denotes origin, the second corresponds with the compound ἐκ in ἐκλέγομαι), therefore the world hateth you. I have caused you to break with it, and you are no longer "its own." Just in proportion as you are one with me, you draw upon yourself its hatred of me. "The offence of the cross" is not ceased. Thoma comments on the harmony between this statement and that of the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, whose colors and features are here, as he thinks, drawn upon. It is profoundly interesting to trace the fulfillment of the Lord’s prescient words in earlier Scripture (1 Peter 4:17; Romans 8:17; Galatians 6:17; Philippians 3:10; Hebrews 12:3). John 15:20 Remember the word which I spake to you (see Matthew 10:24, but especially John 13:16, where Christ used the proverb), The servant is not greater than his lord. In John 13:16 the idea was used to enforce the spirit of humility and mutual service; it applies also here, but in another sense. The disciples are not to expect better treatment from the world than their Lord met with. If they (used of "the world 7, in its special concrete manifestations; "they" of Nazareth and Capernaum and Jerusalem correspond with the "they" of Lycaonia, Ephesus, Thessalonica, and Rome) persecuted me, they will persecute—drive away from them—you also. The "if" is remarkably explicit; there is no doubt about it in Christ’s case, and the supposition is one of definite and acknowledged fact, and the conditional sentence most positively assures them of antagonism and persecution. It is probable, though not certainly known, that these disciples all endured a living martyrdom, if not a cruel death in his cause. Then follows a sentence which has by some unwisely been supposed to be ironical, and by others to refer to another subject. If they—others, or many, or some—kept (i.e. "observed," "obeyed," not as Bengel supposed, "laid in wait," or "kept maliciously") my word, they will keep yours also £ Why should irony be interpolated here? Surely the whole con[act with the world was not an utter failure. Christ did win persons from all classes, and they loved him, with a passionate love; and so the apostles, and all who "go forth to bear fruit," may hope for some victories, and will travail in birth with the souls of men. John 15:21 But all these things will they do unto you £. By way of consolation, he added, in view of the antagonism which the world would deliberately pursue towards them, For my Name’s sake. Many suppose that the consolatory element is emphasized in this clause. However, the idea contained in the διὰτὸὀνομάμου has been already expressed in the previous verses, and the whole of the verse so far merely gathers it up for a new and suggestive explanation. For the Name of Christ these disciples will not only pray, labor, suffer, and die, but in the power of it they will transmute their sorrows into raptures, their tribulations into glory. Because they know not him that sent me. If they had known the heart and nature of the Sender, they would have understood the mission of the Savior, and would neither have hated him nor his representations. (Here Lucke, Hengstenberg, Luthardt, and Lange are preferable to Meyer and Godet.) It is utter grief to Jesus that the world has been ignorant of the Father. This ignorance explains its antagonism to the representatives of Christ, and is the most appalling witness to its own depravation. No fact is more patent in the entire history of human thoughts about God than this, that "the world by wisdom knows him not," nay, it travesties his Name, misrepresents his character, distrusts, fears, and flees from the face of God. It was left to Christ to reveal the Father. In many different mental tendencies even Christendom has obscured or denied the Fatherhood. John 15:22 If I had not come, as the incarnate Word of God, if I had not fulfilled the promises and come forth from God into the world to reveal the Father, and spoken to them, made known to them the thought and Spirit of God, made it possible for them to know the essence of the only true God, they had had £ no sin; they would not have resisted the highest love, their alienation in this respect would not have been a violation of the most solemn and gracious demands of the Father. The greatest sin is the refusal of the most complete revelation, and by the side of this all other sin becomes comparatively trivial. Our Lord could not have spoken of the hatred of himself or his disciples (so Lucke and Meyer) as this sin, because it would have been obviously impossible to hate a non-existent revelation or revealer. It is the deeper fall which is consequent upon a deliberate rejection of the highest love. Formerly, they would have been in the condition of those whose sins of ignorance God overlooks (Acts 17:30), and to whose ἁμαρτήματα in the past God has exercised πάρεσις, in anticipation of the coming grace. But now (Luke in numerous places uses this expression to form a strong contrast) they have no excuse or pretext for their sin, or concerning their sin. They can plead no justification. The word πρόφασις is an λεγόμενον, and is not "cloak or covering," but "palliation or excuse" for manifest sin. So long as men have seen no deeper into the nature of God than they can go with the aid of mere phenomena or ratiocination on the details of creation, their fears and even their hatreds formulated into grim legend, or uncouth idols, or repellent hypothesis, are a natural outcome of a nature so corrupt; but they ought to have found in Christ a deeper revelation, a summons to service and adoring love. In rejecting the idea of God which I have set before them they have no excuse. St. Paul (Romans 1:20) declares that those who have defamed the great characteristic of God which may be learned from nature are without excuse. Certainly our Lord does not say this here. John 15:23 He that hateth me, and by implication will hate you, hateth my Father also. The hatred of goodness in me, the refusal to accept my representation of their Father and mine, becomes a distinct hatred of God himself as I have revealed him. A God of war, a God of partisan jealousy for the honor of Israel, a God who would palliate fratricidal feud, and overlook blasphemous indifference to his true character, they might have tolerated; but the Father-God, whom they might have heard and seen in Christ, is hated by them. John 15:24 If I had not done among them works which none other did £ Here he comes down from "Word" to "work," and indicates the lower agency, that of works, which are neither inoperative nor valueless, and which transcend all other similar deeds. They are works of the Son of God, works of creation and of healing, triumphant conflict with the forces of nature and the malice of the devil, of a kind which may be compared with, but which exceed all human and angelic ministry. They had not had sin, but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. The works as well as the words of Christ might have softened their hearts, but the Divine claims, which were thus pressed home upon the conscience, provoked their malice. "They took counsel to kill him;" "They took up stones to stone him." They hated God as God, and goodness and truth just because they were goodness and truth. The awful condemnation is here pronounced, "that men loved darkness rather than light." They positively saw their Father, and hated him. This is the most terrible condemnation that can be pronounced on moral beings. John 15:25 Strange is it that even here the ancient psalmist, in portraying the ideal Sufferer (Psalms 69:4; Psalms 35:19), bad seized this feature, and thus anticipated the treatment of the Son of God. But this cometh to pass (some clause of this kind must be introduced to give true force to ἀλλὰ and ἵνα) that the word might be fulfilled that has been written in their Law. Not only here but elsewhere Jesus speaks of the Psalms as a part of the Law (see note, John 10:34). Other passages may, from their similarity, have been in Christ’s mind, as receiving fulfillment or abundant illustration in their conduct. The use of the expression, "the Law," has been pressed by many as proof that the writer of this Gospel did not regard himself as a Jew at all. Such numerous indications occur of the opposite conclusion, that this expression must receive the more rational interpretation—the Law in which they pride themselves, the Law which is ever in their mouths, the Law which itself contains the portraiture of their spirit: They hated me gratuitously; causelessly. The true Christ was, when he came, the object of reason-less, causeless hate and opposition. Jesus knew, when he claimed to be the Christ, that he would have to complete and fulfill the solemn portraiture of the suffering, burden-bearing, and rejected Christ, as well as that of the triumphant Christ and King. John 15:26, John 15:27 A new source of consolation now appears. Already twice over he has spoken of the Paraclete (John 14:16 and John 14:26), (1) as being sent by the Father in answer to his prayer, to be the compensation to his disciples for his personal departure, and also (2) as the Instructor and Leader into all truth. Once more he promises great things and mighty aid in their conflict with the world’s hate by the mission of the Comforter. This great mission is said to be his own. Whensoever the Paraolete of whom I have spoken shall have come, whom I will send to you from (the side of, παρὰ) the Father, the Spirit of the truth, which proceedeth from (παρὰ) the Father, he (ἐκεῖνος) shall bear witness concerning me, and you also bear witness because ye are with me from the beginning of the Messianic work (ἀπἀρχῆς, not ἐνἀρχῆ). This is the great text on which the Western Church and the Greeks have alike relied for their doctrine concerning the "procession of the Spirit," the timeless, pre-mundane relations among the Personalities of the Godhead. The expression ἐκπορεύεται only occurs in this place, and from it ἐκπορεύσις became the ecclesiastical term for the relation which the Holy Spirit sustains to the Father, just as γεννήσις was the especial term to denote the peculiarity of the Son, and just as ἀγεννήσια, the condition of unbegottenness and paternity was that used to denote the Father’s own hypostatic distinction. The Holy Spirit is ever proceeding, issuing forth from, sent by the Father on his work of Divine self-manifestation and Divine activity in the universe. Of this there can be no question, and the Nicene symbol originally expressed it without amplification, and the Greeks founded upon it their conception of the Trinity. The relation of the Son and Spirit to the Father were believed to be co-ordinate; and, though both were of the same eternal substance, yet both were equal to the Father. But the Western Church in after-years—notwithstanding the tremendous anathemas against all alteration which guarded the Nicene and Chalcedonian formulae—felt that the whole truth concerning the Divinity of the Son was concealed, if the idea was not also conveyed which our Lord utters side by side with the ἐκπορεύεταιπαρὰτοῦΠατρός in this verse. Christ says, "I will send him παρὰτοῦΠατρός," and this must be compared with (John 14:26), "whom the Father will send in my Name;" and the Latins, to express this thought, added filioque to the phrase, "proceeding from the Father," and claimed our Lord as equally the Source of the Divine Spirit with the Father, so that it runs, "proceeding from the Father and the Son." In the endless discussions that arose, the two Churches probably meant to effect the same thing, viz. to affirm the glory and perfect Deity of the Lord Christ. The Greeks, in ancient times, never limited their statement to proceeding from the Father only;" nor did they object to add, "through or by the Son;" but it is probable that Augustine and the Western Church, and the liturgical forms that arose in it, approach a little more closely to the reality and quality of him who said, "I and my Father are one" in this respect, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father and Son, when he comes into human hearts and testifies of Christ. There are those (Beza, Luthardt, Alford, Meyer) who urge that these passages do not bear at all upon the internal relations of the Godhead, but simply refer to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit. "The words," says Luthardt, "must be understood historically, not metaphysically," and much may be said in favor of this view. If this verse does not furnish the basis of an argument, there is no other which can be advanced to establish the view either of the Eastern or Western Church. The witness of the Paraclete is said here to cover the gravest difficulties and provide the richest consolations. If the Lord intended to teach the fundamental nature of the Holy Spirit, the literal statement would be a powerful defense of the Greek doctrine; but if the passage here speaks of the official work and temporal mission, the words have no direct bearing upon that doctrine. The denial of the filioque has the logical tendency to make the Spirit and Son co-ordinate and subordinate emanations of the Father, and so to go back to the monarchianism from which the Church escaped at Nicaea. (See Pearson on the Creed, art. 8.; ’Dict. Christian Biography,’ art. "Holy Ghost;" Smeaten, ’Doctrine of the Holy Spirit;’ Hagenbach, ’History of Christian Doctrines.’) The supernatural power of the Holy Spirit will counteract the hatred in the world by regenerating individuals within it. More than that, said Christ, he (ἐκεῖνος) will bear witness to me, in the Divine strength and courage which he will give to you, in the new and corrective ideas which he will supply, in the great works seen to be mine, which you will have grace to initiate (see Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-47.; Acts 4:31; Acts 5:32,—passages where the "Acts of the Apostles" are seen to be "Acts of the Risen Jesus"); and ye also bear witness, etc. Your own experience of me from the commencement of my ministry will give you a class of testimony which will leave an indelible impression on the heart of the world. John 15:1-8 The vine and the branches. This discourse of our Lord had relation to the new position of the disciples that would be created by his departure. I. THE NATURE OF THE NEW CREATED BY . "I am the true vine, and my Father is the Husbandman." 1. Christ is the true and essential Life of his people. He lives in his people by his Spirit. He is at once the Root and the Stock from which the branches derive their sap and nourishment. 2. The Father is the Husbandman, at once Proprietor and Cultivator. He engrafts the plants into the vine, as he supports and guards the vine itself, that it may bring forth fruit abundantly. Christ is "the Plant of renown;" "the Branch thou madest strong for thyself." 3. The operations of the Husbandman. (1) He cuts off the unfruitful branch. "Every branch that beareth not fruit in me he taketh away." This refers to seeming members of the Church, for none are in Christ but such as are "new creatures." (a) God knows the inner character of every man. (b) Fruit, as the result of growth, is the end of the plant. Therefore a fruitless man has lost the end of his being. (c) God takes away the fruitless man (α) by death, (β) by judgment. (2) He purges the fruitful branch, so as to concentrate the sap in the cluster that is preparing the fruit. So true members of Christ are purged (a) by afflictions and (b) temptations, that they may not be barren or unfruitful in the knowledge of Christ. 4. The instrumentality of this purging process. "As for you, ye are clean already because of the Word which I have spoken unto you? The Word of Christ is sharper than any two-edged sword for this severe discipline; it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. It thus enables the believer to see the plague of his own heart. II. THE OF A WITH CHRIST. "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me." 1. The union of the branch with the vine is the very law of its life and fruitfulness. "I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20). 2. The union is continuously sustained in the believer’s soul by constant acts of faith and love. 3. The absolute dependence of the believer upon Christ for all his power. "Apart from me ye can do nothing." III. THE OF LIVING OUTSIDE THIS . "If a mall abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they burn." 1. The man who rejects Christ is himself rejected. 2. The faculty that is disused loses its vitality, and is ultimately extirpated. 3. There is final judgment which ends in unquenchable fire. IV. THE OF THOSE IN WITH CHRIST. "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." 1. The privilege is the abundant answer to prayer. Those who abide in Christ receive of his fullness; for all that is in Christ Jesus is theirs, through federal relationship and vital identification with him. 2. The condition of the privilege. (1) The believer must continue in the fellowship of Christ. (2) The Word of Christ is at once the means and the evidence of this fellowship. V. THE RESULT OF THIS . "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; and ye shall become my disciples." 1. The Father’s glory is identified with the fruit-bearing vitality of the believer. It displays the glory of his power, grace, and mercy. All the fruits of righteousness are by Christ, to the praise and glory of God. 2. Christ is honored by a fruitful discipleship. John 15:9-16 The condition of abiding under the power of Christ’s love. I. THE SPHERE AND OF UNION. "As the Father hath loved me, I have also loved you: abide in my love." 1. The relation between the Father and the Son is the absolute type of the union between Christ and believers. 2. The love of Christ is the sphere or atmosphere in which the disciple lives. "We love him, because he first loved us." 3. The disciple is under no other condition than that to which the Son is subject with the Father. "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love." Our obedience is the proof of our love to Christ, while our love in turn assures our obedience. II. THE ISSUE OF UNION—JOY. "These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy’ might be in you, and that your joy might be full." 1. The joy of Christ is the joy. of stir-sacrifice, in constant obedience to his Father. This he desires his disciples to enjoy. Thus he guarantees their true blessedness. 2. Their joy will grow in power and depth by their obedience, as they will thus be drawn closer to Christ. 3. The obedience to which they are called is concentrated in brotherly love. "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." (1) The commandment. (a) It is a new commandment (John 13:34). (b) It is an old commandment (2 John 1:5). (c) It commends itself to the moral nature of man. (d) It is the mainspring of social happiness. (2) Mark the model or pattern: "As I have loved you." Jesus loved his disciples with a love which was (a) strong, (b) tender, (c) patient, (d) enduring, (e) self-sacrificing. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." III. OF THE WHICH CHRIST HAS BETWEEN HIMSELF AND HIS . "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. I no longer call you servants; because the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known to you." 1. The relation of God to his people under the Law was that of Master and servant. But Jesus establishes a new relation, which heightens the dignity of discipleship. 2. The condition of the new relation was a free, unrestrained confidence between Christ and his disciples respecting the full knowledge of Divine things. 3. This fuller knowledge would of itself enhance the intensity of love. IV. THE DIVINE CHOICE, WITH ITS BLESSED DESIGN AND EFFECTS. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." 1. Whether the election is to salvation or apostleship, the ground or cause was not in man. The blessed initiative was taken by Christ. 2. Design of the election. "And appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit." These words imply (1) that the disciples should take an independent place for themselves (ὑπάγητε, go away); (2) that they should be abundant and effective in labors; (3) and that the effect of their labors should be lasting. 3. Encouragement to labor. "That whatsoever ye ask the Father in my Name, he may give it you." A fruitful obedience has its reward in gracious answers to prayer. The disciples and the world. Our Lord turns to a new thought—the relation of his disciples to the world. I. THE SCOPE OF ALL CHRIST’S IS TO DEVELOP LOVE. "These things I command you, that ye may love one another." 1. This love is to be the characteristic of the new kingdom, and thus the strong attraction of the gospel. 2. Yet, essentially noble as it is, it will challenge the hostility of a world out of all sympathy with Christ. II. THE CAUSE OF THE WORLD’S HATRED TO . "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." 1. It is a terrible indictment against the Jews that they should represent in their relations to Christ the overt hatred of" the world." 2. The hatred in question is a proof of the union between Christ and his disciples. He is the Head, they are the members of the persecuted body. 3. The thought of this union ought to strengthen the disciples in view of the world’s hatred. 4. The principle of this hatred. "If ye were of the world, the world would love its own." (1) The world’s love is selfish; it loves what is consonant to itself in idea and feeling. (2) The disciples, not being of the world, but "chosen out of the world," had the distinction of attracting to themselves the natural hostility of a world out of all sympathy with their hopes. 5. The world’s hatred traced to its true source. "But all these things will they do unto you for my Name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me." (1) The disciples were led to expect persecution as their inevitable lot. (2) It would be immediately caused by their attachment to Christ’s cause. (3) Its true source was the world’s ignorance of God. III. THE OF THE WORLD FOR ITS HATRED. It had no excuse for its hostility. 1. There was the testimony of Christ’s teaching, making the Father known, which would judge the world. "If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin." (1) It is a fearful thing to sin against light. (2) It is impossible to escape the just judgment of God. 2. There was the testimony of his miracles. "If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated me and my Father." (1) The miracles were like no other miracles in respect of their nature and effects. (2) The miracles were the revelation of the Father through the Son; yet the Jews ascribed them to the power of evil. (3) The prophetic solution of their hatred. "But this is that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their Law, They hated me without a cause." There was nothing to justify the hatred of such a pure and loving Spirit. IV. THE NEW POWER THAT IS TO SUSTAIN THE IN THEIR WITH THE WORLD—THE HOLY GHOST. 1. The mission of the Comforter. "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (1) The qualifications of the Comforter for his office. (a) He proceeds eternally from the Father. His witness, therefore, will be that of the Father himself. (b) He will be sent by the Son. This implies the approaching departure of Christ to another world. (c) He possesses, communicates, and applies the truth; for he is the Spirit of Truth. (2) The testimony of the Comforter. "He shall testify of me." (a) To the apostles, who will thenceforth understand the truth; (b) to the world, in the dispersion of its darkness, in the new light thrown upon the Person and work of Christ, and in all the blessings of an understood gospel. "He witnesseth with our spirits that we are the children of God" (Romans 8:16). 2. The testimony of the apostles themselves. "And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." (1) It was necessary to have their personal testimony respecting the facts of his life from the beginning of his ministry. Christianity is more than a life; it is more than a system of doctrines; it is a record of historical facts, which give the doctrines all their meaning, and the life all its blessedness. (2) The gospel was to be received by faith in all future ages. The earliest witnesses were to guide the faith of the Church. (3) The apostles accordingly distinguished between their own experience and the internal witness of the Spirit (Acts 5:32). BY J.R. THOMSON If these words were spoken in the house, they may have been suggested by a creeping, Clinging vine trained against the wall; if upon the footpath, by the vineyards on the slope of Olivet; if in the temple, by the golden vine wrought upon the gates. I. THE VINE IN ITSELF IS A EMBLEM OF CHRIST. Its beauty, as planted, trained, or trellised; its grateful shade; its fruit, whether fresh and luscious or dried; its wine," that maketh glad the heart of man;"—all render it not only interesting, but suitable to set forth in symbol the excellence of the Redeemer, his nobility, beauty, preciousness, and use to man. Palestine was a land of vineyards: witness the grapes of Eshcol; Judah binding his foal to the vine, etc. Hence most naturally the vine was used in Old Testament Scripture as an emblem of the chosen nation, and hence Jesus in his parables put the noble plant to the same use. No wonder that our Lord applied to himself and to his people a designation so instructive. II. THE VINE IS AN EMBLEM OF CHRIST, AS THE SOURCE OF LIFE. 1. He is the divinely appointed Root and Stem upon which the branches depend; the Superior with which they, the inferior, are related in dependence. The vine-stock survives even if the branch be cut off and left to die. We are dependent upon Christ; he is not dependent upon us. 2. A close and vital union joins the branches to the vine, and Christians to their Lord. The life which is naturally Christ’s becomes ours through our union by faith with him. 3. Yet it is a mutual indwelling. As Jesus himself has said, "I in you; you in me." What condescension and kindness in this marvelous provision of Divine wisdom! III. THE ARE TO THE VINE FOR THEIR ; SO ARE TO THEIR LORD. The branches of the living vine evince the life and health of the plant first by their vigor, their verdure, their luxuriance, their comeliness; signs of spiritual life are manifested in the Church of God by the peace, the cheerfulness, the spiritual prosperity, of its members. But the great aim of the husbandman’s care and culture is that fruit may be yielded in abundance. What shall we understand by spiritual fruit, the fruits of the Spirit? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 16:1-6 (c) The bitter issues of the hostility of the world. John 16:1 These things. What things? Primarily the explanation he had given of the opposition and hatred of the world, and the vast consolation which he had promised in the identification of the disciples with himself, and the witness which would be borne by the Paraclete; but not exclusively, for they include all the preparatory instructions based on his own Person, his going to the Father, his return in the power of the Spirit. Have I spoken to you, that ye should not be offended; that you should not be made to fall over the stumbling block of persecution, and the refusal of the people to hear your message concerning me. For the moment he passes over the terrible stumbling and falling of that very night, whose shadows were deepening as the hours moved on, and he anticipated their future temptations and the source of their ultimate heroism. John 16:2, John 16:3 They (used impersonally, as the German man, or the French ou) shall make you excommunicate—ἀποσυναγώγους "put you out of the synagogue," expel you from the fellowship of your country’s worship (cf. John 9:22 and John 12:42)—nay, further (the ἀλλὰ abruptly introduces a very much stronger assertion) an hour cometh, that—ἵνα is here, by Meyer and many others, said to involve a Divine order, purpose, or destiny, intended by the drawing on of the foreordained crisis; but it seems enough to convey by it the contemplated result—whosoever killeth you will deem that he is offering service—sacrificial homage—to God (προσφέρειν; both these words are persistently used with this meaning. See, for προσφέρειν, Matthew 5:23; Matthew 8:4; Acts 7:42; Hebrews 5:1). The well-known quotation from ’Bammidbar Rabba,’ fol. 329. 1, "Every one shedding the blood of the wicked is equal to him who offers sacrifice," may throw light on the expression. The intensity of the fanaticism was well exhibited in the persecution in which Stephen fell, and which St. Paul deemed worthy service, and one which he ought to have rendered (Acts 26:9; Galatians 1:13, Galatians 1:14). The curse was long and deep and tragic, and Christ explains it by the awful reiteration, These things will they do £ because they have not known the Father, nor me (see John 15:22, etc.). He reiterates the explanation already given of the manner and form as well as the fact of the world’s hatred. John 16:4 But—the ἀλλὰ suggests a kind of pause, as if he had said, "I will go into no further details" (Meyer)—these things—these prophecies of approaching persecution—I have spoken to you, that (here ἵνα has its proper relic force) when [their] hour is come, ye may remember [them] how that I told you. £ This awkward form is that due to the perplexities of the position of αὐτῶν in the text. Frequently our Lord thus prepared his disciples for the future, called upon them to remember his predictions as pledges of his Divine mission, but still more as consolations and supply of strength when they would most of all need it. These things I told you not from the beginning; not "at the beginning," ἐνἀρχῆ, nor ἀπἀρχῆς, but ἐξἀρχῆς (cf. Isaiah 40:21; Isaiah 41:26; Isaiah 43:9), from the beginning of my ministry, and continuously throughout it. If "these things" are restricted to the prediction of cruel persecution, they are certainly contradicted by the language of Mat 10:17, Matthew 10:21, Matthew 10:28; Luke 6:22; Matthew 5:10, etc.; Matthew 21:36; Matthew 24:9; Luke 12:4, etc. The numerous explanations of the commentators, that Christ had now given a more detailed, particular, and tragic outlook, cannot be sustained. Nor does the supposition that John is here the corrector of the synoptic narrative satisfy (Meyer); nor that of Godet, that Matthew, in his tenth chapter, was gathering together all that Christ had said of this nature, antedating instructions that the Lord had given, at all explain the corresponding passages in Luke’s Gospel. The language of the last clause, because I was with you, throws more light upon it. This does not surely mean "because I was bearing for you the brunt of the opposition,"—it would be unnecessary altogether to say that. All along they must have bitterly felt the antagonism which their Lord encountered. The difficulty is removed by including in the ταῦτα of verse 4 what certainly is involved in the ταῦτα of verse 1; and the reference is to the whole of his instructions touching his departure and the coming of the other Paraclete, and the principle from which the hatred of the world would spring; the explanation of the anticipated hostility which he had now offered, and the way in which they might overcome it. So long as he was with them they could not be made to understand the Divine riches of the consolation which was now so near. From the beginning he had not given all this class of instruction, because he was with them. While at their side, it was premature to speak of the special help they would require in their bereaved condition. John 16:5, John 16:6 Now—at this very moment—I go away to him that sent me. I have completed his work, and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? This seems at variance with Peter’s inquiry, "Whither goest thou?" (John 13:36), and with Thomas’s question (John 14:5), "We know not whither thou goest," etc.? yet they are only opposed in appearance. Peter’s question had obviously turned the whole matter back upon himself, and the way in which the Lord’s departure affected his own duties and position; and the same may be said of Thomas. They had both lost sight of the "whither" in the pain and anguish of the departure. Our Lord had great difficulty in inducing them to realize the blessedness that would befall themselves from his own exaltation, and even now, after all that he had said about this great power and glory which awaited him, he added, Because I have spoken these things to you—since all along you are taking the dark side, and looking on the anguish of my departure and desolateness of your own condition, instead of the grandeur of the new kingdom and dispensation of which you will be witnesses and organs—sorrow hath filled your heart; the one heart which I throughout have been seeking to comfort. You are not looking on the end of my departure, or on the fullness of my glory, or on the addition to your own blessedness, but on your own loss, disappointment, and chagrin. John 16:7-33 (9) The promise of the Paraclete. John 16:7-11 (a) The threefold conviction of the world. The extraordinary fullness of suggestion in the following words, and the strong opinions entertained by different theological schools, render interpretation a difficult task. John 16:7 Though you are crushed with a sense of your approaching bereavement, and so imperfectly apprehend the conditions of your future power and the method which it is incumbent upon me to adopt for your consolation and the completion of my earthly work, nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is wonderful that he who is the Truth itself should have needed, in such various forms, to have reiterated and affirmed the supreme right he possessed to claim their acceptance of his veracity. The truth, then, thus solemnly asserted, because in their then frame of mind it was so utterly unpalatable and incredible notwithstanding all that he had said—the truth is, It is expedient for you that I go away. The ἵναἀπέλθω clause simply defines that which is expedient, profitable to the disciples. Many commentators, holding everywhere the relic force of ἵνα, say, with Meyer and Lange, that "ἵνα marks fact considered with regard to the purposes destined to be accomplished by it." Here, however, the profitableness to the disciples is the chief and solitary thought. "For you:" here lies the gist of the mystery. They might have accepted his own assurance that, bitter as the mode of his departure must be, yet they ought, to and would rejoice because he was going to the Father. How was it possible for them to rejoice so far as they were personally concerned? He answers the question, For if I go not away—and surely this solemn departure meant, as he had recently told them, by the way of death and glorification—the Paraclete, of whom I have spoken, the Spirit of truth (see John 15:26, John 15:27), will not come to you; but if I go (πορευθῶ, to my Father; observe the form of the two conditional sentences, the degree of uncertainty as to the issue, to be determined by the result), I will send him to you (see notes on John 7:39. "The Holy Spirit," as the Divine dispensation of grace to men bringing a renewed humanity into living incorporation with its great Head, was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified). Jesus could not become the Divine Life-center of the human family, radiating from himself the full glory of a universal harmony, until he had been taken up, until he had been glorified in God. Unspeakably precious as many of our earthly gifts and friendships are, we do not apprehend them, nor profit by them to the full, until they are taken from us. The youth, submitted to the condition of perfect dependence on a parent’s care and guidance, can scarcely ever reach the fullness of his manhood until he is thrown back upon the spirit of his father’s counsel, apart from that father’s presence, and brings into daily practice from a new standpoint the principles he has learned. So, without any hyperbole, nothing had ever been so wonderful and blessed to the human spirit as the fellowship which had prevailed between the Son of man and his disciples. They were with him, they sat at his feet, they watched his countenance, they experienced a continuous series of Divine surprises at his judgments and his mercies. They were walking by sight, as the children of Israel did, following the pillar of fire and cloud, and drinking of the living water; but they were nevertheless living by sight. Nevertheless, there was something more wonderful and gracious still, when, in his physical absence, they would have the sense of his spiritual presence. They would lose him as an earthly Friend, but they would regain him as a Divine Reality; they would discover more than his humanity in his God-Manhood. They would wield his Divine Word as their weapon, and would become the channels of his healing and convincing and judging powers. The promise, "I will send him," is the guarantee of something more than a "Christ after the flesh" could ever be. John 16:8 And he, when he is come (ἐλθών). A right royal assurance. The Holy Spirit will come, as my grace and the result of my sending. He will convict the world. Little doubt is now entertained that this ἔλεγχος implies the refutation of error, the discovery of wrong-doing, the bringing it home to the person convinced, and thus convicted (John 3:20; John 8:9, John 8:46; 1 Corinthians 14:24; Titus 1:9; James 2:9); making such a one see that he is open to the condemnation of conscience, or of men, or of the Law of God. This conviction may in some cases lead to conversion and deliverance, but is distinct from it, and sometimes also may issue after such a manifestation in hardness and impenitence. The patristic interpretation (Authorized version and Hengstenberg), "He will reprove," might pass as a fair translation of the word, in its reference to sin, but would have small meaning as applied to righteousness or judgment. Meyer, Godet, Luthardt, Lange, Westcott, Stier, and Moulton agree that ἔλεγξει means more than "reprove," less than "convince." The world is spoken of, not Jews merely, or their leaders. Humanity itself, with its false standards of judgment, and its self-complacency, is to be convicted of being in the wrong; all kings, princes, potentates, priests, and publicans, who are out of harmony with God, wilt be convicted by the Paraclete. The conviction of the world is threefold—in respect of sin, in respect of righteousness, and in respect of judgment. The three great categories of thought, custom, and conduct; the three themes where the world is in infinite need of being compelled to see that it is altogether in the wrong. The disciples are to overcome the whole world by the intensity with which they will be instrumentally the occasion of this conviction. The world under the depressing and distracting influence of its own principles, as well as its passions, has misconceived the whole nature of "sin," the entire mystery of "righteousness," the certainty of retribution, and the things and principles on which condign "judgment" must fall. The Advocate, the Divine, indwelling Spirit of the truth, whom Christ will send into his disciples as compensation for his own absence, will through them do this strange and tremendous work. Our Lord does not hero promise the conversion of mankind, but such a conviction that the blessed consequence may follow. The first great step will be taken. John 16:9 The three elements of this conviction of the world are separately treated. In respect of sin, because they believe not on me. The ὅτι, has been restricted by Meyer to "so far as," as though the conviction with respect to sin was limited to a charge of specific unbelief; and Hengstenberg would render it "consisting in this, that," etc. But surely the full causal force of the particle is to be pressed, "because they believe not on me." The essence of all sin is unbelief, a refusal to surrender heart and will to the Divine will and authority, though the world generally had taken different views of it: supposing "sin" to be disobedience to some particular class of duties, or the neglect of certain specific ceremonial. Christ declares that the Spirit which has always been striving with men to bring them into reconciliation with God, will now convict the world that its sinful tendencies and principles have reached their highest and most willful expression in unbelief εἰςἐμέ, towards me. The most complete manifestation of God has received from the world the most utter and insensate repudiation. The very nature of sin thus stands revealed, the leprosy of sin will come out on the smiling self-complacency of the world. It will no longer be able to charge upon Adam, nor the devil, nor upon natures nor upon temptations of the flesh, the blame of sin; but will take the guilt home, and see that, in this crowning act of human folly, unbelievers have rendered themselves personally liable to condemnation, and, by rejecting infinite love as well as eternal law, have left themselves without excuse. John 16:10 In respect of righteousness, because I go to the Father, £ and ye behold me no more. Not merely that the world will be led to form a new conception of righteousness, seeing that God has exalted him whom they have condemned as a malefactor,—that would really, with Lucke and Meyer, limit this "righteousness" to a judgment concerning the guiltlessness of Christ; nor can we, with Luther, etc., regard it as equivalent to the δικαιοσύνη of Romans 1:17, the righteous attribute and righteous process by which God is able to treat as righteous those who believe. This is the only place in the Gospel where the word occurs, and it can scarcely bear the technical significance of the great theological discussions with which it was afterwards associated. Schaff has called attention to the vulgate translation justitia, which is represented in the Rheims English version by "justice," and reminds us how Archdeacon Hare urges that "righteousness" and "justice" correspond to the entire theology of the Protestant and Romanist Churches. The Protestant sees in "righteousness" an ideal never reached by the human will in its own strength; the Romanist, by the term "justice," embodies itself in outward acts. The idea of righteousness involves the demand for purity; the idea of justice, one for cleanness. But seeing that Christ had all along called urgent attention to the fact that that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God, and that the righteousness of his kingdom must exceed "the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," it becomes clear that his exaltation to the right hand of the Father would exhibit God’s ideal of righteousness; and by the aid of the Holy Spirit working through the word of the apostles, the world’s view of these things would be utterly subverted, the world would be silenced, convicted of being utterly in the wrong in its idea of righteousness as well as in its judgment upon the nature of sin. The idea of righteousness will be expanded and transfigured; the idea of sin will be deepened and intensified and brought home. Stier has, with great eloquence and power, pressed the other view, which makes the ἐλέγχος of the Holy Ghost nothing short of this—that there is no other righteousness for men than the righteousness of God in Christ and the righteousness of Christ before God. Notice, nevertheless, the occasions on which the world was brought to recognize the triumph of Christ’s righteousness and confusion of its own prejudices (Acts 2:27, Acts 2:31; Acts 3:14; Acts 7:52). John 16:11 In respect of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. The conviction of sin will have a peculiarly and specially subjective cause; that of judgment will, like that of righteousness, be preceded by two stupendous objective facts—the exaltation of Christ and the judgment of Satan. The glorification of the Son of man, to the extent of his being declared to be the Son of God with power, will be the grand event which human nature will be powerless to counteract or ultimately to resist. "Know assuredly that this same Jesus whom you have crucified is both Lord and Christ." The judgment of the prince of this world is also a fact lying outside the politics of the world, which may fume and rage as it will; it is beyond the reach of the philosophy or literature, the courts or armies, the fashions or the force, of this world. The central prince and spirit of the world is judged by the Lord Jesus, and condemned; and the time is coming when the old standard of judgment will be cast out, and the world will be compelled to admit that it has been vanquished (John 12:31). The conviction concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment, by the aid of the Advocate whom Christ will send, will become the great work of the apostles and of the Church, until he comes again in his glory. While commenting upon this sublime assurance the awful process must not be forgotten, nor the fact that the prince of the world dies hard. The atrocious wickedness which burst out after the exaltation of Christ among the people who had rejected their Lord, and the consummation of the mystery of iniquity in the Roman empire, was a part of the providential conviction of the world. Archdeacon Hare, in his ’ Mission of the Comforter,’ insists that the entire conviction of judgment, righteousness, and sin must be the work of "the Comforter;" that all the objective facts, all the teaching of example, all the thunder of prophecy, nay, all the outward demonstration of sin, righteousness, and judgment, made in and by the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ, must be complemented by the grace of the Holy Spirit on individuals, nations, and humanity at large; and that it is in the capacity of human "Comforter," or "Advocate," that this conviction is wrought. John 16:12-15 (b) The power of the Paraclete on the disciples themselves. From the twelfth to the fifteenth verse the relation of the Paraclete to the disciples themselves makes yet more evident the expediency of the glorification of the Son of man, and demonstrates the authority of the apostolic teaching. John 16:12 Notwithstanding the abundance of the revelations which Christ had given, still, said he, I have many things yet to tell you, but ye cannot bear them now (ἄρτι); i.e. at this epoch of your training. Christ (John 14:18, etc., in a passage which he proceeds to enlarge and deepen) has already said that the coming to them of the Paraclete would be one method of his own Divine approach to them for purposes of consolation and instruction; consequently he does not now allow them to suppose that, though separated from them by death, he would ever cease to instruct them. They could not in their present condition, and before the great events should have happened—events on which so much revealing fact would turn—bear the revelation of these "many things." Pentecost will enable them to appreciate the full mystery of love. The word used for "bear" is that which is used (John 19:17) to describe the bearing of the cross by Christ himself. Some have found in these "many things" new articles of doctrine which have been preserved by tradition; and others, a development of truths already presented in germ; and others, again, much of the future order of the world and the Church, such as gradually evolved itself to the vision and insight and spiritual wisdom of apostolic men. But they could not, on the eve of the Passion, have borne the full mystery of the atonement, or sufficiently have comprehended the glory of the enthroned King. John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come. This points to the definite promise already made (conditioned by his own departure, and so rendering that departure "expedient") when the Spirit of truth is come, having been sent by me from the Father. He will be your Guide into the truth in all its parts. £ As Godet says, "The reading εἰς suits ὁδηγήσει better than ἐν." A most glorious promise this, for as days of darkness and perplexity draw on, fresh needs will arise. The "many things" which would thus be said must be presumed to have been said on highest authority; and hence the unapproachable dignity of the apostles themselves; hence the secret of all their binding and loosing power; hence the revelations they have been able to supply with reference to Christ and salvation, glory, duty, and eternal life, and all the laws of the kingdom. From this vast promise we see the sufficiency of the apostolic teaching, and by implication the portion of it which is committed to writing. Our Lord had delivered to his disciples "nothing but the truth;" but from the nature of the case they must wait for the truth in its completeness, the whole truth of salvation and deliverance. But our Lord proceeds to show that the infallibility of the Holy Spirit is not that he will be a secondary, or tertiary, or independent Divinity. Like Christ, the Son of God, who was in the bosom of the Father (see John 7:17, John 7:18; John 8:28), so he who proceedeth from the Father will not speak from himself, as from any spontaneous, independent source. He is, in his gracious operations, no rival Deity, but the Spirit of the Father and the Son (comp. John 8:44, where the essence of the lie is that the devil speaketh of his own), and whatsoever things he shall hear £ (or, heareth, or, shall have heard), that shall he speak. The verb "hear" is used absolutely, and has been variously completed with the words, "of me" or "of the Father," whether verbally supplemented or not. We learn that the Holy Spirit is limited by the revelation already involved in the great fact of the Incarnation. "He will speak" of that which he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are coming. The revelation will concern Christ and the future. The whole New Testament, so far as it is apostolic, is here declared to be the work inspired by the Spirit’s guidance of the apostles’ mind into the truth in all its completeness and in all its parts. Some, like Westcott, refer the ἐρχόμενα to "the constitution of the Christian Church;" but the most satisfactory view is that the Spirit would himself be the Source of the prophetic hope and wondrous vision of the future which pervades the apostolic writings. Hengstenberg runs here into great detail. His remark is of deep interest—that such a promise should be found in the Fourth Gospel, preluding those sublime premonitions which the beloved disciple, when "in the Spirit," received and recorded concerning the things which are and are to come (Revelation 1:19). Not only in the writings of John, but of Peter, and in the prophetic spirit given to Paul, we see how the Lord the Spirit fulfilled the promise. John 16:14 He shall glorify me. Christ has spoken of being straightway glorified, lifted into the fullness of the Godhead, glorified in God himself (John 13:32). This statement is partly explanatory of that, but is also an addition to the previous assurance. The Spirit will glorify the God-Man, will augment the luster of his blessed Name, will crown him with honor, and multiply the mirrors of his majesty and the subjects of his power; and the reason is given: For he shall take of mine, and (for the second time, ἀναγγελεῖὑμῖν) declare it to you. Christ is here profoundly conscious of the abundance of truth and reality involved in himself and in his functions, in the work he is doing and will continue to do. He is mournfully alive to the fact that the disciples were not able to perceive what there was in him without supernatural aid. The Spirit of God will augment Christ’s glory in the Church, seeing that he will reveal to men the Person and glory of the Christ, by inward processes, by vivid spiritual intuitions, by mental exercises which we are quite ready to confess are far beyond the compass of logic, and break through all laws of induction or evolution. This is the high function of the Spirit in inspiration—to take of that which belongs to the Son of God, and so to quicken the spiritual faculty of men that they can and do understand it. "The Spirit searcheth all things, even the depths of Deity," and reveals them to those who receive the Holy Ghost. Our Lord declares that all truth is implicitly contained in himself. In John 14:1-31. he said, "I am the Truth" about God and about man, and about the relation of man to God. The Spirit will draw aside the veils which hide this truth, will draw forth the hidden harmonies contained in this wondrous Personality. Such continuous revelation is from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:17, 2 Corinthians 3:18). St. Paul at the close of his ministry was aware of unfathomed treasures still hidden in the Christ, and he put before himself, as the goal of his highest ambition, "that I may know him" (Philippians 3:10). John 16:15 In this verse our Lord makes a still more superlative claim. All things which the Father hath (ὅσαἔχει) are mine. Perhaps no sentence recorded by St. John is more difficult to reconcile with the mere humanity of our Lord, even of the loftiest kind. The "mine" of the previous verse is declared to embrace something more than the mystery of his Person and sacrifice. "All that the Father hath," all his fullness of being, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, all the power, all the effulgence of the glory of the Father, of the human race, and of all things, "are mine." This makes a spiritual apprehension of Christ include a perfect revelation of all the Father’s character and work. Therefore said I, that he (the Spirit of truth, in being your Guide into all the truth) £ taketh of mine, and will declare (it) unto you. Because "mine is the Father’s, and the Father’s is mine;" because, i.e., he is the Center, and Agent, and Motive, and Force in all the Divine self-revelation, and because he possessed as his own this vast range, this infinite fullness of Divine operations, he promised them this spiritual teaching, and assured them that his highest glory was simply to be made known as he is. Calvin, "We see how the greater part of men deceive themselves; for they pass by Christ, and go out of the way to seek God by circuitous paths." In these verses we have a very abundant exhibition of the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, coupled with a very remarkable setting forth of the tri-personality. The Father "hath" (ἔχει) that which is in very. essence the Son’s (ἐμα); and the Spirit, whose purpose is to glorify the Son by making him known to men (λαμβάνει), takes of "mine" and will declare it (see Stier, Schaff, note to Lange). Luthardt once thought with Stier, but now limits the reference, without giving any reason for it, to what he calls "the deposit of Divine truth in the humanity of Jesus." The sum of this astonishing assurance is that the Holy Spirit of truth, an essential element if not Personality in the Godhead, will lead these apostles into the fullness of truth, and of knowledge of the future, by taking up the essential realities of the Christ in the fullness of his being and work, and disclosing them by spiritual insight and supernatural quickening. These realities of the Christ will prove to be the fullness of the Father’s heart—all that the Father hath. Again we ask—Does St. John even here travel beyond his prologue? John 16:16-24 (c) The sorrow turned into joy. In these verses he approaches the final farewell, in which the whole body of the disciples are introduced as inwardly or among themselves perturbed by the special difficulty of the words. Before the Spirit can do all this, a separation must be experienced. John 16:16 A little while. A phrase repeated seven times in this brief passage, emphatically encouraging his own disciples to rise above the limitations of time, and enjoy the habits of eternity. Ye behold me no more. The first puzzle of this utterance lies in this—that (John 14:19) he had told them that, though the world would see him no more, they would behold him in the power of the Spirit, and that they would moreover have adequate preparation for such spiritual beholding in the resurrection; yet now he says, "Ye behold me no more." True, he has associated this phrase already, in John 16:10, with the conviction of the world touching true righteousness and his "going to the Father," so that henceforth he would be hidden in God; but now he increases the perplexity by adding, And again, a little while, and ye shall see me. The commentators differ greatly as to the reference, but (with Hengstenberg, Weiss, Stier, Westcott, Ebrard, Ewald) the most obvious explanation is that he is referring to the resurrection, which in itself would be in part a glorification of Christ, and which, from its entire method of manifestation to them, would prove a preparation for the spiritual sense of his continual presence. This was perfected at Pentecost, and will be completed when he shall come again in his glory. £ John 16:17 Then said (some) of his disciples one to another, not daring to utter it to him, What is this that he saith to us, A little while, and ye behold me not: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? This clause now aggravates their difficulty, whether they associate it with the idea already uttered, or whether they repeat the Lord’s word. The program of the future—e.g. (1) death and momentary absence, (2) resurrection and transitory presence, (3) departure to the Father and abiding presence form a group of ideas very difficult even for us now to realize or "to know" fully what he saith. Who need wonder that these disciples should have been in doubt, since one of their number intimately acquainted with them and their state of feeling records it of them? John 16:18 They said, What is this little while whereof he speaketh? £ (λέγει; Vulgate, dicit). (The R.T. and Westcott and Hort invert the τοῦτο and τί, and thus greatly increase the simplicity of the passage.) What are these two short periods of which he speaks, so full of mysterious significance? We know not what he saith (λαλεῖ; Vulgate, loquitur). We do not apprehend the wonderful interchange of vision and blank darkness—of presence and absence and presence again! John 16:19 Now £Jesus knew (perceived by his Divine penetration of human thought here quickened by their anxious look and hurried whisperings) that they were wishing to question him, and he said to them, Are you inquiring among yourselves concerning this that I said, A little while, etc.? In his repetition he does not quote the clause which they had added—i.e. added if the clause, John 16:16, is not genuine. He proceeded to meet their difficulties. John 16:20 There is no exact or categoric reply to the very inquiry which he has heard and cited, but there is more of prophecy and help than if he had said, "Tomorrow I die and shall be laid in the grave, and on the third day I shall rise again." He had often said this, and they refused to understand. It was not merely a resurrection of the body, but the glorification in the Father of his entire Personality, for which he wished them to be prepared. A simple restoration like that of Lazarus would not have secured him from the malice of those who sought to put Lazarus also to death. Verily, verily, I say unto you, that weep and lament you shall, and the world shall rejoice. Here is his own account of the effect upon them of that he said, "A little while," and you will behold me, as you think, no more. The world will rejoice, because to some extent it will be the world’s doing, and it will fancy for a little while that it has got its way and succeeded excellently well The world will roll a stone to his sepulcher, and make it as sure as they can, sealing the stone and setting a watch. Pharisaism will exult that this demand for a higher righteousness than its own is for ever hushed; Sadduceeism will rejoice that this troublesome witness to unseen and eternal things is silenced; the hierarchy will boast that now no danger prevails of the Romans taking away their place and nation; the world will praise the deed of blood; but all this rejoicing will last "a little while." Christ reaffirms their grief, and even for "a little while" justifies it, so long as they can hear the jubilate of the world over their personal burden of unutterable sorrow. He continues: You shall be sorrowful, but in a little while your sorrow shall be (ἐγένετοεἰς, Acts 4:11; Acts 5:36) turned into joy. Clearly because "you shall see me." It cannot be said that our Lord here positively asserts his resurrection; but when we remember how "the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord," how Mary ran "with great joy to bring his disciples word," we feel that here was the simple solution of the mystery, and that our Lord’s intercourse with them in his resurrection-body was the great prelibation of the method of his continuous abiding with them in the power of his Spirit and the glorification of his body—we cannot doubt that this was his meaning and the purpose of the evangelist in recording it. John 16:21 The next illustration is very remarkable, and surely cannot be a simple analogy of the supervening of joy on sorrow. The woman (the article does not point to any special γυνή, but refers to a universal fact and law of womanhood, cf. ὁδοῦλος, John 15:15) when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come. So now there are the travail-pangs of the new humanity, the new theocracy, bitter and terrible, But as soon as she has brought forth the child, she remembereth no longer the anguish, for the joy that a man is born into the world. The old prophets often compared the grief of Israel or her peril to the pangs of a travailing woman preluding deliverance (Isaiah 21:3; Isaiah 26:17; Isaiah 66:6, Isaiah 66:7; Hosea 13:13) and even joy—the joy of bringing manhood into the world and the new consciousness of maternity. Meyer and others rebel against any meaning beyond that of the following of joy upon sorrow; but Tholuck, De Wette, Ebrard, and Moulton see here the obvious reference to those "travail-pangs of death" with which St. Peter (Acts 3:24) said that the Holy One could not be restrained, agonies in which for a while every apostle must have wept and lamented, dying and being crucified with him, and to the glorious deliverance of all who suffered with him, when they live again in newness of life by the power of his resurrection. John 16:22 And, so he continues, ye therefore £ indeed now have sorrow—your hearts are troubled, you weep and lament to-night, your desolation for "a little while" will be utter collapse and dismay—but I shall see you again. He does not repeat, "Ye shall behold me" (θεωρεῖτέμε, cf. John 14:19), but "I shall see you (ὔψομαιὑμᾶς)." The same word, however, is used repeatedly in the record of the resurrection, and in John 16:19 he had said ὄψεσθέμε. The point of the vision is his own consciousness of their human need filling all the forty days with its glory. The occasional manifestations of his Person during that interval helped them in a wonderful way to recognize the fact that he was ever watching them, and was at their side under all the circumstances of human life. And your heart shall rejoice, and this joy of yours no one taketh (present in the full sense of a realized future) from you. The ὄψομαιὑμᾶς lends itself to the larger conception which, by the gift of the Holy Ghost, they at length fully apprehended, that he was with them always, even to the end of the world. That conviction was forced upon them before Pentecost (see Matthew 28:19, Matthew 28:20, and the account in this Gospel of the spiration and communication of the Holy Ghost, John 20:22), before he came as the sound of a rushing mighty wind, or sat in tongues of flame on their heads. Your joy in the sense of my constant presence no one, neither man nor devil, taketh away from you. That presence will not be any further exposed to Jewish malice or treachery, nor darkened by persecution, nor destroyed by death; though with bodily eyes ye see me not, yet, fully realizing that my eye is on you, "you will rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory" (1 Peter 1:8). John 16:23 And in that day—that long and blessed period beginning at the Resurrection with your vision of me, and being ever more and more enhanced in blessedness by your intense conviction that "I am with you" and "see you," though you see me not—in that day ye shall put me no question, as in the old method of confidential intercourse of man with man. That period passes away with this solemn night. Not in this way will the intercourse be carried forward. "That day" started from Easter morning, and it is not yet noon. Perhaps one reason for this statement is that the illumination of the Spirit would render such questioning unnecessary, but a more certain explanation is that they would themselves stand in new relations with the Father through him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever £ thing ye shall ask (αἰτήσητε) the Father, he will give it you in my Name. The modern editors, by placing the ἐντῷονόματίμου ("in my Name") after δώσειὑμῖν, or as Tischendorf (8th edit.), in a clause commencing with δώσει, suggest that in this particular clause the Name of Christ is not only the medium by which the disciples approach the Father (which is obvious enough from John 16:24), but the manifestation and ministry by which not only is the prayer heard, but the gift or answer bestowed. As sentence after sentence follows, the disciples are led up to the heart of the Father himself. John 16:24 Hitherto—up to the present period—ye asked (£ἠτήσατε, the common word for petition and request made by the inferior to the superior, the man to his Maker) nothing in my Name. The disciples had not comprehended the fullness of that Name of the well-beloved Son, filling their minds with the revelation of God made in it, and feeling it to be the great inducement anti guarantee of acceptable prayer. Ask (continuously, habitually, for this is no longer in aorist, but in the present tense), and ye shall receive (ἵνα here not relic, but indicates "contemplated result"), that your joy may be fulfilled [rendered complete and full] (comp. John 15:11; John 15:22); the joy of your love to one another and to me may reach its highest expression. There may be reference to their unanimity in the Holy Spirit, the Pentecostal outburst of perfect love which casts out fear. John 16:25-33 (d) The final conviction wrought that Jesus was what he had said that he was. The joy of Christ, with its note of warning. John 16:25 These things I have spoken to you in proverbs (see John 10:6); i.e. in concentrated and to some extent enigmatical utterances, "in dark sayings upon a harp," in words which subsequent events and higher enlightenment would interpret (cf. here Christ’s distinction between his disciples and the multitude in the matter of parables, Matthew 13:1-58.). He used the parable to the stupefied, that they might thus separate between those who were susceptible to his teaching and those who were not. To his disciples he interpreted his parables, still leaving much which might be regarded as παροιμίαι, condensed word-utterances, in which words stood for higher things than in their ordinary usage. Thus the similitudes adopted throughout John 9:1-41., 10., 11., 12-16., are numerous, intended to draw the disciples on from their ordinary ideas to the heights of his thought and the mystery of his Person. The ἀλλ’ is omitted by modern editors. The hour cometh—the great climacteric period of my revelation—when I shall no longer speak to you in proverbs, when, indeed, the sound of my voice will be hushed, and words will no longer be needed, when Divine spirations and heavenly pulsations shall convey to you what my parabolic teaching and my paroimic interpretations have failed to impart, when I shall be with you and in you, and by the energy of the Paraclete I shall declare £ (to you) plainly, with clearness and openness, in the fullness of spiritual light, without reserve, circumlocution, or parable, concerning the Father. This promise declares that the glorious revelations of Pentecost and the teaching of those who received the Holy Ghost will be verily and indeed our Lord Christ’s own most personal and frank and outspoken revelations of the Father; John 16:26 In that day—pointing to "the hour" of these open declarations—ye shall ask (make petitions, not ask or demand of me, in the tone of equality) in my Name. The opportunity will come when all my Name will be appreciated by you, and your spiritual reception of me will teach you to approach the Father, who is thus revealed to you. Calvin in these verses calls attention to the familiarity of Israel with the idea of a Mediator, one by whom they drew near to God, and that Christ places himself here in the stead of the whole propitiatory service and ritual of the temple. "His Name" was the Divine equivalent of all the work of the high priest from one Day of Atonement to another and for evermore. And I do not say to you, that I will make my request to the Father concerning you (see note on ἐρωτάω and αἰτέω, John 16:23, etc.). It will not do to argue, with Grotius, that this is just as if he had said, "To say nothing of my own intercessions for you," or, "You may take these for granted;" because the very next verse gives his reason for the assertion. Nor is it satisfactory to say, with Meyer, that the "prayers" of which he speaks (John 14:16; John 17:9, John 17:20) are before the gift of the Paraclete, and not inconsistent with the higher condition of the disciples after the Paraclete should have been given; because John had received the Paraclete when he wrote, "We have an Advocate with the Father" (1 John 2:1). Nor can we suppose that the great utterances of Rom 8:34 and Hebrews 9:25 are vain imaginations, and that there is no sense in which the Lord does augment and complete our prayers, taking them upon his heart and going in his high-priestly prerogative into the holy place with his own blood; but the words must nevertheless be pressed, and their meaning held to be compatible with what Paul and John say of the" intercession of Christ." They reveal the perfect access to the Father’s heart which he has secured for his disciples, the full reconciliation effected as well as devised and consummated by the Father’s own love (cf. Ephesians 2:18, "By Christ we both [Jew and Gentile] have access (προσαγωγήν) in one spirit to the Father"). The end of the whole ministry of Christ is, in the power of the Holy Ghost’s revelation of him, to bring men to the Father and let them know it. There is no need that Christ should (ἐρωτᾶν) make special prayer to the Father, as though he were merciful and the Father needed to be appeased towards those for whom he had prepared so great a salvation (see Romans 8:34, where Philippi, Calvin, and others show that Christ’s ἐντυγχανεῖν is the effect of his own glorious and eternal work). His appearance in the presence of God for us is the perpetual pledge of the completeness of his sacrifice. These very passages in Hebrews and Romans have to be interpreted in harmony with this great statement of his own, viz. that there is no reason to ask the Father concerning them; all has been asked and answered, the intercession is complete; his whole work will have reconciled the Father with his children, and that by reason of the Father’s own love. John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you (φιλεῖ), with love of a fatherly affection, such as mine to you, because ye have loved me (the perfect preterit, in the sense of the realized past in the present which shall then be), and have believed that I came forth from the side of (παρὰ) the Father. £ In their belief of this transcendent fact is the hope of the world. It was wrought in them by the strengthening pulses of a deepening love, and to this love God himself responds with a personal tender affection that encourages boundless prayer. The disciple and lover of Jesus, having Jesus in the heart, united to him by living faith, will find in Christ that there is a perpetual pledge of reciprocal love between the Father and himself. Christ will not (ἐρωτᾶν) ask the Father, because his entire position as Mediator establishes a continual appeal, is a perpetual ἔντευξις, a continuous drawing near and appeal to God on our account, a pledge and guarantee of our own fellowship with and access to the Father. Our English word "intercession," though apparently corresponding with the Latin and with the Greek word, does not now represent its original meaning. That meaning is by no means equivalent to the hind of prayer which is here excluded (Trench, ’Syn. N.T.,’ § 51.). John 16:28 In these words our Lord gathers sublimely up a record of his entire self-manifestation. I came forth out of the Father (where ἔξελθονἐκ, instead of παρὰ, is the new and better reading), as from the Divine Source of my pre-existent glory, I have come into the world, incarnate in humanity, "the Word was made flesh," "the Light lighting every man has come into the world." Again, I am leaving the world behind me, though for a little while you may behold me, and I am going on a great mission, with a goal in view, to the Father. "Recapitulationem maximam habet hic versus" (Bengel). Christ had said all this before, but they have never seen it as a whole. The several parts had been so impressive, that the whole truth had been concealed from them. John 16:29 His disciples say to him, Behold, even now thou speakest (λαλεῖς); thy utterance is with plainness and clearness, and speakest (λέγεις) no proverb. £ The promise made so recently (John 16:25) seems to them already fulfilled. Some beam of the heavenly light has begun to irradiate the whole of this sublime but partially realized revelation of God in Christ. The doubts vanish in this sunshine. John 16:30 Now know we that thou knowest all things. He had answered their unutterable yearning. That which stirred them very deeply on many occasions was this proof that nothing in their hearts was hidden from him. Nathanael was one of them, and now he saw "angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man." "Thou knowest all things." The idea in their minds does not embrace the full range of human inquiry, nor the depths of Deity, but all the things which are in their hearts to ask him. Their word is true even if in their intention they fall short of ascribing omniscience to their Lord. And thou hast no need that any one should put to thee these inquiries. Thou hast sounded the depths of our hearts, and found out the unutterable and unuttered within us. When we were afraid to ask thee concerning "the little while," thou didst discern our unspoken yearning, and now thou art so establishing thy Divine claim upon our reverence and affection, that we can trust thee to give us all needful illumination when we most require it. In this fact, in this consideration just stated, we find our justification and the cause of our faith. We believe that thou earnest forth from (ἀπό) God (ἀπό differs from the solemnity of the παρά or the ἐκ of John 16:28. Though Lange makes the ὅτι equivalent to "because," yet generally John gives to the ὅτι which follows a verb after ἐντούτῳ the sense of "that," thus introducing the object of the verb, though in one place, 1 John 4:13, both constructions are seen in the same sentence. The objective force of "that" is to be preferred here). We believe that thy whole ministry and message is a revelation of God, a coming near to us of the Father. Thy name is "Immanuel, God with us." A question arises whether the disciples in this gush of faith said more than they really meant, and deserved reproof, or whether they had reached an elevation of thought from which they never would absolutely recede. John 16:31 Jesus answered them, Now, at this stage in my self-revelation, do ye believe? It seems as though the whole of Christ’s ministry turns on their acceptance of his claims. If he should pass from the world and return to the Father, and leave behind him none who had discovered and become intensely convinced of his Divine nature, the whole work he had done would be, humanly speaking, a failure. An almost womanlike passion of desire breathes through the inquiry, "Do ye now believe?" or, as some commentators (Gorier and Meyer) translate it indicatively, "Now ye believe." There is truly no essential difference whether it be taken interrogatively or indicatively. Both forms mean, "I have at length brought you to the point of faith. The kingdom of God is now established, and the prince of this world cast out. But a terrible trial awaits the new-born faith." Christ had warned them of the treachery of the absent one, of the approaching denial of the foremost of their number, and he now gives them another warning of the severity of the trial which awaited them all. The power and permanence of their faith may be open to doubt, but not its essential quality. Their faith may not stand firm on that awful night, but it will ultimately prevail, and Christ rejoices in the fact that his words have at last evoked this genuine response. In the prayer which follows (John 17:8) he thanks God "that they have known verily that I came forth from thee, and have believed that thou hast sent me." John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, [yea] £ is come, that (see John 16:2. The effort made by some to preserve the relic force of ἷνα here breaks down. It has very little mere than the power of "when," and the bringing in of the notion of a purpose or Divine counsel encumbers the sense) you shall be scattered (i.e. the fact is as good as already enacted) every man to his own, and shall leave me alone. The σκορκισθῆτε points back to Zechariah 13:7, and reminds us of our Lord’s recent quotation of this very prophecy, and his application of it to the disciples (Matthew 26:31, Matthew 26:32). This falling away from Jesus as he rises more and more into the greatness of his work is one of the witnesses of his Divine mission into such a world as this First the Galilaean hosts and the multitudes who shouted "Hosanna!" then his own brethren, then all except the twelve, then all the authorities, are openly hostile. Even Joseph and Nicodemus and Lazarus are silent, Judas is treacherous; but the eleven still cling to him. Soon Christ selects from the faithful few the faithfullest for the watch over his last agony, but one of these denies him, and they all forsake him and flee. John and his mother, who follow within earshot of the cross, are sent to their own home, and there is a moment when he is absolutely alone. He even says, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" But as in this agony he can still say, "Father, into thy hands," so here he anticipates the Divine overshadowing presence, and adds, Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. The sublimest word of all, charged with consolation. John 16:33 These things have I spoken (ταῦτα; all the farewell discourses. The tone of these last triumphant words reminds them of the finest and noblest of his previous assurances, his promises of peace, courage, and victory over all the evil and power of this world) to you, that in me ye might have peace (see note, John 14:27, John 14:28). The entire issue of the discourse is the conference on his disciples of his own secret of peace—the adequate support amid the crushing force and vehement hostility of the world (cf. Psalms 46:2-4, "Though the earth be removed.., there is a river," etc.). Peace is the balance of equilibrating forces; and man needs a Divine force behind and within him to encounter the tremendous odds arrayed against him, in mysteries of life, temptation of the devil, infirmity of the flesh, and antagonism of the world, so that we need not be surprised to hear him say, In the world ye have £ tribulation. It is the fundamental condition of Divine life in this world. Christ’s disciples may take that for granted (see 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:4), but the most striking and unique note of the true faith is that this sorrow is blended with an inward rapture which transforms it into peace. The blending of fear and love, of law with promise, of righteousness with mercy, of the sense of sin with that of pardon, of a great peace with a crushing tribulation, is one of the most constant tokens, signs, or marks of the mind of Christ. But be of good courage. This is the practical uprising of the soul into the joy of the Lord (cf. also John 14:1, John 14:28). ’Εχο, I—very emphatic—have overcome the world. "A vous encore le combat, a mot des a present la victoire! Mats en mot la meme victoire a vous vous aussi" (Reuss). The royal sublimity of this last word, on the eve of the Passion, became one of the perpetually recurring thoughts of Jn (1 John 5:4 and Revelation 2:1-29., 3., where the ὁνίκων is again and again referred to). Christ’s victory already assured to him becomes theirs. So "by similar anticipation we have ἐνίκησαν in Revelation 12:11, and ἡνικήσασα in 1 John 5:4." The victory had been, however, already achieved over the world’s temptations, and over the bitterness of internal treachery, and the vast sum of human ingratitude; and this may in part explain the use of the perfect tense, "I have overcome." John 16:1-4 A warning of future persecutions. Having spoken of the guilt of the persecutors, our Lord refers now to the sufferings of the disciples. I. THE DESIGN OF THE WARNING. "These things have I spoken unto you, that you should not be offended." 1. The obstinate unbelief of the Jews would be not only a great surprise to the apostles, but a profound disappointment. They always lived in the expectation of a national conversion of Israel. 2. It was therefore necessary to prepare them by timely warnings for a fact so unexpected and so tragical in its results. II. ZEAL THE Or FUTURE . "They shall put you out of their synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think he offereth worship to God." 1. The persecutions would either take the form of (1) excommunication or (2) death. 2. Fanatical religious zeal would prompt the most extreme action, as it did in the case of Saul the persecutor, who thought he ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Christ. 3. The cause or ground of this persecuting zeal. "And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me." (1) Blindness and hatred often go hand-in-hand. (2) The Jews were not guiltless of cruelty on the ground of their ignorance, because they had the amplest opportunities for knowing Christ and his Father. III. OUR LORD’S OF COMING OUGHT TO BE A GROUND OF FAITH. "But these things I have foretold you, that when their hour shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them." 1. Our Lord will not allow his disciples to go forward into suffering without being prepared and trained to meet it. 2. He had hitherto spared them this disclosure of coming evil. "These things I said not unto you from the beginning, because I was with you." (1) He had often spoken of persecutions as awaiting them, but not in such close connection with their relationship to himself and the manner in which they were to be encountered in the comfort and strength of the Spirit’s witness. (2) So long as Christ was with the disciples, the rage of the Jews was directed against himself, and not against them. John 16:5-11 The rectory of the disciples. Jesus now describes the power which will gain their victory over the world. I. THE POWER WHICH WILL GIVE THE VICTORY. 1. The disciples were too absorbed by the sorrows of the approaching separation to think of anything but themselves. "But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? Bat because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart." (1) They were so absorbed with the thought of their own immediate loss that they missed the meaning of his departure for themselves. (2) They ought not to have so greatly lamented his bodily absence and overlooked all the spiritual advantages that would accrue to themselves from his ascension to heaven and his participation in his Father’s glory. 2. The expediency of his departure from the world. "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (1) Our Lord’s departure the Church’s gain. It would lead to truer conceptions of Christ’s Person and work. (a) A great man’s greatness is usually increased by death. The removal of Christ would dissolve the illusion of familiarity. He could only be truly understood after he was gone. (b) The souls of the apostles were greatly quickened after his departure. Their faith, hope, charity, were increased after Pentecost. (2) Our Lord’s departure was the condition of the Spirit’s advent. (a) He left the earth to return as a quickening Spirit. Christ after the flesh must disappear, to make way for Christ after the Spirit. (b) The vicarious sacrifice of Christ stands to the mission of the Comforter in the relation of cause and effect. (c) The dispensation of the Spirit is superior to the dispensation of "Christ come in the flesh," for the following reasons: (α) Jesus in the flesh could not be present in every place or in all the households of the world; but Christ by his Spirit can dwell in the hearts of millions at the same moment of time as the Hope of glory. (β) If Christ were still in the flesh, his presence would only be temporary and occasional; but Christ by his Spirit can be always everywhere at the same moment of time. (γ) As a matter of fact, he was never but in one spot of earth—Palestine—and never out of it. We revere Palestine as the home of our Lord, but we must rise above the mere sentiment of local association in the experience of communion with an everywhere-present Lord. (δ) Mere contact with Christ in the flesh would have no necessarily saving efficacy. The Jews were not converted by seeing him in the flesh. (3) Practical conclusions. (a) Let us rejoice in our Lord’s exaltation. (b) Let us guard against the worship of the outward. (c) Let us learn that the Lord never takes away one blessing bat he leaves a greater in its place. II. THE EFFECTS OF THE SPIRIT’S COMING. "And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." 1. The Spirit wilt convict the world of the sin of unbelief. "Because they believe not on me." The sin of the Jews was essentially unbelief; for (1) they withstood all the evidence of ancient prophecy; (2) they withstood the evidence of his remarkable life, (3) his remarkable discourses, (4) his remarkable miracles. 2. He will convict the world of righteousness. "Because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more." (1) His sufferings and death were the pathway by which he returned to his Father. (2) By righteousness our Lord understands, not the mere justice of his cause, but the righteousness which he wrought out in his atoning death for his people. He regards his death as the true righteousness of his people. His incarnation and death were designed to bring in this everlasting righteousness. 3. He will convict the world of judgment. "Because the prince of this world is judged." (1) He does not refer to any judgment on Satan for his primordial fall, nor for his deceptive temptations so fatally exercised against man. (2) He refers to the subversion of Satan’s empire, to the abrogation of his usurped rights over man. The death of Christ effected this result in the following way. (a) As sin was put away by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26), the supreme Judge discharged the guilty. (b) The accuser of the brethren could not demand their condemnation (Romans 8:1). (c) Christ broke the power of death "by destroying him that had the power of death" (Hebrews 2:14). The Spirit’s office is not confined to the convection of the world. It has relation to the needs of the Church as well as the world. I. OUR LORD’S FOR THE OF HIS . "I have yet many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now." 1. He had already told them many things which they could hardly understand. The communications of his truth were the marks of his loving confidence (John 15:15). 2. Other truths were yet to be imparted, which, in the present stage of their spiritual growth, would be quite unintelligible. They were the truths concerning his incarnation and death, the relation of grace to the Law, the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom of God, the final apostasy, the destiny of the Church till its end. 3. It is a mark of our Lord’s wisdom and tenderness to adapt his lessons to the growing capacity of his disciples. II. THE OFFICE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1. His personal guidance. "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth." (1) The Spirit is Divine Person, not a mere influence or energy of God. (2) He gives expression to the truth; for he is "the Spirit of truth." (3) He is the Guide to Zion’s travelers, leading them past the byways of error and the quagmires of subtle deception, till he places them in the land of truth. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 17:1-26 4. The high-priestly intercession. Audible communion of the Son with the Father. The prayer which now follows reveals, in the loftiest and sublimest form, the Divine humanity of the Son of man, and the fact that, in the consciousness of Jesus as the veritable Christ of God, there was actually blended the union of the Divine and human, and a perfect exercise of the prerogatives of both. The illimitable task which writers of the second century must have set themselves to accomplish, if they had by some unknown process conceived such a stupendous idea without any historical basis to support it, has actually been so effected, that a representation is given which adequately conveys such a synthesis. The author of the Gospel does, however, draw rather upon his memory of that night than upon his philosophical imagination for a passage which surpasses all literature in its setting forth the identity of being and power and love in the twofold personality of the God-Man. We are brought by it to the mercy-seat, into the heaven of heavens, to the very heart of God; and we find there a presentation of the most mysterious and incomprehensible love to the human race, embodied in the Person, enshrined in the words, of the only begotten Son. It need not perplex those who believe that we have the words of Jesus, that this prayer of sublime victory and glorious promise should be followed by the agony and the bloody sweat of Gethsemane, where the glorification of the Son of man passed into the advanced stage of his willing and perfect surrender to the Supreme Will. Hengstenberg finds explanation of John’s silence touching that agony in the supplemental character of the Gospel, which does not repeat a description of a scene already familiar to all readers of the synoptic narrative. This may account for the mere form of the record, but does it meet the perplexity that arises as to whether the scene of Gethsemane could possibly follow John’s narrative? Is not such a conception incompatible altogether with the cry, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me"? Our answer is a reference to John 12:27, where there is the exact counterpart of the scene in the garden. Nor is a mysterious troubling of the Redeemer’s soul elsewhere absent from the Johannine narrative. At the grave of Lazarus, as well as when the Greeks wrung from his lips the cry, "Father, save me from this hour," followed by "Father, glorify thy Name," we have the blending of an utterly indescribable affliction with a triumphant acceptance by him of the Divine purpose of his mission and the will of his Father. Throughout these discourses he is meditating his departure with all its accompanying grief and agony. He describes the way he is about to take as one which would be like the travail-pang of a new humanity; but in his capacity of living in the light of the Father’s will, he treats the whole mystery of the cross, the grave, the resurrection, the ascension, as already achieved. Throughout this prayer he regards the work as finished, and the new order of things as already existent. Thus he had prayed for Lazarus and for his restoration from the grave, and he knew then that God heard him; but still he wept, and, groaning within himself, came to the sepulcher. It should also be remembered that (John 14:30) he had expressly said that he was then about to encounter the prince of this world. The perfect humanity of Jesus, on which John continually insists, does entirely justify the rapid changes of mood and the vehemence of the emotions which were in their conflict issuing in sublime courage and perfect peace. The school of Renan, Strauss, and others, following the lead of Bret-schneider, see insuperable difficulties, because they have an idea of Christ’s Person which would render it inconceivable and incredible. John 17:1-5 (1) With reference to himself. John 17:1 Jesus spake these things; i.e. the discourse which precedes, and then turned from his disciples to the Father. The place where the prayer was offered is comparatively unimportant, yet it must have been uttered somewhere. It has been well suggested that the Lord, with the disciples, sought the comparative quiet of the Father’s house, and in some of the courts of the temple, within sight of the golden gate with its mighty vine, had enacted all that is recorded in John 15-17. This does not interfere with the idea that the starry sky was visible to them, and that from some portion of the temple-courts our Lord should have lifted his eyes to heaven; for the heavens are the perpetual symbol of the majesty of God, and show that side on which, by instinctive recognition of the fact, men may and do look out upon the infinite and the eternal. And having £ lifted up his eyes to heaven—or, lifting (Revised version) up his eyes to heaven—he said, in a voice which the wondering, believing, and troubled disciples might hear (see John 17:13), and from which they were intended to learn much of the relation between their Lord and the eternal Father. There is a twofold division of the prayer: From John 17:1-5 he offers prayer for himself, but in special relation to his own power over and his own grace to the children of men; from John 17:6-19 he contemplates the special interests of his disciples, in their present forlorn condition, in their work, conflict, and ultimate triumph; from John 17:19-26 he prays for the whole Church, (a) for its unity, (b) for its expansion, (c) its glory. "For himself he has little to ask (John 17:1-5), but as soon as his word takes the form of intercession for his own (John 17:6-26), it becomes an irresistible stream of the most fervent love. Sentence rushes upon sentence with wonderful power, yet the repose is never disturbed" (Ewald). Father; not "my Father," nor "our Father," the prayer given to his disciples, nor "my God" as afterwards upon the cross; nor was it the customary address to "God" of either Pharisee or publican; but it recalls the "Abba, Father" of the garden, which passed thence into the experience of the Church (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6). The hour which has so often presented itself as inevitable, but which so often has receded, and which even now delays its full realization (John 2:1-25., 7., 12., 13.) as part of a Divine plan concerning him, the hour of the fiery baptism, of the solemn departure, of the conflict with the prince of this world, and of complete acceptance of the Father’s will, has come; glorify thy Son, that (thy£) the Son may (also£) glorify thee. Lift thy Son into the glory which thou hast prepared, that the Son whom thou hast sanctified and sent into the world may glorify thee. It is very noticeable that he speaks of himself in the third person. This is justified by the fact that he here conspicuously rises out of himself into the consciousness of God, and loses himself in the Father. The glorification of the Son is first of all by death issuing in life. He was crowned with glory in order that he might taste death for every man. The conflict, the victorious combat with death, was the beginning of his glory. In taking upon himself all the burden of human sorrow, and exhausting the poison of the sting of death, he would "glorify God" (cf. John 21:19). This does not exhaust the meaning, but the further forms and elements of his glory are referred to afterwards. John 17:2 Even as thou gavest him authority—an indefeasible claim of influence and intimate organic relations with humanity—over all flesh. [This phrase answers to (col bosor) the Old Testament term for the whole of humanity, the entire race, and is one adopted by New Testament writers (Matthew 24:22; Luke 3:6; 1 Corinthians 1:29; Galatians 2:16).] This authority was implied in his incarnation and sacrifice, and in the recapitulation of all things in him. St. Paul says, "Because he tasted death for every man, God has highly exalted him, and given him the Name that is above every name," etc. These opening words reveal the universality and world-wide aspects of the mission and authority and saving power of the Son of God. He holds the keys of the kingdom and city of God. The government is upon his shoulder. Through him all the nations on earth are to be blessed. But the dependence of "all flesh" upon a Divine gift of eternal life through him is no less conspicuous; hence the hopelessness of human nature as it is and apart from grace. The end of this glorification of the Son in the Father is that, in the exercise of this authority, he may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. The construction is unusual, and literally rendered would be, that with reference to the whole of that which thou hast given him, to them he should give eternal life. The clause, πᾶνὅδέδωκας, may be a nominative or accusative absolute, which, by the defining αὐτοῖς, is subsequently resolved into individual elements. The redeemed humanity of all time has been given to the incarnate Son, and is undoubtedly different from the (πάσασάρξ) "all flesh" of the previous clause, but it is further explained to mean the individual men and women who receive from him eternal life. The bestowment of eternal life on those thus given to him is the method in which he will glorify the Father (see notes on John 6:37, where the Father is said to draw men to himself by means of the unveiling of his own true character in the Son, and where this drawing is seen to be another way of describing the Father’s gift to the Son). Those who are given to Christ are those who are drawn by the Father’s grace to see his perfect self-revelation in the face of Jesus Christ, of whom Jesus says, "I will by no means cast them out" (John 6:37), and concerning whom he avers, "No one cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 14:6). Ζώηαἰώνιος, life eternal, is frequently described as his gift. From the first the evangelist has regarded ξώη as the inherent and inalienable prerogative of the "Loges," and the source of all the "light" which has lighted men. This "life," which is "light," came into the world in his birth, and became the head of a new humanity. It is clearly more than, and profoundly different from, the principle of unending existence. Life is more than perpetuity of being, and eternity is not endlessness, nor is "eternal life" a mere prolongation of duration; it refers rather to state and quality than to one condition of that state; it is the negation of time rather than indefinite or infinite prolongation of time. That which Christ gives to those who believe in him, receive him, is the life of God himself. It is strongly urged by many that this eternal life is a present realizable possession, that he that hath the Son hath life, and that we are to disregard the future in the conscious enjoyment of this blessedness; but we must not forget that our Lord obviously refers the life eternal to the future in Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Matthew 25:46. Nor are these statements, as some have said, incompatible with the representations of this Gospel (see John 6:40, John 6:54; John 11:25; John 12:25). The aionian blessedness may have a partial realization here and now, but not fill our vision is less clouded and our perils are less severe shall we fully apprehend it. Nor is this inconsistent with Matthew 25:3. John 17:3 The life eternal, of which Jesus has just spoken, is this (cf. for construction, John 15:12; 1 John 3:11, 1 John 3:23; 1 John 5:3), that £ they might know—should come to know—thee, the only veritable God. All ideas of God which deviate from or fall short of "the Father" revealed to us by Christ, are not the veritable God, and the knowledge of them is not life eternal. The Father is here set forth as the fens Deitatis. This does not exclude "the Son," but is inconceivable without him. The Fatherhood expresses an eternal relation. The one element involves the ether as integral to itself: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." There is a knowledge of the Father possible even now. "Henceforth, he has said, ye have seen him, and known him;" yet not till the veil is lifted, and we see face to face, shall we know as we are known (1 Corinthians 13:12; 1 John 3:2), shall we see him as he is. And him whom thou didst send, Jesus the Christ (not Jesus to be, or as Christ, but rather "Jesus the Christ," as the expansion and explanation of the more indefinite term, "him whom thou didst scud"). Why does our Lord add to this expression one that at first sight seems so incompatible with the idea of this prayer? It has led so careful and reverential a commentator as Westcott to remove the difficulty by supposing that the whole verse is a gloss of the evangelist, expressing the sense of what our Lord may have uttered at greater length. We are loath to admit this method of exegesis, especially as the sole reasons for it are the supposed strangeness of our Lord’s here using a phrase so unaccustomed, and thus giving himself not only his Personal Name, but his own official title. It is unusual. The phrase does undoubtedly belong to a later period for its current and constant use. Yet it must not be forgotten (1) that this is a unique moment in his career, and unique expressions may be anticipated; (2) that it was calculated to strengthen his disciples, to allow them to hear once from his own lips the solemn claim to Messiahship (see Godet); (3) that John himself at once adopted it as his own (Acts 3:6, Acts 3:20; 1 John 1:3; 1 John 2:1, 1 John 2:22; 1 John 3:22; 1 John 4:2, 1 John 4:3; 1 John 5:1-20; Revelation 1:1, Revelation 1:2, Revelation 1:5); moreover, (4) in 1 John 5:20 Jesus Christ is, himself lifted up into the region of the ἀληθίνος, and the apostle adds, "This is the true God, and eternal life" (Hengstenberg). It is from these very words that some critics imagine that the evangelist, rather than the Lord himself, framed the clause; (5) yet it is quite as rational to suppose that the words uttered by Jesus dwelt like a strain of sacred music in the memory of the apostle. Moreover, (6) the knowledge of the only true God is really conditioned by the knowledge of him who was indeed the great Revelation, Organ, and Effluence of the Father’s glory. The fullness of this knowledge is the end of all Christian striving. Paul said, "I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus... and that I may know him" (Philippians 3:10). How much is there yet to know! (7) Finally, as our Lord is rising more and more into the glory of an utter self-abandonment, and into the glory which he had with the Father from eternity, the human nature which he still inhabits becomes almost an appendage of his Divine Personality, and he might with awful significance, when referring to the object of human faith and knowledge, say, "Him whom thou hast sent—Jesus the Christ." Moreover, on any hypothesis of the composition or framing of an intercessory prayer for the Loges Christos to utter, there is an equal difficulty in the insertion into such prayer by St. John of this reference to himself as the Christ. The knowledge of the Father as the only true God, in opposition to the heathen traditions and philosophical speculations of the world, coupled with a corresponding knowledge of the only adequate expression of the Father’s heart and nature, sent forth from him, as One promised, consecrated, and empowered to represent him, is life—ere half life. John 17:4 He continues the prayer which he is offering for himself: I glorified thee on the earth, having finished £ the work which thou hast given me to do. Many expositors urge a proleptical or anticipatory assertion of the completion of his earthly work, as though the Passion were already over, and he were now uttering the consummatum est of the cross. This is, however, included in the next clause. The night has come when the earthly ministry is at an end. The Jesus Christ, whom the Father has sent, has completed his task. The whole work of the earthly manifestation of the Word was at an. end. Suffering remains, the issues of the conflict with evil have to be encountered; but the die is cast—the thing is done. The godly life, as well as the atoning death, are correlative parts of the merits and work of Christ, and have glorified the Father. But what a self-consciousness beams forth in these simple words! St. Paul, on the verge of his martyrdom, in the midst of the horrors of the Neronian persecution, exclaimed, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course." But our Lord is unconscious of any coming short of the glory of God; and he even counts on higher power to glorify God by returning to a position which he had for a while vacated. John 17:5 And now (νῦν)—the very point of time has come—glorify thou me, O Father, explaining the opening of the prayer, "Glorify thy Son." He identifies his own Personality—"me"—with that of "the Son," and "thy Son." With thy own self (παρὰσεαυτῷ); in closest connection and fellowship with thy-self—a relation which has been arrested or suspended since have been "Jesus Christ," and glorifying thee amid the toil and sorrow of this earthly pilgrimage. This immediate glorification of the Son embraces the glory of vicarious death, the triumphant resurrection, the mystery of ascension in the strength of his human memories to the right hand of God (John 13:31, John 13:32). He still further defines this wondrous prospect, as with the glory which I had with thee before the world was—before the being of the κόσμοςπαρὰσεαυτῷ … παρὰσοιΠαρὰ in John represents local relationships (see John 1:40; John 4:40; John 14:25; Revelation 2:13) or intimate spiritual associations (John 14:3). So our Lord remembers and anticipates a "glory with the Father." That which he refers to as before the existence of the world has been softened down by Grotius, Wettstein, Schleiermacher, and some moderns to mean the glory of the Divine thought and destination concerning him; but the expression παρὰσοι is far from being exhausted by such a rendering. He who wrote the prologue (John 1:2, John 1:18) meant that, as the Logos had been πρὸςτὸνΘέον and εἰςτὸνκόλποντοῦΠατρός, and at a special epoch "became flesh," the beamings forth of his glory on earth were those which belonged to human life, to the form of a servant, and were profoundly different from that μορφὴΘεοῦ in which his innermost self-consciousness, the center of his Personality, originally dwelt. And now he seeks to carry this new appanage of his Sonship, this God-glorifying humanity, up into the glory of the pre-existent majesty (cf. Philippians 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:8, Hebrews 1:13). The δόξα which was visible to the disciples on earth (John 1:14) was glory limited, colored, conditioned, by human life and death; but so complete was the Lord’s union with the Loges, that it did not quench his memory of the glory of his omnipresent, eternal Being, nor his remembrance of absolute coexistence with the Father before all worlds. He would lift humanity to the very throne of God by its union with his Person. This stupendous claim both as to the past and future would be utterly bewildering if it stood alone; but the Old Testament has prepared the mind of the disciples for this great mystery (Proverbs 8:1-36.; Isaiah 6:1-13.). The theophanies generally, and John 8:25 and Hebrews 1:1-14., with numerous other passages, sustain and corroborate the conception that the Loges of God was throughout all human history on the verge of manifestation in the flesh. The record of the extraordinary God-consciousness of Jesus does transcend all human experience, and baffles us at every turn; but the human consciousness of Jesus appears gradually to have come into such communion with the Loges who had become flesh in him, that he thought the veritable thoughts and felt the emotions of the eternal God as though they were absolutely his own. In addition to this idea of his resumption of his own eternal state, Lange and Moulton, in opposition to Meyer, lay emphasis on the answer to this prayer, consisting in such a manifestation of the premundane glory in his flesh, that it should perfectly establish the relation between the glory of the Father before all worlds, rod the glory of utter and complete self-sacrifice for the redemption of the world. The glory of omnipotence and omnipresence is lost in the greater glory of infinite love. Thus the glory which he had with the Father would be best seen in the completion of his agony, the τετέλεσται of the cross. John 17:6-19 (2) The prayer for his disciples. John 17:6-8 Here the Divine Intercessor turns from himself, and from the approaching glory of his own mediatorial Person and position, to meditate, for the advantage of his disciples, on what had already been done for them, in them, to them. He clothes these meditations in the form of a direct address to the eternal God, and makes the series of facts on which he dwells the groundwork of the prayer which follows for his disciples, as representative of all who, like them, have come into relations with the Father through him. I manifested thy Name (ἐφανέρωσα here corresponds to ἐδόξασατελειώσας of John 17:4. The force of φανέροω is different from ἀποκάλυπτω or ἐμφάνιζω; see on John 14:21). "I poured light upon, and thus made appreciable, apprehensible, thy Name." This Name was but partially and imperfectly understood before. The Name of God, the compendium of all his excellences, the essential features of his substantial Being which Christ has thus illuminated, is "the Father." "Whatsoever is made manifest is light." This light is the effulgence of the glory of the Father. By being and living on earth as Son of the Father, the Father was revealed. A full revelation of the Father involves and is involved in a manifestation of his own Sonship. The relation between the Father and the Son is one of infinite complacency and mutual affection, and the revelation of it demonstrates the fact of the eternal and essential love of the Divine Being. Thus the fact that "God is love" is manifested in the life of the Son of man, who was in himself a revelation of the Son—the Son of God. "I manifested thy Name," said Jesus—showing that he regarded his work of self-manifestation and God-revelation as virtually complete—to the men whom thou gavest £ me (cf. here John 6:44 and John 10:29). The Father’s "giving" of the sons of men to Christ refers primarily to the men that were made susceptible of his special grace and revelations, who in seeing, saw, in hearing, heard, who, being drawn by inward monitions and Divine grace, and verily taught of God, came to Christ. Thus the Father gave them to Christ. The first monitions, susceptibilities of soul for Christ, which are found throughout the world and the Church, are God’s way of giving men to Christ. The supremacy and monergy of grace is involved in the whole of this representation. Out of the world. They were in the world, but have been drawn out of it by the re-relation of the Father. Thine they were, and thou gavestf5 them me. So that the approach even to the Lord Jesus, the drawing to Christ and to the blessed revelation of the Father, was preceded by a previous condition—"Thine they were." Before the process of giving and drawing was begun, there was a sense in which they bore this great designation. Their position as creatures, or as Israelites, or as believers in the Old Testament manifestation of the Name, seems to fall short of the solemn assertion, "Thine they were." There were in every case spiritual predispositions. They were "of God" (John 8:47); "doers of the truth" (John 3:21); "willing to do the will of God" (John 7:17); they were of the truth (John 18:37; John 6:37, John 6:44). All these expressions reveal an extraordinary relation of human souls to the Father, which is presupposed, and precedes the power over them and advantage to them of the grace of Christ. This may throw light on the work of grace in pre-Christian and non-Christian times and places. Thine they were, and thou gavest them me, and they have kept thy Λόγον—the sum total of thy revelation or Word to them. They, these men, these special representative men, have been true to their light, and know of the doctrine whether it be of God. Their own quickened conscience has been strong enough to justify all my διδαχή, my ῥήματα, as Divine assurances. To Christ’s eyes they have already come out of their fiery trial faithful and true. Now, at this point in their training, they have known, by a strong experience, by tasting, handling, seeing, trusting, by vivid flashes of light, by keen, clear intuition of the reality, that all things whatsoever which thou hast given me, are from thee. There is no tautology here; the ὥσα are the truths, the fresh revelations, the glorious communion of the Son of man with the Father, which he made known to the disciples—truths which have a worldwide bearing, and also a direct bearing upon themselves—are from thee (παρὰσοῦ, not παρὰσοι). This obscure utterance, in its mystic vagueness, is clearly expounded in the next sentence, which is the echo of the grand assertion of Joh 16:30, which drew from the breaking heart its loud and sublime note of triumph. Because the words, the various sayings, utterances of Divine reality, which thou gavest to me, I have given to them. This blessed recital and exposition of his previous ministry is followed by the record of the effect, without which the whole Christian dispensation would that very night have come to an abrupt end. They believed that all Christ’s words, works, energies, revelations, warnings, promises, like Christ himself, came from the eternal Father, therefore represented the supreme reality, more certain than demonstration, more vivid than intuition. They have rendered invincible assent to them as the Divine, absolute, unchangeable, irrevocable, eternal truth. In this overwhelming and satisfying conviction was laid the foundation of the Church of Christ. And they received them £. This was a direct consequence of the Divine giving and of the Divine drawing. And they came to know—discerned, i.e. by personal experience—and truly that I came out from thee, anti believed that thou didst send me.f6 This knowledge and belief is the germ of the communication to others of the Divine manifestation; it is the Lord’s reward for all the toil and sacrifice and Divine humiliation of his earthly ministry (John 16:30). The incarnate Word is recognized as such, the only begotten Son of the Father is known to be the Brightness of his glory. We see in this great utterance the true origin of the evangelist’s own words (John 1:14-18; 1 John 1:1-5). This thought of Christ’s has now become their voluntary, spontaneous, assured conviction. The inward reason corresponds with the objective facts. John 17:9 I—very emphatic—am praying for them (for this use of ἐρωτῶ see note, John 16:23). We must remember that this is perfectly consistent with the fact that, in the day of the spiritual manifestation to the disciples, when both the Father and Son came to them, the disciples would ask the Father for the gifts which his love to them was waiting to supply; and he, Christ himself, would hear them if they asked in his Name; and that then there would be no need that he should pray the Father for them. That time had not yet come, though it was coming. Both statements are also perfectly consistent with his "intercession" for us. Not concerning—or, not for—the world am I praying. Surely this is not an assertion that he would never pray, or that he had not already prayed, for the world. Nay, his entire ministry is the expression of the Father’s love to the whole world (John 3:16). He came as Jehovah’s Lamb to take away its sin (John 1:29), he bade his disciples (Matthew 5:44) pray for their enemies, and he cried at the last for a blessing on his murderers. He "came to seek and save the lost," to "call sinners to repentance," "not to condemn, but to save the world." Moreover, in this prayer (John 17:21) he does pray for those who should ultimately, though they do not now, believe on him through the word of the disciples; therefore it is inconceivable that he should here dogmatically limit the range of his gracious desire. Calvin here observes, "We are commanded to pray for all (lTi John 2:1)," and quotes Luke 23:34 that Christ prayed for his murderers. "We ought to pray that this man and that man and every man may be saved, and thus include the whole human race, because we cannot distinguish the elect from the reprobate." Calvin implies that Christ is here within the sanctuary, and places before his eyes the secret judgments of the Father. Lampe goes much further. Luther says, "In the same sense in which he prays for the disciples, he does not pray for the world." But the best explanation is that the high-priestly intercession at this supreme moment is concerned with those who were already given to him, and who have come to believe in his Divine Person and commission. He expressly and divinely commends to the Father those whom thou hast given me—the burden of the thought is contained in the motive he suggests for this commendation, viz.—because they are thine; i.e. though thou hast given them to me, though they have "come to me," through thy drawing, they are more than ever "thine." This most fervent yielding to the attraction of Jesus, and utter moral surrender to his control, do not alienate the heart from the Father, but make it more than ever his. John 17:10 And all things that are mine are thine; whether they be these souls, or these powers that I wield, or these words that I utter, or these works that I do,—all are thine. This statement is in perfect harmony with all his teaching, and is not incompatible with the reverential sentiment that any servant of God might utter; but he adds words to show that the union between him and the Father is much closer than this, and quite unique. And thine are mine. Luther observed, "No creature could say this." Perhaps he went too far, because we are taught to believe that "all things are ours," etc., and the πάντα covers much (see 1 Corinthians 3:21). In the full confidence of filial relation we can believe it true that the heavenly Father says to every one of his veritable children, "All that I have is thine." Here the words must not be drawn out of their connection; it is human souls who are of God, and are therefore Christ’s. The dogmatic lesson is that every one who has heard and learned of the Father does come to him. Such an assurance gives a sublime hope to the world, and I (have been and) am glorified in them. Once more the Divine Savior rejoices in the victory he has won in securing the faith of the disciples. How much he loved and trusted them! John 17:11 And I am no more (no longer) in the world (cf. John 16:28). The earthly ministry is over; for a while he must leave them in the pitiless storm, bereft of his care and counsel, exposed to infinite peril and temptation. Headless, scattered, tempted to believe that all he had said to them was one huge delusion. And these are in the world, without me, without visible sight of the mirror in which thy glory has been reflected, and I come—I return—to thee. These are the conditions on their part and on mine, which justify this prayer for them; and my prayer is, Holy Father, keep—or, guard—them. This grand title stands here in solitary grandeur (though let John 17:25, πάτερδίκαιε, be noticed, and the fact that Revelation 6:10 speaks of "the Holy and True," and 1 John 2:20 of "the Holy One"). The very holiness of the Father is appealed to as the surest basis of the petition. They have already been taught to pray, "Hallowed [made holy] be thy Name." The eternal holiness and righteousness of God is involved in the saving and sanctification of the believer in Jesus. "Keep them, holy Father" (says our Lord), in and by thy Name, those whom thou hast given me. Οὕςδέδωκάςμοι is the reading of the T.R., on the very feeble authority from the codices, simply D2, 69, and some versions. It is also thus quoted by Epiphanius twice; but the reading of all the best uncial manuscripts, à, A, B, C, L, Y, Γ, Δ, Π, etc., numerous versions and quotations, is ῷδέδωκάςκοι. Some very unimportant manuscripts read ὃ, which Godet prefers as practically equivalent to οὓς, regarded as a unity, "that which," and as calculated to explain the ῷ of the uncials, and the reading οὕς. Lachmann, Tischendorf (8th edit.), Tregelles, Meyer, Westcott and Herr, and R.T. all read ῷ, which is thrown by attraction to ὀνόματί into the dative, and requires the translation, Keep them (in or by) in the power of thy Name which thou hast given me. And since ὃ is a resolution of the attraction, it is quite as likely that it is a correction of ῷ as that the reverse process should have taken place. The expression is very peculiar, but not inexplicable. Philippians 2:9 is the best illustration of the clause. It reads, according to the true text, "He hath bestowed on him the Name (τὸὄνομα) which is above every name," i.e. the eternal Name, the incommunicable Name (cf. Revelation 2:17; Revelation 19:12) of Jehovah. Meyer objects to this that the Father’s Name was simply given him as an ambassador or for purposes of revelation and manifestation. This may be a partial limitation of the thought. He has already said, "I have manifested thy Name, thy fatherhood to the men," etc. And now he adds, "Keep them in the power and grace of this glorious Name, of which my Person and message have been the full expression." That they may be one, united, formed into a unity of being, even as we are, not losing their personality, but blending and interchanging their interests and their affections after the Divine pattern of the Father and Son. The relations between Christians, which constitute the essential unity of their corporate being, are of the same kind as those which pertain to Christ and God, and prevail between them, therefore lying far behind the shifting phases of organization and human order, in the essence and substance of spiritual life. Some writers have found in this analogy between the union of believers and the hypostatic union of the Persons of the Godhead, either a species of tritheism in the Godhead, or a minimizing of the entire conception to what is called moral union between the Father-God and his Son Jesus Christ. But the effect of the utterance is rather to lift the idea of the unity of the body of Christ to a superlative height, and to interpret still further the nature of its oneness with the Father and Son (see Philippians 2:23). John 17:12 While I was with them (in the world £). He speaks of the earthly ministry as completed, and reviews the whole of his influence over them. I kept them in thy Name which thou hast given me. The very process that I can no longer pursue, and the cessation of which becomes the ground of the plea for the Father’s τηρήσις. This an earthly father might say, without irreverence, of children whom he was about to leave, but the quality of the keeping is characterized by the Divine Name which was given him, and that manifested the Sonship which carried with it all the revelation of the Father. £ And I guarded (them)—ἐτήρουν signifies watchful observation; ἐφύλαξα, guardianship as behind the walls of a fortress—and not one perished—went to destruction—except that the son of perdition (has perished). Christ does not say that the son of perdition was given him by the Father and guarded from the evil one, and yet had gone to his own place; the exception refers simply to the "not one perished." Εἰμὴ has occasionally a meaning not exactly equal to ἀλλὰ, but expresses an exception which does not cover the whole of the ideas involved in the previous clause (see Matthew 12:4; Luke 4:26, Luke 4:27; Galatians 1:19, etc.). This awful Hebraistic phrase is used by St. Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:3; cf. 2 Samuel 12:5) for antichrist, and numerous phrases of the kind show how a genitive following υἱὸς or τέκνον expresses the full characteristic or the chief feature of certain persons (thus cf. υἱὸςγεένηςτέκναφῶτοςκατάρας, etc.). This victim of perdition, this child of hell, has completed his course; even now he has laid his plans for my destruction and his own. He has so perished in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled. Even if the full telic force of ἵνα is preserved here, he does not free the "son of perdition" from the responsibility of his own destruction. The Scripture portraiture of Messiah has been realized. Psalms 41:9, which has already been quoted by our Lord in John 13:18, is probably still in his mind (cf. also Isaiah 57:12, Isaiah 57:13). Some commentators—Arch-deacon Watkins, Dean Alford—press the fact that the "son of perdition" must have been among those who were given to Christ by the Father, who were watched, guarded, taught by God; but that Judas nevertheless took his own way and went to his own place. Thoma compares the lost disciple with the lost sheep of the synoptists, as though we had a reference to a true reprobate, a son of Belial, Apollyon, and the like. Moulton justly protests against any countenance being found here for the irrevocable decree. But if the interpretation of the εἰμὴ given above is sound, there is no inclusion of the traitor among those who are "of the truth," etc.; but he was one who, notwithstanding boundless opportunity, went to his own place in the perversity of his own will. John 17:13 But now come I to thee. So that the condition, the shielding protection of my love is removed, thou, O my Father, must be their Sun and Shield. And these things I am uttering in the world; uttering, i.e. in their hearing before my last step is taken, and perhaps in the very midst of the machinations which are going on against me. That they might have the joy that is mine fulfilled, fully unfolded and completed, in £ themselves. By overhearing the high-priestly prayer, they would be assured of the Divine guardianship, and would receive the transfer of even his joy as well as of his peace. They would find the higher joy also of the return of their Lord to the bosom of the Father. Christ has taught his disciples to desire such joy and peace as he found on the night of the Passion. John 17:14 I have given them thy word (δέδωκα, a permanent endowment); and the implication is that they have received it (John 17:8). The phrase is rather more condensed than before, and carries all the consequences previously mentioned, and others as well to which the Lord had referred (John 16:1-5). As a matter of fact, the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. This constant contrast between the mind of Christ and the spirit of the world pervades the New Testament. Christ had exposed its hypocrisies, and denounced its idols, and inverted its standards, and repudiated its smile, and condemned its prince, and was now indifferent to its curse. His disciples, as far as they shared his sentiments, came in also for its malediction and hatred (cf. the conflict with the Pharisees in the synoptic narrative). John 17:15 The prayer of Jesus based on this. I pray (ἐρωτῶ, not αἰτεω; see John 17:9; the ἵνα here defines the contents of the prayer) not that thou shouldest take them away—lift them up and out—out of the world, as thou art taking me by death. This natural desire on the part of some of them is not in harmony with the highest interests of the kingdom. Those interests it would henceforth be their high function to subserve. There is much testimony for them to bear, there are many great facts for them completely to grasp, many aspects of truth which they must put into words for the life and salvation of souls, individuals for them to teach and train, victories for them to win, examples which they must set before the world. If they are all to vanish from the eyes of men as Christ will do, the end of the manifestation will be sacrificed. The Lord prays, not that they should be taken out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them (τηρήσῃς, not φυλάξῃς) from the evil. The ἐκτοῦπονηροῦ is different from Matthew 6:13, ἀπὸτοῦπονηροῦ, and may possibly mean "from the evil one." Reuss, Meyer, and Revised version accept the same translation here in virtue of 1 John 2:13; 1 John 3:12; 1 John 5:18; Revelation 3:10, where the devil is regarded as dominating, the realm, the atmosphere, the spirit, and the kingdom of this world. Over against this kingdom the Lord Christ, as the devil’s great Rival, rules in the kingdom of grace. Luther, Calvin, Hengstenberg. Godet, Authorized version, and numerous other commentators, have regarded τοῦπονηροῦ as neuter, as referring to the great characteristic and all-subduing temper, the far-reaching glamour and the godless disposition of the world. Τὸπονήρον includes ὁπονήρος. John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as of the world I am not. This verse simply repeats, with alteration of order, the clause of Joh 17:14 as the basis of the next great petition. John 17:14 draws the comparison between Christ and the disciples; John 17:16 lays, by a transposition of words, the greater emphasis on "the world." Alas that this great utterance should so often be utterly ignored! How often in our own days, is other-worldliness and unworldliness derided as a pestilent heresy, and "a man of the world," instinct with its purpose and saturated with its spirit, lauded as the true man and ideal leader of a Christian state! John 17:17 Sanctify them; consecrate them (cf. John 10:36, of the sanctification of the Son by the Father to the work of effecting human redemption), separate them from the evil of the world, as for holy purposes. Devote them to the glorious cause. Let them be sacrifices on the altar. The ἁγιάζω, to sanctify, is not synonymous with καθαρίζω, to purify; ἃγιος is not a contradiction of the defiled so much as of the purely natural, and involves the higher ends of grace (Exodus 29:1, Exodus 29:36; Exodus 40:13). The sanctification of the Old Testament is a ritual process effected by ceremonial observance; the sanctification of the New Testament is a spiritual process passing over heart and conscience and will, and is the work of the Divine Spirit. Meyer, Westcott, and others translate the next clause, in the truth, £ as the atmosphere in which the disciples dwell; but a large number of commentators, with Godet, take ἐντῇἀληθείᾳ as equivalent to" by the aid of," with the instrumentality of, "the truth:" consecrate them, by revealing to them the reality, making known to them the truth. If they see the truth they will be discharged from the illusions of the world, the flesh, and the devil. (Luther takes ἐντῇἀληθείᾳ adverbially, and as equivalent to "verily and indeed; but this cannot well be, seeing the article is present, and taking account of the subsequent definition of ἀληθεία, it becomes improbable.) But what is "truth"? what is the full expression of reality? how are we to know where to find it? Thy Logos (thy Word), the utterance of thy thought, is truth. If we can ever cognize what is the Divine thought about anything, we shall reach the absolute truth. What God troweth is truth per se. The Loges of God, the full, God-chosen utterance of the reality of truth, is the nearest approach to truth that we possess. This revelation of God is the closest correspondence with the reality. God sanctifies his children, consecrates them to the service of his kingdom by revealing the truth, by making known the otherwise transcendental facts of his kingdom. A long controversy has prevailed in the Church as to whether the Spirit’s gracious operations are or are not limited by the operation of truth on the mind. Numerous assurances of the New Testament seem thus to limit the grace of God, or to measure it by the ordinary effect produced on the understanding by Divine truth; e.g. "Of his own will begat he us by the Word of truth;" the parable of the sower, and other Scriptures. But seeing that the regeneration, the conference of new and supernatural life, is set forth by images of resurrection and new creation, and as a purification of taste, bias, and desire, the gift of a new heart and right spirit, the voice of a heavenly sonship crying within us, "Abba, Father," and seeing that the ministration of the Spirit is variously directed and operative, and that there is shadowed forth an immediate work on the heart," back of consciousness" itself, and that the witness of the Spirit and the teaching and indwelling of the Holy Ghost are continually referred to,—we are loath to accept the dogma. The Spirit of God is not limited to the normal operations of the Word. John 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world from the glory which I had with thee before the world was—a primal fact in the earthly consciousness of the Lord Christ, and one on which he repeatedly laid emphasis (John 10:36; John 17:8)—even so I sent £ them into the world; i.e. from that higher sphere of thought above the world to which I had called them. "They are not of the world," but I sent them from the unworldly home and from the high place of my intimate friendship, from the ground of elevated sympathy with myself, into the world, with my message and the power to claim obedience. Christ gave this apostolic commission near the commencement of his ministry, and that first act, the type of the whole apostolic commission, which was finally confirmed (Matthew 28:19, Matthew 28:20; John 20:21, John 20:22), is here described in the timeless force of the aorist, so that the word embraces the entire ministerial function of all who believe in the mission of the Son. John 17:19 And for their sakes—on their behalf—I sanctify, consecrate, myself. The Father had consecrated him and sent him into the world, but over and above all this there were special and sacrificial acts of love and devotion which he made on behalf of his own. He went up voluntarily into the wilderness to be tempted for them; he wrought for them while it was yet day. He now was ready to commend himself to the supreme will of the Father, and to offer himself through the Spirit in his perfected humanity without spot of sin to God. Ἁγιάζω is equivalent προσφέρωσοὶθυσίαν, as Chrysostom says, and it is used for שׁידִּקְהִ (Exodus 13:2; Deuteronomy 15:19). Christ is the Priest and the victim, and the dedication of himself to this climax of his consecrated life is for the sake of the disciples (so Lange, Meyer, Godet, and Westcott). That they also may be sanctified indeed—truly or veritably. (1) We have to notice that the passive form of the second clause shows that that which the Lord, in its highest form, effects for himself, they receive as a work wrought in them by another. (2) Using the word ἁγιάζειν in the same sense in both clauses, the consecration effected in the disciples must correspond with Christ’s consecration in self-sacrificial love, in abandonment to the power of the Word which has revolutionized their whole being, in entire equipment for their calling, even to the point of hatred and antagonism from the world, and death for his sake. They are indeed to drink of his cup, and be baptized with his baptism. They must be crucified with him and buried with him, and rise again with him, in the activity of their faith. (3) Ἐνἀληθείᾳ, without the article, has the sense of "verily and indeed" (Matthew 22:16; 2 Corinthians 7:14; 1 John 3:18, etc.). It is not certain that 2 John I or 3 John I can be thus translated, but the classical usage of this phrase, and also of ἐπἀληθείας, leaves little doubt about its use here. John 17:20-26 (3) Prayer for the Church Catholic in all time. John 17:20 Neither do I pray (ἐρωτῶ) for—concerning these alone, but also for those who believe £ on me through their word. The Lord summons the future into the present. He speaks of having once for all sent them, and he sees rising before his eye the multitudes in all ages who would believe their testimony as if already doing so. The universal Church rejoices in the fullness of his love and the greatness of his wish concerning the individuals who believe. The prayer is an eternal intercession. John 17:21 That they all may be one. My prayer is that the many may become one, form one living glorious unity;—every part of which spiritual organism, while living a separate and differentiated life, is yet a part of a whole. In the natural sphere, as the parts of a whole organism are mere and more developed, and increasingly resemble individualities in their separation, they are in the same proportion dependent on the whole for the life that is in them. Even in a highly organized community, as the separate individuals have more and more personal consciousness of special function, they become the more dependent on the whole, and in one sense lost in the unity to which they belong. The branches in the vine form together one vine; the members of a body, being many, are one body and members of one another. It is open to discussion whether the καθὼς clause, which here follows, characterizes the above statement, as Meyer and many others urge, or whether, with Godet, the sentence, "That they all may be one," should not be taken as a general statement, to be followed by the καθὼς clause, which characterizes the following words. The first method is a more rational interpretation, nor does the sentence drag. According as thou, Father, (art) in me, and I (am) in thee; i.e. the relation between the Father and Son, the manner in which the Father lives in the Son, as in his organ or instrument of manifestation and object of supreme affection, and as the Son is in the Father, abiding ever in the light of his glory, in the power of his Name, and as these two are thus One in being, so, or similarly, the believers are to live in and for each other, becoming a unity, just as the Father and Son are unity. In order that they themselves also may be [one£] in us. This ἵνα does not offer a parallel sentence in apposition with the former, nor is the "that" to be inverted, with Godet, who translates, "that according as thou.., they also may be one in us;" but it is the climax of the whole unifying process, after the likeness of the union between the Father and the Son, viz. that they themselves may be included in this unity. Though they are thus to be lost in God, yet they do not lose their own individuality. Nay, in proportion to their organic relation to the fullness of the Godhead and the completeness of their own spiritual fellowship with one another, will this personal consciousness of theirs become more and more pronounced. There is yet a further process contemplated, viz. in order that the world may believe (πιστεύῃ, as in the next verse; γινώσκῃ, in the present subjunctive, rather than the aorist) that thou didst send me. The spiritual life and unity of the Church will produce an impression on the world which now rejects the Christ and does not appreciate his Divine commission. The union which springs from the blended life of the various and even contradictory elements in the Church will prove the reality of its origin. The world will believe,—this is the final purpose of the intercession concerning the disciples; so though above he did not pray for the world as the then immediate object of his intercession, the poor world is in his heart, and the saving of the world the end of his incarnation. If the union between the Father and the Son is the sublime type of the union between those who shall believe, it is not the union of a great society in accordance with certain invincible rules of affiliation and government. The union between the Father and Son is not a visible manifestation, but a spiritual inference. The common indwelling in the Father and Son, the identity of the spiritual emotion and purpose in all who have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, will convince the world by producing a similar inference. Alford: "This unity is not mere outward uniformity, nor can such uniformity produce it. At the same time, its effects are to be real and visible, such that the world may see them." John 17:22 Our Lord now proceeds to record how he has already contributed to produce this result. I also—very emphatic—have given to them—that is, to my disciples—the glory which thou gavest me. Numerous interpretations of this "glory" have been suggested, as e.g., the glory into which he is about to enter in his glorified body; but the emphatic perfect δέδωκα, in connection with the ἐδωκάς, viz.: "I have given and am now and still giving," renders this improbable. Meyer, who does not accept Baumgarten-Crusius’s view that διδόναι here means "to destine," yet comes very much to the same thought, and regards it as the heavenly glory of which he had eternal experience, and would ultimately share with his people. But the view variously set forth by Oldhausen, Hengstenberg, Maldonatus, Bengel, Tholuck, Moulton, and Godet appears to be in full harmony with the context, viz. the glory of the supernatural life of Divine Sonship and self-sacrificing love as of the very essence of God. This glory that he should taste death for every man, this glory of nature and character as the incarnate Head of a new humanity, I have given to them, in order that they may be one, living in and for each other, even as we are one. The contrast between his own relation to the Father and theirs is most wonderfully maintained. The union between the Father and Son is once more made the type, in his own unique consciousness, of the union among men who have received as his gift the eternal life and glory of a supernatural love. This is more evident from what follows. John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me. He does not say, "Thou in them, as thou in me," nor "They in thee, and I in thee;" but he includes in the ἡμεῖς of the previous verse, ἘγὼκαὶΣύ, and distinctly regards himself as the mediating link of relation between the Father and the disciples. The Ἐγὼ is that of the Son of God, manifested in Christ’s consciousness of the God-man-hood; the Σύ is the eternal and non-incarnate God. God is in him, as he is in them. They are in him, as he is in the Father. That they may be perfected, completely realizing the end of their being and the meaning of the gift of eternal life, fully ripened in their graces until they reach up into one, into the fullness of the stature of the perfect Man, until they become the one new and immortal body of the living Christ, (εἰςἓν indicates the sublime result so far as they are concerned). Each individual believer reaching the highest perfection of his being, as according to his own capacity and function he fills his place in the one living body of the Lord The end is not here, however, so far as others are concerned; for this unity, when consummated, is to bring about a yet further result on this earth, and in order that the world may come to know (γινώσκῃ.) that thou didst send me, and lovedst them as thou lovedst me. Our Lord has advanced upon the assertion of Joh 17:21, (1) by discriminating between "believing" and "coming to know" by personal experiences, overwhelming conviction, and processes which lead to invincible assent. Faith in its highest form melts into knowledge, full assurance, complete certitude. (2) There is superadded to the conviction concerning the Divine mission of the Christ yet another, viz. a conviction of the wonderful love which thou hast shown to them in thus lifting them out of the world into the unity of the spiritual life, into the fellowship of the Son of God. This has twofold bearing. So far as the world is concerned they will see that the love shown to the believers in Christ will be compatible with the same kind of treatment as Christ himself received, and so far as the Divine reality is concerned, it will be seen that they are so closely identified with Christ that the infinite love of God to Christ flows over in its Divine superabundance upon those who are gathered together into him. It is impossible to exclude from these verses the idea of the visibility of the union and life of the Church, and of the Divine love to it. Nothing is said or hinted, however, about the nature of that visibility. Christians are not, by reason of their differences, to exclude from this passage the promise that the whole assembly of the Firstborn would make this gracious and convincing impression on the world. They are far enough, in days of mutual recrimination, from realizing the Divine ideal, and should set themselves to remedy the crying evil; but they have no right to import into the words, by reason of their predilection for particular forms of Church organization, an identification of the body of Christ with any specific form. The spiritual union of Christendom in its one faith, hope, and character, is, notwithstanding the divergence of some of its forms of expression, the most stupendous fact in the history of the world. The elite of all Churches are drawing more and more into a visible unity. John 17:24 Now passing from this glorification of his people in the convictions and knowledge of the world, our Lord offers "as a Son to a Father," and therefore with profound naturalness, the prayer of the incarnate Loges to the eternal Father, and therefore an address indubitably supernatural and lifted above all human consciousness. It is a prayer, too, which rises from the high and unique term ἐρωτῶ (one which he never puts into the lips of his disciples) to a yet higher one, θέλω, as one who speaks with ἐξουσία which God had given him over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to those whom God had given him. Θέλω means less than "I will," and more than "I desire," and is destitute of that element of "counsel" or deliberation that is involved in βουλόμαι. Very soon after this, when the full force of his human consciousness pressed upon him, he said (Mark 14:36), "Not what (ἐγὼθέλω) I will, but what thou wiliest." But here he is so conscious of the Father’s will concerning others that he cries, Father, as for them whom—or, as some ancient codices read, that £ which—thou hast given me, regarded as a mystic unity, as the Bride which he has redeemed, I will that they also be with me where I am. Κἀκεῖνοι resolves the ὅν into the elements of which it is composed. This is the first part of the final petition, and it embraces everything. "With Christ;" "Forever with the Lord;" in his glory and part of it, in the place which he is going to localize and prepare for them, is heaven. The glory which he had already given to his disciples (John 17:22) falls far short of this fellowship with him where his undimmed radiance shines, is only a preparation for sharing with him in his ultimate triumph over the world and death, and also for sitting down with him on his throne (Revelation 3:21). In this world fellowship with him in his suffering humanity did not finally reveal the transcendent glory (though in John 1:14 the apostle says, "We beheld his glory," etc.) of his Person. To realize this he prays, And that they may also behold the glory which is mine, which thou hast given me. The glory given cannot be the glory of the λόγοςἀσάρκος, according to Meyer, for that is not given, but belongs to him by eternal right; yet Meyer admits that the Father gave the Son to have life in himself; and that even the eternal Sonship itself may be regarded as the eternal bestowment of an infinite love. Seeing that the Lord goes on to give a reason of his θέλημα founded on an eternal or at least pre-mundane manifestation of a conscious love, surely he is thinking of the exaltation of humanity into the eternal glory, which he distinctly relinquished and veiled in the days of his flesh. That which they had hitherto seen they only partially apprehended, though he had even given it to them (John 17:22), and though they had been drawn out of the world to high places of transfiguration, that they might behold it and learn how it coexisted with and was compatible with a perfect resignation to the will of God in human redemption. Our Lord prays, nay, wills, that they should hereafter see it in its fullness of grace and beauty, see it when relieved from obstructive hindrances due to the flesh and to the world, see it on the grandest scale, see it as it really is, see the full capacity and infinite momentum of the glory which he had already bestowed upon them. For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. This, say Meyer and Luthardt, is given as a reason of the prayer for his disciples, not as an explanation of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was. It is often said that the exaltation of the Son of man is a reward for his self-humiliation, and the crown of his sacrificial death (Philippians 2:9; Revelation 3:21; Hebrews 1:1, Hebrews 1:2), but these very passages couple that exaltation with the premundane glory of him who was, to begin with, and before his work of redemption, the "Effulgence of the Father’s glory," who was "in the form of God," and regarded the being equal with God as no ἁρπαγμός—not as a thing to be seized, prized, and held in its integrity. And in Hebrews 2:9, "He was by reason of his intended passion crowned with glory and honor, in order that he might taste death for every man." So that the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, and therefore before his incarnation, was that very glory of self-devoting and unutterable love into which he would come again with all the trophies of his redemptive work. The new and higher embodiment of his humanity would prove of such a kind that his essential glory would shine through it in undimmed luster. If this be the meaning, we cannot dilute this pregnant saying, one of the most mysterious of all his words, one which leads us up to the highest possible conception of the relations between the Father and the Son. The eternal love of which the Godhead itself is the SOURCE and the OBJECT is that to which we shall be introduced, and which our Lord would have us see and share (cf. 1 John 3:1-3). John 17:25 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ B. THE HOUR HAS COME. John 18:1 John 19:42.—1. The outer glorification of Christ in his Passion. John 18:1-11 (1) The betrayal, the majesty of his bearing, accompanied by hints of the bitter cup. When Jesus had spoken these words—i.e. had offered the prayer, and communed with his Father touching himself, his disciples, and his whole Church—he went forth with his disciples; i.e. from the resting-place chosen by him on his way from the "guest-chamber" to the valley of Kedron; it may have been from some corner of the vast temple area, or some sheltered spot under the shadow of its walls, where he uttered his wondrous discourse and intercession. He went over the ravine—or, strictly speaking, winter-torrent—of Kedron. £ The stream rises north of Jerusalem, and separates the city on its eastern side from Scopas and the Mount of Olives. It reaches its deepest depression at the point where it joins the valley of Hinnom near the well of Rogel, contributing to the peculiar physical conformation of the city. The stream is in summer dry to its bed, and Robinson, Grove, and Warren conjecture, in agreement with an old tradition, that there is, below the present surface of its bed, a subterraneous watercourse, whose waters may be heard flowing. The stream takes a sudden bend to the southeast at En-Rogel, and makes its way, by the convent of Saba, to the Dead Sea. It is not without interest that this note of place given by St. John alone—for the three other evangelists simply speak of "the Mount of Olives"—brings the narrative into relation with the story of David’s flight from Absalom by the same route, and also the Jewish expectation (Joe 3:2), and Mohammedan prediction, that here will take place the final judgment (Smith’s ’Dictionary,’ art. "Kedron," by Grove; ’Pictorial Palestine,’ vol. 1.; Robinson, ’Bib. Res.,’ 1:269: Winer’s ’B. Realworterbuch,’ art. "Kedron;" Dean Stanley’s ’Sinai and Palestine;’ ’The Recovery of Jerusalem,’ by Capt. Warren and Capt. Wilson, John 1:1-51. and 5.). Where was a garden. This reference is in agreement with the synoptic description of the χωρίον, "parcel of ground," small farm, or olive yard, enclosed from the rest of the hillside, and called "Gethsemane" (gath-shammi, press for oil). The traditional site of the garden dates back to the time of Constantine, and may be the true scene of the agony described by the synoptists. There are still remaining "the eight aged olive trees," which carry back the associations to the hour of the great travail. It is certain that the general features of the scene still closely correspond with what was visible on the awful night (’Pictorial Palestine,’ 1.86, 98). Patristic and mediaeval writers, with Hengstenberg and Wordsworth, see parallels between the garden of Eden lost by man’s sin, and the garden of Gethsemane where the second Adam met the prince of this world, and bore the weight of human transgression and shame, and regained for man the paradise which Adam lost. It is still more interesting to notice a further touch recorded by John: Into which—into the quiet retreat and partial concealment of which—he (Jesus) entered himself, and his disciples. We know from the other Gospels that they were separated—eight remained on watch near the entrance, and Peter and James and John went further into the recesses of the garden, and again, "about a stone’s cast," in the depth of the olive-shade, our blessed Lord retired to "pray." John 18:2 Now Judas also, who was betraying him (notice present tense in contrast with ὁπαράδους of Matt, John 10:4), knew the place: because oftentimes Jesus resorted (literally, was assembled there) thither with his disciples. Luke tells us that during this very week (Luke 21:37) they had passed their nights (ηὐλίζετο) on the "Mount of Olives," and it is most likely that Judas conjectured that they had gone thither again to pass the night. The fact here mentioned by John, that Judas knew the place, disposes of the ignorant and vulgar taunt of Celsus, that our Lord sought to escape from his enemies after having challenged them (see Orig., ’Contra Cel.,’ John 2:9. 10). Keim, with perversity, declares that John only represented the place as known to Judas, in order to enhance the voluntary nature of the sacrifice. Some explanation may thus be given of the fact that the eleven disciples, having reached an accustomed place of repose, all slumbered and slept, and were not able to watch one hour. The choice of this particular garden for the purpose cannot be unraveled. Dean Plumptre suggests that it was the property of Lazarus, who was no other than the rich young man, who sold his all and gave to the poor, all but one solitary garment, and that he himself was keeping this one possession for the uses of his Lord on that very night, and that when in danger of arrest he it was that fled away naked. This is pure conjecture. John 18:3 Judas therefore, because he knew the place, was able treacherously to use his knowledge. Having received the cohort, Ἡσπεῖρα is used for the lemon or portion of the legion of soldiers, who, under the direction of the Roman procurator, garrisoned the Tower of Antonia, which dominated the north-east temple courts. The article (τὴν) is probably used because the χιλίαρχος, military tribune, chief captain, or commander of the thousand men, had (John 18:12) accompanied the detachment. "The word σπεῖρα, is used by Polybius for the Latin manipulus, not cohors (Polyb., 11.23), consisting of about two hundred men, the third part of a cohort" (Westcott). It should, however, be observed that the word is used of the Roman garrison of the tower (Acts 10:1; Acts 21:31; Acts 27:1; Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 20.4. 3; ’ Bell. Jud.,’ 5.5. 8). Χιλίαρχος was the proper name for the commander of a cohors, equivalent to one-sixth of a legion, i.e. a thousand men and a hundred and twenty horsemen. The strength of the cohort differed according to circumstances and need. Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ 3.4. 2) says that some σπείραι consisted of a thousand, some of six hundred, men. It is not rational to suppose that the whole cohort were visibly present, but they were-present in close proximity. Though John alone mentions the Roman soldiers, yet cf. Matthew 26:53, Matthew 26:54, where our Lord says, "Thinkest thou not that I could pray (παρεκαλέσαι) my Father, and he would henceforth furnish me with more than twelve legions of angels?"—a legion of angels for each one of the little group. The presence of this band of Roman soldiers with the Jewish police gives very great force and impressiveness to this scene of Israel’s degradation and of the world’s assault upon the Divine Savior. The other hints given by the synoptists of the presence of weapons in the "band," is Peter’s use of the sword. Judas brought with him, not only the drilled and armed Roman soldiers, but the officers from the chief priests and of the £ Pharisees; i.e. a detachment of the Jewish guard of the temple, under direction of the Sanhedrin. The chief priests would have small difficulty in securing the aid of a detachment of the Roman garrison to prevent popular outbreak at the time of the feast. These ὑπηρέται, under the direction of the chief priests and Pharisees, have been mentioned in John 7:32 and John 7:45, and the same name is given to the ὑπηρέται in Acts 5:22, Acts 5:26, where the high priests and Sadducees are spoken of as their masters. In Luke 22:4, Luke 22:52 the commandants of the temple are spoken of in the plural, στρατηγοῖςτοῦἱεροῦ. The Jewish guard was under the custody of one officer, ὁστρατηγός, and he was a man of high rank and dignity (Josephus, ’ Ant.,’ 20.6. 2; ’ Bell. Jud.,’ 2.17.2)—not two, but one; the reference to more than one must therefore point to the Roman military official as well, thus unconsciously sustaining the more definite information given by John. Judas with his band cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons; for, though it was the Paschal full moon, they were intent on finding an individual, whom Judas would identify for them, amid the depths of the olive shades. (Λαμπάς is in its primary sense a torch, or even meteoric light, but it is used for a lamp or lantern; and φανός also is used for "torch" primarily, with secondary meaning of "lantern.") Matthew and Mark mention "swords" and "staves," but say nothing of the flaring torches which so arrested the eve of John. Thoma sees a reference to the frequent declaration of Christ, that he was the "Light of the world," and to the contrast between that light and the power of darkness. John 18:4 Jesus then—the οὖν implies that our Lord discerned the approach of the hostile band—knowing all the things that were coming upon him—in full consciousness of his position, and in voluntary sacrifice of himself to the will of God and the purpose of his mission—went forth;£ i.e. from the garden enclosure—see John 18:1—(say Meyer and Godet); from the recesses of the garden or the garden-house (say others); partly in consequence of the language of the kinsman of Maichus," Did I not see thee in the garden?" But this is perfectly compatible with the obvious fact that the eight disciples and the favored three should have shrunk behind our Lord when he calmly emerged from the entrance to the garden, and that their position would be thus sufficiently indicated. It is remarkable that John, who has been accused of personal malice to Judas (i.e. by those who, like Renan, admit, to a certain extent, the Johan-nine authorship), does not refer to the traitor’s kiss. This well-attested and traditionally sustained incident is not excluded by the narrative before us—indeed, the second reference to Judas seems to imply something special in his conduct, which is needed to account for it. We can hardly suppose that it could have taken place before the Lord Jesus had uttered his solemn word, but it may easily have occurred as the first answer to his summons. And saith unto them, Whom seek ye? John 18:5, John 18:6 They answered him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. Then, in all probability, the miscreant, the son of perdition, said," Hail, Master!" and kissed him; and there followed before and after his act the sublime replies given, "Companion, wherefore art thou come?" and "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" John, however, overwhelmed with the majesty and spontaneous self-devotion of the Lord, calls attention to the language he addressed to the "baud" which surrounded him. In some royal emphasis of tone he said, "I am (he)," and the same kind of effect followed as on various occasions had proved how powerless, without his permission, the machinations of his foes really were. In the temple courts, and on the precipice of Nazareth, the murderous Jews and Galilaeans were foiled by the moral grandeur of his bearing; and when he said, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground (χαμαί for χαμάζε). Whether this was a supernatural event, or allied to the sublime force of moral greatness flashing in his eye or echoing in the tone of his voice, we cannot say, but associating it with other events in his history, the supernatural in his case becomes perfectly natural. It was so that he whose "I am he" had hushed the waves and cast out the devil, and before whose glance and word John and Paul fell to the earth, as if struck with lightning, did perhaps allow his very captors (prepared by Judas for some display of his might) to feel how powerless they were against him. It is remarkable that our narrative should place between the "I am he" and its effect, the tautologous remark if there be nothing to explain it, Now Judas also, who was Betraying him, was standing with them. This implies that Judas had taken some step equivalent to that described in the synoptic narrative. There is some momentary consolation in the thought that the traitor fell to the ground with his gang, and for an instant saw the transcendent crime he had committed in betraying the innocent blood with the kiss of treachery and shame. Thoma sees in the approximation of Judas the approach of the prophetic Beast to the true King, and endeavors out of the letters of his name to read the number 666! It is true that John 13:27 represents Satan as having entered into Judas. He stood there, he fell there, with the powers of darkness. What a moment: The devil may have tempted Christ to blast his emissaries with the breath of his nostrils; but, true to his sublime mission, he is occupied only with the safety and future work of those who knew that he had come out from God. John 18:7, John 18:8 Again then (οὖν, regarding all the conditions, the cup, the cross, the blood-baptism, the supreme will, all are at stake) he asked them, Whom seek ye? Then, restored from their fright and spasm of conscience, produced by the presence of One whom no fetters, not even those of death itself, could bind, and reassured now by the same voice (cf. Daniel 10:10; Revelation 1:17), they reply, Jesus the Nazarene. He thus compels them to limit their design, and to single himself out for the malice and devilish plot of their masters. I told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, suffer these to depart. There is much in this that lies beneath the surface. (1) There is an explanation of the miraculous blast which had a few moments before rolled them at his feet. They will not dare to disobey him. What may he not do, if they proceed to arrest the disciples? (2) The disciples are discharged from the immediate function of suffering and death. They were in imminent danger, as is conspicuous from the fleeing youth, and from the language of the bystanders subsequently to Peter; but their hour was not yet come. (3) He would tread the winepress alone. They were none who could go with him into this terrible conflict (of. "Ye shall leave me alone; yet not alone"). John 18:9 But John found (4) a deeper reason still. He said this in order that the word which he spake an hour or two before might be fulfilled, not finally exhausted in its unfathomable depth, but gloriously illustrated, Concerning those whom thou hast given me, not one of them I lost. This is a proof, as recognized by De Wette and others, that the evangelist was quoting exact words of the Master, not words which he had theologically attributed to him. The temporal safety of the disciples was a means on that dread night of saving their souls from death, as well as their bodies from torture or destruction. "Christ," says Calvin, "continually bears with our weakness when he puts himself forward to repel so many attacks of Satan and wicked men, because he sees that we are not yet able or prepared for them. In short, he never brings his people into the field of battle till they have been fully trained, so that in perishing they do not perish, because there is gain provided for them both in death and in life." The reference of the apostle to John 17:12 is, moreover, also one of the numerous proofs which the Gospel itself supplies, that great, Heaven-taught as the apostle was, he stands, with all his inspiration, far below, at least on a different plane, from that occupied by the Lord. His occasional interjections and explanations of his Master’s words calmer be put on the same level with the words themselves. Even Reuss finds here a reason for holding the authenticity of many at least of the sayings themselves, while refusing to accept the genuineness of the Gospel as a whole (’Theologic Johannique,’ in loco). John 18:10 Then Simon Peter. The other evangelists simply tell us that one of the number of the disciples performed the following act. The οὖν here is introduced between Simon and Peter, as if to imply that it was not merely Simon son of Jonas, but Simon the Rock, the man of mighty impulsive passion, ready, as he said a few hours since, to go with his Master to prison and to death. The name and identification of Peter with the brave man who struck at least one blow for his Master, is a proof, not of John’s animosity against Peter, or any desire to humble him, but rather to exalt him. The extraordinary concomitance of this act with all the other delineations of Peter’s character is another undesigned hint of the authenticity of the narrative. Simon Peter, then, having a sword. Here we see the unintentional agreement with the synoptic narrative (Luke 22:38). Nothing would be less likely than that Peter should have a sword at his disposal; i.e. judging from the Johannine narrative. The Gospel of Luke explains it. Having a sword, he drew it, and smote the slave (not one of the ὑπηρέται, but the δοῦλος, body-servant) of the high priest, and eat off his right ear.£ The slave, in receiving such a wound, must have been in fearful danger of his life. The reference to the right ear, mentioned also by Luke (Luke 22:50), is noteworthy. Now the name of the slave was Malchus. Here the eye-witness, not the theologian, nor the dramatist, reveals his hand. Thoma sees, however, the fulfillment of prophetic outline, and a reference to the kings and chief captains, the Malchuses and chiliarchs, that are ultimately to flee before him. The subsequently mentioned circumstance (verse 15) that the evangelist was "known to the high priest," explains this recovery of an otherwise valueless name. The instant when Peter cried, "Shall we smite with the sword?" was most opportune. For the moment Peter felt that the whole band could be discomfited by a bold stroke. Christ with his word, the brave-hearted apostle with his weapon, could scatter all the foes of the Lord. As on so many other occasions, Peter gives advice to the Master, only to find himself in grievous mistake. John 18:11 In Christ’s reply there is no mention made of the miracle which followed, and yet the narrative is incomplete without it. Something must have restrained the baud and the high priest’s own temple-watch from at once arresting Peter, if not the entire group. The characteristic touch, descriptive of our Lord’s most Divine compassion, is in itself valuable, but it also accounts for the immunity of Peter. The solemn rebuke of Peter is full of Divine meaning, and is another link with the synoptic narrative of the agony. "Put up," or more literally, Cast the £ sword into its sheath; or into its hiding-place; bury it away (τόπος is used in Matthew). Matthew adds a memorable saying, but is silent as to the deep Divine reason of the submission of our Lord to his fate. The cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? This imagery recalls the Passion, through which we learn from the synoptists that our Lord had passed into a Divine patience and submission to the will of God (Matthew 20:22; Matthew 26:39). The use of this most remarkable phraseology recalls that which John too had heard from his lips in the sweat of his agony, and of which he and Peter were the principal witnesses. The supplementary character of the Gospel, though by no means sufficient to account for all the omissions and additions of this narrative, yet does explain very much. "Jesus is now of his own accord at the disposal of his enemies; his words have put a stop to all further steps taken for his defense" (Moulton). John 18:12-27 (2) The preliminary examination before Annas, interwoven with the weakness and treachery of Peter. This passage describes the first steps taken by the enemies of our Lord to conduct the examination which was to issue in a judicial murder, and therefore to provide the basis on which the charge might be laid before Pilate and that Roman court, which alone could carry into execution the malicious conclusion on which they had already resolved. Moreover, tiffs passage is interwoven with the melancholy record of the fall of Peter. There are grave difficulties in the passage, which have led to harsh judgment on the narrative itself and on its general truthful ness. Keim almost angrily dismisses it, and Strauss endeavors to show that it is incompatible with the synoptic narrative; while Renan, on the other hand, sees in it numerous lifelike touches and great circumstantial value. The prima facie objection is that John describes a preliminary examination before Annas, whom he confounds with the high priest, and says nothing of the judicial trial before the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Caiaphas. Baur and Strauss supposed that the author did this in order to exaggerate the guilt of the Jews by doubling their unbelief, and aggravating their offence by making two high priests rather than one condemn their Messiah. In reply to this we have simply to say that John, though he shows the animus of both these notorious men, does not mention the judicial condemnation pronounced by either (see Weiss, 3.334, Eng. trans.). The omission of the sublime answer of our Lord to the challenge of Caiaphas and others is surely profoundly contradictory to the supposed theological purpose of the writer; and we can only account for its omission on the ground that the synoptic tradition had made it widely known, and that that tradition still needed correction by the record of important supplementary matter. Some harmonists have endeavored to transpose verse 24 into close proximity with verse 13, or to give, as the Authorized version does, a pluperfect meaning to ἀπέστειλε of verse 24, the effect of which is to make the two examinations virtually one, but one from which John leaves out the most striking features. This is supposed to be necessitated by the verses 19-23, where the "high priest" is said to have interrogated Jesus. Moreover, the supposition of there being a considerable space in the city between the house of Annas and the palace of the high priest Caiaphas renders the harmony of the narratives touching the denials of Peter inextricably confused, seeing that, according to the synoptic narrative, they occurred in the court of Caiaphas, while in John they apparently were made in the court of Annas. This difficulty is entirely met by the natural suppositions arising out of the relations of these two men. Annas (Hanan, Ananias, Ananus) was a man of great capacity and exclusiveness, charged with fiery passions and bitter hatred of the Pharisaic party. He was appointed high priest in A.D. 7, by Quirinus, Governor of Syria; in A.D. 14 he was compelled to retire in favor of his son Ishmael. After him followed Eleazar, and in A.D. 25 Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, was appointed, and this man held the office till A.D. 37. Three other sons of Annas held the like position, and it was during the high priesthood of one bearing his father’s name (Ananus) that James the Just was cruelly murdered (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 20:8. 1). The influence of the old priest throughout the entire period covered by New Testament narrative was very great. Luke (Luke 3:2) speaks of Annas and Caiaphas as high priests, and Annas is again in Acts 4:6 spoken of as high priest. John never speaks of him as "high priest," unless he must be held to do so in this passage. Our most thoughtful commentators differ on the point whether John does not so designate him (verse 19), adopting the well-known usage of Luke, which gave him the title of high priest. The evangelic narrative reveals, however, quite enough to explain that he may have been at the heart of the antagonism to Jesus, have aided Caiaphas with his suggestions, and consented to conduct a preliminary midnight investigation which would give at least a semblance of legal sanction to the condemnation, which, between them, they would be able to secure as soon as the day dawned. In tract ’Sanhedrin,’ Mishna, John 4:1 and John 5:5, we learn that, though an acquittal of a prisoner or accused person might be pronounced on the day of trial, yet a capital sentence must be delayed till the following day. As this trial must be brought at once to a termination, such an investigation as that which John describes would furnish the necessary validity. Moreover, some hours must have elapsed before the Sanhedrim under the legal superintendence of Caiaphas, could have assembled. Now, the domestic relation of Annas and Caiaphas would make it highly probable that the hall of the Sanhedrin and the house of Annas were on different sides of the same great court of the palace, and that one court, αὐλή, sufficed for both. With these preliminaries, let us proceed with the narrative as given by John. The frivolous supposition of Thoma, that the author of this Gospel was playing upon the idea of the beast (Judas) and the false prophet, and on the five brothers of the rich man of Luke’s parable, is allowed to disfigure this writer’s treatment of the introduction of the part taken by Hanan, or Annas, in the Passion-tragedy. John 18:12-14 Οὖν, Therefore—i.e. since no further resistance was made by Jesus—the band (or cohort), which here takes the lead, and the captain of it, and the officers of the Jews in association with each other, took Jesus, and bound him, as sign that he was their prisoner, and to prevent escape until he should be in safe keeping. It is probable that the binding process was repeated by Annas and again by Caiaphas (John 18:24 and Matthew 27:2), implying that during judicial examination the cordage was taken off, and reimposed when the accused was sent from one court to another; or else that additional bonds were placed upon him, for the sake either of greater security or of inflicting indignity. Christ, by accepting the indignity publicly, yielded his holy will, confessing the supreme ordinance of the Father as to the method in which he would now glorify him. And they led (him)£ to Annas first. The mention of the word "first" shows that John discriminated between the two legal processes, the first being a preliminary examination of the accused, with the view of extracting from him some matter which should furnish the priests with definite charges, and to make a show of partial conformity with the customs of their own jurisprudence. He was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that same year. John’s reiteration of this statement (see John 11:49 and note) shows that he was in no ignorance of the custom and principle of high-priestly succession, which the Romans had treated so arbitrarily. "That same year" was the awful year in which the Christ was sacrificed to the willful ignorance, malice, and unbelief of the Jews. Now Caiaphas was he who counseled the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die£ for the people (see John 11:50, John 11:51); and while John leaves no doubt who is the virtual high priest, he calls attention to the fact that Jesus had no justice or mercy to expect from the decision of his judge, and also reminds his readers once more of the significance of every step in this tragedy. John 18:15 Now. After the first dispersion of all the disciples, two of them gathered up their courage. Simon Peter was following Jesus "afar off" (say all the synoptists), "even up to" εὤς, the court of the high priest". The account of Matthew implies that, having come up to the door, he went ἔσω, and sat down to see the end; he does not say how he was admitted, though, by the use of the two prepositions, he implies there was a cause. And also another£ disciple: but that disciple was known to the high priest, and therefore to the officials, and went fix with Jesus into (εἰςτὴν, right within) the court of the high priest; for he was well known to be, and from the first did not pretend to be anything else than, one of the disciples of Jesus. From the known habit of the evangelist in other places, the vast majority of commentators at once conclude that the writer designates himself by this reference. Godet and Watkins are disposed to question it, and imagine that it may have been the author’s brother James. With the absence of the article before ἄλλος, the matter is left in doubt. But by this supposition much of the justification is lost, which the writer of the Gospel quietly supplies, touching his own ability to describe what otherwise would never have entered into the evangelic narrative. The supposition we have made above, that Annas and Caiaphas occupied the same palace, or different portions of the same edifice, solves the chief difficulty. Annas held his preliminary unofficial inquiry in his department of the building. The difficult question arises whether Annas was assisted or not by the reigning "high priest" in conducting this examination (see verse 19). John 18:16, John 18:17 But Peter was standing at the door without. Up to this moment Peter had only pressed as far as to the outer door; the other disciple had gone bravely in. The hum of voices was now deadened by the closed door dividing Peter from his Lord. The height, the cold, the strange blighting of all his expectations, the necessary conviction forced upon him that he had implicated himself by the assault he had delivered on the servant of the high priest, combined to induce a new and desponding mood. All hope had fled. Then John bethought him of the condition of his friend, and so we read that the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, therefore went out to the entrance-door, and finding Peter there, spake to her who kept the door (cf. Acts 12:13). His appeal may easily be supplied—and he brought in Peter. The other evangelists imply that before Peter was challenged the fire of coals had been lighted, and that the apostle, with the servants and with the rest of the group who had apprehended Jesus gathered round it. He placed himself as if he were an unconcerned spectator, identified himself, as it were, rather with the captors than with the Lord; nor is the narrative of John inconsistent with the synoptic statement. In verse 18 the incident is certainly introduced by the writer after he mentioned the challenge. Still, he states it as a condition of the denial rather than as a subsequent event. Matthew describes his position as "without, in the court," not in the audience-chamber, but in a court opening "upon" it or "above" it, as Mark (Mark 14:66) implies. Luke tells us he was "sitting m the midst of the court," with the glow of the burning charcoal on his face, "he was πρὸςτὸφῶς," where the maiden might see him more attentively than when she hurriedly admitted him. "The other disciple" had moved swiftly on to some corner where he could see and hear all that was happening to the Master. But Peter’s first step downwards had been already inwardly taken. Before he had verbally denied his Lord, he had acted as though he were indifferent to the result (see Hanna’s ’Last Day of our Lord’s Passion,’ John 2:1-25.). Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts represent Peter’s first and other denials as taking place after the mockery of Jesus that followed upon his great confession of Messiahship. Luke places them all three together before the formal examination or confession, and before the judicial condemnation. John’s account throws much needed light upon the synoptic narrative, which is more inconsistent with itself than with that of the Fourth Gospel. Matthew’s method of putting together into connected concurrent groups miracles, events, sayings, or parables which are allied to each other, will explain the substantially identical report contained in his and Mark’s Gospels. There are with all differences some remarkable coincidences. (1) All four accounts describe our Lord’s prediction of Peter’s denial. (2) All four evangelists agree to represent the first temptation as proceeding from "a certain maiden," "one of the maids of the high priest," or "a damsel." John’s Gospel explains the point by saying, the maid who kept the door (ἡθυρωρός) said therefore, seeing she had admitted him, not in the rush of the other servants, but at the request of "the other disciple"—considerable meaning is thus put into her words, which is lost in the synoptists by lack of the hint already given By John—Art thou, as well as my acquaintance yonder, also one of this Man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. The other evangelists amplify this negative in various ways. Mark, the reporter of Peter’s own preaching, aggravates throughout the heinousness of Peter’s fall, adding, "He denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest." His position was sufficiently taken, and he thought to have established for himself a perfect incognito. John 18:18 The εἰστήκεισανδὲ implies the conditions under which the first fearful fall of Peter was accomplished. Now the servants and the officers were standing£ (imperfect tense), having made (πεποιηκότες, perfect participle) a fire of coals (ἀνθρακιάν), congeries prunarum ardentium (cf. John 21:9; Ecclesiastes 11:1-10:32, "a glowing fire;" Aquila, Psalms 120:4), because it was cold: and Peter £ was standing with them, standing and warming himself. The whole construction of the sentence implies that this was how matters stood while the examination was going on to which John then reverts. The synoptists know or say nothing of this first examination, which bears upon it strong marks of authenticity. John 18:19 The οὖν connects the following incident with the thirteenth and fourteenth verses. The high priest. Hengstenberg, Godet, and Westcott here say that the high priest is Caiaphas, present i.e. at the examination over which Annas presides as the older man; but Renan, Meyer, Lange, Steinmeyer (’Passion and Resurrection History’), and Moulton, with many others, say Annas was here the high priest in question. Tholuck dismisses the idea of Annas altogether, and, by inverting the place of Joh 18:24 or treating the ἀπεστείλε as pluperfect, suppose that Annas had sent the Lord to Caiaphas (so Calvin, De Wette, Hase, and others), who thus commenced his interrogatory. But the text of Joh 18:24, now recovered, will not admit of this rendering. We find it far more satisfactory to accept this less formal examination, under the presidency of Annas, at which an attempt is made to put the Lord, if possible, to a test which will incriminate him. Keim says, "If Caiaphas were the acting high priest, and at the same time the soul of the movement against Jesus, it was for him and not for his father-in-law to take knowledge of the matter and report to the Sanhedrin." We must choose between two difficulties: (1) Caiaphas is first spoken of as "high priest," who, as we know from the synoptists, conducted the examination-in-chief, and then that Annas, as conducting a preliminary examination, is also styled "high priest" without any explanation; (2) or we must admit the supposition that after Caiaphas had asked these incriminating questions, Annas (who was not ἀρχιερεὺς), sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas the high priest. The former hypothesis is the easier. The high priest then asked Jesus concerning his disciples, the extent of his following, the number of his accomplices, the ramifications of the society or kingdom he professed to have founded, and concerning his doctrine, the secret teachings that held his followers together. He evidently knows the claims of Jesus well enough; his spies and officers have continually been dogging the steps of Jesus, and hitherto he has failed to gain evidence positively incriminating him. And as his representatives a few days ago were utterly foiled, notwithstanding their clever design, he hopes by his own ingenuity to entrap the Lord in his talk. Our Lord, anxious not to endanger his disciples, points to the publicity of his ministry, and appeals to all and sundry who have heard him. John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I have frankly (so Meyer, Lange; not "openly," but boldly, with freedom of speech) spoken £ to the world. Without reserving any of the essentials of my teaching, always I taught in £ synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort and come together; and in secret spake I nothing, which they were not bidden to proclaim upon the housetops. Christ here repudiates esoteric teaching distinct from his abundant public ministry. It is true he explained his parables to his disciples, and he had within the last few hours poured forth the depth of his feelings upon them; still, he had said the same things virtually in the synagogues, on the hillside, in the temple, in the hearing of Greek as well as Jew. Much of that which he had just said in the upper chamber, hundreds and thousands had already heard. This great utterance accounts for the fact that St. Paul had received, long before the Fourth Gospel was written, truth allied to the teaching of the upper chamber. John 18:21 Why askest thou me? If thou wantest evidence touching my design, my disciples, or my teaching, ask, interrogate, £ those who have heard me, what I have said to them. Lo, these (pointing to numbers in the angry crowd around him) know what I spake unto them (the ἐγώ at the end of this sentence is very emphatic). Christ thus rebukes the craftiness and hypocritical endeavor of his enemies to induce him to inculpate his disciples, or to give his prosecutors matter against him. To false witnesses he preserved an invincible silence, and before Caiaphas and Pilate he answered to many of their queries not a single word, insomuch that these governors marveled greatly. However, the case was altered when Caiaphas, in full Sanhedrin, officially challenged him to say whether he was the Christ, and adjured him to declare whether he was the Son of God. Then, on the most public scale, knowing well the issues of his declaration, and of his oath-bound word, he did not hesitate to confess that he was the Son of God, and would come in the glory of his Father, and that he was no less than the Christ of God. On the present occasion, when Annas was seeking to justify his own craft, and to utilize the disgraceful betrayal which he had diplomatically and cruelly contrived, Jesus refused to incriminate either himself or his disciples. Renan has the temerity to say that this great announcement was quite superfluous, and probably was never made. Any conclusion whatever may be derived from historical documents, if such liberties may be taken with impunity. John 18:22 And when he had said these things, one £ of the officers standing by, anxious to win with his officious zeal the approval of his master, gave Jesus a ῥάπισμα. (Meyer says it cannot be settled whether this word means a stroke with a rod (as Godet, Bengel) or a blow on the cheek or ear, which was the current punishment for a word supposed to be insolent; but δέρεις of John 18:23, which means "to flay," implies a more severe punishment than a blow on the face with the hand.) This is the beginning of the coarse and terrible mockery which was the lot of the sublime Sufferer through the remaining hours of the awful day which is now dawning on him. Saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? John 18:23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, come forward as a witness of the evil which thou hast heard. Thus he took no notice of the charge brought against him. But if I have spoken well, why smitest thou me? A quiet appeal to the conscience of the wretched upstart who dared to insult the Lord of glory. It is thus that the Lord explained the spirit of his own injunction, "Whosoever shall smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). Nothing was gained by this private interrogatory except an appeal to the outside world of his hearers, and a call for testimony; and no decision could be legally taken against him without incriminating evidence. Dr. Farrar (’Life of Christ’) has pointed out with great force that the chief priests and Pharisees, from their intestine animosities, had great difficulty in formulating any specific charge. The Pharisaic ratty, if they made a point of his doctrine and practice concerning the sabbath, would have been foiled by the Sadducean latitudinarians; and the priests did not dare to call in question his imperial cleansing of the temple, knowing that the Pharisees would immediately have justified the act. Consequently, Arums limited his inquiries to the supposed esoteric character of some private teachings to his initiated disciples—a charge that was refuted by the continual publicity and openness of all his teaching. John 18:24 The οὖν £ is quite in John’s style, and the verse should read, Annas therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest; i.e. to the full court of the Sanhedrin, under the presidency of Caiaphas, now got together for the judicial sifting and verdict. If John had intended a pluperfect sense to be given to the verb, why not use that tense? The relative clauses, where the aorist is used for the pluperfect, are not relevant here (Meyer). In other cases the context clearly reveals the occasion of such a sense (see Matthew 16:5; Matthew 26:48). John is not unaware of the momentous consequences of this act of Annas, seeing that he refers to them, nor of the fact of the accusation made by the false witnesses, nor of the judicial condemnation which followed Christ’s own claim to be the Son of God. The subsequent narrative implies such condemnation (verses 29, 30, 35; John 19:11). The author of this narrative does not ignore the fact of the appearance before Caiaphas, nor the issue; but in consequence of the wide diffusion of the synoptic Gospels, he merely called attention to the facts which they had omitted so far as they bore directly on the human character of the Lord. The theological bias with which the evangelist is credited by some would be strangely subserved both by the omission of the scene before Caiaphas, and by the faithful record of this purely human and beautiful trait in the personal character of Jesus. The fact that the fourth evangelist should have recorded facts of which he was eye-witness, and omitted others which would have forcibly sustained his main thesis, is an invincible evidence of historicity. John 18:25 Ἠνδέ. In startling contrast to this scene, and while Annas had completed his bad-hearted but foiled inquisition, possibly even while our Lord was being transferred from the one court to the other—an event which provided an opportunity for the searching, loving, compassionate glance which broke Peter’s heart—the second and third denials of Peter were also being enacted. Now Simon Peter, who had been challenged by the doorkeeper, was standing and warming himself (a form of verbal construction of auxiliary verb with participle to which John is addicted, and especially in those portions of his Gospel which represent his personal composition; John 1:6, John 1:9, John 1:24, John 1:27; John 3:24, John 3:27)—"standing," not "sitting," as Luke describes his position at the first denial, having, we might suppose, impetuously changed his position. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? This sentence of John really gathers up another moment of Peter’s terrible fall, variously and even discrepantly put by the synoptic narrative, and is virtually accordant with them all three. According to Matthew "another maid," according to Mark "the maid" who had first challenged him, returned to the assault. Nothing more likely than that what was said by one woman should be eagerly taken up by another, and therefore that both statements are true. Luke, however, describes the event thus: ἑτερος, "another man" (perhaps "a different person") saw him and said, "Thou art one of them." John’s statement embraces the substance of all three statements, "They said unto him." The general resemblance of the second charge brought against the apostle, as stated by all four evangelists, is remarkable. The different personages by whose lips the charge was urged can best be explained by the occurrence of simultaneous and widely spreading conviction, instead of an unnecessary multiplication of the denials themselves. Matthew and Mark represent Peter as overhearing the conversation of the maids with those who were there (ἐκεῖ), showing the obvious occasion for some eager ἕτερος to take up their statement as an accusation. The difficulty of place is not so easily resolved, for Matthew and Mark speak of the "gate," πυλών, or προαύλιον, "porch," outer hall of the court, and John of the fire where Peter first sat in apparent unconcern. We do not know how near the fire was to the πυλών, whether it was not indeed between the θύρα and the πυλών, in the προαύλιον £. According to Matthew he was moving towards the πυλών, probably in the stir of the procession from the house of Annas to the court of Caiaphas. The four evangelists agree in the declaration made by Peter. He denied, and said, I am not; i.e. I am not one of the disciples concerning whom Annas asks. "I do not know the Man." John 18:26, John 18:27 Between the second and third denials some time elapsed. Thus according to Matthew and Mark "after a little while," according to Luke "about the space of one hour after," an effort was made to identify Peter by. some sign of his association with Jesus. All the synoptists re. present it as turning on his provincial, Galilaean, speech, but John gives a closer point of identification. There were thousands of Galilaeans in Jerusalem, and this was a feeble ground of proof, though it may have corroborated the suspicion of the maidens and others, that Peter was an accomplice of the hated Nazarene; but the charge came home in terrible earnest and verisimilitude as recorded by John. His account is far more lifelike, forcible, and circumstantial. The fourth evangelist says, One of the servants (δουλῶν) of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did I not see thee in the garden with him? The historically attested fact gave the lie to Peter’s previous assertions. Clearly he was seen and recognized and in imminent peril, and he is now more vehement than ever. Matthew and Mark tell, "tie began to curse and swear, saying, I do not know the Man." John, with less feeling of reproach, says, Peter therefore denied again. The intercessory prayer, the solemn warning, the agony in the garden, above all, the following of the sublime encouragements by this fearful failure, the ignominious binding and rude indignity offered to the Man who had claimed to be the vicegerent and Image and Glory of the Father, combined to shatter Peter’s courage, though it did not annihilate his faith (see Steinmeyer and Weiss). The Lord had prayed that his faith should not fail. He was sifted as wheat, but the apostle knew, even in the depths of his shame, that he was a poltroon and coward, and that the Lord was everything he said he was. But meanwhile he denied again, tie kept up with his violence of language, his hypocritical denial of his own faith—and straightway the cock crew. Mark, who had made the prediction of our Lord cover a twofold cockcrowing, records the twofold fulfillment; John, who in John 13:38 had given the prediction "before the cock crow," here shows how Peter must have been reminded of his Lord’s preternatural knowledge and forecast. So that, though John does not mention the repentance, he refers to the well-known occasion of it, and, moreover, shows more forcibly than either of the synoptists the extraordinary tenderness of the risen and reconciled Lord to his erring and cowardly disciple. Some extreme harmonists have spread out the fault of Peter into nine distinct acts of treachery; others have reduced them to seven or eight. M’Clellan, in a powerful note, urges that there were "twice three," or six distinct denials. Matthew and Mark report three denials while the trial before Caiaphas was going on; these are, according to M’Clellan, entirely distinct from John’s "first denial," which preceded even the lighting of the fire. Nor does he allow that Luke’s first denial, "sitting at the fire," can coincide with John’s "second denial," which must also have preceded that which Luke gives as the first, and that John’s "third denial" is distinct again from Matthew’s third, Mark’s third, and Luke’s third. Thus he makes John’s account entirely supplementary to the synoptists. Peter may have used a variety of expressions on each occasion, and each challenge may have been accompanied by some features not especially noted as to posture or place, but the arrangement adopted in the text represents a threefold assault upon the apostle, which had three crises of intensity and terrible result. Taking Matthew and Mark as virtually identical, Luke’s account as a separate tradition with reference to the second denial, and agreeing with Matthew and Mark in the third, and in his first with John’s second, we have three denials once more following the prediction. John’s account, whether distinct or not from the other two records, bears the same relation to our Lord’s previous announcement that the synoptists’ do to theirs, and shows that in no quarter was there a general belief in more than three virtual acts of apostasy. Mark alone mentions a twofold warning from the cock, one after the first denial, and on Peter’s going out to the προαύλιον, or the enclosure, i.e. between the πυλών and the θύρα, and again after the third denial. M’Clellan and others find a threefold denial before each crowing of the cock. Certainly John has omitted the entire scene detailed by the synoptists in the hail of Caiaphas, viz. the calling of the witnesses; the lack of harmony in the false witnesses; the adjuration of Caiaphas; the wondrous confession of the persecuted and bound Sufferer; the verdict pronounced against him, on the part of all assembled, that he was guilty of death; the first cruel mockery; and the very early assembly of the entire Sanhedrin—all the chief priests (πάντεςοἱαρχιερείς) and. elders of the people. The synoptists assure us that the object of this council—which was probably held in the celebrated chamber of the temple appropriated for the purpose—was to adopt the most suitable measures for immediately carrying their unanimous judgment into effect. As we shall see shortly, John is perfectly aware of such a measure having been taken (see not only verse 31, but John 11:47, etc.). Nevertheless, he passes on at once to the legal and civil trial before the Roman proprietor. This is not the place to discuss the twofold trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Derembourg, Farrar, and Westcott suppose that the first demands of the high priest, as to whether he was the Christ, as given by Matthew and Mark, were different from the scene described by Luke, where he claimed ἀπὸτοῦνῦν to be seated on the right hand of the power of God, and suppose that this last was the occasion, when the verdict was given by the Sanhedrin in full session, not in the palace of the high priest, but in the "Gazith," or possibly in the "Booths of Hanan," on the Mount of Olives. Luke clearly discriminates between οἶκοςτοῦἀρχιερέως (Luke 22:54), and the συνέδριοναὐτῶν of verse 66. John 18:28 John 19:16.—(3) The Roman trial, presupposing the decision of the Sanhedrin. John 18:28-32 (a) [Without the Praetorium.] Pilate extorts the malign intention of the Jews, and dares them to disobey Roman law. Then they lead Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the Praetorium—to the imperial palace of the Roman governor. The word is used primarily for the general’s tent in the Roman camps, and for the legal residence of the chief of a province. Now, the ordinary residence of the Roman governors was at Caesarea, but at the time of the great feasts they were in the habit of going up to Jerusalem, and at a later time than this (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 2.14. 8; 15.5) the governors utilized for this purpose the former palace of Herod, a gorgeous residence in the upper city. It is, however, more probable that Pilate occupied the palace of the Castle of Antonia, overlooking the northwest corner of the temple area, and having means of direct communication with it. Edersheim inclines to the palace of Herod. From the high-priestly palace to the castle they led Jesus. And it was early. [In Matthew 14:25 and Mark 13:35 πρωΐ́ is equivalent to the fourth watch of the night, between three and six o’clock. The breadth of the phrase would cover the period of the hurried council and the session of Pilate. The Roman judgments were often conducted in early morning (Seneca, ’De Ira,’ 2.7)—prima luce.] The council having in their indecent haste conveyed Jesus to the Praetorium, while (and £) they themselves went not into the Praetorium,£ lest they should be defiled (μιαίνω, the solemn word for "profane" in Plato, Sophocles, and the LXX.). This defilement by entrance into the house of a Gentile was not an enactment of the Law, but was a purely rabbinic observance; ’Zeitschrift fur die gesammte Luth. Theol.’). We find it operative in Acts 10:28, and thus a hint given not merely of the author’s knowledge of the inner life of Judaism, but of his quiet recognition of the stupendous spectacle of malicious ritualism, and of unscrupulous antagonism to the Holiest One, busying itself about attention to the letter of that which was only a rabbinic legislation. But£ might eat the Passover. Here in this passage we come once more face to face with the persistent puzzle occasioned by the divergent intimations of John and the synoptists as to the day of our Lord’s death. In Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12-14 this very phrase is used for the preparation of that Paschal supper which our Lord celebrated with his disciples. So that we have at any rate a discordant verbal usage, however the problem be solved. The day is breaking, which constitutes, according to John (prima facie), the 14th of Nisan, in the evening of which and commencement of the 15th the Passover would be killed. According to the synoptists, that Passover meal was already over, and the first great day of the feast had commenced—the day of convocation, with sabbatic functions and duties. The statements are apparently in hopeless variance. Many emphasize, exaggerate, and declare insoluble the contradiction, repudiating either the authority of John or that of the synoptists. Meyer and Lucke give their verdict with John, the eye-witness, as against the synoptic tradition. Strauss and Keim, who also hold the invincible discrepancy, lift the synoptic account to a comparatively high state of historic validity, and thereby discredit the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel. We have two methods of reconciling the difficulty: (1) An endeavor to show that the synoptic narrative itself is inconsistent with the idea that the night of the Passion was the night of the general Passover. (a) That the entire proceeding of the trial was inconsistent with the feast-day; (b) that Simon the Cyrenian could not bear the cross on that day; (c) the circumstance that that Friday evening was the preparation of the Passover; and (d) that the reckonings of the weeks till the Pentecost Sunday are all made to show that the synoptic narrative itself admits that the Crucifixion took place before the Passover meal. So also does the decision of the priests, that they would put Jesus to death μὴἐντῆἑορτῆ. On this understanding the passage before us is interpreted in its natural sense; the Jews were unwilling to contract ceremonial defilement, because they were about to eat the Passover, and so with respect to the other references in John’s Gospel, which all, prima facto, suggest the same chronological arrangement. (2) A very powerful argument has been constructed, however, which brings John’s account here, as well as elsewhere, into harmony with the supposed assertion of a synoptic narrative, that the Paschal meal preceded the trial of Jesus. It is said by Hengstenberg, M’Clellan, Edersheim, and others that this unwillingness to defile themselves was because they were anticipating their midday meal, at which sacrificial offerings and thank offerings, also called chagigah, were regarded as "eating the Passover" (Deuteronomy 16:2, Deuteronomy 16:3; 2 Chronicles 30:22; 2 Chronicles 35:7-9). It is argued that, if the Jews were thinking of a meal which would not come off till sundown, their fear of defilement was illusory. But examination of these passages shows that there is a distinction drawn between the Paschal lamb and the cattle which might form part of the general sacrificial feasting of the following days, and that the term "Passover" is strictly limited to the Paschal lamb. Moreover, the duration of the defilement thus contracted would certainly have prevented them from any participation in the slaying of the Paschal lamb "between the evenings" of the 14th and 15th of Nisan. Dr. Moulton has made the ingenious suggestion that John’s statement here is brought into harmony with the synoptic narrative, by the supposition that the chief priests had been disturbed in their Passover preparations, and were intending to complete their meal as soon as the decision of the Roman governor had been given. This very supposition reveals the exceeding unlikelihood that all the hierarchs and chief scribes, Pharisees, and elders of the people had consented to forego the due solemnization of their national rite on that previous evening. This supposition involves a much greater violation of Passover regulation than that Jesus and the twelve should have anticipated the ceremony by a few hours. If the day is the 14th of Nisan, all, so far as John’s account is concerned, is obvious. I am therefore disposed to agree with Meyer, Keim, De Pressense, Baur, Neander, De Wette, Ebrard, Ewald, Westcott, Godet, and Lucke, against Hengstenberg, Wieseler, Tholuck, Luthardt, M’Clellan, and many others. The full interpretation of the synoptic narrative is discussed elsewhere. Certainly John makes no reference to the Passover in his account of the Last Supper, neither does he refer to the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It will not be just to say, with Renan, that John has substituted the foot-washing for the sacramental least. John 18:29 Pilate therefore, because of their rooted national prejudice, went out £ unto them beyond his court, to some open space convenient for hearing the case. Pilate is introduced here without any preliminary statement or title, as though the position of the man were well known to his readers—another proof that the synoptic narrative is presupposed. This scrupulousness contrasts with the summary proceeding of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1, Acts 12:2), and with the conduct of the Roman authorities (Acts 22:24). The very question he asks implies that something had conspired to provoke a certain sympathy on his part with Jesus, and to excite additional suspicion of the Jews. The statement of Mat 27:19 may account for the former. The fact that he was ready to hear the case at this early hour shows that he must have been prepared for the scene, and even primed for it. Pilate (the manuscripts vary between Peilatos and Pilatos) was the fifth governor of Judaea under the Romans, and held office from A.D. 26-36. He is represented by Philo (’Legatio ad Caium,’ 38) as a proud, ungovernable man; and, in his conflicts with the Jews, he had especial reason to detest their obstinate ceremonial and religious prejudices. Philo speaks of Pilate’s "ferocious passions," says that he was given to fits of furious wrath, and that he had reason to fear that complaints laid before Tiberius for "his acts of insolence, his habit of insulting people, for his cruelty, and murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending inhumanity," might bring upon him the rebuke which ultimately the emperor gave him, in consequence of his endeavor to force from the Jews assent to his placing gilt shields in the palace of Herod. Josephus (’Ant.,’ 18.2. 4) gives a better account of Pilate, and shows that a portion of his administration was not without beneficent purpose, thwarted by the fanatical opposition of the Jews. On this occasion he asked first of the mob of priests, What accusation do ye bring against this Man? He may have known, probably did know, but chose to give formality to the charge, and not simply to register their decrees. John 18:30, John 18:31 They answered and said, if he were not a malefactor, £ we should not have delivered him up to thee. This was somewhat audacious. It was as much as to say, "We have judged, you have only to register our decisions. We are not bound to go through our evidence before you." If it had been so, the deprivation of the jus gladii, the power of capital execution would have mattered little to them. Pilate, in scorn and irony, replies, "If that be so, why have ye brought him to me? If you are unwilling to comply with the terms of Roman jurisprudence, then it must be some ease which you can dispose of according to your own rules." Take ye him yourselves, and according to your Law judge him. Pilate saw their animus, and that they were thirsting for the blood of Jesus, and wished at once to flout them and make them confess their impotence and admit his suzerainty. For them to judge (κρίνειν) was not equivalent to put to death (ἀποκτεῖμαι), and Pilate clearly suggested that much. The Jews [therefore £] said to him, It is not lawful (οὐκἔξεστι) to us to put any man to death. This was perfectly true, notwithstanding the tumultuary and violent acts and threats, and incipient stonings of Jesus, to which the Gospel refers (John 8:3, John 8:59; John 7:25). Other interpretations of this exclamation have been supplied, viz. "to execute criminals of state" (Krebs), "to do so on feast-days" (Semler); but the power had been formally taken from even the supreme court, forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. £ The instance of the massacre of James the Just, occurring between the departure of one Roman governor and the arrival of another, is mentioned by Josephus (’Ant.,’ 20.9. 1) as a distinct infringement and violation of law. The stoning of Stephen in a wild tumult, and the proceedings of Herod Agrippa, are rather confirmations than violations of the rule. Thus the malign disposition and distinct purpose of the Jews were revealed. They would not have brought Jesus at all before the Roman governor, nor admitted his claim to decide any case involving religious ideas and practices, if they had not fully decided that Jesus must die. Bat John sees a deeper reason still. John 18:32 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 19:1-3 (d) [Within the Praetorium.] The unjust scourging, and the crown of thorns. John 19:1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. The force of the "therefore" may be seen in the foregoing observations (see especially Luke 23:23-25). He obviously fancied that the sight of their victim’s utter humiliation, his reduction to the lowest possible position, would sate their burning rage. Scourging was the ordinary preliminary of crucifixion, and it might be regarded as Pilate’s verdict, or the conclusion of the whole matter. Roman and Greek historians confirm the custom (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ John 5:11.1; ’Bell. Jud.,’ John 2:14. 9; comp. Matthew 20:19; Luke 18:33) of scourging before crucifixion. It may have had a twofold motive—one to glut the desire of inflicting physical torment and ignominy, and another allied to the offer of anodyne, to hasten the final sufferings of the cross. But the governor clearly thought that he might, by first humoring the populace, in releasing Barabbas from his confinement, and then reducing to a political absurdity the charge of treason against Caesar, save the suffering Prisoner from further wrong. The morbid suggestion of a mind accustomed to gladiatorial shows, and to the sudden changes of feeling which ran through the amphitheatres at the sight of blood, not only reveals the incapacity of Pilate to understand the difference between right and wrong, but proves that he had not sounded the depth of Jewish fanaticism, nor understood the people he had been ordered to coerce. John uses the word ἐμαστίγωσεν, a purely Greek word. Matthew and Mark, who refer to the scourging which preceded Christ’s being led to Calvary, use another official and technical word φραγελλώσας (identifiable with the Latin word flagellans). This does not require us to believe in two scourgings. Matthew and Mark simply refer to the scourging, which had been arbitrarily and informally inflicted, as John informs us, before the condemnation was pronounced. The Roman punishment flagellis inflicted hideous torture. "It was executed upon slaves with thin elm rods or straps having leaden balls or sharply pointed bones attached, and was delivered on the bent, bare, and tense back." The victim was fastened to a pillar for the-purpose, the like to which has actually been found by Sir C. Warren in a subterranean cavern, on the site of what Mr. Ferguson regards as the Tower of Antonia (Westcott). The flagellation usually brought blood with the first stroke, and reduced the back to a fearful state of raw and quivering flesh. Strong men often succumbed under it, while the indignity of such a proceeding in this case must have cut far deeper into the awful sanctuary of the Sufferer’s soul. John 19:2 Pilate then allowed the wounded and bruised man to be yet further and cruelly insulted by the Roman soldiers, who delighted in cruel play and coarse scorn. And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple robe. The "gorgeous robe" £ which had been put upon Jesus by Herod had been probably taken’ from him before he was brought the second time into the Praetorium, and necessarily before his scourging. Now, though it is called a "purple robe" by John, it was probably a cast-off toga of the Herodian court, in all likelihood it was the same garment which was thrown again around his fettered limbs, his bowed and bleeding form. And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns; in imitation of the victor’s wreath at a "triumph," rather than the coronet or diadem of a king. The material is believed by Winer, Hug, Luthardt, and Godet to be the Lycium spinosum, often found at Jerusalem, not the acanthus, whose leaves decorate our Corinthian columns. It is of flexible stem, and would be soon woven into a wreath, the spikes of which, when it was placed around that majestic head, would be driven into the flesh, and produce great agony. John 19:3 They kept on £ coming to him, and saying to him, in sportive mockery of his supposed Kingship, and utter scorn of the nation whose Messianic hope they derided, Hail, King of the Jews! They did a sham obeisance to him, having elected him, as Roman guards often did, an "imperator" on the field of battle. The offerings which they presented to him were not the kiss of homage, but ῥαπίσματα. They kept on offering him blows on the face, strokes with the hand or with rods (cf. John 18:22, note). Hengstenberg, recalling here (Matthew 27:29) that they put a reed in his hand, symbol of a scepter, supposes that he refused to hold it, in consequence of which they took it from him, and smote him with it. The awful indignity was a wondrous prophecy. Nay, from that very hour he began to reign. That crown of thorns has been more lasting than any royal diadem. Those cruel insults have been the title-deeds of his imperial sway, by which he has mastered the nations. He was wounded, bruised, for the iniquities of us all. The representatives of the outside world thus share expressly in the shame and ban by which the Hebrew theocracy is crushed, and the prince of this world is judged. "They know not what they do;" but Jew and Roman are guilty before God. John 19:4-7 (e) [Without the Praetorium.] Further protestations by Pilate of Christ’s innocence bring out the hitherto-concealed Jewish verdict that he had claimed to be the Son of God. John 19:4 And Pilate, with grim insouciance, allows the mockery to take place, and then, with his poor derided sham-king at his side, he went forth again £ from the Praetorium to the public seat, where he kept up the conflict with the accusers and the ever-gathering crowd, and saith to them, with more of passion than before, imagining that this pitiable caricature of a king would reduce the cry of "Crucify him!" into some more moderate and less preposterous demand. Behold, I lead him forth to you, crowned, but bleeding, robed as a king, but humiliated to a condition worse than a slave, that ye may know that I find no crime £ in him; literally, no charge; i.e. no "crime." Pilate rims renews and varies his testimony to the character of the Holy One! He makes another fruitless appeal to the humanity and justice of the maddened mob. But what a revelation of Pilate’s own weakness and shame! He can find no fault, but has connived at, nay, ordered, the worst part of this atrocious punishment. Keim would have us think that Pilate’s anxiety to save a Jew is a mere invention made by the second-century fabricator. There is however, nothing incompatible with a Roman official’s anxiety not to commit a judicial murder, for his own sake, and perhaps for the honor of his order. The hypothesis is irrational that the entire representation of Pilate’s desire to screen or save Jesus from the malice of the Jews was a device of the author, due to his Gentile nationality and proclivities, anxious to put even the Roman officials in the best possible light. Surely Christians had no temptation to mitigate their judgments upon Rome at the time of the persecution under Marcus Antoninus. Thoma, like Strauss, finds the basis of the representation in the prophetic types of Isa 53:1-12. and Psalms 22:1-31. John 19:5 Jesus then came forth, at Pilate’s order, into some prominent position, wearing (φορέω, not φέρω), as a regular costume, the thorny crown, and the purple robe, and he (Pilate, from his judgment-seat) saith to them, as this hateful and tragic melodrama was being enacted, Behold the Man! ECCE HOMO! This was, doubtless, said to mitigate or allay their ferocity. "Let his simple humanity plead with you! After this surely you can desire no more." £ "The Man," rather than "the King." As Caiaphas did not know the enormous significance of his own dictum (John 11:50), so Pilate, from his purely secular position, did not appreciate the world-wide meaning of his own words. He did not know that he had at his side the Man of men, the perfect veritable Man, the unattainable Ideal of all humanity realized. He did not anticipate that that crown of thorns, that robe of simulated royalty, that sign of bloody agony, and these insults borne with sublime patience and ineffable love, were even then lifting Jesus to the throne of eternal memory and universal dominion; nor how his own words would be enshrined in art, and continue to the end of time a crystallization of the deepest emotion of the Church of God. The hymn of Gerhard expresses in thrilling tones the universal and perpetual feeling of all Christians- "O Haupt veil Blur und Wunden Voll schwerz und yeller Hohn! O Haupt zum Sport gebunden Mit ether Dornerkon!" But the appeal to humanity was vain, and Pilate’s momentary sentiment failed of its end. Not a voice in his favor broke the silence; but— John 19:6 When then the chief priests and the officers saw him, they stifled every movement of possible sympathy by "loud harsh cries" (ἐκραύγασαν). They cried out, Crucify, crucify him! £ Scourging and mockery do not meet the case, nor exhaust the curse and the verdict they have already pronounced. He must die the doom of the vilest. He must be done to death as a slave. Pilate saith unto them, certainly not granting to them permission to take the law into their hands, irrespective of the Praetorian court and against his will, but in angry sarcasm, and with an unconcealed threat, Take him, ye yourselves, and crucify; that is, if you dare. Go, do your deed of blood by your own hands, take all the responsibility; for I find no crime in him. Pilate thus derides their powerlessness, and repeats his verdict of acquittal (see John 18:31). At this moment the so-called trial might have ended, so far as Pilate was concerned, with a frank and immediate release. It would seem as though the governor had decided, and there could be no more discussion. But— John 19:7 The Jews answered him, £ ready with an expedient which hitherto they had not ventured to try upon the Roman official. It might have met with the kind of reception which Gallio gave to the accusers of Sosthenes in the Corinthian court. He might have driven them at point of spear or whip from the judgment-seat. "The Jews’ here mentioned, rather than "the chief priests and officers" of the previous verse, for the multitude—by some other spokesmen than they—exclaim, We have a law, and according to that (the) law £ he ought to die; whatever you may have made of the charge of political treason. In full session of our Sanhedrin, he made himself, represented himself, as something more than Caesar, nay, more than man, as Son of God. "King of Jews" was a usurpation of the Messianic dignity; but he had claimed, in their very hearing, to be more than a national leader. He raised himself to the position of being "Jehovah’s King upon his holy hill," to whom Jehovah had sworn, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee;" "Son of God" as well as "King of Israel." Pilate would not and could not understand this strange "testimony to the truth;" and the people were now in a more angry and excited state than ever, and appealed to the law of their own code (Leviticus 24:16), which denounced death upon the blasphemer. This charge was just unless the claim was true. If Christ had not been to his own inmost consciousness what he said he was, the Sanhedrin was in the right; and, according to law, he was guilty of death. It is here vastly interesting to see another indication of relation between the synoptic narrative and the Fourth Gospel. Though John passed ever the scenes before the Sanhedrin, and the circumstance that Christ had been actually there doomed because he had made there no secret of his Divine claims, and declared himself to be a king in a higher sense than Pilate dreamed; yet John has given clear proof that he was well aware of the confession, and records the still more striking tact that this special claim of supreme prerogative actually came to the ears and before the judgment-seat of Rome. John 19:8-11 (f) [Within the Praetorium.] The fear of Pilate, and the apportionment of the measures of guilt by the majestic Sufferer. John 19:8 When therefore Pilate heard this word he was more afraid, implying that John had seen all along that some element of "fear" had moved Pilate, and that now it was augmented. Superstition goes hand in hand with skepticism. Instead of this being (as Keim says) contrary to psychologic laws, the history of skepticism is constantly presenting the same features (cf. Herod Antipas the Sadducee, who would dogmatically have repudiated the idea of resurrection, crying out concerning Jesus, "It is John the Baptist, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead," etc.). We need not suppose that Pilate was suddenly affected by the truth of Jewish monotheism; but he may readily have believed that the wondrous Being before him was enshrouded in a mystery of supernatural portent and pretension that he could not fathom, and before which he trembled. The idea of Divine energy enshrined in and wielded by human beings was not altogether foreign to heathen thought—and one centurion, at least, who was probably present on this very occasion, exclaimed that Jesus was a Son of God (Matthew 27:54). John 19:9 And he entered the Praetorium again (Jesus following him), and he saith to Jesus, Whence art thou? but Jesus gave him no answer. Almost all commentators reject the old explanation of the question of Pilate given by Paulus, that he simply asked Jesus of his birthplace or his home. The governor was disturbed, and ready to suspect that he had on his hands some supernatural Being whom no cross could destroy—some mysterious half-human, half-Divine creature, such as filled the popular literature; and, without any spiritual insight on his own side, he enticed Jesus to give him his confidence, and entrust to his keeping some of the secret of his origin, and the source of the bitter antagonism to his claims. There was fear, curiosity, and great desire for his own sake to save the suffering Man from the clutches of his enemies. "Whence art thou? Hast thou indeed made this claim? Best thou call thyself Son of God? that God is thy proper Father; that thou art coming in the glory of heaven; that thou, in thy purple robe and bleeding form, art already seated on thy throne of judgment?" Surely all this was really conveyed by the question, for we cannot suppose that "the Jews" confined themselves to the laconic recital of the charge as here recorded. The silence of Jesus is very impressive, and we, in our ignorance, can only vaguely say what it meant. Very numerous explanations are offered. Luthardt’s idea, that Christ would not give an answer which would have the effect of preventing Pilate, in his agitated state, from giving the order for his crucifixion, is stagey and unreal. Moreover, it is bound up with very questionable ethic, and suggests that Jesus is answerable for the awful sin of Pilate, from which, by a word, he might have saved him. We admit that at any moment the Lord could, if he had chosen, have smitten his foes with blindness, or delivered himself from their malice by passing through them (cf. John 12:1-50:59). They would all have fallen to the earth if he had glanced at them as he had done upon the Roman guard in Gethsemane upon that very band of men who were now so busy in wiping out the stain of their momentary panic. On other occasions, when his hour of self-deliverance and self-devotion to the Father’s will had not arrived, he discomfited his enemies; but now his hour had come, and he did not shrink. All this is true, but it does not account for the refusal to answer a question like this. Doubtless the silence was as expressive as speech, and even less likely to be misunderstood. He could not have denied that he was "Son of God." He could not have affirmed it without leading Pilate to put human and heathen notions into it. But could not he, who is infinite wisdom incarnate, have given an answer which would have avoided both dangers? That, however, is practically what he did effect. The prophetic picture had foretold of him, that "like a sheep before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth;" and the previous silences of Jesus before Annas, and before the false witnesses, before Caiaphas, and Pilate himself, and before Herod, are all governed by the same rule—a refusal to save himself from malignant falsity, or tricky design, or conspicuously lying charges; but when challenged to say whether he was the Christ, whether he was the Son of God, whether he was a King, he gave the answers needed. There was some likeness between the spirit of Herod, Caiaphas, and the false witnesses, and of Pilate’s "Whence art thou?" which did not deserve an affirmative answer. The governor, who had scourged and insulted an apparently defenseless man, at the very moment when he was proclaimed innocent, and now was afraid of what he had done, came into the category of the slayers of the silent Lamb. But to the next inquiry, which went down to the depths of his heart, and revealed the utter unspirituality and self-ignorance which needed response, a wondrous reply was given. John 19:10 Therefore £ saith Pilate to him; nettled by this silence, and with the arrogance of a Roman procurator, Speakest thou net to me? "I do not wonder at your silence before that malignant crowd, but to me your refusal to speak is inexplicable." He did not appear to desire genuine information, nor was his conscience touched by reflecting upon the hateful mistake he had made. "The ἐμοί bears the emphasis of mortified power, which attempts even then to terrify and entice" (Meyer). Archdeacon Watkins says well, "Pilate is true to the vacillating character which now, as man, trembles before One who may be a being from the other world, and now as Roman governor expects that Being to tremble before him." Knowest thou not that I have authority (ἐξουσίαν) to release thee; £ and that I have authority to crucify thee? Pilate scoffingly assumes supreme authority of life and death, He virtually says, "I am the judge; you are the accused criminal. I am your master, and the master of the Jews; you are absolutely in my power." This, then, was another moment of critical and intense interest, and of tremendous temptation from the prince of this world. The destiny of the Church, of Christianity, and of the world might seem to be trembling in the balance. A single glance, a single word of admission or pleading, a gesture of deference, or merely human confidence, or gentle flattery, to say nothing of the exercise of the very power by which the Lord had erewhile spell-bound his captors, or paralyzed the arms which meant to stone him, and the whole history of the world (judged from human and historical standpoints) would have been utterly different. But the same Christ who would not accept the help of daemons, nor ascend from the mountain of Transfiguration to his native and primeval home, nor at any time work a miracle for the supply of his merely personal need, uttered the memorable words— John 19:11 Thou wouldst not have £ authority against me of any kind, either judicial or actual, or both combined: thou wouldst hold no judicial position which I or others could recognize, nor wouldst thou have the faintest power to proceed against me unless, etc. Here our Lord points to the great doctrine which Paul afterwards expressed (Romans 13:1) about the powers that be, and hints that every circumstance and event which led to Pilate’s occupancy of that judgment-seat, or which in recent times had delivered up the people of the Lord to the authority of Rome, and prepared for the occupancy of the Praetorium by Pontius Pilate himself, was altogether beyond the range of his judge’s spontaneity and competency. Unless it were given thee from above (ἄνωθεν). He does not say, "from my Father," or "from God"—phrases which would have been incomprehensible to a skeptical heathen; but "from above," from that Divine providential source of all power which rules all. The Lord thus implies the Divine legitimation of the judicial rank of Pilate; and the fact that his continuous occupancy of it was a talent revocable in a moment by the hand that gave it, and that all the exercise of his so-called ἐξουσία was dependent on his supreme will. For this cause he that delivered £ me up to thee. Though Judas is continually described as παραδούς (John 18:2; John 13:2; John 11:21; John 12:4; John 6:64-71), yet we have already seen that the act of Judas had been endorsed by the people, and by the Sanhedrin, who now by their highest official representative had "delivered" him up to Pilate (John 18:35, note), betrayed him with murderous intention to the power which could not merely excommunicate, but could kill by judicial process. Our Lord may either refer to Caiaphas (Bengel, Meyer, Luthardt) or to the Sanhedrin and people as a whole (Godet). Hath greater sin. "Because the initiative has been taken by him, and irrespective of thee; because thy power, such as it is over me, is a Divine arrangement, made irrespective of thy will; and the whole of this proceeding has been forced upon thee against thy better judgment." Nevertheless, he implies that Pilate has sinned: he was exercising his seeming judicial rights irrespective of justice. He had declared Jesus to be free from blame or charge in open court, but he had nevertheless submitted the innocent Sufferer to the utmost wrong; but he that delivered Christ-to Pilate had done so out of willful ignorance, and was sinning against light and knowledge. Caiaphas might have recognized Christ’s true Messiahship, and accepted his true claims, and bowed before him as the Sent of God, as the Son of the Blessed; but instead of this he had violated the law, and sacrificed the hope and spiritual independence of his own people, out of deference to the sacrosanct honors of his own order. Pilate’s consciousness of independence is rebuked, and his conscience appealed to, and the Lord, in this last word to his judge, claims to be his Suzerain, and awards to him his share of blame. Pilate said to the Jews, "I find no fault in him;" Jesus said to Pilate, "Thou hast committed a great sin, though there is another God-given ἔξουσια, which is more seriously and culpably trifled with than thine is: he that delivered me to thee hath committed a greater." John 19:12-16 (g) Pilate vanquished by his selfish fears, and judgment given. John 19:12 Upon this [Revised version (ἐκτούτου); not from this moment, or "henceforth," as in the English version, but in consequence of this statement and apportionment of blame, and not from any appreciation on Pilate’s part of the Divine Sonship which Jesus had admitted without further definition]—upon this Pilate sought (imperfect tense, suggesting repetition and incompleteness in the act) to release him. We are not told by what means, and we have no right to introduce the additional notion of "peremptorily," or "the more," but that he made some further steps in the direction of resistance to the will of "the Jews." Baur and others think that the author is, from doctrinal grounds by mere fabrication, emphasizing the hostility of the Jews, and prolonging the agony of a vain attempt. Every one of these vivid touches impresses us with the unintentional indication of the eye-witness. Probably the governor proceeded to give the order of release; beckoned his body-guard to remove our Lord to a place of safety, and took some obvious steps to screen him from the malice and envy of his tormentors. But the Jews, catching sight of the process, and imagining some maneuver to baulk them of their prey, revealed a spirit that has sometimes, but rarely, disgraced humanity: they dropped their religious plea, they smothered their affected loyalty for their ancient Law, and, having no further charge to bring against Jesus, hid their most intense hatred of Roman rule by assuming the mask of loyal subjection to Tiberius and to the majesty of the Caesar. They endeavored to work upon the fears of Pilate, who knew perfectly well that his position and life were at jeopardy if the matter stood as they pretended. With unscrupulous abandonment of all their patriotic boasts, the men who hated Rome and were perpetually plotting against the imperial power, exclaimed (ἐκραύγασαν, £ shouted with harsh loud yells of bitter hate, that κραύγη rang for half a century in the ears of the loved and faithful disciple), If thou release this Man, thou art not Caesar’s friend. The friendship and confidence of Caesar was the title in their hearts to an unresting hatred and loathing; yet they are cunning enough to know that Tiberius was jealous of his own authority, and no charge was so fatal to a Roman procurator as crimen majestatis (Tacitus, ’Ann.,’ 3:38). Amiens Caesaris was a title of honor given to provincial governors, and sometimes to allies of the Caesar; but (as Alford, Meyer, and Westcott think) on this occasion it was used in wider sense, and was capable of a mere deadly emphasis. Every one who maketh himself £ a king speaketh against (declares himself opposed to, rebels against) Caesar. As if that was likely to distress these maddened fanatics; and as if the very charge had not been already deliberately laughed to scorn by both Herod and Pilate. There was a Man who said he was a King, and Pilate was guilty of misprision of treason. Pilate’s political history aggravated his fears. His relations with the emperor were not satisfactory (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ John 18:3. 1,2; ’Bell. Jud.,’ John 2:9. 2-4; cf. Luke 13:1), and his knowledge of the power of these Jews to renew partisan and patriotic charges against him was now a very serious danger. John 19:13 When Pilate therefore heard these words, or, sayings £ his fear of Tiberius became greater than his fear of Christ; his anxiety for himself predominated over his desire for justice and fair play. He found he had gone too far. Some commentators and harmonists here introduce the "hand-washing" (see above, John 18:40); but such a proceeding at this moment, when he was straightening up his back for the last act of injustice, would have roused fresh and dangerous charges against his personal honor. He brought Jesus out from the Praetorium to a place in view of the peoples and sat down (not, as some say, caused Jesus, in mockery, to take his place upon the judgment-seat (κάθιζω has the transitive sense in 1 Corinthians 6:4 and Ephesians 1:20, but not in Jn; and undoubtedly it has the intransitive sense, not only in John, but in Acts 25:6, Acts 25:17. Moreover, the mockery was the act of the soldiery and of Herod’s men of war, not of Pilate). It is remarkable, as Dr. James Drummond points out, that Justin Martyr (’Apol.,’ 1:35) apparently refers to this supposed transitive usage of κάθιζω in this very connection by John, by the words, Διασύροντεςαὐτὸνἐκάθισονἐπὶβήματοςκαὶεἶπονκρῖνονἡμῖν. It is reasonable inference that Justin read John’s Gospel, and supposed him to give transitive force to the verb. Upon the judgment-seat in a place called λιθόστρθτον, the tessellated Pavement—equivalent to "stone-joining"—in which Romans delighted from the days of Sulla; a decoration which Julius Caesar carried about with him (Suet., ’Vit.,’ 46.) for purposes of judgment—but in the Hebrew, Oabbatha. This was probably an elevated and fixed platform overlooking the temple-courts, or joining the Castle of Antonia with the temple. Its etymology is אתָיבִ־בגַּ, the ridge of the house or temple. £ Ewald has endeavored to find in the word the root עבַּקָ, Aramaic for "insert," modified into עָגָּ, and then to suppose that we have here an exact equivalent to λιθόστρωτον; but where this word occurs in the LXX. it is the equivalent of the Hebrew פצַרָ, Son 3:10. The λιθόστρωτον was possibly some elevated seat reached by a flight of stairs, and in the open air, not the bema within the Praetorium, where the more private conversations took place. John 19:14 Now it was the preparation of the Passover. Once more the question of the discrepancy between the Johannine and synoptic implication of the day of our Lord’s death reappears. This statement is claimed eagerly by both classes of critics. Hengstenberg, M’Clellan, Lange, Schaff, etc., all urge that the word "preparation" is simply the "Friday" before the sabbath—"the eve of the sabbath," and that τοῦΠάσχα is added in the broad Johannine sense of the entire Paschal festival, and means the "Friday" of the Passover week, and that thus John only confirms the synoptic narrative that the Passover had been sacrificed on the previous evening. To this it is replied, by Meyer, Godet, Westcott, Farrar, etc., that this use of παρασκευή belongs to a much later period, and here it is used in the sense of the "preparation" for the Paschal meal, without interfering with the fact afterwards mentioned, that it was the pro-sabbaton, the day before the sabbath; the first day of unleavened bread coinciding with the ordinary weekly sabbath. The τοῦπάσχα here would have no meaning for a reader, who had not learned this technical and later patristic usage. Why should not John, on that understanding, have simply used the word in the sense which the synoptists give to it, as equivalent to the προσάββατον? [There is another difficulty in the former interpretation: if our Lord was crucified on the first day of unleavened bread and after the Paschal meal, there would be a second preparation of the Passover on that day week, so that John could not have spoken of it with the precision which he used (see notes on John 13:1; John 18:28).] The balance of argument, so far as John is concerned, is in favor of the Passover meat being still in prospect, and the statement is made to call attention to the fact that, as St. Paul said, "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." Thus doubtless the blindness of the Jews is aggravated, and the typical and symbolic meaning of the correspondence between the ritual and its antitype emphasized. Another serious perplexity occurs. It was about the sixth hour. This is in manifest opposition with Mark’s statement (Mark 15:25) that the Crucifixion took place at the third hour, and with all three of the synoptists, that the supernatural darkness overspread Jerusalem from the sixth to the ninth hour. This is represented as taking place after our Lord had been hanging for some time upon the cross. Some relief to this great difficulty of horology is found in the slight modification of the text from ὥραδὲὡσεὶἕκτη of T.R. to ὥραἦνὥςἕκτη, £ which may suffer the reading of Lange ("es war gegen die"), "it was going on towards the sixth hour"—the third hour, 9 a.m., was passed, and it was moving on to midday. Westcott, in an elaborate note on John’s measurement of time, endeavors to prove that he always uses the Roman system of measure from midnight to midday, instead of the Oriental method of measurement from sunrise to sunset, and that he meant by the sixth hour 6 a.m., not 12 midday. But if this is possible, the perplexity is rather increased than diminished. It is difficult to imagine that this stage of the proceedings could have been reached by six o’clock a.m., and that three hours still followed before the Lord was crucified. M’Clellan hotly espouses this interpretation, and, against Farrar, maintains that the Romans did adopt this computation, by quotations from Censorinus (’De Die Nat.,’ 23.), Pithy (’Nat. Hist.,’ 2.77), Aulus Gellius, and Maerobius; and he reminds his readers that John wrote in Ephesus, and proves that there was an Asiatic computation of time which corresponded with the Roman, and that there is abundant time before 6 a.m. for all that is needed to have taken place. This is the interpretation of Townson (’Discourses on the Four Gospels’), and it is espoused by Cresswell, Wieseler, Ewald, Westcott, Moulton. Coder, however, gives strong proof, on John 1:39, that the Greeks of Asia Minor were familiar with the Jewish reckoning from sunrise to sunset (see notes on John 1:39; John 4:6; John 11:9). Eusebius supposed an alteration of the text of John, converting Γ’ = 3 into ς’ = 6. It is strange that no manuscripts have revealed the fact, though the third correcter of à and the supplement to D suggest this early solution of the difficulty. Eusebius was followed by Ammonius and Severus of Antioch. Beza, Bengel, and Alford with hesitation accept this conclusion. Luthardt, Farrar, and Schaff seem inclined to think that this may be the explanation, unless the ὡς be used with great latitude of meaning, and that what is really intended was that it was moving on to midday. The nine o’clock had been passed. Luthardt is dissatisfied with every explanation, not simply because it is inconsistent with the synoptic narrative, but because it is incompatible with John’s own reckoning. Hengstenberg thought that the division of the day into four periods of three hours each is far older than either the Talmud or Maimonides, and that the synoptic narrative reckoned by the terminus a quo, which, taken literally, would be too early for the act of crucifixion, and that John’s reckoning points to the terminus ad quem, which, taken literally, would be too late. M’Clellan thinks this "outrageous!" though Andrewes, Lewin, Ellicott, and Lange practically adopt it. Augustine says, "At the third hour (Mark) he was crucified by the tongues of the Jews, at the sixth hour (John) by the hands of the soldiers." Da Costa suggested that the sixth hour was reckoned backward from 3 p.m., the commencement of the preparation. Mark, by using the aorist, cannot have intended to convey that the whole process of crucifixion, commencing with the scourging, including the procession to Golgotha, and the last scene of all, was included in the verb. At the hour, thus indicated by a term which cannot be finally interpreted, Pilate, trembling with rage and impotent fury, endeavored to fling at the head of the haughty priesthood another maddening taunt, and yet with a flash of inward conviction which, after all, staggered him: he pointed once more to the sublime Sufferer, bleeding from his wounds and crowned with thorns, having every mark upon him of their insulting cruelty and insensate hate, wearing the mock and cruel habiliments of royalty, and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! There is the King whom you have crowned, and whose claim lies altogether beyond your ken. Wavering between the favor of Tiberius and the claims of justice, remembering that Sejanus, to whom he had personally owed his own appointment, had already been a victim to the jealousy of their common master, he yet cannot suppress the bitter taunt involved in ἼδεὁΒασιλεὺςὑμῶν John 19:15, John 19:16 They on the other hand therefore yelled £ out, Away with him! away with (him)! Crucify him! The aorists, ἆρονσταύρωσον, imply the haste and impatience which they manifest to have done with the conflict; and Pilate, eager to thrust another envenomed dagger into the heart of their pride, and knowing that to call this Man whom he had made vile in their eyes their "KING," and to crucify One to whom such a title could be given would be gall and wormwood to them, cried, with flashing anger, Shall I crucify your King? This wrung forth from them a cry which expressed the uttermost and basest abandonment of all their proud boasts, a heartless and fateful acknowledgment of their servility and dependence. The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar! Our Messianic hope is dead, our national independence is at an end, our witness as a people to truth, our listening to the voice which would have gathered us together, are over. As before they had shouted, "Not this Man, but Barabbas!" so now, "Not the Lord of glory, but the damon lord of Rome; not this King of kings, but Tiberius Augustus et Dominus sacratissimus noster." In renouncing Christ by the lips of their chief priests, they put themselves under the power of the prince of this world, and terribly they answered for their crime. "They elected Caesar to be their king; by Caesar they were destroyed" (Lampe). Their theocracy fell by their mad rage against the perfect embodiment of the highest righteousness and purest love. "The kingdom of God, by the confession of its rulers, has become the kingdom of this world." How terribly symptomatic of the perpetual resistance of his claims by all those who deliberately reject his authority! "We have no king but fashion! … We have no king but mammon!" "We have no king but the leader of our clique!" "We have no king but pleasure!" "We have no king but our royal selves!"—are voices not infrequently heard even now. This cry was too much for Pilate; he wavered, paltered with justice, vented his insolence and pride, knew better and did the thing which he felt to be base. "He who had often prostituted justice was now utterly unable to achieve the one act of justice which he desired. He who had so often murdered pity was now forbidden to taste the sweetness of a pity for which he longed" (Farrar). Then therefore he delivered him to them, in order that he might be crucified. "IBIS AD CRUCEM. I MILES EXPEDI CRUCEM," were the awful words in which he would deliver his judgment and secure an everlasting execration. He delivered up Jesus unto them; for they, though not the positive hands by which the foul deed was done, were the sole inciting causes of the act. Luke, as well as John, involves this idea, and Peter (Acts 2:23) says, "Ye slew him, crucifying him by the hands of lawless men," and (Acts 3:15) "Ye killed the Prince of Life." Yet they were profoundly anxious for his death by Roman crucifixion, not only because thus they were impelled to fulfill the great prophecy and confirm the words of the blessed Lord himself, but because they wished to stamp out in disgrace and shame all his claims; because they wished that the supreme court, the heathen and corrupting power, should dash down to earth and defile this idol of some of the people and even some of their own number; because they wished to deliver themselves from the responsibility of the act, and to avoid being called to give an account to Rome of their judicial murder; and in the act itself they wished to have a Roman guard to prevent an escape and quell an emeute. The school of Tübingen endeavor to invalidate the Johannine portraiture of Pilate, and to ascribe its fictitious creation in the second century to a desire then rampant, to charge upon the Jews all the blame of the act, and to exhibit Pilate as a symbol of the sympathy which the Gentile world was extending to Christianity and the Church. The persecutions which prevailed from the days of Nero, Domitian, and Trajan, to those of the Antonines, rebuke such a supposition. Moreover, the synoptic narrative is equally explicit with St. John in setting forth the sympathy of Pilate, or rather his desire to release Jesus. Luke tells us that Peter charges the guilt of the Crucifixion upon the Jews (Acts 2:23; Acts 3:15; cf. James 5:6; Revelation 11:8). The explanation of Pilate’s conduct and of his final despicable act is given only in John’s Gospel; and even Reuss admits that we have in John "the true key of the problem". John 19:17-24 (4) THE . Love unto the uttermost. John 19:17, John 19:18 (a) The circumstances of the death. John 19:17 Therefore they took (received) Jesus £ from the hands of the Gentile, leading the way in their accursed procession, gloating over their victim. Παρέλαβον reminds us (Westcott) of the παρέλαβον, (John 1:11), where it is said, "His own received him not." They did not receive him in the fullness of his grace, but they did receive him to inflict the curse and shame and death for which they had plotted and clamored. This powerful suggestion is brought out by the amended text. At this point, when the sacred Sufferer left the Praetorium and was dragged into the rush of the vociferating crowd, the synoptic narrative becomes far fuller in detail. The terrible tragedy in-eludes the disrobing. The bleeding form is once more clothed with his own garments. It is not necessary to suppose a second scourging (see John 19:1). The circumstance mentioned (Luke 23:26 and parallel passages) of Simon of Cyrene made to bear his cross after him, shows how Jesus in his human nature had suffered already. A second scourging (if we judge by all we can gather of such an infliction) would have been followed by immediate death, and would thus have snatched from them the realization of their inhuman purpose. The statement that, bearing his cross for himself, he went forth, shows that they tried to force him thus in his agony to endure this additional humiliation, and, from his physical exhaustion, were compelled to make use of the expedient described by the synoptists. Mark (Mark 15:22) introduces another most suggestive word, φέρουσιναὐτὸν, literally, "they carry him" from the place where they compelled (ἀγγαρεύουσιον) Simon to take up his cross, and at least he hints, if he does not express, the terrible fact that they had, by their fell cruelty of all kinds, at length exhausted all the human physical strength of the Sufferer. John’s language, though at first sight discrepant with Luke’s, really explains it. Luke also describes the wailing of the daughters of Jerusalem, and the sublime self-forgetfulness with which Jesus turned their thoughts from his agony to themselves and their children. Matthew and Mark both relate another scene, which seems as if one gleam of pity had crossed some heart—"They offered him wine, mixed with narcotic gall," to stupefy his senses, and lull his physical agony. He did not put it by "with suicidal hand;" but, as Keble sang— "Thou wilt feel all, that thou mayst pity all; And rather wouldst thou wrestle with strong pain Than overcloud thy soul, So clear in agony, Or lose no glimpse of heaven before the time." (’Christian Year.’) He went forth to a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha. "He went forth" from the Praetorium along the via Dolorosa, wheresoever it was, beyond the city wall (Hebrews 13:12, etc., "He suffered without the gate"). Moses had forbidden (Leviticus 24:14; Numbers 15:35) capital punishment within the camp (cf. 1 Kings 21:13; Acts 7:58). The traditional site of the place is far within the present walls in the north-western quarter of the city, not far from the gate of Damascus; and endless discussions have prevailed with respect to the line of the second city wall, which at that time must either have included or excluded the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The identification of the site of Golgotha is rendered difficult from the eagerness with which theories have been sustained. (1) Ferguson’s £ theory is that Constantine’s" Church of the Resurrection" is to be found in the ’dome of the rock’ in the temple enclosure! He urges that the tradition was moved thence to the "Church of the Holy Sepulcher" in the eleventh century, when Fatimite kaliphs drove the Christians away, and persecuted the pilgrims to such an extent as to produce the reaction of the Crusades. (2) The ecclesiastical theory is that the tomb and all the awful and blessed associations are to be reckoned for somewhere within the buildings or ruins of the present church. The difficulties are great; for, instead of being "without the gate," or "nigh the city," it is situated in the heart of the present city, and it is very difficult to imagine or trace any line of wall which could have run in such a way as to exclude the supposed site of the tomb from the city. (3) A modern theory (see ’Survey of Palestine’) finds the tomb in the immediate vicinity of Jeremiah’s grotto, to the north of the Damascus gate. This site has good claims, from the probability (a) that it was the place of public execution; (b) that the second wall of the city did correspond with the present wall; (c) that there are reasons to think that it was built over and concealed from view until comparatively recent years. Warren and Conder give a drawing of the tomb and its arrangement, which sustains the probability that it is the tomb once hallowed by the most stupendous event in the history of the world. Robinson said, "The place was probably upon a great road leading from one of the gates, and such a spot would only be found upon the west or north side of the city, on the roads leading to Joppa or Damascus." The word "Gulgotha" or "Gulgaltha" is the Aramaic (cf. Syriac Gagulta) form of Gulgolath, Hebrew for "skull," and may derive its name from the form of the mound or bare place where was the garden in which the rock-hewn tomb of Joseph had been excavated. The vulgate translates the word Calvaria, a skull, from which our word "Calvary" is derived. The English version in Luke 23:33 thus translates the Greek word κρανίον, and from this passage the word has been naturalized in our language. There is no authority for the appellation "Mount Calvary." The name probably refers to the shape of the site where the event took place. From this verse we learn that Jesus went forth to the spot, and (John 19:20) John further says it was "nigh unto the city," therefore not within it. The same position relative to the city is obvious from Matthew 28:11, where the Roman guard came from the tomb εἰςτὴνπόλιν. The Romans were accustomed to execute their criminals in some conspicuous position, adjoining a traveled road, so that those passing by, as well as those who congregated for the purpose, might know and learn its meaning. They reached the chosen spot— John 19:18 Where they crucified him. As John barely mentions this awful climax of his Gospel, it is not needful here to enlarge upon the heartrending details of this hideous process, one which Cicero described as "crudelissimum,teterrimum,summum supplicium," one from which no Roman citizen could suffer, and which was reserved for the most ignominious and degraded of mankind—for traitors, brigands, and condemned slaves. £ It is sufficient to say that, from the mention of the ἐπιγραφὴἐπαὐτῷ (Luke 23:38), the cross was not simply of the T shape called crux commissa, but rather (Luthardt and Zockler) of the familiar shape + and termed crux immissa, upon the upper arm of which the title or accusation, which had been placed round his neck, was affixed. The victim of this punishment was stripped, laid on the central bar, and the arms attached by ropes to the transverse beam, the hands and feet fastened with huge iron nails to the wood. A sedile was arranged to bear a portion of the weight of the body, which would never have been sustained by the gaping wounds. The cross was then raised by the executioners, and thrust with a fierce jerk into the hole or socket prepared for it. There was nothing in this inhuman torture necessarily to occasion death. The sufferers often lingered for twelve hours, and sometimes for several days, dying at last of thirst, starvation, and utterly intolerable agony. The Romans generally left the bodies to be devoured by birds of prey; the Jews buried the corpses. Constantine I., after his conversion, out of reverence for the Lord whom he had chosen, abolished the punishment, which, far more terrible than one by wild beasts or fire, has never been renewed, and rarely practiced in Europe since that day. There, then, these Jews, by the hands of lawless men, by Roman executioners, "crucified the Lord of glory," and by their hideous insensibility to goodness, by judicial blindness, bigotry, envy, and pride, not knowing the infinite crime they were committing, offered up a sacrifice, slew the Lamb of God, killed a Passover of transcendent price. That torture-tree has become his throne, and the very symbol of all that is most sacred and awe-inspiring in the entire region of human thought. They did not by this gross and inconceivable wickedness bring their rage to its full satisfaction; for they crucified two other with men with him either side one (ἐντεῦθενκαὶἐντεῦθεν, an expression only found in this passage and Revelation 22:2), and Jesus in the midst, most prominent in this tragedy, and exalted to what they believed was the very pinnacle of shame. The synoptic narrative has told us these two men were "robbers" (λῃσταί, not κλεπταί) or (κακοῦργοι) "malefactors," who, according to their own confession, were "suffering the due reward of their deeds." For a while both these dying ruffians tried to add torment to their quiet and patient fellow-Sufferer. Luke’s account of the change that came over one of them as the awful hours rolled on is one of the sublimest portents that attended the Crucifixion. John passes this well-known incident by, most obviously supplementing the synoptists’ narrative with matter which they had omitted. It is strange that John, if he had simply a theological purpose in his selection of facts, should have omitted the sublime prayer, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34), a revelation of compassion, power, inward agony, blended with Divine prerogative and unspeakable tranquility, which has done so much to reveal "the heart of Christ," the essence and character of the living God. John 19:19-22 (b) The title on the cross John 19:19 The evangelist turns to an event of which the synoptists say little, and quietly attribute to the Jews themselves. John, from the special access which he had to information about the high priest and the court of Pilate, says, Now Pilate wrote a title also (the Latin technical word τίτλον is used in preference to the Greek word ἐπιγραφή, "superscription"), and he put it, by the hands of his own soldiers, on the cross. We cannot translate ἔγραψε as a pluperfect, and therefore it becomes probable that after the procession had gone howling and cursing away to Golgotha, he had had the τίτλον, prepared. And there was written upon the parchment, or the tablet, in letters all could read, JESUS OF THE KING OF THE JEWS, thus Pilate resolved to sting these murderous Jews to the last point of exasperation, in harmony with the character given him by Philo-Judaeus; but perhaps this motive was also stimulated by another—though he sought to punish their pride with scorn and scoff at their hypocritical charge, he may have had some strange irresistible conviction that there was reality in the royal supremacy of this marvelous Being, who throughout was conspicuously triumphant in his patient dignity. He seems muttering to himself, "Let him be Chief of malefactors, but he is and will be King of the Jews nevertheless, and I do not ignore the memories of either David or Solomon, Zerubbabel, Hyrcanus, or Idumaean Herod." The title differs slightly in its phrase in the four evangelists, yet they all preserve literatim the central fact of the change, "the King of the Jews." John alone mentions the circumstance, which may explain the minute differences (so Gresswell, ’Diss.,’ 42.), viz. that it was written in three languages, (a) the vernacular, or "Hebrew;" (b) the official, or "Latin;" (c) the speech generally understood by all strangers, or "Greek." The minute differences may be represented by Matthew using the Hebrew, Mark the Latin, and Luke and John the Greek, the latter simply adding the personal name of the crucified. Whether this hypothesis explaining the "this is" of Matthew, the "Rex Judaeorum" of Mark, the "this" of Luke, and the fuller statement of John, which gives what was contained in one of the languages, be verified or not, it should be observed that the four evangelists agree as to the verbatim form of the αἰτία, John more abundantly supplementing the information by recording the full τίτλος. Even Strauss does not regard these differences as discrepancies. John 19:20 This title therefore many of the Jews read: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh unto the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Roman (Latin), and in Greek. The word Ἑβραῖστί occurs four times in this Gospel and twice in the Revelation, and nowhere else in the New Testament. Codex B reads Ῥωμαῖστι first. The Latin form of the trilingual inscription may very naturally have been placed at the top. The reference to this peculiarity of the inscription as also given by Luke, in T.R., is there omitted by Tischendorf (8th edit.), Tregelles, Westcott and Herr, and R.T., M’Clellan, and others; it looks as if the reading had been borrowed from John, or rather from the spurious ’Acts of Pilate,’ with which it verbally agrees. The proclamation of Christ’s royalty to the three great divisions of the civilized world is a providential fact of supreme interest. Thousands of Jews would carry the news of the mysterious "title" to far-off places, and ponder it in their homes. This was part of the preparation made by Divine providence for announcing to the whole world the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Since the cross from the very first thus became a throne, and the Crucifixion an installation into the kingdom, we learn thence the meaning of the Christian principle, "If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him." John 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate. They must have hurried back to him with petulant resentment of his intentional scorn. Observe the very unusual phrase, "the chief priests of the Jews," as though the priesthood felt the connection between the priesthood and kingship of the theocratic people, and it gave additional sting to the sarcastic reproach involved in the inscription. Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. They resented the association of the theocratic or Messianic symbol with the spiritual Being whom they had condemned. Had they not already declared that they had no king but Caesar? Doubtless he said, "I am the King of the Jews;" he made the claim, not in a sense which could be rationally entertained in a Roman court, but in the true Messianic and prophetic sense. The priests knew perfectly well that because Jesus had altogether refused, Heir of David though he was, to entertain the Kingship in the only sense in which they desired to proclaim it, they had rebelled against him and rejected his claims. For Pilate to have given any color to the purely spiritual prerogative of their victim roused their remonstrance, but that it might be treated as identification of the national cause with a convicted and crucified felon exasperated them. John 19:22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. And he curtly dismissed them. Pilate no longer dreaded their making his apparent favor to Jesus into a complaint to the emperor, and he gave way to the indomitable temper of which Philo accuses him. He found grim satisfaction in insulting and browbeating them for a moment, Ὃγέγραφαγέγραφα. "I said it, and I meant it; I have crucified your King; yes, true King in his own sense, but not in yours. You have falsely charged him with rebelling against Caesar, and you know that you have lied to my face. Let be; he is your King, and so perish all your futile attempts to shatter the arm that holds you now in its grasp." That and more was condensed in this haughty and obstinate reply. While this was going on in the Praetorium, the tragedy was proceeding at Golgotha; and St. John now returns thither, and describes an event of intense interest which occurred, as all synoptists say, at the very time of the elevation of the cross. John, however, has further facts and symbolic detail to append which were omitted by them. John 19:23, John 19:24 (c) The seamless garment. John 19:23 Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, and Luke 23:34 all mention that the soldiers took his garments (ἱμάτια), and divided them according to the ordinary custom followed at executions amongst themselves. These were the head-dress, the large outer robe with its girdle, the sandals, one taking one thing and another another, and each evangelist added that the soldiers cast lots upon the garments, as to who should take which. As these garments may have been of varied value, the lot may have been required; but John, in his narrative, throws fresh light upon this latter and humiliating act. Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part. This shows that a quaternion of soldiers, and not the "whole band," had been told off for the infernal deed. Pilate knew now that there was no need of an army to keep the people from popular insurrection. The rest of the garrison were not far off, should they be required; moreover, the servants of the high priest were ready to act on an emergency; but John adds, And also the coat (the χιτών, the שׁוֹבּלְ); the long vesture which clothed his whole person, reaching from the neck to the feet, and which, when removed, left the sacred body naked. This had probably not been removed by either tiered or Pilate before, and the cursed indignity thus reached its climax (Hengstenberg; cf. Job 24:7-10). Now the coat was without seam £ from the top—from the upper portions—woven throughout (διὅλου, an adverbial form)—woven, possibly, by the mother who loved him, and corresponding with the dress of the priests. Keim and Thorns see here "a symbolizing of Jesus as the High Priest" (see Holman Hunt’s celebrated picture the "Light of the World"). Certainly John saw the Lord in his glory with a garment of the kind (woven of radiant light, and reaching to the feet, Revelation 1:1-20.). The unity of the Savior’s seamless vesture has been variously treated in patristic literature: as symbolic of the unity of natures in his Person, by the Monephysites; and by Cyprian (’De Unitate Ecclesiae,’ § 7) in his conflict with Novatianists, as symbolic of the unity of the Church, and he actually builds on it his dictum, "He cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ." This garment could not be conveniently divided. John 19:24 They said therefore to one another, Let us not rend it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be. How obviously we have the eye-witness again, and the observation of one whose whole heart was bleeding with unutterable anguish! Here is the true explanation of the "lot" referred to by the synoptists, and moreover a subsequent reflection of the evangelist, who saw once more a realization of the prophetic picture of the ideal Sufferer at his last extremity of reproach and humiliation. He quotes almost verbally from the LXX., That the Scripture might be fulfilled (which £ saith), They parted my garments among them (to themselves), and for my vesture (ἱματισμόνμου) they did cast lots. If John had quoted accurately from the Hebrew, he would have preserved more obviously the contrast between the מדִגָבְּ and the שׁוֹבּלְ,which yet was clearly in his mind. The χιτών was the portion of the ἱματισμός upon which the lots were cast. Lucke and De Wette (though not Meyer) regard it as certain that John took the ἱματισμός as identical with the χιτών. Strauss describes Psalms 22:1-31. as the programme of the Crucifixion. He styles it thus for the purpose of undervaluing the historical character of the narrative, and of suggesting that it owed its origin to the prophetic picture rather than to the actual fact (so Thoma). There is another sense in which the statement is true. Unconsciously the various concomitants of the suffering of the Holy One of God were being one by one realized by the Divine Lord. The synoptists, without reference to the ancient oracle, record the fact imperfectly. John adds what came under his own eye, explains their inadequate representation of the "lot," and discerns the veritable fulfillment of the prophecy. The reference in Matthew to this fulfillment of prophecy is expunged from the text by Tischendorf (8th edit.), Westcott and Herr, and R.T., on the authority of à, A, B, D, nine uncials and two hundred manuscripts, numerous versions and Fathers. Thus the fourth evangelist is the solitary authority for this fulfillment of the prophetic word, and he reveals a feature which is sometimes denied him by those who try to establish the Gentile origin of the Gospel. These things therefore the soldiers did. A graphic and historic touch, corresponding with the method in which Herodotus closed his account of the slaughter at Thermopylae. In John’s case more was suggested. While Pilate had announced to the world that Jesus of Nazareth was "King of the Jews," and Caiaphas had declared that "it was expedient that one man should die for the people," the Roman soldiers, without any knowledge of Hebrew oracles, had all unconsciously filled up the features of the suffering Messiah in literal harmony with the ancient prediction. In a commentary on John’s Gospel we cannot here discuss some of the other impressive features of the Crucifixion, upon which the fourth evangelist is silent. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe a revolting scene of brutal mockery which ridiculed the dying Lord with his helplessness, and charged him with hypocrisy, scoffed at his having boasted of his Divine Sonship, and of power to build the demolished temple in three days—an ominous charge, which he was so soon to meet. They did not see that they were destroying the temple of his body, and that he would verily paralyze all their power to crush his kingdom by building it up at the predestined hour. The great cry was, "Come down from the cross, and we will accept thy claims, and believe that thou art ’ Son of God.’" This was even a greater provocative of his human soul than that which the devil had suggested in the wilderness, or which he had endured on the Mountain of Transfiguration (Godet’s ’Biblical Studies of the New Testament’). He knew that he could at once have stepped upwards from the high mountain on the shining way, and left behind him a perfect and most gracious memorial dud ideal of the blessed life. But he had a "decease to accomplish," and he came down to "give his life a ransom for many," to take all our burden and all our care and all our sin upon him, to lay down his life that he might take it again (cf. John 10:17). But the question does arise—Has he not done enough to meet all the case? Has he not been offered up as certainly as Isaac was when Abraham bound his son upon the altar? Could he not, might he not, now come down from the cross, having perfectly consecrated himself? Would he not by this act make converts of the Sanhedrin? and would not tens of thousands at once turn their curses into jubilant hosannas? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 20:1-31 2. The complete glorification of Jesus in his resurrection. The record pauses for the awful day of that great sabbath, and resumes the marvelous recital when the greatest event in the history of the world is assumed and asserted to have taken place. Heathen and foes admit the fact of the death of Jesus; the evidence is overwhelming, multiform, sufficient to establish itself to the ordinary reason of mankind. It is a matter of indubitable history. The proof was given to all the world; but it is otherwise with the fact of the anastasis of Jesus. That stupendous event was revealed to the eye and mind of faith by a series of communications, which afford to different classes, groups, kinds, and states of mind specimens of the manner and quality of the resurrection-life. "Many infallible proofs" wrought (as St. Luke says, Acts 1:1-26.) irresistible conviction as to the reality of the Resurrection. The Church of Christ was originated by a faith in this new and transcendental mode of existence. A generation of men passed, scores of communities were called into being throughout Palestine, Phoenicia, Syria, Lybia, Asia Minor, Achaia, Macedonia, Cyprus, Crete, and even in Italy and the capital of the Roman empire, all of them held together by the life-giving conviction of the reality of a world of spiritual body, into which the redeemed enter. Of this reality the resurrection-life of Christ was the type, the proof, the first fruit, and the earnest. This most astounding fact was preached in Galatia and Macedonia, in Corinth and Rome, in Babylon and Alexandria, before one word of the Gospels had been put on parchment. When the preaching of the apostles was reduced to written form, it was not with the idea of recording a fully detailed or easily harmonizable account of the Easter Day, or of providing rational, or juridical, or historic evidence of the method or order of the great events, but rather to provide five independent series of evidences to the revelations which the apostles and apostolic company received of the nature and quality of the new life for humanity which had now begun. Several details of profound interest occur in the synoptic narrative, concerning which John is silent—such e.g. as the rolling of a stone to the door of the sepulcher, the sealing of the stone by the Roman guard, the resurrection-appearances of the saints, the special preparation made by the women for further embalmment on the following days the great earthquake, the two companies of women that resorted to the sepulcher at successive intervals of time, and the different signs and even appearances by which their timorous hope was quickened into an adoring homage and world-compelling faith. Though John does not recite these well-known narratives, he presupposes some of them. Thus (1) although, unlike the synoptists, he says nothing of the stone that was rolled to the door of the sepulcher, yet (verse 1) he refers to the fact that (τὸνλίθον) the stone was taken up or away. (2) Although he says nothing of the two groups of women, yet he implies that Mary Magdalene was not alone at the sepulcher (οὐκοἴδαμεν): "We know not where they have laid him." With far greater particularity than St. Luke (Luke 24:12), he describes Peter’s visit to the sepulcher, and gives further details of facts which occurred at more than one interview between our Lord and his apostles, of which Luke and Mark had given a more shadowy outline. But we are not intending here to produce a history or harmony of these records, but to follow throughout the impressions produced by the Lord’s self-manifestation upon the mind of the beloved disciple; not passing over the difficulties which his peculiar experiences have occasioned, when brought side by side with the synoptic and Pauline narratives. John first of all (verses 1-10) describes how he came to believe personally in the resurrection of Jesus; then (verses 11-18) the way in which the first manifestation was made to Mary of Magdala (verses 19-23); how ten of the apostles, including himself, received a full and satisfying assurance of the stupendous fact (verses 24-29); how once more, after an interval of eight days, not only Thomas, the most anxious, doubting, and incredulous of the eleven, but the entire group, came into full persuasion, not only of Christ’s resurrection, but of his Divine nature and claims, his Messiahship and Sonship, and of their own personal possession of life in him and through him. John 20:1-10 (1) The process of John’s own personal conviction, by the discovery that the sepulcher was deserted. John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week. All the evangelists agree about the day of the week, which thenceforward became the new beginning of weeks, "the Lord’s day." Cometh Mary £ the Magdalene. Here all the evangelists are at one, although, judging from the synoptists, she must have been accompanied by other women. This is implied in the οἴδαμεν of John 20:2, though Meyer repudiates such a hint by the remark that, in addressing the angels, she uses the singular, οἴδα; but this difference rather confirms, than otherwise, the significance of the plural, when she first breaks on the ear of the astonished disciples the wondrous news. But when she is confronted by the angels she is manifestly alone, and speaks for herself. It is probable that Mary Magdalene had preceded the other women, driven by the intensity of her adoring love and abounding grief, and hence some slight divergency appears as to the time at which she started on her pilgrimage. While it was yet dark, early, in the depth of the dawn (Luke 24:1); before the breaking of full day, and λίανπρωΐ́, "exceeding early" of Mark, although, as he adds, after sunrise (ανατείλαντοςτοῦἡλὶου). This latter expression is difficult to reconcile as a statement of identical time. But many simple suppositions would explain the discrepancy. The Magdalene’s home may have been at a greater distance from the sepulcher, down in the shadows of the eastern hills, while the home of the other Marys may have been readily accessible to the sepulcher. After the great earthquake described by Matthew (Matthew 28:2), and the supernatural darkness of the day but one before, there is no incompatibility in the twofold statement that it was yet dark (not night), although the sun had risen. A deep pall may yet be hanging over the world and place which had held in its bosom the body of the murdered Lord of glory. (She) cometh to the sepulcher, obviously with the purpose stated by all the synoptics. She was bringing the spices which she, with others, had bought on the Friday evening. They would not be behind Nicodemus and Joseph in the expression of their boundless love. The critics make merry over the superfluousness of these women purchasing fresh spices when they must have known the lavish expenditure of the two rich men upon the same design. But the combination of the two statements is absolutely true to nature; it is exactly what women would do all the world over, and an evidence of the authenticity of both narratives. And seeth the stone taken away out of the sepulcher. This is all the information that St. John gives us, as antecedent to Mary’s flight to Simon Peter and himself. We have to decide between three hypotheses: either (a) John’s narrative entirely differs from the synoptic account of what Mary saw and heard, and what she brought as her contribution to the apostles’ ears, and therefore discredits one or the other or both narratives; or (b) Mary of Magdala, having preceded the other women, found the empty sepulcher, and, without waiting for them, rushed to the home of Peter and John with this preliminary intelligence and nothing else, then, returning with them to the tomb, joined the ether women who had arrived after John and Peter had withdrawn; or (c) That (Hengstenberg) Mary said more than she is reported by John to have uttered,—that she told them not merely that they (the Jews) had taken away the body, but that she had seen a vision of angels, who affirmed that the Lord had risen, and gave certain commissions. From Luke’s account of the first effect of the news from the tomb, the apostles thought them idle tales, but they went to the sepulcher, and found it even as the women had said, but him they saw not. What were the "idle tales"? Not that the tomb was empty, for that was a simple matter of fact, which the two chief apostles verified, but the story of angels who affirmed that Jesus was alive. Still, such a report is very likely to have roused the apostles to the eagerness of their first visit to the tomb, and the effect of it to reappear in the conversation of the disciples on their way to Emmaus. If the third of these hypotheses be followed, then the narrative of John simply records with brevity what the other evangelists had reported at greater length, distinctly omitting the story of the angelic visitors, given in all three synoptists. This seems to me the fairest and best interpretation of the four narratives. On this hypothesis the account which Mary Magdalene brought to Peter and John corresponds with Matthew (Matthew 28:6-8), where the women generally ran with the news, blending fear with great joy, excited beyond all parallel with the strange wonderful assurance which they had received, that they should meet their risen Lord in Galilee. According to Mark (Mark 16:1-8), we hear of angels, the sight of the vacated tomb, and the angelic message to the apostles, specifying Peter as one especially singled out to hear the commission. Trembling, ecstasy, fear, shut their mouths as they hurried to the abode of the eleven; they spake nothing to any man, but the intelligence was conveyed "to the eleven and all the rest" (Luke 24:9). St. Luke afterwards sums up in one statement all the various messages that were brought, and mentions by name, not only the Magdalene but Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and says, "the remaining ones with them" (at λοιπαὶσὺναὐταῖς). The effect was so far fruitless; the apostles did not believe the words (Luke 24:10). The fact stands in the synoptics that the first communication which was carried by women to the apostles, and was not confined to them, consisted not only of the fact of the empty tomb, but of the language of angels. The first thing might easily have been set to rest by direct inspection; the other part of the narrative might easily be disregarded as the voice of wild enthusiasm and excited imagination. It should be distinctly perceived that the women must have scattered in diffusing their intelligence, and John positively asserts that the main strain of Mary’s report was as to the opening of the tomb and disappearance of the body, and that it was delivered personally to himself and Peter. This solution of the first difficulty was thrown into confusion by the T.R. form of Matthew’s account, which says (Matthew 28:9), "As they went to bring his disciples word, behold Jesus met them." If that were the true text of Matthew, it is in irreconcilable antagonism with John’s Gospel, i.e. if Mary Magdalene must be regarded as one of the party who were advised to tell the apostles that the tomb was opened and rifled, and that the Lord was risen. It would also be opposed to the statements of both Luke and Mark concerning the first message they brought to the apostles and to the rest, as well as the manner of their departure from the sepulcher. If, however, Matthew is here referring to a second party (called by harmonists the Joanna group), then they must, in their passage to the apostles, have missed Peter and John on their way to and from the sepulcher, and it would contradict the assertion of all four evangelists, that Mary Magdalene was the first to see the Lord. This most difficult clause in Matthew’s account has, however, been rejected by modern critics,£ and consequently the narrative of Matthew is delivered from its greatest perplexity. The fact that Jesus met them must be identical with the appearance described with far greater detail in John’s own statement (verses 11-18). Matthew’s Gospel throughout is singularly devoid of notices of time, and we find grouped here, as elsewhere, events or teachings without chronological perspective. John 20:2 Then she runneth in advance of the other women, who are each intent on communicating what she had seen and heard, and cometh to Simon Peter—why not, if, as Mark says, Peter had been specially mentioned by the angel?—and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved. The form of the expression suggests that they were living in different houses. [There were two disciples on whom Jesus poured out the abundance of his love. The word here used is not ἠγάπα, that which is used in John 13:23 and John 21:7-20, and which denotes the love of high regard, but ἐφίλει, the love of personal affection, the kind of love showered on Lazarus and his sisters (John 11:5). So far, then, from John especially exalting himself at the expense of Peter, he gives to Peter the first place in the affection of his Master.] And she saith to them, They have taken away the Lord—even the corpse of Jesus was the Lord to this urgent and impassioned disciple—out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they—Joseph and Nicodemus, or the chief priests, or Roman soldiers, or Jews—have laid him. We know not what other burying-place "they" have chosen! The anti-harmonistic commentators, with ponderous literalism, insist that Mary could have said nothing more. A gushing woman like Mary of Magdala uttered one sentence, and that was all: It is, however, entirely evident that she must have said enough to excite great wonderment, haste, and activity in the breasts of these two disciples (see above on the three hypotheses). John 20:3, John 20:4 Peter therefore went forth (ἐξῆλθεν, aorist). This is a fact affirmed also by Luke (Luke 24:12), "But Peter arose and ran to the sepulcher." John adds, and the other disciple joined Peter, filled with a common amazement, and (ἤρχοντο, imperfect) they went on their way toward the sepulcher. Now they were running (ἔτρεχον, imperfect) both of them together: and the other disciple did outrun—or, literally, ran in advance, more quickly than—Peter, and came first to the sepulcher. The opponents of this Gospel supply numerous suggestions, with the view of obliterating this natural and lifelike touch. (Εἰς is used instead of the πρὸς of verse 2 or the ἐπὶ of Luke 24:1; but it is clear from the form of the following sentence, that ἦ;θενεἰς is different in meaning from εἰσῆλθενεἰς, and does not mean "right into," but "towards.") John, as the younger man, would soon outstrip the elderly disciple; and he simply records what in one sense is an insignificant detail, but one that could never be forgotten by him. There is no disposition to magnify himself, as Peter’s part is obviously the more conspicuous. John runs more rapidly from his youth, the fervor of his nature, and the warmth of his affection; the reflection that he might have directly to convey the strange news to the mother of his Lord assisted to hurry him. John 20:5 And having stooped down. Παρακύπτω is the verb used in Luke 24:12 to describe Peter’s conduct and gesture. It was a necessary preliminary of the subsequent act of Peter, though Luke does not refer to it. Peter himself uses the same word (1 Peter 1:12). It means literally "bending on one side," with a desire to gaze intently on an object (Ec Luke 14:23; Luke 21:23; James 1:25). He seeth the linen clothes lying (see John 19:40), untenanted and unused, those very cerecloths which he had helped to wind round the sacred, wounded body, with their affluence of sweet spices. Yet entered he not within. Awe, reverence, mystery, fear, nascent hope, the thought most possibly, "Not here, but risen," began to dawn faintly on his mind. There was ringing in his ears," Your sorrow shall be turned into joy." The touch of the eye-witness, and the personal part of one who is describing his own activity. Weft-stein, on οὐμέντοιεἰσῆλθεν, adds, "no pollueretur," and quotes numerous Talmudieal authorities to show how the corpse and the grave and gravestone would pollute the living (cf. Numbers 19:16). If so, then Peter, before he came to the conclusion that there was no death in the sepulcher, broke a ritual law which John respected. There seems also rabbinical authority for the fact that disciples might carry "the just" to their grave without such tear of pollution. But at this moment they were both lifted above the region of ritual altogether. John 20:6, John 20:7 John stood gazing, waiting, wondering, and, while doing this, then cometh Simon Peter following him across the very garden which must have borne many marks of the dreadful tragedy that had been hurriedly terminated before the commencement of the sabbath. The expression, "following him," may refer to what Luke (Luke 24:12) says that Peter did, viz. that he too stooped down and looked as John had done. £ Westcott says, "without a look or pause." But why need we suppose a point-blank contradiction of Luke? Such a mode of entrance is almost unthinkable. But he did more: And entered into the sepulcher. How strangely impulsive this man! how characteristic of every other recorded action of Peter! There must have been a Peter who corresponded to the four- or five-fold portraiture of the evangelistic history. The last time that Peter saw his Lord was when a "look" of his cruelly insulted Friend and Master had broken his own heart; yet now he was rushing impulsively to gaze again upon that face with, so far as he knew, all the marks of infernal insult yet upon it. The contrast of character between John and Peter is everywhere maintained. John, in John 21:7, first recognizes the Lord; Peter hurries through the waters to fall once more at his feet. John is lost in silent meditations; Peter exclaims, and wonders. And he beholdeth (θεωρεῖ, with a closer and more careful, vivid, and instructive gaze, not merely βλέπει, the word used by John of his own conduct) the linen cloths lying, and the napkin (sudarium, schweisstueh) which was (had been) upon his head. He does not say whose head. How full the writer’s mind was of Christ! Not lying with the linen cloths, but separately in one place, rolled up, as if it had been folded up or wrapped together. It was clear, then, that the body had not been carried away for another burial, nor had it been hastily removed, seeing that there were signs of deliberation, choice, and care. All that was suggested by this wonderful appearance of the grave, all that it means to us, we cannot fathom. The new life has raiment of its own, belonging to a higher region of existence, woven in spiritual looms; yet the hands that unwound these bandages and head-cloth, and laid them as Peter and John saw them, were capable of physical exertions and activity. What dogmatic hints are involved in this recital! He is a living Person, not an abstract principle or vague force. There are evident proofs that, however great the change which had passed over him, the Living One was the same man that he had ever been. John 20:8 Then, emboldened by the observation of Peter, with a courage reviving from his awe-struck stupefaction, entered in, therefore, the other disciple also, he who came first to the sepulcher. Surely the charge that this writer, under the teaching of second-century tendencies, was systematically endeavoring to lower the common estimate of Peter in favor of John, breaks to pieces on the self-condemnation, which is here recorded. The writer, whoever he was, emphasizes his own smaller courage, his tardy recognition of the fact; but he adds, And he saw, and believed. According to Augustine, Erasmus, and Luther, he believed what Mary had said. He saw now that the tomb was empty, and believed her report, whether it went on to describe the first angelic message or not; but Lucke, Lange, Meyer, and Moulton, following Chrysostom, etc., rightly interpret "he believed" that Jesus had not been taken by others from the grave. He saw there were no signs of haste or confusion, or of a rifled tomb. He believed that he had risen, that this death of his had been done away, that he was living, as he said. This is one of the most vivid indications that the writer assumes acquaintance with the most inward experience of that disciple whom Jesus loved. Luke says that "Peter wondered in himself at that which had happened." John tells us that, from that moment, the whole thing flashed upon himself. There was something for him to see which shed a burning light upon Holy Scripture, upon the promises and acts of Jesus; and he "believed" in the triumph which had been achieved. Godet thinks more—he believed in the Messiah-ship and Sonship in a sense which had not dawned upon him before. The apostle seems to link himself with those who had the smaller and less perfect benediction subsequently pronounced upon Thomas. John 20:9 For not as yet did they know (ᾖδεισαν has an imperfect, not pluperfect tense) the Scripture, which, if rightly interpreted, ought to have made them triumphant in the hour of the Lord’s deepest humiliation, and ought to have convinced them that the ideal Sufferer of Psa 22:1-31. would prove to be Lord of all; and that the Lamb of God of Isa 53:1-12. must see his seed, and prolong his days; that God’s "Holy One" of Psalms 16:1-11. could not see corruption; that the Messiah of a hundred prophetic hopes must conquer all his foes. The words of Jesus himself, in the memory of John and that of the synoptists, had been dark and confused, and they had not put all together into one glorious conviction that he must (δεῖ, by a Divine necessity) rise from among the dead; nor had they grasped the fact that it was not possible that he should be holden in the travail-pangs of death. The signs which John saw now brought all his hopes together. John 20:10 The disciples then again departed to their own homes. Πρὸςαὐτοῦς £ corresponds with Luke 24:12, to the πρὸςἑαυτόν to which Peter returned. Here, again, there is a vivid touch of individuality. £ John’s own home contained the mother of the Lord. Around Peter were gathered the other apostles, and they were shortly to be joined by John himself. To them the more detailed report of the language of the angel would be repeated a hundred times. The "other Mary," Salome, Joanna, all press the wondrous assurance upon the eleven, as they mourned and wept, and for the most part were either bewildered or unbelieving. The two disciples start for Emmaus, and all that these knew as yet was that "certain women affirmed the tomb to be empty, that they had seen a vision of angels, which declared him to be alive," and "that certain of our company had visited the sepulcher, and found it even as the women ’had said, but him they saw not" (Luke 24:22-24). John 20:11-18 (2) The revelation made to adoring love, answering to the first portion of the high-priestly prayer. John 20:11, John 20:12 But Mary, who had followed Peter and John to the grave, and witnessed their amazement, and the gleam of hope in the face of John, was standing at the sepulcher without—not within it—weeping. She had not overcome her fears. She had not grasped the idea of resurrection or life. One crushing overmastering grief was still weighing heavily upon her, obscuring her vision, and breaking her heart. While she was continuously weeping, she, as Peter and John had done before her, stooped down (see verse 5, note) to look into the sepulcher, and beholdeth two angels in white (λευκοῖς) or glittering garments—the adjective so often used for the precious heavenly things, for the garments of the glorified (Revelation 3:4, Revelation 3:5, Revelation 3:18; Acts 1:10; Revelation 7:9, Revelation 7:13, etc.)—sitting, the one at the head, and the (other) one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. Here rationalism has come with various explanations. Some have said two white-robed Essenes like those who are also supposed to have appeared to our Lord on the Mount of Transfiguration, his secret friends, who had really spirited the body of Jesus away, lingered yet in the tomb, and duped Mary by a lying story. Scorning this hypothesis, legendarists have said—Here we see the subjective creation of the terrified and weeping women, who took white clothes for men or angels, and whose fancies were readily believed; while mythical hypotheses have suggested that a glamour of love, many years after the event, created a pathetic and beautiful fiction of what may have happened on that memorable dawn. Every one of these interpretations vanishes before the authenticity of John’s Gospel. The disciple whom Jesus loved, the author of the Apocalypse, was personally acquainted with Mary of Magdala, and had much communion with her, and could heartily believe her story. If there be no spiritual world, no kind nor modes of existence beyond what we call the seen and temporal, and no thought higher than man’s thought; if every testimony to this spiritual world right through the ages is a delusion, and can be explained away; if it be an irrational or impossible supposition;—why, then this vision must pass away with the rest. But the entire teaching of the Bible from end to end reveals and bears witness to a world ordinarily unseen by human eyes, but none the less real. To some the door thus opened into heaven is closed and sealed by the seven seals of materialism, agnosticism, dogmatism, scientism, worldliness, indifference, and unspirituality. How much do men forget that all human life is but a very temporary, ever-vanishing robe around a permanent and abiding spirit! that it is entirely conceivable that even pure spirit can come for our advantage into still more evanescent forms than those we now possess, which yet make appeal to what we call our senses of sight and hearing! Objective as such manifestations are, they are no more visible to all eyes or ears than the mysteries of art are open to all human sensibility. The harmonies of heaven are not heard by those who are muffled up with vesture of decay, and there is nothing lying beyond or behind the veil of sense to the unspiritual. The whole critical school might have rambled about the garden, with hammer and spectacles, and would never have seen an angel or the risen Christ; but, thank God, all eyes were not so dim. Some were there who saw and believed; and they have revolutionized the world’s thought. Their vision is the key of time; their voice, the word that wakes the dead. This manifestation of the unseen world does not contradict the statement of Matthew that an angel of the Lord had been seen sitting on the displaced stone, and terrified the Roman guard; nor Mark’s assurance that the women had seen a young man clothed in a white robe, who gave the Divine assurance which perplexed the eleven; nor Luke’s description of two men clothed in glittering apparel, who told them that the Lord was living. Surely it is impossible to represent Mary of Magdala’s present vision as identical with that which had occurred at an earlier hour; but it is clear that, if she shared in the earlier vision at all, she had not been convinced by it, for still she wept in utter despair. The fact that these angelic appearances should take different forms to different witnesses belongs to their very nature. Such visions, translated into words, would naturally differ. If there had been rigid uniformity in the statements of the three evangelists, and of the fourth with them, grave suspicion would have been attached to the entire recital. The experiences of several different women would be repeated a thousand times. They would be questioned separately and together in every possible way; and it appears from all four narratives that three forms of the ultimate traditions alike declare that hope and fear arising from the empty grave were quickened and stimulated by angelic ambassadors, who variously prepared their mind to receive the grand objective fact. John 20:13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? "’Εκεῖνοι here," says Westcott, "like the name inserted in John 20:15, marks the pause during which Mary regarded those before her without speaking." Here we witness angelic wonder at human incredulity. Angelic ministry to human sorrow; for the mystery of our tears does not arrest the sympathy of these triumphant spirits. Often, if we are compelled to put into words the supposed cause of our bitterest agony, we deliver ourselves from our fears. She saith unto them, as if she were speaking simply and naturally to human beings. However, Mary of Magdala alone of the women knows them to be "angels," but is so overpowered with the loss of her Lord that she does not quail or flee, but wails forth anew the language she had already uttered to the disciples. I weep because they have taken away my Lord. That "my" makes a characteristic difference from "the Lord" of whom she had spoken to Peter and John. She did not at the instant know that her Lord was the Lord of angels. The "I know," rather than "we know," shows unquestionably that now she is alone, and the other women have left her and are electrifying the city with their strange tales. I know not where they (who have taken his sacred body) have laid him. John 20:14 Then follows the simple record of the most wonderful event in the history of the world. There and then a flash of light broke on one human soul, and on human life at large, which has been brightening and broadening in its luster till this very hour. With what awful and tender simplicity is it related! When she had said this, she turned herself back (εἰςτὰὀπίσω) to what was behind her, away from the angels, and from their apparent but fruitless offer of sympathy, still weeping passionately in the utter desolation of a broken heart. But why did she turn? Was she not conscious of a presence near her which she had not seen? The blind are Often aware of the presence of unseen persons, when no footfall is heard and no word spoken. And beholdeth (θεωρεῖ) Jesus standing (ἑστῶτα, perfect participle), as though for some time he had been standing there, watching her (cf. that which he had said to the eleven (John 16:22), "I will see you"). But strange, mysterious, unutterably wonderful, entirely and absolutely inconsistent with the hypothesis, to which we have often referred, that this book is a theological romance, John, on Mary’s own authority, adds, She knew not that it was Jesus. This is one of those remarkably vivid and autoptic touches that carry conviction of truth, whatever may be the explanation or the conclusion to be drawn from it. How far was this lack of recognition due to her, and how far to this the first manifestation made of "spiritual body" to human ken? Some have frigidly taken a commonplace explanation. Her eyes were blinded with continuous weeping; or the darkness of the morning; or Jesus may have stood in the shadows of the city wall, as the glare of the first beam of sunrise broke out of the purple mists on the Moab hills; or Christ’s appearance was so changed by the agony through which he had passed, and by the recovery and reconstitution of his humanity, that the signs of his identity were obscured. He could not have clothed himself with the glittering garments of the Transfiguration, or with the dazzling robes of angels; for she mistook him for the keeper of the garden, either for Joseph of Arimathaea himself or his steward. "She knew not that it was Jesus." Human eyes are often holden so that they do not see the Lord, even when by some objective manifestation he makes it possible to do this thing. Thus (Judges 13:16), "Manoah knew not that it was the angel of the Lord." And several other of the theophanies of the Old Testament, encountering the blindness of human vision, slowly dawn upon even prophetic intelligence. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, are all instances. And we find that in Matthew 28:16, Matthew 28:17, "some doubted" the Resurrection, even when the vision led others to adore (Luke 24:16). The eyes of Cleophas and his friend were holden, even though their hearts were burning. Those who traveled with Paul to Damascus saw a light and heard a sound, but they did not see nor did they hear what the apostle saw and heard. The μορφή of the risen Jesus was not, according to Mark (Mark 16:12), always the same. For the vision and perception of this mode of being, the eye needs special training and preparation. Though the eyes of love are the quickest to discern these wondrous realities, yet the vision tarries, and is for an appointed time, and even they who ultimately see have to wait for it. John 20:15 Jesus saith to her, in the words of the angels, Woman, why weepest thou? These are the first words of the risen Jesus, for Mark tells us, "He appeared first of all to Mary of Magdala." And Matthew’s summation of the entire narrative makes it clear that she was at least one of the first group who saw the risen Lord. He recalls her to herself. He seeks to assuage the grief of desolation, the bitterness of despairing love. As his first great Beatitudes had been "Blessed are the poor in spirit," "Blessed are those who mourn and weep," and "Blessed are the meek," so the first words he uttered after he rose from the dead were intended to console human weeping over the most irremediable of human sorrows. They are the beginning of a fulfillment of the Divine promise "to wipe away tears from off all faces." But the Lord adds, Whom seekest thou? She has lost some one, not some thing. Questions these which he has been asking the souls of men and women ever since, when their grief and tears, their unconscious and unsatisfied yearnings after himself, have confused their perceptions and riven their hearts. She, supposing him to be the gardener, a friend, not a stranger, a disciple, not a Roman soldier or a hostile priest, perhaps some man who had been with Joseph of Arimathaea on the Friday evening, or even the senator himself, said to him, Lord, (Sir,) if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. This passionate burst reveals the blinding dominance of a fixed idea. She had no notion of the Resurrection. She was utterly overwhelmed with one bitter, cruel thought. The sacred body was to be embalmed with the precious spices which she had spent her all to buy. Others have forestalled her. Perhaps unsympathizing hands have been doing their worst. She does not know, in her terrified grief, if some wicked hands have not cast out his body into the valley of Hinnom. She seems to imply that the κηπουρός has heard the words of the angels, and her previous reply to them. She is so filled with one thought, that the him, not it, explains itself. She is reckless of herself, and does not stay to count the cost. Had she not poured the precious ointment on his feet, in happier days, and washed them with her tears? Of whom can she speak but of him who said, "Thy sins, which are many, are forgiven;" "She loved much;" "Thy faith hath saved thee"? So far all is preparation for the great revelation. "The Lord has risen indeed;" but, unlike what poetry or theology might have pictured, or the mythopceic faculty have woven out of its strong persuasion of the Lord’s indissoluble life, he has chosen first of all to present this signal manifestation of spiritual corporeity to a loving heart crushed with grief, to one groaning over irreparable wrong, without a spark of hope, that death was indeed vanquished. But she who received the objective presentation was too much preoccupied to feel her footing and her home in two worlds. It was not "an enthusiast (une hallucinee, Renan) who gave the world (un Dieu ressuscite) a resuscitated God," but a doubter, a despairing, broken-hearted sufferer, who did not know him when she saw him. John 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. The more general expression, "woman" (John 20:15), makes her seem to us the representative of the whole of suffering humanity, weeping over the inability to find any link of fellowship between itself and the invisible God, feeling unconsciously after the Christ and haply not finding him, weeping because hostility had obliterated him or superstition had concealed him, while all the while he is near at hand. But now Jesus stirred the affection of the living, weeping person at his side by uttering her own name in tones that thrilled her to the heart, and created the new sublime conviction that he had risen, as he said. She turned herself, as though the previous glance had been momentary and partial, and now the vision and voice blended, and she knew him. And saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabbouni Ἑβραίστι is here introduced by modern editors, This word only occurs in this Gospel and the Apocalypse), a word (the evangelist adds) which is to say, Master. The Hebrew term—probably preserved in its Galilaean form, ינִוּבּרַ, rabbouni, rather than in the ordinary form (see Authorized version) ינִרֹבּרַ, rabboni—if strictly translated, would be "my Teacher," or "my Master," yet the personal pronoun must not be pressed. It doubtless had lost its specialty as we find in many other languages (monsieur, mein herr, "my Lord," are familiar instances). Even if the full force of the pronoun were urged, Mary’s faith had not gone beyond the ideal of her devotedly loved Teacher, Friend, Master, and fell far short of the insight which even the incredulous Thomas would soon exhibit, that the Lord had put on Divine glory, and filled all things. She apparently fell in speechless, passionate affection at his feet, as the other women did shortly afterwards (see Matthew 28:9); but with the idea that now the old relations between Teacher and loving disciples would be resumed. She was in no mood answering to the doubtfulness of the disciples who desired proof of his identity, of the fact of his corporeity, before they could understand his claim to be their perpetual Guide, and his promise to be with them "unto the end of the world;" but she thought at once of the old life in Galilee. Her joy knew no bounds, but her conception of the reality of that which was revealed to her was most imperfect. It was the realization of love rather than the perception of intellect. She rushed hastily to a very limited conclusion; and she suffered an obvious correction, if not repulse, which has been interpreted in many ways. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for, etc. (1) Some, Bengal and others, make the γάρ govern the whole clause that follows, and so give the meaning," Stay not to touch me, but haste to my disciples, and say," etc.; but this would render the first clause very obscure, unless the further supposition be made, as by Baur, Bush, Sears, and many others, that our Lord was just on the point of ascending to heaven, i.e. of one (nay, the first) of his many ascensions to the Father, after which the touching, in the sense either of worship or of verification, would be possible and rightful, and also the supposition that an "ascension" intervened between the appearance to the Magdalene and the other women, or at all events before the revelation to the disciples at Emmaus, to Simon Peter, or to the eleven, at all of which both verification of his personality, if net worship at his feet, was permitted or encouraged. This hypothesis is perilously near to an assumption of a succession of illusive visions of that which had nothing but subjective reality. (2) Olshausen and Schleiermacher give the utterly naturalistic view, that the Lord’s spiritual body was so tender that he could not bear a vigorous grasp or physical touch. Still worse, (3) Paulus supposed that he was still suffering from his cruel wounds, which, of course, would only imply an apparent death on the cross, and is a denial of the Resurrection altogether. (4) Meyer’s view seems to imply that Mary wondered whether he had only a glorified spirit without bodily form, and she wished to verify the latter by handling his Person, and "Jesus gives her by his verbal assurance the certainty she seeks, adding, For I am not yet ascended to the (my) £ Father; therefore as yet I am not a glorified spirit who has again come down from heaven, whither he had ascended." This is very subtle, and is equivalent to our Lord’s saying, "Do not you, Mary, seek that kind of bodily tangible proof;" "I am not yet a glorified spirit, and have not yet the glorified body which you imagined." The difficulty of this interpretation is not what Godet says, "Jesus glorified does not become pure spirit," but that Mary is credited with a breadth and depth of apprehension so far in advance of her apparent despondency and her small amount of faith in the dignity of her Lord. (5) Many take the μὴμουἄπτου, "Hold me not fast," as though ἄπτομαι were equal to κρατεῖν, "to hold fast," or to hold for purposes of enjoyment, and imply that Mary rushed to "embrace" our Lord (Hengstenberg and Bruckner), to clasp him by the knees or feet; that Jesus warned and repulsed the effort, implying that he repressed the exuberance of the joy which she manifested, pointing to a much higher and holier contact that would be possible when his glorification would be complete. Augustine, "’ Touch me not,’ that is, Believe not thus on me according to thy present notions. For how could it be otherwise than carnally that she still believed on him whom she was weeping over as a man? For I am not yet ascended to my Father.’ There shalt thou touch me when thou believest me to be God in no wise unequal to the Father." Leo the Great: "I am unwilling that you should approach me (carnaliter) by any mere physical touch, that you should recognize me by the physical senses (sensu carnis). I am drawing you to sublimer things; I am preparing greater things for you. When I shall have ascended to the Father, then you will handle me more perfectly and truly, being ready, as you then will be, to apprehend what you do not touch, and to believe that which you do not perceive." Many of the most able of modern expositors adopt this view or some modification of it (Calvin, Melancthon, Lampe, De Wette, and Tholuck); Luthardt now sees a difficulty in this interpretation, from the twofold sense thus attributed to the word ἄπτεσθαι, and falls back on the earlier view, "Cling not to me, but go and tell my disciples," etc. Godet, however, puts it thus: "I have not yet reached the state by means of’ which I shall be able to live with you in the communion which I promised you;" and many of the ecclesiastical divines discover in the words an allusion to sacramental communion which will be possible in the future, when the dispensation of the Holy Spirit shall have beau inaugurated. The ascension of which he speaks is not of one definitive act, but of a continual state (ἀναβέβηκα, not ἀνέβην), and so the idea of the repeated ascensions is precluded. The difficulty arises from the permission the Lord gave to the eleven to prove by tangible evidence, by visible signs, the reality of his resurrection, showing them by way of identification the marks upon his person of the great agony. But there is no need to suppose that Mary was refused one touch when she seemed wishful to cling to his feet, and thus redouble the conviction already wrought in her by sight and hearing of his new mode of being. Ἄπτεσθαι has this double meaning, "to handle" and "to hold fast." The key of the passage is in the οὔπω, "not yet have I ascended to the Father;" and the reasonable, nay, the imperative, inference is that when he shall have ascended to the Father, there will be ample opportunity for that spiritual communion with him which will make him for ever present with his Church. The goal of all Christ’s teaching (as recorded by John) is his return to the Father, and the consequent fullness of his disciples’ joy. Because he will be glorified straightway in God himself, he will henceforth be as near to them, as competent to teach and guide and protect them, as in the days of his flesh; nay, more so, for they will do greater works than he wrought before them, because he goes to the Father, ascending up to where he was before (John 14:18-21, John 14:23, John 14:28; John 16:14, John 16:17). He will be "seated at the right hand of the majesty in the heavens," he will pass "through these heavens, that he may fill all things." Because he is "the Lamb in the midst of the throne," he will lead them to the living fountains of water. Because he is on the eternal throne, he can dwell in them and manifest himself to them. But go to my brethren. The new name, dearer than "slaves," than "servants," than "disciples," than "ministers," than "apostles," than "friends;" one that involves in itself an eternal inheritance. Observe that, though our Lord (Matthew 12:48, etc.) had prepared the way for this unspeakable privilege, it is not until he has put on the life eternal, the life of victory over death, that he freely confers this lofty designation upon that timid and dispirited band of special followers who had forsaken him and fled in his great humiliation. Peter especially (Mark 16:7) receives this significant assurance and (Luke 24:34) confirms its realization together with Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5). These eleven men are henceforth his brethren. And say to them, I am ascending; the process of ascension has begun; I am beginning to assume all the prerogatives of spiritual corporeity; I am clothing myself with my eternal form; I have laid down my life, that I might take it again, and use it for the highest blessedness of my brethren. I am ascending to my Father, and to your Father. Let it be observed that he does not say, "to our Father." "He who is Father of Christ and Father of men, is so in different ways. He is Father of Christ by nature and of men by grace" (Westcott). "He saith not ’our Father;’ in one sense, therefore, is he mine, in another sense yours; by nature mine, by grace yours". To my God, and your God. The same remark may be made here. Christ does speak of "my God" from the throne of glory (Revelation 3:2, Revelation 3:12). His human consciousness of God has throughout been unique; his eternal consciousness of the Father’s love dignified all his human relations with the Father, and became the true inspiration of all consciousness of God possessed by his disciples. "He appears in the presence [before the face] of God for us," and so we have access unto one Father and draw near to God. Nevertheless, he did not say to "our God," any more than to "our Father." John 20:18 Mary the Magdalene cometh and telleth the disciples. She rushes at once with speed and zeal, and the word is on her tongue, I have seen (she does not say, I have grasped him by the hand, or kissed his feet) the Lord, £ and how that he said these things to her. This special message, not recorded in Matthew 28:10, was clearly not given to the women who held his feet. Some harmonists endeavor to identify the narrative in Matthew with this passage and others to make Matthew’s narrative identical with the account of the revelations made to Joanna’s party at a later hour, and therefore entirely distinct from this. John’s account is free from ambiguity in itself, whereas the rapid summary given in Luke and the general impression produced by the whole group of events, as recorded by Matthew, suggest the need of supplementary intelligence. The narratives of the synoptists, then, record that in the course of this Easter Day a company of women who may reasonably be supposed to be those who bore the names of Joanna, Susanna, and others, and who had gone to the tomb with their spices, had been met by the Lord himself, either going or returning, and had received the summons to tell the disciples that he would see them in Galilee. The two disciples on their way to Emmaus had at length discovered that the mysterious stranger who accosted them and discoursed so fully was the Lord himself. They returned to Jerusalem to affirm the fact, and found the eleven rejoicing that the Lord had risen indeed, and that "he had appeared to Simon Peter." It would certainly seem, and is at length admitted by all, that the narrative given in the following verses of events occurring on the late evening of the Easter Day could be none other than that which Luke describes (Luke 24:36). This is rendered somewhat perplexing by the record of Mar 16:12, that the language of the two disciples was not accepted by τοῖςλοιποῖς, "the rest." But it is obvious from every one of the narratives how slow of heart even the apostles themselves were to accept the assurance of such unexpected and wonderful phenomena. The extreme dejection of the disciples, followed by their vigorous and invincible faith, is testified by each evangelist; but from the nature of the ease the resurrection of Jesus was, during the course of the entire day, doubted by some. The nature of the doubt, and the method in which it was put to rest, is portrayed in some detail by John (see note on verse 1). John 20:19, John 20:20 (3) The manifestation to the ten disciples, corresponding with the second portion of the prayer, and followed by special conference of privilege. John 20:19 When therefore it was evening, on that day, being the first day of the week; i.e. the close of the day on which the Lord had risen; on "that day" which became so memorable in the history of the Church. Consequently, after most astounding and independent revelations had been made to several individuals, about 8 p.m. there occurred that which John now proceeds to describe. The note of time identifies it with the scene and event described by Luke (Luke 24:36-43); consequently John had the former account before him in the record of his own reminiscences. To understand the full force of the passage we must bring to it the statements of Luke, Mark, and Paul. The disciples had been prepared, (1) by the reports of the women, that the grave had been opened and was empty, and that angelic appearances had asserted the resurrection of Jesus. (2) By the impression made on Peter and John when they found it as Mary and the other women had said. The disappearance of the body of Jesus, confirmed by the four independent lines of testimony, is strangely difficult to account for on any hypothesis except that of the Resurrection. The disciples were evidently confounded by the fact. The Pharisees and priestly party were quite aware that such an event would checkmate their supposed victory over a hated rival. The Roman soldiers were pledged in honor and by pride and passion not to allow themselves thus to be reduced to impotence. Hence there is no explanation of the rise or beginning of such a legend, except the historical fact. (3) By an assertion of the Magdalene that she had seen the Lord, and that he had sent a special message to his brethren as to the completion of his glorification in his ascent to the Father. (4) By the announcement, the details of which are not recited, concerning an appearance to Peter: this fact stands on remarkably strong evidence of Mark, Luke, and Paul. (5) By the immense excitement of the appearance and disappearance of the Lord at Emmaus. This was evinced by the return of the two disciples to Jerusalem, charged with new ideas of the meaning of the Scriptures and of the will and power of God, and with fundamentally new notions of the very nature of spiritual body—body entirely and absolutely under the power of the spirit. The apostles were prepared for the wonderful manifestation of a new mode of being; but they needed something more convincing than they had yet received. They were still suffering from intellectual blindness and slowness of spirit, and were apparently incapable of accepting mere testimony. Mark’s statement (Mark 16:14) embraces the special scene which John describes in much more vivid and instructive manner (verses 26-29). But Luke expressly implies that far more than the eleven had gathered together, either in the room where the Paschal supper had been celebrated, or where the election of Matthias subsequently took place. Joseph and Nicodemus, the women, and some of the seventy disciples were there; nor can we conceive excluded from their fellowship Mary of Bethany, or Lazarus, or Simon the Cyreman, or the "brothers of the Lord" so designated. We are told that after the arrival of the Emmaus disciples, the doors having been locked (shut) where the disciples were [assembled £] because of the (their) fear of the Jews. This expression is once again repeated (verse 26), showing that, after the lapse of seven days, fear and precautions against surprise still prevailed. They were on both occasions in ignorance of the purpose or meaning of the Sanhedrin, nor could they tell whether the malice of the world would at once compel them to follow their Lord’s example, drink of his cup, and be baptized with his baptism. The doors were closed, when Jesus came, and stood in the midst—a phrase which is here identical with that in Luke’s narrative. Now, John, who, consonantly with Luke, has recorded his evidence that the body of Christ was not a phantasmal imagination, but a veritable, visible, and tangible reality (see Luke 24:37-43), identifiable with the very body which had been so cruelly wounded and bruised for them, takes special pains to hint, By a single clause, that the body of Christ was a new creation, and was submitted to laws profoundly different from those which we have generalized from the intimations of the five senses only. John does not say that the doors were opened by some magic process, nor that Christ simply passed through the closed doors, nor that they were miraculously removed; but that he had taken up his position before them by a process which, to the body made of the dust of the earth, would be supremely miraculous. Were we have a revelation made to prepared minds of a new order of existence (see Westcott’s ’Revelations of the Risen Lord,’ and Milligan’s ’Resurrection of Christ,’ on the likeness and on the unlikeness of the risen body with that which had died). It is more than possible—nay, it is entirely presumable—that the spiritual body becomes possessed of additional senses, of which we have no conception or experience; and, therefore, the spirit clothed with such body is alive to properties of matter and dimensions of space and active forces all of which would be supernatural to us, "cribbed, cabined, and confined" as we are now and here. Our Lord, before his Passion, gave numerous proofs of the dominance of his spirit over the body: his repeated escapes from his enemies, the power of his voice and glance, his transfiguration-glory, his superiority to gravitation in walking upon the sea and hushing its storms. So that he, on this occasion, is revealing to the world some of the functions of spiritual corporeity. £ He is manifesting the kind of life which will eventually be the condition of all the redeemed—visible and tangible at will to those who are limited to our present condition and stage of being, but also in its normal state invisible, impalpable, to eye and touch of mortal sense. There can be little doubt that John deeply recognized what Paul described as "the spiritual body." Jesus stood suddenly in their midst, not a phantasm, as the disciples (or some of them) were ready to suggest. His first word, though consisting in form of the common salutation of the East, must have meant immeasurably more to them than it does in ordinary parlance. And Jesus saith unto them, Peace be to you! which, uttered in well-remembered tones, reminded them of how he had discriminated his "peace," and his manner of giving it from the world’s "peace," and the world’s manner of giving (John 14:27). It meant the hushing of their fear, the expulsion of terrible alarm (see Luke 24:37, Luke 24:38). This is John’s summary of all that he said. Luke, with much detail, records how the Lord proved that he was, not a mere subjective vision, but a veritable man, with flesh, and bones, and voice, and power to take food. Consequently the evangelists labor to make evident the fact that the spiritual resurrection-body, though a continuation of the old life, with signs of its identity, is, nevertheless, emancipated from the ordinary conditions of our material corporeity. This is one of the places where the narrative transcends experience and imagination, and appeals to faith in a higher order of being than crosses the field of scientific vision. John 20:20 When he had said this—i.e. when he had uttered all that was involved in his Divine salutation—he showed them his hands and his side. Luke says "his hands and his feet;" John calls attention to the special wound in his sacred side, the making of which he had so closely described and verified (John 19:33-35). Igor was this vision of the Lord restricted to the ocular testimony, to the bare fact of the Resurrection, but it was a solemn assurance that he, though risen, had died for them. He is the Living One that was dead, and is alive for evermore. He is in the midst of the throne, a Lamb as it had been slain. In his greatest glory neither does he nor can his people forget his sacrificial death. "He showed them his hands and his side." Some have argued, from John’s silence about his" feet," that he intended to correct a general impression which the synoptic narrative had produced, viz. that our Lord’s feet had been nailed to the cross. There is no reason whatever for any such hypothesis. The evangelist simply emphasizes the ghastly proof of his Lord’s actual death, with its supernatural accompaniments, as a more vivid evidence of identity than the piercing of the feet: moreover, it was a fact to which he had borne special testimony. Some conception is given in both the Gospels of the marks and vestiges of the earthly pilgrimage which will survive death and pass on into the eternal world. The disciples, therefore, were glad when they saw the Lord. In Luke 24:41 we read that they were incredulous from the excess of their joy, and surcharged with wonder. In the bewilderment of their rapture he added to their assurance, and transformed their joy into faith by publicly and before them all participating in food. Extreme dejection is transformed into triumphant conviction of the truth. A new revelation had been made to them of the very nature of life, while the veil that had from the beginning of time concealed the abode of the blessed dead, had at length been rent in twain. They heard, they saw, they handled, the Word of life. They felt that in their Lord they too were now at home in both worlds. Their fellowship was with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. John 20:21-23 (4) Peace, spiration of the Holy Spirit, and conference of power to remit or retain sin. John 20:21 Therefore [Jesus £] said unto them again, Peace be unto you. With added emphasis, and in obvious reference to his valedictory discourse, he gave to them the essence of his own sublime repose, the blending of an infinite joy with a measureless sorrow; the equilibrium that springs from the spirit mastering the flesh. Not an ecstatic rapture, nor a joy that would make their life on earth insupportable by its contrast with their abiding frame of mind; but peace—"the peace of God, which passeth understanding." The first "peace" gave to all who were assembled a new revelation; the second "peace," a summons to service. The Lord added the memorable words, As the Father hath sent me £ (ἀπέσταλκε, hath sent me on a special commission), I also send you (πέμπω, charge you to go forth and accomplish this commission of mine); see Westcott’s excursus on the New Testament usage of the two verbs, which does much to justify these shades of meaning. Both verbs are used of both the mission of the Son and the mission of believers, but in the two senses, (1) that sometimes the special service on which he or they are sent is emphasized by the use of ἀποστέλλω; and (2) that at other times the simple mission or sending forth is the dominant idea when πέμπω is employed. Thus in John 4:38 the Lord says, "I sent (ἀπέστειλα) you to reap that on which ye bestowed no labor;" and John 17:18 (see note) the same word is appropriately used twice—for the Lord’s own commission, and also for the commission of the disciples. Then it seems to point back to an event in their history and the work done already and before Christ’s death for the world. Now the disciples have a new conception of Christ and of his work, and they must go forth to fulfill it. This usage of ἀποστέλλω is more or less conspicuous in John 1:6; John 3:28; John 5:33; John 18:24. Πέμπω is used often to describe the Father’s mission of the Son, the mission of the Comforter, and the mission of the disciples (John 13:20; John 14:26; John 16:7). Moulton says, " Ἀροστέλλω means ’commission’ and πέπμω ’mission.’ With the first word our thoughts turn to the ’special embassy;’ with the second, to the authority of the ’ ambassador’ and the obedience of the sent." Another peculiarity of this passage is that the Lord uses the perfect tense, ἀπέσταλκε, rather than the aorist used elsewhere, suggesting a complete commission on his own side, whose meaning and effects are still in operation. Those who have received this revelation are to become at once witnesses to the fact of his resurrection, agents and organs of his Spirit. Moulton suggests that τέμπω is used in order to enforce the physical separation between the Lord and his disciples; and that we cannot overlook in the similarity of the ideas the difference in the manner of the sending, by the Savior of the disciples, from the manner in which the Son had been sent by the Father. Christ came forth from the eternal companionship of the Father, in the fact of his incarnation, taking humanity up into his eternal substance. The disciples were sent forth by the risen Lord, who had called them by grace into fellowship with himself, and who equipped them for his service. The difference in these two methods of sending is as conspicuous as the resemblance. John 20:22, John 20:23 And when he had said this, he breathed upon them, and saith to them, Receive ye (the) Holy Spirit. The word ἐνεφύσησεν is not elsewhere used in the New Testament, but is used by the LXX. in Genesis 2:7 to describe the essential distinction between the living soul of Adam and the living soul of all other animals. Man’s life was no evolution of the life in other creatures, or consequence of pre-existent properties in the dust of the ground. A direct volition of the Almighty conferred upon humanity the life of the flesh. So here the second Adam, the life-giving Spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45), was represented as visibly and sensibly conferring on those whom he now sends forth to complete the mission of his grace the Divine life which would make them new creatures, and bestow on them power to generate the same spirit in others. They will have power to do this by bearing testimony to that which they see and know to be the fact of the ease. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ John 21:1-25 3. The epilogue, answering to the prologue. The post-resurrection life corresponds with the pre-incarnate energy of the Logos. 1. Long and sustained controversy has prevailed on the question of the authenticity and apostolic authorship of this chapter even among those who admit the Johannine authorship of the rest of the Gospel. 2. Among those who accept to the full the authenticity, there are many critics who urge that it is not an integral portion of the Gospel, but a later appendix, that the document terminated, on its first composition, with John 20:30, John 20:31, and that the chapter before us is dictated from a different motive—that whereas the first twenty chapters formed a collection of notable "signs" of the Messiahship and Divine Sonship of Jesus, adapted to produce true faith and thereby confer eternal life on the believer, the present chapter is structurally disposed on different lines, with a diverse motive, and has its own conclusion. 3. The purpose is variously conceived by those who agree to regard it as an appendix. (1) There are no rational external grounds for attributing any portion of Joh 21:1-25. to any other hand than to that of the author of the previous portion of the Gospel. Manuscript authority is entirely unanimous in assuming the integrity of the Gospel in this respect. There could not have been any period when the first twenty chapters were published without the accompaniment of this "appendix." If any appreciable time had elapsed when this was the ease, the fact would have been testified by the discrepancy of the codices, or references, or versions of antiquity. It seems that there is some dubiety in the original form of Codex à as to the twenty-fifth verse, though the doubt of its editor did not extend to John 21:24. Critics are divided, however, on purely subjective and internal considerations. Even Hengstenberg, who urgently maintains that the chapter is an original and integral portion of the Gospel, yet feels the contrast so great in its general tone that, apart from the spiritual and allegorical interpretation to which he resorted, he would "have preferred to pass the whole chapter by." Doubtless there are details which are to some extent staggering; but the burden of argument is strongly in favor of its Johannine origin, whatever may be its precise meaning. John 21:14-15 are without question eminently and luminously Johannine, and the reference to the second advent is in entire harmony with John 14:3 and other passages of the valedictory discourse. The use of a few words and phrases like πρωίαςγινομένης for πρωΐ́, and of τολμᾶν and ἐξετάζειν, is so trifling that similar deviations from customary phrase might really be found in almost every other chapter. The whole chapter forms a complete paragraph, well compacted, and it cannot be torn to pieces. So that we conclude, both on internal and external grounds, that all difficulties are surmounted by the supposition that the author, after making a formal close to his Gospel as a whole, with John 14:30 and John 14:31 of the previous chapter, did, before publication, either contemporaneously or shortly afterwards, produce an appendix, which was closely connected with the preceding, yet with a different but highly significant intention. (2) Critics have differed upon the intention. Some have urged that it is simply a continuation and completion of the narrative, with the object of revealing the personality of the author and affording the means of identification. Ewald, with Grotius and Keim, suggests, indeed, that it was written by John the presbyter, or some friend of the apostle under his sanction, with no intention of concealing his part in the composition. Others have supposed that the motive was to explain the origin of the legend that had arisen with reference to the prolongation of the apostle’s life, by linking it to the veritable words of the Master himself. The view of Dr. Westcott is that the conviction of Thomas (John 20:24-29) is the key to the method of this continuative narrative; that the writer proceeds to give other and analogous illustrations of the method in which obstacles to faith may be overcome. I think, with Dr. Salmond, in an article in the Monthly Interpreter, April, 1885, that all the incidents proceed on the supposition that the disciples had all come to a clear understanding that the Lord had risen. They were beginning to estimate the new light that this would cast on human life, and a believer’s duty in the world. The great majority of modern critics see in it the representation, by the aid of one of the numerous manifestations of the forty days before the Ascension, of the nature of our Lord’s continuous presence with his disciples to the end of time; his participation and enjoyment in the work which he had assigned to them; the special commission he gave to the two conspicuous and beloved disciples, with indications of the meaning of apostolic work, the perils it might encounter, and the principles of holy service till he should come again in his glory. Those who regard the Gospel as a pious romance treat the chapter as a spiritualization of the Acts of the Apostles written by a theologian of the second century. Thus Thorns. Very many of these have called attention to the obvious references in this narrative to the Galilaean ministry and service of the fishermen as given in the synoptic records, with the points of special contrast between the first and the latest draught of fishes. Some, in an adverse sense, have supposed that the evangelist simply transfers, from the commencement of the Galilaean ministry, the whole incident, and modifies the details to suit his different ideas concerning the Lord and his apostles. This is contradictory of the entire theory that we have urged with reference to the Gospel itself. Those who are not strongly prejudiced against the idea of harmonizing the four narratives rightly show that John here blends the twofold traditions, preserved in Matthew and Luke, of the scenes of our Lord’s post-resurrection self-manifestations. Matthew lays all his emphasis on our Lord’s appearance in Galilee, for which he had prepared the disciples on the night of the Passion (Matthew 26:32), and again by the message of the angels (Matthew 28:10); and this he sets forth in great majesty, corresponding probably with St. Paul’s assurance that it was made or accompanied by an appearance to more than five hundred brethren at once. Luke, on the other hand, fails to refer to an Galilaean appearance, and confines his record to the self-manifestations in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, or on the Mount of Olives. John, with characteristic differences, shows that he well remembers special appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem, and also on the familiar shores of the Lake of Tiberias, confirming, therefore, the value of each of the groups of facts recorded in the synoptic Gospels. Once more, it is contended by many who admit the composition of the twenty-first chapter to be by St. John, that he was here producing a striking epilogue to the whole, which answers in many ways to the prologue in the first chapter; that as the prologue illustrates (a) the pre-incarnation energy and presence of the Loges (John 1:1-5), so we have hero the idea of the post-resurrection energy and presence of the "Son of God" in the work of the Church, watching, waiting, guiding, helping, co-operating with his own, "who received him, and to whom he gave power to become sons of God;" (b) that as in John 1:6 we have the various methods by which the οἱἴδιοι receive and bear witness to the archetypal light, from John the Baptist to the company of the regenerated, so here from John 1:14-19 we have a representation of the principle of witness, the powers and ends of holy love, the methods and law of Divine pleasing; and (c) that as in John 1:14-18 the prologue sets forth his first coming in the flesh full of grace and truth, in John 1:20-23 the risen Lord predicts and to a certain extent defines the second coming. This is a very attractive, if somewhat conjectural, series of comparisons. It cannot be said that these analogies do not exist. The correspondence consists in the two sets of facts rather than in the art of the writer. The true representation of the efficacy of the Lord’s resurrection-life and ascended majesty is contained historically in the "Acts," which are far more certainly "Acts of the Risen Lord" than "Acts of the Apostles," and are contained prophetically in the Revelation of St. John. We have in this appendix or epilogue to the Gospel, indications and specimens of the kind of intercourse which prevailed between Jesus and his disciples during the forty days, and a specimen which, after the manner of John, made the deepest and most ineffaceable impression upon his own mind. It was, indeed, the third appearance to the apostles after his resurrection, but not the last. M’Clellan, in his special dissertation on the subject, treats with great warmth and vigorous denunciation the theory of the Gospel being concluded with John 20:1-31., and of the subsequent addition by the apostle of Joh 21:1-25. His arguments are little better than assertions, based upon the translation or paraphrase which he gives of the πολλὰμὲνοὖν, etc., of John 20:30. This is as follows: "’ Accordingly (οὖν), whilst it is true (μὲν) that Christ wrought many other miracles in the presence of his disciples, besides (καὶ) those which are written in the Holy Scriptures of this book, yet (δὲ) these which are recorded, are recorded with this special object, that ye may believe in Christ [though ye have not seen him], and that believing, ye might have life in his Name.’ "The appropriateness of the position and language of the comment in reference only to this one particular incident is obvious; and the conclusion theory tumbles to the ground. With it," he adds with characteristic impetuosity, "deservedly perishes the dangerous appendix theory concerning John 21:1-25." After enumerating numerous theories with derogatory comment, he adds, "But for the hypothesis that the Gospel originally ended with John 20:1-31., the theory (of its being an appendix) would never have been heard of, and with the utter collapse of that hypothesis, it is shattered to atoms! So perish, we may firmly believe, one after another, the conceits of ’ modern criticism.’" Of course, the two ideas stand and fall together. No words are needed to vindicate one of these positions without the ether. It is unfortunate that, in paraphrasing the clause on which the conclusion rests, Mr. M’Clellan should have begged the question at issue by introducing a phrase which gives the apostolic comment a specific reference to the words of Jesus as addressed to Thomas, and omitted the weighty reference to the whole of the proof which demonstrates that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." This able commentator often forces on his reader the contradictory of his own conclusions. John 21:1-14 (1) The manifestation of himself in the work of life. John 21:1 After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. The opening formula is one often adopted by John (see particularly John 2:12; John 5:1, John 5:14; John 6:1); considerable periods of time and cycles of ministry are frequently covered by it. Another chapter is opened, another series of events to be recorded which had left undying impression on the apostle’s mind, and, in full view of numerous other traditions, was chosen by himself as especially worthy of record. "Jesus manifested himself." In John 2:11 we hear that "he manifested his glory;" now he manifested his Person, as an act of his own will. He was "manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16), but now that flesh was itself more directly under the control of his personality, and the mere sensuous eye and carnal understanding could not without his special permission realize that wondrous presence. The passive form of the verb is used in Mark 16:12, Mark 16:14. The touch of feeling involved in the active voice must not be overlooked. The "again" clearly points back to the previous manifestations described in John 20:14, John 20:19, John 20:26. On each occasion his coming, though in a recognizable human body, was a body (a μορφή, not a σχῆμα) which had the qualities of spirit. "The disciples" are afterwards mentioned by name. It was to disciples only that he "appeared." Believers in him were those alone who could see this spiritual body. The effect produced upon them was that of objective reality, but this was made to prepared spirits. Such a proceeding is akin to all the grander operations of nature, and the most august manifestations of God. "At the sea of Tiberias." This is the only place where the "sea of Galilee," or of "Gennesareth," is called the "sea of Tiberias." That it was identical with the familiar lake is evident from the known site of Tiberias (now represented by the modern town Tubarieh), a city which is mentioned by Josephus (’Ant.,’ 18.2.3; ’Bell. Jud.,’ 2.9. 1; ’Vit.,’ §§ 12, 13, 64), and which, from its schools of learned men, had a great place in later Jewish history. Moreover, in John 6:1, John 6:23, if the Greek be accurately rendered, the writer spoke of "the sea of Galilee, of Tiberias," interpreting the name well known by the Jews, through another name by which it would be better recognized by Gentiles (see note on John 6:1). Dr. Farrar, ’Message of the Books,’ sees in the nomenclature a hint of the later origin of the Fourth Gospel than the date assigned to the synoptic narrative. ’Er; is used because the shore where they saw him was a raised beach or cliff" above" the sea. It must be observed that the same phrase is used in John 6:19 and Matthew 14:25 for Christ’s walking "upon the sea;" but the ἐπὶ is itself explained here by the αἰγιαλόν of Matthew 14:4, just as the preposition receives elsewhere more literally another meaning from the context. And he manifested himself thus; "on this wise," i.e. after the manner to be described. This is the commencement of our Lord’s discourses on the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). This was the beginning of the great fulfillment of his own predictions (Matthew 26:32; Matthew 28:10), and of the angel’s words to the women. The narrative gives the deep heart-tones and genuine teaching of the risen Lord. John 21:2 There were together. Not the whole company of the eleven apostles; five are especially mentioned, and two are left unnamed. The five, of whom the Gospel knows much, are Simon Peter, whose twofold name denotes that, notwithstanding his grievous failure, he had not lost his faith, and still stood at the head of the company, the man of rock and the man of impetuous energy. Thomas called Didymus, whose incredulity had vanished, and whose devoted love had emerged from the depths of despondency to the loftiest faith, who had come to feel and say that the risen Christ was both Lord and God. Thomas, who had shrunk from the society of his fellow-apostles, was now closely united with them, more than he had ever previously seemed to have been. Thomas is the apostle last mentioned by the evangelist. Elsewhere he is associated with Philip of Bethsaida, and this town may have been his home. Nathanael of Cana in Galilee is mentioned by way of recalling the two miracles recorded by John as having taken place in this "Cana of Galilee" (John 2:1-12; John 4:16). The former of the miracles followed immediately on the mention of the calling of Nathanael (John 1:45). The reference to the little place in Galilee where the glory of Christ had been first of all seen and had led to the faith of the disciples, calls attention to the place and province of this manifestation, and to what was contained in the memory of one of the witnesses. And the (sons £) of Zebedee—a phrase used for James and John in Matthew 20:20; Matthew 26:37; Matthew 27:56. This is the only time that Zebedee is mentioned in this Gospel; but the reason for his sons being thus designated points unmistakably to the first call of these two men to discipleship by the side of this very lake, after they had witnessed the draught of fishes, becoming from that time forward "fishers of men". That they should here be mentioned after Thomas and after Nathanael corresponds with the reticence and modesty of the evangelist. This is still more probable if the two other disciples were μαθηταί in the broader sense. The simple fact that they are mentioned after the five apostles has been thought by some to imply that, whosoever these were, they were not of the number of the eleven. No one writing the story in the second century would, in an enumeration like this, have placed the proto-martyr James and the intimate friend of Peter, the great "light of Asia," the admitted author of the Apocalypse, and the spiritual father of Polycarp and Papias, after Thomas and Nathanael. After his manner, he (the author) here prepared for the implicit subsequent identification of the "disciple whom Jesus loved," and also the author of the Gospel, with one of the sons of Zebedee. The supposition that Andrew and Philip are meant by the "two other disciples" is not without verisimilitude, from their mention in John 1:1-51. If this were the case, both of them are practically discriminated from the "disciple whom Jesus loved" by the obvious references to them elsewhere by name, while "John" never thus signalizes himself. The mention of seven disciples reveals the love of the writer for the number "seven," with its division into two groups of three and four. And it is remarkable that, if Andrew and Philip are the unnamed ones, the seven would correspond with the first seven apostles mentioned in Matthew’s enumeration (Matthew 10:2-4). Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Judas the brother of James, or Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot were not present. This, of course, rests on the hypothesis that Nathanael and Bartholomew are identical (John 1:45, note). John 21:3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a-fishing. The abruptness of the language addressed to six (μαθηταί) disciples, who seemed to be living as in one family, suggests a lengthened waiting, and some disappointment as to the effect upon their daffy life of the great revelation. They are summoned by the most commanding spirit among them to resume what was, for some of them at least, their customary calling. He would seek in humble fashion, along the lines of ordinary duty to his family and himself, the supply of daily wants. According to some writers, Peter felt a presentiment of the coming of his Lord under scenes identical with those of his first call (Luke 5:1-11). According to others, Peter exhibited some of the heart-sickness of deferred hope. On either supposition we see a new illustration of, dud testimony to, the character of the man who was so conspicuous an initiator. They say to him, We also come (or, go) with thee. They do not "follow" him, as they had been summoned once to follow their Lord; but they are willing, even eager, to accompany the strong-hearted man, and ready to take his lead. They share at once either in his presentiment or in the expression of his delayed hope. They went forth; i.e. from the home which they had made for themselves on this well-remembered spot—from Capernaum, which was most probably the early home of Peter, and a spot to which he would naturally revert. And entered into the ship; £ the veritable vessel that had often served them on that lake of storms. Though Peter and Andrew, James and John, had left their boats and nets and hired servants, it is not unlikely that members of their two families had retained them. And that night they took nothing. Let the unusual word be noticed. Πιάζειν occurs three times in this brief narrative and six times in the Gospel, in the sense of "laying hold," "taking possession of," but nowhere in the synoptists. It occurs, however, in Acts 12:4; 2 Corinthians 11:32; Ecclesiastes 23. 21; and, what is more remarkable, in the sense of "taking animals" in Revelation 19:20 (ἐπιάσθητὸθηρίον); so the LXX. for זחַאָ (So Revelation 2:15). The night was then, as now, the most convenient time for fishing, and the fruitless effort must have reminded them of the night described in Luke 5:1-39. Some critics have supposed this failure to be parabolic or symbolic of the comparatively barren results of the apostolic ministry to the Jews, while what followed was prophetic of the great success which should accompany their appeal to the Gentiles. But Peter’s wonderful success on the Day of Pentecost and on subsequent occasions in dealing with Jews, contradicts this interpretation. The only analogy which offers itself to our minds is the limited success of all their endeavors until the apostles were veritably endowed with power from on high. John 21:4 When the day was now breaking, £ Jesus stood onf3 the beach. If the εἰς be the true reading, it would imply that he stood forth, as having come from some unperceived region. If the ἐπὶ remain, the idea is that the morning light, as it was breaking over them through the curtain of dense mist which hung before sunrise on the eastern hills, discovered Jesus standing upon the beach. There is obvious reference, in the manner of his approach, to that "standing" in the midst of them, with which they had become familiar (see John 20:14, John 20:19, John 20:26). Howbeit (μέντοι suggests something unusual, John 4:27; John 12:42) the disciples knew £ not that it was Jesus. He is not walking on the waters as of old, but standing on the solid ground. Just as Mary of Magdala, and as the disciples on the way to Emmaus, and as even the disciples themselves on the Easter night, were in doubt, at first, who and what this manifestation might mean, so now the chosen seven fail to understand that which was before their very eyes. The morning mist and shadows adding to the obscurity produced by some hundred yards of distance, together with wearied and toilsome effort and a sleepless night, may suggest some explanation of the marvel; but the mystery is baffling. Two or three remarks may be made. (1) These various appearances seem at first to confuse their perceptions by reason of the ordinary human characteristics that accompanied them. Mary for a moment mistook him for the owner or worker in the garden; the "two disciples" imagined that he was "a stranger in Jerusalem;" and these disciples think him, for the moment, to have been a stray wanderer by the lake-side. Their presupposition concerning the reappearance of their risen Lord would probably have involved some strange and awe-striking fulguration of his power; but the true "spiritual body" does, when it pleases, take on forms far more familiar. (2) The slowness of the process by which the apostles became finally convinced, against their prejudices and sense-bound views, that he had risen into a new form of living, and into new conditions of existence. John 21:5, John 21:6 Jesus therefore saith unto them. They failed to recognize his first appearance, so he permits them to hear the voice which had often poured such music into their ears. Children; not τεκνία, the phrase used in John 13:33, but παιδία, "young people," "lads"—a term of less intimate familiarity, though the apostle himself used it in 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:18 (in 1 John 2:1 and 1 John 2:12 τρεκνία is used, apparently in interchange with it). The μήτι suggests a negative answer. Προσφάγιον is that which is eaten with bread, and is commonly ὄψον or ὀψάριον, something roasted for the purpose of eating with bread. Since fish was very frequently used for the purpose, the word was often used for "fish" itself (LXX., Numbers 11:22; John 6:1-71.9, 11. Other equivalent words are found in Attic Greek, προσφάγημα, προσόψημα). Children (lads, young men yonder), you have nothing, I suppose, to eat? They answered him, No. In all this scene the risen Lord showed himself interested and co-operating with them in their daily toil, as engaged in the same work with them. Their listless manner showed that they had toiled in vain, and, perhaps with tone or gesture of unwillingness to confess their failure, they replied in the negative. Then he said £ to them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship; the side opposite to that on which they were dragging it along. Moreover, the "right hand," the "right eye," the "right ear," the "right side," are proverbially the more useful, fruitful, or honorable. The imagery is preserved throughout Scripture. And ye shall find. Therefore they cast it. And in order to do this they would probably have had to haul a considerable portion of it into the boat for the necessary transference from left to right. They at once obeyed the summons, remembering what they had previously found to have been their experience (Luke 5:1-39.), and no longer were they able, or had they strength, to draw it into the boat. Ἐλκύσαι, is here quite a different process from the σύροντες of 1 John 2:8, which describes the hauling, tugging, of the net to shore. The difficulty arose from (or, because of) the multitude of the fishes. The miracle here is a simple indication of the higher knowledge which the Lord possessed. This huge shoal may, humanly speaking, have been perceived in its approach; so that the event is more impressive in its analogical force than in its supernatural machinery. It suggests the surprising results that would accompany their labor when they should under the Lord’s own injunction and inspiration, become veritable fishers of men. The parabolic teaching of this miracle is unusually obvious. John 21:7 Therefore, as a distinct consequence of the vivid reminiscence of the past; with sudden intuition given to him by the event, and a fresh realization of the identity of the risen Lord with the Master Jesus, that disciple therefore whom Jesus loved—who must have been either one of the sons of Zebedee or one of the two unnamed disciples. The latter supposition is inapposite from the intimacy between Peter and John, which the synoptic narrative, and references in the Acts and Galatians it., have recorded; that disciple and no other, the one so often referred to, one of the seven, saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Had he not again and again done wondrous things of power, wisdom, and love on this very spot, in these very waters? So John comes intuitively and with true insight to the sacred truth and reality, and his conduct is again contrasted wonderfully with the energetic and impulsive Peter (John 20:5, John 20:6). The same relative characteristics of the two apostles have been preserved throughout the fivefold narrative. Such a contrast so delicately and persistently sustained lends certainty to the objective reality. Accordingly Simon Peter, when he heard, It is the Lord—for the words flashed conviction into him—hurried at once to put his new idea to practical proof. The word of John satisfied him, and, not seeing for himself what John saw with mental eye, he accepted the joyful news, and was the first to spring into the sea, and, with his usual energy, to cast himself at his Master’s feet. He girt his coat about him (for he was naked). The word γυνός does not mean perfectly nude. A man who had simply the χιτών or tunic upon him was practically thus regarded. The word γυμνός occurs in Isaiah 20:2; 1 Samuel 19:24; Job 24:10 in the same sense. The proper name for the tunic, or garment next the skin, was ὑποδύτης, and that which was put over the tunic was ἐπενδύτης and ἐπένδυμα (Meyer and Wettstein, in loc.). The Talmud has Aramaized the word, calling it אתדגף) (ependetha), and used it for the workman’s frock or blouse, often without sleeves, and fastened with a girdle. Dr. Salmond truly says that this reference to an act which to ordinary men would have suggested a different arrangement of dress, reveals the eye-witness. Hengstenberg suggests that Peter simply girded his upper garment for the purpose of swimming more easily; but, as Luthardt observes, with this ἐπενδύτης already upon him, he would not have been "naked" And he cast himself into the sea, intending, whatever might be the fate of the laden net, to be the first to greet and worship the Lord. Of the reception he met with John says nothing: he knew nothing. The Lord had some special instruction for him a little later. It is not in harmony with the words, as Gerhard supposed, that Peter walked triumphantly upon the waters. Not a hint of it occurs. The hundred yards were rapidly covered, either by swimming or wading to the shore meanwhile. John 21:8 But the other disciples came in the little boat. Either what was first described as τὸπλοῖον is now more minutely described as πλοιάριον, "the (same) little boat," or else they had transferred themselves from the more cumbrous fishing-smack to the smaller craft which was tethered to the larger one. The reason why the other disciples came in the boat is given in the parenthesis: (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits off); i.e. about three hundred feet, half a stadium, a hundred yards. Ἀπὸ to denote distance from, is used in this Gospel (see note, John 11:18) and the Revelation (Revelation 14:20). The disciples came in the boat over this distance, dragging the net (full) of fishes. The net was not broken, though filled. They did not further attempt to lift it; they hauled it to the shore as it was. Strauss, who tries to show that we have a glorifying myth framed out of an amalgam of the narratives of the first miraculous draught and that of Peter walking on the water, is singularly unfortunate; for there is less of the supernatural in the story than in either of the two narratives to which he refers. John 21:9 So when they were come to land (literally, with Revised version, got out of the boat upon the land; à reads ἀνέβησαν instead of ἀπέβησαν), they see a fire of coals there. The word ἀνθρακία occurs only in John 18:18 and in this place. It is derived from ἄνθραξ, a "coal of fire," or burning charcoal. Observe the form κειμένην (of John 2:6), which implies that the burning brazier was placed there for a purpose. And fish laid thereon, and a loaf. £ (Ὀψάριον and ὀψάρια, used both in the singular and the plural for the roast relish eaten with bread, and, by reason of the customary food of the people, is often used for "fish" or "fishes.") Our Lord was regarding the whole of this proceeding from the standing of one who would meet their hunger, and was conscious of power to feed the world in its utmost need. So the provision which was thus made in advance for the need of the disciples becomes symbolic of Christ’s power to meet all the wants of the dying world. Numerous speculations have been hazarded about the method employed by our Lord to prepare this meal. The early Fathers, Chrysostom, Theophylact, with Grotius, have appealed to Christ’s creative power. Luthardt thinks of the ministry of angels. Some have suggested that Peter prepared the hasty repast during the interval that elapsed between his landing on the shore and the approach of the boat. Our Lord, who knew how to arrange for the last supper with his disciples, and who had all the resources of Providence, and hosts of disciples along the shore, would, with superlative ease, and without revealing himself to strangers, have made this simple meal; and, with his knowledge of the ease, would have still delighted to act towards his beloved ones as at once their Host and their Minister. He simply prepared for his own what he has been doing ever since. John 21:10 Jesus saith to them, Bring of the fish (ὀψάρια) which ye have now taken (see note on John 21:3). It is not exactly said what was done with this fish. The implication is that to the scanty meal already provided, the new supply was added, and that the Lord permitted his disciples to join his repast, and to rejoice with him at the success of their labor. They and he shared in the travail, and were satisfied therewith. The circumstance is highly parabolic of the common joy which would fill his heart and theirs when the fullness of the Gentiles should be brought in, and all Israel be saved. John 21:11 Then Simon Peter went up. £ Here again Simon is first in action, as John is the more rapid and real in his mental processes. The other disciples may have aided him, following his lead; but the singular verbs are used on both occasions (ἀνέβη and εἴλκυσε). In like manner, though the twelve apostles took part in the transactions of Pentecost, Peter opened his mouth to speak. On other occasions, while John spake by the eloquent glances of his eye, and the rest of the disciples joined their leader in testimony and prayer, Peter’s voice was that which conveyed the mighty exultation of their common heart (Acts 3:12, etc.; Acts 4:8, etc.; Acts 8:20, etc.; 10:34-11:30; Acts 15:7-11). The word ἀνέβη, "went up," must be explained by the fact that ἀναβαινεῖν is used of embarking in a vessel, though in each case there is some difference in the manuscripts, with reference to the text, as there is also here. If the vessel was drawn up on the shore, with the net attached to it, the form of expression is explicable. Peter went up into the boat for the lines of the net, and, having secured it, he drew the net to the land, £ full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three. Various efforts have been made from early times to give some symbolic meaning to this enumeration. Canon Westcott has detailed several of these strange guesses. Cyril of Alexandria set the example, and was followed by Ammonius the presbyter, who both in different ways regarded the 3 as representative of the Trinity, the 100 + 50 representing, in different proportions, the success of the apostolic ministry among Gentiles and Jews. Augustine observes that 10 is the number of the Law, and 7 the number of the Spirit, 10 + 7 = 17; and the numbers from 1 + 2 + 3 + 17 = 153; so that the number represents all who are brought to God under every dispensation of grace. Gregory the Great reaches the value 17 in the same fashion as Augustine, but, says he, it is only by faith in the Trinity that either Jew or Gentile ever reaches the fullness of salvation; 17 is therefore multiplied by 3 = 3 x 17, which produces 51, which is the number of true rest; multiplied again by 3, which completes the glory of the perfected, it Isaiah 153. Hengstenberg, following Grotius, supposes a reference to the 153,600 Canaanitish proselytes who were received into the kingdom in Solomon’s day (2 Chronicles 2:17)! though the odd 600 certainly confuse the reckoning. Jerome refers to the opinion of a learned naturalist of the second century, Oppian, who is said to have ascertained that there were 153 different kinds of fish in the seas, and that the apostles took of every kind, revealing the ultimate success of the fishers of souls with every kind of man—an allegory based on false science and insecure data, and involving a stupendous miracle, if it be meant for an historical fact. Several of the modern Tübingen school, in various but unsatisfactory ways, see in the number one made up by the letters composing the name of Simeon (71) bar (22) Jonah (31) Kephas (29); and here even Keim follows suit. Thoma finds the number in the mystic ΙΧΘΥΣ, "Jesus Christ the Son of God, Savior." Reuss discourages mystical or occult meaning. The remark of Baumgarten-Crusius, that the number is simply an index of the authenticity of the narrative, and of the fact that the fishes were counted on the occasion, is eminently sensible (so Godet and Meyer). The fact that it is not a round number adds to the probability of this statement, and enters a caveat against allegorical interpretation. And for all they were so many, the net was not rent. This is obviously a point of contrast with the first miraculous draught of fishes, when the nets brake and the boats began to sink. This does form a probable allegory of the success with which the final ingathering of souls shall be effected. John 21:12 Jesus saith to them, Come and break your fast. A Word is used which does not denote the principal meal of the day (not δειπνέω, but ἀριστάω, from ἄριστον), but a slight refreshment that was taken in early morning, or at least before noon, and answers to our breakfast at the dawning of the day. £ He calls them to the repast. He becomes once more their Host and their Minister. Even still, metaphorically, he washes their feet. He attends to their requirements. He feeds them from this strangely bestowed supply. He joins them in their hunger for souls. He inspires their methods. He shares in their victory, after painful fruitless toil. Now £ not one—i.e. not even Thomas—of the disciples durst inquire of him—put to him the interrogatory—Who art thou? knowing, each one of them that it was the Lord. The use of ἐξετάσαι instead of ἑρωτήσαι, John’s own word, is not to be wondered at, as he does not think of a simple inquiry, but of such an examination as would furnish them with facts. These they possessed. A feeling of awe and reverence possessed them. They were of one mind about the marvelous revelation of himself to them. Some strange emotion sealed their lips. He had not manifested himself to the world, but to his disciples, and to them by "the interpretations they were putting upon their own experience" (Westcott). They knew it was the Lord. They looked into that other world. They were lost in silent amaze, and received the revelation once more of their risen Master and Lord. John 21:13 Jesus cometh, £ and taketh the bread, and giveth them, and the fish likewise. It would seem that the specific bread and fish already referred to (John 21:9) was the material of at least the first part of this sacramental meal No benediction or prayer is mentioned. If this may not be presupposed, his presence made the feast, and was the blessing. Meyer says, however, that ἄρτον and ὀψάριον, as in earlier verses, are simply generic. On either supposition, it is clear from John 21:15 that more fish were prepared and used by the seven disciples than the solitary loaf and ὀψάριον which were first seen upon the fire. The Lord gave them symbolically the entire gift of his love by that which he came forward at this moment to supply. John 21:14 This is now—or, as Meyer puts it, this time already is—the third time that Jesus was manifested (passive, not active, as in John 21:1) to the £ disciples, after that he was risen from the dead; or, when he had been raised from the dead. The implication is that there had up to this time been no other manifestation to groups of his disciples than those which John bad related. Therefore those other occurrences mentioned by Luke, Matthew, and Paul must be supposed to lie still in the future. That there were other manifestations is not obscurely hinted by the word ἤδη. The appearances to the women, to Cephas and James, are not of the class so carefully described by John. The εἶτατοῖςδώδεκα of 1 Corinthians 15:5, etc., might be regarded as this third manifestation to the disciples (Luthardt). Godet agrees that the two appearances in Luke (Emmaus and Peter) are not reckoned by John, any more than that made to Mary Magdalene. The statement, "to the disciples," is clearly the explanation. Paul mentions the appearance (1) to Simon Peter; (2) then to the twelve (John 20:19, John 20:26); (3) to the five hundred, at the head of whom may have been the eleven of Mat 28:16-20; (4) James; (5) the twelve (the ascension not described by John). Since Luke and Paul (Godet) omitted the narrative before us, John is here repairing the omissions of tradition. It seems quite as reasonable to place this third revelation to a group of apostles as the third of Paul’s enumerations. John is explicit in recording appearances to the special, combined, and chosen witnesses, while he not only implies, but mentions, other manifestations. Paul recites the special manifestations of various kinds, and gives most important details dropped by other traditions. The apocryphal ’ Gospel according to the Hebrews,’ as related by Jerome (’Cat. Script. Eccl. "Jacobus"’), quotes the passage which refers to the interview between James and the risen Lord. Gregory of Tours (’Hist. Francorum,’ 1.21) refers to the tradition as though he had taken it from some analogous but not identical source. If the previous manifestations of the risen Lord were made to love, to thought, to earnest though trembling inquiry, to spiritual vision only, so here we find that, amid the ordinary duties of life and the activities and disappointments of daily service, the Lord manifests himself. The eye of love and the heart of rock are made ready for special assurances of the Master’s presence and power to help and guide disciples throughout that mysterious future in which they are to feel and realize his words, "Lo! I am with you always, even to the end of the world." John 21:15-19 (2) The revelations to be made in the services dictated by love and issuing in martyrdom. The confession made by Simon Peter, and the charge given to him. John 21:15 When therefore they had breakfasted, Jesus saith to Simon Peter. His full name and Christ-given appellation is in the mind of the evangelist; but he, with marked emphasis, shows that our Lord went back to his relations with Simon before the latter’s first introduction to him (see John 1:42, etc.), and recalls the attitude Christ had taken to Simon on more than one memorable occasion (Matthew 16:17; Luke 22:31). On two of these occasions the simple humanity of the apostle was the basis on which the Lord proceeded to confer upon him the high official designation. The grace of God, in the first instance, selected Simon of Jonah to be a rock. In the second, "not flesh and blood," but the Father’s grace, revealed the mystery of the Divine Sonship to him, and won the name of Peter. In the third, the utter weakness of Simon’s own flesh reveals the power of the prayer of Jesus for him, so that he might ultimately convert his brethren; and now "Simon" is reinstated after his fall into his apostolic office. Simon, son of Jona—or, John £ (see John 1:42, note)—lovest thou me more than these? i.e. more than these other disciples love me? Thou hast seen more of my compassion, farther into my heart, deeper into my Person, my position, and my work, than they have done; thou hast dared again and again to ask for higher service and more conspicuous distinction. Thou hast made louder protestations than any of these of thine unworthiness to serve me, and in the deep consciousness of humiliation thou hast been more emphatic than any of them in refusing grace which thou thoughtest it might dishonor me to give. Thou didst indeed say, "Though all men should be offended at me or should deny me," thou wouldst never be offended and never deny me. "Dost thou love me more than they do?" There is no positive reference to the denial and fall of Peter; but the implication and suggestion cannot be hidden, though Hengstenberg and others fail to appreciate it. The circumstance that Peter was "grieved" because the Lord put this question to him a third time makes the reference very little less than explicit. The real significance of the narrative is the reinstitution of Peter in the position of importance he had filled throughout, and an indication of the nature and quality of that service. In Simon’s reply, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee, three things are very noticeable. (1) Peter says nothing of the superiority of his affection for his Lord over that of his colleagues. Had they not in outward act been more faithful than he? He could not arrogate any sweeter, dearer, more abounding affection than he was willing to believe that they felt for their Master. It is scarcely worth while to notice the miserable translation that some few commentators have suggested: "Lovest thou me more than (thou lovest) these fishing-smacks and this thriving business on the lake?" Observe (2) Peter’s admission that the Lord knew his inmost heart, concedes, therefore, that the question was merely intended to test his faithfulness, and force him to a more salutary and binding acknowledgment. Notice (3) Peter’s change of phraseology. The word used for "love" by the Lord is ἀγαπάω, but that which is used in response by the apostle is φιλῶ, the love of natural emotion, and even tender, intimate, personal affection. The Latin language, by rendering φιλῶ by amo rather than diligo, expresses the subtle shades of meaning between φιλεῖν and ἀγαπᾶν. There is, however, no English word but "love" for them both. The admirable remarks of Archbishop Trench (’Synonyms of New Testament,’ § 12.) find special illustration in these verses. Many passages occur in which amo and φιλέω seem to mean more and have deeper intensity than diligo and ἀγαπάω. Amari is the affection which a friend may desire from a friend, even more than diligi; but the latter denotes choice, mental conviction, and self-recognition of the fact. Antony, in his funeral oration over Caesar (Dion Cassius, 41.48, quoted by Trench), says, Ἐφιλάσατεαὐτὸνὡςπατέρακαὶἠγαπήσατεὡςεὐεργέτην. Thus in the New Testament we are continually told of the ἀγαπᾶντὸνΘεόν, but never of the φιλεῖντὸνΘεόν. God is himself said to ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖντὸνυἱόν. When, therefore, the Lord here asks Simon, Ἀγαπᾶς," Dost thou esteem me worthy of thy love?" Simon, with a burst of personal affection, says, yet with a certain humility, "I love thee"—meaning, "Such love as I can lavish upon thee, such as I may dare in my humility to offer thee, O my Master, Brother, Friend!" This being the case, Jesus saith, Feed my lambs. Love to Christ is the first, high, main condition of faithful service. The chief of the apostles will have this as his prime, chief, and most laudable service. Each of the terms of the commission, in its threefold repetition, resembles the other; and Meyer says the whole duty of the pastor of souls and earthly shepherd of the flock is involved in each of the three expressions. Our Lord commences, however, with providing true food, seasonable nourishment, for the "lambs" of the flock. The tender emotion involved in the term cannot be excluded, but it is a comprehensive and suggestive one, and embraces the young converts, the first believers, those who with impetuosity and gladness receive the Word; the little children who will literally crowd into the Church become the highest and sacredest care of the chiefest apostles and most honored of pastors. The first, the main thing they need, is the milk of the Word, and the sweetest pastures. This consideration of the next generation, and gracious care for the children and the childlike of every successive age, is one of the sacred signs of Divine revelation. Our Lord is represented in the synopties as "suffering the little children" to "come to" him, as "blessing them," and rejoicing in their hosannas. St. John preserves and glorifies the whole conception by recording this commission of the risen Lord to the greatest of the apostles. If the babes and sucklings had "held their peace, the stones would have cried out," is the pathetic approval of the rejected Lord. "Feed my lambs" is the gracious, unexpected summons of the triumphant Christ and Lord of all. John 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas (John), lovest thou me? Here our Lord omits, as Peter had done, the "more than these," but he again, with perhaps deeper meaning, uses the word ἀγαπᾶς. Dost thou render me even more in one sense, though less in another, of thy heart’s reverence? Dost thou treat me with the confidence and esteem, submission and admiration, which are my due? Again Peter, with his heart bursting with personal affection, feels that he can and must say, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee (φιλῶ ere; i.e. love thee dearly). The commission that follows is the second stage of pastoral office. He saith to him, Tend ("act the part of shepherd") my sheep. Christ is the "good Shepherd," and, as Peter puts it in 1 Peter 5:4, the "chief Shepherd." He has laid down his life with a view of taking it again, and ever after discharging the functions of the Shepherd. He means to bring all the "sheep" into one flock. They shall all hear his voice, and receive from him everlasting life. Meanwhile the leader of the apostles is made to appreciate that love is the condition of all healthy guidance. Faculty for rule is part of the very nature of the pastoral care. The sheep will need this even more than the "lambs;" the old disciples will require, even more than the young converts, both direction and command In this respect the subsequent career of Peter was more conspicuous than that of the rest of the apostles (see Revelation 2:27; Revelation 7:17; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2 for the use of the word). But the shepherding of the sheep is an essentially necessary and integral portion of every pastor’s care. When assailed by the wolf of heresy, by the hostile marauder, by new conditions of any kind, by special danger, unless he can in self-forgetting love pilot and protect his flock, he is no true shepherd. John 21:17 And now Peter seems to have conquered, by his persistence, the heart of his Lord, and Jesus adopts the very phrase which Peter twice over had substituted for that which he had himself used; for he saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas (John), lovest thou me? (φιλεῖςμε;); as if he had said, "Dost thou indeed love me dearly, love me as a friend, love me with the earnestness and fervor that twice over has corrected my word into one more congenial to thee, and more ample and true than that used by myself?" This trait of Peter’s character, which John has hinted on several occasions, is abundantly illustrated in the synoptic narrative and in the Acts of the Apostles. Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? The grief was natural. The repeated question suggests some doubt about his sincerity, and the adoption of the apostle’s own word cut him with a more poignant heart-thrust? He may have thought thus: Jesus seems to distrust the reality of my personal affection. and will not accept my implication that this is more to me than the most thoughtful ἀγαπή, the most deeply meditated and measured reverence. He was grieved because a third time seems like an infinite repetition, and, if repeated thus a third time, it may be asked me again and again every day of my life. He was grieved from the irresistible analogy between the threefold denial of which he had been guilty, and this threefold interrogatory. He does not say as before, "Yea, Lord;" but commences, Lord, thou knowest (οἶδας) all things. Omniscience is freely conceded to the Lord. All things that Peter did, thought, or felt, all his bewilderment, all his mistakes, all his impulsiveness and mixture of motive, all his self-assertion, all his weakness and disloyalty, are known; but so also all the inner springs and lines of his nobler nature, and that though he played the fool, he was a hypocrite in his denials. The Lord knew that his faith did not really fail, though his courage did; and in virtue of this breadth of the Lord’s knowing, he must have come to full cognizance of the entire meaning of Peter’s life. Thou (seest) hast come fully to know that I love thee! Just because thou intuitively knowest all things. The play on οἶδας and γινώσκεις is obvious (see John 10:14; John 17:3, etc.). Jesus saith to him, Feed my little sheep. £ It is said by some that, even if this be the true reading, we have simply a renewal of the tenderness and strong emotion which led the Lord to speak of the ἄρνια on the first occasion. Doubtless deep and glowing affection pervades the use of these epithets; but if this be the sole explanation, then the reason of the adoption of πρόβατα in the second commission is not evident, ἄρνια would have answered the purpose. There is distinct progress in the ideas: (1) "Feed my lambs;" (2) "Rule (shepherd) my sheep;" (3) "Feed my little sheep." First, let Peter, let the apostolic company, let any one of the successors of the apostles, learn the delicate duty of supplying the just and appropriate nourishment to those that are young in years or in graces; then let him also learn to guide, direct, protect from outward foes, the mature disciples, and preserve the discipline of the flock, seeking the lost sheep until it be found; and he will find that then a third duty emerges. The sheep that are young in heart, the old men that are childlike in spirit, the trembling sheep that need even more care than the lambs themselves, are specially thrown upon the shepherd’s care. Was not Peter himself a προβατιόν? Had he not shown that he was a most imperfect master of himself? He was mature in years, but childish as well as childlike in character. He could (for a while) only see one thing at a time, and he was impatient of the future. Mark welt his characteristic words, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man. O Lord!" "That be far from thee, O Lord!" "Why cannot I follow thee now?" "Thou shall never wash my feet!" "Not my feet only, but my hands and my head!" "Let us build for thee three tabernacles!" "Not so; I have never eaten anything common or unclean!" These are familiar illustrations of the childishness and infantile simplicity, babyish audacity, of the old disciple. Even after the Lord has risen from the dead, Peter ventures to correct his language. Christ, moreover, accepts his persistent alteration of the word for "love" item the lips of this προβατίον. Thus the Lord summons him to undertake a duty which he would on reflection be specially able to appreciate. John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee. This form of address links the pre-resurrection life to that which follows, proclaims the identity of the being and the unity of the Person of the Christ under new conditions. More than that, much solemnity is conferred on this final word of the Master. When thou wast younger than thou art now; i.e. before thou camest under my sway; when thou wert supreme ruler of the fishing-fleet of Capernaum, with wife and family dependent on thee; when Andrew, James, and John (thy partners) were in a measure all doing thy will, following in thy train, submitting to thy behests,—thou girdodst thyself for whatever task was set before thee; thou hadst the choice of duties and pleasures; thou hadst time at thy disposal, thy method of service in thine own hands, even as now it was thy will to gird thee for the task of swimming to my feet (see Isaiah 45:5; Proverbs 31:17; 1 Kings 18:46; John 13:4, John 13:5, διαζώννυμι; Luke 12:35-37; Luke 17:8; Acts 12:8, περιζώννυμι; 1 Peter 1:13, ἀναζώννυμι. The simple verb is used here in reference to all kinds of "girding"). So that the Lord reminds him of his natural self-will, so conspicuous and prominent, the secret of all his weakness and much of his individuality. And thou walkedst whither thou wouldest; or literally, thou wert in the habit of walking whithersoever thou weft willing or desiring to do; i.e. thine outward conduct, and the whole line of thy daily enterprise and duty, was not only an utterance of thine own self-mastery, but even thy wishes, the momentary waywardness of thy purposes, found immediate gratification. But a great change has come over thee; thou hast passed through a new experience. Already thou feelest that thou art not thine own; thy heart and strength, thy hands, thy feet, thy very girdle and sandal, are beginning to seem to thee no longer at thine own disposal. Thy self-will is checked, thy natural audacity and power of initiation are repressed into much narrower limits. Thou-hast found thyself weaker than a little child; thou art in need of this Divine principle of "love," deep and fervent, reverential as well as personal, not only to utter bold expressions of regard, but to form the very focus and new central force of thy whole being; and so it will come to pass that this new force will more than master thee; and when thou shalt be old and gray with years, thy service to that other and higher wilt shall be complete: thou wilt stretch forth thy hands in token of entire submission to the will of another, however it may be revealed to thee—whether at the instance of "the angel" or "Herod," of "Cornelius" or Nero’s executioner! This remarkable phrase has often been supposed to mean the "stretching forth of the hands of the crucified" on his being appended to the cross. But such a process would follow rather than precede the "girding," which is, on such an interpretation, taken literally of the girding that preceded the nailing. There can be no doubt, from the language of St. John, that this was the final and forcible illustration of the new principle that would take full possession of Simon Peter. But meanwhile it was a long life of willing surrender to the Supreme Will which gives its highest meaning to these words. And another shall gird thee, and carry thee £ (or, bring thee) whither thou art not wishing to go. The old self-will, though it be indeed mastered, will not have utterly vanished. If it be not so, where would be the sacrifice? Even the blessed Lord himself said, "Not my will, but thine be done." Verily, even the sanctified nature of the sinless Man, prepared in the spotless womb of the blessed virgin by the Holy Ghost, anointed by the Spirit, and in living absolute union with the only begotten Son,—even he was, in human consciousness, disposed to cry, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me," etc. We need not wonder, then, that to the very last, when the supreme will was manifested to Peter in the approaches of violent death, he should feel the will of the flesh thwarted. The exquisite legend embodied in the "Domiue, quo vadis?" (see John 13:33) confirms the entire representation of the character of Peter. So also does the story, preserved by Tertullian (’De Pries.,’ 35; ’ Ad Scorp.,’ 15) and Eusebius (’Hist. Eccl.,’ Ecclesiastes 3:1), that the apostle preferred crucifixion with his head downwards, on the plea that to be crucified as his Master was too great an honor for one that had denied his Lord. John 21:19 This he said, adds the evangelist, signifying by what manner of death, not necessarily crucifixion (Godet), but that violent and martyr-death to which the prince of the apostles was called. How many anticipations, partial beginnings, of the final scene must Peter have passed through before, in utter human helplessness, but in Divine, supernatural strength, he stretched out his hands, allowed another to gird him, prepare him for the day’s work, and carry him whither all his nature would shrink to go! There is no other hint whatever of literal crucifixion than this phrase of "stretching out the hand," which is nowhere else applied to the peculiar method in which the crucified ones suffered. Doubtless the transposition of the two phrases must not be pressed too much, since the stretching of the arms might possibly bear the literal interpretation of the action which was forced upon the victim, and the subsequent "girding" refer to the subligaculum, by which he was fastened to the instrument of torture; while the "being carried whither he would not" might, though by some forcing of the phrase, be supposed, though enigmatically and obscurely, to refer to the uplifting of the cross with its living burden. The phrase, "signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God," is peculiarly Johannine (John 12:33; John 18:32). This sublime term for the suffering of the great saints, taken from the light which the Lord’s agony had cast upon holy death, became a permanent Christian idea (Suicer, ’Thes.,’ 1:949). When John wrote, the fact of Peter’s death must have been well known throughout the Church. There is every probability that he had long since been crucified, and the solemnity of the utterance was augmented and pointed by the well-known manner of the death of the illustrious apostle. This was, however, by no means the only meaning that naturally flows out of the warning; nor is Peter’s experience the only illustration that it bears. And when he had spoken this, Jesus saith to him, Follow me. There may have been a primary interpretation derived from Christ’s removal to a distance from the rest of the disciples, and the intention of conferring upon Peter there and then, special and further instructions. But from the context, in which the contrasts of life, character, and service are conspicuous, it would seem impossible (Meyer) so to restrict the meaning, as Tholuck and others do. The command is the concentration into one burning utterance of all that is meant by Christian life—that coming into relation with the living Lord, that imitation of his principle of action, which, as St. Paul in Philippians it. has shown, was capable of imitation in the narrower and smaller circle of our human experience. If it be rational for the Lord to have said, "Be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect," and for Paul to have pressed upon his converts, "Be ye followers of God, as dear children;" "Be ye followers of me, as I am of Christ,"—then the Lord gathered all the rules of conduct which were involved in his previous discourses into one word, when he laid upon the man who should be a fisher of souls, a feeder of lambs, a shepherd of sheep, a feeder of the little sheep of the flock, the comprehensive duty, "Follow me." Those interpretations which make the words mean "Follow me as universal bishop and pastor," as that of Chrysostom does, are incompatible with the narrative; or if we suppose them to signify, "Follow me into the invisible world," or "Imitate me in my martyrdom," this would be unpractical, and by no means in obvious harmony with the kind of injunctions just given. We give the passage from James Innes’ translation of Aug., ’Tr.,’ 123:4, which Westcott justly implies is beyond translation: "Such was the end reached by that denier and lover; elated by his presumption, prostrated by his denial, cleansed by his weeping, approved by his confession, crowned by his suffering,—this was the end he reached: to die with a perfected love for the Name of him with whom, by a perverted forwardness, he had promised to die. He would do, when strengthened by Christ’s resurrection, what in his weaknesss he had promised prematurely. The needful order was that Christ should first die for Peter’s salvation, and then that Peter should die for the preaching of Christ." Our Lord, when appealed to with reference to John, does not merely repeat the injunction, "Follow me," but forces upon Peter the original summons. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/